advertisement


Laura Kuenssberg stepping down as BBC Political Editor

Oh, I don't know...off to jollies like this this.
Must be really difficult for her to remain impartial.
The best approach is that of Jeremy Paxman, whose thoughts when interviewing politicians were, in his own words ‘Why is this bastard lying to me?’ The minute a journalist becomes too friendly with a politician, their impartiality is compromised.
 
If Lewis Goodall got it there’d be genuine reason to believe the BBC is capable of self-reflection and change.
I know he's in the running but I doubt he'll get it. And if he did, I suspect he'll be brought to heel quite quickly by a mixture of external and internal pressure. Even so, that would still leave us in a much better place than where we are now, with LK in the role.
 
The best approach is that of Jeremy Paxman, whose thoughts when interviewing politicians were, in his own words ‘Why is this bastard lying to me?’ The minute a journalist becomes too friendly with a politician, their impartiality is compromised.
Not at all. It did not impede Isabel Oakeshott in her pursuit of journalistic excellence.
 
So that's a no then? Just spin that LK is biased to the right.

From Wiki... Smoke..fire..etc.

In January 2017 the BBC Trust ruled that a report in November 2015 by Kuenssberg broke the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines. A viewer had complained about her item, which featured an interview with Corbyn on the BBC News at Six which gave the incorrect impression that Corbyn disagreed with the use of firearms by police in incidents such as that month's terrorist attacks in Paris. His purported answer to a question as broadcast in the report was in fact his reply to a more general question (not broadcast), and not specifically about that terrorist attack.[33] The BBC Trust said that the inaccuracy was "compounded" when Kuenssberg went on to state that Corbyn's message "couldn't be more different" from that of May, who was about to publish anti-terrorism proposals. The trust said that accuracy was particularly important when dealing "with a critical question at a time of extreme national concern."[33] Nevertheless, the BBC Trust found no evidence that there had been any intention to mislead, and their ruling was that the footage "had been compiled in good faith."[34] The Daily Telegraph published a story about Kuenssberg in 2017 with the headline "the most divisive woman on TV today?" printed on the front-page.[3][35]

In September 2019 Kuenssberg received criticism for her portrayal of Omar Salem, a father who confronted the prime minister, Boris Johnson, about the government's treatment of the NHS, as "a Labour activist."[36] Salem defended Kuenssberg, saying that she was doing her job "without fear or favour which is a vital part of democracy. I don't think 'Labour activist cares about NHS' is a huge scoop though...".[37]

On 11 December 2019, the day before the General Election, she drew controversy by claiming on air that submitted postal votes, apparently viewed by both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, were "looking pretty grim for Labour in a lot of parts of the country".[38][39] Viewing postal votes prior to polling day is in breach of guidelines set by the Electoral Commission[40] and predicting electoral outcomes based on votes cast prior to polls closing may be a criminal offence.[41][42] The footage was subsequently withdrawn from BBC iPlayer, while the episode of Politics Live in which the incident happened was withdrawn and removed from the BBC Parliament schedule.[43] The BBC News press office tweeted: "Regarding today's Politics Live programme, the BBC does not believe it, or its political editor, has breached electoral law."[44] The Metropolitan Police later confirmed that there was "no evidence of any criminal offences having been committed."[45]

Kuenssberg was criticised, alongside other major journalists, for incorrectly tweeting that a Labour activist had punched a Conservative Party advisor, without verification; footage was released showing this was untrue and she later apologised and retracted her tweet.[46] On 3 March 2020, however, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit stated that "It found no evidence of political bias nor that Laura Kuenssberg had failed to check the story before publication." In her apology, Kuenssberg noted that two sources had told her the story was true, and she hence decided to publish it.[47]

In May 2020, as the Dominic Cummings scandal broke, Kuenssberg tweeted several statements from an anonymous source close to Cummings about the nature of his trip. In one tweet, she contradicted Pippa Crerar, one of the journalists who broke the story, with information from a "source" which argued that the trip was not illegal. Many suspected that the anonymous source was Cummings himself, which led to allegations that Kuenssberg was defending, or at least uncritically repeating, his side of the story. This led to a significant volume of complaints to the BBC, who defended Kuenssberg's actions.[48][49] In May 2021, Dominic Cummings confirmed to a Parliamentary committee that he "set the record straight" with briefings to Kuenssberg.[50]

Enough?
 
Isn’t it time to reorganise the way PFM pages load so that all the content appears only on the left hand side? Seriously though, who would make a good central presenter these days bringing left and right wing bias into account impartially because that is what we need?

What we also need is presenters asking awkward questions such as why have we outsourced our national infrastructures such as fuel, steel and food to non UK private or state backed organisations who can and do hold is to ransom when something does not suit just as much as challenging the xenophobic decisions made over time.
 
The Guardian is talking freely about political bias in the appointment as if it were just the natural thing...

"Unofficially, Davie and his team will be acutely aware of how Downing Street will view any appointment. With the BBC’s future under constant threat and negotiations over the future of the licence fee still unresolved, they will have to take account of the political currents that surround the appointment of one of the most powerful jobs in British journalism."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...hlighted-by-expected-exit-of-laura-kuenssberg
 
I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier!
bruce-hand-on-face-newcastle-united-nufc-1120.jpg

Wuth just have tuh dust wurhselves down yuh know.
Wuth been very unlucky.
 
In January 2017 the BBC Trust ruled that a report in November 2015 by Kuenssberg broke the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines. A viewer had complained about her item, which featured an interview with Corbyn on the BBC News at Six which gave the incorrect impression that Corbyn disagreed with the use of firearms by police in incidents such as that month's terrorist attacks in Paris. His purported answer to a question as broadcast in the report was in fact his reply to a more general question (not broadcast), and not specifically about that terrorist attack.[33] The BBC Trust said that the inaccuracy was "compounded" when Kuenssberg went on to state that Corbyn's message "couldn't be more different" from that of May, who was about to publish anti-terrorism proposals. The trust said that accuracy was particularly important when dealing "with a critical question at a time of extreme national concern.

In September 2019 Kuenssberg received criticism for her portrayal of Omar Salem, a father who confronted the prime minister, Boris Johnson, about the government's treatment of the NHS, as "a Labour activist."

On 11 December 2019, the day before the General Election, she drew controversy by claiming on air that submitted postal votes, apparently viewed by both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, were "looking pretty grim for Labour in a lot of parts of the country".[38][39] Viewing postal votes prior to polling day is in breach of guidelines set by the Electoral Commission[40] and predicting electoral outcomes based on votes cast prior to polls closing may be a criminal offence.[41][42] The footage was subsequently withdrawn from BBC iPlayer, while the episode of Politics Live in which the incident happened was withdrawn and removed from the BBC Parliament schedule.

Kuenssberg was criticised, alongside other major journalists, for incorrectly tweeting that a Labour activist had punched a Conservative Party advisor, without verification; footage was released showing this was untrue and she later apologised and retracted her tweet.

In May 2020, as the Dominic Cummings scandal broke, Kuenssberg tweeted several statements from an anonymous source close to Cummings about the nature of his trip. In one tweet, she contradicted Pippa Crerar, one of the journalists who broke the story, with information from a "source" which argued that the trip was not illegal. Many suspected that the anonymous source was Cummings himself, which led to allegations that Kuenssberg was defending, or at least uncritically repeating, his side of the story. This led to a significant volume of complaints to the BBC, who defended Kuenssberg's actions.[48][49] In May 2021, Dominic Cummings confirmed to a Parliamentary committee that he "set the record straight" with briefings to Kuenssberg.

Etc, etc, etc....

Can you perhaps give some verbatim examples where she hasn't?

Also, how about trivialising an attempted fascist coup on January 6th 2021?:

Laura Kuenssberg said:
Looks like scuffles inside the Capitol

Source: Laura Kuenssberg's Twitter account
 
Let's be honest here, some people would prefer that the likes of Johnson, Kuenssberg etc stay in their roles to ensure there is always ample material to be angry about. Utopia wouldn't suit them.
 
Also, how about trivialising an attempted fascist coup on January 6th 2021?:



Source: Laura Kuenssberg's Twitter account
I know standards have slipped at the BBC but their political editor lazily repeating hearsay on Twitter without checking sources is bad enough before we get to her working hand in glove with (or being used as a patsy by by) a lying political advisor who works for another notorious liar currently occupying the role of Prime Minister. She seems to have confused her role at the BBC with that of the Conservative Party leader’s director of communications.
 
Isn’t it time to reorganise the way PFM pages load so that all the content appears only on the left hand side? Seriously though, who would make a good central presenter these days bringing left and right wing bias into account impartially because that is what we need?

What we also need is presenters asking awkward questions such as why have we outsourced our national infrastructures such as fuel, steel and food to non UK private or state backed organisations who can and do hold is to ransom when something does not suit just as much as challenging the xenophobic decisions made over time.

IMO Amol Rajan could be great. Significant editorial experience as editor of The Independent at a prodigiously young age, lots of broadcast and interviewing experience, capable of handling heavy subject matter well, and a penetrating and no-nonsense style of interviewing yet without any sneering overtones (ie like Paxman could be). I think he could be excellent in the role.

Unfortunately he’s not long started as a Today programme anchor, so unlikely to go for/be considered for the job.
 
I remember between 1997 and 2010 there was considerable unhappiness at the way the BBC courted and supported the government.
The beeb is dependant on the government for it's existance so it will tend to favour the party in power
 
I remember between 1997 and 2010 there was considerable unhappiness at the way the BBC courted and supported the government.
The beeb is dependant on the government for it's existance so it will tend to favour the party in power
Indeed, the Beeb admits as such. It frames it differently, putting a more noble spin on it, but it doesn’t deny that it considers its role to be broadly as a government mouthpiece.
 
I guess the difference between now and then was that the BBC as a whole was more or less in agreement with the New Labour agenda* (and this carried through into the Cameron administration); post-Brexit and more especially since Johnson became Tory leader the BBC's values are almost the direct opposite of the Government's. So in order to keep the Government reasonably happy, the BBC will have to self-censor anything even remotely critical.

* I'm not saying that agenda was good, just that, at least until the invasion of Iraq, there was nothing too objectionable in it for BBC 'types'.
 
I know standards have slipped at the BBC but their political editor lazily repeating hearsay on Twitter without checking sources is bad enough before we get to her working hand in glove with (or being used as a patsy by by) a lying political advisor who works for another notorious liar currently occupying the role of Prime Minister. She seems to have confused her role at the BBC with that of the Conservative Party leader’s director of communications.
Yep, the bias thing is overdone: the real problem is proximity to power, instinctive obedience, aggressive political conformism, credulity, shameless self-promotion, a desire for sensationalist scoops completely at odds with the BBC’s public service remit, and the absence of the kind of journalistic principle and competence that might mitigate any of these failings.

Has to be said though that in all this she is typical of U.K. political journalism in general and symptomatic of the BBC’s lack of independence and pro-establishment instincts and function. She gets the most stick partly because she’s not sharp enough to present her compromised position in terms of balance and responsibility and partly because she’s a woman: after all, Peston is *at least* as compliant and dim and is regarded with some affection.
 
IMO Amol Rajan could be great. Significant editorial experience as editor of The Independent at a prodigiously young age, lots of broadcast and interviewing experience, capable of handling heavy subject matter well, and a penetrating and no-nonsense style of interviewing yet without any sneering overtones (ie like Paxman could be). I think he could be excellent in the role.

Unfortunately he’s not long started as a Today programme anchor, so unlikely to go for/be considered for the job.
He’s Kuenssberg 2.0: politically amoral and sensationalistic (remember his breathless promotion of the broadcast of Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech?), an industrial-strength establishment suck-up, instinctively prickly and defensive regarding journalistic clientelism. But slick enough to cover it up. An ideal replacement, as far as the BBC and Conservative Party are concerned.

https://brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/amol-nitrate-why-the-bbc-is-so-high
 
I remember between 1997 and 2010 there was considerable unhappiness at the way the BBC courted and supported the government.
The beeb is dependant on the government for it's existance so it will tend to favour the party in power

Indeed. The de facto British State Broadcaster is biased in favour of the Westminster government of the day.

Strange how the Tories, having been banging on about left-wing bias at the BBC 'since the year dot', have not done what they have long threatened to do re. the license fee, given that they have the power to do it... It's almost as though they don't want to 'look a gift horse in the mouth', and harm their propaganda arm...

MSM, in general, have been utterly useless holding the current shower to account (the worst Prime Minister & Westminster Government in living memory, so bad, I long for the warm & cuddly days of Thatcher's benign regime! :eek: :confused:), but the 'protection' the BBC have given them throughout Brexit, COVID etc. has, and continues to be, extraordinary. :eek:

IMHO, of course. :rolleyes: :p
 


advertisement


Back
Top