Biased BBC at it again pro-Bremain

[NotOnTheBench]

OK just turned on the news. Intro - report on latest appeal to accept her (PM's) deal...and we'll be going to York, which voted remain, for their opinions... and we also go to ... who voted leave

er, no, they aren't going to anywhere to discuss leave.

Ho hum unbiased reporting? Nope.

@goldiehawn1

We all knew EXACTLY what we were voting for

The only leave voter I have ever hear who DID know exactly what they were voting for (well, one thing) was Julie Birchall. She has said she voted leave because she likes chaos. I assume you also like this mess because this completely predictable mess is what you voted for.

Brexit supporters think the BBC is pro-remain.
Remain supporters think the BBC is pro-Brexit.

Tories think the BBC is liberal-lefty.
Labour think the BBC is pro-Tory.

I'd suggest the BBC is doing quite a good job of being neutral, then.

@dongdingdong that's hilarious 😂 still remember my Leaver colleague saying, "it hardly affects me anyway, I spend half the year in Spain".

@Hettie the BBC anti-Corbyn bias can hardly be questioned. It's blatant, shameless and disgusting.

The real tragedy is that there's a huge wealth of people out there who are still clinging to the misguided belief that the BBC are impartial and trustworthy.

@Franheaton
Completely agree.

Norway in not in the EU, even if we left with a Norway +++ deal, we would still have left the EU and delivered 100% on the Leave tick box. This might not match whatever fantasy Brexit some people had in their heads, and people had a huge range of different fantasy brexits, but it would absolutely deliver on the vote. If you don't understand that, and I know Leavers do struggle with facts, that you have no right to complain if people call you stupid.

With regard Nigel Farage on QT the BBC had to give UKIP air time because of the number of votes they got. Even if votes don't win you any seats they do win you air time on TV. This is electoral law in the UK.

Everyone is entitled to their views but seriously I opened this thread up within a few comments there comes the name calling to anyone who would dare say they voted leave. I was brought up to believe we can all have our own opinions and if you don't agree with someone else's views you don't go to name calling or to be fair bullying. Yes yes I voted leave I did my soul searching before the vote I read up both sides. I don't know what's going to happen I still want to leave but honestly don't know if it will happen. I'm not going to blast the remainers you voted your way and I respect that's your opinion why cant the people who are throwing around a lot of nasty comments do the same.

I find all this really interesting because at the same time as Brexit has been rumbling on, Switzerland - where I also have nationality, yes, I am one of those citizens of nowhere - has also been having the same discussions but because they have had a bit more experience with referenda it all went a bit differently. In 2014 there was a people's initiative to limit immigration into Switzerland from the EU, and it got a majority, so the Swiss government went back to the EU. They got the same answer as the UK, effectively - you have to choose between limiting immigration and access to the single market. The Swiss government decided not to pursue the limit on immigration. There were people who were not happy with this as you can imagine, so then we had another referendum about "selbstbestimmung" which roughly translates as sovereignty. The content of the second initiative was to say, if the people vote to do something that would cause Switzerland to break its international treaties, then the vote should still be binding on the government. It didn't go through - people voted against it. So the Swiss people got to give a more nuanced opinion, which was that yes we would like to limit immigration from the EU, but not so much that we're asking our government to break off with the EU altogether. British people have not had the option to express an opinion as nuanced as that: the first vote was stay or go with no detail about what people would like the future relationship with the EU countries to look like (I do wonder also if the reason Scotland so confidently rejected Brexit was because they'd lived though this with the independence referendum - it was quite odd watching people from all ends of the political spectrum making common cause for an independence that couldn't possibly have satisfied all of them at the same time). Now that the parliament is about to establish that there's no agreement on any form of Brexit, because there are costs associated with all of the options, it's surely time for the British people to be asked - is this what you hoped for when you voted Brexit? Now that we know the parameters, do you still want it?

(And by the way I know it's not all about immigration, but it is about immigration, and Switzerland has 3 million foreigners and 5 million Swiss, and about 2 million of those foreigners arrived in the last 15 years. Scale it up to the UK. Imagine 24 million EU migrants had rocked up in the UK, maybe then I could understand what all the fuss was about!)

PPs who are quoting The Guardian's reporting of a Leaver's hilariously stupid comment...I am about to say something shocking.

There is a fair possibility that The Guardian-who are fervently in favour of Remain-just made this up.

Journalists do this. They manipulate words and sometimes, they simply make up imaginary people saying imaginary things; especially if those imaginary people aren't given a full name and reasonably precise location.

It is very unsophisticated to believe everything you read and that includes propaganda that both sides put forward.

Many Remain voters are only too eager to believe what they are told by the establishment. It is too easy to be relieved of thinking, to be frightened of change and want to blindly cling to the status quo. This was what Project Fear banked on but too many voters, thankfully, didn't believe them.

To be honest, I find it tiring of leavers always claiming to be the victims here.

This might not match whatever fantasy Brexit some people had in their heads, and people had a huge range of different fantasy brexits

You’re absolutely right, and this is why the question on the ballot paper was so utterly meaningless. It’s also why all the ‘will of the people’ stuff is so irritating. 48.1% of us voted to stay in the EU. Easy. Clear outcome. Everyone knows what that means. 51.9% voted for... oh, wait, we don’t know what they voted for, or why. Some thought they could have a Norway deal (without understanding what that is). Some thought we might get a Canada deal (without understanding why that wouldn’t work). Some didn’t understand about a deal but thought it might mean fewer black and Asian people in the country. Some were hardcore socialists or anarchists who see the EU as the establishment and the face of capitalism, and thought Brexit would upset the status quo sufficiently to start a new world order in the country.

How anyone can say ‘Brexit is democracy’ is beyond me - because what is Brexit? It’s a nebulous fantasy that means different things to different people. How does anyone begin to implement that?

Ohhhh but some dull ol' sort just told me the BBC is bias towards Brexit. WHICH ONE IS IT?! I have to know!

Vters in democracy have made plenty of wrong decisions. Just look at the history of classical Athens to see how much they went wrong and resented democracy.

Leavers have certainly been subject to all sorts of puerile name calling-certainly on Mumsnet.

Do they portray themselves as 'victims' because of this? I don't think so, unless pointing out that one isn't actually an idiot, would fall into this definition.

Is the BBC biased? As so many from both sides of the debate say that it is , this probably means that it isn't!

They've portrayed themselves as victims from the start, as one side always does in these sorts of vote. See also the Scottish indy ref.

MN is definitely more skewed towards to remain ( it tends to be urban, youngish and higher educated, which are predictors from remain) but out there, for every time a leaver has been called a name, remainers have been called remoaners, snobs, citizens of nowhere, and anti-democratic and ennemies of the people.

We were toyed with by our politicians. Cameron was sure we would remain, and other politicians played populist politics regarding immigration, being 'dictated to by foreigners' and huge financial savings from leaving the EU. It was gross negligence from our own leaders, not the EU that created such a mess.

Sure, if a genuine debate had occurred, we might have been told that leaving would be akin to a divorce with considerable pain and a lot of compromise required.
Eventually, yes the UK might be better off. Equally it might not... that was/is the gamble. But the notion that this would be a relatively pain free break was always folly.

There are a lot of parallels with the Scottish referendum. It speaks to the breathtakingly unjustified arrogance of Cameron that 2 years after that debacle he would have decided to do the same thing again but with even higher stakes and apparently having learned nothing about how to pose the question or run a campaign.

Aargh. I wouldn't even mind if the UK left the EU, if I felt like people had been given a choice between some actual real options (WTO, Canada, Norway, Switzerland) instead of just Leave/Remain. At least in Scotland there was that white paper that you could argue with, there was some detail. I remember thinking that 600 pages was woefully inadequate for determining the future of an entire bloody country but compared to David Davis's fag packet estimates it was pretty good. Produced by the SNP of course who, in the 40 years since the last referendum, had actually given some thought to what they would want an independent Scotland to look like - unlike the Tory eurosceptics, who must have collectively shat themselves when they realised that the country had turned round and actually given them what they'd been whining for for the last half a century.

I peaked at leavers stupidity last night when the leave supporter interviewed in Stoke said he voted leave "because I don't like the French"
While I am sure there are many intelligent leave voters out there I am yet to see one interviewed by any of the media and with that kind of reporting its easy to see why remainers believe leave voters are too stupid to understand what they voted for.

Someone else heard Esther McVey rambling on (but sorry, I think I spelt her name wrong earlier)
www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/esther-mcveys-guide-to-not-having-the-faintest-idea-what-youre-talking-about-20190114181343

YABU

Being unbiased and balanced does not mean you have to give the same airtime to each side at the same time.

It means you have to challenge and probe both sides of the argument.

No one anywhere is able to provide a coherent, logical decent argument for leave so it’s no surprise you won’t see one on tv.

Why do Remainers keep saying that? That people did not know what they were voting for?

What they actually mean is that the nature of Brexit was not outlined before the referendum.

So no, no one knew what kind of post-Brexit Britain they were voting for. There is more than one option!

I raise you on the level of stupidity. Posted tongue in cheek but this is an actual news article
Can't argue with stupid
www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/nobody-listens-whats-point-apathy-15676265

And yes I do realise not all leavers are academically weak. I know some highly educated people who voted leave.

@monkeysox.

Thanks for that link but, although there are some named people, there are plenty of people referred to only as, 'one woman' 'a customer' etc. which quite frankly may only exist in the copy writer's mind. It is an old trick...the unattributed source...most journalists do it.

I would also like to know the views of the copywriter, as if he is a Remainer then it is natural that he might try to and find/possibly make up views which will show leave voters in a bad light.

A copy writer who voted leave could quite easily go along to a leafy suburb and come up with unattributed quotes along the lines of:

"Jen, 72 and who has enjoyed French cheese all her life is very upset that her favourite Brie may no longer make it to her dinner party table. 'After all,' says Jen, 'Somerset brie simply does not have the same bite.'

"A customer in the organic wheat shop bemoaned the fact that her cheap Polish plumber may now leave the UK. 'They are such darling little workers' she said 'and I know that I, and many of my friends are now in a quandary about who will put in their claw feet bath.' "

So, before swallowing everything you read whole-tempting though it is when those views mirror and amplify your own thoughts-stop and ask what do you know about the person who has written it or who is paying their wage? This will guide you towards the moral authenticity of the piece.

Never ever believe an unattributed source or indeed a common place name with no other indicators attached. Journalists can- and often do-make them up!

On a television programme, remember that for 5 minutes of vox pops, the team will have spent much longer than that taking in a variety of views and leaving on the editing room floor, those that don't fit their agenda.

How many times have we seen a piece about the rise of obesity on a news programme? The clip will normally begin with a patch run showing various fatties-preferably scruffy and even better if they're eating something fattening- wobbling along. Do you think that every person in that town has a massive fat arse? of course not, they have been selected to make a point.

Finding a stupid Remainer or a stupid Leaver in order to push one's own agenda is not difficult-it's quite easy. Give the time to them and ignore the ones who give considered views.

There are idiots in every county, on both sides of the fence but it is spectacularly idiotic to read something-whatever side you are on-in a totally uncritical, unquestioning way. Because someone agrees with you does not make you-or them-right.

Absolutely, that's why I stated tongue in cheek.
The estate in question did overwhelmingly vote to leave though.

On bias, even if the BBC is pro-EU and anti-Brexit, then it merely evens things out a bit seeing as around 75% of our traditional press is right wing, pro-Brexit.

My opinion of the BBC is that news reports.facts. And as it's hard to find a factually accurate, pro-Brexit argument, that's probably why the BBC is accused of anti-Brexit bias. There are simply no positives. The weight of evidence thus far speaks for itself, with very little need for editorial interference.