All of those replies appear to be absolutely 100% genuine people. Definitely. No doubt.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
This is just the straw that broke the camels back, I think. Her reporting has been horribly biased for a long time, and probably about time it was addressed.
She is getting what she deserved, if that was her original intention.
Like I said above, it is a very well known twitter tactic and I don't put it past anyone to use it. Even a, for some reason seen as holier than thou, bbc journalist.
fecking BBC using a screenshot of the notes app like a fecking Premier League footballer.
This is the real scandal here.
Terrible statement. Not even a hollow apology acknowledging that they understand why people may have perceived it in a negative fashion. To be perfectly honest, I think it was naive and ill-advised and indicative of her bias, but I do not think it was worthy of any substantial punishment. A slap on the wrist and a warning to be more careful and considerate in the future would have been an appropriate consequence. The BBC's response is dire though. Sums up how deep-rooted the problems are with that institution right now.
I quite like this. Seems like a real thing I can get behind.
@sullydnl @nickm why are you both deliberately ignoring the wider context of her history in her job as the BBC's Political Editor?
We're talking about a woman who, in her role as the BBC's Political Editor, was found by the BBC Trust to have broken the impartiality and accuracy guidelines by deliberately misconstruing Jeremy Corbyn's stance on a major-issue, in order to place it as opposing to the action being taken by then PM Theresa May, despite his stance being almost the polar opposite of what she portrayed it as. Inexplicably, she kept her job.
She's not once pointed out the repeated use of Conservative plants in Question Time audiences, yet thought, for some reason, apropos of nothing, that it was imperative that she point out that the man in the video was a Labour activist, and then later link every single one of her follows to his Twitter page with the caption "This is him here", as if he should be ashamed of his presence and his actions.
She makes absolutely no attempt to point out that the guy was speaking from the position of a parent, concerned for the wellbeing of his child, currently in a hospital run by a health service he rightfully believes has been systematically torn apart by consecutive Conservative governments, or that the leader of the Conservative party, and current Prime Minister, blatantly lied about the presence of the press on the ward that this man's ill child was on. Instead she described it as being "very awkward" for Boris Johnson.
She's a blatant, Tory shill. The BBC's output as a whole may not be as inherently biased as some claim (although Cameron's efforts certainly made sure they stick by the Tory government), but for the political editor to repeatedly display a blatant leaning towards one party is insane.
In isolation, yeah, all she's done here is linked to the Twitter account of a man who was involved in a story, but you're just kidding yourself if you can't see that she's deflecting attention away from the fact that the Prime Minister's default position when confronted on anything is to tell a bare-faced lie.
We're talking about a woman who, in her role as the BBC's Political Editor, was found by the BBC Trust to have broken the impartiality and accuracy guidelines by deliberately misconstruing Jeremy Corbyn's stance on a major-issue, in order to place it as opposing to the action being taken by then PM Theresa May, despite his stance being almost the polar opposite of what she portrayed it as. Inexplicably, she kept her job.
She's not once pointed out the repeated use of Conservative plants in Question Time audiences, yet thought, for some reason, apropos of nothing, that it was imperative that she point out that the man in the video was a Labour activist, and then later link every single one of her follows to his Twitter page with the caption "This is him here", as if he should be ashamed of his presence and his actions.
She makes absolutely no attempt to point out that the guy was speaking from the position of a parent, concerned for the wellbeing of his child, currently in a hospital run by a health service he rightfully believes has been systematically torn apart by consecutive Conservative governments, or that the leader of the Conservative party, and current Prime Minister, blatantly lied about the presence of the press on the ward that this man's ill child was on. Instead she described it as being "very awkward" for Boris Johnson.
She's a blatant, Tory shill. The BBC's output as a whole may not be as inherently biased as some claim (although Cameron's efforts certainly made sure they stick by the Tory government), but for the political editor to repeatedly display a blatant leaning towards one party is insane.
In isolation, yeah, all she's done here is linked to the Twitter account of a man who was involved in a story, but you're just kidding yourself if you can't see that she's deflecting attention away from the fact that the Prime Minister's default position when confronted on anything is to tell a bare-faced lie.
May gave no feck about the country, only getting brexit done. How the feck did you come up with that idea?
That statement will just annoy people even more.
It certainly has annoyed me.
It certainly has annoyed me.
I quite like this. Seems like a real thing I can get behind.
Shoes are too big.
A slap on the wrist would be all well and good if the BBC Trust hadn't already found her to have deliberately broken the impartiality and accuracy regulations by splicing two seperate answers to two seperate questions to make Jeremy Corbyn's stance on a pertinent issue look utterly daft, when, in fact, his stance was fundamentally in line with the action being taken by then PM Theresa May on said issue.
She's got form, and ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
I posted a part of my complaint to the BBC earlier today in the westminster thread, in essence I said that she was either malicious and knew exactly what she was doing, or completely naive and oblivious to the repercussions. Both are unforgivable considering her position. She should be ashamed, embarrassed or both.
The wording she used “This is him here” is particularly uncomfortable. It’s got clear pitch of a dog whistle and leaves you finishing the sentence for her. “Do your worst”.
I'm a bit turned on if I'm honestI quite like this. Seems like a real thing I can get behind.
The guy has a 7 day old child in hospital. To even suggest that he is thinking about politics in this case is disgusting and shows lack of empathy, compassion and any common sense. Hideous cow.
It's pure playground wording. The scrote of a younger brother of some yob and his twenty mates pointing out someone who had the audacity to stand up for themselves against him.
I get where the complaints are coming from now, I guess it isn't great to highlight the twitter account in those words.
Also, why would your political opinion not be formed by your real-life experiences?
The man's seen his wife and now child stay in an underfunded and understaffed hospital, so obviously he's going to have an opinion on that.
All the better to stamp out the truth with!
Urgh.
You'll get no objections from me as to the fact that she is not fit to be in the position that she is. It's fine for her to share the ideology of much of the government, but she is woefully unable to conceal her bias in her reporting and the manner in which she frames events. It's not even subtle. I mean if you looked at her reporting and and didn't know who she was you would be shocked to be told she was supposed to be an impartial political editor. Remember after Johnson's first humiliating day in the HoC and her BBC article was titled something like 'Could this actually be a victory for the Prime Minister?'
Yeah the wording is especially problematic but as much as I have a problem with her I am giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that in her glee at the news that the man was a Labour activist she was desperate that everyone saw this development. It was more 'Look! He really is a Labour activist' than 'Look, let's all send him abuse' even if she should have been aware that the latter was an inevitable consequence of the former.
Yeah calling people’s concerns ‘absurd’ is not a great PR look.
@Alex99
Because the context of her general reporting (which may indeed be horrendously biased) is irrelevant to the argument I'm making. My argument isn't based on her own biases but rather those of her twitter followers.
She is being accused of essentially prompting her twitter followers to attack this man by retweeting him. The logic of that only makes sense if you believe that this is the way her 1.1 million followers are likely to react. That logic would make sense if she was a right-wing activist whose twitter following largely consisted of the sort of unpleasant right-wing followers who would attack the father of a sick child. But that isn't the case here. She is the political editor of the BBC and as a result has a broad variety of mainstream twitter followers, many of whom will agree with this gentleman's actions and react with the sort of praise and support that is also filling up the replies to the tweet Kuenssberg highlighted.
It's the assumption that her followers would inevitably react in a negative way (rather than having the sort of mixed opinions that would make highlighting the tweet to them much less loaded) that confuses me. As far as I can see she highlighted this gentleman's public statement on the matter to a broad audience of mixed opinions, something that is entirely fair regardless of Kuenssberg's other faults as a journalist.
Basically, she holds too mainstream a position for her highlighting his tweet to be seen as an invitation to attack him imo. Despite her biases, she isn't a Tommy Robinson or Nigel Farage type figure whose following would be primed to respond in that way.
Because the context of her general reporting (which may indeed be horrendously biased) is irrelevant to the argument I'm making. My argument isn't based on her own biases but rather those of her twitter followers.
She is being accused of essentially prompting her twitter followers to attack this man by retweeting him. The logic of that only makes sense if you believe that this is the way her 1.1 million followers are likely to react. That logic would make sense if she was a right-wing activist whose twitter following largely consisted of the sort of unpleasant right-wing followers who would attack the father of a sick child. But that isn't the case here. She is the political editor of the BBC and as a result has a broad variety of mainstream twitter followers, many of whom will agree with this gentleman's actions and react with the sort of praise and support that is also filling up the replies to the tweet Kuenssberg highlighted.
It's the assumption that her followers would inevitably react in a negative way (rather than having the sort of mixed opinions that would make highlighting the tweet to them much less loaded) that confuses me. As far as I can see she highlighted this gentleman's public statement on the matter to a broad audience of mixed opinions, something that is entirely fair regardless of Kuenssberg's other faults as a journalist.
Basically, she holds too mainstream a position for her highlighting his tweet to be seen as an invitation to attack him imo. Despite her biases, she isn't a Tommy Robinson or Nigel Farage type figure whose following would be primed to respond in that way.
Last edited:
You'll get no objections from me as to the fact that she is not fit to be in the position that she is. It's fine for her to share the ideology of much of the government, but she is woefully unable to conceal her bias in her reporting and the manner in which she frames events. It's not even subtle. I mean if you looked at her reporting and and didn't know who she was you would be shocked to be told she was supposed to be an impartial political editor. Remember after Johnson's first humiliating day in the HoC and her BBC article was titled something like 'Could this actually be a victory for the Prime Minister?'
Yeah the wording is especially problematic but as much as I have a problem with her I am giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that in her glee at the news that the man was a Labour activist she was desperate that everyone saw this development. It was more 'Look! He really is a Labour activist' than 'Look, let's all send him abuse' even if she should have been aware that the latter was an inevitable consequence of the former.
Yeah I think this too.
She was delighted and relieved that yet another humiliating episode for her bestie Boris Johnson could be swept under the carpet because the person laying into him was Labour.
She could frame it like that, the guy is a labour activist and that's why he was tearing into good ol' Boris, so really we should pay no attention to it.
Rather than him being a father with a seriously ill child, a man with legitmate concerns over the standards of the NHS and a man who had been blatantly and directly lied to by the PM about there being no press there.
The next time we get some right wing crackpot on Question time talking about how much he hates Corbyn, I'll be interested to see if she does any similar investigative work into their background.
One of the basic logical fallacies is attacking the person rather than the argument.
Yeah, but that's where Pexbo's point below comes in. I actually think this is the huge issue with Kuennsberg. She's very clearly biased, but that flaw seems to be magnified by the fact that she really doesn't seem to be as clued up as someone who holds her position should be. There seems to be to be as little reason for the BBC to persist with her on the grounds of the quality of her reporting as there does on the grounds of her impartiality.
BBC Press Twitter account has also retweeted a Spectator article blaming it all on 'Corbyn supporting troll accounts' that also tries to re-frame it as a misogynistic pile on of a journalist just doing her job. Scandalous. The BBC is utterly rotten.
@sullydnl there's literally evidence in this thread of him receiving abuse as a result of being identified. I think Pexbo's point about intent vs naivety is also something you're ignoring. At best it was horribly misjudged, which isn't something someone in her position should be getting away with
Interesting piece on BBC bias in general below.Meh, that's what you get for trying to see both viewpoints and having a bit of balance I guess
Should have known on here if you aren't on one side, you must firmly be on the other. Ironically much like twitter debates.
Here comes the twitter mob!
https://www.culturematters.org.uk/i.../2947-culture-punch-the-bbc-s-right-wing-bias
Personally I've seen Laura Kuenssberg is so pro Tory I come close to having to turn over the channel when she comes on. It's the equivalent of watching Paddy on MUTV if I was a fan of another team.
What’s more, we were discussing this within minutes of her Tweet, called her out for how inappropriate and reckless it was and predicted exactly the viscous replies he would be subject to.
If we had the sense to understand how it would be interpreted and the foresight to predict the impact it would have on the man, why the hell didn’t the political editor of the BBC?
It’s literally her job to understand how this all works.
I do wonder if just maybe she’s gone too far this time.
BBC have doubled down so unlikely anything will happen of it.
Yes, Grinner asked if he was being attacked and Damien provided examples. If you read through the replies to his tweet you will also see a lot of praise and well wishes from others, many of whom will have also been directed there via Kuenssberg's retweet. I'm arguing that her followers would have a varied reaction, not that none of them would react negatively.
The repercussions of her actions were that his tweet was seen by more people and garnered a greater reaction, both positive and negative. I don't see what's inherently wrong with that given he willingly put forward that opinion on twitter himself, presumably in the desire for it to be seen by a large public audience. I find the idea that she did him a disservice by highlighting something he wanted highlighted strange. It's not like his opinion was in any way shameful, or something he shouldn't put forward to a large audience. He didn't do anything wrong.
Someone posting something on twitter and it naturally getting picked up is completely different to the political editor of a world news service tweeting - He is a labour supporter and ''This is him here'' to over million people.
I'm still slightly critical of Kuenssberg, but since the guy tweeted it by tagging the hospital and replying to a Mirror article, less than before. The way I take it is that he wanted this to come back to him and take the credit for it.
At best she'd have given someone the exposure he sought and at worst she'd have doxxed someone. So she stilled shouldn't have done it. But like I said in light of his tweets it's not as bad as I initially thought.
It's also the manner in which he pointed him out that's a bit off...
Last edited:
So you're no longer arguing that it's unreasonable to expect her to identify a negative response? Now we're on to oh well he put it on twitter so any abuse is his fault.
I wonder who should understand the consequences of national attention more, the BBCs chief political editor or a random guy currently with a sick newborn.
I mean this is all before you even get to her thinking it's relevant to flag his political leaning. We're now in a world where you can't be a concerned dad in hospital if you're also political. Dismissing someones opinion as well they're a lefty is daily mail level.
He had already been identified as a Labour supporter by the print media at that point though, including in an article he himself linked to his tweets. It's not like she outed him in some way, or made public something that he himself didn't make public first.
Surely the consequence of national attention was that a perfectly valid message he wanted put across got put across to a large audience? Again, the reaction hasn't just been negative, he has recieved a huge amount of support, praise and well wishes too.
And it's not like she invited national attention on to him, he was already over the TV and on news sites which he himself was highlighting. She just drew attention to his perfectly valid response to the national attention.
Now this I certainly agree with, her phrasing on her tweet was poor and made it read like she was directing attention to a person rather than that person's reaction.