Dominic Cummings

[robbieh]

It's a myth that the BBC is impartial. Perhaps it used to be sometime in the past but for as long as I can remember it's had its biases, lack of objectivity and sometimes even agendas.

None of that would matter were it not for the fact that they are supposed to be objective and impartial, and therefore a lot of people believe that they are and take what the BBC say as being gospel. So when in fact they are behaving like a lobby group, this is extremely dangerous.

Perhaps the most stark exsmple is its actual policy decision to not report on any climate-skeptic science or anything which might suggest that climate change may not be so extreme. A completely disgraceful position for a notionally objective news reporting organisation to assume. So on this topic it consistently peddles a biased, often uninformed and sometimes just downright wrong point of view, dressed up as objective and undeniable fact. It's bloody disgraceful.

So am I correct in thinking that after being a Remainer and then finally albeit reluctantly you switched.
Now after castigating Cummings for his reckless behaviour you have decided to castigate a journalist for agreeing with you.

 

[Chris in London]

And finishing like Dancing Brave down the centre of the track is Alistair Campbell.

Dominic Cummings says he acted in the best interests of his son.

Alistair Campbell was at an event at The Serpentine with god knows how many others .
Blatant breach of rules.

Can we arrange a baying mob to castigate the man ?
All meet at Turf Moor say 8pm ish.
Pitchforks and flaming torches at the ready everybody ?

isn’t this really a post for the Alistair Campbell thread?

 

[journolud]

isn’t this really a post for the Alistair Campbell thread?

It's for the desperate deflection thread. I note the poster hasn't referenced Campbell's swift apology and quote that if he still held a public position he would resign. For what it's worth as well seems he was legitimately taking exercise and bumped into someone, don't think he drove 250 miles to get there.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It's a myth that the BBC is impartial. Perhaps it used to be sometime in the past but for as long as I can remember it's had its biases, lack of objectivity and sometimes even agendas.

None of that would matter were it not for the fact that they are supposed to be objective and impartial, and therefore a lot of people believe that they are and take what the BBC say as being gospel. So when in fact they are behaving like a lobby group, this is extremely dangerous.

Perhaps the most stark exsmple is its actual policy decision to not report on any climate-skeptic science or anything which might suggest that climate change may not be so extreme. A completely disgraceful position for a notionally objective news reporting organisation to assume. So on this topic it consistently peddles a biased, often uninformed and sometimes just downright wrong point of view, dressed up as objective and undeniable fact. It's bloody disgraceful.

It's getting a bit off topic (and I know you'd of course not want to deflect us from discussing Cummings) but it's interesting at what point the BBC is no longer obliged to show "all sides" of an argument. For years on the climate debate, they would have sceptical voices, presented in a way that completely misrepresented the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion, by showing both sides as equally likely. At what point in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence are we okay to say that a particular argument is no longer credible and therefore it is not unbiased to omit it? Should be BBC still be obliged to follow up any story about the dangers of smoking with some tobacco lobbyist casting doubt on the facts? I'm sure in the 60s that happened regularly. Or should every story about the royal family be required to invite David Icke on to talk about how they're all lizards? The reality is that those with fringe views are always going to cry bias when their views aren't represented in mainstream media.

Obviously the BBC is a huge organisation and the idea that is has one position on anything is a bit difficult to argue, but I'd argue that if there was one clear overall bias in their news coverage, it would be generally pro-establishment (look at how their coverage of people changes when they officially become royal, for example) and to some extent, pro the government in power at the time, purely on the grounds that the government are the ones that determine their future funding. The BBC also regularly invites corporately-funded "think tank" representatives on, without disclosing their funding or whose views they are actually presenting. Obviously it's impossible to be impartial at all times or represent the entire spectrum of opinion, it's an ideal that they attempt to meet and will inevitably get wrong on occasion.

The other thing people often mix up is their policy as an employer and their policy in terms of what they actually broadcast. So lots of people will use a policy like equal male and female presenters, or diversity quotas, as evidence that they're a liberal, lefty organisation, which of course doesn't necessarily have any impact on the editorial line.

 

[Chippy_boy]

So am I correct in thinking that after being a Remainer and then finally albeit reluctantly you switched.
Now after castigating Cummings for his reckless behaviour you have decided to castigate a journalist for agreeing with you.

Nope. No idea what "a journalist" said, nor even who said it. You mean Maitliss I'm assuming but not really sure as I haven't been following it. So castigating them or not doesn't come into it.

 

[Bogroll Streamer.]

It's for the desperate deflection thread. I note the poster hasn't referenced Campbell's swift apology and quote that if he still held a public position he would resign. For what it's worth as well seems he was legitimately taking exercise and bumped into someone, don't think he drove 250 miles to get there.

He only apologised because he was caught putting it on Twitter.
He quickly tried to delete it but it was picked up by Guido Fawkes.
Apparently his father was/is Donald Campbell.
You would've thought Alistair would have learnt he has to be quicker than the rest.

Campbell is currently editor or 2 publications.
One is some sort of mens mag.
The other is a pro European pamphlet I've heard of but never read.
He should be sacked from both or resign his position. Remember how one of the big Labour mantras under his guidance was equality.
Oh how the country misses him.
We are rudderless Alistair.
Help us .

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

So it now transpires that Cummings owns 50% of the farm he stayed at in Durham and that his company (Klute Limited number 07472305) is registered to that address.

The very same farm (co owned by Cummings , his parents and one other) have been claiming 20,000 euros per year in Eu farming subsidies .

So essentially he was travelling to his second home , (another point he failed to mention) in clear contravention of the law.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's getting a bit off topic (and I know you'd of course not want to deflect us from discussing Cummings) but it's interesting at what point the BBC is no longer obliged to show "all sides" of an argument. For years on the climate debate, they would have sceptical voices, presented in a way that completely misrepresented the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion, by showing both sides as equally likely. At what point in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence are we okay to say that a particular argument is no longer credible and therefore it is not unbiased to omit it? Should be BBC still be obliged to follow up any story about the dangers of smoking with some tobacco lobbyist casting doubt on the facts? I'm sure in the 60s that happened regularly. Or should every story about the royal family be required to invite David Icke on to talk about how they're all lizards? The reality is that those with fringe views are always going to cry bias when their views aren't represented in mainstream media.

Obviously the BBC is a huge organisation and the idea that is has one position on anything is a bit difficult to argue, but I'd argue that if there was one clear overall bias in their news coverage, it would be generally pro-establishment (look at how their coverage of people changes when they officially become royal, for example) and to some extent, pro the government in power at the time, purely on the grounds that the government are the ones that determine their future funding. The BBC also regularly invites corporately-funded "think tank" representatives on, without disclosing their funding or whose views they are actually presenting. Obviously it's impossible to be impartial at all times or represent the entire spectrum of opinion, it's an ideal that they attempt to meet and will inevitably get wrong on occasion.

The other thing people often mix up is their policy as an employer and their policy in terms of what they actually broadcast. So lots of people will use a policy like equal male and female presenters, or diversity quotas, as evidence that they're a liberal, lefty organisation, which of course doesn't necessarily have any impact on the editorial line.

Fair points but there is a stark difference between giving an appropriate amount of coverage to differ sides of arguments, as opposed to a policy decision to not cover one side at all, irrespective. It's not their job to decide what points of view are valid or not. It's their job to reflect what points of view exist in appropriate proportion.

As a simple example about the forest fires in Brazil, did you know that the amount of land burned by fire is steadily declining year on year? Or that the loss of Amazonian rainforests is not particularly high by historical standards? Or that the Amazon is not "the lungs of the planet" and does not output vast amounts of oxygen? I doubt it, because the BBC censors such facts, preferring instead to peddle propaganda in support of its climate change agenda.

 

[robbieh]

Nope. No idea what "a journalist" said, nor even who said it. You mean Maitliss I'm assuming but not really sure as I haven't been following it. So castigating them or not doesn't come into it.

Apologies if wrong but thoughtythought anti BBC rant might have been brought on by her supposed bias.

 

[journolud]

He only apologised because he was caught putting it on Twitter.
He quickly tried to delete it but it was picked up by Guido Fawkes.
Apparently his father was/is Donald Campbell.
You would've thought Alistair would have learnt he has to be quicker than the rest.

Campbell is currently editor or 2 publications.
One is some sort of mens mag.
The other is a pro European pamphlet I've heard of but never read.
He should be sacked from both or resign his position. Remember how one of the big Labour mantras under his guidance was equality.
Oh how the country misses him.
We are rudderless Alistair.
Help us .

His father was called Donald but he wasn't the Donald who died trying to go too fast. He was a vet and was probably well able to recognise horse shit, like everything you post, when he saw it.