Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Is it just me, or are these gonzo-style "put yourself into the story" reports really fucking annoying?

Journalists love to be the centre of attention.

No spoilers fomr the BBC

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 4:55 pm No spoilers fomr the BBC

With the exception of Edward VIII has anyone survived their reign?

Nicholas II for about a year. Or Alexander I of Russia if you buy into the legends.

On that note, a fairly common trick question in pub quizzes was "Who was the longest lived ruler of England?". People would usually assume it was Victoria or George III, but in fact it was Richard Cromwell, who died in relative obscurity at a grand old age, as after the Restoration he was deemed no real threat to anyone.

Elizabeth II replaced him as the right answer.

Kaiser Wilhelm II was another one: abdicated in 1918, didn't die until 1941.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 11:05 pm Kaiser Wilhelm II was another one: abdicated in 1918, didn't die until 1941.

That was my first thought.

Nice to see the BBC being serious about keeping to their mandate.

Why Reform was the other big winner in the Hamilton by-election

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj42gver2glo.amp

Why don't they just come out with it?

VOTE REFORM


They did this at the Peterborough by-election a few years ago. Spent the run-up to it telling us the main Parties will have difficulties beating Reform/UKIP (whatever Fargle's grift was called at the time). The 'news' channel announced that Labour had won it, and rushed off to interview... The frog-faced fascist cunt.

They've spent the last 15 years giving the Tories an easy ride (most infamously the spectacle of IDS and the DWP death toll), and stopping not very far short of actively campaigning for the frog-faced cunt.

Now we have a Labour government, can we please get rid of the right-wing placemen in the BBC and replace them with people who can actually spell 'impartiality'?

You missed Reform UK: how other parties react to a changing political landscape yesterday lunchtime on Radio 4.

Here's the thing though. To paraphrase Arnold Schwarzenegger on climate change recently, instead of whining about how it's sooo unfair that Reform gets all the airtime, why don't the Labour Party members on here get off their arses and via their local groups, lobby the PLP to do something about countering Reform? Maybe sack their comms director and get a better one, one that can actually get Labour's message out and make it heard?

By the way - that radio programme (presented by James Naughtie) is a good listen.

Yes. Radio 4 does have some excellent programmes. Unfortunately, the hard-of-thinking don't listen to Radio 4. I have personal experience of the common perception of Radio 4 listeners - "fuckin librul in'erlecshuls oo fink they're be''er than us". There is some truth in this, in that the sort of people who listen to Radio 4 are not the sort of people who think voting for racist wannabe fascists is a good idea.

The problem is that the BBC puts its decent political programmes on a 'lah-di-dah in'erlecshul' channel while filling the popular channels with 'rah-rah Fargle' bullshit. This is not a failing of the Labour Party.

I'm usually one of the first to jump in to defend the BBC, except for their mainstream political coverage, which is fucking dire, and has been for years.

As said many times before, it's run by Oxbridge humanities types who are financially shielded from any serious consequences of right wing policy, and who treat political journalism like showbiz gossip.

Boiler wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:03 am why don't the Labour Party members on here get off their arses and via their local groups, lobby the PLP to do something about countering Reform? Maybe sack their comms director and get a better one, one that can actually get Labour's message out and make it heard?

1. I’m not on my arse. Well, I am right now, physically, but not in the sense you imply.

2. We have a Labour MP, who does, believe it or not, try to stay in touch with what local members are thinking. He is, of course, a member of the PLP. Aside from that, there is no formal “lobby” mechanism for communicating to the PLP.

3. What we do have is a very committed, assiduous member of Labour’s NEC, called Ann Black. Ann is in close touch with many grassroots members, and is very effective at communicating concerns and feedback to the party’s ruling body . Believe me, the concerns about communications are very much front and centre. There is currently no real consensus as to what the best way to counter Reform is.

Yug wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:37 amThe problem is that the BBC puts its decent political programmes on a 'lah-di-dah in'erlecshul' channel while filling the popular channels with 'rah-rah Fargle' bullshit.

Can you give me some recent examples of the latter?

Yug wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:37 amThis is not a failing of the Labour Party.

It's not the BBC's job to counter Farage's BS though, is it? If it did, it'd be accused of being a State mouthpiece - which many people do already, along with considering it a PC hotbed of Lefties and pederasts; see recent reactions on e.g. Digital Spy to Jamie Borthwick's suspension for his use of an unacceptable term (I think it also happens to be the title of a track by Devo). Away from this particular online bubble the Beeb is still seen as left-wing. No, the failing here is Labour's, and theirs alone.

Yug wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:37 amI'm usually one of the first to jump in to defend the BBC, except for their mainstream political coverage, which is fucking dire, and has been for years.

On that we can agree, at least.

There is another option: how about some rich Labour backers applying to Ofcom for a slot to provide balance to GB News...?

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:54 am 2. We have a Labour MP, who does, believe it or not, try to stay in touch with what local members are thinking. He is, of course, a member of the PLP. Aside from that, there is no formal “lobby” mechanism for communicating to the PLP.

3. What we do have is a very committed, assiduous member of Labour’s NEC, called Ann Black. Ann is in close touch with many grassroots members, and is very effective at communicating concerns and feedback to the party’s ruling body . Believe me, the concerns about communications are very much front and centre. There is currently no real consensus as to what the best way to counter Reform is.

Informative, thank you. I'm not aware of the structures within the Labour Party and how it works, I was a member for less than a year (primarily, to vote to remove Mr. Corbyn).

In which case, re: point 3 I would suggest that now is a good time for Labour to start getting those concerns addressed and quickly, because otherwise we'll end up in a very bad place indeed.

08:10, the Radio Four Today Programme comes to its crescendo ... ahhhhnd ... (solemn tone) "Nigel Farage could be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom."

They don't bother trying to hide it, any longer - this determination to create a mood of inevitability and momentum. It's looking uglier by the day.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:48 am As said many times before, it's run by Oxbridge humanities types who are financially shielded from any serious consequences of right wing policy, and who treat political journalism like showbiz gossip.

It's not just politics.

Sport (outside the "Big Three" where viewers demand a quorum of former players and experts).
Now a parade of nice chaps and chapesses spending more time at key player's childhood club / granny's villa than reporting the sport.

Culture (Here the BBC mirrors society as a whole).
A long parade of public school creatives who can afford to stay in London before they break through.


(Big Three: Football, Rugby and Cricket).

Boiler wrote:It's not the BBC's job to counter Farage's BS though, is it? If it did, it'd be accused of being a State mouthpiece - which many people do already, along with considering it a PC hotbed of Lefties and pederasts...

It is the BBC's job to report factually. What I posted in the Reform thread yesterday morning is a classic example of what I'm going on about. When it comes to politics most normal people just scan the headlines. The headline I posted yesterday states that Reform councillors couldn't do their jobs because nobody wants to work with them. The linked story states, some way down the article, that the Reform councillors can't do their jobs because they refuse to work with people from other Parties. Anyone seeing that headline would assume that the guilty are the victims. This is mendacious.

The article I posted above says that Reform, though losing the by-election, are big winners and set to win seats in the Scottish parliamentary elections. This is bizarre. Losing a by-election, even with an increased vote-share, does not make it a nailed-on certainty that they're going to win any seats at all at the Scottish elections. The article is basically 'bigging-up' - promoting - ReformUK Ltd by giving them a prominence they don't deserve.

This style of reporting is visible in a lot of ReformUK-related stories on the BBC website. It is tantamount to campaigning for Reform.

As for not wishing to be seen as a government mouthpiece and a hotbed of lefty luvvies, where have you been for the last 50 years (that I know of)? The BBC has always been regarded in some quarters as a government mouthpiece, and as a hotbed of lefty luvvies and [insert undesirable group of choice here]. This is just business as usual.

None of this is the fault of the Labour Party.

The one gripe I have with Labour is that they don't seem to be very good at communicating to the public about the things they're doing. I don't know whether this is because they genuinely aren't very good at communicating, or if it's because the news outlets are not giving the government the prominence they warrant in favour of pursuing their own narratives.

The BBC is just one of a number of national news outlets that is failing the public in its political reporting. They're not the absolute worst, they just have the misfortune of being the biggest. Their general news reporting is usually top-notch, it's their political reporting which leaves a lot to be desired.

In short, if the BBC doesn't want to be accused of pro-ReformUK bias they should take a look at the amount of coverage they are giving to this minor Party and its leader, and change the style of those reports to one that is matter-of-fact rather than one which can be, and is, construed as blowing smoke up Fargle's arse.

That's all I'm going to say on this subject for now. I will continue to defend the BBC in general, but reserve the right to throw half-bricks at their political reporting as and when I feel it necessary.

Yug wrote:The one gripe I have with Labour is that they don't seem to be very good at communicating to the public about the things they're doing. I don't know whether this is because they genuinely aren't very good at communicating, or if it's because the news outlets are not giving the government the prominence they warrant in favour of pursuing their own narratives.

Both. But the former is more easily fixed than the latter.
We really have to wait until current terms of employment are up to replace the Tory placemen and women, or we will just be accused of political manoeuvring. Also we have seen both here and in the USA how political appointments erode democracy. Best to establish a neutral or cross-party quango to oversee appointments and then accept the results.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 12:30 pm
We really have to wait until current terms of employment are up to replace the Tory placemen and women, or we will just be accused of political manoeuvring. Also we have seen both here and in the USA how political appointments erode democracy. Best to establish a neutral or cross-party quango to oversee appointments and then accept the results.

Which is why I expressed the desire to see the political placements be replaced by people who understand the need for impartiality, while leaving the 'how' as an exercise for the reader.

I'd even think about welcoming the return of Brillo. He may be a swivel-eyed conspiraloon, but he was grown-up enough to understand the need to keep his private life and professional life separate. I don't remember hearing Mail Watchers having that many gripes when he was doing his political interviews on a regular basis. Kay Burley, Jeremy Paxman, Kirsty Wark (sp?) - all were capable of giving politicians a hard time when necessary. We need people like those.

Unfortunately, David Frost and Walter Cronkite are unavailable for comment.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 12:30 pm Both. But the former is more easily fixed than the latter.
We really have to wait until current terms of employment are up to replace the Tory placemen and women, or we will just be accused of political manoeuvring. Also we have seen both here and in the USA how political appointments erode democracy. Best to establish a neutral or cross-party quango to oversee appointments and then accept the results.

The sad thing is, the BBC used to have just that: it was called the Board of Governors. Twelve people - six from the Labour side of politics and six from the Conservative side, done so that senior appointments were overseen and not partisan. If a member of the BoG left, they were replaced by someone of the same political colour. That was back in the 80s and had been like that for a darned long time.

Then someone, somewhere decided to abolish the BoG and it all went downhill from there...

However: it might be something Lisa Nandy wants to look at now, given that the BBC's charter is up for renewal in 2027.