BBC incorrectly describes York MP as conservative (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
BBC incorrectly describes York MP Hugh Bayley as conservative
8:57am Thursday 14th March 2013 in News
York Central MP Hugh Bayley
THE BBC had problems with the party allegiance of York Central MP Hugh Bayley in its coverage of the Richard III reburial parliamentary debate.
Mr Bayley has been a member of the Labour Party for many years and takes the Labour whip in the House of Commons.
But when the BBC rebroadcast his speech on its Democracy Live website, it described him as Conservative. The caption below the video broadcast read: “Conservative York Central MP Hugh Bayley led a debate on the licensing of the reburial of King Richard III, on 12 March 2013.”
However, the caption in the video of the York MP read correctly “Hugh Bayley, Labour.” It also showed him wearing a large white rose.
Comments(16)
Guy Fawkes
says...
10:52am Thu 14 Mar 13
Magritte
says...
10:59am Thu 14 Mar 13
Guy Fawkes wrote:TOTALLY AGREE!
Getting facts wrong is something the BBC does in virtually every news broadcasts, whether the errors come from their own journalists or their interviewees, in footage that is presumably broadcast without being checked first. Therefore, this is a complete non-story. The real story is why we are still compelled to pay the BBC for the legal right to watch its rivals' output (e.g. a professionally run news channel such as Sky). I say privatise the BBC, scrap the licence fee, and if they really are as good as they and their defenders (most of whom, ironically, are to be found in The Labour Party) claim that they are, they will be able to fund themselves through subscriptions and pay-per-view without any problem whatsoever.
RingoStarr
says...
11:02am Thu 14 Mar 13
Magritte wrote:...and me! Biased Broadcast Corporation!
Guy Fawkes wrote:TOTALLY AGREE!
Getting facts wrong is something the BBC does in virtually every news broadcasts, whether the errors come from their own journalists or their interviewees, in footage that is presumably broadcast without being checked first. Therefore, this is a complete non-story. The real story is why we are still compelled to pay the BBC for the legal right to watch its rivals' output (e.g. a professionally run news channel such as Sky). I say privatise the BBC, scrap the licence fee, and if they really are as good as they and their defenders (most of whom, ironically, are to be found in The Labour Party) claim that they are, they will be able to fund themselves through subscriptions and pay-per-view without any problem whatsoever.
Jeff_li
says...
11:11am Thu 14 Mar 13
TheTruthHurts
says...
12:34pm Thu 14 Mar 13
inthesticks
says...
1:02pm Thu 14 Mar 13
myselby
says...
2:55pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
4:13pm Thu 14 Mar 13
RingoStarr wrote:'Ang about. Are you sure Rupert Murdoch's Sky News is unbiased? Personally I'd like a £5 TV Licence - and more beer in bigger glasses.
Magritte wrote:...and me! Biased Broadcast Corporation!
Guy Fawkes wrote:TOTALLY AGREE!
Getting facts wrong is something the BBC does in virtually every news broadcasts, whether the errors come from their own journalists or their interviewees, in footage that is presumably broadcast without being checked first. Therefore, this is a complete non-story. The real story is why we are still compelled to pay the BBC for the legal right to watch its rivals' output (e.g. a professionally run news channel such as Sky). I say privatise the BBC, scrap the licence fee, and if they really are as good as they and their defenders (most of whom, ironically, are to be found in The Labour Party) claim that they are, they will be able to fund themselves through subscriptions and pay-per-view without any problem whatsoever.
TheTruthHurts
says...
4:55pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Comments are closed on this article.
Guy Fawkes
says...
6:03pm Thu 14 Mar 13
'Ang about. Are you sure Rupert Murdoch's Sky News is unbiased?
I said that it was professionally run, not that it was unbiased.
There's nothing wrong with bias in news coverage, just as long as it is applied honestly. The problem with the BBC is that it claims to be impartial, while in fact promoting a leftist perspective on virtually every political story it covers.
Personally I'd like a £5 TV Licence
Personally, I'd like none at all, which is the case in most countries of the world. Look at the US, for example: if you want leftist news coverage, watch CNBC, if you want the right, watch Fox, and if you want a middle-of-the-road compromise, watch CNN. For entertainment programming, you have the choice of subscribing to premium rate channels, or watching free-to-air ones with adverts. On top of that structure, the PBS system uses a small amount of funding from direct taxation (plus significantly more from philanthropic donations) to make programmes that are culturally justified (e.g. history documentaries) but not commercially viable.
The current BBC gives us the worst of both (public and private) worlds. The Royal Charter setup ensures that it is not directly accountable to taxpayers, but yet it also gives unfair competition to commercial media (regional news websites putting independent local papers out of business, for example). If there is any justification for a public broadcaster, let it be funded by direct taxation, so that it can be held directly accountable, through elected politicians, to the people that pay for it. If there isn't, privatise it and have done with it.
Buzz Light-year
says...
7:17pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
7:41pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Guy Fawkes wrote:What about "more beer in bigger glasses?"
'Ang about. Are you sure Rupert Murdoch's Sky News is unbiased?
I said that it was professionally run, not that it was unbiased.
There's nothing wrong with bias in news coverage, just as long as it is applied honestly. The problem with the BBC is that it claims to be impartial, while in fact promoting a leftist perspective on virtually every political story it covers.
Personally I'd like a £5 TV Licence
Personally, I'd like none at all, which is the case in most countries of the world. Look at the US, for example: if you want leftist news coverage, watch CNBC, if you want the right, watch Fox, and if you want a middle-of-the-road compromise, watch CNN. For entertainment programming, you have the choice of subscribing to premium rate channels, or watching free-to-air ones with adverts. On top of that structure, the PBS system uses a small amount of funding from direct taxation (plus significantly more from philanthropic donations) to make programmes that are culturally justified (e.g. history documentaries) but not commercially viable.
The current BBC gives us the worst of both (public and private) worlds. The Royal Charter setup ensures that it is not directly accountable to taxpayers, but yet it also gives unfair competition to commercial media (regional news websites putting independent local papers out of business, for example). If there is any justification for a public broadcaster, let it be funded by direct taxation, so that it can be held directly accountable, through elected politicians, to the people that pay for it. If there isn't, privatise it and have done with it.
Torkie
says...
7:47pm Thu 14 Mar 13
RingoStarr wrote:Me too. I don't see why they should be publicly funded if they're politically one sided. They're failing to report FSA atrocities in Syria. They are already corrupt in my opinion.
Magritte wrote:...and me! Biased Broadcast Corporation!
Guy Fawkes wrote:TOTALLY AGREE!
Getting facts wrong is something the BBC does in virtually every news broadcasts, whether the errors come from their own journalists or their interviewees, in footage that is presumably broadcast without being checked first. Therefore, this is a complete non-story. The real story is why we are still compelled to pay the BBC for the legal right to watch its rivals' output (e.g. a professionally run news channel such as Sky). I say privatise the BBC, scrap the licence fee, and if they really are as good as they and their defenders (most of whom, ironically, are to be found in The Labour Party) claim that they are, they will be able to fund themselves through subscriptions and pay-per-view without any problem whatsoever.
jgycfc
says...
11:29pm Thu 14 Mar 13
But the shocker of this story is as such:
- It's not a story
- pot calling kettle black
York Press, at a local level, can't even get articles (I'm going to have to refrain from calling them news stories) right. They sacked the fact checker a long time ago clearly.
In defense of the BBC, I think it's now publicly acknowledged they've got problems... But York Press - will you acknowledge you go looking for poor stories to fill the print, then not even check them? nope, thought not :)
oi oi savaloy
says...
1:37pm Fri 15 Mar 13
Podlet says...
10:29am Thu 14 Mar 13