Wednesday 27th September 2017

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:00 pm

Been posting this elsewhere so may as well drop a reminder here.

In all the discussion about @BBCLauraK it's well worth noting that when Labour complained about the Stephen Doughty "live resignation", the response from the BBC came from one Robbie Gibb.

Now whatever became of Mr Gibb?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:00 pm

The habit I referred to latterly has been commented on even by some who are not totally unsympathetic. It doesn't give a good impression to many, seriously.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:00 pm

Willow904 wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Do this sort of thing by the book.
I would agree with the 'by the book' approach if it was reciprocated - she is a manipulator of facts (BBC Trust found her guilty of that) and she showed no contrition, supported by her Tory-minister brother boss

Unfortunately fire has to be fought with a bit of fire occasionally....and she is in a stronger position having the BBC 'neutrality' where we all know the Canary has an openly admitted agenda

Are you saying she wasn't listed to speak? Whether she was ever going to take it up is another....why not highlight it?
The Canary have retracted their headline. It wasn't true. She was "invited" as Evolve Politics correctly reported, but wasn't "listed as a speaker" as the Canary alleged. It may be splitting hairs, but if they are incorrect with this, what else are they incorrect about? I stopped reading the Canary some time ago because there were too many inaccuracies of this nature. They don't appear a reliable news source.

Could you point me to where it retracts the comment that says she was 'listed' and 'invited' - they show a picture of the page where it has her on the list - so they could accurately say she was 'listed'.

The never said she was talking, just that if she did then it would be terrible etc

Now, they clearly embellished which is why you have to be careful using the Canary as the definite truth but when Kuennsberg manipulated her interview with Corbyn to misrepresent what he said I don't remember her apologising profusely for doing so - rather I seem to remind her Tory minister's brother boss defending her

She is paid a fortune out of licence fee payer's funds - the Canary isn't

She is a disgrace....

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:06 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Been posting this elsewhere so may as well drop a reminder here.

In all the discussion about @BBCLauraK it's well worth noting that when Labour complained about the Stephen Doughty "live resignation", the response from the BBC came from one Robbie Gibb.

Now whatever became of Mr Gibb?

Same as happened to Craig Oliver. I don't think anybody here disputes Tory capture of the top end of the BBC.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:08 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Been posting this elsewhere so may as well drop a reminder here.

In all the discussion about @BBCLauraK it's well worth noting that when Labour complained about the Stephen Doughty "live resignation", the response from the BBC came from one Robbie Gibb.

Now whatever became of Mr Gibb?
Same as happened to Craig Oliver. I don't think anybody here disputes Tory capture of the top end of the BBC.

I know, but that specific thing really riles me.

Dear Mr Milne

Many thanks for your email of the 8th January following the Daily Politics on the 6th January.

I would like to reassure you that we are committed to producing impartial journalism and programme content that treats all political parties fairly. I would like to respond to the specific concerns raised in your email.

Firstly, I reject your suggestion that we orchestrated and stage-managed the resignation of Stephen Doughty. As he himself confirmed on Friday, Mr Doughty had decided to resign his front-bench position on Wednesday morning, before speaking to any journalists. He subsequently spoke to Laura Kuenssberg who asked if he would explain his reasons in an interview on the Daily Politics later that morning. Neither the programme production team, nor Laura, played any part in his decision to resign.

As you know it is a long standing tradition that political programmes on the BBC, along with all other news outlets, seek to break stories. It is true that we seek to make maximum impact with our journalism which is entirely consistent with the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and values.

Your letter suggests that our decision to interview Mr Doughty in the run up to Prime Minister's Questions was designed to "promote a particular political narrative". This is simply not the case. The Daily Politics does not come on air until 11:30am on Wednesdays and the BBC's Political Editor always appears live on the programme in the build up to the start of PMQs. As the confirmation of Mr Doughty’s resignation was Laura Kuenssberg's story, we felt it appropriate for her to introduce the item. Again I do not accept, in anyway, the programme has breached its duty of impartiality and independence.

The programme this week provided a balanced account of the shadow cabinet reshuffle. Lisa Nandy was interviewed at length on Wednesday while Cat Smith discussed the issue in detail the day before.

You also made reference in your email to the deleted blog. It might be helpful for me to explain the background to this. Following the media reaction to Mr Doughty's resignation and appearance on the programme the BBC's training department, the BBC Academy, contacted me asking for an article explaining what goes on behind the scenes when a politician resigns live on air. I had assumed (wrongly) that the article was for internal purposes only. When it became apparent that it had been published more widely, we decided to delete it as the piece was written in a tone that was only suitable for an internal audience. No other inference should be drawn from our decision to delete the blog.

I would just like to finish by underlining our commitment to ensuring our coverage of the Labour Party is fair, accurate and impartial.

I hope we can look forward to working constructively together over the coming months.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:09 pm

I'm with you there.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:10 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Been posting this elsewhere so may as well drop a reminder here.

In all the discussion about @BBCLauraK it's well worth noting that when Labour complained about the Stephen Doughty "live resignation", the response from the BBC came from one Robbie Gibb.

Now whatever became of Mr Gibb?
Same as happened to Craig Oliver. I don't think anybody here disputes Tory capture of the top end of the BBC.

I have complained dozens of times and nothing has ever been received apart from the occasional standard email......

She, and others, are untouchable......

So the Canary took something, exaggerated and embellished it but I am not sure I have seen any evidence they lied

She was on a list and she was invited.......

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:44 pm

PF YOU'VE DROPPED YOUR FAG ON YOUR DRESSING GOWN YOU'VE SET IT ALIGHT

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:46 pm

"The Canary article has been updated"

As I say Evolve Politics covered the story with a headline that clearly showed she was "invited". The Canary didn't. It was either deliberately misleading or sloppy. I want factual reporting not innuendo. If Laura Kuenssberg is so bad there should be plenty of factual things to convey without the need to skew things.

: Capture7.gif (71.8 KiB) Viewed 11072 times

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:50 pm

Willow904 wrote:"The Canary article has been updated"

As I say Evolve Politics covered the story with a headline that clearly showed she was "invited". The Canary didn't. It was either deliberately misleading or sloppy. I want factual reporting not innuendo. If Laura Kuenssberg is so bad there should be plenty of factual things to convey without the need to skew things.

Capture7.gif

sorry, I do not get your point - she was listed - if 'listed' means being on a list of speakers. She was also invited

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/09/27/the-ku ... s-1-stone/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The picture is on here too and also another picture of the page where she is again down as a speaker

I really fail to see why you are so critical of the Canary - why is the news editor being on these lists not newsworthy?

Why so defensive of her?

Whether she intended to speak or not is a different matter but they did not claim that did they? Or did they?

Oh and there are plenty of things she has done but the BBC ignore it and her bosses protect her so if they won't do anything then you have to look for other means to highlight her lack of objectivity

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:53 pm

Willow904's point is clear enough
Doesn't trust the Canary because their news isn't reliable

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:56 pm

citizenJA wrote:Willow904's point is clear enough
Doesn't trust the Canary because their news isn't reliable

Neither is the BBC's when it has been through Kuennsberg's translation

Can you point out why say she was 'listed as a speaker' is wrong?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:10 pm

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:28 pm

Night.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:32 pm

More from the 2010's

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 69601.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Donald Trump's Justice Department launches bid to make being gay a sackable offence

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:33 pm

At least the 80s had Sylvester.
[youtube]s5iqfk4CPQ8[/youtube]

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:42 pm

Well before my time.

Sufferin succotash

Post by **adam** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:47 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:At least the 80s had Sylvester.
[youtube]s5iqfk4CPQ8[/youtube]

70s!!!!

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:51 pm

true. but I saw him in the 80s.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:51 pm

Third attempt,trying to be reasonably sensible is an arduous task.

@HSOM I think you are conflating two things.Being sceptical of source(which I think is rather healthy) doesn't point to a general view of a person that happened to be the subject.I did elaborate but my right hand fell off and didn't want to risk my left.Told it was hard.

Post by **adam** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:55 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:true. but I saw him in the 80s.

Perfectly good point. The first music magazine I ever bought was called 'Disco 45' and was a lyrics mag, and featured that song. Me aged 10 could therefore wander around the playground at primary school belting it out.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:00 pm

Excellent.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:08 pm

Is it called an earworm or something when a song goes around endlessly in your head?

Bloody tc2

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:09 pm

I honestly tried not to laugh

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:11 pm

Ben‏ @mrbenjiweb 8 Nov 2016
More
That man on @SkyNews who said 'I voted Trump as he doesn't lie' is the reason shampoo comes with a 'not for internal consumption' sticker.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:11 pm

HindleA wrote:Third attempt,trying to be reasonably sensible is an arduous task.

@HSOM I think you are conflating two things.Being sceptical of source(which I think is rather healthy) doesn't point to a general view of a person that happened to be the subject.I did elaborate but my right hand fell off and didn't want to risk my left.Told it was hard.

Hi MrA

Yes, I get that and I know that the Canary sometimes oversteps the mark but I fail to see why there is so much criticism over this article as no-one has pointed out why it is so far from what the truth

Every source should be treated skeptically as you said but......

She was listed and invited
Canary publicised this (with a bit of journalistic bombast)
Listing was withdrawn

I really fail to see what the problem is on this specific story

I feel no there is need for anyone to defend Kuennsberg or give her any benefit of the doubt as her history in truthful reporting is appalling and hidden behind the veil of respectability of the BBC

Have I missed something? Can someone explain to me why writing 'listed' in the title was so bad?

I probably would have ignored it in general but there is a real aim in the msm to defend this appalling journalist and some rather shrill shouts of misogyny every time she is criticised so I don't want to see the Canary being criticised for something I see as being okay when she, for once, is at the receiving end

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:11 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
Ben‏ @mrbenjiweb 8 Nov 2016
More
That man on @SkyNews who said 'I voted Trump as he doesn't lie' is the reason shampoo comes with a 'not for internal consumption' sticker.

I consume it internally - I have never seen this sticker....who do I sue?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:38 pm

@HSOM

My views are more general and questioning of tactics and I don't like the style or attempts at manipulation even if it is broadly to my view.The snarled teeth,as referenced by Tubby etc,and bombastic as you say,presentation.I am sorry it just looks like the worst tactics of those bemoaned to me.I acknowledge the high degree of hypocrisy involved in the criticism.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:39 pm

Night night.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:43 pm

Evening all.

Those trade deals...well, they're going to be so easy, right?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:44 pm

Night

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:50 pm

@HSOM

I recommend L'Oreal Elvive Colour Protector,if you haven't already.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:53 pm

Still got the deep cherry hair colourant Maybe,one day.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:55 pm

I could use a testing area,but that might be a bit too close for comfort.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:16 pm

Contrary to impression given I analyse too much.Now in the process of thinking as to why.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:24 pm

I don't question that.Point is surely,they should have checked,particularly given what you describe.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:29 pm

Is it a unique occurence,never happened before?.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:54 pm

You can critical on two things at once.It doesn't lessen on "one",because of that.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 12:04 am

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -democrats" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trump says he is willing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform

PTO ?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 12:36 am

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... k-robinson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alternative news sites waging guerrilla war on BBC, says Nick Robinson

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 1:03 am

gilsey,go to bed.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 1:10 am

PF put your bloody fag out.tc2 good luck to the clangers on their parole decision.cja you can stop thanking now.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 28 Sep, 2017 5:47 am

I have yet to see a reasonable explanation why the Canary were particularly wrong on the specific story - I know people are skeptical of this site in general but the original post and comments were around how bad they had been on this story and I just can't see it

These attempts to equate the relative impact of the Canary and the BBC by people such as Robinson are laughable - and there is no real understanding why people such as I hold the BBC news organisation in such contempt

Be skeptical and critical of the Canary - it is not something i read often because of the bombast - but the real problem with the media isn't the Canary. It is the large news organisations being all pro-right wing establishment and the propensity of Facebook and others to be manipulated with lies as well (the Tories have also been good at using this, especially in 2015)