Brown on the ropes? - Page 21

Jimmy-J · 03-05-2009, 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Can't be true can it?.....

No, it can't be true... It's not reported on the BBC web site. Well, I can't see it.

**Hugh** · 03-05-2009, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Product 13

No, it can't be true... It's not reported on the BBC web site. Well, I can't see it.

Brief article in the Observer about it.

Osem · 03-05-2009, 15:24

Here too.....

If these allegations are true it would appear that so concerned is she about the the plight of the poor and the chronic shortage of affordable homes that she has her very own housing association property. No, it can't be true can it?.... It's not on the BBC website after all...

Well things really aren't looking brilliant for Brown are they?... Mind you, he's very popular on the Downing Street website. Currently, the largest petition is this one (please note that IS on the BBC so it's bound to be true). Now Gordon's always made a lot of fuss about how he's been listening to the people and acting accordingly so I wonder if he'll take note of what they're saying about him?...

Oh and just in case you thought the MP's expenses information soon to be revealed was going to be released in a spirit of true openness, think again.

Sirius · 03-05-2009, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Product 13

No, it can't be true... It's not reported on the BBC web site. Well, I can't see it.

You trust the BBC website

Jimmy-J · 03-05-2009, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

You trust the BBC website

No I don't Sirius, I trust no one, not even myself.

barby81 · 03-05-2009, 18:46

The funniest thing is Brown's best chance of winning the election was back when he hesitated ...the damage is done so I guess cameron will be winning

03-05-2009, 19:20

Only interesting thing left for us to watch in this GB government is how long it takes people to start sticking the knife in to try and seperate themselves from this shambles of a government. Other then that for most of us public it will be more of the same watching cringing at how royally shafted we are till we can get rid of the lot of them.

Osem · 04-05-2009, 14:02

A quick search reveals that the allegations against Baroness Uddin are deemed sufficiently credible and newsworthy to be covered in the Times, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Observer, The Daily Mirror, The Sun, ITN News, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Independent and many other places. Oddly, however, I still can't find any mention of the story on the BBC...

04-05-2009, 17:49

BBC is very nearly just a government mouthpiece these days giving the opposition a tough time on interviews and suchlike and going easy on most of the governement ministers they have in. If it is negative for the government or something that doesn't make them look good you'll be waiting a while to hear about it on the bbc.

Osem · 06-05-2009, 09:32

Oh look, the BBC has finally caught up with the Uddin story...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8034828.stm

**Chris** · 06-05-2009, 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Oh look, the BBC has finally caught up with the Uddin story...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8034828.stm

The BBC's timescale in reporting this is not evidence of bias towards Labour. The original report was in the Sunday Times and it's clear that the BBC hasn't been able to verify it by talking to any sources of its own. All it would have been able to do is report exactly what the Sunday Times reported - effectively a 'single source' story, which the BBC has stated very publicly it does not do except in exceptional circumstances.

They are able to report it now because there is something verifiable in the public domain that can be said about it - namely the investigation by the Clerk of the House of Lords.

Osem · 06-05-2009, 11:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

The BBC's timescale in reporting this is not evidence of bias towards Labour. The original report was in the Sunday Times and it's clear that the BBC hasn't been able to verify it by talking to any sources of its own. All it would have been able to do is report exactly what the Sunday Times reported - effectively a 'single source' story, which the BBC has stated very publicly it does not do except in exceptional circumstances.

They are able to report it now because there is something verifiable in the public domain that can be said about it - namely the investigation by the Clerk of the House of Lords.

Well I didn't claim the BBC are biased towards Labour (they're just fixated on PC) and I'd have been very happy if they'd simply have reported what the Times were claiming - after all they are very serious allegations which were widely reported amongst the rest of the media. There must be lots of occasions on which the BBC reports news it can't independently verify the accuracy of.

**Chris** · 06-05-2009, 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Well I didn't claim the BBC are biased towards Labour (they're just fixated on PC) and I'd have been very happy if they'd simply have reported what the Times were claiming - after all they are very serious allegations which were widely reported amongst the rest of the media. There must be lots of occasions on which the BBC reports news it can't independently verify the accuracy of.

Actually there really aren't that many occasions - not since they ran a 'single source' item on Today reporting allegations that the Government had 'sexed up' claims that Saddam Hussein could deploy WMDs in 45 minutes. That cock-up resulted in a man's suicide, as you might remember. Editorial standards at the Beeb are now extremely, some might say hopelessly, strict in this regard.

Single source reporting is for extreme circumstances only, and in the context of this story, the Sunday Times is the single source. Had that story turned out to be a libel, the fact that they were simply reporting what another newspaper had already said would be no defence. The Sunday Times has access to whatever interviews it conducted in order to prove its case, were it accused of defamation, but the Beeb would have nothing.

What they have done is wait until they have their own quotable, verifiable source before reporting, and the Clerk of the Lords has given them that by announcing an inquiry. In fact the good lady baroness has also given them something quotable, by announcing that she will co-operate.

Osem · 06-05-2009, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually there really aren't that many occasions - not since they ran a 'single source' item on Today reporting allegations that the Government had 'sexed up' claims that Saddam Hussein could deploy WMDs in 45 minutes. That cock-up resulted in a man's suicide, as you might remember. Editorial standards at the Beeb are now extremely, some might say hopelessly, strict in this regard.

Single source reporting is for extreme circumstances only, and in the context of this story, the Sunday Times is the single source. Had that story turned out to be a libel, the fact that they were simply reporting what another newspaper had already said would be no defence. The Sunday Times has access to whatever interviews it conducted in order to prove its case, were it accused of defamation, but the Beeb would have nothing.

What they have done is wait until they have their own quotable, verifiable source before reporting, and the Clerk of the Lords has given them that by announcing an inquiry. In fact the good lady baroness has also given them something quotable, by announcing that she will co-operate.

Isn't that the reason the BBC normally uses the term 'allegedly' so liberally in its reporting?

**Chris** · 06-05-2009, 12:51

Nope - that's an urban myth. Stating that something has been 'alleged' by someone else is not a defence against a claim of libel.