Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

https://www.ft.com/video/e82b5a00-3ad5-4d2c-9703-ff14942aa5b1

About the Maitlis thing.

I think ‘impartiality’ imposed on the BBC is an ongoing problem.

The BBC should direct resource to poll and source good public opinion data. This would allow the BBC to remain politically non-partisan whilst still bluntly speaking truth to power.

Statements such as “a large sector of the public believe X” could be backed up and the complaints dismissed.

The BBC's problem is their foolish belief that impartialty could be satisfied by 'balance'.
'Balance' was ushered in to allow the politically motivated to dispute Climate Change.
Hence we had the (unqualified) Nigel Lawson being given equal airtime as climate scientists who knew what they were talking about.
The blustering Right funded by fossil fuel producers found this 'balance' to be very effective.
Pushed a little further, any criticism of Right wing policies, or continued fossil fuel use is now criticised as a 'lack of balance' or the BBC failing to be impartial.

Correct. Impartiality is good, 'balance' is bad.

The problem with balance is that if something is patently wrong, balance requires you to give the same air time to fruityloops nutters as scientists.

It's not even consistently applied, if it was flat earthers would get a lot more air time.

A lot of people confuse the two: impartiality allows you to take the facts and draw a conclusion based on those facts. A genuinely impartial approach is evident in the Reuters reporting of the pandemic and it ain't flattering for the government.

The BBC's problem is they make examples of rare displays of true impartiality while being supine to the government who control their funding, while claiming to be impartial when they're not because the government controls the purse strings.

Yep! Though that is not unique to the BBC.

I think basing news stories on public opinion rather than facts would be a very, very bad idea.

Facts are not the same as public opinion. At all.

No punches being pulled so far in the daily press conference media questions...

Have they got to the bit where we're allowed to meet in groups of up to six from Monday yet?

I'm listening on radio, but would love to be able to see the facial expressions of Whitty and Vallance

Peston should have left it at that first question, but no he couldn't could he?

No answers being given though.

predictably

Great question from the Sky correspondent. Also swerved.

So now we've gone full circle from hiding behind scientists and 'following the science' to deciding when they are allowed to speak.

WAFC

https://hasdominiccummingsresignedyet.com/

True, today I was wound up when a presenter was convinced that the track and trace would fall to bits because, (according to people recruited to man the phones in the last few weeks), people who were asked to identify who they had had recent contact with would refuse to divulge details, despite the fact that the NHS experts who have been running similar projects for years for a whole range of diseases, not least HIV, were saying that their experience suggested it wouldn't be an issue.

The BBC's problem is they make examples of rare displays of true impartiality while being supine to the government who control their funding, while claiming to be impartial when they're not because the government controls the purse strings.

Lived overseas during 2015-2016. The coverage on the BBC presenting both sides (of Brexit) ‘impartially’ seemed very clearly biased towards Remain. The BBC needs increasingly resilient checks and balances, as it’s not going to get easier with increased disinformation, deep fakes, (ed: pressures from government), etc.

I'm really interested thats how it appeared. A few weeks after the referendum there was a study that found that Brexiteers were given significantly more screen time on the BBC in the weeks preceeding the referendum. I guess its not as simple as minutes on camera.

I think basing news stories on public opinion rather than facts would be a very, very bad idea.

Facts are not the same as public opinion. At all.

You’ve misread me.

The ‘fact’ is public opinion in the case of ...

“The majority of the country think X”

... which is the example I gave and (I think) basically what got Maitlis in hot water.

I do think the BBC need to poll generally though, otherwise they’re largely just reacting to Westminster.

Hence we had the (unqualified) Nigel Lawson being given equal airtime as climate scientists who knew what they were talking about.

But they didn't know what Nigel Lawson was talking about, so you had to get Nigel Lawson, because only Nigel Lawson knew what he was talking about. Right?

Great question from the Sky correspondent. Also swerved

He's a friend of mine. I'm often very proud of him.

One thing I will say is that when I heard Maitlis's opening, I remarked on it to my wife as very unusual, and rewound it so that she could hear it. As it was that unusual, it doesn't surprise me that it broke guidelines. I'm sure with only a bit of editing it would have passed, but for me that fact that it stuck out, leads me to believe that the criticism is valid.

In other news, in the days when I used to stand in crowds at matches, I very often found myself alone while all my fellow supporters were screaming for what I thought were ludicrous penaltiy claims. Often I feel just as alone with political debate.

I’ll try and dig up my notes from the time.

Possibly because Brexit was always stupid, and it's hard to report on "Barry, a marketing manager from London says we hold all the cards in any negotiation with the trading Hegemon that is the EU", without everyone who is not insane or stupid seeing that this is clearly bollocks.

Often I feel just as alone with political debate.

You're just not partisan enough. You're more partysam. :)