No news outlet can ever be completely impartial, because human beings all have their own prejudices. However, the fact that BBC news and it's reporters are constantly accused of right wing bias by Labour, and left wing bias by the Tories, tells me they are getting more right than wrong. People in places like Iran and Russia risk imprisonment just for tuning in to the BBC.
Being banned in Russia doesn't really show its not biased though. While it clearly has an agena, if you read it it does follow a set of rules, like always trying to include a token quote from the opposite point of view, which makes it better than most. But more importantly it's biased towards what I consider to be good morals which is why I read it.
I always used to think the same but they have become more like a red top trying to sensationalise things in the last couple of years. I don't know if it's the pressure of 24 hour news but they are not as good as they used to be. I find myself switching to Sky for the facts instead of just getting someones opinion on BBC. My go to is still BBC until they start straying, but that may change.
The problem for me isn't so much that the BBC is biased (I'm not sure that it's really possible to be unbiased) as it is the myth that the BBC is some unbiased arbiter of truth. They do include token quotes/comments from those they disagree with but then use that brief, token comment to make out that they're totally unbiased. They're very good in terms of presenting facts but when it comes to comment/opinion it becomes quite clear what the BBC view is. You don't have to openly state something to make it obvious you think it - when a BBC interviewer asks someone a question along the lines of "Are you seriously saying XYZ?" then it's fairly obvious what their thoughts are on XYZ but they would refuse to accept they're showing bias. I tend to agree with Whiteley about the quality of what they produce. You can now see headlines for those generally awful "10 things that..." filler list articles on the admittedly quite long front page of the BBC website. Today we have "12 photos of buildings that will leave you speechless" and "The five personalities at every Christmas party". A decline is understandable (the BBC must be under a lot of pressure to produce a huge amount of content) and it's not just a BBC thing but I hope it's not a sign of things to come.
Spot on for me,the biggest problem I can't stand is being lectured by some recently invented "editor"of how to suck eggs (or similar)whose content appears to have no substance in fact at all. This is not just the BBC but having been pleased Peston switched channels we were left with Laura "let me tell you a story" jeez girl give us facts not your weird opinion. Yeh I know my better half says I go on a bit "n"all.
I’d make all political commentators and reporters wear a badge clearly stating their political allegiance, just to help people understand why so many present “facts” in a way that harms one party’s standing, whilst glossing over/ignoring other “facts” that would harm the party they clearly support.
This bit is key. People calling the BBC "fake news" have been listening to Trump for too long. Originally, "fake news" referred to just that, invented news that developed as a way of making money through advertising clicks. Trump stole the term and made it utterly meaningless - anyone who disagrees with him is "fake news". To hear people in Britain jumping on the malignant mango's bandwagon when referring to the BBC is, frankly, tragicomedic (i.e. it's horrible but I laugh at the people who say it) Vin
don't think anyone has been calling BBC fake news. No one is disputing that BBC tend to report facts (unless the due diligence hasn't been done when taking when using sources from other people) but its the bias in their news and reporting of some facts and not others.
Because of the debt. The conservative tax plan in the US hinges on the fact that giving money to the corporations and rich expands the economy and pays for itself. Not only that, but the money trickles down and helps the middle class. It does not make a difference from an efficiency standpoint where the money goes. In the free market model, one person with $100 and one person with $0 is the same as two people with $50. But obviously, you would prefer to be the person with $100. It’s like if you wanted to borrow some money from me. But instead of loaning you $50, I gave $50 to your boss and said don’t worry, I’m sure he will share. Of course you are better off taking the money directly. The US tax plan will grow the economy temporarily because they are borrowing money. Of course if you get a $50 loan, you have $50 more to spend. But what happens when you pay it back? Well, in the current tax plan, the tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations are permanent. The cuts to the middle class are temporary. So, when/if we ever pay back the loan, it is going to come from the middle class when the tax cuts expire. Any time the government redistributes wealth, there is a loss in efficiency. That is bad. But at least you can make an argument that there are other things besides efficiency that are important. Like equity. So, you are sacrificing some efficiency to help the poor and providing a safety net to mitigate risk. There is never any reason to take from the poor and give to the rich. It’s morally sketchy and fiscally stupid. So the Republicans here came up with this bullshit supply side theory, where only supposedly we are all peons who need Steve Jobs to employ us to survive. When in fact Jobs is equally reliant on us to buy Apple products, and make and sell them. The free market only works if the competition is fair and the government does not play favorites. The Republicans are trying to sell crony capitalism as free market.
It's also noteworthy that few of the corporations that benefit are even pretending that they're going to create jobs. Most have suggested that they'll use the windfall for increased dividends, share buybacks, and acquisitions (the latter of which tends to result in fewer jobs, not more).
I've been thinking. I know, I know. But I was talking to an old mate who has lived outside the UK for decades and he'd just come across the term "Lexit" and was asking for an explanation. As I was telling him about hard left friends of mine who had voted "Leave" on the grounds that the EU would stop the sorts of social reform desired by Momentum et al, it occurred to me how patently absurd it is for right wing Tory politicians to bang on about the "voice of the people". Those of us on the left should turn this to our advantage. We are always being told that Leave voters wanted us: out of the single market; not ruled by the ECJ; out of the customs union; not listening to rules on bananas or importing rhinos (or something). Well hang on, if there was a substantial vote for Leave from people who wanted to re-nationalise the railways, where is their voice? Come on, Mr Moggy. You say the voice of the people should be heard, so requisition Virgin Rail et al and let's give the people what they want. If any one moment showed the absurdity of politicians claiming to know what is the will of the 52% this was it for me.
Except all leave voters wanted out of the EU (who knows how) but they certainly weren't all signed up to the Labour party manifesto. Personally I'd rather spend the money on social care but then I didn't vote leave and sadly remember British Rail! I've never heard of 'lexit' so thanks for enlightening me.
Lexit's not a car then? British Rail got a very bad press but I remember it as being both cheaper and better run than most of the current franchises. And BR Engineering must have got a lot right, because half the rolling stock still in use was built by them 40 years ago in York, Doncaster and Eastleigh!
I remember them being rattling dirty carriages. Of course that could of just been down here. There was always the joke when someone said "I'm just coming" "Yeah so is British Rail". The food had a reputation I believe but I was too young to be able to afford that. A quick trip into Southampton or on a special occasion to Bournemouth or London was my limited experience. The bus was more fun.
I’m on the fence about Nationalisation. I’m not automatically against privatisation as long as there’s actually competition. The thing I don’t like about the privatisation of the railways is that its bidding for a monopoly. You barely get more than one company doing the same route so you don’t get much choice. So its really about which company can talk out of its arse the best during the bidding process. A good example for Southampton is that South West Trains was just taken over by First. They’ve promised extra carriages for the ‘busiest routes’ but by that of course they mean London routes, not most overcrowded. And immediately after they take over, the lines that I do daily commutes on between Southampton – Pompey Southampton – Eastleigh have got significantly worse overnight. Took a couple of months before I celebrated both trains turning up on time 2 days in a row -Had a running joke with some fellow commuters every time it almost happened and then failed. And people are still standing in the isle every single day (ffs Corbyn) with half of one of the coaches dedicated to first class. Although fair play to the staff who don’t enforce first class on the route during rush hour. Point is that with no competition they are just doing what makes them the most money, increasing a 10 coach train to 12 coaches makes more profit than increasing a 2 coach train to 3. (the extra door alone would help stop the delays from people cramming to get on). Better example is that as the only train on our line, old South West always allocated staff to it during the strikes so it wasn’t cancelled. Meaning even if it was overcrowded, there was at least a train on every line. First have binned that approach and are no trains between Eastleigh and Southampton or Southampton and my stop during the strikes. And instead had a replacement bus service that on my test somehow took 2 hours (usually 45 minutes) to get home from Eastleigh… proper First Buses service that. I like competition, and I acknowledge a private companies with morals can actually be good. But on the whole if you have a monopoly anyway, it might as well be with the Government.
I think you may have missed the irony in my post. I am fully aware that 100% of Leave voters wouldn't support Labour Party policy. My point is I'm not sure what 100% of Leave voters did vote for, other than "to leave". Yet now politicians talk of respecting the Will of the People, and any attempt to debate what this means is seen as treachery to this sacred principle. The issue of nationalising rail is an example of this division among Leave voters. It shows the absurdity of a binary referendum on such a complex issue.
If we're being honest, 52% is a clear vote of 'I don't have a clue.' To be fair to the government though, theyve really captured that concept in the Brexit process so far.
This is extremely worrying. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc
But from May: Trump budget slashes federal aid for rail, long-distance Amtrak routes https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...df2bc4-3fdf-11e7-adba-394ee67a7582_story.html President Trump's transportation budget slashes federal aid to the nation's rail systems by cutting funding for long-distance Amtrak service and severely limiting money to help expand transit lines and build new ones. Asked about what he saw in the budget, Jeans-Gail [vice president of the National Association of Railroad Passengers] said, "I'm just looking at the smoking wreckage."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42408624 The train was going 80mph instead of 30mph apparently so in this case infrastructure does not seem to be the issue. Looks like he is talking rubbish again and just trying to get his policy through. I'm not saying the infrastructure doesn't need looking at by the way, just that he is being opportunistic.
