One from a paper that everyone knows to be biased, the other supposedly from an impartial source. The next time anyone tells you the media were fair and even-handed during the referendum campaign, you can show them these…
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
michaelgreenwell.wordpress.com 
The two Daily Record and the two BBC articles, could only be justified if the ‘new’ technologies had come to light very recently, with the referendum timetable merely co-incidental. Mobil Oil had a full page advert in the Shetland Times in July, thanking it’s staff, engineers and scientists for all their work to bring this new technology on stream.
In another piece of BBC bias, they carried a full article on how University research funding would be severely cut if there was a YES vote, all based on worst case scenarios and a, highly unlikely, break in co-operation between european universities. In one line at the foot of the article it claimed that these “exact figures’ had been disputed by Academics for YES, a small group of thirty academics”.
On the webpage there was a link to complain about the article. I complained, based on the fact that Academics for YES had a membership of over 200 Professors and Readers, something which a click on their website would reveal. Even at it’s launch it had an initial membership of 60.
This was not a matter of subjectivity but an indisputable factual error.
After one week with no reply, and the article still available on-line, I complained again. Then after another week with no reply, and the article still available on-line, I complained again. Then after yet one more week with no reply and the article still available on-line I complained again.
Finally I received a reply, stating that the complaints department had been centralised to an office in London, to give better value to licence fee payers. There was a new link to complain again, which I did. I also checked other BBC Scotland web pages, and found that the old address for complaints was still being used on-line.
Two weeks later, I finally got a reply from the London office stating that my complaint would not be investigated as I’d sent it in more than 28 days after the item was posted on-line.
I complained again, since I could find nothing in their articles, policies or guidelines to indicate such a time bar on complaints existed, and to point out that my initial complaint, as directed by the BBC, was made on the same day that the article appeared.
No reply yet……….
Great comment Donald.
Wouldn’t hold your breath tho, they are busy patting themselves on the back for their ref coverage at the moment.
That is shocking.
Who are the people behind these articles? I believe they should be put up to be questioned by the public and give an explanation for the disparity between the two.
They surely feel a bit stupid now or have they no shame?
They won’t feel stupid.
They know it was all a lie, encouraged by UK government.
Been wondering since the 19th why I can’t abide this ‘reconciliation’ talk. Its just come to me – I need truth first.