The BBC is showing blatant bias towards the EU referendum campaign, your reason is to protect your income from the EU You fail to report large demonstrations against the EU in Europe, and constantly have your broadcasters give opinions, just report the news.
John Craven did not question David Cameron over the blatant lies he told in this interview. Further questions should have been asked over the discrepancies that arose in this interview.
The coverage by the BBC News seems to be in favour of giving Pro-Exit spokesmen much more news time – for instance Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Gove, etc seems to be grabbing the limelight and are always first in the news making pro-exit political points as if this is news rather than the propaganda it really is. Isn’t it strange that when the recent boat arriving with illegal immigrants was televised, Farage just happened to be there at the same time! In fact, the impression the BBC are giving is that they are pro-exit rather than, as you claim, biased in favour of staying in – quite the opposite of this site’s claim.
there was a discussion about why britain should stay in very strongly worded in favour there was a mere 5 seconds of why we should leave there are many other instances i have seen but i did not log where leaving is given a passing comment i will from tonight log every news item about the eu and report daily to this site it is an utter disgrace
Every single news programme is showing everything biased towards the leave campaign – you are not showing any NEWS just repeats day in day out. What about what is happening in Germany, Calais, Sweden we can all see this on Facebook daily it just shows how biased you are to not now show what is happening elsewhere. Prior to the referendum you showed what was happening everywhere – and now you appear to have either been silenced or you choose not to show anything else. It is a disgrace and is blatantly Biased everyone on Facebook knows this and the comments are coming thick and fast – I think that after this referendum you will not be trusted for any news that you put out. As recommended on facebook I am turning to the other news providers to get the truth each day.
Sly BBC presentation of pro-EU economic news. A trend is appearing. Pro-EU economic analysis is presented as credible and irrefutable fact on main BBC News bulletins. Those being the ones millions of voters watch. No detailed scrutiny is attempted on these main bulletins, leaving the viewer with an impression of certainty. Yet, on hardly watched BBC output, very good scrutiny does take place which completely rubbishes the same pro-EU analysis. The result being millions viewing a pro-EU message and only thousands viewing a duly impartial analysis of it. 2 examples. 1) main News presentation of IMF/OECD/Treasury etc forecasts of Brexit doom, yet only on Daily Politics 27 May, Andrew Neil exposes the abject failure and unreliability of these forecasters, with an eminent pro-EU Professor admitting their shortcomings. 2) the recent Observer 88% of economists survey, broadcast as such by main News bulletins. Only the website article 29 May on Tony Blair honestly admits only 17% of the 3818 surveyed actually responded, and it was 88% of that tiny figure. So, actually, the main News should have made very clear that only 15% of economists responded in that way. How many millions of viewers now believe the figure is 88%! We simply cannot trust the BBC with EU matters
The online news page for the UK has the main headline “Brexit huge blow to UK economy”. By all means the article itself does contain some opposite/balanced opinions, but why is the headline written as stating a fact? What the headline fails to mention is that the fact being stated as the BBC’s main UK headline online is in fact only an opinion. Not only that, but it is an opinion from someone who ‘used’ to’ work for the IMF. ‘Used to’ as in no longer. No longer, as in no longer relevant.
Having watched the Andrew Marr show today I was totally appalled at his extreme bias in favour of the Brexit campaign. I thought the BBC was supposed to be neutral in it’s broadcasting. His closing remark was “next week Boris Johnson will be on the show”. Why was there no mention of someone from the Remain side to be on the show next week.
David Dimbleby – Question Time panel with members of the public and politicians etc – referendum on the EU – every programme covering this subject has shown David Dimbleby’s bias and prejudice towards the leave supporters. Last night each time David Davis tried to respond to questions he was constantly interrupted and disagreed with by Dimbleby, breaking up Davis’ responses and thus weakening them – prejudice of the same also seen in programes by Emily Maitlis and Evan Davis on BBC2 – showing their contempt and arrogance towards the public – BBC should have its licence fee taken away it should be forced to declare its vested interests- it receives funds from the EU – before any discussion. Further, trying to locate the BBC complaints site to write is impossible? This needs very urgent action and publication now, It means the BBC is unaccountable!
I wasn’t happy with the way Victoria Derbyshire managed this discussion it appeared biased, in particular the way she interrupted Liam Fox when he was answering questions.
Surely David Dimbleby is supposed to run the debate in an unbiased way as the facilitator of this debate? From his actions and comments on this episode he clearly is unable to hide his personal bias. Disappointing.
Sick and tired of bbc giving biased views and comments everyday there is not one isolated case its through the show from beginning to end. BBC british biased comments.its wrong and unjust for the bbc to give such impartial views we are not interested in all we need is the facts preferably from both sides in equal and truthful terms
So appalled at Victoria Derbyshire biase towards the remain campaign that I had to switch off, should be ashamed of yourselves
Yesterday the Today programme broadcast Alistair Darling from the EU Remain side going on a rant. He was allowed to talk without interruption or challenge for a sustained period which courtesy was not afforded to John Redwood when he spoke earlier in the week. He was constantly interrupted and in my opinion unfairly challenged. This morning when the Leave campaign should have be on talking about the terrible immigration figures who is allowed to go on another rant. He was hardly challenged either. Why was he allowed to speak for so long? Where was the balance on the Leave side? The News is also biaised. The Radio 4 news at 10 am gave David Blunkett’s comments air time without comments by the Leave team. Where is the balance?
The BBC have consistently shown bias towards staying in the EU. They usually directly quote those who wish to remain in the EU and explore what they have said in depth, adding graphics and other images to illustrate their opinions then make some indirect remark from those who would contradict this opinion. This morning there was a sustained ‘report’ at approximately 8:30 am presented by Charlie Stayt, which clearly showed them flaunting high-budget pro-EU propaganda that the British public have had to pay for. It is easy to see the parallel between the BBC and the EU in this regard. The report centred on saying we ‘do not pay the EU £361mper week’ because they ‘give us’ £173m per week, clearly attempting to undermine the claims of those who wish to leave the EU. Then they focused on the wonderful ‘keyword’ things we can spend this ‘payment’ on, strongly illustrating each of them. They then tried to trivialise the remaining deficit. Previously I was opposed to the outrageous licence fee, now I am opposed to the existence of the BBC as they have once again clearly demonstrated that they can and will abuse their power without impediment from those who must pay them, no matter how opposed to their views.
two years austerity on rolling banner, no mention on Ex-military officers fighting for EU exit, both these on Sky news
‘Scottish drinkers are drinking more alcohol’, says BBC report. Back to the newscaster who prompted: ‘this raises the question of raising the minimum unit price for alcohol, BUT ‘the issue is currently stuck in a court case’. Er, no. It’s ‘stuck in an **EU court** because the *EU* are challenging the legality of the proposed Scottish minimum alcohol price!!! NO MENTION AT ALL that the court where the case is ‘stuck’ is in the European court!
An interview was arranged head to head between Nigel Lawson and Neil Kinnock under the heading of those politicians that have changed their minds over Europe and these were invited to put their story. However what the program failed to mention was that Neil Kinnock was along with his wife, appointed an EU commissioner and as such became multi millionaires from their positions. What was also not mentioned was that it was Neil Kinnock that sacked Marta Andreasen the EU chief Auditor, after she reported that Fraud and Theft from the EU ran into billions of euros and she could not sign off the accounts. This man and his wife were bought and paid for by the EU and supported the attempted cover up of fraud and theft. The EU made them both multimillionaires from taxpayers money, they are not fit to give any kind of opinion about the EU.
How can the BBC claim that the eu panel was a cross selection (apparently not vetted by Newsnight staff) and that out of 8 panel members only 1 member was for leaving the eu. It seems inconceIvable that only one person out of eight panalists was prepared to say they wanted to leave the eu.
I have only really noticed since the EU Debate that watching the BBC News there is an obvious bias towards remaining in Europe. Is the BBC against Democracy? The current coverage smacks of the Communist / Nazi media of the past. How dare you try and decide on our country’s future and influence the electorate? Get back to reporting the News not influencing it.
This morning the BBC news app had two articles at the top of its page regarding the EU referendum, one an article about the financial and economic risks of leaving the EU and the other about a group of retired generals campaigning for Britain to leave the EU. As the morning went on the article warning of economic implications stayed at the top of the page whilst the other article completely disappeared from the app even whilst older articles remained on the page.
Does the BBC need to be reminded of it’s obligations by the Royal Charter and Agreement that it is ‘required to deliver duly impartial news’ when reporting on any matter, let alone such a sensitive subject as ‘Brexit’. The way the BBC is running it’s coverage of the Referendum smacks of Russian / Italian controlled media. Since the ‘trial’ of Murdoch (with which I whole-heartedly agree) took place there has been a considerable loss to the Independence of national TV and newspapers. The BBC is obviously ‘pampering’ to the whim of Cameron to make sure it receives its next pay cheque. Mondays (23rd) Newsnight was a perfect example of government control over the coverage of Brexit. A panel of supposed ‘undecideds’ were by all accounts purposely selected to give a positive spin to staying in Europe and give a glowing reference to Cameron? At what point did the trustees of the BBC, those that are obliged to do their job, realise that the panel were not made up of a British contingent? I have noticed that as more and more viewers voice their dissatisfaction of the coverage given, the BBC has made a rather pathetic attempt to put a neutral stance on its reporting, all be it a half-hearted one liner at the very end of the report. I pay my TV Tax (sorry Licence) and with any other contract expect an unbiased, decent service.
An important programme showing the scale of the immigration problem and how it is affecting life for British people aired at 10 45 when most people are in bed. Shameful !
Pro-EU bias. Nick Robinson chaired discussion between EU-funded and pro-EU views of Paul Johnson IFS and John Redwood. Usual BBC rules applied. Pro-EU views were given 40% more time to answer than Leave. Crucially, IFS were able to make long contributions uninterrupted. PJ replies were 45, 50,55, 15, 65 and 30 secs. JR replies were 25,10,5,2,40,30,2,10,30,30 secs. Indeed, JR was interrupted 3 times when trying to respond to the EU-funded accusation. Once again, the BBC offered no reference to unreliability and past mistakes of international and Govt forecasting Bodies. Another example of unduly partial broadcasting from the biased BBC.
I have become so disillusioned with the BBC over recent weeks that as of today I have decided to switch off. The bias regarding stay/leave the EU has become embarrassing to watch. The propaganda being spilled from the BBC should mean they are taken off air. There is no fairness to both sides, you are aiming the whole programme at encouraging people to stay. Shame on the BBC. I grew up believing the BBC were fair and could be trusted on giving both sides – what a fool I have been. I am disgusted with them and will not watch this programme again.
When the presenter was breaking down the cost of our EU membership he gave the clear impression we received money from the EU. As I’m sure you are aware we receive NO EU money. The EU decides where OUR money can be spent; a decision over which we have NO control. Typical BBC propaganda.
I feel that the BBC has been using headlines that are negative towards leaving the EU far more than for staying in. Every day there seems to be a article on this. I’ve not seen anywhere near as much information about negative reasons for staying in. Even the news night programs leant towards staying in. This is the most biased I have seen from the BBC on any previous issue.
Pro-EU bias. Newsnight Audience Panel. EU Referendum Specials. Last night’s final Special contained all the usual Newsnight bias. Greater time given to pro-EU arguments, loaded questions to Leave, constant interruption of Leave speakers, false pro-EU statements conveyed as facts. But, the crowning glory was Newsnight’s public Panel of so-called Undecided voters. BBC subliminal bias at its most crafty. 8 Panel members. Unrepresentative of British society, as evidenced by Census 2011. 4 ethnic minorities, one EU (Irish) citizen, 3 white ladies. No white UK males and no elderly people. Clearly designed to neuter Leave’s strongest suits on immigration and the destruction of British jobs and communities. With recent polls showing 80% don’t believe the PM, the only Panellist comment was to say the PM was trustworthy! The final Panel vote was 7:1 leaning in favour of Remain. And the main Panel message was Leave is unbelievable. Lynton Crosby could not have designed it better as an exercise in pro-EU propaganda. It would be very interesting indeed if the Panel construction and Panel backgrounds could be investigated by non-BBC organisations.
All bbc/news articles: Remain space = All reasonable and rational sounding articles. Brexit = a bunch of “far right extremist” articles and nothing in the middle. 99%+ of Brexit support aren’t far right or extreme, just like 99%+ of remain aren’t far left or extreme. Stop trying to alienate anyone that believes the UK should become a real democracy once again and give the Brexit argument a fair, moderate and accurate representation.
I am so fed up with ALL your BBC presenters on the Daily Politics and News Night . They constantly argue with any one who supports the Leave team….and when asking questions before they give an answer they butt in and then give their version of the answers they choose to believe. It’s sickening and I feel like turning over…. I was unsure how I was going to vote, but your presenters make me feel like they are badgering the public and I am serously considering voting leave now, as it seems like a brain washing conspiracy…They always question the Leave statistics and finances and believe the version of the remain…..it’s so Biased and unfair!
Program regarding remain or Exit the European Union but it disgusts me how pro eu propaganda is used on this show, including David Cameron in the background screen with a sign “stronger safer better off”. Little tricks to throw it in our faces. The BBC is so biased it makes us sick.
On the question of nationality and the EU, Laurie Perry from the Guardian and Tim Farron, local MP for Dent, (both IN) were the representatives. The only reps on the other side were accidental – locals who happened to be in the pub! (time 12:40)
The so called BBC web site news report “EU referendum: Row over Turkey’s membership bid escalates” Is so biased and unbalanced. It is, apart from one small paragraph pure government propaganda. What has happened to the BBC the organisation used to have balance and generally presented both arguments in any given situation. I for one do not see the value in using licence payers money simply to enhance a particular view on the EU, where are the balanced arguments and news reports. Certainly not from the BBC how sad !
Immediately following an interview with Eddie Izzard, whose pro-EU views went totally unchallenged, Andrew Marr then interviewed a Pro-Leave campaigner and continually interrupted her and often presented speculative pro-remain counter arguments as fact.
On the BBC Radio 4 Today programme Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York was interviewed. On two separate occasions during the interview he lied that the UK enjoyed a trade surplus with the EU. The UK suffers a mighty trade deficit with the EU, a big argument in the leave campaign, The BBC did nothing to correct this statement. The BBC is not unbiased it is a government/EU tool.
Constantly give Remain campaign prominent headlines however Leave headlines are relegated further down the list. Yesterday Osborne claimed leaving would result in a fall in house prices, This claim was given far more prominence than Gove’s claim that the population will increase by 5 million. Indeed 24 hours later the BBC have left Osborne’s claim as a headline on the news website but Gove’s claim has been removed.
Subject: Workings of the European Arrest Warrant; explanation by Norman Smith after intro. from Eddie Mair, supposedly “to answer listener’s question”… “not what politicians want you to hear”. Norman Smith- quoting figures 2009-2016, explains (with selective emphasis) how any problem regarding the imbalance of numbers- 7500 to 800 is only “a perceived problem” to NS- “it seems to me Fairs Fair”. Listeners are clearly informed that the numbers in and out are reasonably balanced. ie all is well balanced within the EU. However, this “explanation of balance” is a statistical fallacy. If every EU member state successfully served ten times the number of warrants, compared to the number of it’s own citizens “returned”, then ninety percent of the total concerned would have to vanish (into space), for there to be equilibrium. You can not have a balance of ” ten out-one in” broadly across each and every EU State. ps I have asked the BBC to answer this point (prior to making a formal complaint), but have not received any reply.
There were 5 panellists on on Questiobn Time on the 19 May 2016. Four were for staying in the EU and 1 for leaving. That is a ratio of 4 to 1 and the BBC are supposed to be independant and fair. Paul Mason was one of the pro european panellists that pretended to be against europe but whenever he spoke came out with the most pro europen rhetorict of any person that has ever been on question time. He reminded me of the school bullies that used to terrorise me at school. The government in cahoots with the BBC is running the most biased political campaign in the history of our great country and should be ashamed. I want to know when Question Time will be aired with 4 anti european campaigners and 1 pro european camaigner.
The BBC teletext service is completely bias, I like to keep up with the news and this service allows me to do this, BUT virtually every day for weeks there has been a headline claiming that some faction of our society says leaving the EU would be bad for the UK, this headline is normally over two pages long with one small final paragraph at the end giving the opposite opinion. This type of bias media should never be allowed, as a BBC license payer I feel that my monies are being used in a pro Europe campaign that I did not sign up for.
I cannot believe that once more that the BBC have been bias in the coverage of the EU referendum, Jeremy Paxman came across as pro EU in my opinion, with mocking opinionated reactions to the leave campaign and individuals he interviewed. He clearly is not the right Person for an unbiased debate. Why is it that an organisation like the BBC can blatantly show their opinion on subjects that are of national importance. This is hardly an unbiased approach taken by the BBC. As a person who wants to make up my mind on my vote after fair clear debate I was looking forward to watching fair unbiased programmes and debates about the referendum but am disappointed that this has clearly not happened. The BBC has let the nation down with its selfish , bias, unfair , one sided coverage of this debate, and have slipped in my estimation of what the BBC. Should be in my opinion. I have never complained before but yet another programme about this subject and including BBC Radio 2 programmes coverage have forced me to react to their approach.
On the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York was interviewed. On two seperate occasions during the interview he asserted the utter falsehood that the UK enjoyed a trade surplus with the EU. The UK in fact suffers a massive trade deficit with the EU, a central plank in the economic argument against EU membership. In the first three months of this year our trade deficit with the EU reached almost £24 billion. On neither occasion during the interview was Mr Bloomberg challenged on this out-and-out deliberate lie. In fact Mr Bloomberg was almost completely unchallenged about any of the inaccuracies or obfuscations he delivered during the interview. Partial transcripts of Mr Bloomberg’s comments remain on the BBC news website.
Classic pro-EU bias. Steve Baker of Leave interview. Limited to Tory infighting and the BBC’s current diversion tactic of outrage over Boris superstate comment. Bloomberg interview then allows MB to make 3 pro-EU statements of 60, 40 and 35 secs, much longer than SB was allowed. In between, a pro-EU propaganda piece from Hastings introduced by the BBC presenter as “what Brussels has done for us”. No counter balancing comments. Usual disgraceful pro-EU bias from the BBC.
I listened to Pro EU speakers yesterday on Jeremy Vine show. People from other EU member states expressing their desires that the UK would stay in the EU and failing dismally to present any coherent reasons between them. The debacle causing much laughter in our car. I have to say the bias of the BBC is outrageous and overt. No longer subliminal or subtle but utterly shameless! What happened to fair and balanced?
Jeremy Vine filled his studio with 27 representatives of the current EU countries that were obviously hand picked and were all pro EU. This was an obvious bias by the BBC and did not give a balanced representation to the general public.
Copy of an email I sent Today programme this morning. It is pointless using the BBC complaints system. “Would you please ask John Humphrys to stop constantly interrupting Leave campaigners when they try to speak. Recently his interviews with Ian Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson developed into a shouting match because he would not allow them to finish a sentence, quite the opposite when he interviewed George Osborne. While I am at it I would like to correct his attitude to Johnson’s mistaken reference to Hitler, altough he did in fact speak the truth. I copy below an extract from an email I sent to the leaders of the Leave campaign, including Boris Johnson, a few weeks ago. “American intelligence discovered that in 1944 a group of German industrialists and SS officers met to discuss the aftermath of WW2, now realising that they could not win WW2 by arms, and they decided that they could control Europe by economic means. This may sound farfetched but after 1945 a German lecturer in international law, a member of the Nazi Lecturers Association, became a close associate of Adenauer. His name was Walter Hallstein, a keen advocate of a federal Europe. He was instrumental in devising the Schuman Plan which established the European Coal and Steel Community, the forerunner of the EU and which already contained the elements of the EU we now know. He was then closely involved in the writing of the Treaty of Rome. He was strongly in favour of close integration by way of a Common Market (sound familiar?). The German Economic Minister, Erhard disagreed and wanted a Free Trade Area. Adenauer came down in favour of Hallstein. What had started as a French idea had been hijacked by Germany. Then in 1958 Hallstein was appointed as the first President of the Commission. So it is not surprising that Germany has grown all powerful. It is said that the powerful German companies became powerful on the stolen gold and valuables stashed away during the war but that is another matter.”
Heavily biased pro Europe news report, a string of comments trying to sound factual but actually simple subjective opinion. patronising to anyone and everyone on the brexit campaign .
Pro-EU bias by omission. A second day of headlines with BBC’s favourite pro-EU Tory Heseltine attacking Leave’s Boris Johnson. Yet, no mention of Sam Cameron’s father receiving £500,000 EU subsidies or David Cameron’s dodgy exchange of letters with Serco before EU negotiations or MigrationWatch report showing EU nationals are costing us £3m per day. After a promising start, the BBC are slipping back to their bad old pro-EU propaganda ways.
The evening news tonight focused extensively on a reference to hitler made by Boris Johnson with out reading the full quote or exploring the context which was valid to the issue he was addressing. No response by him was recorded either.
The Today programme feature on “migration” gets 10 out of 10 for sympathy, 1 out of 10 for practicality and 0 out of 10 for cultural integration. Marks 11 out of hundred.
BBC news is increasingly biased against ‘Leave’ campaigners. Tonight the news commentator got into heavy character assassination of Boris Johnson. He and other commentators have repeatedly misinterpreted and taken out of context Johnson’s valid and well-researched comments; e.g., the history of attempts to create a European superstate. Purpose: to extend their bias and hype news coverage into entertainment. Deplorable. Worse than that, it is frightening: the BBC has been the backbone of our democracy, AND much of what the ‘Leave’ platform is about is securing and maintaining our democracy.
Time given to stay campaign much longer and positively presented. Leave campaign poorly presented, and negatively worded
John Humphrys interviewing four BBC Editors: Mark Easton (home), Kamal Ahmed (economics), Katya Adler (Europe), Simon Jack (business) and asking them to explain why two facts presented by each side of the campaign were contested. The question Mark Easton was asked to tackle was George Osborne’s claim that ‘Britain would be permanently poorer if we left the European Union, to the tune of £4,300 for every household in the county. That’s a fact everyone should think about as they consider how to vote.’ Easton’s response was near identical to a Spectator blog by Fraser Nelson on 18 April in which Nelson explained why Osborne’s statement was based on three deceptions as summarised in outline below: Deception 1. Osborne falsely claims that people would be ‘permanently poorer’ when he’s talking about the difference between 29pc GDP growth and 37pc GDP growth. The most he can claim is that they won’t be as much better off as they would otherwise be. Deception 2. Osborne then translates this reduction in potential GDP to household income. But they are two fundamentally different things. The Treasury and the OBR discuss GDP all of the time: never do they convert it into a per-household cash figure because (unlike debt, tax etc.) it’s meaningless. GDP contains measures like the operating surplus of corporations and all manner of other measurements. GDP per household bears no relation to household income. If GDP is divided by households it’s £68,000: nothing like the average disposable UK income of £18,600 per head, or £45,400 per household. Deception 3. To arrive at the £4,300 figure, the Treasury divided GDP in 2030 by the number of households today. Arguably the most dishonest trick of the lot because, with all that immigration, there’ll be plenty more households by 2030. This begs the question of why Osborne was not interrogated more forcefully on these misleading claims by the BBC when first interviewed in April. It was shameful of the BBC to fail to do their homework, and for it to take more than a month to cotton on to this deception.
The constant running of pro EU reports across the bottom of the screen whilst the news is being shown is becoming so obviously biased towards the stay campaign it is becoming embarrassing. There were no counters to John Major’s comments about fellow conservative MP’s who support leave, and constant opinions from various remain campaigners saying how bad/very bad /awful it would be if we vote to leave. This is blatently not impartial reporting it is an attempt to influence, If the BBC thinks that by doing this they will coerce the population towards their preferred agenda they are drastically mistaken.
Tonight’s news featured both the speech by John Major – highly critical of leave campaigners from the Conservative party – and, also, Christine Lagarde’s comments when presenting the IMF’s latest report on the UK economy. These were reported with language worded to affirm the opinions expressed as fact; but worse than this there was only minimal reference to counter claims by those from the leave side of the debate. This was just the latest of a string of headline items on the 10 o-clock news from the BBC where a speech or comment from some figure warning of risks of leaving the EU lead the report with only minimal time being given to, or comments being reported from, those who favour leaving. On the previous night it was Mark Carney’s speech that lead the news. Again there was on passing reference to those with differing views. The item was presented in a tone which was to all intents and purposes saying – well this was Mark Carney – he must be right. Kamal Ahmed was asked to comment on this and simply affirmed what the Governor had said with only a brief aside suggesting there were some with differing views. A few days before there was a major speech by Cameron about the risk of increasing tensions between nations if we leave. The same day Boris Johnson made a major speech also. Yet the news lead on Cameron. His main theme was the headline item. Very little voice was given to Boris Johnson’s speech. This type of thing has occurred night after night and is the most grotesque bias I can ever recall seeing. It is so blatant. I speak as one who has always intended to vote to remain in the EU, but there needs to be a fair fight. I am staggered that there is not more complaints from the leave campaign about this.
Yet again the BBC news (online) headline is a baseless fear-mongering piece, this time “Brexit may spark recession, Carney warns”. Almost every day is the same now; no actual news, just pure and unadulterated propaganda for the pro-EU lobby. Clearly the BBC has forgotten all about impartiality …and journalism, and is now just spewing out ready-made propaganda. Thee BBC stinks to hell, and is like a pernicious cancer on British society. Despite gobbling up £3bn+ of British taxpayer’s money, it is in no sense responsive or reflective to modern Britain: it is the slave to the government of the day, and to globalist, corporate interests. Complaining to the vile parasites is not enough, and that’s why I have cancelled my direct debit for the license fee. No more, not with my money.
The BBC News and internet BBC News page always give high prominence to any news (or latest scare story) from any Remain group or supporter and quite evidently there is nothing g like the prominence to the Leave argument. It is so obvious that that the BBC has become the Governments mouthpiece in their propaganda exercise over stories that are blatantly ridiculous and if the BBC interviewers wanted to expose the nonsense , as they would on so many other stories, but don’t pull the lies apart. I am so disappointed to see this total disregard to being impartial that the BBC was supposed to hold so dear. It might well be in Russia or China as the State governments mouthpiece.
Pro-EU propaganda by the Today programme. Again. John Humphrys interview of Boris Johnson. JH made several pro-EU statements, without qualification, and were thus implied as facts. BJ did very well to counter the bias. The two main ones were to do with the Single Market and EU immigration. JH mixed up membership and access to the Single Market. JH implied the UK would have to accept free movement of peoples “just like Norway, Switzerland…” . BJ correctly asserted that access, as opposed to membership, does not require free movement, eg the US. JH’s biggest porkies came with EU immigration. He stated that EU immigrants net contribution was £22bn. JH made no reference to source or validity. This was outrageous. Perhaps JH did not do so because it relates to EU-funded UCL research carried out by EU academics. JH did not tell us that Civitas had branded it “shallow” and MigrationWatch had said it had glaring omissions, which when included showed a net cost of about £25bn.
Reality check – explaining eu contributions. Seemed reasonable up to the end when the statement of ‘fact’ about how the effects will be dwarfed by the impact on our economy from leaving. Suggesting that we’ll be massively worse off. When the reality is that no one knows either way, but the tone and language seemed to be used cleverly to suggest that we will be worse off. Even though the presenter never actually said we would be. Other ‘reality check’ articles on line from BBC also seem to accept all the figures from the treasury as fact. Ignoring that they actually are not impartial.
As a ‘supposedly’ impartial presenter Evan Davis left nobody in any doubt as to is allegiance to the EU. He allowed David Hanson MP to have his say throughout virtually uniterrupted , and yet whenever Kwasi Kwarteng spoke he not only rudely interrupted him but actually argued with him! The BBC, moreso than any other establishment, should, during the run up to the EU Referendum, be showing complete unbiased open discussion on their programs by someone who can show categorically that they are totally impartial.
Reporting on Iain Duncan Smith’s speech today they decided to ‘debunk’ what he said. They basically came up with other figures and dismissed it. It came across as very authoritative, but without anyone to rebuke their claims. The BBC are not there to decide the facts, just report the news. If they wish to pass comment then they need a balance.
Daily Politics today visited Norwich and discussed the link between education, age and a desire to leave the EU, of course (and we’ve heard it before) if you’re older and/or less well educated you’re more likely to want out of the EU. This lead onto a snippet from a Bert Bakker of Amsterdam University who had surveyed the personalities of Dutch voters to determine their attitudes towards politics. Let me just repeat that, ‘DUTCH’ voters, not British voters so how is this relevant to our referendum? And how precisely do you survey a personality? Obviously you ask a series of leading questions contrived to arrive at a particular conclusion. Like statistics this allows you prove any point you wish to establish. Of course the BBC did not provide any information upon how Mr. Bakker (who I would venture is a Europhile) had arrived at his conclusions but allowed the gentleman to voice his ‘research’ findings as follows: ‘He says those with pro-EU views tended to be “more open-minded, more curious” and also “more trusting, caring, tender-minded”. Meanwhile, anti-EU voters were “a little bit more closed-minded”, less trusting, but also “a little bit less full of fantasy”. He insists he is not making “a value judgement” about voters.’ The above quote was taken directly from the EU referendum live updates on the BBC site. Clearly this is a message the BBC wish to perpetuate, that all Brexiters are ignorant, bigoted, uncaring old fogeys with no imagination and that should the voting public wish to disassociate themselves with being labelled as any of the above they should vote to remain. This is not the first time the BBC have tried the tactic of insinuating that Brexiters are deficient in some respect or racists, but this close to the referendum it is utterly unforgivable and I will be demanding an apology. As an art graduate with a post graduate teaching qualification I take exception to the implication that I lack imagination or am uneducated. It would seem to me furthermore that it is those who wish to remain who lack vision and curiosity since they are the ones who speak constantly of the ‘risk’ of leaving and maintaining the status quo.
Pro-EU bias. Zoe Conway interview from Grimsby of Leave (John Freeman) and Remain (Gerald Dennett). ZC opened by asking JF his view. 16 secs. ZC then invited GD to criticise JF comments. 40 secs. To all questions, Leave response time allowed 16,12,4,7 and 12 secs. Remain response time allowed 40, 24 and 25 secs. Throughout, GD was unchallenged, ZC even feeding Remain side by describing as generous EU funding of the Grimsby area then inviting GD to comment on her assertion. In contrast, ZC challenged JF as unprincipled at one point, nor did she invite JF to criticise any of GD comments. Zoe Conway is the widow of the late Chris Martin, PPS to David Cameron.
Having listened to Boris Johnsons speech live, I tuned into the News at 6 to see how a 45 minute speech, to leave the EU, would be presented and hear what the experts say. My points: 1. No mention that Boris gave a 45 minute speech. Each time EU was covered it started with David Cameron and then Boris countering. It gives the affect that David Camerons view is primary. 2. The headline delivered by Fiona Bruce, was a scaremongering statement from David Cameron and a flippant remark from the leave campaign ‘lost the plot’ – nothing substantial from within Boris Johnson statement. 3.Then we saw David Cameron making the point of ‘maintaining a common purpose’ in Europe. Then all you showed was Boris countering that with a blanket statement ‘I don’t think the priminister can seriously believe………’ again nothing from Boris’s list of factual claims about the EU and failing to keep the peace and, in fact, the EU actually escalating conflict between Ukraine and Russia. 4. The main story unfolded with the emotive statement about ‘white headstones in lovingly tended commonwealth war cemetries’ by David Cameron. Then we saw old clips of spitfires and Churchill. (Sarah’s question was straight – shame he wasn’t pressed to answer.) When you covered Boris’s speech about EU failing to sort out the Balkans – where was the equally emotive, visual clips/pictures to enforce his argument. (Sarahs question was answered) and then you showed Boris’s somewhat tatty shoe leather – why not Camerons. And you featured Boris singing a few words, without the context being explained. You did not cover any of his other points from his speech. The BBC is portraying Boris as the joker – the one not to be listened too. 5. Sarahs summing -up whilst emphasising this is a big decision for our country – why mention the tory party split. That is a story for after the EU Referendum and the seconds you dedicate to this would be better spent reporting the facts – perhaps more content from Boris’s speech, not in-party splits. 6. All-in-all, you failed to cover anything from Boris’s speech that put the argument to the public, for leaving the EU, it was all snippits to counter the In argument and anything that would mock Boris. You cover the IN as the primary opinion and the OUT have to bat the points away.
Unequal treatment of Remain (Philip Hammond) and Leave (Penny Mordaunt). Interviews by Nick Robinson. Hammond afforded 13 responses. 8 of 30-50 secs, 2 of 20-25 secs and 3 of 5-15 secs. What a contrast to the Leave case. Mordaunt afforded 11 responses. None of 30-50 secs, 4 of 20-25 secs and 7 of 5-15 secs. NR questioning was reasonable to both cases. The bias was in allowing much longer response times for the pro-EU case. R4 Today were unduly partial during the euro debates. They are just as bad now, only more subtle.
This programme claims that it “explains – and sometimes debunks – the numbers and statistics used in political debate”, yet this evening’s edition featured an anti-EU “expert” giving his disparaging *opinions* on various ideas attributed to the “leave” campaign. Nothing to do with numbers or statistics, and totally unanswered by any pro-leave voices. Even for the BBC this was stooping somewhat low.
The headline news item quoted two former security chiefs saying that leaving the EU would risk our security. But they failed to balance it with the counter-statement made Sir John Dearlove – a former head of MI5 – on March 24 who said that leaving the EU would in fact *enhance* our security (see eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/24/quitting-the-eu-would-help-our-security-former-mi6-chief-suggest). Also, at the time, Sir John’s claim mysteriously did not warrant headline news. How strange.
Check out this tweet from someone in the audience about Dimbleby’s behaviour before the show. https://twitter.com/irate_debate/status/728337429606891520 “Dimbleby before the show, ‘Brexits tend to be passionate and loud, so if you are a remainer be loud to ensure equality.’”
In a two way discussion on security within and outside the EU Victoria Derbyshire rounded on Minister Penny Mordaunt and said that her comment about security was deliberately misleading …really accusing her of lying. This was not impartial as her other guest was not contradicted once, nor challenged in any meaningful way. Ms Derbyshire had no respect for someone who has served her country in uniform , nor someone who is well informed ESPECIALLY about defence and security issues. Merely asserting that the Minister was lying in a two way debate is clearly biased.
How does the Today programme keep up such bias! This morning at 7.30 there was a long piece, described as a balanced view, of the current immigration into Germany. After the introduction, about half the piece was about a few highly educated and qualified refugees from Syria, a further quarter was about an ordinary family, the father was previously a taxi driver, and a further quarter was about 900 young single males about to be placed into a small town. I don’t call that balanced! I thought the vast majority of immigrants were young single men and this is having a significant effect on Germany, so why doesn’t the programme duration reflect this?