[webbo]

I’m afraid I can’t comment due to strict gulag thread policy

Dan/ knobhead
Are you training to become a politician given you always avoid answering a question.

[Will Hunt]

The reason I'm asking is because we've heard a lot about what you think isn't true and things you think are corrupt, but we never hear about what you think is true. So these, I think, are yes/no questions. Or at least shouldn't need much more than a one sentence response.

1. Do you think that lockdown measures (closing businesses, restricting interactions, mask-wearing etc) has had an impact on reducing deaths and serious illness from COVID?

2. Do you think the benefits of lockdown measures have been greatly overstated or falsified?

3. If you think that lockdown measures have reduced deaths and serious illness from COVID, are you saying that you believe that the collateral damage (loss of earnings/livelihood, increased mental health problems, loss of education etc etc etc) outweighs the benefits conferred by lockdown measures?

4. If yes to 3., do you have any evidence for that or is it "gut feeling"?

P.S. I look forward to preclipping some runners with you sometime.

[Loos3-tools]

It’s a bind mate it really is. Firstly is here* the right place to answer it Secondly how much more hair splitting and White Knighting can I cope with before I pop a blood vessel and start dishing out insults. Thirdly whatever comes next must be right

[Loos3-tools]

Ah will,

No when combined with current socioeconomic problems

Yes to some extent

Definitely yes to the second bit

Anecdotal, contrary scientific opinion , allyson pollock, Martin Kulldorff etc

Ah good I’ve stopped doing that after your previous jibes. I’ll be happy to hold your ropes though

[Oldmanmatt]

It’s a bind mate it really is. Firstly is here* the right place to answer it Secondly how much more hair splitting and White Knighting can I cope with before I pop a blood vessel and start dishing out insults. Thirdly whatever comes next must be right

Really?

Insults?

Why?

And, “White Knighting”? That’s an odd accusation.

Tell me, are you really feeling that inadequate?

I notice you dropped Gupta from your “Contrary scientific opinion” list. She was first on the list earlier.

As for the “off topic” thing, well, that’s you again isn’t it. You drag it off and then try to duck out of responding or justifying your statements by pretending it would be inappropriate to comment and off topic.

I should imagine you could power a small city with the amount of eye rolling this induces in your readership.

[Loos3-tools]

I concede, genuinely good for you. Peace out fellah. A wiseman knows when he’s beat and it’s time to run away.

[webbo]

Why do you see everything as a competition rather than a discussion differing views.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Replying very belatedly to A Jooser.

I was thinking the other night, re Emily Maitlis. She's really impressive, in the way that she can cut up the arguments, leaving it to the listener to decide.

Colin Murray on now, Five Live, one of my favourites - at his best presenting "Fighting Talk" on a Sunday morning.

But I think I'm being a little more aware of my own response to those presenters I'm less a fan of 

I can't help but think that critiquing the BBC is anything other than entirely healthy, however.

I'd go further, and say that it is so so easy to forget, just how privileged we are to just sit here, and freely do so. That just strikes me as being quite amazing.

My own preference, would be that certain aspects of public broadcasting were more protected than others - perhaps with budgets for radio programmes kept separate from TV. Maybe that's already the case. I don't know.

I could say that I'd be happy paying for radio, but not TV, but the arguments for/against this (even if it were possible) are quite complex - and of course, reflect my own biases.

PS. Putting down your tools, and cutting loose never helps the debate. Don't run away 

[Offwidth]

I really don't understand what A Jooser is getting at in that Matis clip. It' was a known fact Cummings broke the rules, was protected by the PM and was likely to cause us major problems due to unequal treatment and from people saying if he can do it so can I. There was no spin and it didn't avoid the elephant in the room in the way the more watched BBC TV news output did. It was directly holding the government to account, which is one of the most important aspects of news. To think what she said was equivalent to Fox news commentary is weird. If I'm missing something please let me know.

[seankenny]

My own preference, would be that certain aspects of public broadcasting were more protected than others - perhaps with budgets for radio programmes kept separate from TV. Maybe that's already the case. I don't know.

I could say that I'd be happy paying for radio, but not TV, but the arguments for/against this (even if it were possible) are quite complex - and of course, reflect my own biases.

Boring technical point, but correspondents at the BBC often work across a variety of platforms, so a reporter covering say elections in Iraq might also do a From Our Own Correspondent piece at the same time, covering a different aspect of the story. I imagine if one type of outlet was funded less it would impact on the other thanks to this.

[tomtom]

Further, Matis’ clip is from Newsnight - that is a news analysis program not “the news at 6” etc...

IOW if you watch newsnight you know it’s going to have a bit of cut and thrust in the interviews and present some more in depth arguments.

Re BBC in general - it’s worth remembering that the BBC local news services (radio and TV) are all loss making but (I’d argue) offer a resource that would not be replaced commercially - and would be missed by many. Look at how local newspapers have (generally) turned to garbage over the last 20 years...

[A Jooser]

I really don't understand what A Jooser is getting at in that Matis clip...

You've chosen an odd hill to die on here I'm afraid, Offwidth, given that BBC News conceded the introduction 'did not meet the required standards on accuracy or impartiality' and Ofcom had to 'remind' the BBC that 'presenters should ensure that they do not inadvertently give the impression of setting out personal opinions or views' 'particularly in matters of major political controversy'. But so be it.

Doesn't her opening assertion raise alarm bells for you? "Dominic Cummings broke the rules..." If he breached Covid regs then that is a matter for the police and courts to decide, not for a BBC presenter to give judgement upon.

The main point is: what she and you say about this may well be true, but a BBC journalist shouldn't have to tell us it is so, they should be able to show us it is. Newsnight can easily get guests in to interview who will say all those things, the presenter doesn't have to. In this way the presenter's neutrality (even if just a veneer) can be preserved.

It's a shame to have to point this out, because I totally agree with DAVETHOMAS90, Emily Maitlis is an impressive journalist. Just look at the Prince Andrew interview she did; asked the questions and let the answers and the manner in which they were answered speak for themselves.

You cite it as an example of 'directly holding the government to account', thereby raising the tricky question of to what extent this is the job of the media - in a functioning democracy, is this not the job of the public at the ballot box?

I think you may be putting too high an expectation on the media here. I don't know how far they can realistically take holding the government of the day 'to account' while still remaining impartial.

The media should absolutely put government and ministers' 'feet to the fire', probe and question those in positions of power, shine a light into the darkness where 'they' would rather not let anyone look. But if no one is paying attention, if no one is reading/listening/watching, then 'they' will always get away with it.

This is why I think impartiality in the media is so important. If someone regards someone/something as biased they'll ignore it or turn off - "I don't believe a word they say."

And finally, for now, I didn't make any suggestion of equivalence between Fox news commentary and the BBC, I merely invited comparison, but I would caution we may be very close to the point at which editorialising within the news output of our national broadcaster crosses the line in to comment and polemic. Newsnight did, and I expect OMM knew this so didn't mention it, but I'm also inclined to agree that the Ros Atkins BBC News one doesn't although it's not without cause for concern.

I fear this sort of stuff is the direction things may be going. As Shark alluded to earlier maybe it's what the kids want.

[A Jooser]

Individuals with differing opinions can't all be the ultimate arbiter, by definition, surely.

  Who is the ultimate arbiter of your opinion? 

[abarro81]

Individuals with differing opinions can't all be the ultimate arbiter, by definition, surely.

  Who is the ultimate arbiter of your opinion? 

I presume this is rhetorical, or very philosophical. It's not really got anything to do with the point. You can't have multiple ultimate arbiters on a single issue, by definition. That's just multiple opinions.

[Oldmanmatt]

I was ignoring the Matlis clip.

But, since that had been adjudicated and judged unacceptable, chastisement (if not sanctions) had been made and editorial policy changes made, etc etc. It didn’t seem like an appropriate example. Primarily, because the regulator performed it’s function.
The US clips, are not subject to that sort of regulation.

It was a little bit like saying “here’s one you got wrong and I’m going to ignore all of the times you were right”, not really reflective of a trend and you did not, to my mind, provide evidence or suggestion of a trend, with your second BBC clip.

It would have been silly to claim the Matlis clip was anything else (I fancy she was on the money, to be honest; however concede she went about it the wrong way).

There’s that little homily about how journalists shouldn’t simply cover two opposing view point about whether it’s rain or not, they should be looking out the window to see who’s lying.

Edit:

*Maitlis.
Sorry, typing on auto pilot.

[Offwidth]

I really don't understand what A Jooser is getting at in that Matis clip...

You've chosen an odd hill to die on here I'm afraid, Offwidth, given that BBC News conceded the introduction 'did not meet the required standards on accuracy or impartiality' and Ofcom had to 'remind' the BBC that 'presenters should ensure that they do not inadvertently give the impression of setting out personal opinions or views' 'particularly in matters of major political controversy'. But so be it.

Doesn't her opening assertion raise alarm bells for you? "Dominic Cummings broke the rules..." If he breached Covid regs then that is a matter for the police and courts to decide, not for a BBC presenter to give judgement upon.

The main point is: what she and you say about this may well be true, but a BBC journalist shouldn't have to tell us it is so, they should be able to show us it is. Newsnight can easily get guests in to interview who will say all those things, the presenter doesn't have to. In this way the presenter's neutrality (even if just a veneer) can be preserved.

It's a shame to have to point this out, because I totally agree with DAVETHOMAS90, Emily Maitlis is an impressive journalist. Just look at the Prince Andrew interview she did; asked the questions and let the answers and the manner in which they were answered speak for themselves.

You cite it as an example of 'directly holding the government to account', thereby raising the tricky question of to what extent this is the job of the media - in a functioning democracy, is this not the job of the public at the ballot box?

I think you may be putting too high an expectation on the media here. I don't know how far they can realistically take holding the government of the day 'to account' while still remaining impartial.

The media should absolutely put government and ministers' 'feet to the fire', probe and question those in positions of power, shine a light into the darkness where 'they' would rather not let anyone look. But if no one is paying attention, if no one is reading/listening/watching, then 'they' will always get away with it.

This is why I think impartiality in the media is so important. If someone regards someone/something as biased they'll ignore it or turn off - "I don't believe a word they say."

And finally, for now, I didn't make any suggestion of equivalence between Fox news commentary and the BBC, I merely invited comparison, but I would caution we may be very close to the point at which editorialising within the news output of our national broadcaster crosses the line in to comment and polemic. Newsnight did, and I expect OMM knew this so didn't mention it, but I'm also inclined to agree that the Ros Atkins BBC News one doesn't although it's not without cause for concern.

I fear this sort of stuff is the direction things may be going. As Shark alluded to earlier maybe it's what the kids want.

The judgement was for the entire episode, which was a bit one sided later on (partly as the government wouldn't appear). In that clip it was a fact that Cummings broke the rules. It's a fact that Boris covered for him for days. It was a fact that behavioural experts had warned of the very likely consequences.

[Offwidth]

You've chosen an odd hill to die on here I'm afraid, Offwidth

It's been bugging me so I re-read more carefully what you linked of the full judgements.

I was wrong as it was the introductory clip you posted that was the main concern and I apologise for that.

Hence, the BBC ECU decision was wrong in my view and that rendered the OFCOM judgement inconclusive as they decided no further action was needed partly as the ECU acknowledged problems. It would be interesting to see what they would have decided if the BBC had defended her.

I find the dancing around the obvious truths of some of his rule breaches disgusting and dangerous. He also likely broke other rules. Durham police conceeded he may have broken them but decided to take no action. The previous Durham police cheif said it's clear he had broken the rules.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Sex, money, BJ and Jennifer Arcuri..

Begging the question  :



Just balancing things up with a little right wing bias