Although there may be scientific proof of impartiality from the UK state broadcaster, my main reason for protesting is because I have been compiling articles for our '
not in the news' series over the past few months and time and again I have come across how the BBC has distorted and surpressed the news. So, to save you
checking back through every one of them (although you are more than welcome to do so!), here is our 'not in the news' BBC special.
Quantifiable proof that the British State Broadcaster has been biased in
its referendum coverage came to light following research from the
University of the West of Scotland. STV was also found to be favouring
the 'no' campaign, but not quite to the same extent. We first came
across this story on
Newsnet Scotland which was once again ahead of the mainstream media.
Glance over the BBC
While the story of Labour voting against their own policies (extra
childcare provision and hot meals for young children) was taking place,
another, vastly most important issue, was dominating the BBC News
website.
Whether that's the British Lions [sic], or next month's Winter
Olympics, or of course, our astonishing achievements in the London 2012
Olympic Games. At those Games, the UK won 29 gold medals. And over the
Games, as
the tally went higher, so did our collective sense of national pride.
Chris Hoy, Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray, Mo Farah, Katherine Granger.
Those outstanding athletes weren't cheered on by parts of the UK, but by
all of us. They were our representatives. They worked together, they
competed
together – many had trained together at facilities across the UK. Their
success fed our pride."
 |
| Lord Jack McConnell, previously using athletes for political gain |
Although the Commonwealth Games will be a fantastic sporting event, we
don't believe that the referendum debate should be put on hold (and
we're not going to be influenced by 'Peer' pressure).
February
Scotland would be 11% better off immediately following independence
Stories regarding Scotland's economic strength have featured prominently
online throughout the referendum campaign (with Business for Scotland
achieving
over 100,000 unique visitors and one story being shared 23,000 times!)
however these tend to be dismissed and ignored by our Main Stream
Media. Now we have confirmation that it isn't the medium but the message
that the BBC, STV and the newspapers are opposed to.
The Financial Times released
a bombshell story
on Sunday, the 2nd of February which confirmed that Scotland would be
far stronger economically following independence, even if we continued
Westminster's wasteful expenditure.
"If its
geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account,
Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France. Even excluding
the North Sea’s hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that
of Italy. Oil, whisky and a broad range of manufactured goods mean an
independent Scotland would be one of
the world’s top 35 exporters.
An independent Scotland could also expect to start with healthier state
finances than the rest of the UK." Financial Times, 2nd of February 2014
Even this may be underestimating the economic strength of an independent
Scotland, with the full value of corporation tax and VAT being
potentially understated.
"Neither do the figures account for companies operating in Scotland who
currently pay taxes via head offices in England – taxes like Corporation
Tax or VAT for example. After independence these companies would have
to pay taxes on their Scottish operations to the Scottish government,
not the UK Treasury as they do at the moment. It's very difficult to
quantify just how much extra this would bring in, but it's certainly a
substantial amount." Newsnet Scotland, Guilty of bias by ommission
It's almost as if the
BBC in Scotland is biased...
Glance over the BBC
He
said the inquiry would be “Hutton style” – a reference to Lord Hutton’s
inquiry into the death of David Kelly – and would “clear” her, but
warned that “shortcomings” would have to be accepted as a result of the
report.
Read more at
http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/02/tony-blair-advised-rebekah-brooks-to-set-up-hutton-style-inquiry-which-would-clear-her/#xe2hcBmkCQL32qki.99
Just not the ones in Scotland.
The most glaring example were reports that a Scottish Pound linked to
Sterling was viewed as sensible by Deutsche Bank. Our newspapers, the
BBC and STV didn't believe this was worth mentioning (which was a bit
careless of our journalists, wasn't it?) It's almost as if they didn't
want to report the facts.
We can only speculate as to why...
March
The Media Standard is Poor
Whilst
another 'Standard'
was making the headlines, Credit Rating Agency Standard and Poor were
giving their assessment on the credit worthiness of an independent
Scotland. Their conclusion:
The BBC, alongside the rest of the print media, didn't consider this to
be very relevant, and offered minimal coverage. This lack of attention
couldn't be because it
directly contradicted Westminster MP Danny Alexander's claim in January that Scots would face a £5,200 hike in mortgages due to higher borrowing costs, could it?
Budget Analysis
Glance over the BBC
The third largest party in Scotland
held it's annual conference.
It's guest speaker was the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, and it was
given massive coverage on the BBC and other Main Stream Media outlets.
However, throughout March, there were other large gatherings taking
place. Radical Independence
attracted a huge crowd to protest outside the Tory Party (Scotlandshire branch) conference and encouraged
over 80 people to their second mass canvassing event in Drumchapel. For some reason, the BBC didn't want to offer the same degree of coverage to these.
I asked people as they filed out the door if the [Yes] meeting had helped.
"No, not really," came the reply from one man. "It was good
to hear other people's point of view, but it was basically a propaganda
meeting. It would be good if the 'No' and the 'Yes' campaigns could get on the same platform and come to towns."
But what the reporter didn't explain was why the two campaigns aren't having more public debates:
"I don’t think that there is a gaping hole
in the debate market that we need to fill. I don’t really see the need
for us to have a specific debate organised by the campaigns when there
are so many debates organised by third parties which both campaigns are
participating in." Rob Shorthouse, no campaign director of communications in response to a proposed debate in Glasgow with Yes Scotland.
The impression given by the BBC was that there were many meetings being
held by both sides, with Yes perhaps offering more, yet this is to
massively undersell the chasm between the two camps. Wings over Scotland
has provided numerous articles which show
the number of Yes and no activists, as well as
the reality of no campaign events.
Finally (for this month) we had the hard hitting and vitally important
"Cows connected to web to boost milk"
story featuring on the BBC Scotland News website. We know this was
important because it was placed above "Scots constitution to be
published". It even got it's own picture!
 |
| Got Impartiality? - note this was not the picture the BBC used |
On an entirely separate note, we're sure that the news coverage offered
the BBC has not, in any way, shape or form, been influenced by the fact
that a 'Yes' vote is
likely to cost the BBC £193 million every year.
This is a new section which looks at some of our favourite stories
on-line which look at media bias in Scotland. If you know any good blogs
that look at media bias, then please leave a comment and we'll check
them out!
Munguin's Republic -
In most countries, the press would brag about this...
Newsnet Scotland -
Will the real No campaign please stand up?
BBC presenter Andrew Marr accused of breaking guidelines on referendum coverage
A week in the life of Reporting Scotland Fairness in February and
The Dirty Dozen - The case against BBC Scotland
Wings over Scotland -
Double Standards and
What you didn't read this week
Business for Scotland -
11 good news stories for Yes
April
Letter from America
There were two speeches made in the United States of America in early April: one was by a
democratically elected politician who was acting in his capacity as head of a national parliament, the
other by an unelected lord
who has as much significance and relevance to Scotland as a turnip.
Which do you believe received the most coverage from STV, the BBC and
the papers?
The Daily Express managed to take our comedy award for the month (see
above), but they were pushed hard for the title by the CBI and the BBC.
"Since announcing its backing for the No campaign, the CBI has been hit
with a mass exodus of organisations in Scotland. Broadcaster STV
resigned immediately, claiming that the decision had compromised its own
neutrality in the independence referendum." Newsnet Scotland, 26th of April
Just one week later, the CBI announced that they were withdrawing their
application to the Electoral Commission to be officially part of the
'no' campaign.
“When the Sunday
Herald contacted CBI Scotland director Iain McMillan, he directed all
enquiries on the matter to the UK press office. Asked if the decision to
register with the Electoral Commission was made after discussions with
Scottish or UK members, a CBI spokesman said: “We have talked to members
regularly in Scotland and across the UK at CBI events and via our
system of committees and councils.”, He added that the “final position”
was signed off by CBI Scotland’s council – its membership
decision-making body.” Herald Scotland, 20th of April
"Following a
review by the CBI board and in the light of legal advice from its
lawyers and Queen’s Counsel it has emerged that the application should
not have been made: it did not have approval under the CBI’s normal
corporate governance procedures and was not signed by an authorised
signatory." CBI Press Release, 25th of April
In just 1 week, the Confederation of Business Industry has gone from
claiming it had consulted its members to ascertain their views (
which they didn't)
and that it's council in Scotland had signed off on the decision to
join the 'no' campaign, to saying that the application was made by a
'unauthorised signatory'. It seems these people don't understand how to
run an organisation!
But even more pressure may fall upon the BBC. The list of 25 questions from
The Alderman Wotisname Memorial Playing Fields
cover the vast majority of these, including 'why is the BBC a member of
the CBI?', 'where does the BBC publish and publicise its membership of
the CBI?', and 'during the time the BBC was aware of the CBI’s stance,
how many times did it quote the CBI on the issue of independence?'
BBC and Big Business Chums!
On Tuesday, the BBC announced that they had been members of
anti-independence group the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) for
'at least 10 years'. But investigative work from BBC reporter James Cook
found that 'at least 10 years' was is reality at least 34.
Perhaps this long standing relationship explains headlines such as "
Scottish Independence: CBI U-turn 'not due to pressure'"
The BBC hand over £22,191.94 of our money per year for membership of the
officially anti-independence CBI however no reason has been forthcoming
as to why the UK state broadcaster is a member at all.
The National Union of Journalists
expressed their concerns by stating that their impartiality "is
entirely undermined by the BBC retaining a link with an organisation
allied to one side of the independence debate." Even when the CBI
announced that their members were backing a no vote, the British
Broadcasting Corporation stood side by side with their Big Business
Chums. We can only speculate as to why.
(A little side note: although £22,191.94 looks like a lot of money, it is small change compared to the
£193 million per year the BBC stands to lose with a Yes vote!).
May
The 'no' campaign's well fertilized grass roots
The organisation 'vote no borders' was highlighted by the BBC as
"A new grassroots pro-Union group. A report in the excellent
Craig Murray blog describes in detail just how far the British State Broadcaster is willing to stoop to shore up a 'no' vote.
"The registered office of Vote No Borders, a private limited company, is at 24
Chiswell Street, London, EC2Y 4YX . Which is perhaps surprising for a
“Scottish grassroots campaign”. The directors are Malcolm Offord and
Fiona Gilmore.
Now pay close attention: Fiona Gilmore is chief executive of Acanchi a
PR Consultany which specializes in “Country Branding”. Its clients
include Israel, Dubai, Bahrain and “England”. Yes, it actually
specifies “England” on the company website. Acanchi also works for DFID
– in short, it gets UK taxpayers’ money, plus Israeli and Gulf Arab
money. Are you familiar with the word fungibility?
Malcolm Offord, it turns out, has donated over 120,000 pounds to the
Conservative Party plus made personal donations to Michael Gove. He is
the author of the report “Bankrupt Britain”
on the Conservative Home website. In his paper Offord suggests that
further cuts in UK public spending should continue to be made even after the present debt crisis has been passed and urges government to:
“Reform the bloated benefits system of this country to
reduce the burden on the state and, just as importantly, boost the
growth rate of the country”
And the wee retired care home nurse Elizabeth Bashir? Well, she’s not quite as “grassroots” as shown by the BBC either..." Craig Murray, 2nd of May 2014
Investigative work by Douglas Daniel of Wings over Scotland also highlighted the very un-grassroot origins of the entity itself.
If I could turn back time...
"I want to correct what you [BBC] said...[BBC website] reported me as
saying that [independence] would threaten the peace process. I did not
say that, that is not my view.
Actually, a Yes vote in Scotland would reinforce the argument against
violence, because it's a demonstration of how you can achieve major
change through the political democratic process."
David Trimble, 3rd of May 2014
This in and of itself would probably have been enough to be entered into
this blog, however the story took two unusual twists. Firstly, the BBC
did not change their website story until the 5th of May (
two days after being told by the individual themselves on their own programme that they were wrong).
The second twist was how the story was changed. Quite often news
agencies will post alterations to their existing online output. This is
done to fix spelling errors, allow a right of reply or to make a story
more readable. However the BBC used this system to change a major aspect
of their story (it's title and main argument) instead of issuing a
public correction. They then chose to suggest that the change took place
on the 2nd of May (thus make future analysis and review more
difficult).
 |
| "I wonder if we can also go back and stop Jeremy Clarkson learning any nursery rhymes?" BBC Executives [probably] |
Unfortunately for the BBC these things can be tracked via websites such as '
NewsDiffs', and as long as we have sites including
Wings over Scotland,
Newsnet Scotland and
Bella Caledonia (
amongst others) they'll always be caught out.
Perhaps BBC executives just don't care anymore.
Anothing thing about pensions that you don't need to know (according to the Main Stream Media)
Wings over Scotland came up with another fantastic article regarding media bias regarding pensions. It has been
well known for quite some time
that state pensions will be unaffected by Independence, yet the 'no'
campaign has continued to use murmur and smear in its poster campaigns
to suggest otherwise, but on Tuesday, the 6th of May, there was even
more conclusive proof:
"That sounds pretty darned definitive, right? A named UK government
pensions minister speaking on the record in Parliament making clear that
pensions were NOT at risk. So we looked forward to the big news being
all over the media this morning." Reverend Stuart Campbell, Wings over Scotland
We weren't surprised
that this story was restricted to a mention in the inside pages of the
Herald and the Press & Journal. The BBC website, STV website, Good
Morning Scotland radio programme, Daily Record, Scottish Sun, The Times,
The Telegraph, Scottish Daily Express and the Scottish Daily Mail all
thought that the intervention by Pensions Minister Steve Webb MP wasn't
worth your attention.
A lot of the Scottish Media is acting on a 'need-to-know' basis - if it helps the Yes campaign, then you don't need to know!
While you wait
Waiting time figures for Accident & Emergency patients were released
this month. 93.5% of people were seen within 4 hours of arrival, which
was below the Scottish Government's target of 95% (an earlier target was
98%). The BBC declared
'Three times as many A&E patients waiting over four hours'. But is that the full story...
Well no. The BBC, in their impartial wisdom, came up with their 'three
times as many patients waiting' quote by comparing the latest sets of
figures (December 2013) not with the previous year (which were 90.3% -
showing a significant improvement) but
with December 2009.
Why a seemingly random date as December 2009? Because they were the
best recorded figures that had ever been achieved in Scotland.
But the BBC has a history of selective figures in this regard. Last year
Newsnet Scotland exposed the BBC's claim
that the figures for A&E waiting times were the 'worst since
monitoring began'. There have been plenty of years where the number of
patients seen within four hours was lower than 90.3% - including in
2005:
 |
| We're pretty sure a 90.3% success rate is better than 88% |
We're sure that
Johann Lamont will be astonished!
We like Unicorns!
The Alderman Wotisname Memorial Playing Fields had another great blog, this time looking at the
BBC's dismissive attitude towards Scotland.
The story began with Professor Gavin McCrone suggesting that an
independent Scotland would be better off having it's own currency which
is linked to the pound Sterling rather than through a formal currency
union. The BBC put its own interpretation on this:
"The title of the piece is “How many unicorns do you earn?”, and below
that is a large fantasy fiction style picture of the mythical beast.
After asking “How many unicorns would it take to do your weekly
shopping?”, the piece begins: “This sounds like the start of a bad
joke”." Trevor Chaplin, 7th of May 2014
Instead of offering serious consideration to what was
one of the four options listed in the Scottish Government's White Paper on Independence, the BBC made a jokey headline mocking any potential new currency.
 |
| Member of 'Unicorns for Independence' |
The first name used was the Unicorn, which was a gold coin that was used
in Scotland in 1484 to 1525 and named after the heraldic symbol on one
side. Second was Groat, which was a coin worth around 4 pence and was used
throughout the UK (it was never an Scottish currency). This was
followed by the 'Penny' (see 'Groat' above) and Merk (which ironically
is the name I'd like for a Scottish currency).
The purpose of this piece by the BBC was to associate Scottish money
with things that are worthless or fantasy. It is dismissive in tone and
substance and does the flagging BBC no favours.
"People pretend they think a Scots currency would be called the Groat to
belittle and ridicule the idea, and make the notion of a Scottish
economy seem antiquated and obsolete. It's just a cheap shot by people
who want to suggest an independent Scotland would be backwards, and a
Scottish currency crude and naive.
The Unicorn was introduced to the story not by McCrone, but by BBC
reporter Jamie Ross. The imagery is clear enough: the idea of having our
own currency is a fantasy, and – as the opening remark tells us – “a
bad joke”. This is all very familiar to those who have read Frantz
Fanon; Jamie Ross is telling us that once left to our own devices by our
Westminster saviours, Scotland “would at once fall back into barbarism,
degradation and bestiality” (p169, Fanon, 1967, "The Wretched of the
Earth"). Is he doing it on purpose? Possibly, but more likely he just
knew what sort of thing would go down well: a jokey, fatuous, and
patronising piece. The sort of thing no BBC reporter would ever turn in
on Sterling." Trevor Chaplin, 7th of May 2014
And finally...
U Know I'm Petrified! (of consistency!)
If you watch BBC coverage then 1)
you have our sympathies and 2) you will be familiar with the name Sanya-Jeet Thandi. Ms Thandi was a prominent member of the UKIP youth wing who
left the party
prior to the European elections. She stated on her blog that the party
was running an "anti-immigrant campaign" and trying to "exploit the
ignorance in British society". This was the lead political story on the
BBC on Wednesday, the 14th of May.
But if you watch BBC coverage, then you will be less familiar with the name
Gary Wilson,
a Labour Party member who was the no campaign co-ordinator within the
Edinburgh East Labour Party. Mr Wilson stepped down from this position
and joined pro-independence group
Labour for Independence.
"I had to step down from my role as I gradually realised that we are not
in fact 'better together'. I have listened to all of the arguments
whether economic, social or emotional and I am now convinced that
independence is the right thing for Scotland." Gary Wilson, Labour for Independence
Oil Well that ends Well
How valued are journalists?
At the tail end of April, the National Union of Journalists
wrote a little to the BBC's Director General,
Tony Hall, requesting that the broadcaster resign from
anti-independence group the Confederation of British Industry. They
stated that the temporary suspension of membership during the official
referendum campaigning period wasn't enough. The BBC Scotland members of
the NUJ voted to back the following motion:
"This Chapel is concerned by the damage being done to the work of its
members, and to the reputation of BBC journalism, by the Corporation's
membership of the CBI.
We note that the CBI is seeking to de-register with the electoral
commission as a non-party campaigner for the Union. But the damage of
assocation remains.
Please, Director General, back your Scottish journalists, allow us to do
our jobs, re-assert our impartiality, and immediately resign from the
CBI." National Union of Journalists letter to Tony Hall
And the respose from the BBC? To not even suspend membership as previously promised:
"As the CBI is no longer registered with the Electoral Commission as
part of the Scottish Referendum Act, the BBC believes that it is no
longer necessary to suspend its membership." BBC Statement, Thursday, 15th of May
With disrespectful actions such as this, it is no surprise that internal surveys are showing an
increasing disillusionment within the British State Broadcaster's Scottish division.
Unfortunately, it isn't just the BBC who are ignoring the NUJ:
In the communications, one senior union official expresses his
frustration at the refusal of the Scottish newspapers to cover the story
saying: "the papers have - once again - ignored us. And largely ignored
the story..." Newsnet Scotland, 20th of May 2014
The story is...Sign for Scotland?
 |
| Kirsty, at Yes Scotland HQ last year |
The story is about the number of Sign Language DVDs of the White Paper
has been issued (29). They spoke to John Denerley of Deaf Connections
who said "it's ridiculous, shocking, and frankly embarrassing only 29
copies have been ordered." This comment matched the theme of the piece
with the article almost entirely focused on the Scottish Government and
Yes Scotland, with no direct criticism of the 'no' campaign. The mention
of Sign for Scotland came as part of the response from 'Yes Scotland'
(neither ourselves nor Scottish Deaf Independence were approached by the
BBC).
The BBC found this information through a
freedom of information request. As far as we know, no such request was
made on UK government produced anti-independence documents.
We have produced over 20 videos
and Scottish Deaf Independence have made even more. Perhaps if the
British State Broadcaster did research beyond 'no' campaign press
releases they would know that!
Good morning Scotlandshire!
Back in March, Newsnet Scotland
started a public fundraiser for the producing an academic study to review an aspect of BBC output. The ambitious goal of £6,500 was
reached and exceeded with 259 donors giving an average of nearly £30 each reaching a final total of £7,065.
Newsnet Scotland decided to monitor Good Morning Scotland and
the results were startling:
The research team (headed by Professor John Robertson) made several key findings:
- Broadcasts were balanced, in crude numerical terms, but, in every
other respect, unfair to the Yes campaign and favouring the Better
Together (no) campaign.
- Broadcasts began too often with bad news for Yes and, too often,
featured heavy repetition of such messages over several hours in a
manner conducive to unconscious absorption of warnings.
- Statements, from the Yes perspective, were often reactive while those favouring BT were commonly initiating.
- Interviewers intended, too often, to adopt aggressive techniques
with Yes supporters while only doing so on two occasions with BT
supporters.
- There was a selection and use of expert witness of dubious
credibility and of evidence from partisan sources, the broadcasts were
clearly unfair to the Yes campaign.
Certain quotes from the report were disturbing to read:
"A further piece of evidence emerging from these broadcast transcripts
which seems clearly to favour BT was the tendency of interviewers and
interviewees to interrupt, almost interrupt and to cut in quickly to
break flow of statements in support of the Yes campaign. The totals give
a ratio of almost exactly 3:1 in favour of BT." Academic Study, May 2014
"The repeated treatment of Sturgeon with multiple interruptions and
irritable tones is notable and worthy of reflection. No accusation of
deliberate discriminatory practise is suggested but this form of
aggressive interviewing directed at a confident and articulate woman and
not matched with male equivalents such as Lord Robertson or the former
Pentagon adviser is unsettling." Professor John Robertson, May 2014
June
BBC and UKIP (better together?)
The European Elections in May saw good results for the two standing
pro-independence parties (the SNP won the popular vote and the
Scottish Green Party saw their best ever results, albeit just shy of recording their first seat), however the most striking result was for the UK Independence Party.
But what helped UKIP, which has no MPs, MSPs, Councillors, electoral
success or large numbers of grassroots members in Scotland, narrowly
achieve this outcome? Well the revelation that in the month leading up
to the vote, BBC Scotland had offered ".
..four times the coverage for UKIP as for Scotland's party of government [SNP]," may have something to do with it. The BBC has, as yet, offered no explanation for this editorial choice in Scotland.
The difference between a country and a region
Brian Taylor, the BBC's political editor in Scotland, described the EU results as follows:
"They (the SNP) had set out to win three seats and, concomitantly, to
deprive UKIP of an electoral stake in Scotland. They did
neither...supporters of the Union would - on balance, just, all things
considered - prefer UKIP to take a seat if the alternative is a
discernible SNP advance." BBC website, 26th of May 2014
But how would the results have looked if Scotland wasn't a region, but a
nation? Let's start by looking at how these two things are different
within the European parliament.
This was worked out by applying the D'Hondt method (which is how European election seats are currently allocated) to the actual election results. It shows that there would be more representation for the SNP, Labour, the Conservatives, the Scottish Green Party and the Liberal Democrats
(something supporters of each of these parties should be welcoming).
Even though it only took us 5 minutes to work out (it took longer to
apply different colours to each bar) we haven't seen a graphic like this
on the BBC or STV...we can only guess as to why this information isn't
in the news.
No borders = No limits?
Who what when where and why, CBI?
Whether or not
they received legal advice first, how senior the figures who signed the
application where, when individuals knew about the application and even
why they gave certain responses during interviews with media outlets are now subject of debate. Perhaps the CBI will one day find some people who know how to run an organisation.
'Cause I'm the Pax-man!
Jeremy Paxman,
a long standing presenter of various programmes at the British State
Broadcaster, made a number of statements during an interview on BBC
Radio 4 on Saturday, the 31st of May:
"It's interesting, isn't it, that in this union of supposed equals only
one side gets to vote on whether the union should continue or not." Jeremy Paxman, BBC Presenter, 31st of May 2014
The argument regarding allowing people resident outside of Scotland to
vote in the Scottish independence referendum has very little logical
basis. Firstly, England could host a referendum on ending the union.
People living in Scotland would have no right to interfere. The example
of a husband and wife having an equal say on whether they should get a
divorce was used by
Scot goes Pop.
I must say, I am looking forward to Mr Paxman arguing that voters in
France, Romania and Italy should be allowed to take part in the EU
referendum that is due to take place in the UK in 2017!
"...since there's such a head of steam building in ... Scotland for hating
the English, I find myself describing myself as English when in fact I'm
a quarter Scottish."
This argument from Mr Paxman
echoes that used by Andrew Marr
last year. In both instances, neither provides evidence or sources,
and, as far as I am aware, neither has received even a reprimand from
their employer. Indeed, official figures have been produced which show
that the low amount of
anti-English racism in Scotland has decreased since the referendum was announced. Mr Paxman and Mr Marr are
not the only ones to use this argument
(which suggests that anyone wanting Scotland to have the governments
it's people vote for is fundamentally racist), but how can they pretend
to be impartial and professional when they publicly state these views?
To be fair to Mr Paxman, towards the end of the interview, after being prompted by the programme's host, he added:
"Hate is too overstated and I expect I overstated it, and I do
apologise. But it is to do with a detestation of being ruled from
London."
Russia Today
There was a protest outside Pacific Quay, the headquarters of the BBC in
Scotland. There wasn't much coverage offered by the British State
Broadcaster even though it attracted international attention. You can
watch the footage from
Russia Today here as well as a
video from the event itself. We've also added a few photos from the event:
It's almost as if the
BBC don't want you to know...
P.S. A second protest will be taking place on Sunday, the 29th of June
between 2pm and 3:30pm. You can find out more information about this
protest on this
Facebook page.
Yes You Can (but my mate Dave would prefer if you didn't!)
US President Barack Obama made a comment in June that the United States would recognise Scottish Independence and
his personal view was that, "
from the outside",
he would prefer decisions regarding Scottish welfare, defence and
economy were made at Westminster. However, the story is a little more
interesting than that.
That same day, leaflets with 'NOPE' written on them were being produced
by the no campaign, with one featuring on flagship BBC in Scotland news
programme 'Reporting Scotland'. In the words of Newsnet Scotland
correspondent G.A Ponsonby:
"There was a wonderful moment on Reporting Scotland when the political
editor Brian Taylor flourished a Better Together campaign leaflet in
front of the camera. It depicted Barack Obama with the word 'NOPE'
emblazoned beneath – a corruption of Obama's famous campaign slogan
'HOPE'. The metaphor, lost on Taylor and the Better Together campaign,
was that a No vote kills hope.
With so few foot-soldiers able to deliver its leaflets, Taylor's
leaflet stunt was probably worth a million quid in free promotion to the
Better Together campaign." Newsnet Scotland, 5th of June 2014
 |
| Check out more 'daffy' BBC in Scotland moments here! |
But the statement from President Obama is very different from that of his predecessors:
"National aspirations must be respected: people may now be dominated and
governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere
phrase; it is an imperative principle of action..." President Woodrow Wilson, 8th of January 1918
Still, it was a good distraction from our next story...[note: this leads onto '
Another thing Alistair Darling is wrong about']
Lights, camera, action!
The much ridicled 'no' campaign cinema adverts
were recorded at Pacific Quay, the headquarters for the BBC in Scotland. Impartiality from the British State Broadcaster...not a chance!
BBC Strangelove (or how I learned to stop thinking and love the bomb)
Oh
the BBC. They are, by far, the most frequent contributor to our 'not in
the news' series. Without them we wouldn't receive our near daily laugh
at how ridiculous our media currently is or how, time after time, they
consistently miss the point or completely ignore reality. On this
occasion, they were discussing the results of the annual British Social
Attitudes survey.
Here are the results of people's
attitudes to the question: 'Are you in favour or against Britain having
its own nuclear weapons?'
This question does not consider independence or our opportunity to
remove Trident and other non-conventional weapons from Scotland, only the
principle of whether Britain should host Atomic Bombs.
As you can see, the attitude in Scotland is very different from that in
England and Wales. So how will this be reported on the BBC in Scotland?
Oh
BBC in Scotland. Shall we list the problems with this graphic? Thankfully,
Scot Goes Pop has already done this:
- The overall survey shows that the Scottish Public are against
Britain having nuclear weapons, so it is ridiculous to argue that people
want Trident to stay in Scotland when they are against the weapons in
principle.
- Most respondents are therefore looking at the practical situation
based on the assumption that these weapons will remain (essentially
because they have already been asked if they want Atomic bombs or not).
- This is a sub-sample poll, which means that the margin of error is
larger than normal. The 9% lead for the UK scrapping Trident is much
more robust than the 4% lead for these weapons staying on the Clyde on
the basis that they will remain in the UK arsenal.
There is also a fourth issue: the question asked to people in
Scotland was different to those in England and Wales. Despite the BBC
reporting that the question was '"do you think that the United Kingdom
should be required to remove its weapons in an independent Scotland,"
the real question asked was:
"How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? If
Scotland becomes an independent country, Britain's nuclear weapons
submarines should continue to be based in Scotland." Social Attitudes Survey Question
The
Vanguard-class submarines are capable of using alternative munitions,
meaning that this question doesn't address the central issue. Of course,
the only reason someone would ask such an awkwardly worded question is
if they wanted to show artificial support for nuclear weapons in
Scotland.
The BBC, providing comedy instead of news for
just £145.50 a year (perhaps we are being unfair - if they did start
reporting news then the Westminster MPs who control their funding
may act upon their threats. It's much safer to stay in their good books, isn't it?).
Cupcakes (a subject close to my heart)
The licence fee
is expensive, isn't it? £145.50 for colour TVs. Imagine what you could
buy with that money in your pocket. Enough for cupcakes for an entire
production crew with change left over! We know this because one BBC
executive did just that!
Shane
Allen, comedy commissioning controller (which I am sure is an
absolutely vital job), thought it would be a nice gesture to buy
cupcakes for staff involved in the making of two programmes he was
involved with. He then thought it would be even nicer if he
passed on the £120.00 bill to us. Thank you Shane. I'm glad that I could contribute to the cupcake bill at the BBC!
But what other food and drink costs do the BBC pass on to licence fee payers? Well someone did make
a freedom of information request but the British State Broadcaster is a little slow in responding...
Money, Money, Money
The BBC (yet again) got its facts wrong.
In
the original report regarding the first days of the Republic of
Ireland, the BBC wrongly claimed that the Pound ceased to be used and
that the state created its own currency from day one. In the corrected
version they finally acknowledged that this wasn't true. The Pound was
used for 7 years without any issues. We have already explained why this
would be the case in our blog '
so who else can't use the pound?'
Protest? What protest?
Other media outlets in Scotland are free to exercise any bias they like. They don't bother me because I'm free to ignore and ridicule them. But with the BBC we are compelled to pay a poll tax every year if we want to watch any television program. So that's why
I am going to protest on Sunday, the 29th of June. If you can make it to the BBC in Scotland headquarters in Glasgow then please come along, and if you can't, remember that you can help by sharing stories which highlight the inherit bias the BBC has.
Dun telling the truth
The BBC and the Daily Record both
posted dramatic images and headlines: "Costs of setting up separate
Scottish state could top £2bn" cried the Daily Record.
The story's are allegedly based on a report by Professor Dunleavy. Unfortunately for the BBC and the Daily Record,
Newsnet Scotland and
Wings over Scotland have been checking their bleak interpretations.
"Professor Patrick Dunleavy has said the £1.5bn figure, touted by newspapers and the BBC is, "not a figure I accept"." Newsnet Scotland, 28th of June
Professor
Dunleavy explained that he believed the likely set-up costs (the cost
of returning jobs to Scotland and setting up IT systems) would be £200m.
He added that over a 10 year period the maximum charge would be an
additional £400m. To put these in perspective, the cost of the UK
pulling its military forces from Afghanistan
is going to be £300m.
So
the BBC has been caught exaggerating by 700% (or, if they simply don't
understand the difference between start-up and transition costs, by
250%). The Daily Record was even worse. Wings over Scotland
highlighted 4 separate lies in its 5 sentence report. They need to try harder to make every sentence a lie.
The British State Broadcaster prides itself on its perception of fairness. Let's shine the light of reality onto this lie.
