Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Banjax]

BBC:

BA strike blame 'lies with those at the top'
A member of British Airways' cabin crew, who has worked for the airline for more than 30 years, explains the reasons for the walkouts at the airline.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576930.stm

Hmm..

Seen elsewhere:

"One of the main themes on this and previous threads is that BA crew are paid better that competitors and have better conditions."

"Just been speaking to a friend wrapped up in this unfortunate mess. She mentioned that she has just received an email with the final proposal from the company this evening and that her mind is now made up having read it. She will be reporting for duty. Good luck to all concerned."

"I see an offer that, if asked by my reps, I would be happy to accept."

All comments taken from the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (3400 posts on this subject, mostly by crew).

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/404353-british-airways-cc-industrial-relations-mk-vi-172.html

So why couldn't the Beeb have found a balanced non-strike viewpoint from BA staff?

It's bias by omission, IMHO.  

such as the :"BA cabin crew member: 'I won't strike' " link on the same page? or the devasted couple "'We booked our honeymoon with BA' " piece? doesn't add up Nick, sorry - you're the one showing irrational bias mate 

[Nickbat]

such as the :"BA cabin crew member: 'I won't strike' " link on the same page? or the devasted couple "'We booked our honeymoon with BA' " piece? doesn't add up Nick, sorry - you're the one showing irrational bias mate 

Not at all. The BBC chooses to run an article from an unnamed member of staff blaming "management". It is crystal clear that a sizable number of the workforce believe the problem lies with BASSA & Unite.

The BBC should have balanced the article with a view from the latter group.

No irrational bias in my viewpoint at all. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

BBC:

BA strike blame 'lies with those at the top'
A member of British Airways' cabin crew, who has worked for the airline for more than 30 years, explains the reasons for the walkouts at the airline.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576930.stm

Hmm..

Seen elsewhere:

"One of the main themes on this and previous threads is that BA crew are paid better that competitors and have better conditions."

"Just been speaking to a friend wrapped up in this unfortunate mess. She mentioned that she has just received an email with the final proposal from the company this evening and that her mind is now made up having read it. She will be reporting for duty. Good luck to all concerned."

"I see an offer that, if asked by my reps, I would be happy to accept."

All comments taken from the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (3400 posts on this subject, mostly by crew).

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/404353-british-airways-cc-industrial-relations-mk-vi-172.html

So why couldn't the Beeb have found a balanced non-strike viewpoint from BA staff?

It's bias by omission, IMHO.  

They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers.  Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!

So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes!

[Nickbat]

They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers.  Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!

So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes!

I was saying that the article on BBC website should have been balanced. I didn't mention programming. Perhaps the website and the TV are run under different guidelines. :-/

[Lizzie_Zoom]

They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers.  Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!

So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes!

I was saying that the article on BBC website should have been balanced. I didn't mention programming. Perhaps the website and the TV are run under different guidelines. :-/

Well on their web site is a staff member who is against the strike giving her reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576003.stm

and the staff member who is pro the strike giving his reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576274.stm

So what is biased, not balanced or fair in that reporting? :-/ :-/

Therefore both on TV and on their web site Nick once more the BBC are doing a great job.

[Nickbat]

They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers.  Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!

So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes!

I was saying that the article on BBC website should have been balanced. I didn't mention programming. Perhaps the website and the TV are run under different guidelines. :-/

Well on their web site is a staff member who is against the strike giving her reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576003.stm

and the staff member who is pro the strike giving his reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576274.stm

So what is biased, not balanced or fair in that reporting? :-/ :-/

Therefore both on TV and on their web site Nick once more the BBC are doing a great job.

Didn't see those. Good. 

[Nickbat]

They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers.  Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!

So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes!

I was saying that the article on BBC website should have been balanced. I didn't mention programming. Perhaps the website and the TV are run under different guidelines. :-/

Well on their web site is a staff member who is against the strike giving her reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576003.stm

and the staff member who is pro the strike giving his reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576274.stm

So what is biased, not balanced or fair in that reporting? :-/ :-/

Therefore both on TV and on their web site Nick once more the BBC are doing a great job.

One for Lizzie:

http://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/10888842767

 

[BigAl]

The BBC is a publicly-funded news service and MUST therefore be totally objective.

This article from the Mail in 2006 is rather revealing.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html

Of course, you will counter that anything in the Mail is a lie, but prove to me that any of the quotes in the article are fabrications if you can.

You can't.   

Sorry, just skimming the forum after a few beers, but i have to call you on that quote, I know that's what it should be, but it's not

[Nickbat]

What is the BBC up to?

Too many fingers in too many rancid pies, I would seem.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/sustainable-bbc.html

 

[Banjax]

not the BBC Nick, it's supported by BBC World Service Trust ie an independently funded international charity who work in partnership with the BBC World Service (mainly using their excellent worldwide facilities to bring valuable information and education to parts of the third world via radio) but please, don't let the facts stand in the way of cutting and pasting more swivel-eyed rants from a lone blogger 

i can see how he's confused tho, if you never do even light research you're going to have to accept you'll be wrong more often than not......unless this lone blogger didn't want his followers knowing the full truthor the truth was inconvenient to his argument? but that couldn't possibly be the case


i've posted that reply on the loonballs thread - cheers for the link - he's more entertaining than FOX news    8-)

[Varche]

The BBC and the rest of the Uk media is biased.

You get very little coverage of anything from countries that don't speak English for example. Recently there was a succesful resolution to a long running Spanish hostages in a South American country scenario. "Foreign"stuff only get coverage if there is a natural disaster, it affects peoples holidays or Britain is fighting them in a war. 

[Nickbat]

not the BBC Nick, it's supported by BBC World Service Trust ie an independently funded international charity who work in partnership with the BBC World Service (mainly using their excellent worldwide facilities to bring valuable information and education to parts of the third world via radio) but please, don't let the facts stand in the way of cutting and pasting more swivel-eyed rants from a lone blogger 

i can see how he's confused tho, if you never do even light research you're going to have to accept you'll be wrong more often than not......unless this lone blogger didn't want his followers knowing the full truthor the truth was inconvenient to his argument? but that couldn't possibly be the case


i've posted that reply on the loonballs thread - cheers for the link - he's more entertaining than FOX news    8-)

Independently-funded charity? 37% from the UK Government (taxpayers money), EU 15% (taxpayers money). And why should the BBC be running a charity anyway?

"We worked in partnership with The Energy Resources Institute (TERI), Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) and the Stockholm Environment Institute to mobilise public opinion around the environment"

That's NOT the BBC's job, nor that of any phoney charity they set up.

QUOTE:
"...but please, don't let the facts stand in the way of cutting and pasting more swivel-eyed rants from a lone blogger"

Rude, nasty, ignorant, and says more about you than me. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The BBC and the rest of the Uk media is biased.

You get very little coverage of anything from countries that don't speak English for example. Recently there was a succesful resolution to a long running Spanish hostages in a South American country scenario. "Foreign"stuff only get coverage if there is a natural disaster, it affects peoples holidays or Britain is fighting them in a war. 

The BBC is very good at reporting current news affairs from all around the world Varche, and is well known for doing so.

If you go outside the UK to the USA you soon realise how good the BBC is and how you miss it whilst there.  Indeed there news is almost 100% centred on the state you are residing in, or America in general.  To hear news on what is happening outside the United States is rare, and usually is coupled to US interests!

For instance I was in the US when the  Detroit terrorist incident took place.  For three solid DAYS the news concentrated on that story at the exclusion of anything else, and only mentioned Europe, and the UK in particular, when the story could be linked to where the aircraft had flown from, with also our Gordon Brown announcing new upgarded security checks at UK airports (to satisfy American worries??!!).  The rest of the news was all about America and the terrorist threat.

I came home once again from the United States shouting out thank God for the BBC and it's great style of unbiased reporting!! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

[Nickbat]

Lizzie, I see you didn't comment on that Matt Frei Twitter I posted earlier.

[Varche]

The BBC and the rest of the Uk media is biased.

You get very little coverage of anything from countries that don't speak English for example. Recently there was a succesful resolution to a long running Spanish hostages in a South American country scenario. "Foreign"stuff only get coverage if there is a natural disaster, it affects peoples holidays or Britain is fighting them in a war. 

The BBC is very good at reporting current news affairs from all around the world Varche, and is well known for doing so. REALLY!

If you go outside the UK to the USA you soon realise how good the BBC is and how you miss it whilst there.  Indeed there news is almost 100% centred on the state you are residing in, or America in general.  To hear news on what is happening outside the United States is rare, and usually is coupled to US interests! THE USA ISN'T a GOOD EXAMPLE AS THEY ARE WELL KNOWN FOR BEING ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY SELF CENTRED

For instance I was in the US when the  Detroit terrorist incident took place.  For three solid DAYS the news concentrated on that story at the exclusion of anything else, and only mentioned Europe, and the UK in particular, when the story could be linked to where the aircraft had flown from, with also our Gordon Brown announcing new upgarded security checks at UK airports (to satisfy American worries??!!).  The rest of the news was all about America and the terrorist threat. AND THE SAME THING DOESN'T HAPPEN IN BRITAIN!!! A BIT OF FLOODING AND THE NEWS CREWS ARE THERE FOR DAYS TO THE EXCLUSION OF NEARLY ALL ELSE!

I came home once again from the United States shouting out thank God for the BBC and it's great style of unbiased reporting!! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

I would say that the BBC does try.