A very well written article here which counters the accusation from right wingers and kippers that the BBC is somehow biased in favour of the EU side.
And before someone writes :"well it's in the Guardian", note that the author writes
I am no starry-eyed europhile. As a former European Commission official, on my own initiative I did the work that established that the UK would be the largest net contributor to the budget which was the basis of Margaret Thatcher’s negotiation of the rebate. Later, I spent many years at Barclays and as an adviser to the City of London, fending off continental efforts to curtail the competitiveness of the City.
This is not a comment on the article in question but if someone feels the need to pre-emptively fend off criticism of the article from accusations that they are intrinsically biased in favour of the article's argument, then it undermines their credibility.
It is like a fanboy's video game review on the Internet, like someone writing a biased review slating Halo (an XBox exclusive series) and then at the end saying 'By the way to all the Xbox fanboys I have owned 10 Xboxes so I am not biased'.
Ridiculous. It's not my credibility that's at issue, since I'd didn't write the bloody article.
A very well written article here which counters the accusation from right wingers and kippers that the BBC is somehow biased in favour of the EU side.
And before someone writes :"well it's in the Guardian", note that the author writes
I am no starry-eyed europhile. As a former European Commission official, on my own initiative I did the work that established that the UK would be the largest net contributor to the budget which was the basis of Margaret Thatcher’s negotiation of the rebate. Later, I spent many years at Barclays and as an adviser to the City of London, fending off continental efforts to curtail the competitiveness of the City.
This is not a comment on the article in question but if someone feels the need to pre-emptively fend off criticism of the article from accusations that they are intrinsically biased in favour of the article's argument, then it undermines their credibility.
It is like a fanboy's video game review on the Internet, like someone writing a biased review slating Halo (an XBox exclusive series) and then at the end saying 'By the way to all the Xbox fanboys I have owned 10 Xboxes so I am not biased'.
Ridiculous. It's not my credibility that's at issue, since I'd didn't write the bloody article.
A-R-T-H-U-R has got it spot on.
Any writer could insert a caveat in their article stating that their not biased but it does not make it true. I am not saying that the writer in question is biased, but if you feel the need to pre-emptively state you are not biased then you probably have not written a very good article or you probably are biased but are anticipating the inevitable criticism you will receive for writing a biased article.
A very well written article here which counters the accusation from right wingers and kippers that the BBC is somehow biased in favour of the EU side.
And before someone writes :"well it's in the Guardian", note that the author writes
I am no starry-eyed europhile. As a former European Commission official, on my own initiative I did the work that established that the UK would be the largest net contributor to the budget which was the basis of Margaret Thatcher’s negotiation of the rebate. Later, I spent many years at Barclays and as an adviser to the City of London, fending off continental efforts to curtail the competitiveness of the City.
This is not a comment on the article in question but if someone feels the need to pre-emptively fend off criticism of the article from accusations that they are intrinsically biased in favour of the article's argument, then it undermines their credibility.
It is like a fanboy's video game review on the Internet, like someone writing a biased review slating Halo (an XBox exclusive series) and then at the end saying 'By the way to all the Xbox fanboys I have owned 10 Xboxes so I am not biased'.
Ridiculous. It's not my credibility that's at issue, since I'd didn't write the bloody article.
A-R-T-H-U-R has got it spot on.
Any writer could insert a caveat in their article stating that their not biased but it does not make it true. I am not saying that the writer in question is biased, but if you feel the need to pre-emptively state you are not biased then you probably have not written a very good article or you probably are biased but are anticipating the inevitable criticism you will receive for writing a biased article.
Bit like when someone consistently rants against the Labour Party and thinks that by always claiming to be politically neutral they can avoid any accusations of bias.
A very well written article here which counters the accusation from right wingers and kippers that the BBC is somehow biased in favour of the EU side.
And before someone writes :"well it's in the Guardian", note that the author writes
I am no starry-eyed europhile. As a former European Commission official, on my own initiative I did the work that established that the UK would be the largest net contributor to the budget which was the basis of Margaret Thatcher’s negotiation of the rebate. Later, I spent many years at Barclays and as an adviser to the City of London, fending off continental efforts to curtail the competitiveness of the City.
This is not a comment on the article in question but if someone feels the need to pre-emptively fend off criticism of the article from accusations that they are intrinsically biased in favour of the article's argument, then it undermines their credibility.
It is like a fanboy's video game review on the Internet, like someone writing a biased review slating Halo (an XBox exclusive series) and then at the end saying 'By the way to all the Xbox fanboys I have owned 10 Xboxes so I am not biased'.
Ridiculous. It's not my credibility that's at issue, since I'd didn't write the bloody article.
A-R-T-H-U-R has got it spot on.
Any writer could insert a caveat in their article stating that their not biased but it does not make it true. I am not saying that the writer in question is biased, but if you feel the need to pre-emptively state you are not biased then you probably have not written a very good article or you probably are biased but are anticipating the inevitable criticism you will receive for writing a biased article.
Bit like when someone consistently rants against the Labour Party and thinks that by always claiming to be politically neutral they can avoid any accusations of bias.
That's very true. Good thing I never claim to be politically neutral.
A very well written article here which counters the accusation from right wingers and kippers that the BBC is somehow biased in favour of the EU side.
And before someone writes :"well it's in the Guardian", note that the author writes
I am no starry-eyed europhile. As a former European Commission official, on my own initiative I did the work that established that the UK would be the largest net contributor to the budget which was the basis of Margaret Thatcher’s negotiation of the rebate. Later, I spent many years at Barclays and as an adviser to the City of London, fending off continental efforts to curtail the competitiveness of the City.
This is not a comment on the article in question but if someone feels the need to pre-emptively fend off criticism of the article from accusations that they are intrinsically biased in favour of the article's argument, then it undermines their credibility.
It is like a fanboy's video game review on the Internet, like someone writing a biased review slating Halo (an XBox exclusive series) and then at the end saying 'By the way to all the Xbox fanboys I have owned 10 Xboxes so I am not biased'.
Ridiculous. It's not my credibility that's at issue, since I'd didn't write the bloody article.
A-R-T-H-U-R has got it spot on.
Any writer could insert a caveat in their article stating that their not biased but it does not make it true. I am not saying that the writer in question is biased, but if you feel the need to pre-emptively state you are not biased then you probably have not written a very good article or you probably are biased but are anticipating the inevitable criticism you will receive for writing a biased article.
Bit like when someone consistently rants against the Labour Party and thinks that by always claiming to be politically neutral they can avoid any accusations of bias.
That's very true. Good thing I never claim to be politically neutral.
A very well written article here which counters the accusation from right wingers and kippers that the BBC is somehow biased in favour of the EU side.
And before someone writes :"well it's in the Guardian", note that the author writes
I am no starry-eyed europhile. As a former European Commission official, on my own initiative I did the work that established that the UK would be the largest net contributor to the budget which was the basis of Margaret Thatcher’s negotiation of the rebate. Later, I spent many years at Barclays and as an adviser to the City of London, fending off continental efforts to curtail the competitiveness of the City.
This is not a comment on the article in question but if someone feels the need to pre-emptively fend off criticism of the article from accusations that they are intrinsically biased in favour of the article's argument, then it undermines their credibility.
It is like a fanboy's video game review on the Internet, like someone writing a biased review slating Halo (an XBox exclusive series) and then at the end saying 'By the way to all the Xbox fanboys I have owned 10 Xboxes so I am not biased'.
Ridiculous. It's not my credibility that's at issue, since I'd didn't write the bloody article.
A-R-T-H-U-R has got it spot on.
Any writer could insert a caveat in their article stating that their not biased but it does not make it true. I am not saying that the writer in question is biased, but if you feel the need to pre-emptively state you are not biased then you probably have not written a very good article or you probably are biased but are anticipating the inevitable criticism you will receive for writing a biased article.
Bit like when someone consistently rants against the Labour Party and thinks that by always claiming to be politically neutral they can avoid any accusations of bias.
That's very true. Good thing I never claim to be politically neutral.
Of course you don't.
Well glad we have finally managed to agree on something without you losing your rag and posting foul-mouthed personal abuse. What progress.
I think Fiish is referring to the author's preamble you quoted Prague.
Ahh. ok sorry Fishy. However then I must point out that it wasn't the author's "preambles" , it comes more than half way through the article. He's simply trying to point out that he's not one of the "usual suspects" which people like Redwood seek to trash.
I think Fiish is referring to the author's preamble you quoted Prague.
Ahh. ok sorry Fishy. However then I must point out that it wasn't the author's "preambles" , it comes more than half way through the article. He's simply trying to point out that he's not one of the "usual suspects" which people like Redwood seek to trash.
I did actually read the article. Unfortunately the entire premise is based on his opinion that Eurosceptics are not as rigorously interviewed or challenged as Europhiles on the basis of a couple of incidents. The fact that he is an expert in the EU doesn't make him any more right or wrong in this regard than any Daily Mail columnist since his complaint has nothing to do with the EU, just the impartiality of BBC coverage (which, apart from owning a TV and even that much is not clear, he has no basis for writing an article from authority on).
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him but the article is pretty poorly written, poorly sourced and lacks credibility, and not because he is open to accusations of bias.
Yes but bias isn't the issue. If you make a case for something then you are automatically biased because you are in favour of your original premise. The quality of the article depends on the sources used to back up an argument and the analysis & logic within. The article Prague posted is mostly anecdotal.
Yes but bias isn't the issue. If you make a case for something then you are automatically biased because you are in favour of your original premise. The quality of the article depends on the sources used to back up an argument and the analysis & logic within. The article Prague posted is mostly anecdotal.
Just your opinion. Many would say most of the articles you link to to support your views are poorly written and poorly researched with dodgy analysis and logic used to support the often flawed argument and conclusions.
Objectivity is often more opinion than fact, especially the more complex the issue might be. Indeed examining the phenomenology from a particular perspective, and even the use of stories and anecdotes (even parables) are valid contributions to a debate.
Yes but bias isn't the issue. If you make a case for something then you are automatically biased because you are in favour of your original premise. The quality of the article depends on the sources used to back up an argument and the analysis & logic within. The article Prague posted is mostly anecdotal.
Just your opinion. Many would say most of the articles you link to to support your views are poorly written and poorly researched with dodgy analysis and logic used to support the often flawed argument and conclusions.
That's your opinion as well. Although generally every article I post is well sourced and makes a good argument or references facts/events.
I wouldn't comment on logic if I were you considering the tantrum you threw after reading spoilers in the Game of Thrones thread after the episode had aired.
Yes but bias isn't the issue. If you make a case for something then you are automatically biased because you are in favour of your original premise. The quality of the article depends on the sources used to back up an argument and the analysis & logic within. The article Prague posted is mostly anecdotal.
Just your opinion. Many would say most of the articles you link to to support your views are poorly written and poorly researched with dodgy analysis and logic used to support the often flawed argument and conclusions.
That's your opinion as well. Although generally every article I post is well sourced and makes a good argument or references facts/events.
I wouldn't comment on logic if I were you considering the tantrum you threw after reading spoilers in the Game of Thrones thread after the episode had aired.
You really love telling people what they should and should not do!
You think all the articles you link to are well researched and well argued because you are completely blinkered and delusional and have a highly inflated opinion about yourself.
you are completely blinkered and delusional and have a highly inflated opinion about yourself.
This isn't true though, what you actually mean is that you disagree with my opinions politically and that's fine, you don't need to reply to every post I make with personal abuse that has no place on this forum or any grounding in reality. Once again you are ruining yet another thread because you're letting your personal feelings get in the way of any rational thought. Every time I'm having a civil discussion with another poster, you come in and just spout pointless abuse at me not based on what I'm posting but based on the fact that you don't like me. We get it, you don't like me but you don't need to keep going on about it, your sad obsession with me is getting annoying. Maybe stop being so hateful and close-minded, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong.
That's your opinion as well. Although generally every article I post is well sourced and makes a good argument or references facts/events.
blockquote>
Depends what you mean by
Generally- might not mean this time Article- might be seen by some as a tirade, or a meditation Post- might be seen as not so much a post as a provocation. Well- certainly a matter of opinion Good - certainly a matter of opinion References-could be seen by some as selective
see what I mean?
It is sometimes a matter of the opinion of others as to whether what you say measures up, for your own part you must simply hope so.
That's your opinion as well. Although generally every article I post is well sourced and makes a good argument or references facts/events.
blockquote>
Depends what you mean by
Generally- might not mean this time Article- might be seen by some as a tirade, or a meditation Post- might be seen as not so much a post as a provocation. Well- certainly a matter of opinion Good - certainly a matter of opinion References-could be seen by some as selective
see what I mean?
It is sometimes a matter of the opinion of others as to whether what you say measures up, for your own part you must simply hope so. True, but when it is someone stupid enough to rage about spoilers by opening a thread that would obviously contain spoilers, I think we can happily discount any opinions he has.
Back on topic, your point about anecdotal is a good one and it can be valid or compelling in certain situations, but an article which claims to dispel the myth that the BBC's EU coverage is biased by the main person simply saying 'there have been a couple of interviews in the last 5 years where the Eurosceptic wasn't interviewed as rigorously as I had hoped' can't be taken seriously. I would have at least expected a more factual analysis (for example, how many times UKIP has been given interviews or the difference between the number of pro and anti EU guests on BBC programs).
You really do post never ending twaddle. I was responding to the fact you dismissed an article linked by someone else because in your opinion it was poorly written and researched. It was yet another example of your pompous attitude to other posters and their views.
"They are never asked how their wish to be part of the single market but outside the EU, like Norway or Switzerland, represents an improvement on the current situation."
If a vegetarian has just taken the roast beef off his plate do you ask him why he thinks it is an improvement to only eat the vegetables? He wants a different diet and is happy to make the adjustments needed to replace what meat offers. He believes it has other benefits that are worth making some sacrifices for.
You would be arrogant if you insisted there is no excuse for not enjoy eating meat. Would you insist on a vegetarian justifying abstinence by proving he gained greater pleasure from eating lentils? The driving reason for not eating meat might be a belief, rightly or wrongly, that it was a healthier lifestyle with potential knock on benefits.
Eurosceptics want to abstain from being fed Eurobabble with its poor labelling of ingredients, full of hidden additives and bulked out with indigestible waffle. Better to replace it with home grown organic produce. If it makes you feel better and doesn't make you ill, that's all the improvement you need.
You really do post never ending twaddle. I was responding to the fact you dismissed an article linked by someone else because in your opinion it was poorly written and researched. It was yet another example of your pompous attitude to other posters and their views.
Er, no, I didn't dismiss the article in question (at least not to begin with), I was advising Prague that just because someone in an article claims to be unbiased that doesn't shield them from accusations of bias, which is a valid point. You, as you do every day, open your browser, which has the home page set to my comment feed due to your sad, hateful obsession with me. You saw my latest comment and found a convoluted way of linking what I had posted to your pathological need to attempt to counter everything I post, this time by making the untrue claim that I claim to be politically neutral. So really the only things you have posted in this thread today are lies, personal abuse, hateful comments and complete nonsense.
You really do post never ending twaddle. I was responding to the fact you dismissed an article linked by someone else because in your opinion it was poorly written and researched. It was yet another example of your pompous attitude to other posters and their views.
Er, no, I didn't dismiss the article in question (at least not to begin with), I was advising Prague that just because someone in an article claims to be unbiased that doesn't shield them from accusations of bias, which is a valid point. You, as you do every day, open your browser, which has the home page set to my comment feed due to your sad, hateful obsession with me. You saw my latest comment and found a convoluted way of linking what I had posted to your pathological need to attempt to counter everything I post, this time by making the untrue claim that I claim to be politically neutral. So really the only things you have posted in this thread today are lies, personal abuse, hateful comments and complete nonsense.
Sure you have not missed your medication today? I would take it now if I were you and have a lie down.
Well the article was an opinion piece, and didn't pretend to be anything else, but I thought he made his case well. And the eurosceptics have never brought forward any evidence to prove their assertions of bias.
People should care passionately about preserving the independence of the BBC. It is the envy of the rest of the world and always comes under pressure, and not just from the right wing. We must always remember the shameful episode under Blair of the unfortunate scientist David Kelly. I see remarkably similar bullying by politicians of Czech TV which is also state owned and funded by a licence fee.
That said, there will always be more right wingers involved in bullying of a state broadcaster because a powerful state broadcaster is an affront to their ideology. Notably, the most strident anti BBC Tories, such as Redwood or Cash, are also the most strident eurosceptics.
I think Fiish is referring to the author's preamble you quoted Prague.
Ahh. ok sorry Fishy. However then I must point out that it wasn't the author's "preambles" , it comes more than half way through the article. He's simply trying to point out that he's not one of the "usual suspects" which people like Redwood seek to trash.
Good. However then I must point out that I read your quote in your meassage before I read the article you posted a link to, so it was a preamble. ;-)
Well the article was an opinion piece, and didn't pretend to be anything else, but I thought he made his case well. And the eurosceptics have never brought forward any evidence to prove their assertions of bias.
People should care passionately about preserving the independence of the BBC. It is the envy of the rest of the world and always comes under pressure, and not just from the right wing. We must always remember the shameful episode under Blair of the unfortunate scientist David Kelly. I see remarkably similar bullying by politicians of Czech TV which is also state owned and funded by a licence fee.
That said, there will always be more right wingers involved in bullying of a state broadcaster because a powerful state broadcaster is an affront to their ideology. Notably, the most strident anti BBC Tories, such as Redwood or Cash, are also the most strident eurosceptics.
I get the feeling that Tory antipathy towards the BBC has more to do it with it's New Labour/Guardianista bias than any great ideolical issues with its charter.
Well the article was an opinion piece, and didn't pretend to be anything else, but I thought he made his case well. And the eurosceptics have never brought forward any evidence to prove their assertions of bias.
People should care passionately about preserving the independence of the BBC. It is the envy of the rest of the world and always comes under pressure, and not just from the right wing. We must always remember the shameful episode under Blair of the unfortunate scientist David Kelly. I see remarkably similar bullying by politicians of Czech TV which is also state owned and funded by a licence fee.
That said, there will always be more right wingers involved in bullying of a state broadcaster because a powerful state broadcaster is an affront to their ideology. Notably, the most strident anti BBC Tories, such as Redwood or Cash, are also the most strident eurosceptics.
I get the feeling that Tory antipathy towards the BBC has more to do it with it's New Labour/Guardianista bias than any great ideolical issues with its charter.
Of course you get that feeling. Conservatives (in the widest sense of the word) tend to think that anyone who has the effrontery to ask them difficult questions must be biased in favour of the other lot. They are not. They are simply journalists, who do not work for someone like Murdoch (who heavily "directs" his journalists)
Well the article was an opinion piece, and didn't pretend to be anything else, but I thought he made his case well. And the eurosceptics have never brought forward any evidence to prove their assertions of bias.
People should care passionately about preserving the independence of the BBC. It is the envy of the rest of the world and always comes under pressure, and not just from the right wing. We must always remember the shameful episode under Blair of the unfortunate scientist David Kelly. I see remarkably similar bullying by politicians of Czech TV which is also state owned and funded by a licence fee.
That said, there will always be more right wingers involved in bullying of a state broadcaster because a powerful state broadcaster is an affront to their ideology. Notably, the most strident anti BBC Tories, such as Redwood or Cash, are also the most strident eurosceptics.
I get the feeling that Tory antipathy towards the BBC has more to do it with it's New Labour/Guardianista bias than any great ideolical issues with its charter.
Of course you get that feeling. Conservatives (in the widest sense of the word) tend to think that anyone who has the effrontery to ask them difficult questions must be biased in favour of the other lot. They are not. They are simply journalists, who do not work for someone like Murdoch (who heavily "directs" his journalists)
OK the BBC doesn't have a metropolitan liberal agenda, you've convinced me.
Well the article was an opinion piece, and didn't pretend to be anything else, but I thought he made his case well. And the eurosceptics have never brought forward any evidence to prove their assertions of bias.
People should care passionately about preserving the independence of the BBC. It is the envy of the rest of the world and always comes under pressure, and not just from the right wing. We must always remember the shameful episode under Blair of the unfortunate scientist David Kelly. I see remarkably similar bullying by politicians of Czech TV which is also state owned and funded by a licence fee.
That said, there will always be more right wingers involved in bullying of a state broadcaster because a powerful state broadcaster is an affront to their ideology. Notably, the most strident anti BBC Tories, such as Redwood or Cash, are also the most strident eurosceptics.
I get the feeling that Tory antipathy towards the BBC has more to do it with it's New Labour/Guardianista bias than any great ideolical issues with its charter.
Of course you get that feeling. Conservatives (in the widest sense of the word) tend to think that anyone who has the effrontery to ask them difficult questions must be biased in favour of the other lot. They are not. They are simply journalists, who do not work for someone like Murdoch (who heavily "directs" his journalists)
OK the BBC doesn't have a metropolitan liberal agenda, you've convinced me.
What's that when its at home? And if you live and come from near Charlton, aren't you metropolitan?
Comments
Any writer could insert a caveat in their article stating that their not biased but it does not make it true. I am not saying that the writer in question is biased, but if you feel the need to pre-emptively state you are not biased then you probably have not written a very good article or you probably are biased but are anticipating the inevitable criticism you will receive for writing a biased article.
Ahh. ok sorry Fishy. However then I must point out that it wasn't the author's "preambles" , it comes more than half way through the article. He's simply trying to point out that he's not one of the "usual suspects" which people like Redwood seek to trash.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him but the article is pretty poorly written, poorly sourced and lacks credibility, and not because he is open to accusations of bias.
Indeed examining the phenomenology from a particular perspective, and even the use of stories and anecdotes (even parables) are valid contributions to a debate.
I wouldn't comment on logic if I were you considering the tantrum you threw after reading spoilers in the Game of Thrones thread after the episode had aired.
You think all the articles you link to are well researched and well argued because you are completely blinkered and delusional and have a highly inflated opinion about yourself.
That's your opinion as well. Although generally every article I post is well sourced and makes a good argument or references facts/events.
blockquote>
Depends what you mean by
Generally- might not mean this time
Article- might be seen by some as a tirade, or a meditation
Post- might be seen as not so much a post as a provocation.
Well- certainly a matter of opinion
Good - certainly a matter of opinion
References-could be seen by some as selective
see what I mean?
It is sometimes a matter of the opinion of others as to whether what you say measures up, for your own part you must simply hope so.
blockquote>
Depends what you mean by
Generally- might not mean this time
Article- might be seen by some as a tirade, or a meditation
Post- might be seen as not so much a post as a provocation.
Well- certainly a matter of opinion
Good - certainly a matter of opinion
References-could be seen by some as selective
see what I mean?
It is sometimes a matter of the opinion of others as to whether what you say measures up, for your own part you must simply hope so.
True, but when it is someone stupid enough to rage about spoilers by opening a thread that would obviously contain spoilers, I think we can happily discount any opinions he has.
Back on topic, your point about anecdotal is a good one and it can be valid or compelling in certain situations, but an article which claims to dispel the myth that the BBC's EU coverage is biased by the main person simply saying 'there have been a couple of interviews in the last 5 years where the Eurosceptic wasn't interviewed as rigorously as I had hoped' can't be taken seriously. I would have at least expected a more factual analysis (for example, how many times UKIP has been given interviews or the difference between the number of pro and anti EU guests on BBC programs).
If a vegetarian has just taken the roast beef off his plate do you ask him why he thinks it is an improvement to only eat the vegetables? He wants a different diet and is happy to make the adjustments needed to replace what meat offers. He believes it has other benefits that are worth making some sacrifices for.
You would be arrogant if you insisted there is no excuse for not enjoy eating meat. Would you insist on a vegetarian justifying abstinence by proving he gained greater pleasure from eating lentils? The driving reason for not eating meat might be a belief, rightly or wrongly, that it was a healthier lifestyle with potential knock on benefits.
Eurosceptics want to abstain from being fed Eurobabble with its poor labelling of ingredients, full of hidden additives and bulked out with indigestible waffle. Better to replace it with home grown organic produce. If it makes you feel better and doesn't make you ill, that's all the improvement you need.
People should care passionately about preserving the independence of the BBC. It is the envy of the rest of the world and always comes under pressure, and not just from the right wing. We must always remember the shameful episode under Blair of the unfortunate scientist David Kelly. I see remarkably similar bullying by politicians of Czech TV which is also state owned and funded by a licence fee.
That said, there will always be more right wingers involved in bullying of a state broadcaster because a powerful state broadcaster is an affront to their ideology. Notably, the most strident anti BBC Tories, such as Redwood or Cash, are also the most strident eurosceptics.
;-)