Forum Topic

Hello Paul,This will be a long reply as I will be quoting Robin Aitken a bit, so please bear with me.  If you have the patience, please read this to the end.I did watch some of the video.   Firstly, I thought the purpose of the video was really to promote Aitken's book "Noble Liar"The presenter started by saying "... our media now is becoming incredibly restrictive, incredibly biased and is always promoting a liberal agenda.My next guest knows all about working in a liberal media.  Robin Aitken worked for the BBC for 25 years."It is true to say that Robin Aitken was one in 30,000 people employed by the BBC, which includes part time, flexible and fixed-term contract staff.  And it is true to say that he expressed his views on the BBC.  As such, he is entitled to his views which are exactly that. He is not representing an impartial entity.During his interview, Aitken said that "the economy is at the forefront of the Brexit debate from the remain side.  Everything is couched in terms of economy as if nothing else matters.  That is why people voted the way they did.  It was the first opportunity, I think, that a lot of people felt their vote would count because it was a simple Yes/No  question and it was a question answered by an absolute majority right across the nation.  It was the first time that people knew that their vote would actually count.  They were engaged by that and they were saying:  We do not like the way things have gone.  We want to have our own country back; to make our own laws  It is such a simple, fundamental demand in a democracy, that you could say everybody could simply sign up for it but clearly they can't.  I am always reminded of the remark by Tony Benn:  If you cannot vote the buggers out, then you do not live in a democracy.  I think he was absolutely right there.  If you cannot vote out the people in Brussels, you are not really living in a functioning democracy."And here I stopped.  I must admit to be "allergic" to the term liberal being used constantly as it feels it is the crutch used by people who are not altogether sure what they think.  It is cool (or wicked perhaps?) to say liberal constantly.  This is my view.When he tried to explain why people had voted for Brexit (the very simple Yes/No question) I felt incredibly disappointed in him.  He said remain only fought on economic grounds (I was one of them) as if that were the only important thing ???.  But when he mentioned Tony Benn and "voting the buggers out".  If you cannot vote Brussels out, you are not living in a functional democracy.  Therefore, the same principle would apply to the UN and voting against the Paris Agreement.  If you cannot vote the buggers out in NY, you are not living in a functional democracy. So the question must be, do you really understand how the UK operates, how Brussels works, how the UN works? I say goodnight for now.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2717d

Now they are both coming to an end I would just like to emphasise my admiration of the BBC coverage of both the Trump visit and the D-Day commemorations. I see few signs of bias at the BBC, even from distant Edinburgh - I’ve been in Scotland this last week or so, so well away from the “metropolitan bubble”.If the Beeb goes wrong it is in the pursuit of “balance” in reporting current affairs and addressing the major issues of the day. Sometimes balance to the Beeb is having two opposing voices, rarely if ever ones from the political extremes, but also rarely more than two when many issues require more nuanced treatment. They were relentlessly criticised by the SNP during Scotland’s referendum campaign, while many Unionists thought they bent over backwards to avoid confronting the SNP’s wilder claims (of which there were many).  In my view they compounded these errors during the EU referendum by failing seriously to challenge the baseless assertions and simple untruths which abounded.  This is one reason - again in my view - why debate on our future relationship with the EU remains so poisonous.  People believe what they want to believe whether it’s true or not. The Beeb has a duty to challenge those who peddle untruths wherever they sit on the political spectrum. In summary, institutional bias no, but evidence of lack of resolve by hiding behind the compulsive need for “balance”.  From 400 miles away I also detect some London-centricity despite having their major regional centres in both Manchester and Glasgow.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2715d

The Daily Mail has gone completely ape over this, yelling on its front page with an accusation from the usual suspects (Iain Duncan Smith to the fore) that the BBC is BIASED BRAZEN [and] CONTEMPTIBLE.  And the evidence for this is ... biased, brazen and contemptible. The BBC is accused of not vetting guests — actually, not "guests" but people who simply asked a question in the Conservative leadership hustings, and there were more than 30,000 questioners, how could they possibly manage to vet them? Even worse is a ludicrous attack by Stephen Glover (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7160341/STEPHEN-GLOVER-pretence-gone-debate-BBCs-bias-hopelessly-exposed.html), "ln the aftermath of the programme it has become irrefutable that it was rigged against the Tories." How? He doesn't explain. And apart from an Imam and a Labour party member, there was "a 15-year-old climate change activist of dogmatic views whose social media record implies sympathies for the Scottish National Party." The Scottish National Party! We can't possibly let people like that ask questions! And "suspicions were aroused as soon as I saw the set. The five Tories had been placed on high stools with their legs dangling beneath them." Well, that really is suspicious! Then he whines about the format: the participants (the candidates, not the questioners) "came over as an argumentative rabble rather than as statesmen capable of running the country. Was such an impression deliberate?" No, it was the result of their being ... an argumentative rabble. I could go on, but there's really no point in trying to deconstruct this nonsense any further: what this stuff does is to demonstrate the Daily Mail as BIASED BRAZEN  [and] CONTEMPTIBLE.

Richard Carter ● 2701d