Saturday, April 17, 2010

LibDems 6 Others 0

As Jonathan Isaby says HERE, THIS so-called "story" on the BBC News website must breach about every example of the BBC's election guidelines. The journalist is "reporting" from Richmond Park. Every single voter she quotes is intending to vote LibDem. A likely story.

The LibDems rightly complain when they are not covered properly - such as the inordinate number of times they don't get a guest space on ANY QUESTIONS - but I think even they would have to admit that Sarah Bell's piece goes way beyonbd the normal boundaries.

26 comments:

cynicalHighlander said...

Its what the Beeb does best in writing the news rather than reporting it.

John R said...

"Sarah Bell's piece goes way beyonbd the normal boundaries"

You say this as if it's a surprise. Was it not the BBC you were talking about?

hughflungdatscat said...

It would appear to me to be a very fair article.

When people like myself in CCHQ are considering voting for the Lib Dems, then it indicates that people are looking for real change as opposed to David Cameron talking about change when it is clear he is a big fan of the status quo.

Michael Heaver said...

That is a pretty crazy story. Am amazed it got through the BBC censors who usually do well in balancing things, at least to some degree.

Oh and a cheap plug http://ukiphub.blogspot.com/

ferial ferret said...

I understand from the BBC Complaints Department that it is ok for individual news items not to be balanced so long as the overall coverage is.

This is a complete nonsense even if the overall coverage was balanced, fat chance

The Purpleline said...

#biasedbbc & #bbcleftleaning lets get them trending Iain
Purpleline on twitter

Daniel Mason said...

If you take a random selection of six people it's perfectly possible, if a little unlikely, that you end up with six Lib Dem (or Labour or Tory) voters.

It would be wrong of the BBC, if it is claiming that this small sample is random, to "fix" it to achieve a balance of party support.

That would be a ridiculous sort of false impartiality, something the BBC has often been guilty of in the past.

ryan said...

As I said over there... Sarah Bell is friends with Vince Cable and Susan Kramer... hardly surprising then that an article like that gets written.

Smoking gun #1: http://img163.imageshack.us/i/facebooksarahbellvincec.png/

Smoking gun #2: http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/848/facebooksarahbellsusank.png

Ronald said...

If they picked six people at random and they all turned out to be Tories they would either interview more people until they got some people they liked to broadcast, or they would just not show the piece.

dazmando said...

Skys been doing it too and there not Lib Dems. I guess its because its an unusal story.

Logged Off said...

The nightmare is a Lib/Lab government with all the worst bits of labour AND and excuse to jack up taxes and rip up both manifestos.

I was impressed with Clegg's performance, very impressed, but my impression at this distance from Thursday was of a junior rep in top form. Cheap suit, hand in pocket selling someone else's idea and not feeling likely to have to actually demonstrate the reality of his shtick.

I wonder what the papers will dig up on him, there are at least thirty 'leads' out there

Minx said...

Off Topic. Canvasing in the Richmonshire Association ( North Yorks). I asked a lady if we had her support, after telling me we did I asked about her husbands intentions, "He was killed in Afghanistan last year". Gulp!

norman said...

This is an inexplicable frenzy parallel to what we saw people reacting to Diana's death. The latter is understandable as people could relate to Diana and she made the news for years. Viewers were hardly familiar to what Clegg stands for and never bothered to read items like his amnesty for illegal immigranys and bringing more immigrants to parts of the country, class sizes 20 and 16 what this means iun terms of resources etc..

norman said...

DT reports another poll. Con 34,Lab 29 and Libdem 27-Hung parliament with Labour as the largest party. Cable will be happy. Libdems surge now 7 points instead of 14. In a day or two it will settle down to around 22/23. Con should work to move up.

Man in a Shed said...

The BBC is a direct threat and danger to our democracy and must be treated accordingly.

Mark Senior said...

The real story everywhere else is tonight's polls strsngely not worth a thread on here

wild said...

The British Leftist establishment is desparate for a LIB-LAB coalition, and so expect more and more of this sort of stuff on the BBC in the run up to the election.

Will the taxpayer maintain them in the lifestyle to which they have been accustomed? That is the ONLY question that concerns them.

Like all Leftists everything they say about their opponents is simply a projection of what they know about themselves.

Iain Dale said...

Mark Senior, perhaps that would be because I am out campaigning. Clearly, unlike you.

Moriarty said...

Not sure what you're bothered about. A sample of 6 Lib Dems will produce 3 Clegg votes and 3 "don't know"s.

Not a sheep said...

Iain there is an election to be saved from the 'same old Tories'. It would seem that Peter Mandelson has decreed that as Labour cannot win the election the Lib Dems are to be boosted so as to ensure that the Tories cannot undo the 'achievements' of the last 13 years. You know achievements like economic collapse, massive public and private debt, social breakdown - all well worth celebrating.

Norfolk Blogger said...

Iain, your "it's not fair" line sounds silly. Imagine what it has been like for Lib Dems for the last few decades.

Oh, Norman, do keep up, we were at 22-23% before the surge so it is unlikely to go down to those levels. However, you keep taking your vote for granted, and we'll keep working hard to win them over to us.

Scott said...

Rather like 'everyone they spoke to in Hayes and Harlington (all four people) wanted a third runway' last week on BBC London. They showed 40-60 seconds of soundbites, yet filmed for over an hour and showed only four of the many people they interviewed in that time.

norman said...

@Norfolk Blogger. Keep dreaming, There is no straight correlation between the poll figures and votes. So far no one has come up with perfect sampling techniques. The more reliable are exit polls. You can have your figure at 45% if that satisfy you. If I were you, I would look at loony policies like amnesty for illegal immigrants ( Spain, the senora Clegg's country gave one amnesty for a million and there is another million waiting for a second round of amnesty). Wish you good luck when your party starts negotiating with Brown and Mandy for agreed agenda for govt and cabinet positions. These two are known as consummate double-crossers on matters even within their own party. Finally, just a piece of advice: Brown as the largest party does not have to have you supporting him. You can't vote him out as there will be another GE and strange things happen in the second round. Boy Clegg can't say " plague on both houses", just a reminder. BY the way I knw how a Libdem politico mind works . I dealt with them in our borough as an independent school governor.

Colin said...

Erm, I live in Richmond and as I've written here and elsewhere, Zac cannot win in Richmond. That's been clear almost since his selection.

I don't know a single person who intends to vote for him. So, I'm not surprised by the report and given the events of last Thursday, neither should anyone else be.

Forcing someone like Zac Goldsmith as a PPC was met with dismay by voters desperate to get rid of the parliamentary embarrassment that is Susan Kramer.

storrzy said...

It would appear that the BBC is quite sensitive to this sort of criticism...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8628650.stm

hippiepooter said...

Errm, ..

Brian Wheeler wrote:-

"A few days ago my colleague Sarah Bell travelled to the Lib Dem marginal seat of Richmond in South London, where she found widespread enthusiasm for the party, in the wake of the televised debate."

However, Sarah Bell had written:-

"While many voters on the green had been impressed by Mr Clegg, most said it would not affect where they would mark their 'x' on 6 May."

Mr Wheeler's report was clearly intended as a damage limitation exercise to cover up for the appalling bias of Sarah Bell on behalf of her friend Susan Kramer (see Ryan's links above).