Split Thread BBC news reporting

[smartcooky]

He cited Sky News to source a claim that the BBC has a left bias.

The cite QUOTES the actual person concerned, so your perceived view of Sky News bias is both moot and irrelevant - but if course, you know that because you POINTEDLY pretended there weren't three quotes from your beloved lefty gutter rag... the Guardian!

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The cite QUOTES the actual person concerned, so your perceived view of Sky News bias is both moot and irrelevant - but if course, you know that because you POINTEDLY pretended there weren't three quotes from your beloved lefty gutter rag... the Guardian!

The Grauniad is somewhat lefty, but it certainly isn't a gutter rag. It's a high quality paper.

 

[smartcooky]

I think smartcooky might have meant the SNP rather than the SDP

Correct

 

[angrysoba]

That's... not how defamation works. "Fake but accurate" isn't a defense.

The words weren’t fake.

 

[Andy_Ross]

BBC apologises to Trump over Panorama edit but refuses to pay compensation

BBC apologises to Trump over Panorama edit but refuses to pay compensation

Lawyers for the US president have threatened to sue the corporation for $1bn (£759m).

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[junkshop]

Correct

Then I retract the SDP specific parts of my post.

 

[junkshop]

Art of Law (a Barrister in the English and Welsh legal system) has posted a video discussing this case, particularly the potential jurisdictional issues:

Main points: he couldn't sue in England and Wales because it was published too long ago, so he's suing in Florida (the cutoff there is two years, rather than E&W's one year). However the BBC didn't publish the programme in Florida, and Floridian courts have no jurisdiction over things published elsewhere.

Theoretically.

 

[Ziggurat]

The words weren’t fake.

The splice was. When quoting someone in writing and omitting part of what they say, you're supposed to put in an ellipsis. They didn't do anything equivalent to indicate anything had been removed.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The Grauniad is somewhat lefty, but it certainly isn't a gutter rag. It's a high quality paper.

See the bias and accuracy ratings I posted yesterday, the Guardian's left wing bias is far less than the right wing bias of the Telegraph, Sun or Mail, not to mention being far more accurate in it's reporting.

 

[smartcooky]

See the bias and accuracy ratings I posted yesterday, the Guardian's left wing bias is far less than the right wing bias of the Telegraph, Sun or Mail, not to mention being far more accurate in it's reporting.

I disagree

Also, I'd like to point out that its really easy to be "accurate" when you completely suppress or don't report things at all. Take for example, the recent anti-Semitism incident at the University of Central London...

Academic accused of antisemitism over ‘blood libel’ lecture at UCL

archived 14 Nov 2025 09:13:00 UTC

archive.is

Of course the usual suspects will dismiss this out of hand because Telegraph something far right thugs something something racists something.

Here is the statement from the UCL President & Provost, Dr Michael Spence...

UCL statement in response to antisemitic event

We have today issued a robust statement following reports of antisemitic comments made during a student-organised event held on campus earlier this week.

www.ucl.ac.uk

“I am utterly appalled by these heinous antisemitic comments. Antisemitism has absolutely no place in our university, and I want to express my unequivocal apology to all Jewish students, staff, alumni, and the wider community that these words were uttered at UCL.​

​

“The individual responsible is a former fixed-term researcher at UCL, but not a current member of UCL staff. We have reported this incident to the police and have banned her from campus. We have launched a full investigation into how this happened and have banned the student group which hosted it from holding any further events on campus pending the outcome of this.​

​

“Regrettably, like many UK universities, we continue to confront incidents of antisemitism and are committing to banishing this from our campus. We have initiated disciplinary proceedings against a number of students in relation to antisemitism and reported incidents to the police where appropriate.​

​

“Freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamental to university life, but they can never be misused as a shield for hatred. UCL remains steadfast in our commitment to ensure our campus is a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment for everyone.”​

​

Reported in the Telegraph (15 hours ago at time of posting), The Times (12H), The Times if Israel (13H)

The Guardian? Crickets
The BBC? Crickets
The story won't have have comported with the their pro-Islam, pro-Palestine, anti-Israel chosen narratives. Its lying by omission!

As I said, its easy to claim accuracy and lack of bias in your reporting when you don't report things at all...

 

[junkshop]

There is no University of Central London.

 

[Mojo]

There is no University of Central London.

Split Thread Post in thread 'BBC news reporting'

Nov 10, 2025

The departed Director General is a Tory through and through.

Don't distract smartcooky with pesky facts.

• Mojo

• 

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no University of Central London.

Correct. It’s University College London. Do you think that really makes a difference to his point, though?

 

[Darat]

Which is what?

 

[theprestige]

There is no University of Central London.

Split Thread Post in thread 'BBC news reporting'

Nov 10, 2025

The departed Director General is a Tory through and through.

Don't distract smartcooky with pesky facts.

• Mojo

• 

It's not smartcooky that's getting distracted.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is what?

You really need help figuring it out? He was pretty explicit and straight forward about it.

As I said, its easy to claim accuracy and lack of bias in your reporting when you don't report things at all...

You can agree or disagree with him about this if you want. But the mistake of what UCL stands for makes zero difference either way.

 

[catsmate]

Correct. It’s University College London. Do you think that really makes a difference to his point, though?

If the "point" is poor and superficial research then yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the "point" is poor and superficial research then yes.

So... no. You don't have any actual substantive objections.

 

[smartcooky]

There is no University of Central London.

So a typo causes you to bury your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ head in the sand and pretend none of this happened? Really. That's your stupid answer?
University College of London. The other facts remain facts... pesky facts... in fact!

 

[smartcooky]

You really need help figuring it out? He was pretty explicit and straight forward about it.

You can agree or disagree with him about this if you want. But the mistake of what UCL stands for makes zero difference either way.

It's not smartcooky that's getting distracted.

No worries guys, its what I expect from hard lefties when they are confronted with incontrovertible facts. You make one typo in a name or get a time wrong by five minutes, they'll be all over you for that, using your micro-error as a distraction from the real issue, then then just like their news sources, they will pretend this thing that confronts their chosen worldview didn't happen... just like their news sources, if they won't debate it, they can't be wrong, and no-one can challenge their claims.

I know this forum was always a bit left-leaning in its membership - its one of the things that attracted me here in the first place, but I never thought I'd see the day when it would become so politically tribal - when people whom I respected (even if I sometimes disagreed with them) started using science denial, fact denial, character assassination, mudslinging and other techniques of conspiracy theorists in their claims and arguments.