By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:02 - Feb 8 by C_HealyIsAPleasure
This times infinity, and it’s all so f**king tedious for the other 98% of the board too
.....make 2% of the posts.
2% make 98% of them.
I made a point on yet another one of these threads about how it's never a surprise the way people react on here and got told to "feck right off because I add nothing to the board".
It's just the same old people having the same old dull arguments.
Lambert out.
"The sooner he comes back the better, this place has been a disaster without him" - TWTD User (July 2025)
5
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:21 - Feb 8 with 1159 views
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:15 - Feb 8 by Lord_Lucan
This is of course completely true and I mentioned this some years back but people just put their fingers in their ears. It was an attack on British Imperialism and Tony Blair "big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird"
I also pointed out the letterbox thing which was actually a defence of female women Muslims - "If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree"
If someone has more time perhaps they can find the original full articles.
I just had a look but all you can seem to find is snippets taken out of context - however if people actually thinks Boris Johnson actually goers around calling people Picanninies then they have either never read the article, do not have the brain power to understand it or simply don't want to - or a mix of the three.
Edit; if people think Andrew Neil is right wing then they haven't seen him destroy right wing guests over the years.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 08:26 - Feb 8 by Manchesterblue
Then keep watching your left wing, woke BBC, no-one is forcing you to watch it. I bet you take the knee too.
The BBC isn't specifically left wing (in fact independent studies have found it slightly left of centre), it just seems that way when you're observing from far to the right.
It's a bit like this:
All this ignores the most important thing though, which is that any report or source should be judged on the specific content of that article rather than a perceived overarching bias.
SB
[Post edited 8 Feb 2021 9:23]
0
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:24 - Feb 8 with 1125 views
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:22 - Feb 8 by StokieBlue
The BBC isn't specifically left wing (in fact independent studies have found it slightly left of centre), it just seems that way when you're observing from far to the right.
It's a bit like this:
All this ignores the most important thing though, which is that any report or source should be judged on the specific content of that article rather than a perceived overarching bias.
SB
[Post edited 8 Feb 2021 9:23]
How old are those studies? These days it feels like a PR arm of the Tories. They barely touched the dodgy PPE contracts going to mates without tender.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:24 - Feb 8 by monytowbray
How old are those studies? These days it feels like a PR arm of the Tories. They barely touched the dodgy PPE contracts going to mates without tender.
I'd have to check but if your point is correct then it further backs up my point that it depends on the viewing point of the individual and he would need to be even further to the right to come to his conclusions.
SB
0
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:31 - Feb 8 with 1082 views
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:26 - Feb 8 by StokieBlue
I'd have to check but if your point is correct then it further backs up my point that it depends on the viewing point of the individual and he would need to be even further to the right to come to his conclusions.
SB
Dunno man, for me “balance” isn’t about giving liars a platform unchallenged.
The media in general has really fcked it in that regard. Evidence says guilty, party says innocent, leave it at that and let viewer decide. Seems to be the general approach.
I’ve linked this a few times since it went live but this nails it for me...
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:31 - Feb 8 by monytowbray
Dunno man, for me “balance” isn’t about giving liars a platform unchallenged.
The media in general has really fcked it in that regard. Evidence says guilty, party says innocent, leave it at that and let viewer decide. Seems to be the general approach.
I’ve linked this a few times since it went live but this nails it for me...
You're so right about that....that kind of woolly 'on the one hand this, but on the other hand that, we cannot say, all opinions are valid' nonsense isn't good journalism or balance, it is moral cowardice.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 19:22 - Feb 7 by J2BLUE
Bit different though isn't it? This channel will be more right wing and could move the centre even further to the right. That's what people don't like. We don't need our own Fox News.
Indeed, If they really want to be taken seriously as an open, impartial news channel then for every JHB they should employ Owen Jones, for every Dan Wooton they should give a place to James O'Brien.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:31 - Feb 8 by monytowbray
Dunno man, for me “balance” isn’t about giving liars a platform unchallenged.
The media in general has really fcked it in that regard. Evidence says guilty, party says innocent, leave it at that and let viewer decide. Seems to be the general approach.
I’ve linked this a few times since it went live but this nails it for me...
Those on the left think the BBC is biased towards the right, and vice versa - it is neutral, and well sourced and generally well researched and generally fair.
But where they have, and continue to, make big mistakes is the conflation between being balanced, and giving minority views equal air time as though it is a debating soceity.
If 99% of the worlds scientists believe in climate change, you do not need to give the 1% the same air time as them as it gives their views legitimacy that they don't deserve, because people still (rightly) trust the BBC.
How they sort that is open to debate, but continuing to give fringe views too much air time in the name of balance has been used and abused by those with fringe views to deliberately push them.
There was an excellent podcast series, ironically by the BBC, called 'How they made us doubt everything' where the presenter admits to some of the failings having researched the link between smoking companies, climate change, etc and how they've pushed their agendas - and it includes getting them on these sorts of programmes even when they are minority viewpoints
As the world becomes more and more polarised, people get their news from sources they agree with, the BBC is a great antidote to that - and when you see the Govt going after the BBC and trying to cut it, and it's budgets, back it seems daft to suggest it is a Tory PR machine
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:31 - Feb 8 by monytowbray
Dunno man, for me “balance” isn’t about giving liars a platform unchallenged.
The media in general has really fcked it in that regard. Evidence says guilty, party says innocent, leave it at that and let viewer decide. Seems to be the general approach.
I’ve linked this a few times since it went live but this nails it for me...
I've not said anything about balance though. I've just said for him to think the BBC is left-wing woke he would need to be standing and observing very far from the right.
Of course lies shouldn't be published unchallenged, hence why I said every article from any outlet should be treated on merit and responded to accordingly rather than through the lens of perceived bias for that outlet. He views everything on the BBC as left-wing woke rather than addressing the contents of the article. This is wrong in my opinion.
SB
2
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:47 - Feb 8 with 997 views
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:38 - Feb 8 by itfcjoe
Those on the left think the BBC is biased towards the right, and vice versa - it is neutral, and well sourced and generally well researched and generally fair.
But where they have, and continue to, make big mistakes is the conflation between being balanced, and giving minority views equal air time as though it is a debating soceity.
If 99% of the worlds scientists believe in climate change, you do not need to give the 1% the same air time as them as it gives their views legitimacy that they don't deserve, because people still (rightly) trust the BBC.
How they sort that is open to debate, but continuing to give fringe views too much air time in the name of balance has been used and abused by those with fringe views to deliberately push them.
There was an excellent podcast series, ironically by the BBC, called 'How they made us doubt everything' where the presenter admits to some of the failings having researched the link between smoking companies, climate change, etc and how they've pushed their agendas - and it includes getting them on these sorts of programmes even when they are minority viewpoints
As the world becomes more and more polarised, people get their news from sources they agree with, the BBC is a great antidote to that - and when you see the Govt going after the BBC and trying to cut it, and it's budgets, back it seems daft to suggest it is a Tory PR machine
The Beeb have also fallen down in other areas as well. For example, the amount of airtime given to Farage and other UKIP politicians on Question Time was always hugely disproportionate for a party with no elected MPs and was even disproportionate taking into account their relative success in European elections. Here is one of the articles on it: https://www.thenational.scot/news/17738177.bbc-question-time-fire-bias-towards-b
I think the BBC generally is excellent but over the past 5 or 6 years they've started to buy into the populist feels not reals agenda of first the Brexiteers and then the current incarnation of the Tory Party. That's been quite damaging in a number of ways, and they have engaged in an awful lot of client journalism which is disappointing given what we expect from the BBC.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:24 - Feb 8 by monytowbray
How old are those studies? These days it feels like a PR arm of the Tories. They barely touched the dodgy PPE contracts going to mates without tender.
Tim Davie's certainly gone out of his way to appeal more to rightward leaning folk since he was appointed the new DG last year.
I'm not convinced we can talk about the BBC as a single entity when it comes to bias. It very much depends on the individuals involved in particular programmes. So you have the likes of O'Neil, balls deep in right wingism and facilitating all sorts of vile sorts in the Spectator. You have the right wing fixer in QT who's let all sorts of activists in and platformed the hell out of Farage. You've got Laura Kuenssberg, who swoons like a teenager after Boris. On the flip side you have Emily Maitlis who challenges this populist government and appears left leaning.
Then you also have those who will be seen as bias by both the left and the right, not because they are, but because they are weak interviewers and give their guests a platform to spout unchallenged nonsense (e.g. Marr).
You're right about their unwillingness to challenge. They're always nervous about courting controversy. They've been the same throughout much of brexit - giving unchallenged platforms to both sides, with very little critique. They've been largely absent in their reporting of the failures of Brexit; that's been left more to other networks. Ross Atkins is good at summarising what's going on, but he's a rare exception in the Beeb.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:40 - Feb 8 by StokieBlue
I've not said anything about balance though. I've just said for him to think the BBC is left-wing woke he would need to be standing and observing very far from the right.
Of course lies shouldn't be published unchallenged, hence why I said every article from any outlet should be treated on merit and responded to accordingly rather than through the lens of perceived bias for that outlet. He views everything on the BBC as left-wing woke rather than addressing the contents of the article. This is wrong in my opinion.
SB
The use of the word "woke" is all you need to know. Straight out of the Daily Express and from right wing agitators like JHB.
Quite right, the BBC should be viewed on actual content; there's such a variation across their platforms that once size criticism doesn't fit all. It's just lazy and clearly not informed.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:38 - Feb 8 by itfcjoe
Those on the left think the BBC is biased towards the right, and vice versa - it is neutral, and well sourced and generally well researched and generally fair.
But where they have, and continue to, make big mistakes is the conflation between being balanced, and giving minority views equal air time as though it is a debating soceity.
If 99% of the worlds scientists believe in climate change, you do not need to give the 1% the same air time as them as it gives their views legitimacy that they don't deserve, because people still (rightly) trust the BBC.
How they sort that is open to debate, but continuing to give fringe views too much air time in the name of balance has been used and abused by those with fringe views to deliberately push them.
There was an excellent podcast series, ironically by the BBC, called 'How they made us doubt everything' where the presenter admits to some of the failings having researched the link between smoking companies, climate change, etc and how they've pushed their agendas - and it includes getting them on these sorts of programmes even when they are minority viewpoints
As the world becomes more and more polarised, people get their news from sources they agree with, the BBC is a great antidote to that - and when you see the Govt going after the BBC and trying to cut it, and it's budgets, back it seems daft to suggest it is a Tory PR machine
The BBC News and Current Affairs is pretty ropy. Of course, you’ll find gems of reports and reporters on certain issues but, in the main, their coverage is poor for an organisation that a) can afford to be objective and not sensational or clickbaity and b) has that in its remit to provide a trustworthy public service.
I think it needs reforming. With less of a focus on keeping up with politicians and being led by their agenda, and more keeping up with the issues around the world. I have the feeling that it *used* to be more like that but moving to a 24 hour output has meant they’ll stuff it with any old politician’s opinion, Westminster gossip as well as lobbyists, think tanks and edgelords.
Laura Kuenssberg as senior political editor is a feature not a bug. Ditto having as diehard an Establishment gatekeeper as Andrew Neil as their big-hitting “interviewer”.
[Post edited 8 Feb 2021 10:05]
Pronouns: He/Him
1
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 10:12 - Feb 8 with 908 views
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 09:40 - Feb 8 by StokieBlue
I've not said anything about balance though. I've just said for him to think the BBC is left-wing woke he would need to be standing and observing very far from the right.
Of course lies shouldn't be published unchallenged, hence why I said every article from any outlet should be treated on merit and responded to accordingly rather than through the lens of perceived bias for that outlet. He views everything on the BBC as left-wing woke rather than addressing the contents of the article. This is wrong in my opinion.
SB
Which "he" do you refer to here? I can't keep up with the TWTD Gammon who have came out for this thread!
For me it's an endless challenge in policing the truth, which I ain't got an answer for. It's not a new problem either, but bloody hell the internet has made it worse.
I saw a thing last year (can't remember the exact study) that over 65s are 7 times more likely to share false information on FB. We have entire sections of society, from all brackets, thrown into an online world with all the tools in the world to fact check and collect varied opinions, but people would rather share the headline without reading the content and have their own view validated.
And on top of that, dodgy shadow businesses, many of which who have access to Zucks' ear and access to more information than we know about ourselves, are using data science models to emotionally exploit us with fear and tailored messages to radicalise/gain support. Cambridge Analytica's data is still out there (waves to Peter Thiel), despite the scorched earth approach they took when rumbled.
These companies started out as military psyops contractors messing with public opinion in less stable democracies and banana republics. Ukraine was a 2014 testing ground and then the US/UK in 2016. They know their product works, and it's now in the hands of corporations/billionaires.
The comparisons in approach to THE LITERAL NAZIS is getting too close for comfort - same tactics and disregard for human rights, just depends how far as a society we choose to let it go, and I hope we say enough is enough before it goes too far (although arguably it already has, lobbing a load of asylum seekers into stuffed barracks during a pandemic and then villianising them for demanding basic human rights was a classic fash move from Priti).
We're a nation that really needs to accept our history and stop dining out on a war that happened 75 years ago, we have our own crosses to bare and most of our patriot language/ego is all baked in from colonisation, slavery and genocide.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 10:02 - Feb 8 by Darth_Koont
The BBC News and Current Affairs is pretty ropy. Of course, you’ll find gems of reports and reporters on certain issues but, in the main, their coverage is poor for an organisation that a) can afford to be objective and not sensational or clickbaity and b) has that in its remit to provide a trustworthy public service.
I think it needs reforming. With less of a focus on keeping up with politicians and being led by their agenda, and more keeping up with the issues around the world. I have the feeling that it *used* to be more like that but moving to a 24 hour output has meant they’ll stuff it with any old politician’s opinion, Westminster gossip as well as lobbyists, think tanks and edgelords.
Laura Kuenssberg as senior political editor is a feature not a bug. Ditto having as diehard an Establishment gatekeeper as Andrew Neil as their big-hitting “interviewer”.
[Post edited 8 Feb 2021 10:05]
I just think they take the safe route by not challenging and platform alternative views to try to keep everyone happy. They seem to have lost a bit of respect for the truth, which isn't ideal in terms of that remit to provide a trustworthy public service. They'd rather leave comments unanalysed and unchallenged, rather than fact check and tell the viewers who's right (or at least who's lying outright when that happens).
What's that saying often bandied around about journalism: “If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the f**king window and find out which is true.”
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 10:14 - Feb 8 by Swansea_Blue
I just think they take the safe route by not challenging and platform alternative views to try to keep everyone happy. They seem to have lost a bit of respect for the truth, which isn't ideal in terms of that remit to provide a trustworthy public service. They'd rather leave comments unanalysed and unchallenged, rather than fact check and tell the viewers who's right (or at least who's lying outright when that happens).
What's that saying often bandied around about journalism: “If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the f**king window and find out which is true.”
Laura K and Peston are both compromised by information access.
They are both glorified reporters and little else. They have some of the most powerful positions in UK news yet use it like an intern at Archant being told to spin fluffy "he says, she says" stories with no layer of, ya know, actual journalism.
Peston taking credit for the work of Byline Times and GoodLawProject for a "scoop" on PPE contracts last year without crediting already published information was a particularly sh1tty move by him.
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 10:14 - Feb 8 by Swansea_Blue
I just think they take the safe route by not challenging and platform alternative views to try to keep everyone happy. They seem to have lost a bit of respect for the truth, which isn't ideal in terms of that remit to provide a trustworthy public service. They'd rather leave comments unanalysed and unchallenged, rather than fact check and tell the viewers who's right (or at least who's lying outright when that happens).
What's that saying often bandied around about journalism: “If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the f**king window and find out which is true.”
Agree 100% re: the false balance but that’s what happens when you are reliant on access and content to fill the rolling news. Letting everyone and his dog spout their views relatively freely and uncriticised is how they pump this stuff out.
But it doesn’t really inform the public what is going on in the UK and the world, it just tells the public how BBC News and Current Affairs are trying to fill space. So effectively, politics and political journalism become the news.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 10:28 - Feb 8 with 842 views
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 10:14 - Feb 8 by Swansea_Blue
I just think they take the safe route by not challenging and platform alternative views to try to keep everyone happy. They seem to have lost a bit of respect for the truth, which isn't ideal in terms of that remit to provide a trustworthy public service. They'd rather leave comments unanalysed and unchallenged, rather than fact check and tell the viewers who's right (or at least who's lying outright when that happens).
What's that saying often bandied around about journalism: “If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the f**king window and find out which is true.”
What if they are all looking out of different windows in different locations?
You are the obsolete SRN4 to my Fairey Rotodyne....
How did Andrew Neil last so long at the Beeb? on 10:28 - Feb 8 by Ewan_Oozami
What if they are all looking out of different windows in different locations?
In some cases that is a logical take in regards to news I agree. But when you are saying "Well he was just driving 60 round miles to a UK tourist spot during lockdown with his family in the car on his wife's birthday to test his eyesight" and your media organisation shares the obviously b0llocks take it's outright failure to do one's job.
See also, Russia Report publishing, following scientific advice, how prepared the NHS is for a pandemic, PPE contract cronyism, almost every Brexit promise broke, etc.
It's why I love threaded work on Twitter that uses public information to show the whole story over time. The news cycle moves so fast now it's easy to confuse ongoing nightmares as isolated stories.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
