BBC report inaccuracy

It's entirely up to you Spabbygirl -22.24 -whether you choose to watch the whole news episode or just watch the few minutes segment of Chris mason.

You seemingly missed the accurate, none biased BBC reporting of the 2 commentators immediately before Mason that were reporting on Starmer's air base decision. Mason commented on three other issues and but that wasn't one of them.

He cannot be fairly accused of bias and omitting very important facts on a matter on which he wasn't commentating.

LemonJam

I didn't watch the BBC news last night but in light of this post accusing the BBC of inaccuracy, bias and omissions have just watched in entirety on iplayer.

Various correspondents featured in turn, each reporting on different issues. The first 2 correspondents provided up to date news on key issues. They both clearly reported that UK bases would be used for "defensive strikes' only then "limited and defensive strikes" respectively- ACCURATE, no omissions and no bias.

Chris Mason then followed with additional commentary from different angles in turn-
1) what various politicians were saying in HoCommons yesterday verbatim videos shown of- e.g Ed Davey, Tice and Starmer himself talking about his decision "not to get involved in offensive strikes".
2) Mason then pivoted to the issue of UK people in the area and bringing them home
3) Mason then pivoted to the recent Yougov poll on public option ie how many do and how many don't support the use of the UK air bases. He was focussing on the poll results specifically. Accurate, no bias and no omissions on the reported topic

Mason didn't cover and report on Starmer's decision to use the airbases defensively specifically- the first 2 reporters had already covered that.

I could find no evidence of Chris Mason providing "inaccurate' information, no "major omission" in his three topics covered or any "bias" on behalf of the BBC. There is also nothing on the newspaper front pages today about BBC bias, inaccuracy or omissions as surely would be the case if so.

The BBC clearly covered - twice no less- the decision for UK to be used only defensively by the first two commenters who's job was to report specifically on the decision for UK bases only to be used defensively. Viewers cant reasonably expect all facts of the situation to be repeated three or more times by successive commenter- that would be absurd. The 2 who did report on airbase decision were accurate with no omissions or bias. Chris Mason was not reporting on the decision specifically so had no need to repeat- he accurately reported the Yougov poll findings with no bias or omissions.

Some people rate Chris Mason, some don't. That's par for the course. There are multiple news outlets and multiple political commentators; we all veer towards the ones we prefer. However to claim the BBC on 10 pm news last night was based, inaccurate and had major omissions is unjustified and unfair.

Not everyone wants to watch the whole episode, they look to BBC journalists to summarise events and Mason omitted the very important fact that the US was only permitted to use our air bases in very specific circumstances, therefore the report was inaccurate and appeared in the light of his and other BBC journalists work, biased.

Bukkie

By woke I mean lefties talking rubbish because they think it makes them morally superior.

Don’t let your prejudices show, will you?

Agree, VintageWhine.

It still is.

I always considered the BBC to be the best and most reliable news service in the world. What happened ?

What is a ‘leftie’, and how do you know why they think as they do?

By woke I mean lefties talking rubbish because they think it makes them morally superior.

Bukkie

Chris Mason is absolutely brilliant. He is intelligent, funny and a breath of fresh air. On the flip side we don't watch Question Time anymore because it is so left wing and woke and it is on the BBC.

By ‘woke’ do you mean ‘aware of social injustice?’

Doodlebug I know QT is on the BBC and always has been. I was responding to the point the BBC is anti Labour and left which it certainly isn't if you watch QT.

Excellent summing up LemonandJam and I agree 👍

Wyllow3

I find the BBBC news feed the only one where you can get up to date actual facts as events progress and am happy with it - we can go where we want for analysis.

Whats wrong with this to keep up to date?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy0dp1l57nxt

I think if the beeb is accused of left and right bias in equal measure, it’s probably getting its coverage about right.

Galaxy

I think personally that QT has had its day. I think you need in depth analysis of really important issues. As they try to cover a number of questions in one show, it is reduced to soundbites and gives no insight into what the panellists think/believe.

I think you're right. Back in the day when Robin Day was in the chair there were far fewer news/politics/current affairs programmes, so it was more of a round up of what was in the papers. Now there is rolling news and the internet there is less need for that.

I don't know if it's me getting older, or if political coverage on TV is getting weaker, but Panorama is another one that has (or appears to have) 'dumbed down'. It used to cover much more serious issues in more depth - now it sometimes feels like Watchdog or similar, and skates the surface of what could be a more interesting issue. Most of the more serious News analysis is on late at night nowadays (eg Newsnight, Peston) which I don't mind as I'm a night owl, but I think there should be more 'mainstream' but quality programmes at peak times, even if just once a week.

Graphite

Chris Mason is incredibly biased against Starmer and Labour in general. His behaviour during the recent Mandelson story was appalling. I’ve given up expecting balanced reporting from him (or Laura Kuenssberg.

I couldn’t listen to LK during the last government, she was so biased.
Possibly the BBC think balance is using a reporter to display an opinion against the government in power. L ⚖️C

What an informed and sensible post Lemon.
I do actually rate Chris Mason way over Laura K and think he is one of the best political reporters we have these days.
But whether or not others agree, you have put the facts clearly and without the histrionics sometimes expressed elsewhere.

I don't think Starmer's worried about his waning Muslim voters, he's worried about upsetting his chum Trump.

I didn't watch the BBC news last night but in light of this post accusing the BBC of inaccuracy, bias and omissions have just watched in entirety on iplayer.

Various correspondents featured in turn, each reporting on different issues. The first 2 correspondents provided up to date news on key issues. They both clearly reported that UK bases would be used for "defensive strikes' only then "limited and defensive strikes" respectively- ACCURATE, no omissions and no bias.

Chris Mason then followed with additional commentary from different angles in turn-
1) what various politicians were saying in HoCommons yesterday verbatim videos shown of- e.g Ed Davey, Tice and Starmer himself talking about his decision "not to get involved in offensive strikes".
2) Mason then pivoted to the issue of UK people in the area and bringing them home
3) Mason then pivoted to the recent Yougov poll on public option ie how many do and how many don't support the use of the UK air bases. He was focussing on the poll results specifically. Accurate, no bias and no omissions on the reported topic

Mason didn't cover and report on Starmer's decision to use the airbases defensively specifically- the first 2 reporters had already covered that.

I could find no evidence of Chris Mason providing "inaccurate' information, no "major omission" in his three topics covered or any "bias" on behalf of the BBC. There is also nothing on the newspaper front pages today about BBC bias, inaccuracy or omissions as surely would be the case if so.

The BBC clearly covered - twice no less- the decision for UK to be used only defensively by the first two commenters who's job was to report specifically on the decision for UK bases only to be used defensively. Viewers cant reasonably expect all facts of the situation to be repeated three or more times by successive commenter- that would be absurd. The 2 who did report on airbase decision were accurate with no omissions or bias. Chris Mason was not reporting on the decision specifically so had no need to repeat- he accurately reported the Yougov poll findings with no bias or omissions.

Some people rate Chris Mason, some don't. That's par for the course. There are multiple news outlets and multiple political commentators; we all veer towards the ones we prefer. However to claim the BBC on 10 pm news last night was based, inaccurate and had major omissions is unjustified and unfair.

This morning the BBC were at great pains to contrast photos from BBC Verify with some shown from other sources, including some doctored by AI.

A weak ineffectual pm. He only relented when our base in Cyprus was attacked. 2 hours afterwards. No support for our troops again whom he's sent to the front line, the RAF.
Thank goodness he wasn't in charge during ww2, we'd still be navel gazing after Hitler had invaded. No outcry when the mad ayatollah and his henchmen murdered 36,000 Iranians. Imprisoned people just for stepping g into Iran.
No he's too worried about his waning Muslim voters, and the young naive he's trying to get in to vote.

Graphite

Chris Mason is incredibly biased against Starmer and Labour in general. His behaviour during the recent Mandelson story was appalling. I’ve given up expecting balanced reporting from him (or Laura Kuenssberg.

I like him. Let's face it, Starmer & Co provide plenty of news fodder.

I think personally that QT has had its day. I think you need in depth analysis of really important issues. As they try to cover a number of questions in one show, it is reduced to soundbites and gives no insight into what the panellists think/believe.

I find that LK relies on shouting people down too much. She talks over people before they get a chance to answer her questions, and I find that exasperating. I know there can be a tendency for some to basically filibuster their way through interviews, but LK is the host, and it shouldn’t come down to two people speaking at once all the time. The only way to deal with her is sometimes for the guests to just continue talking over her interruptions. That’s not ideal either of course, but she is supposed to be the interviewer, so she should have the skill to steer the conversation without drowning out the guests.

I lost respect for CM some time ago, but can’t now remember the incident. He is so obviously a Reform fan though, and the way he questions their representatives (who get airtime entirely disproportionate to the number of MPs they have) is in stark contrast to the ones he asks those from other parties, as are his summaries of political events.

I agree that QT is awful now, but I don’t understand why you would stop watching it because it is on the BBC, Bukkie? It has always been on the BBC, and why does the channel make a difference to whether you watch it or not? I definitely think it needs a better presenter. I’m not sure who I’d like to see in the chair though. It needs the right combination of political awareness, authority and the personality to make it interesting. Amol Rajan?

The thing is that few people watching the news want in-depth analysis any more; its all sound bites around a skeleton of real (what is real?) information.

True.
And that is not just the young either.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

Yes good for facts, but LK and CM poor on in depth analysis.

The trouble with in depth analysis especially with the current situation in the Middle East is it is little more than guesswork mind you it sounds highbrow.

Nobody knows what is going to happen, or what/how individual countries are going to react until they do. Especially with regards to the current POTUS and Netanyahu.

We are in unusal times in that resepct, I would say.

"normally" things are a bit more "predictable", even in war times.

Purplepixie

I wish they would tell the truth!

Hear hear.

I sometimes wonder if there is[just and not good enough] sloppy reporting going on.