BBC admits to left bias

[back2basics]

Evidence?

Actually the burden of evidence is with you, and your extrodinary conspiratorial claims of bias. But as the link you responded to shows the Daily Mail article was just very inacurate.

Who shouted conspiracy? Specifically please. Provide a link.

Your post just above mine.

and maybe they are in fact biased and they did admit it? Possibly? There has been no denial of what was quoted.

Erm I think there actually was a denial, you even quoted from it! But i guess so much time passed you forgot?

Honestly shouldn't this be in the Conspiracy theory forum?

 

[back2basics]

Nick Cohen, the famous arch conservative commented on it some time before the Mail. As it is, the mail (typicaly) screwed up a perfectly reasonable story.

So a conservative pundit also saw the video. DaChew will be acusing him of bias next. I can see it now...

Not a secret meeting? Great! Where and when will the transcripts published. It was web cast? Great! Where and when will the replays be posted?

Her links don't work. My link still takes you right to the story but hers don't. Interesting.

And this other guy conservative whats his name, he doesn't link to the video either and has no web links, no transcript.... in-ter-esting... clear bias.

 

[RyanRoberts]

So a conservative pundit also saw the video. DaChew will be acusing him of bias next. I can see it now...

I should have used a sarc tag, Cohen is a socialist Guardian columnist.

 

[back2basics]

I should have used a sarc tag, Cohen is a socialist Guardian columnist.

Well in that case everything he wrote should be taken through the prism of his clear socialist agenda (apart form the fact he saw the webcast). He is clearly with the terrorist and trying to kill Christmas

 

[DaChew]

Actually the burden of evidence is with you, and your extrodinary conspiratorial claims of bias. But as the link you responded to shows the Daily Mail article was just very inacurate.[/quote}

And I have provided that evidence along with pointing out that the BBC response did not address the substance of what the Daily Mail reported.

Your post just above mine.

I absolutely did not claim any sort of conspiracy on anyone's part. That is a lie. If anything, I am taking the response of the BBC at it's word. I am assuming that the meeting was not secret (because a blogger at the BBC says so) and looking forward to when they publish the proceedings.

Erm I think there actually was a denial, you even quoted from it! But i guess so much time passed you forgot?

Please point out exactly which quote I posted the BBC specifically denies and where the BBC denies that quote. Cut and paste the quote for me so that I'll be sure to see it.

 

[back2basics]

Actually the burden of evidence is with you, and your extrodinary conspiratorial claims of bias. But as the link you responded to shows the Daily Mail article was just very inacurate.[/quote}

And I have provided that evidence along with pointing out that the BBC response did not address the substance of what the Daily Mail reported.



I absolutely did not claim any sort of conspiracy on anyone's part. That is a lie. If anything, I am taking the response of the BBC at it's word. I am assuming that the meeting was not secret (because a blogger at the BBC says so) and looking forward to when they publish the proceedings.



Please point out exactly which quote I posted the BBC specifically denies and where the BBC denies that quote. Cut and paste the quote for me so that I'll be sure to see it.

Why not just go and read your own post again?

Here is a hint; all the references to "non-secret meeting", "transcripts", "Interesting" the implications were clear that you thought they were lying and would until you saw transcipts. Thats pretty conspiratorial to me.

 

[Darat]

And I have provided that evidence along with pointing out that the BBC response did not address the substance of what the Daily Mail reported.

It was a blog of one person (albeit a BBC blog) I came across and no what you have pointed out is that she didn't respond to all the points in the article - that is not quite the same.

...snip...

I am assuming that the meeting was not secret (because a blogger at the BBC says so) and looking forward to when they publish the proceedings.

...snip...

Why does "not a secret meeting" mean that transcripts should be available to the public?

 

[brodski]

and looking forward to when they publish the proceedings.

So put in an FOI request.

 

[DaChew]

Thats pretty conspiratorial to me.

And so you went ahead and built yourself a strawman. Interesting.

 

[DaChew]

It was a blog of one person (albeit a BBC blog) I came across and no what you have pointed out is that she didn't respond to all the points in the article - that is not quite the same.

I didn't say she didn't respond to all the points in the article. I said she didn't respond to the substance of the report by the Daily Mail. In my view the substance of the report are the quotes. If the quotes are false, If nobody said what the Mail claims they said, then it would be easy to verify that with transcripts. The BBC has yet to suggest the quotes were not made. All they've said is that the meeting was not secret. Fine, I take them at their word - show me.

Why does "not a secret meeting" mean that transcripts should be available to the public?

Why would the web cast not be made public? BBC employees are government employees. Should their discussions enjoy secret or top secret status? Why wouldn't their discussions be a matter of public record? Is it likely that there is no recording of the web cast? Could the BBC completely negate every claim the Mail makes by publishing the exact transcripts - of course they could. What's the point of even having the argument when you have absolute proof available to you. Unless the Mail was correct in the portrayal.

 

[DaChew]

So put in an FOI request.

Why would I need to do that? The meeting wasn't secret the blogger said so. Since the BBC is a government entity, all of the discussions will be a matter of public record right?

 

[back2basics]

And so you went ahead and built yourself a strawman. Interesting.

Your use of "interesting" to suggest something suspect is also interesting.

So your evidence the BBC is biased?

 

[back2basics]

Why would I need to do that? The meeting wasn't secret the blogger said so. Since the BBC is a government entity, all of the discussions will be a matter of public record right?

It's not a government entity. If it were wouldn't it actually be parroting talking points from America? As Blair does? You are American, yes?

 

[DaChew]

Your use of "interesting" to suggest something suspect is also interesting.

and another strawman. Very interesting.

So your evidence the BBC is biased?

was laid out in the original Mail column. And I did not claim the BBC is biased. The Mail claimed that the BBC admitted they were biased. Please do try and pay attention.

 

[brodski]

Why would I need to do that? The meeting wasn't secret the blogger said so. Since the BBC is a government entity, all of the discussions will be a matter of public record right?

What public record? Is there a website for this public record, a building I can go to and find what I want (without asking)?
If you want this information, you are going to have to ask for it, that doesn't make it secret. It becomes secret if they refuse to give it to you.
If it were secret then an FOI request wouldn't get it for you.

 

[back2basics]

and another strawman. Very interesting.

was laid out in the original Mail column. And I did not claim the BBC is biased. The Mail claimed that the BBC admitted they were biased. Please do try and pay attention.

Ok so let’s try this another way, where is the Mails proof that was said?

Look DaChew a quick view of you past threads shows you to be hyper-partisan. I don't get in to discussions with people like you on message boards, they are always unproductive.

You think the BBC is a government entity and its employee’s government workers, so you clearly know little about the BBC, but you hold strong opinion about it. You don't know much about the Mail judging by the way you believe their article without it backing it up with any evidence. Bias is impossible to prove or disprove, especially for an entity like the BBC that has hundred of producers working directly for it and produces thousands of hours of television. Some of its programming may have bias one way; some may have bias the other way. You (and the Mail) haven’t even laid out ground rules, are we just talking about BBC News (the web site), the World Service, the BBC as a whole? A particular News show on BBC (News night? News at 10?). I mean this is all pointless and you are being conspiratorial without offering a single piece of evidence apart from the mail article which also does not offer any evidence. It's hear say. Interesting.

 

[DaChew]

a building I can go to and find what I want (without asking)?

Yes, here in the U.S., at the federal level, it's called the Congressional record which contains the proceedings of the Congress which, I believe, is made part of the Library of Congress which is not one building but three. Here's the website for the Congressional record:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/legislative.html

Enjoy!

 

[brodski]

Yes, here in the U.S., at the federal level, it's called the Congressional record which contains the proceedings of the Congress which, I believe, is made part of the Library of Congress which is not one building but three. Here's the website for the Congressional record:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/legislative.html

Enjoy!

So I take it that any information which I can't find there, including minuets of departmental meetings or other activities of the machinery of government is "secret"?

Either way, that's not the way things are organized in the UK.

 

[DaChew]

Ok so let’s try this another way, where is the Mails proof that was said?

They published quotes. Quotes which stand on their own. The people quoted either said what the Mail says they said, or they didn't. Have any of them denied they said what the Mail says they said? Why not?

Look DaChew a quick view of you past threads shows you to be hyper-partisan.

As opposed to just regular partisan? Empty rhetoric. And what is the point of labeling me?

I don't get in to discussions with people like you on message boards, they are always unproductive.

And yet, you persist. And what is the point of telling me that?

You think the BBC is a government entity and its employee’s government workers, so you clearly know little about the BBC,

They receive license fees right? From the government? Ultimately from citizens? Are those fees optional? What happens if a citizen refuses to pay their license fee?

but you hold strong opinion about it. You don't know much about the Mail judging by the way you believe their article without it backing it up with any evidence.

The evidence is the quotes - they are falsifyable - with transcripts.

Bias is impossible to prove or disprove,

The BBC could prove that the quotes in the Mail were not made by the people the Mail claims made them - with transcripts.

I mean this is all pointless and you are being conspiratorial without offering a single piece of evidence apart from the mail article which also does not offer any evidence.

Now you're accusing me of being conspiratorial? Now who belongs in the Conspiracy Forum?

 

[DaChew]

So I take it that any information which I can't find there, including minuets of departmental meetings or other activities of the machinery of government is "secret"?

No, you might just be a lousy researcher if you can't find it. How would I know? Point is - this was not mearly a departmental meeting with a few guys in a conference room. It was a supposedly open governmental forum which, yes, should have been recorded.

Either way, that's not the way things are organized in the UK.

Fair enough. Maybe they should be considering the BBC uses public funds and maybe they are - I don't really know. And I bet the conference was recorded. Any takers?