Current Affairs

[Frank Manning]

What is it with BBC? They have spent all afternoon with Clive Myrie asking one person after another whether Raab can make a final decision in the event that cabinet can not agree a policy. Then blow me, Kuenssberg asks Raab exactly the same thing. Are they actively probing in the hope that they can find a disagreement so that they can blaze a trail with "Screaming row in cabinet Tories in dis array!" Do change the record, for the sake of my blood pressure.

[Ray B]

Two or three more asked the same question in a way, I think the spokesman must raise their eyebrows prior to facing the press.
By the way, did I miss the sensible question?

[johnds]

The BBC is behaving disgracefully. Do we really need all the coverage they are giving. Two and a quater hours non-stop every afternoon followed immediately by an hours news which consists almost 100% of the same stuff.

They are looking for or trying to cause disagreement within the government and with it's advisers.
There is only so much to learn and they are scrapingthe barrel to find so called experts and whistle blowers.

That's not to say that the rest of the media is much or any better, The questions again this afternoon just kept repeating the same old same old.
Peston is hardly any better from Kuensberg and Beth whatsername from Sky probably more dense thah either.
Yes there may in hindsight have been errors - who knows,hindsight is a wonderful thing. We may aspire for perfection but we can only do what is possible. If a reliable antibody test cant be found we cannot just magic one up to try to up the statistics. Nor should we, We need reliability and it seems that at the moment that hasn't been achieved anywhere in the world.

I saw an advert on FB this morning for a liquid that requires only three drops a day to provide 100% immunilty. Perhaps we should buy a few gallons of that ????

[david63]

Perhaps we should buy a few gallons of that ????

Too late - I have the entire stock.

Now who wants a few drops (price negotiable - but not cheap Stephen!)

[Stephen]

I'll give you a tenner and take a chance ..... for the lot

[johnds]

I watched the first half hour or so of Newsnight last night with the dreadful Emily Maitland. She and her "politcal editor" (how many do they have" Nick Watts spent the whole time muck stirring and alleging that the government was running round like a headless chicken because "no-one was in authority" because Boris is in hospital. They pointed out this and that that Domnic Raab couldn't do without cabinet approval when in truth neither could or would Boris.

Happily they met their match in Ruth Davidson and Dr Liam Fox who both described their allegations as disgraceful, Ruth Davidson tried long and hard to get Maitland to understand the principles of collective cabinet responsibility but it seems the concept is lost on her. Where do the BBC drag these people from and how on earh are they worth their inflated salaries.

The negativity of the BBC is appalling. We know the situation is dire but at least lets share what good news there is e.g. Nightingale hospitals a wonderful achievment.

If nothing else this crisis has exposed the complete unsuitability of the current BBC to be the nations prime broadcaster.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I disagree John. I think the media are all treading the same course. It's as I said elsewhere a result of the rolling news format which is the mainstay of Sky News, CNN etc and is the basis of the BBC programme every day. There is only so much real info and for the rest it's speculation. It's exactly the same in the papers. One paragraph of new info and pages of waffle. We've taken to watching the statements in the daily press conference and then ignoring the rest. Just change channels to something lighter. Easy.

[johnds]

Following his election as Labour Party leader his past is emerging
Did you realise the following:
In 2009, the paedophile Jimmy Savile was interviewed under caution by Police in Surrey and Sussex.
Subsequently, the Police referred 4 cases to the CPS alleging that Jimmy Savile had abused 3 girls under the age of 16.

The CPS, after receiving the files from the Police, refused to prosecute Savile and dropped the case claiming “insufficient evidence”.
After Savile’s death and, despite multiple attempts of high level coverups, we now know that he abused up to 500 victims over a four-decade period.

The man in charge of the CPS at that time, who decided there was “insufficient evidence” to charge Savile, was Sir Kier Starmer.

Starmer told the BBC after Saville died: “I think this is a very real issue that has been with us for a very long time. You can go back to the 50s and probably earlier to find examples, but you can find many more recent examples, and it’s a very simple proposition: if you’re in a position of authority, and you have cause to believe that a child has been abused, you really ought to do something about it.”

Well why didn't he

[Mervyn and Trish]

Interesting. But now he's not just a lawyer. He's a medical expert with all the answers to Coronavirus. Not just opposition for opposition's sake you understand.

There is a plus side though. He's not Corbyn. And McDonnell and Abbott and co are gone too.

[towny44]

I disagree John. I think the media are all treading the same course. It's as I said elsewhere a result of the rolling news format which is the mainstay of Sky News, CNN etc and is the basis of the BBC programme every day. There is only so much real info and for the rest it's speculation. It's exactly the same in the papers. One paragraph of new info and pages of waffle. We've taken to watching the statements in the daily press conference and then ignoring the rest. Just change channels to something lighter. Easy.

You're probably right Merv, but it will be much easier for the govt to apply sanctions to the BBC (& Channel 4) rather than the privately run rest of the media, and certainly more satisfying for the viewing public. I look forward to seeing Laura and Emily waiting in line at the job centre.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I disagree John. I think the media are all treading the same course. It's as I said elsewhere a result of the rolling news format which is the mainstay of Sky News, CNN etc and is the basis of the BBC programme every day. There is only so much real info and for the rest it's speculation. It's exactly the same in the papers. One paragraph of new info and pages of waffle. We've taken to watching the statements in the daily press conference and then ignoring the rest. Just change channels to something lighter. Easy.

You're probably right Merv, but it will be much easier for the govt to apply sanctions to the BBC (& Channel 4) rather than the privately run rest of the media, and certainly more satisfying for the viewing public. I look forward to seeing Laura and Emily waiting in line at the job centre.

I fully accept that we will never see eye to eye on the BBC, nor with the other John or Frank or some of the others. Your view has not been changed by this crisis, nor has mine. But I think you take a very wrong view of how many people agree with you. The viewing figures say otherwise. BBC1 alone continues to have a bigger audience than most of its rivals added together, for example.

It is not perfect. I find stuff I don't like. Despite being a fan of the BBC I get annoyed when my favourite programmes get footed off for sport. 90 minute of football followed by 45 minutes of overpaid opinionated pundits pulling it apart. They make Laura look like a saint. So I turn them off. It can't always please all the people. But it is the national broadcaster. If it had not devoted time to this crisis it would have been hammered. Probably by the same people having a pop now for what it is doing.

It is simply not true it is ignoring the positive. It had extensive coverage of the building of the Nightingale Hospitals. It has had heartwarming coverage of people who have beaten the virus against the odds. It has covered the brilliant people working their socks off to keep us safe and supplied.

Of course I don't expect the detractors to recognise that. That's not how it works. That would be like expecting all those who voted to stay in the EU to suddenly support Boris on Brexit if he gets some of us through this alive. Though of course that won't happen. They'll count those who sadly died, not those who might have done but were saved by the government's plans and the supreme efforts of the NHS. By the way they're heroes at the moment. The knives will be out for them too again when this is over. How soon people forget.

What really I do not understand though is why you and others who don't like the BBC continue to subject yourselves to it? How do you know what Laura or Emily are saying? Why does the other John sit through the Coronavirus special and then tune to Newsnight for more? Is it some kind of masochism? There are dozens of tv channels and streaming services out there, including many news channels. If you don't like the BBC I understand that. What I don't understand is why put yourself through it just to criticise? Have you been unable to get new batteries for your tv remote?

In cruising terms this is like the people who've booked to go on Iona and will spend their entire holiday complaining it is too big and the itinerary is wrong.

[Manoverboard]

The viewer is a creature of habit and will watch the BBC cos that's what they've always done and apart from that they cannot be bothered with adverts. I have fond memories of watching BBC programs when they were not as biased as they seem to be today, however, it is probably the case that I have moved further to the right and the BEEB presenters have become too self opiniated.

ps … as previously posted we enjoy the use of the ' Mute ' button.

[towny44]

Thanks Merv, I will send a copy to the BBC pensions dept so they know you're still doing your stuff.
Seriously though, I generally watch the BBC news coverage because I know it's there, and it doesn't have adverts like Sky, and it's mainly the daily briefing to keep me up to date.
I agree that most of the other channel's leading journalists are equally left leading and stridently anti Boris, mainly because of Brexit, so my beef is with all of them, but I still expect better from Aunty.

[Mervyn and Trish]

The viewer is a creature of habit and will watch the BBC cos that's what they've always done and apart from that they cannot be bothered with adverts. I have fond memories of watching BBC programs when they were not as biased as they seem to be today, however, it is probably the case that I have moved further to the right and the BEEB presenters have become too self opiniated.

ps … as previously posted we enjoy the use of the ' Mute ' button.

Crickey. ITV began in 1955. Sky began in 1989. They must be making slow progress if that's true.

But if you amend your last sentence to say ALL presenters. I'd probably agree. That's modern culture for you. Everyone is an expert.

(And don't forget Alistair Campbell accused the BBC of right wing bias. It really depends on your own view what you perceive as impartial).

[screwy]

I watch the BBC News only in the hope that the lovely Louise Lear will present the weather..!! She makes an Oldish man very happy.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Or makes a happy man feel very old

[screwy]

2 minutes is a long time at my age....

[Manoverboard]

Crickey. ITV began in 1955. Sky began in 1989. They must be making slow progress if that's true.

It doesn't matter when ITV started … we didn't have a bl**dy telly until 1957

I gained a soft spot for the BBC when Mobietta and I were escorted round the entire set up … you'll doubtless remember the coconut shells that they used to depict trotting horses

[towny44]

Crickey. ITV began in 1955. Sky began in 1989. They must be making slow progress if that's true.

It doesn't matter when ITV started … we didn't have a bl**dy telly until 1957

I gained a soft spot for the BBC when Mobietta and I were escorted round the entire set up … you'll doubtless remember the coconut shells that they used to depict trotting horses

We all have soft spots for the old BBC, but they can't live on sentiment forever. They need to become more relevant to the younger generation otherwise they will die, and they need to respect their old viewers as they wither away. At present they don't fulfill either.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Crickey. ITV began in 1955. Sky began in 1989. They must be making slow progress if that's true.

It doesn't matter when ITV started … we didn't have a bl**dy telly until 1957

I gained a soft spot for the BBC when Mobietta and I were escorted round the entire set up … you'll doubtless remember the coconut shells that they used to depict trotting horses

We all have soft spots for the old BBC, but they can't live on sentiment forever. They need to become more relevant to the younger generation otherwise they will die, and they need to respect their old viewers as they wither away. At present they don't fulfill either.

Then stop watching and stop moaning if that's how you feel! Seemples! I don't like everything they do either. But with all they do do there is plenty to keep me out of the clutches of money grabbers like Sky.

[oldbluefox]

I find it increasingly difficult to get news which is unbiased. Unfortunately we seem to have a bunch of presenters now who have their own agendas and it has nothing to do with information gathering, more to do with their own bloated images. Unfortunately we all have to pay for the BBC so it is not unreasonable to expect some semblance of impartiality. As with Brexit Ms Kuennsberg fails to deliver., similarly with Peston and Ms Rigby but at least we are not paying for their services.
What irks me most are the silly inane questions which they put to politicians - usually the same question in a different format in the hope they can trip them up at a later date with their customary "Ah but on the xth of April you said.......". Today they were harping on about when the lockdown would be lifted. I'm not a medical man but I would have thought anybody with a grain of grey matter would know not yet. However that response was not satisfactory and they continued to badger. I watched Kay Burley on Sky News this morning and eventually the interviewee said "Come on Kay,. You know I can't possibly answer that". I wonder if the politicians are not also getting fed up with their silly antics.
And pray tell me why somebody has to be posted outside !0 Downing Street or St Thomas' Hospital to give us no news? I cannot see what it adds to the story.
A 90 year old chap called Bill Dobie summed it up nicely on Breakfast News when he asked why do we not post good news, like the number of people who survive the illness. "Good idea!" exclaimed Louise Minchin but we all know it won't make a jot of interest. Let's just hype everybody up with doom and gloom. Cue Kuennsberg, Rigby and Peston.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I find it increasingly difficult to get news which is unbiased. Unfortunately we seem to have a bunch of presenters now who have their own agendas and it has nothing to do with information gathering, more to do with their own bloated images. Unfortunately we all have to pay for the BBC so it is not unreasonable to expect some semblance of impartiality. As with Brexit Ms Kuennsberg fails to deliver., similarly with Peston and Ms Rigby but at least we are not paying for their services.
What irks me most are the silly inane questions which they put to politicians - usually the same question in a different format in the hope they can trip them up at a later date with their customary "Ah but on the xth of April you said.......". Today they were harping on about when the lockdown would be lifted. I'm not a medical man but I would have thought anybody with a grain of grey matter would know not yet. However that response was not satisfactory and they continued to badger. I watched Kay Burley on Sky News this morning and eventually the interviewee said "Come on Kay,. You know I can't possibly answer that". I wonder if the politicians are not also getting fed up with their silly antics.
And pray tell me why somebody has to be posted outside !0 Downing Street or St Thomas' Hospital to give us no news? I cannot see what it adds to the story.
A 90 year old chap called Bill Dobie summed it up nicely on Breakfast News when he asked why do we not post good news, like the number of people who survive the illness. "Good idea!" exclaimed Louise Minchin but we all know it won't make a jot of interest. Let's just hype everybody up with doom and gloom. Cue Kuennsberg, Rigby and Peston.

But your are Foxy. That is a point so many overlook. You are also paying for the Daily Mail, the Guardian, The Telegraph, The Mirror, The Sun etc. And in their cases a big chunk of your money goes to shareholders. Every time you buy a product or shop in a store that advertises. And every time you book a cruise.

Some people may not like the licence fee but it is the diversity of funding streams that ensures we have the choices we have. If those who wish to see the licence fee abolished get their way broadcasting in this country will change forever, and not in a good way. There is only so much advertising revenue to go round. Some independent tv companies and radio stations are already struggling. That's why Independent Local Radio is almost a thing of the past. And it the BBC had to take advertising or become a subscription service that would get worse. Services both in the BBC and outside would close. Choice would be reduced.

I can't make you love the BBC. But don't be deluded it's different because you pay for it. It's not.

[david63]

The reason why bad news is reported more than good news is that the good news is not sensational.

If some of these news reporters were to spend a bit of time ding some research, as I have just done, they would be able to report that the average number of deaths in the UK up to the end March is below average for the last five years.

Also the number of deaths this year is up by just over 4,000 - the majority (3,800) in the first three weeks of the year.

There are approximately 500,000 deaths a year in the UK which equates to around 1,400 on average per day.

But putting the Coronavirus deaths in context does not make news.

Now I am not saying that the number of deaths from Coronavirus is not a significant figure to measure the trend and whether we have peaked or not but I suspect that some of these deaths are a crossover from other reasons.


Source: ONS

[Gill W]

On the BBC news at lunch time there was a report on a man that recovered, and how he is now appreciating everything he sees, as if it was the first time. I think it is important that we see good news like this.

However, we need to see the 'doom and gloom' as well, The UK death toll today is horrible, and people need be made aware of this.

I don't even know why the reporters are asking when restrictions will be lifted. What they should be asking is when will be locked down even more. Both Spain and Italy were locked down more strictly than us, and it's only been recently that they have started to turn the corner.

[Gill W]

The reason why bad news is reported more than good news is that the good news is not sensational.

If some of these news reporters were to spend a bit of time ding some research, as I have just done, they would be able to report that the average number of deaths in the UK up to the end March is below average for the last five years.

Also the number of deaths this year is up by just over 4,000 - the majority (3,800) in the first three weeks of the year.

There are approximately 500,000 deaths a year in the UK which equates to around 1,400 on average per day.

But putting the Coronavirus deaths in context does not make news.

Now I am not saying that the number of deaths from Coronavirus is not a significant figure to measure the trend and whether we have peaked or not but I suspect that some of these deaths are a crossover from other reasons.


Source: ONS

I remember reading that many of the people who will die, would have died anyway within the next 18 months.

We've had quite a mild winter, so that might explain why deaths for the first quarter were lower. Plus, the first quarter was before the peak of C19 deaths. I think we will have to see the whole of the year before we can see any trends