It's not an other fact of the story. The story is a father who is worried about his daughter due to a perceived lack of staff on the floor where his daughter is. By saying that he "turns out" to be a labour activist, you insinuate that his worries at that moment aren't that genuine and motivated by politics.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Yeah this is the crux of the matter. You can use similar tactics to invalidate anyone's view
Exactly this. Why should the background of the father be relevant to the story? He's the father of a sick child in hospital complaining about the poor treatment his child is receiving. Yet now instead of talking about that treatment, and the media investigating why the child received poor treatment, instead we get a GOTCHA! about how the father is a Labour activist so that's what we should be talking about instead. Shitty journalism.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So ?
If Kuenssberg and the BBC are just the same as the print media then why are the tax payers funding them ? Kuenssberg and the BBC should both be held and have a higher level responsibility given the role they play in Britain.
Something is going wrong when guido fawkes and the BBC are running the same story.
Thankfully this guy doesn't need to be offended by this, because plenty of people will be offended on his behalf.
It's not about being offended though is it? It's about the taxpayer funded BBC and it's employees being politically impartial when this clearly isn't the case. If it was then they'd announce the name, political affiliation and social media accounts of every one of the stooges they ship in to the Question Time audience or interview on one of their vox pops for the news which supposedly represent the views of the average UK citizen.
It's not even so much that why his child received poor treatment needs investigating. The most pertinent part of the exchange was the PM, when confronted by a member of the public about his party's treatment of the NHS, and questioned why he was using this as a press opportunity, told a bare-faced lie.
It's a pattern with him too. The man's default position is "lie and save face" and we, as a country, are supposed to rely on this man to lead us through, and inform us on, the biggest political action the country has taken in decades.
Instead, the debate has shifted onto whether his 'outing' as it were, by the BBC's Political Editor qualified as misconduct on her part, and whether his political views had any relevance to the situation.
Johnson's got away with it again, and once again Kuenssberg has been heavily involved in the deflection. After all, we're discussing a woman who, after Johnson made one of the worst starts a PM as ever had in terms of losing votes, made the headline of her analysis, "is this a victory for Boris?"
Doesn't change the fact she's an absolute cnut with clear agenda, does it? It's also not the tweet that sparked most of the outrage.
Comments said:
Er....the lady shaking his hand isn't giving him the warmest of looks. Anyway we can find out her political beliefs.
Cheers.
Cheers.
What are the views of the average UK citizen though? I think the aim is to offer a variety of views on QT, at least in theory.
Keeping his arms clear so that he can quickly access a vein.
Alternatively it's pretty normal in hospital to have sleeves rolled up, as it allows for better hygiene. So he's probably just ensuring his unwashed shirt doesn't come into contact with the doctors and nurses hands.
Alternatively it's pretty normal in hospital to have sleeves rolled up, as it allows for better hygiene. So he's probably just ensuring his unwashed shirt doesn't come into contact with the doctors and nurses hands.
She once nodded her head in agreement with Tony Benn.
Nope - it's yet another terrible piece of adviser-led PR (and also condescension towards a public routinely considered gullible idiots) along the lines of the 'Power Stance':
Not convinced by that midfield 3Nope - it's yet another terrible piece of adviser-led PR (and also condescension towards a public routinely considered gullible idiots) along the lines of the 'Power Stance':
She’s wondering why the feck he’s got his sleeves rolled up.
In theory yes. They've been caught many times though with audiences comprised of ex Tory councillors and 'activists' and even an ex UKIP candidate appearing on 3 separate occasions.
What do you think her agenda is, out of curiosity?
In fairness you can't move on Twitter for BBC journalists rushing to expose the political affiliations of the audience members who are chosen to ask questions. The site slows to a crawl every Thursday night under the strain.
The public are gullible idiots who buy into that stuff. Sure everyone laughs when politicians do it too obviously like in the pictures you showed, but people do media training because it actually works.
Yep. And it isn't just the Conservatives - Blair apparently caused a revolution in British political showbiz when he actually took his jacket off while making a speech...thus causing morons everywhere to conclude: 'Wow, he really means business...'
You are clearly a marketing guru working for the conservatives. You know that the caf loves Marvel movies and that's why you posted that.Nope - it's yet another terrible piece of adviser-led PR (and also condescension towards a public routinely considered gullible idiots) along the lines of the 'Power Stance':
If memory serves, it was Blair who also started the 'media friendly hand gestures while talking' trend too.
The sad thing is I've done a bit of that training and it actually does work. People listen to you better and come away with a more positive impression when you punctuate your points with hand gestures and set your body language in the right way.
It's sham sincerity and passion though.
She said countless times that the only way to avoid no deal was to vote for a deal. There was only one deal on the table and it wasn't that far away from Labour's ideas, well at least what sense you could make of them. All 27 other EU countries had signed. It was the shortest and I reckon the most painless way to leave. Forget the headbangers sitting at the extremes in Parliament. They were always going to vote against it. This thing was only going to get through if voted for by the more moderate majority of which a fair chunk of the Labour party is. Corbyn therefore had it in his gift to get it through but whipped his party to vote it down for no other reason than gaining political advantage. His ambivalence has served to prolong this debacle and put working class and poor people even more at risk of further decline and job losses. In that sense May showed more inclination for the good of the country than he did.
Personally I think it's one of two things, possibly both:
Firstly, she has her own centre-right bias which despite her training as a journalist and the responsibility of her role to stay impartial, inevitably rears its head occasionally. That's human nature and it is incredibly difficult to avoid this, I'd argue that it's actually impossible unless you intentionally play devils advocate occasionally. She also obviously has absolute contempt for Corbyn and his politics and that kind of strong emotion will inevitably impact on her reporting.
Secondly, as a journalist she knows the value of networking and harvesting key sources. As such she is going to value her access to Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, very highly. She's been cultivating that trust and access for years now hedging her bets that he will eventually get the job and she was right. She's doing all she can to retain that access and sadly that has resulted in her trading inside information for favourable reporting.
Well yes, of course.
We can argue about its relevance but it is still a fact. Bottom line is you are upset a reporter reported a fact. You drew conclusions based on that.
Some people might think the fact relevant. Some might not. But she’s not to blame for the facts.
It's not really about offence though is it. It's about political currency and an agenda against a certain BBC journo.
Ironically that agenda chasing has obliterated the issues about the NHS that Salem wanted to highlight.
Nah not really. Most people will have only watched the video (It must be on well over a million views).
It’s a Conspiracy, then.
Ah come on, this is far too naive. You shape the narrative you want by your selection and presentation of facts. You can present exactly the same story in a hundred different ways and make each of them sound very different without having to invent anything.
What is this story? PM visits hospital, father with sick kid in same hospital berates PM over kids treatment. That's the story. Yet with the careful introduction of a few extra 'facts' the story is now about a Labour activist and about a BBC journalist. No lies have been told (except by the PM, but no-one cares about that apparently), yet the entire media narrative is now completely different.
Thank you, saved me some time. In terms of her background, track record and history it’s going to be both her personal bias (right leaning) and lack of integrity as she quite clearly used to being fed the inside info from the tories (aka “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”). She knows the script, basically.
There's simply no defence for Kuenssberg's actions.
Laura's done him a big favour then.
I don't have any agenda and I don't think she has any agenda. She is simply in bed with anyone in Not 10 so she gets scoops. She will parrot any PMs line to keep people happy. A journo for hire as it were.
Last edited:
Meh it would of got a ton of hits anyway although yeah its completely possible that her and the beeb stupid actions and abuse of power have caused the video to get more view. None of which takes away from the arguments against Kuenssberg and the BBC.
The narrative of the story has now changed though.
No one is talking about Boris’ ridiculous lie (unless he considers the BBC a part of his staff which is also possible), they’re talking about the labour activist or the BBC journalist.