How very dare we?
After ten days, we have an answer, of sorts.
“Dear Rev Campbell
Reference CAS-1714825-RP7R5W
Thank you for your e-mail. Your comments were passed to the Editor of Newsnight Scotland, who has asked that I forward his response as follows:
“Thank you for getting in touch with us about the Newsnight Scotland interview with Nicola Sturgeon on 23rd October.
We have received a number of complaints about this item, most of them concerning the sound quality of the interview and a number alleging politically-motived bias.
To take each in turn:
I accept that the sound quality of this item fell short of the standards we would expect and apologise if this detracted from your enjoyment of the interview. However, I do not believe that the editorial sense of that interview was compromised by the technical problems. I have investigated what went wrong in this instance and have taken appropriate steps to ensure that something similar does not occur in future.
Some have suggested that the BBC in some way deliberately ‘doctored’ the interview for reasons of political bias; others suggested that it was not a technical fault but a deliberate attempt to suppress the words of the Deputy First Minister. Either suggestion implies that we were happy to be grossly unprofessional and, thereby, seriously to breach all of the journalistic standards which the BBC has striven for so many years to achieve and which are encapsulated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. I can only repeat – this was an unfortunate technical matter for which I again apologise.
Thank you again for taking the time and the trouble to be in touch about the programme.”
Details of the BBC complaints process are available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml
Kind Regards
Patrick McManus
BBC Complaints”
As often tends to be the case with BBC responses, it produces more questions than answers. The nature of the “technical fault” is not clarified, there’s nothing on how it managed to get past the producer without the failure being noticed and be broadcast, and nor – more tellingly – is there any explanation of why there was no apology broadcast on either that night’s show or the following evening’s. Even if we take the reply at face value with regard to the incident itself, we all pay a significant (and mandatory) fee for the BBC and we deserve more respect than that.
But most curiously of all, if you read it closely the reply doesn’t in fact deny the suggestions of bias. It merely says, if we might paraphrase, “If you believe we’d do such a thing, then you must be prepared to believe that we’re biased.” It rather conspicuously doesn’t go on to add “But we’re not”, instead merely leaving the reader to infer it without it actually being said.
We feel compelled to note once again that in the event of a vote for independence, everyone at BBC Scotland would be out of a job. We’re not sure how conducive to impartiality that is, and we suspect it could certainly stretch to turning a blind eye to an initially non-deliberate gremlin in the works. We will, as ever, continue to monitor.
Of course, we all got the same reply, despite my own complaint simply relating to the quality of what we were offered rather than its content. I’m not letting this go, since as you have said, if there’s a known problem in a bit of a programme that’s pre-recorded, there’s a warning beforehand.
I’ll keep you posted on how it goes.
I think the problem for the BBC Scotland is that they have past form for being ‘less than professional.’ They seem to just broadcast Scottish Labour press releases without even checking that the claims are in anyway legitimate or truthful. You have to ask the question, would they do the same for SNP claims? I would find it hard to believe if they treated them in the same way. Another problem is the debates on independence on the BBC so far. Recently, there was 3 Nos (Curran, Davidson, Cochrane) against 1 Yes (Sturgeon), and a sympathetic Welsh trade unionist. Also, there was the debate where Douglas Alexander was able to constantly speak over Nicola Sturgeon without getting a warning from Dimbelby.
Then we have the problem of Glen Campbell! See also Kirsty Wark, Jackie Bird and others. I think they once even hired Helen Liddell! In addition, I remember reading one of John Simpson’s books, and I think he said that the BBC regarded the SNP as bigots in the 1970s! (I can’t remember if that was his view or someone else’s views.)
If I recall correctly Iain McWhirter said last year, after the SNP’s win, that when he was working for the BBC, it was frowned on for people within BBC Scotland to admit supporting the SNP. I think he said that even being sympathetic towards the SNP was not looked on well. I don’t trust BBC Scotland at all.
BBC: “we were happy to be grossly unprofessional”
:))
What? this is a misrepresentation? I’m using BBC guidelines!
” we all pay a significant (and mandatory) fee for the BBC”
Some of us stopped paying that tax a while ago.
Along similar lines http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/city-news/70-complaint.html
Reeks of bullshit. Amongst other things, I’m an audio engineer and producer, and although I don’t have technical experience in broadcast, I’ve done enough TV and radio shows as a musician to know what’s going on technically – Pacific Quay is supposed to be a state of the art broadcast facility, and should be stuffed to the rafters with the latest digital consoles and Workstations…..it’s all but practically impossible for what happened, to happen, without someone doing it deliberately. Digital audio systems for broadcast made this kind of school boy error a thing of the past.
Ok, I had to watch that again. I have 23 years experience in audio engineering. That was not a ‘technical fault’. I’ve gone through every possible scenario in my head and I cannot think of one in which a ‘technical fault’ could a) cause that, and b) prevent the missing audio from being restored.
Audio storage space is not at a premium any more. You could record 24 hours of stereo high definition audio on a cheap USB pen drive…..we don’t use tape anymore…so the idea that the BBC are doing destructive edits on the fly for any reason is simply ludicrous – if I wanted to edit that audio in post, it would take me 2 minutes, literally….so saving time is also out of the equation.
Either the mic gain was deliberately muted (what you can hear of Nicola is through Brewer’s mic) AT the interview, or it was done in post. This is NOT a technical fault, it is deliberate, and I’d bet my left ball it could have been fully restored in post if they’d wanted to.
@Stevie Cosmic
Would not surprise me in the slightest. As far back as I can remember the BBC have always been a very smug, pompous, self-regarding organisation, who believe their own propaganda and hype.
I accept that the sound quality of this item fell short of the standards we would expect and apologise if this detracted from your enjoyment of the interview.
We were caught bang to rights.
However, I do not believe that the editorial sense of that interview was compromised by the technical problems.
The editorial line was successful in that we managed to ensure the unionist point of view was dominant.
I have investigated what went wrong in this instance and have taken appropriate steps to ensure that something similar does not occur in future.
There was definite evidence of bias and this was picked up by the audience. We will ensure the bias is more subtle in future.
Some have suggested that the BBC in some way deliberately ‘doctored’ the interview for reasons of political bias; others suggested that it was not a technical fault but a deliberate attempt to suppress the words of the Deputy First Minister.
Got us bang to rights but so what? We’re as untouchable as Jimmy.
Either suggestion implies that we were happy to be grossly unprofessional and,
Unprofessional enough to broadcast an interview with hellish sound quality if you fell for that line.
thereby, seriously to breach all of the journalistic standards which the BBC has striven for so many years to achieve and which are encapsulated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.
Stop laughing at the back there.
I can only repeat – this was an unfortunate technical matter for which I again apologise.
Grossly unprofessional and happy with it.
Thank you again for taking the time and the trouble to be in touch about the programme.
Don’t call us we’ll call you.
All I can say is that in my not inconsiderable experience, there is no way that could ever be described as a ‘technical fault’. That is a lie, however you slice it. It was a deliberate edit.
If ‘they’ say that there’s some kind of auto-ducking going on, meaning when Brewer’s mic hears him speak then it automatically ducks the gain on Nicola’s mic, then that’s further proof that these interviews are loaded. This is a pre-record….it was going to post anyway, so there’s no need to do that live when it’ll take the post engineer 2 minutes to draw in the curve himself.
It’s unbelievable that they’re getting away with this.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I watched First Ministers Questions on BBC I-Player, I thought at points, that the sound dropped when Alex Salmond speaks. For example, the sound fades around the 7 minute 24 mark …and lasts several seconds when AS is giving Mrs Lamont pelters about trust and how Labour has abondoned its principles.
God knows if this happened live when televised, but I would be curious to know if someone has taped it, and then compares their taped version against the one on the BBC i-player. Would be very interesting if the two features were ‘not the same’…and if it was so…then this is highly useful ammunition to be fired at the BBC….
Paranoia like this is all very well and fine for less serious blogs.
Have the SNP complained about that broadcast?
More importantly, has Nicola Sturgeon? If Nicola had lodged a complaint and received such a casual brush off I would be worried. As it stands, it’s kind of embarrassing to go into this level of conspiracy theory. It does BBC journalists an injustice. It reeks of witch hunting nonsense.
You’re better than this Rev. Not up to your usual standard. Sorry.
Oh come on folks we’re being a wee bit harsh on the BBC aren’t we? 😀
I mean they are under investigation in SIX different investigations.
1) Operation Yewtree: Scotland Yard criminal investigation into sexual abuse claims
2) BBC investigation into management failures over the dropping of Savile Newsnight report
3) BBC investigation into culture and practices during Savile’s career and current policies
4) BBC investigation into handling of past sexual harassment claims
5) Department of Health investigation into Savile’s appointment to Broadmoor “taskforce” and his activities at Broadmoor, Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Leeds General Infirmary
6) Director of Public Prosecutions review into decisions not to prosecute Savile in 2009
Now we have the BBC Newsnight programme allegedly going to detail the paedophaelic activities of a major Westminster politician, apparently not an M.P. Thanks to Jeannie for correcting me on the other thread where I first mentioned the Newsnight programme. The subject of this programme has threatened to sue the BBC for libel if the programme names him/her. So we have investigation number seven looming large on the horizon. 😀
Oh don’t forget they also have the threat of strike action looming up and a protest outside Pacific Quay on the 15th November to demand more balance in the BBC.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6172-threats-of-strike-action-and-protests-loom-at-pacific-quay
Surely we should be cutting the BBC a bit of slack Yes?
NAH! 😆
Carry on folks your all doing a grand job of showing up the BBC for what it really is, a unionist mouth piece that is 100% anti Independence/anti S.N.P.
The long and short of this is that ‘cut your mic’ Brewer is a bit of a laughing stock when he has to rely on such blatant and idiotic sound editing to ‘polish’ his interviews.
So every time a guest pointedly asks for a sound or mic check he’ll have to wonder whether he and Newsnicht are being mocked and laughed at by those politicians and guests who now know all about his cowardly interview tactics.
@Dual_Intention
Conspiracy theory? That’ll be the cognitive dissonance making an appearance then?
I don’t think you quite understand, I’m saying that as an audio engineer with many years of experience, that was categorically NOT a ‘technical fault’. I’ve run through various scenarios here, and nothing stacks up.
It’s not a ‘technical fault’ when someone deliberately mutes a mike feed. Furthermore, this was a pre-record, it wasn’t live to air, so there’s NO excuses!
(a) I have investigated what went wrong in this instance and (b) have taken appropriate steps to ensure that “something similar” does not occur in future.
Therefore, (b) is a clear admission the BBC established exactly what went wrong. Steps to ensure means an action was subsequently taken. Bottom line without, actually knowing “what went wrong” the explanation is valueless. There are only three “what went wrong” options it was either a human wrong, an equipment wrong or a process wrong! Mr McManus, was very forthright in stating he knows exactly “what went wrong”, any chance the owners of the BBC (us) could be informed?
Arbroath 1320
What I find totally suspect is that the boys in blue swarmed over NI over phone hacking celebrates but the BBC is allowed to investigate itself over interference of minors, something stinks about the power that the beeb has just like MPs excluded from normal criminal justice
“I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I watched First Ministers Questions on BBC I-Player, I thought at points, that the sound dropped when Alex Salmond speaks.”
As I understand it, at FMQs the Presiding Officer and/or the MSP speaking controls the microphone. MSPs sometimes fail to press their button, or sometimes the PO will cut them off if they’re going to call for order or rebuke a member for something. I haven’t noticed anything at FMQs that couldn’t be explained by those, but if you’ve got any particular examples in mind do post them.
@CH.
If the rumours are true about the likes of Ted Heaths boat trips with ‘his boys’, then his boys in blue detail must have been well aware of what was going on.
Unfortunately, the police are part of the establishment.
The bottom line is this:
How often do you see that kind of ‘technical fault’ occur at the beeb; 9 o clock news, world news, newsnight etc ?
The answer is NEVER. The beeb have a long and distinguished history in news and current affairs amongst many other genres, they didn’t get that accolade without establishing standard practices over many many decades that are strictly adhered to by staff throughout the corporation. Sure, these days they love to do mobile and skype interviews to save the cost on satellite uplinks and some of the time they go spectacularly wrong…….but this was old school interviewing, there is no scope for anything to go wrong, the beeb have made sure of that.
BBC Scotland news and current affairs is a 2 bob, clown shoes outfit. This is widely acknowledged. They are seldom as brazen as this in their output though.
‘As I understand it, at FMQs the Presiding Officer and/or the MSP speaking controls the microphone. MSPs sometimes fail to press their button, or sometimes the PO will cut them off if they’re going to call for order or rebuke a member for something’
It could be, Rev…but I still find it odd that while the First Minister is giving his answer, the sound drops or fades slightly. Personally, I would find that rude, and slightly annoying. It’s not as if AS is shouting, or being bang out of order…and if AS can control his mike, then why is it fading out on its own accord? There is the possibility that it could be the angle that AS is standing at (thus further away from the mike)…but I just find it rather odd…
Anyway…on another matter; congrats on your site being one year old. I tell all Independent minded souls to come to your site, as it is the best there is for information on all those key subjects. Rev…you’ve got to advertise this site and get it out there !!! – It’s the bomb !!! (and I don’t mean a nuclear one !!!)
Tricia Marwick’s mic automatically ‘ducking’ all other mics by a few dbs is perfectly acceptable as she is the presiding officer of the parliament….she must be heard over and above EVERYONE else, even the the FM. Without that protocol in place, Holyrood would be even more of a circus of shame than it already is.
James T
I watched FMQs live on Thursday, I picked up on Salmonds mic feed going quiet for a few seconds – I have recorded it onto hard drive so will check again tomorrow. I don’t think it has anything to do with the Beeb on this occasion.
Stevie Cosmic
The video editing on Nicola’s pre recorded interview was done in such a way to cut away from Nicola to Brewer, what is strange was the way the audio was clearly cut from Nicola’s mic to Brewers mic, clearly leaving Nicola audible from Brewers mic as she finished answering the question – at best it was poorly done at worst it was done deliberately but without completely filtering out the rest of what Nicola was saying. BBC engineers actually have good standards – not sure that they would make such a hatchet job of this unless someone was trying to make a point. I don’t blame Brewer – he at least can do his background research into stories properly.
The whole sorry saga asks more questions than have actually been answered. This isn’t going to be an important issue for the BBC in light of all the other recent goings on at the BBC.
Sorry Dual_Intention I’ve got to disagree with your comment.
It’s clear that numerous people in the BBC have actively portrayed Scottish independence in a negative light for years. Whether it is Kirsty Wark through to Jeremy Paxman they have all tried to dismiss and deride Scottish independence. British and\or English nationalism is clearly fine though and Scots who don’t buy into it are belittled, ridiculed and mocked.
The BBC are clearly at a crossroads, not just over the biased coverage of the independence debate and other matters but throw in the abuse of young people while they were on BBC premises and you begin to see that there is something very rotten at its core.
Obviously not all BBC journalists or its employees are bad but there are certainly many who have turned a blind eye to what’s been going on and they have certainly lost trust of a very large number of people.
The response from the BBC “Either suggestion implies that we were happy to be grossly unprofessional and, thereby, seriously to breach all of the journalistic standards which the BBC has striven for so many years to achieve and which are encapsulated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelinesshows you how out of touch they really are.
If they don’t understand how deeply offensive that statement is then they have really stepped beyond the pale.
Yay, a bit of Friday fun. I have applied a bit of BBC technical problems to their reply, and have come up with their somewhat startling reply to the complaint:
“Dear Rev Campbell
Reference CAS-1714825-RP7R5W
Thank you for your e-mail. Your comments were passed to the Editor of Newsnight Scotland, who has asked that I forward his response as follows:
“Thank you for getting in touch with us about the Newsnight Scotland interview with Nicola Sturgeon on 23rd October.
We have received a number of complaints about this item, most of them concerning the sound quality of the interview and a number alleging politically-motived bias.
I accept that the BBC in some way deliberately ‘doctored’ the interview for reasons of political bias; it was not a technical fault but a deliberate attempt to suppress the words of the Deputy First Minister.
We were happy to be grossly unprofessional and, thereby, seriously to breach all of the journalistic standards which the BBC has striven for so many years to achieve and which are encapsulated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, an unfortunate technical matter for which I again apologise.
Thank you again for taking in the programme.
Details of the compliant process are available online
http://www.bbc.co.uk/brainwashing/theystupid.shtml
Kind Regards
Patrick McManus
BBC Complaints
Resistance is Futile
Here’s Patrick McManus’s LinkedIn profile … he has a BSc in Psychology, scary!
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/patrick-mcmanus/56/743/353
Her is a reply (from Mr McManus) to another complaint on the same subject …
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111905473/BBC-Newsnight-Complaint-Response
Dear Mr *******
Reference CAS-1743272-V2SJD7
Thank you for your e-mail. Your comments were passed to the Editor of Newsnight Scotland, whohas asked that I forward his response as follows:
“Thank you for getting in touch with us about the Newsnight Scotland interview with Nicola Sturgeon on 23rd October.We have received a number of complaints about this item, most of them concerning the sound qualityof the interview; a number alleging politically-motived bias; and others unhappy with the tone of theinterview.
To take each in turn:I accept that the sound quality of this item fell short of the standards we would expect and apologise if this detracted from your enjoyment of the interview. However, I do not believe that the editorial senseof that interview was compromised by the technical problems. I have investigated what went wrong inthis instance and have taken appropriate steps to ensure that something similar does not occur infuture.
Some have suggested that the BBC in some way deliberately ‘doctored’ the interview for reasons of political bias; others suggested that it was not a technical fault but a deliberate attempt to suppress thewords of the Deputy First Minister. Either suggestion implies that we were happy to be grosslyunprofessional and, thereby, seriously to breach all of the journalistic standards which the BBC has striven for so many years to achieve and which are encapsulated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. I can only repeat this was an unfortunate technical matter for which I again apologise.As to tone most viewers will understand that Gordon Brewer’s style of interviewing is combative.
All Scottish politicians understand this, too. Indeed, many enjoy this aspect of his interviews: we have certainly had no complaints from the Scottish Government concerning last week’s interview.
Thank you again for taking the time and the trouble to be in touch about the programme.”
Details of the BBC complaints process are available online athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml
Kind RegardsPatrick McManus
BBC Complaintswww.bbc.co.uk/complaints
I guess that explains the wording of his letter to the Rev Dcanmore. 😀
No normal individual would write a letter like that in response to a letter of complaint.
Yes Arbroath, exactly what I thought lol!
Must be horrible working for the Beeb right now, especially in Scotland. Their credibility sinks daily. Here’s hoping the staff on the ‘shop-floor’ – many of whom spent long years studying, aiming for a career in this prestigious organisation – will realise that they’ve got to do something, and soon. In the light of what’s unravelling they can’t possibly expect their senior managers to act.
The decent workers – at all levels – inside the BBC could do worse than show support for the planned Pacific Quay demo. At the very least, they could press the NUJ and other Unions to ballot members for action asap – this is becoming a crisis, and, unfortunately, we don’t even have a fledgeling ‘SBC’ in place to cover vital traffic/emergency information etc.
There is an opportunity, right now, for the skilled workers inside BBC Scotland to make a move. They would surely garner massive public support – and help secure their own futures – by distancing themselves from BBC management and insisting that they be given the resources and editorial freedom to properly report what’s happening in their own country at such an extraordinary time.
James T, Holyrood has its own TV service and makes all FMQs available online. You should be able to compare the Holyrood TV version with the BBC version.
As for the BBC and its complaints department… They have been arrogant and high-handed since Lord Reith was a boy, I suspect. The BBC holds the public in utter contempt.
Thats a shocking response from the BBC. I’ve got to agree with Stevie Cosmic on this – this was no way a technical fault.
This interview was pre-recorded, not live so there’s every opportunity to fix any mic problems and then carry on. I’ve spent nearly 20 years carrying out these kinds of interviews every other day and what I hear on that interview is ‘fading’ the mic channel – which , almost certainly, has been done in the edit suite whilst the interview is being cut. No sound recordist on earth sits during an interview ‘fading’ a mic up and down like that.
The interview will be recorded with a mic on each participant, so one on Brewer and one on NS. They will be recorded onto separate channels so that each channel has clear audio of the person thats wearing it. Thats what we hear with NS, when she speaks and we can hear it, it’s very clear – there’s no distortion, the no ‘rustling’ from her clothes and the mic doesn’t suddenly cut out. During the interview, a sound recordist is present, sitting with headphones on monitoring the sound and watching the mic levels – therefore if you encounter one of the problems I’ve mentioned, you stop the interview – adjust the mic, change a battery or re-position it and then you carry on. Thats what happens.
What we hear is a deliberate fading of the audio, which in my mind has clearly been carried out in the edit suite after the interview with the producer or director present.
As for Duel Intentions comments, maybe if you actually knew how interviews were recorded/filmed and edited you might have a better understanding of the complaint. I personally last witnessed something like this with a group of students I was mentoring at a local college – I have never come across such dreadful production practices anywhere, including the dozens of BBC programmes I have been involved in the making of.
For anyone complaining about this, i would write back to the BBC and ask for clarification of the ‘technical fault’. A technical fault would fall into one of the categories I mentioned above, not the fading down of a mic channel in that fashion which can only be done by human hand.
McManus has a paper certificate in psychology does he. That won’t help him. The degree that is…
As for the BBC and its complaints department… They have been arrogant and high-handed since Lord Reith was a boy, I suspect. The BBC holds the public in utter contempt.
I would slightly disagree, it’s the we know what is good for you and you don’t, Fabianism that has been a constant thread of the Labour Party, and sometimes bothers me about the SNP, but is also one of the many reasons I will never vote LibDem and of course the reason never to vote Tory “I know what’s good for you, I’m rich give me more money and then you can f*o*a*die”
If there is so much dispiritedness reportedly evident at Pathetic Quay- surely some will blow the gaff if given the opportunity.
I would be able to accept a reply that said “yes, we turned down the sound at the end of Ms Sturgeon’s answers, but this was purely to allow Mr Brewer’s questions to be heard. It was not done for malicious purposes. In light of the complaints we have received, we understand that this editorial decision was perhaps misjudged.” Even that would be a fudge, but at least it would be honest about there being a conscious decision made to turn down the microphones. Nobody watching that interview could possibly think it was a technical issue.
It was bad editing. Their inability to admit that shows the BBC up as incapable of admitting their own faults at best, and at worst, just gives more ammunition to those of us who say the BBC is institutionally biased against independence
Laughable. Just laughable.
Steve Cosmic is right on this one.
“I don’t think you quite understand, I’m saying that as an audio engineer with many years of experience, that was categorically NOT a ‘technical fault’. I’ve run through various scenarios here, and nothing stacks up.
It’s not a ‘technical fault’ when someone deliberately mutes a mike feed. Furthermore, this was a pre-record, it wasn’t live to air, so there’s NO excuses! ”
I have worked in recording studios and broadcasting since 1963 and this was definitely a hatchet job. They could not get rid of the bleedthrough of NS’s voice through Brewer’s mic because in the confines of a small room an omnidirectional mic would and did pick it up. It was also not “ducking” or use of noise gates as that would have to be done live and would need considerable time to test decibel levels to achieve satisfactory results.
It would be interesting to get the audio clip and run it through a couple of Wave Editors as i’m pretty sure i or any sound engineer could isolate Sturgeon’s voice. At least then we could hear what she was saying as she was being talked over.
On “conspiracy theory’s” i don’t think the SNP would complain to the BBC as it might annoy the BBC’s IT Partner’s ATOS, which employs 1500 people in Scotland and was unveiled as a Glasgow 2014 sponsor in March, with then Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon calling it a “significant step forward for the Games”. The company will supply software to accredit up to 70,000 athletes, officials and volunteers, plus results systems, medal tables and the Games website. More than 30 SNP MSPs have signed Holyrood motions critical of ATOS in the last month. Now protestors intend to draw attention to its links to the Commonwealth Games. Citizens United, which represents people at ATOS assessments, said there were already plans to occupy Glasgow 2014 premises saying “Atos are not a fit and proper organisation to be part of the Commonwealth Games, so there will be protests. Atos should be dropped completely as a sponsor. They’re just profiteering on the misery of disabled people.”
Edinburgh-based disabled rights campaigner Sasha Callaghan said that with Atos implementing a new wave of tests next year, anger would spiral. “I’m sure there will be protests,” she said.
Maybe some YES Campaigners should join them ?
Just sayin’ of course.
p.s. Could someone point me to a speech by NS where she say’s “Scotland will have it’s own proper Medical’s, not phoney ones” or words to that effect. ? I’m sure i heard her say it on the BBC.
I received EXACTLY the same response from Patrick McManus a few days ago and was equally unimpressed. I don’t believe it was a technical fault no more than I believe Mr. McManus’s explanation & defence. But even if it were a technical fault, several sign offs must have been required by one or more “managers” to allow the interview to be broadcast, post production.
But the giveaway for me is that it is customary for broadcasters/newsreaders to alert viewers in advance when the picture or sound quality is already known to be poor. It is only reasonable & logical that any viewer with normal hearing would conclude that the sound quality was inferior in this instance so why did the broadcaster not reach the same conclusion & issue a warning? They do it almost daily regarding flash photography for example.
Audio/video defects do occasionally happen when reporters are on the site of a natural/man made disaster or a war zone where satellite/telephone/internet connections are fragile or limited in bandwidth. Otherwise, they are in my experience extremely rare.
But no such alert was made just prior to the broadcast of Ms. Sturgeon’s interview.
For that reason more than any other, I believe that the sound was deliberately modified to diminish the authority of Ms. Sturgeon & provide the interviewer, Mr. Brewer with an argumentative advantage which the broadcaster knows to be favourable to the Unionist position on Independence.
My conclusion then is that the BBC is biased & corrupt thus failing to serve the democratic wishes of the electorate & the license fee payer. They are a disgrace to balanced journalism, egregiously economical with the truth & can no longer justify the license fee.
GM Scotlando putting euro question to bed as a non-starter right now and promising to discuss BBC censorship very shortly
Sadly, I’m with Dual Intention on this.
This is an awful article – crossing over the brink into conspiracy, and combined with the previous article this week celebrating personal insults over twitter, I think this marks a significant low for this blog.
Stu, you’re a smart guy, and even you must know now that you’re a reasonably big part of something potentially huge – independence for a country after 400 years! – but in the last few days you’ve shown how to turn the cusp of success into the defeat of petty squabbles and potential allies into enemies. Your twitter posts have veered from combativeness into outright trolling. If you weren’t teetotal I’d tell you to cut down the booze.
But in this posting however you’ve lost the plot completely. You’re saying that employees at the BBC would collectively and hamfistedly sabotage an SNP politician for unionist benefit, rather than accept a reasonable defence of acknowledged technical error. Well, keep going. Where you’re heading lies truthers, birthers and Moon-landing-deniers. All will keep you good company, whilst the rest of civilization shuns you.
You’ll win lots of arguments and lose lots of friends. This is not a recipe for winning a nationwide referendum.
Having said all of this, I’m kind of sad that 36 out of 37 people above agree with you. If I’m the odd-one-out, I fear for our cause…
Off Topic,
Magnus Gardham has an article up on the Herald about a ‘level playing field’ for expenditure on the referendum. It is not a completely unreasonable article, but it misses out entirely the proposed expenditure in 2014 about the start of WW1. I have made the following comment:
“In other news David Cameron has announced that he will spend £50 million to celebrate the centenary of the start of WW1. Which just happens to occur in 2014.
I would be interested in the Electoral Commissions opinion, indeed anyones opinion, about whether the share of that expenditure in Scotland ought to be considered against the ‘No’ campaigns budget, or not? Indeed, as we are likely to get a ‘wall to wall’ Britfest in the media over this, could it not be, reasonably, seen as interference?
For it seems to me to be a tad jingoistic and perhaps designed to tilt Mr Gardhams ‘playing field’ to an angle of 90 degrees.”
It appears to have been published.
Should those that wish to surrender all middle ground to the ‘No’ campaign explain to me why it is wrong to raise this issue? For it was not mentioned at all in his article. Should we just pretend that there isn’t an elephant in the room or summat?
Grant,
A public apology or a re-run of the interview would be the way to go for the BBC, would it not?
Grant,
It would appear that on the basis of the replies so far, you are indeed the odd one out.
Standard ebb & flow anywhere, even here but the standard required of a state broadcaster over whom you have no financial choice must be of the highest order to mitigate any claims of bias & unfairness.
Any reasonable viewer examining the language, tone, content & style of the BBC, especially in Scotland surely cannot fail to observe a wilful, frequently covert attempt to distort the truth so that the viewer is likely to reach a conclusion that is in the long term, beneficial to the employees of the BBC and to those who wish to preserve the union.
They are in theory supposed to pay due respect to the audience but of course are conflicted by the significant drift in political philosophy between those viewers in Scotland and in England, especially the London/South east region.
But they should still be able to broadcast facts, provide fair & balanced analysis & then allow the viewer to reach their own conclusion based upon reasonableness.
The behaviour though is anything but fair & balanced. The biased clip editing, sound manipulation, sneering remarks by program hosts & lengthy preferences given to unionist audio/visual sound bites occurs almost daily.
We, the license payers deserve only the truth. Many inside the BBC clearly wish to deny us that right. Therefore they are no longer fit for purpose.
And I have nothing in common with those who perpetuate myths such as Area 51 keeps space aliens in a Kenmore deep freezer, Elvis Presley secretly switched to frying fish & chips for a living, Marylyn Monroe is a communist agent of the KGB, George Bush blew up the World Trade Center using a TNT plunger, there’s a red double decker bus on the moon & the Loch Ness monster is actually a Nazi U-Boat.
I’ve written again, in “non-combative daft laddie mode” to the BBC Complaints department, asking for more details of the technical problem. Give it another couple of weeks and I’ll let you know what they say.
I forgot to remind everyone this morning to BOYCOTT “THE HERALD” and BOYCOTT “THE SCOTSMAN”.
Have a nice day !
G H Graham,
I don’t agree. You have a nice day too 🙂
Strange isn’t it, all of a sudden we’re all conspiracy theorists to some posters !
So we witness a bizarre interview on tv, and we complain about it. The sound quality has an issue and we question it – this is even backed up by the BBC in their own reply that there were ‘sound’ issues on this clip. That makes us conspiracy theorists somehow.
As usual the BBC response is a fob off and doesn’t make sense as you get questions from people who work in the industry or in studios who have experience and question still the explanation.
And suddenly we’re all conspiracy theorists are we ‘Grant’ ? Well blow me, in your world how far would things have got if people didn’t ask questions, think about possible alternatives and generally make a bit of a nuisance of themselves when they knew they were being treated with contempt ?
The BBC is the propaganda arm of the British State. All you need to know.
Grant
Which cause would that be?
My Iranian colleagues are content to say they find the BBC simply a more professional version of their own domestic state broadcaster.
Ah yes the BBC, the cover name for the BPC, the REAL organisation behind all these “faulty” interviews.
British
Propaganda
Corporation.
Hi Grant
Sorry to disagree with you but its the cumulative drip-drip effect they are going for.
If this interview was the only complaint we had about the BBC then I’m sure that we wouldn’t even have thought about it.
Of course, it helps to demonise those that complain as whinging nutters.
I’m definitely not an expert on this stuff but a “technical fault”?
I don’t think so. It sounds more like a really bad edit.
There’s parts of the interview where Brewer’s voice fades.
I wonder if there was something specific that Nicola said that they didn’t want people to hear.
Or maybe I’m just a conspiracy nut.
I really don’t know anything about the sound issues we’re discussing here, but I did see the interview in question and what disturbed me far more than the sound problems was what is referred to by the BBC as the “combative” interviewing style of Gordon Brewer. To tell the truth, I’m sick of tired of this style of interviewing whoever’s doing it, Brewer, Paxman, Neil, Buchanan, whoever.
I’ve all but given up on listening to these programmes anymore because they’ve become more about the interviewer than the interviewee and I rarely get to hear what the interviewee is actually saying because of the constant tedious interruptions and inane questioning.
We really could do with a bit more professionalism in this area.
^ What Jeannie said.
@steviecosmic
“Conspiracy theory? That’ll be the cognitive dissonance making an appearance then?”
It was already here before I made my comment.
I saw that interview and thought it was rank amateur. But as for some BBC Unionist conspiracy. Get a grip.
If the BBC were out to hobble Nicola it would be a lot more subtle than that amateur shambles.
It’s more likely that whoever edited it screwed up with the software. Maybe it was one of Tony Blair’s interns on day release. It’s as likely a scenario as the joke theories being discussed here.
@grant
Well said sir. I prefer when the Rev is on form. This stuff belittles his fine contribution to the debate.
“Where you’re heading lies truthers, birthers and Moon-landing-deniers. All will keep you good company, whilst the rest of civilization shuns you. “
I rather fear you’re reading stuff between the lines that isn’t there, Grant. Let’s look at what’s been actually said:
1. The BBC has a vested interest in the Union for at least two reasons – Scottish licence fee payers subsidise the rest of the UK by £100m a year, and BBC Scotland would cease to exist under independence.
2. Bearing that in mind, it’s not wildly beyond plausibility that the Beeb might occasionally fail to correct a genuine technical error if it came at the expense of the SNP.
There’s no crazy tinfoil-hat stuff there. (1) is an empirical fact, and (2) is human nature. The given explanation is weak, not only in the light of what we’ve been told by a couple of experienced technicians but also in terms of simple common sense.
The pre-recorded segment must surely have been viewed by someone prior to broadcast, and apparently they were happy to put it out in that condition despite now recognising it as sub-standard and meriting an apology. How could that come about? How could they not have noticed something that happens from the start to the end of the package? And why have we had to wait ten days for that apology? Why wasn’t there a simple one-line mention on the next night’s show saying “Sorry about the technical gremlins last night”?
I’m also intrigued as to where you’ve got the idea that I’m teetotal, by the way.
On the subject of conspiracy theories, this is a topical read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/01/unhappy-fact-activist-life
@Jeannie,
I agree with you Jeannie (and Douglas Clark). John Humphrys on Radio 4’s Today programme is another huge pain in the arse. You get the same constant interruptions from him as well as other interviewers on the BBC, on the BBC News Channel’s, Hard Talk, for example, as well as elsewhere.
It’s often said that we get the politicians that we deserve, but we get the journalists that we deserve as well. We’re all casualties of our sound-bite political culture. I’d love to listen to the answers that people give in interviews but most interviewees are lucky if they get more than 20 seconds to begin their answer to a question before the over-bearing interviewer interrupts them with yet another of their inane questions.
Underlying this, is their patronising attitude to their listeners – they assume that the average listener has an attention-span of about 30 seconds and isn’t capable of following a point or an argument that might be developed at length. And so the whole shebang rolls on, day after day after day, where the interviewers become ‘celebrities’ and the interviewees are almost incidental to the whole process. It might just be better if they stopped doing these interviews, cut out the politicians and other interviewees, and just let the journalist ‘celebrities’ talk among themselves for the duration of the programme. At least then we’d know not to switch on in the first place.
Dual_Intention
I heard on the radio today Simon Pia make a wild assertion that a senior member of the SNP at their conference confide in him that the stand against Trident is not that strong. The interviewer did not question it in any meaningful way that it was purely scaremongering by the Labour party and he had no basis whatsoever to state that nonsense.
The BBC regularly imply and edit their news in Scotland.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/6098-bbc-scotland-presenter-suggests-snp-run-like-north-korea
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/502346/diff/0/1
Of passing interest. BBC Reporting Scotland ‘news’ has just finished. It consisted of just two items:
– ‘thousands’ of people lining the streets of Edinburgh for a ‘homecoming’ parade for British soldiers, these thousands being evidenced by one shot of a kid waving a Union Jack.
– a project sponsored by a Team GB athlete
Now, if anyone attempts to say this reflects an agenda on behalf of the BBC, I fear for our cause, I really do..no, really, I do..honest..
Right, I’m off to uncover the truth about the moon landings..
@Rev Stuart Campbell,
That was an interesting article in The Guardian. Some of the comments below the line criticising ‘activism’ are hilarious and reminded me of this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
Just stop paying the annual tax to these bunch of tricks and put them out of business and their jobs… what are they really going to about it?…send u a shity letter then have a couple uneducated tubes at u’r door who realy have not a clue why they are there? so just f**k them off or throw a trespasser court order to them and watch them run. Their whole thing is about fear with these bullies, once you stand up to them they will crumble.
C4 anyone?
http://www.scottishtimes.com/channel_4_become_scottish_broadcasting_channel
Just hoping that YESonair will take a different approach and allow people to speak without interruption, agression and downright abuse.
It would feel like a breath of fresh air to listen to respectful debate. The approach currently on offer from MSM seems to me to be well past its sell-by date and is now boring beyond belief.
If people came into my house and carried on like that, I’d show them the door, so I’m not letting them in via my radio or television.
Let’s hope YESonair will raise the standard.
A rather half-hearted combination of explanation and apology that falls far short of the actual truth. Try looking up some of the number of times this happens and you will find that EVEN THOUGH THE SNP GET A LESSER AMOUNT OF COVERAGE, THEY STILL GET A GREATER AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL FAULTS.
I am afraid that “the big lie” is now applied to anything and everything from BBC Scotland.
They try to pass it off as “spin” but it is simply more lies. Or maybe just a copy of a Tory or a Labour press release being passed off as real news. Or as a last resort, possibly we can blame Brian Taylor’s fascination with the essential charm and glamour of J. Lamont’s efforts at insulting the First Minister. Be careful what you wish for Brian, you might get it. . . . .
@cynicalhighlander
Nice link. The reference to North Korea does rankle and I’m not going to defend Douglas Fraser for saying it.
But, if you put it in terms of conveying information to the public, the mention of North Korea provides a ready comparison for anyman/woman listening to the point being raised. Playing devil’s advocate is part of any solid professional journalist’s job. It’s more likely to elicit the type of reaction and response which makes for good news reporting and worthwhile soundbites.
From the link provided, Sandra White puts to bed the idea that debate is suppressed within the ranks of the SNP and she was allowed to do so through the medium of the BBC and Douglas Fraser’s question. There’s yer balance. I’ve heard the Korea reference coming from the lips of more than just Fraser. It may have been elsewhere he got the idea. If the opposition are saying it, he should reflect it.
I know it doesn’t always work like that, but your link fails to prove the type of bias being suggested here. It merely proves that a good journalist will use readily understandable tools to get news points across to the public. North Korea was a keach example to be used by Fraser, but it does put an immediate impression into the listeners minds.
I might be out of order saying this here. But I prefer listening to the strongest argument the opposition are likely to have. If they make challenging points then it is up to your side to refute them. That’s why the Fraser’s and Taylor’s of the world will still be working for our national broadcaster when we’re independent. I’d hate the idea of losing Taylor or Brewer and maybe even Fraser when the big day happens. Their scrutiny adds to the debate, sometimes the style detracts, but in general they are an asset.
Annoying as Brewer, Gary Robertson and others can be, they’re usually like that with all sides. Sometimes the accusations of bias reflect more on the bias of the person making the original claim.
The Rev claims 20 odd years of journalistic experience. I’ll question the type of experience once again. Has he had experience – other than this blog – of political reporting? On the evidence of this post, the answer has to be no.
It seems to me that our fellow independenistas at NNS – from which I am proudly banned – do this sort of arguement a whole lot better.
We, and I include you Rev Stu, would be far better distancing ourselves from that sort of debate. Why? Because it is unwinnable before 2014.
What is more interesting is whether any of us should engage with mainstream media or not. I vote aye, lots of you vote naw.
Now, that, is an interesting debate…….
I can list among close colleagues and friends the following nationalities, all of which have come to live in Scotland relatively recently (past 10 years):
Iranians, Chinese, Finnish, Polish, Israeli, Norwegian, French, German, Italian and Libyan.
Some have more experience of ‘State TV’ than others. All, looking in a sense from an ‘impartial/outsiders’ perspective, seen the BBC has highly biased towards the union.
@Dual Intention.
I’m not a member of any political party, but the BBC bias against the SNP and independence is so obvious, that it beggars belief that anyone would think otherwise. Even unionists that i know agree with that.
Welcome to the ‘banned from NNS club’ Douglas. 🙂
“I prefer listening to the strongest argument the opposition are likely to have. If they make challenging points then it is up to your side to refute them.”
Yes, of course. But broadcasters aren’t supposed to be on either side. They’re meant to question both sides with equal vigour and skill.
“I’d hate the idea of losing Taylor or Brewer and maybe even Fraser when the big day happens. Their scrutiny adds to the debate, sometimes the style detracts, but in general they are an asset.”
I’d hope the BBC’s better-quality employees would find work at the Scottish Broadcasting Corporation after independence. I’d include Gordon Brewer in their number, though as I’ve said before he’s recently been letting his apparent contempt for politicians of all parties get the better of him. (Others, like Robertson, Kaye Adams and the increasingly-sidelined Glenn Campbell, wear their bias far too obviously.)
Taylor I must admit I don’t see the point of. He offers little in the way of analysis, merely summarising what politicians have said in a simplified manner that 90% of the time amounts to nothing more than stating the bleeding obvious. He’s better as an interviewer, but rarely used in that capacity.
Dual_Intention
The BBC is supposed to be impartial and not to offer there opinion in any reporting like Raymond Buchanan who reported the Nato debate as being an angry debate contrary to most other news outlets who said it was the best debate that they had heard for years anywhere on these isles. All we require is honesty and a fair playing field which we are not getting from Pacific Quay.
OK, at last I watched it for the first time having read this thread.
What is clearly happening is that both are talking over each other. In the editing studio, someone is deciding whose turn it is. That camera feed is selected, and the sound stream “associated” with it is raised, while the other is lowered or muted. As far as I could be bothered checking, that with maybe a second or so delay, is what happened every single time. They both appear to have had equal time, but I didn’t bother with the stopwatch! But for sure, both Sturgeon and Brewer were muted fairly equally.
That isn’t a technical problem so the BBC absolutely lied in its reply. But neither is it a conspiracy. It’s pure and simply deliberate but incompetent amateur editing, of the sort that wouldn’t be acceptable in a primary school’s pocket money debate. That’s not the technicians fault, nor is it Brewer’s (or Sturgeon’s) fault, it’s the chief editor or whatever he / she is called.
I’m with Jeannie,, but with one proviso that the reason this “combative” style was presumably deemed to be neccessary, is that when in the past politicians were being interviewed and asked a simple Yes/No question, instead of answering it they just went into a long boring totally irrelevant party political broadcast on behalf of the plonkers party. They had to be interrupted, but that needs a formal – formula, maybe even just a raised hand and the words “shut up” from the interviewer.
The whole format of these political question and answer sessions needs to be totally overhauled, and rules imposed on both interviewer and interviewee. And perhaps a “set piece” non-contentious rehearsal for any politician agreeing to be interviewed, perhaps with the subject of “do you prefer Tunnocks teacakes or caramels?”.
What I also noticed in the recording was that Sturgeon mentioned Labour a few times. That wasn’t the question (as much as sometimes there was a question rather than Brewer going on and on). I’ve said this on CiF, and I’ll say it here.
The SNP won the 2011 Holyrood elections partly because Labour were constantly on and on about the SNP, rather than addressing issues. The SNP addressed issues and were positive, they hardly mentioned Labour at all.
The SNP are starting to become like Labour and sound like them at times. They are copying Labour’s bad points. The SNP should stick to the question and the issue, not fall into Labour’s trap of being Labour, or being obsessed about Labour or what nasty Labour said.
This isn’t an election though dadsarmy. This is much much more than an election.
‘Bad editing’ is being used constantly by the British State/BBC.
@Juteman
I agree totally about the BBC bias, but I think complaints need to be totally accurate, specific, and followed through. The BBC answer to this complaint was inadequate, and indeed a lie. They need to be pinned down to admit it wasn’t a technical problem as they said, but poor editing technique – a bigger problem. And worse still, the very format of the program itself.
Their answer is kind of like blaming a crash on pilot error, when the wings had fallen off at 33,000 feet due to metal fatigue.
@scottishskier, juteman, cynical highlander
Of course the BBC’s biased. It’s not staffed by robots. I take on board what you’re saying. Institutional bias is bound to manifest itself in corporate decision making. But the BBC are attacked for bias by all of the parties and their supporters. When that stops, then you might have a point about bias particularly against the SNP. I’d argue they’re pretty damned impartial. BBC journos take the core values of honest reporting a lot more seriously than you give them credit for.
To impugn BBC journalists, who love sticking it to the bigwigs, is a step too far. (Though, I have to confess, when Prince Chuck read the weather on Reporting Scotland I was close to throwing the telly out of the window due to the sickening deference.)
I’d be interested to know what you make of the journalistic cuts in terms of BBC Scotland News and BBC Alba. Alba gets off virtually unscathed despite a similar budget and an exponentially smaller audience. That’s institutional bias, not against the SNP, it’s bias against Scottish mainstream News in favour of minority interest. That’s the real scandal, not some stupid editing screw up. Nicola made her point well and robustly in the Brewer interview. I took on board what she was saying and agreed with her.
@Rev-Stu
They’re meant to question both sides with equal vigour and skill.
That’s where we differ. In general, I think they do. That’s why I made the point, which may be wrong, of Fraser acting as devil’s advocate with the Korea jibe. If there was an ulterior motive then, of course, he should be sacked or demoted.
Taylor I must admit I don’t see the point of
Heh! I’ll concede. I just find him likable. Disagree with you about Robertson though. Much as he can irritate me immensely, he’s like a Jack Russell with a rat when he gets started. I can’t recall him giving any politician an easy time of it.
Just back from the Dumfries launch of YES Scotland.
80+ people turned up which aint too bad for where we are and what we are fighting against.
Interesting wee snippet though.
Apparently there have been a few debates organised to held between the Better Together crowd and the YES campaign. They never happened. Why?
The debates never happened because Alistair Darling is feart of going up against Blair Jenkins.
What other conclusion can anyone deduce from the fact that as soon as Blair’s name is mentioned as representing the YES campaign the Better camp withdraw their representative.
Attempts have even been made to circumnavigate the YES organization by approaching individual YES board members directly rather than approaching the YES organization to request a YES Scotland representative.
As I said above the Better camp are feart.
They are feart of Blair Jenkins.
They are feart because they have no one who has any stature at all to stand up against the YES Scotland campaign team.
Feartie is as feartie does
@Dual Intention.
It’s allright saying journalists are impartial, but how do you define a journalist?
One example, is ‘CALL UKaye a journalist? She aims for the more downmarket Radio Scotland audience by playing the part of a concerned mother. Is the fact she was president of the young Conservatives at uni a coincidence? Or the incestuous relationship between the Labour party and the BBC in Scotland?
How many BBC Scotland journalists/presenters are independence supporters?
I think I read post recently that someone had managed to get through to Kay with an E on her call Kay with an E radio show. At some point she was accused of being a unionist at which point she apparently took umbridge and ended the call.
I can only say one thing about that.
Having listened to the occasional drivel spouted out by Kay with an E I find it extremely difficult to believe anything else but the fact that she is a unionist.
If she is NOT a unionist then the Pope is NOT Catholic.
I think Douglas Clark is right about not concentrating too much on the BBC. It is very difficult to prove that they are biasied. Privately I am sure that there are concerns about them. However, some of their actions are annoying. I don’t listen to Kaye Adams or watch Newsnight. I find that they lack quality and are pro-establishment. Presumably the Yes campaign has ideas about how they are going to deal with the media.
@Arbroath 1320
Fearties of the world Unite! or should that be Unionistite?
“But the BBC are attacked for bias by all of the parties and their supporters. When that stops, then you might have a point about bias particularly against the SNP.”
Oh come on. When you’re the beneficiary of bias, the one thing you make damn sure to do is claim to be the victim of it. That way, the biased body can say “Look, both sides attack us, we must be doing something right!”
“To impugn BBC journalists, who love sticking it to the bigwigs, is a step too far.”
Let’s make something clear: as I think I’ve said before, I have no problem with journalists being biased. They’re people like you and I, they vote just like we do, and it’s wildly unrealistic to expect them to screen their preferences out of their work entirely. The responsibility lies with the BBC to make sure it employs a wide range of people so that their individual biases balance out. And as the BBC is clearly and entirely rationally institutionally biased, that’s where the problem arises.
Not everyone works in a quiet office, Some of us manual workers have radios playing all day. Drip drip subliminal propaganda is a real problem, so don’t dismiss the impact of the likes of Call UKaye.
Dual Intention
BBC ‘training’ videos in case you haven’t watched them.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4787-leaked-videos-cast-doubt-on-the-impartiality-of-senior-bbc-presenters
Who’d have thought it D.A. that such a “professional” politician as dear old Darling was so feart of Blair Jenkins. Darling, the man of the people, for the people FEART of Blair. I guess he isn’t quite man of the people for the people as he makes now is he?
Reading between the lines you get the idea that the Bitter camp will only come out to play when THEY can set the ground rules. As we talked about today, they do not seemed to have been able to grasp the concept of the YES/NO debate. They are all at sea with this and have not got the slightest idea on how to stand their ground. Sorry that should be their very shaky ground. No one in the Bitter camp, a.k.a. Labour H.Q. has quite managed to get their head round the idea yet that they are NOT the ones who are in charge. No one jumps to their tune.
They still don’t get the concept that an organised debate does need the presence of politicians for it to be a debate. The bottom line is that the Bitter camp are feart of putting up Darling against Blair, or any other non politician, from the YES camp because they are feart that by doing so their politician will be made to look stupid. The problem here is that any one using the same arguments from the Bitter camp is going to look stupid when they are up against the YES camp representative.
Until the Bitter camp come up with clear reasons as to why we are Better Together they are always going to look like a bunch of fearties. It is one thing to give the BBC or whoever a sound bite, because that soundbite goes unchallenged, but put them in a debating situation and their unsourced false claims and assertions are questioned right, left and centre and none of them can hack that.
Juteman said:
Not everyone works in a quiet office, Some of us manual workers have radios playing all day. Drip drip subliminal propaganda is a real problem, so don’t dismiss the impact of the likes of Call UKaye.
And that’s what’s wrong with the new TalkYes idea, if that’s the right name. It’s on the internet. What we need is something that will come out of trannies on building sites and car radios.
@Morag,
Excellent point Morag. See the summary data on Scottish households with internet access here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/08/5277/9
Just realised that link isn’t working for some reason. Key findings are that 27% of Scottish households don’t have internet access and 24% of Scotland’s adults never use the internet.
@1320
They are feart of Blair Jenkins.
I imagine they are, very much so; Canavan too. In fact they will avoid direct debate with the Yes campaign for this very reason, and instead just try to smear Scotland’s FM.
Which is why – as former Labour FM Henry McLeish seemingly understands all too well – they will lose.
YesYesYes said:
Just realised that link isn’t working for some reason. Key findings are that 27% of Scottish households don’t have internet access and 24% of Scotland’s adults never use the internet.
And of those who do? I’m on the internet all the time. I never listen to internet radio. Forget it. I wish the new venture well, but until I can tune my car radio to it, or set it as the wake-up station on my radio alarm, I doubt it will have much impact.
That ‘s the very point S.S. Infact while I’ve been going on about Darling running feart of Blair, when I was at the YES launch in Dumfries it was not only Blair who was mentioned Dennis Canavan was also mentioned.
The NO camp are really behaving like a bunch of rabbits stuck in the beam of an oncoming car. From what I remember about this point earlier today, every time the YES camp have put up Blair or Dennis, or anyone really, the No camp back off and run away home. They are still stuck in the land of nod where THEY get to choose their opponent(s) from the YES camp, unfortunately back here in the real world we get to choose our representatives not the no camp!
In regards to the BBC giving both sides equal treatment, personally I’ve always thought it was a journalist’s job to seek the truth, not to play mediator or devil’s advocate. If one side is speaking utter balls, a proper journalist doesn’t give it the time of day. They don’t give it airtime in the name of “seeking balance”. A lie is a lie, no matter who says it. The media purports to hold public figures to account. When it allows people to perpetuate lies, just to give each side a turn, then it fails its single major objective.
If I went on a TV programme saying 2 +2 =5, I would expect to be told “that’s wrong, you’re not saying that.” The same should be true of politicians saying things about Scotland and independence which are demonstrably untrue, if only the journalist in question would do a little research.
For anyone who hasn’t noticed yet, the Rev on his twitter feed has an excellent and telling photograph of Gordon Brown admiring Jimmy Saville’s OBE, with the accompanying tweet:
“We can only assume this was one of the days when Gordon’s ‘moral compass’ was away being cleaned”.
Great stuff. This photograph should be filed under the category: ‘Gordon’s shameless attempts at populism’, along with his ‘British jobs for British workers’ as well as that unforgettable episode of Desert Island Discs when Gordon told Kirsty Young that his favourite band was the Arctic Monkeys. Everybody listening – apart from the usual sycophantic Scottish Labour types – knew that Gordon wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference between an Arctic Monkey and a pink-bottomed baboon.
If only, at the time, the BBC had made one of its ‘technical errors’ and Kirsty Young, instead of playing a track from the Arctic Monkeys, had played this instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=i8qEQ6Gb0p0
Yes Yes Yes
Try this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=i8qEQ6Gb0p0
@Adrian B,
Cheers!
Here’s Gordon and Sir Jim, for all the Twitter-hating Luddites:
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/264809990798323712
Surely the most utterly cringeworthy one was his favourite goal.
Surely this calls for a caption competition?
Is the guy in the middle of the photograph thinking to himself:
“Never mind. At least I’m getting paid to stand between these two perverts”
Or is Gordon saying:
“A moral compass Jimmy? I used to have one of those as well”.
Or is Jimmy saying:
“If you’re up for it, my van’s just parked round the corner”.
Going back to the BBC bias topic.
At FM Question Time on Thursday Alex Salmon read out the personal insults that `Lamont has been throwing at him -Wee Eck, liar,corkscrew, etc. He then quoted from an article Lamont had given to the Guardian last year where she spoke against personalised attacks in politics. Much laughter and a glum looking Lamont. That evening STV news duly reported this exchange. BBC news edited Salmon’s riposte omitting the list of personal insults by Lamont he had read out and reported only his reference to the Guardian article.So anyone who hadn’t watched FM Question Time nor the STV news would not have been informed on the hypocrisy of Lamont by these clear current insults read out by Alex Salmond.
A felon doesn’t need to be caught red-handed to be found guilty of a crime, accumulated circumstantial evidence has weight. The complaint against the BBC is their bias, sometimes blatant and sometimes by omission on reporting.
Another one
https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/17194/width668/dbdgt4t4-1351813279.jpg
@cynicalHighlander,
The guy in the middle still looks like he knows that something’s not quite right here.
I get the feeling YYY that the guy in the middle is looking for a way out to escape Mrs Brown’s leering gaze. 😀
@Arbroath 1320,
LOL!
I forgot about the other half of Frumpy and Grumpy. Mind you Arb, as we speak, the diminishing population of ‘Scottish’ Labour acolytes are busy scouring the internet in a desperate search for a press cutting of Alex Salmond in the same room as Sir Jimmy, even if the photograph were to show them at opposite ends of the room, they won’t mind, anything will do as far as they’re concerned. As we know, on occasions like this, their first principle of politics is to think to themselves, when we’re in a hole, let’s drag everybody else down with us.
RevStu said:
Here’s Gordon and Sir Jim, for all the Twitter-hating Luddites:
There’s some seriously weird shit linked to from that page.
@Morag,
Hadn’t noticed that and haven’t clicked on it. But judging from the avatar, the moniker and the title, I wouldn’t advise anybody else to either.
YYY I think your right. The only problem for the S.L.P. is that they keep digging but no one is following them down. We’ve all heard the same old lies and misinformation for so long now that we just don’t believe them any more. Unfortunately for them they don’t believe the truth about the fact that we don’t believe them.
I hear the “last of the few” are all out celebrating tonight. They’re celebrating the fact that at last the Labour party have a policy. Apparently it was found in a rubbish bin some where but it has been cleaned and ironed out and is now good to go. The policy in question is their idea that they now back nuclear weapons.
Now if they could only find a policy that actually was closer to what the Scottish people wanted then they might be able to slow down on their hole digging excavations.
Sorry for going O/T but it would appear that everybody’s favourite Labour Chancellor/P.M. has resurfaced and given a speech in Kirkcaldy. I give advance warning that the first link does contain a picture known to send some people into a fizzy hit! 😀
For those wanting a more reasoned response to Broon’s blast of hot air then I reckon Peter Bell does a pretty good job of ripping him to shreds. Caution is advised on this link as well. Those of a nervous disposition may wish to avoid reading either article. 😆
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/gordon-brown-s-pro-union-speech-in-full-1-2613258
http://peterabell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/questions-questions-questions.html
I’ve received a “holding response” to my follow up compliant about the “technical problems”. It has taken 8 days to tell me that they will be in contact in due course, but I guess that the BBC is a bit busy on other stuff at the moment.
Ok, here’s what I said to the Beeb second time around (playing the slightly daft laddie).
“I received an e mail from Patrick McManus of the BBC Complaints team to my original complaint which related to the quality of the sound in an interview. This response did not adequately address my concerns.
The response states that Editor of the programme has “investigated what went wrong in this instance and (has) taken appropriate steps to ensure that something similar does not occur in future”. I would like to know specifically what went wrong in this instance and what steps have been taken to ensure that something similar does not happen again.
The circumstances surrounding this “unfortunate technical matter” (the Editor’s words) are in my experience unprecedented. Viewers are usually warned in advance if the sound or picture quality on an item fall short of the normal standards and this did not happen in this case, so it looks as though there was a significant problem at the transmission stage, although I am relieved that my own equipment is not faulty.
I’m keen to make sure that BBC Scotland is properly equipped to produce programmes of the highest possible quality, so I would appreciate further details of the technical matters so that I can consider whether this has been a single incident or if there has been a failure that may recur.”
Here’s the response received today. As Stu has said above,how very dare we?
“Thank you for your further e-mail.
Your comments were passed to the Editor of Newsnight Scotland, who has asked that I forward his response as follows:
“Thank you for being in touch with us again about the interview on Newsnight Scotland with the deputy First Minister on 23rd October.
I have nothing to add to what I then wrote except to offer my apologies again and to reiterate that I have taken steps to try to ensure that what happened that night will not happen again.
If you remain unhappy with the responses to the issue you raised in your email and you wish to pursue this complaint further, please contact the BBC Trust. You can contact them at the following address:
BBC Trust
180 Great Portland Street,
London
W1W 5QZ
That’s what I got when I replied to the original brush-off reply to my complaint about Jeremy Paxman comparing Salmond to Mugabe.
My original letter had stated specifically that I had read the replies others had received when they had complained about this issue, and I was not satisfied. In particular I wanted to know when exactly Mugabe had used the phrase “beacon of progressiveness”, which Paxman had claimed Salmond’s phrase immediately brought to mind. I wanted to know who had made this connection, was it Paxman himself or a researcher, and who had passed this scripted question as being appropriate.
I also said I wanted to know in what way Paxman or the Newsnight editors thought that the SNP being elected by a landslide of the popular vote was comparable to the situation in Zimbabwe where voters were intimidated, beaten and murdered to maintain the ruling party in power.
I said all that in my FIRST letter. The reply I got was to say they noted that I had complained that a “stock reply” had been issued. That was it. I wrote back and asked them to address the points I had raised in my complaint.
Then I got the equivalent of the letter above.
It’s a stock manoeuvre to dissuade people who have actual lives from pursuing their complaint, and naturally it’s successful.
bbc is totally garbage i can’t understand why people watch any of it’s programme’s in the first place in fact i don’t understand why people watch tv at all as it’s pure shit