Two fine new posts over at The Sun - Tabloid Lies.
Firstly, 'The anti-Conservative bias of Basil Brush', a look at what the Sun called 'alarming smears against Tories by state-owned BBC' - a phrase that has nothing to do with:
a) The Sun's support for the Tories, or
b) The Sun's links with Sky.
The paper's cast-iron (ahem) evidence includes a blue rosette worn by a cheat in an episode of The Basil Brush Show that was first broadcast in 2004. Yes, really.
They also blame the BBC for some footage of David Cameron straightening his hair before going live on TV, but conveniently forget to say it was Sky wot filmed it.
The second post is about the Sun's campaign on new tabloid bête noire 'meow meow'. The Sun have claimed their coverage has caused the rules on what schools can do when confiscating the drug to be changed. Alas, it appears the guidance is the same as it's always been.
That's some 'victory'.
Sunday, 21 March 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Where does the Sun say that this evidence is 'cast iron?' Surely you didn't polish that particular turd, Guffy? Embellishing it for effect? Loving the way you 'ahem'ed' your own embellishment. Nice technique, as it infers you are responding to a quote. You're lucky you didn't write 'cast iron' in quote marks, otherwise it'd've been a real slam-dunk. However, yet another example of hypocrisy on your part; or at the very least, that written sarcasm isn't your strong point.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, on point - this isn't the first time the BBC have been accused of pushing leftie propaganda through kids's programmes. I remember a couple years back the Head of the Joint Intelligence Commitee nailed Newsround after they broadcast a very sympathetic Al-Qaeda segment.
But, as I said, hypocrisy. This blog spends most of its bandwidth looking for conspiracy and falsehood in the tabloids, in the same way that the tabloids look for it in, say, Basil Brush. Sensationalism sells just as well as rigtheous indignation, no?
Boom boom.
Yep, the BBC are poisoning the minds of our children, who as we all know, are big voters.
ReplyDelete"...a couple years back the Head of the Joint Intelligence Commitee nailed Newsround after they broadcast a very sympathetic Al-Qaeda segment..."
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, according to... Associated Newpapers! And Dame Pauline, herself of some very odd views, was actually responding to what AssNews had put to her, rather than commenting on something she had found for herself.
And it was on the Newsround website, not on air. And it read (according to AssNews): "The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks".
Which sounds about right to me.
Rob, darling, swallowing the Daily Mail whole seems to be stopping you from swallowing your medication.
When you're main point of attack is a 6yr old episode of a kids show, (1 year before Cameron even became Tory leader) you really are on thin ground).
ReplyDeleteI love the way Rob compares a childrens TV programme and the tabloid media as if they are the same thing.
ReplyDelete//Associated Newpapers! And Dame Pauline, herself of some very odd views, was actually responding to what AssNews had put to her, rather than commenting on something she had found for herself//
ReplyDeleteAnd so? Is it a pre-requisite that she can only provide an opinion on what she herself finds? If that was the case, this whole Blog would be fucked, wouldn't it?
//Which sounds about right to me.//
Proper little expert on international relations, you are, aren't you? And here was me thinking it was a bit complicated. Thanks for clearing it up. Shit, if you were Foreign Secretary, we'd never be in this mess.
RE: Dame Pauline - who cares? I only mentioned it off the top of my head, out of respect for the subject matter - i didn't want to appear like I was riding Guffy for the sake of it. If it makes you happy, I'll retract the point. Doesn't invalidate my main assertion though re: embellishment. Cast-iron, my arse. He made it up to look more shocking - never see the DM do that, do you?
//Rob, darling, swallowing the Daily Mail whole seems to be stopping you from swallowing your medication.///
1. Hilarious, I'm sure.
2.This post references the Sun. What's the Mail got to do with it?
But...
3. More proof that people on these blogs are just as bigoted and prejuducial as those on the DM boards. Reading them is exactly like reading the DM comments, just in negative, a point I (yes, I know) I made somewhere else. Thanks Jamie for proving that. I'm no great lover of the DM - indeed, I only found Guffys blog by googling 'Daily Mail lies'...but I'm the type of guy that questions EVERY media I read, not just (like you) the ones I'm prejudicial against.
These anti-tabloid blogs have to be big enough to stand up to scrutiny, no? just as much as those they put under the spotlight themselves. Given that Guffy's censored (sorry, moderated - wink wink) one of my posts already, I find it a bit rich that you (pl.) set yourselves up as champions of the truth. Guess what - you ain't.
//I love the way Rob compares a childrens TV programme and the tabloid media as if they are the same thing//
ReplyDeleteI did not such thing.I said the methods that this blog uses is the same as that which the tabloids do. If anything the comparison is between them. So, read my post again slowly. If it's still unclear to you, I suggest you pick up a Roger Redhat and learn to read.
Actually, I picked up on the BBC's anti-Tory bias a long time ago, before remember reading about it. During the last general election I saw a piece on the Six O'clock News that had me shouting at the TV screen.
ReplyDeleteThey were showing footage of the (then) three leaders out on the election trail. In the 7 minute long segment, the Lib Dems got about 1 minute of coverage, with the Blair and Howard getting the rest. The images on screen were picked interestingly, and the language was very interesting too: images of Blair giving speeches to businessmen and important looking community leaders, shaking hands and under the spotlight, while the commentary spoke of both parties wish for "dynamic" and "forward thinking" campaigns. Meanwhile, Howard got saddled with images of him getting in and out of cars, people showing him the way (as obviously he wouldn't be familiar with every buliding he went in) and getting caught in a downpour. The commentary during these images was using phrases like "indecisive" and "why would people bother to vote?". Again, talking about both parties.
What made me shout at the screen was the blatant, and completely unsubtle, marrying of positive language and images to Labour, and negative and poor imagery with the Tories. I even complained to the BBC about it - I wasn't even looking for bias, I had just sat down on the soda, flicked on the TV and then just could not believe what I was seeing.
Oh well, I guess an organisation that recruits almost exclusively from the readership of a newspaper often seen as the bastion of the centre-left, with a government appointee in charge, was never going to be totally bias-free was it?
I guess as long it's not a Murdoch owned media it's okay though.
Blimey this post is really bringing them out of the woodwork huh...
ReplyDelete//I picked up on the BBC's anti-Tory bias a long time ago, before remember reading about it.//
ReplyDeleteExactly - it's not as if the BBCs lefty bias has been subtle over the last 5 years or so, is it?
//Blimey this post is really bringing them out of the woodwork huh...//
Just a wild stab in the dark here - you weren't the captain of your debating team at school, were you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRob,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be picking arguments with this blog that do not actually detract from the veracity of what is being said.
For example, you make a big deal of the 'cast iron' phrase being used in relation to the Sun's evidence of anti-Conservative bias. You imply that using the phrase 'cast iron' is somehow trying to make the Sun look bad because they didn't use the phrase, which implies that the Sun put forward their evidence in a tongue and cheek manner and were not serious in trying to demonstrate such a bias.
However, if you read the Sun article they put forward their evidence in a serious way, they genuinely believe that what they have found is enough to publish in a national newspaper a story about the BBC being politically biased.
In this context, you'd imagine that the evidence would have to be pretty 'cast iron' in order for the newspaper not to run the risk of being ridiculed. Thus, Macguffin pointed out that far from being 'cast iron' the evidence put forward was rather a serious of perceptions that are dubious at best.
For example, one bit of 'evidence' is Labour ministers being given more time to speak than Conservative MPs on Question Time (a full 1 minute longer no less), well, considering that the Labour Party have been in power since 1997 and are currently in power, you would imagine a current affairs show would want more detailed answers from those who have more directly influenced our lives over the past 13 years.
You tried to pick out 'hypocrisy' and distortion, but you merely made yourself look incapable of actually forming a valid argument by trying to focus on a phrase that was perfectly valid in this context.
Perhaps Rob, you should focus more on reading, digesting and thinking rather than put forward ludicrious and frankly pathetic arguments.
I mean, seriously, you tried to claim that 'cast iron' was some kind of 'embellishment', when clearly it was being used to point out that the Sun were trying to seriously suggest a political bias in the BBC using evidence that didn't stand up to any scrutiny.
//You seem to be picking arguments with this blog that do not actually detract from the veracity of what is being said.//
ReplyDeleteFair point. Then again, if this blog intends any credibility in pointing out actual truths, it needs to be doing it in a manner that is consistent with balanced reportage. An accusation levelled at tabloids by this blog almost constsntly is that they embellish their stories to make them more shocking, agreed? Why, then, would I take this blog seriously if it is guilty of embellishment itself?
//In this context, you'd imagine that the evidence would have to be pretty 'cast iron' in order for the newspaper not to run the risk of being ridiculed.//
Nice try, but your logic is fuzzy there. The whole thrust of this blog is predicated on the fact that tabloids explicitly DO NOT have such evidence. Guffy was right - the evidence was rubbish, but it would have been sufficient to state just that instead of eroding his credibility with hypocritical reportage. If you're going to have a crack at poor journalism, you have to be whiter than white yourself, no?
///I mean, seriously, you tried to claim that 'cast iron' was some kind of 'embellishment', when clearly it was being used to point out that the Sun...///
So, you're saying it's perfectly reasonable to embellish the facts to drive home a point? Isn't that what this blog spends most of it's bandwidth decrying? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y
You see what I'm trying to say here - I know the story is rubbish - ludicrous, in fact. But that doesn't mean that in pointing this out you have to descend to the Sun's depths in reporting it. Tell you what, your way of describing the article is far better.
//Perhaps Rob, you should focus more on reading, digesting and thinking rather than put forward ludicrious and frankly pathetic arguments.///
Ok ok, there's no need to be patronising. I don't see that there's anything ludicrous or pathetic about wanting the (any) media to be accurate and fair...and that goes for both sides of the argument. You'd be better off saving your advice for the Special Needs posters on this thread, like Mr. Look-How-Fucking-Clever-I-Am here:
//Being an expert in International Relations, I think the technical term for them is "a pair of cunts". That's what Mearsheimer said about Rob and Ben anyway//
I like how Rob is using a cheap http proxy to leave his comments (it's why the " are becoming //).
ReplyDeleteParanoid much, Rob?
I normally refrain from feeding trolls, but I'll make an exception for Rob/Rupert/the local NUJ rep.
ReplyDelete"So, you're saying it's perfectly reasonable to embellish the facts to drive home a point?"
I think "no" is the obvious answer to that one. Describing the Sun's evidence as "cast iron" is sarcasm; citing, with tongue very much out of cheek, a six-year-old episode of a children's TV programme as serious evidence of political bias in the BBC is just plain bonkers.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete