Think I'd be inclined to calm things down today, if I were him, too, to be honest. Enough on his plate without a load of bored and angry retired white men ranting at him.I don't really agree. Salem himself has come out and defended her on the matter. I can see the issue with some of the semantics although I think its far too slight and nuanced to amount to anywhere close to the reaction there has been from the Corbynites that are desperate to take her down.
Funny how facts can be so upsetting, now that you know what the BBC Trust, whose judgement you regard so highly, actually said.How surprising.
An apology would be a bit odd to be honest but that doesn't make either of her tweets right. I'd just like the BBC not to use such methods in the future. If the likes of the BBC start identifying the political background of anyone with a view so the other side can dismiss it at best or hurl abuse at worse then we're screwed.I'm not seeing why she should apologise for linking his account at all. His account is used specifically to influence political narrative on a public platform.
The BBC's reaction has been what I've found a bit weird to be honest: the sort of non-apology posted on what looked like an iPhones note screenshot or something, and a RT'd Spectator article defending her.An apology would be a bit odd to be honest but that doesn't make either of her tweets right. I'd just like the BBC not to use such methods in the future. If the likes of the BBC start identifying the political background of anyone with a view so the other side can dismiss it at best or hurl abuse at worse then we're screwed.
I fear anyone who can't see why its poor behaviour is so entrenched in some wierd pro laura view or is a bit of sociopath.
You make it sound like they were digging around for dirt. It just isn't true. She was repeating what was already reported elsewhere and something Salem seems very happy to let people know and doesn't feel compromises his position. He was happy to take the story public and use it for political currency so the BBC extending his platform is not controversial in my opinion.An apology would be a bit odd to be honest but that doesn't make either of her tweets right. I'd just like the BBC not to use such methods in the future. If the likes of the BBC start identifying the political background of anyone with a view so the other side can dismiss it at best or hurl abuse at worse then we're screwed.
I fear anyone who can't see why its poor behaviour is so entrenched in some wierd pro laura view or is a bit of sociopath.
Has someone made a bet with you to include the word Corbynistas in every post or something? Very childish. This is not a corbyn issue, it's you lot with the agenda that have decided it is so you must defend poor laura.You make it sound like they were digging around for dirt. It just isn't true. She was repeating what was already reported elsewhere and something Salem seems very happy to let people know and doesn't feel compromises his position. He was happy to take the story public and use it for political currency so the BBC extending his platform is not controversial in my opinion.
I agree that her stating 'he's a labour activist' could be construed as overstepping impartiality in a small way but I'm hugely sceptical she was initiating a right wing Twitter pile on to protect BoJo.
Is this 'you're either with us or a sociopath' going to be a tactic the Corbynistas are going to use going forward? If it is, I don't think it's a good one.
It is a Corbyn issue though isn't it. It's grown out of the idea that the BBC give Corbyn a hard time and purposefully work against his political movement. It's Corbyn's supporters jumping on an event to push their own political agenda against Kuenssberg and the BBC. She wasn't inviting him to troll them either.Has someone made a bet with you to include the word Corbynistas in every post or something? Very childish. This is not a corbyn issue, it's you lot with the agenda that have decided it is so you must defend poor laura.
My point was evidently that those who can't find the empathy to see why any action inviting trolls onto a father with a sick baby are missing some very needed social intelligence.
Love to see the two BBC News reporter heavyweights go head to head in a live contest;
Laura Kuenssberg (Political Editor) v Emily Maitlis (Newsnight Presenter)
The contest would be focused on;
Which one is thought to exhibit most bias?
Which one is best at covering up their bias?
Which one can deliver the best 'fake news' story and make it sound real?
For guidance, for the uninitiated, or for those who are unsure, the consensus seems to be that Kuenssberg is 'Pro-Boris' and Maitlis 'Anti-Boris'
The easiest way to dismiss this claim would be to link her pointing out the political leanings of the various Tory councillors/activists/candidates that find their way onto the BBC to broadcast their opinions every time Question Time is on air. Then again for the financial and political interests of the various think tank talking heads that you see at least 2 of on any given day's BBC political programming.It is a Corbyn issue though isn't it. It's grown out of the idea that the BBC give Corbyn a hard time and purposefully work against his political movement. It's Corbyn's supporters jumping on an event to push their own political agenda against Kuenssberg and the BBC. She wasn't inviting him to troll them either.
Possibly although the only people I've seen support the idea of an a agenda against her are well.....other westminster journalists. Protect your own(They seem to be a bit like British football managers).I think its a really weak point for the Corbynites to go rabid over. Salem seems to think so too. It's a poor battle to go full force into and doesn't really help to enhance any idea of her bias towards the Tories in my opinion. It more supports the idea of an agenda against her more.
Laura Kuenssberg is a privately educated, upper class white women who is viewed as a ''outsider'' because she turned down Cambridge and has a accent. This is system we are dealing with(Not to forget the constant need to feed the news cycle that comes along with both 24 hour news and apps like twitter).Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
Of course her coverage will be different towards a party of labour, then it is towards a tory government. Of course she will have biases, just like the rest of us. Kuenssberg isn't immune to the world we all live in, class didn't go away because some guy in the 2000's said we are all middle class. But sacking her won't make a difference(Although personally I get rid of her just on sheer incompetence). There's got be a systemic change of the system.(Christ I'm starting to sound like a bloody Matrix sequel. In short get rid of capitalism). The failure to not do so results in things like personal abusive and anti semitism in particular.Chomsky: “It’s a, well actually, Orwell you may recall has an essay called ‘Literary censorship in England’, which was supposed to be the introduction to Animal Farm except that it never appeared. And which he points out, look, I’m writing about a totalitarian society but in free democratic England it’s not all that different. And then he says, unpopular ideas can be silenced without any force. [Marr: How? {inaudible}] He gives a two sentence response, which is not very profound, but captures it2. He says two reasons, first the press is owned by wealthy men who have every interest in not having certain things appear, but second the whole educational system from the beginning on through just gets you to understand that there are certain things you just don’t say. Well, spelling these things out, that’s perfectly correct. I mean, the first sentence is what we expanded on…”
Marr: “This is what I don’t get, because it suggests that - I mean I’m a journalist - people like me are self-censoring.”
Chomsky: “No, not self-censoring. You’re, there’s a filtering system, that starts in kindergarten, and goes all the way through, and it’s not going to work 100% but it’s pretty effective. It selects for obedience, and subordination, and especially I think… [Marr: So stroppy people won’t make it to positions of influence] There’ll be behavioural problems. If you read applications to a graduate school you’ll see that people will tell you, he’s not, he doesn’t get along too well with his colleagues, you know how to interpret those things.”
The easiest way to dismiss this claim would be to link her pointing out the political leanings of the various Tory councillors/activists/candidates that find their way onto the BBC to broadcast their opinions every time Question Time is on air. Then again for the financial and political interests of the various think tank talking heads that you see at least 2 of on any given day's BBC political programming.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Go away.Funny how facts can be so upsetting, now that you know what the BBC Trust, whose judgement you regard so highly, actually said.
Not necessarily. It could also mean that one side's definition of "leaning" (I'll say of the Tories here) is rather militant.Funny I thought most Tories were of the opinion the Beeb is full of left wing luvvies.
If both sides say that it leans towards the opposition then it must be pretty much on the money for most things.
Marr said it the best:Funny I thought most Tories were of the opinion the Beeb is full of left wing luvvies.
If both sides say that it leans towards the opposition then it must be pretty much on the money for most things.
Dear Mr
Thank you for contacting us. To allow us to reply promptly to your concerns, and to ensure we use our Licence fee resources as efficiently as possible, we’re sending this response to everyone. We’re sorry that for this reason we can’t reply personally to you on each point which has been made.
Laura Kuenssberg is a journalist that uses social media as part of her job.
Like many others, Laura quote-tweeted a thread by Omar Salem, who had written himself about his encounter with the PM on social media. He also describes himself as a Labour activist, so we don’t consider it was inaccurate to describe Mr Salem this way. Our editorial guidelines require us to give ‘appropriate information’ about the affiliations of the people involved in our News stories. Giving our audience as much information as possible enables them to make up their own minds and gives them the chance to hear the story in full. We also made it clear in our News coverage the reasons to why Mr Salem was at the hospital in the first place.
Mr Salem has stated on Twitter, “@bbclaurak is doing her job without fear or favour, which is a vital part of democracy.”
We strongly refute any suggestions that there was malicious intent behind Laura’s Tweets. News management have been made aware of your comments.
Kind Regards
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
How who what why when where.
She was doing the “who”.
Damned if she does damned if she doesn’t, is that how it works?The other week when that bloke confronted Boris about not negotiating with the EU while he was walking around his town, and LK was standing right next to him, did she report that man's background and party affiliation?
Are they though or are they just scared of the tory thugs in parliament?The entertainment and political wings of the BBC are not homogeneous.
The entertainment side is naturally a lot more liberal and lefty, as creative industries tend to be, but the political News side is kinda centre right... at least at an editorial level.
Or it certainly seems that way. @MikeUpNorth is really the person to ask...???
You might be right in terms of the political views of the people who worked there but the output at the BBC isn't exactly that liberal. Just look at the schedule of BBC OneThe entertainment and political wings of the BBC are not homogeneous.
The entertainment side is naturally a lot more liberal and lefty, as creative industries tend to be, but the political News side is kinda centre right... at least at an editorial level.
An hour long programme dedicated to Brexit every weeknight at 17:15 is over the top.You might be right in terms of the political views of the people who worked there but the output at the BBC isn't exactly that liberal. Just look at the schedule of BBC One
https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl6p
It's hardy re runs of John Berger and The Clangers/Fully realised communism.
In fairness they give a plug to the samaritans at the end of each episode.An hour long programme dedicated to Brexit every weeknight at 17:15 is over the top.
Those hotline jobs could gone to Brits rather than people from Samaria!!!1!!In fairness they give a plug to the samaritans at the end of each episode.
Probably because your views are aligned with hers. You can't see the bias.Because I don’t actually think she did anything terribly wrong. No more complicated than that.
Turns out he's a Kuenssberg activistProbably because your views are aligned with hers. You can't see the bias.
This is a meme now. Set in stone.Turns out he's a Kuenssberg activist
Basically, they're saying that when they tweet or write a news story about someone they give "appropriate information’ about the affiliations of the people involved". A follow up complaint every time they don't that should do the trick to see what the response is then.Had a reply from the beeb:
Indeed. Their complete lack of information when various Tory stooges get to ask half the questions on Question Time is probably worth a mention.Basically, they're saying that when they tweet or write a news story about someone they give "appropriate information’ about the affiliations of the people involved". A follow up complaint every time they don't that should do the trick to see what the response is then.
Again, they've misjudged the appropriate tone.Pexbo said:Dear Mr
Thank you for contacting us. To allow us to reply promptly to your concerns, and to ensure we use our Licence fee resources as efficiently as possible, we’re sending this response to everyone. We’re sorry that for this reason we can’t reply personally to you on each point which has been made.
Laura Kuenssberg is a journalist that uses social media as part of her job.
Like many others, Laura quote-tweeted a thread by Omar Salem, who had written himself about his encounter with the PM on social media. He also describes himself as a Labour activist, so we don’t consider it was inaccurate to describe Mr Salem this way. Our editorial guidelines require us to give ‘appropriate information’ about the affiliations of the people involved in our News stories. Giving our audience as much information as possible enables them to make up their own minds and gives them the chance to hear the story in full. We also made it clear in our News coverage the reasons to why Mr Salem was at the hospital in the first place.
Mr Salem has stated on Twitter, “@bbclaurak is doing her job without fear or favour, which is a vital part of democracy.”
We strongly refute any suggestions that there was malicious intent behind Laura’s Tweets. News management have been made aware of your comments.
Kind Regards
BBC Complaints Team
I don't think any of us were expecting repercussions for Ms K, nor necessarily wanting any. However, the tone of the reply is borderline rude, and this is common feature in BBC replies to complaints I've read. As with so much 'protest' these days, there's an air of 'there's nothing you can do, so know your place' about it.What sort of response were you expecting?
Dear Sir,
We have dismissed the daft sod and have scheduled her execution for dawn, tomorrow.
We hope this appeases your thirst for blood.
Ta,
I am not looking for an argument. Just an idea of what people were actually expecting.I don't think any of us were expecting repercussions for Ms K, nor necessarily wanting any. However, the tone of the reply is borderline rude, and this is common feature in BBC replies to complaints I've read. As with so much 'protest' these days, there's an air of 'there's nothing you can do, so know your place' about it.
BTW, you don't win arguments with laughable exaggeration, as displayed in your post.
