Kirsty Wark had a studio guest who opposed the democratic choice to leave the EU and a Conservative MP on to link up. The discussion was about air travel after the uk leaves the EU. The presenter chose to ignore the MP on the tv and the production staff turned the sound down so we were unable to hear her response.You could see the invited guest on the screen answering the question but not aware they chose to censor her response. Absolutely shocking.
Kirsty Wark seemed way out of her depth & getting confused with her subject matter, following Newsnight’s Business Editor Helen Thomas’s piece on aviation post-Brexit, including Open Sky agreements, which finished with the suggestion that “we may be in for a very bumpy ride”. Kirsty interviewed a seemingly staunch pro-Remain studio guest, aviation economist Peter Morris of Flight Global, then when her other guest Jacqueline Foster MEP, a Transport spokesman specialising in this area in Brussels, (this reference conspicuously omitted from KW’s introduction) spoke via video link & corrected some misleading statements & those from the studio guest, she was cut off by Kirsty Wark who continued instead putting questions to Peter Morris. When she did eventually get to speak, and asked KW to allow her to finish, Jacqueline Foster referred to KW’s studio guest being extremely negative. When she said “I have to take on board & challenge some of the points your studio guest is raising”, Kirsty Wark cut her off again, saying “very briefly back to my guest here in the studio”, allowing Peter Morris the final say before bringing the interview to a close, with Jacqueline Foster seen -& ignored by Kirsty Wark- on screen in the background continuing to speak ,but her comments unheard by the viewers. This was very rude and yet again an example of how the BBC continues to misrepresent and mis-report anything Brexit, on this occasion by stifling argument to their preferred position. Last night’s imbalanced interviews were quite disgraceful and left me shaking with anger; it was so predictably one-sided. God knows how Jacqueline Foster must’ve felt at the way she was treated, constantly interrupted by the interviewer. She said during the interview that she was at a distinct disadvantage by not being in the studio where she would’ve been better situated to properly take issue with some of the negative & misleading comments coming from Kirsty Wark’s studio guest Peter Morris. There was some irony too in the previous night’s Newsnight programme with Kirsty Wark discussing with 2 studio guests the topic of the use of that word “elite”. But there were no references (surprise, surprise) to mounting accusations directed at the BBC for their contribution within the mainstream media of “liberal elite ” negative criticism of anything Brexit.
Totally false information in item on Open Skies agreement and other aviation agreements. MEP who specialised in this was trying to give the correct situation when she her microphone was blatantly switched off!
Kirsty Warks interview about the aviation situation in Europe was so rude and biased towards her videoed guest who had a wonderful optimism and simplistic transition solution especially being involved as an MEP. Kirsry clearly opted for the pessimistic and scaremongering view of her studio guest, shame on you
My complaint is about the bias of the News at Ten on the item on Food Hygiene and particularly the care of chickens. It was a scare-mongering one-sided story that has not even about to happen. It is not only the EU that can legislate on food hygiene, Britain did it for years before the EU was started and it had much higher standards than the European countries before the EU. It is ludicrous to suggest that we be accepting lower standards from either the USA or the EU. Ww certainly will not, the public will not allow it. Have you investigated the pork husbandry of the Dutch? The BBC constantly neglects to mention the enormous possible benefits to Britain of leaving the colossally expensive Common Agricultural Policy. We need more optimistic views from those who are looking forward to Brexit and less views from your reporters. You regularly sink to the lowest professional standards with the use of VOX POPs which are meaningless as they depend entirely on the editorial involvement. You seem to regard your audience with contempt. You use disagreement and disharmony to cause fear and bias. We are all going to live with the outcome of Brexit. The BBC News has a responsibility to help us understand the truthful situation and hear from those who really know their subjects from both sides at the same time. You have forgotten you are a public broadcasting organisation representing the people not your own prejudices.
News item ,farm animal show new forest area,cut to cow and reporter, then anti Brexit diatribe on animal welfare standards, cut to canned pictures of American chicken production stating, birds washed in chlorine etc So? no explanation as to health implications, just Brexit and you will get lousy chemical covered food. Great impartial reporting!
Yet again BBC news is interviewing people , in this case farmers, about what MIGHT!! happen after Brexit. Time and time again the BBC are biased against Brexit. For goodness sake stick to reporting the News. In case you are having trouble understanding the concept of news; it’s things that are happening now and things that have happened. Not bias speculation on what might happen!! Deeply annoyed with and mistrustful of the BBC
Just after 8:11 a.m. on Thursday 20 July, Radio 4’s Today programme played a clip where a female presenter (either Sarah Montague or Mishal Husain) had earlier interviewed the MP Liam Fox about his WTO negotiations. This Today presenter then asserted to Liam Fox, and to the millions of Today programme listeners: “Our prosperity depends on the EU”. This is anti-Brexit propaganda: some 56 % of Britains’ trade is with countries outside the EU with whom we have a balance of payments surplus, whilst we have a massive trade deficit with the EU. The BBC is supposed to be following Lord Reith’s policy of inform, educate and entertain, not attack Brexit!
Totally unbalanced quartet including Polly Toynbee ranting about Brexit seems typical of the BBC coverage shown overseas. It is such a shame that this once great broadcast institution has become such a shamelessly biased instrument. Surely it is not difficult to understand that once impartiality has gone, then the BBC credibility slips to garbage status like Chinese CCTV or any other propaganda channel. What a pity such a world famous brand is being let down so badly by its current personnel.
Another opportunity for the Brit Bashing Corp. to interview an ex-politician (Tony Blair) who has lost all credibility. The excuse this time, “Europe may compromise on free movement” !!! What planet is he living on? and why oh why does the BBC continue its outrageously biased reporting? Yesterday it was ex-SNP loosers Ahmed Sheik & Alex Salmond. Every politician east of Calais has said the four European freedoms are sacred. Every European politician has said we can’t choose which bits we want. It’s the EU who are forcing the hard Brexit theme. But Blair, Farron, Sturgeon et al are hell bent on forcing the Single market and customs union issues as if WE are choosing this path. All we want is OUT & if possible, a free trade deal. Everything else is up for discussion.
Sneering anti Brexit reports on “No plan for Brexit”. Even splicing g together sound bites to ridicule David Davies and Boris Johnson. I never hear balancing articles promoting the possible benefits and opportunities nor the negatives of staying in an unreformed EU. The presenter betrays a biased attitude.
Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull and Theresa May yesterday held a press conference at No.10 Downing Street. Mr Turnbull was very positive about a free trade deal with the UK and said he wanted to see one in place as soon as possible after Brexit. The tone of his speech was extremely positive. On the other hand, Laura Kuenssberg (yet again) decided to ignore that positivity and ask negative questions about unrelated subjects in an attempt to make Theresa May foolish. BBC News at 10am covered the news conference, yet strangely they cut the footage of Malcolm Turnbull being positive about our post-Brexit future, and instead changed the entire story to meet Laura Kuenssbergs own self-serving agenda of trying to make the PM look foolish. Even the BBC News site barely covered the positive aspect of the news conference, with the only footage being hidden away as a small story on the Politics sub-pages. It seems increasingly apparent that the BBC will do it’s utmost to put a negative spin on any Brexit story and make it headline news. Where it is unable to do so, it simply buries the story.
Justin Webb interviewed Guy Verhofstadt, the EU parliament’s representative to the Brexit negotiations. My complaint is that Mr Webb failed to adequately challenge Verhofstadt on the EU parliament’s opposition to the UK Government’s plans for securing EU citizen’s rights after Brexit. The EU wants EU citizens post-brexit to have exactly the same rights as they enjoy now which from a EU perspective is not controversial but needs to be challenged if the requests are unreasonable. The only challenge was when Mr Webb stated (accurately) that this would create a new class of citizenship guaranteed in perpetuity which is of course different from UK citizens whose rights and obligations can be changed with successive parliaments. When Mr Verhofstadt replied that this was not the case (and it most definitely is) Mr Webb simply dropped the point. The obvious point that Mr Webb could have made is that EU citizens currently enjoy some rights that even British citizens do not enjoy such as bringing in spouses from outside the EU without restriction. Why should this continue post-brexit? The other point which Mr Webb alluded to but did not expand on is that it is a fundamental part of our constitution that one parliament cannot bind another. Could he not have put to Verhofstadt that it is a bit much to ask the UK to change its constitution in order to safeguard EU citizens’ rights when the UK would never ask France, Belgium, Germany etc to do the same. Next he asked whether the EU would expect these rights to be overseen by the CJEU (the European Court of Justice) to which the reply was yes. Again there was no challenge to this. The obvious point is that post-brexit the CJEU will effectively be a foreign court to which the UK is not a signatory. The UK does not allow the US supreme court to govern the rights of US citizens in the UK or the Indian Supreme court to govern the rights of Indian nationals in the UK? To allow the CJEU to have this jurisdictional oversight would be unprecedented and not something that any sovereign nation could agree to. There is also no precedent (to my knowledge) of any other bi-lateral treaty with the EU coming under the jurisdiction of the CJEU for the simple reason that no other country would accept it (example: the latest EU trade deal with Canada.) The third reason is the patent unfairness of having the EU choose its own court to be the arbiter of EU and UK citizens’ rights post-brexit. None of this was put to Mr Verhofstadt. Let me be clear, these are NOT pro-brexit points – simply points relating to the legal and constitutional status of the UK vis a vis the EU post-brexit. The interview ended with an incredibly bland and non-substantive point from Mr Webb that the EU parliament would not have much power as this would be decided by the nation states – a point easily rebutted by Verhofstadt as he is the lead negotiator for the EU parliament and rightly stated that the parliament has a veto on the withdrawal treaty. If you listen to the interview again, it is clear that Mr Verhofstadt’s views are not challenged adequately and his most outrageous points (from a UK perspective, although perfectly understandable from a EU perspective) are treated with undue reverence (compare with Evan Davies asking David Jones “what planet are you living on” on Newsnight 28th June 2017.) One might reasonably ask what planet Mr Verhofstadt is living on if he thinks post-brexit that EU citizens should have … Read More
This is a continued and long standing complaint. The BBC will not mention that we have a constitution and in fact Nick Robinson on the Today programme repeated the Government lie that we do not have a written constitution. We do and it goes back to Magna Carta and developed over time. It was considered by the Americans so good that they virtually copied it when they wrote their own constitution. WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH BREXIT? you may ask. Our constitution states that my and your sovereignty cannot be given away to another country unless we have been defeated in a war. This makes all our treaties with the EU unlawful. This was confirmed by Lord KIlmuir’s letter to Edward Heath. Lord Kilmuir was the top law officer in the land. This letter was hidden for thirty years and because the media are controlled will never be mentioned or discussed. Make no mistake dear reader we are not leaving the EU. Negotiating using the Lisbon treaty is a diversion to ensure we stay in. We should just walk away. The BBC is your enemy and controlled by the globalist forces who created the EU.
It’s hard to pin down bias specifics in comedy but it’s all pervasive in the direct and indirect comments made by the panel whenever reference is made to Brexit. One particular example was a comment made on 7:00 minutes when one of the panellists compares leaving the EU to a divorce when the leaving party does not retain or gain anything but is only the loser in the situation. This kind of comment is held in high regard and plays along with the narrative of, “we’re all in this together laughing at how foolish the Brexit vote is”. It’s so condescending! Have they forgotten that millions voted for Brexit? They’re not all fools!
The hourly news from 7 am through until 12 noon did not mention that the EU Parliament vote for Northern Ireland to be given special status was rejected. Yet at 12 noon BBC reported Michael Barnier’s comments that frictionless trade between Europe and the UK would be impossible after Brexit After that I got tired listening.
Katya Adler and Kamal Ahmed attempted a re-run of the Remain campaign and brexit polemic. No upside potential was suggested for leaving the EU, such as new world trade opportunities and making our own UK laws, which was certainly nothing like the impassioned pitch made by the programme, EU and UK extreme remain commentators. The rhetoric that was so squarely on the side of remaining in the EU missed an opportunity for a balanced view of both sides of the argument. There was an air of scaremongering and stark warnings of no “cake” on UK plates when we leave the EU, but plenty of “salt and vinegar”. However, in the UK only a fortunate few ever had cake and the majority only ever had salt and vinegar, the majority of which stand to lose little or nothing. Therefore, why was 17.4 million leave voters and potential TV license fee payers suffering this tendentious nonsense barely considered in this programme?
Evan Davis declared to David Jones MP, ‘Theresa May’s plan for Brexit’ was one ‘which clearly didn’t grab the population in the election’. “I don’t think it was that,” Jones politely responded, “I think frankly the big issues were other non-Brexit-related issues, most particularly the issue of social care but also one or two other issues too. But I think so far as Brexit is concerned, we are now in the position where 80 per cent of the electorate of this country voted for parties who want to take Britain out of the EU.” The arrogant, EU biased response: “Sorry, what planet are you on? Davis, obviously cannot retain a professional attitude when interviewing anyone who diasagrees with his Remainer motivation. Witness the rudery he utilised against Nigel Farage in his series of interviews during the 2015 election campaign, which was stunning in its unequivocal presentation of complete contempt.
The BBC reported on an audience Q/A with Janet Yellen , Head of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve in the USA. They headlined their interview as ‘Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen urges soft Brexit’. However, Janet Yellen made no reference to soft or hard Brexit, no reference the single market, customs union or immigration. She simply referred to the deep ties between the UK and the EU and the transitional uncertainties which will casue some difficult decisions to be taken. The BBC wholly misappropriated Janet Yellens comments to attach some international credibility to the idea of soft Brexit. I emailed Janet Yellen who was kind enough to reply as follows: ” I answered a question from the audience following a conversationwith Lord Stern at the British academy. There is a video on BBC that you can watch to see exactly what I said. The headline was written by them, not me, and I never used the term “soft brexit”. Hope this helps.
Evan Davis agressively insisted in an interview with a Conservative that the popular Labour vote in the election was a vote against the Tory hard Brexit in favour of something ‘softer’ which voters anticipated under Labour. This, despite the two parties’ Brexit objectives being virtually the same. Evan referred to polling data to support this – well we all know about the polls. The Conservative interviewee contested this view, claimig that the Labour vote was becase of domestic issues, e.g. relating to social care. In fact the polls did show a marked shift in Labour’s favour following release of the Tory manifesto. Worst of all Evan lost his cool and told the interviewee ‘What planet are you living on?’ This was a wholly unbiased suggestion, revealing his disdain not only for Brexit but for Conservative Brexit plans.
Evan Davis interview with conservative MP David Jones, including which he exclaimed to th MP ‘what planet are you on’ Clearly showing his own views – he should resign!
BBC news website, main news article headlined: ‘British Attitudes Survey: More Britons ‘back higher taxes’ also in the subheading ‘peeople are also becoming more sceptical of the EU, and more socially liberal’. When you click to read the article the Brexit related info is buried towards the end, with a shocking statistic that ‘76% of people said the UK should leave the EU’. The BBC has been running relentless pro EU and Anti Brexit articles on its website for a sustained period of time, one would have thought that a statistic of ‘76% of people said the UK should leave the EU’ would have been the main headline – in the interests of balanced reporting, but as usual the BBC website editors like to use subtle techniques to bury pro Brexit news and promote pro remain views.
BBC Newsnight ran a report which appeared to ‘blame’ the brexit vote in part on a right wing-funded mass hypnotism plot.
This was on the BBC website and the intention seems to be to link Brexit with American right wing extremism in the mind of anyone who sees the headline. Ironically the broadcast was about how Cambridge Analytics allegedly used “psycho-graphics” to help Leave and Trump. The evidence for this is weak yet most people with little time will just remember the strapline. The BBC are themselves using psychographical techniques to link Brexit with extremism, subterfuge and charges that the referendum result might be invalid. No counter argument that the alt-left attempt to hijack the campaign for remain would EVER be made by the BBC. No argument has ever been aired that the remain voters did not know what they are voting for or that the EU (and not the UK) are playing politics with people’s lives over the residency negotiations. The whole thing is such a blatant disgrace it is beyond the pale.
Showing alleged German people here who feel second class citizens despite being told they can stay here.Plus Brits who live in Germany who claim not to like the brexit back home. Its constant anti Brexit tone every night on BBC
As always the ‘speakers’ were in the majority for the ‘remain’ argument and Dimbleby increasingly struggles to restrain his neo-liberal stance. The audience is dominated by left wing ‘boo-boys’ and the lack of people like Freddie Forsythe, Dr David Starkey, Norman Littlejohn Nigel Farage etc, is lamentable. Metropolitan, cloistered £150k + leftiy BBC apparatchiks who just use this platform as a Remainer propaganda conduit. God BBC take a look at yourselves!
It was like watching a party political broadcast from the ‘Stay in the EU party’ all hypothetical hystery and no facts or balance. Nigel Farage appeared for two 20 second comments and the rest was doom and gloom and dispear. The finale where the two reporters pleading with viewers to see sense as the credits rolled really reminded me of a party political broadcast. I think this level of bias shows how enboldened the BBC has become especially since the election. I believe there is a procedure where if a petition is started and it receives so many signatures parliament has to debate the matter. Maybe such a partition should be started to protect us from this propoganda machine?
Heavily biased towards negative implications of brexit with little to no coverage of any benefits. Mostly focuses around the south east.
The BBC seem to be distorting the offers made by the governent to EU nationals and creating their own news, where none existed before. This a general theme regarding many reports. I feel the BBC is demonstrating significant bias and should stick to reporting the news
Business sector – prospects appear good DESPITE BREXIT
As usual the BBC presenter takes a highly aggressive and rude stance, so obviously biased against Brexit and the government . Instead of polite questions the BBC now seems to revel in presenters speaking over the guests, interrupting them with rude and repetitive questions, personalised biased leading questions or rather statements, that show so clearly they are not impartial and time something was done . In last night’s program Andrea Ledson did well to keep calm and was not even allowed to ask the presenter why the broadcasters were not patriotic, which many feel they are not. The BBC appears to be impervious to any criticism and beyond the law. Its time for a change!
BBC now interrogate rather than interview, as shown in the Emily Maitlis interview with Andrea Leadsom this morning. They seem to have a clear agenda to undermine and belittle all Brexit discussions. Surely at this critical point for the country, they should be presenting solid support, to create a positive united country, to the rest of the EU, during the Brexit negotiations. Why also do BBC presents insist on talking over their invited guests. This is very disrespectful and forces their guests to have to do the same for their voices to be heard. Disgraceful BBC.
One year on: how many Brexit claims came true? This article features prominently in BBC News online alongside a picture of a Leave campaign bus featuring the slogan ‘We send the EU £350 million a week Let’s fund our NHS instead’ The article discredits this slogan and other statements made by the leave campaign. It only briefly examines the remain campaign’s forecast of economic doom but quickly backtracks saying the economy could well crash at a later date. We are subsequently provided with a large graph of the pound falling in value against the dollar but no mention of a soaring stock market or increased exports. Instead, the steady stream of ‘Remain’ sentiment continues.
BBC quote themselves on article on: Chagos legal status sent to international court by UN They said:- “Most EU countries abstained from the vote, which BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale described as an “embarrassing diplomatic defeat” for the UK. He said it signalled that Britain’s diplomatic clout had waned after the vote for Brexit.”
Programme had an EU resident who was anti Brexit discussing protection for EU residents in Uk. Apart from being anti-May she was unable to string a sentence together or put forward a comprehensive argument/case It would appear as if they simply looked for somebody who was anti Brexit rather than someone who has genuine concerns.
All BBC news has omitted to report the latest immigration figures which show the highest number of immigrants to the UK ever. Surely this is news worthy of reporting unless you have an agenda which it doesn’t support?