Is the BBC Avoiding Critical Topics Like U.K Bankruptcy?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What is it with you?

I have read quite a few threads with you stating people are a sock puppet if they have a differing opinion.

What gives? If you don't call them that you call them mail readers.

Graham - you should really pay attention to peoples posting habits.

it's quite amusing the number of User Id's some people have and use just to take a discussion off topic or to gang up on someone. it's hilarious...

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....and? Your point?

I could get away from the childlish comments from the leftie loonies.

That guy is not a left wing loony, well he is not left wing anyway

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

I could get away from the childlish comments from the leftie loonies.

That guy is not a left wing loony, well he is not left wing anyway

So in other words you had no point and you have cobbled that together which makes absolutely no sense. Good effort though

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So in other words you had no point and you have cobbled that together which makes absolutely no sense. Good effort though

Why is it a good effort if it makes no sense

chrisweb

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The funny thing about facts is that they are facts - they do not offer different points of view at all. You either mean different ways of interpreting the facts (i.e. spin) or coverage of "facts" which someone has created to push their point of view.

Frankly I think the Beeb covers a hell of a lot of negative facts night after night after night. There is a lot of bad happening. What its not doing is engaging in the "Brown is toast" diatribe which is opinion not fact. Nor is it examining why the UK economy is uniquely screwed, why the UK government is the most indebted on earth, or various other steaming piles being shovelled by Cameron. If those are the "facts" you refer to then can I direct you to the Daily Mail?

What would be interesting is if the BBC starts reporting more on the global economy. Start putting the UK into context with what is happening elsewhere and the narrative changes again - but I don't think you'd like that. Show how our Q4 contraction was less than the EU or germany or Japan or America, show how many billions are being spent elsewhere on bailouts and stimuli, show how Mini and Nissan and Honda have shut down because most of their output is exported and car sales in the EU have slowed much more sharply than here, and suddenly we don't look quite so bad. Still awful but by no means the worst - and as we start to recover eventually our position relative to our competitors will be all important.

Now, are you sure you want the BBC to cover the facts? Or the "facts"?

It covers some facts and stats and not others. Plain and simple. The lack of coverage of the whistleblower is a clear cut case.

They are quite happy to broadcast Gordon Brown's interpretation but not the interpretation of others (and not I do not mean Cameron).

Some facts the BBC has not discussed (or have rarely discussed) in main news broadcasts:
- U.K banks are more leveraged than U.S banks (as are most of Europes).
- Record levels of government debt
- Record levels of personal debt
- The challenges of a drop in tax revenue from the recession while spending drastically increases
- The total amounts of debts that have gone bad in the UK banking system.
- How the weak currency will cause prices to rise (or prevent/hinder falling in deflationary environment) which will further reduce people's spending and flow of money in the economy.
- How a U.S republican publicly stated the U.S saw tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion dollars, which occurred over the period of an hour and threatened a further $5 trillion to be drawn out triggering a total collapse of the Worlds Financial System
- That the IMF has revised its GDP forecast for the UK economy for 2009 from -1.5% (November 2009) to -2.8%, and the forecast for 2010 is now +0.2%
I could go on. Whether these spell U.K bankruptcy or not doesn't matter, its the fact they are not been reported.

The point of view of UK bankruptcy has evidence that supports it. You may not agree with which you are entitled to do. But it is unjustified for the BBC to ignore a growing point of view from a growing number of economists, investors and journalists including:
- Niall Fergusen
- Robert Pretcher (January 2009, Elliot Wave forecast),
- Nadeem Walayat
- Jim Rogers
- Dan Atkinson
- Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
- Philip Delves Broughton
- Mike Shedlock
- Adrian Ash
- John Stepek
- Grant Thornton

Instead the same woman has been interviewed 2 days in a row about the economy in the lunchtime broadcast and a report today on what children think of the economy is broadcast, rather than any of the above.

The BBC is being selectively biased about the facts it chooses to broadcast, only reporting the worst facts when it no longer has a choice because even the official figures can't hide it.

Go back and watch the BBC news broadcasts from 6 months ago. See how the facts and predictions they gave air time too hold up today.

StevieJ

It covers some facts and stats and not others. Plain and simple. The lack of coverage of the whistleblower is a clear cut case.

They are quite happy to broadcast Gordon Brown's interpretation but not the interpretation of others (and not I do not mean Cameron).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7892079.stm

This link covers similar issues from someone at the bank, what is your problem?
I am sure when the guy comes up with some facts the BBC will publish, I don't mean the Daily Mail heresay.

itsallagame_2

StevieJ wrote: »

It covers some facts and stats and not others. Plain and simple. The lack of coverage of the whistleblower is a clear cut case.

They are quite happy to broadcast Gordon Brown's interpretation but not the interpretation of others (and not I do not mean Cameron).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7892079.stm

This link covers similar issues from someone at the bank, what is your problem?
I am sure when the guy comes up with some facts the BBC will publish, I don't mean the Daily Mail heresay.

Correct, Moore says, he has evidence that he is going to produce,its would be foolish of the BBC to speculate, especially because it is supposed to be impartial (Gaza appeal a good example).

I'm sure if the evidence is produced it will be broadcast by the BBC in full,
be patient:D

chrisweb

StevieJ wrote: »

It covers some facts and stats and not others. Plain and simple. The lack of coverage of the whistleblower is a clear cut case.

They are quite happy to broadcast Gordon Brown's interpretation but not the interpretation of others (and not I do not mean Cameron).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7892079.stm

This link covers similar issues from someone at the bank, what is your problem?
I am sure when the guy comes up with some facts the BBC will publish, I don't mean the Daily Mail heresay.

First that is not a news broadcast, secondly that is not what I am talking about. That does not link Gordon Brown which C4, ITV and SKY all broadcast.
e.g: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPIxm195G5c

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

It covers some facts and stats and not others. Plain and simple. The lack of coverage of the whistleblower is a clear cut case.

They are quite happy to broadcast Gordon Brown's interpretation but not the interpretation of others (and not I do not mean Cameron).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7892079.stm

This link covers similar issues from someone at the bank, what is your problem?
I am sure when the guy comes up with some facts the BBC will publish, I don't mean the Daily Mail heresay.

That's nothing like the other news articles.

This is a thread I started elsewhere, on the exact same topic:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1493241

This demonstrates a massive bias towards protecting Gordon Brown.

Rochdale_Pioneers

chrisweb - i suspect that you want your list reporting in a way as you set out - in a narrative. You're not stating facts you are painting a picture. You offer no context around any of those things because that goes against your narrative.

So lets look at the IMF forecast for the UK. And put it in the context of all the other IMF narratives which have been laughably wrong. Lets take the UK -1.5% in Q4 and compare it to other countries and ask if we're going to do -2.8% full year what others will do. Still happy for the BBC to report your facts?

Lets look at government debt as you want to. Lets look at how well it compares with so many other countries. Lets look at how how somewhere like Greece can manage on triple our debt vs GDP levels and isn't bankrupt. Still happy to discuss the facts?

In fact why stop there. Lets look at the growing number of unemployed in the UK and contextualise it as a percentage of the workforce. Then compare it places like Spain or France or Germany where its much higher and growing faster. As you seem so keen on bankrupt countries lets compare our foreign debts - and our assets which you fail to mention for "some reason" - and compare them to say Ireland, which is truly broken.

The problem is that none of this fits your narrative. What you want is facts to back up your belief that Britain is uniquely screwed and think that anything that disagrees is bias and spin. Have you looked in a mirror recently? BTW you can still criticise Brown and his phalanx of errors without making stuff up.