Sky news biased against the Labor party?

duffflash

Does Adam Boulton's attack on Alastair Campbell prove that the news channel are not providing a far and impartial view on the news?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/05/10/adam-boulton-loses-it-as-he-rants-at-alastair-campbell-during-live-tv-interview-115875-22249100/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1276591/Alastair-Campbell-Sky-News-presenter-Adam-Boulton-come-blows-live-TV-bitter-row-Browns-legacy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

mike65

No but they can't abide the Labour Party.

bmaxi

I don't think Mr Murdoch is enamoured with Labour for interfering in his God given right to be king of the media.

maynooth_rules

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJh2bTK1ew

This is an example of Kay Burley and Skys 'journalism'. Her line of questioning in that interview is close to moronic. They are slowly and surely becoming Fox news of the UK and there biased towards the Conservatives is very very clear. Murdoch media really is a disgrace.

duffflash

bmaxi wrote: »

I don't think Mr Murdoch is enamoured with Labour for interfering in his God given right to be king of the media.

I think when a Sky Reporter in so many words demands on the news that Mr Brown should get out of number 10, it's getting a little bit above reporting the news!!

Thrill

Boulton losing it with Campbell....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUbOhq1q07Y

Nodin

duffflash wrote: »

Does Adam Boulton's attack on Alastair Campbell prove that the news channel are not providing a far and impartial view on the news?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/05/10/adam-boulton-loses-it-as-he-rants-at-alastair-campbell-during-live-tv-interview-115875-22249100/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1276591/Alastair-Campbell-Sky-News-presenter-Adam-Boulton-come-blows-live-TV-bitter-row-Browns-legacy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

In fairness, getting annoyed by Alistair Campbell does not indicate bias.

duffflash

Thrill wrote: »

Boulton losing it with Campbell....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUbOhq1q07Y

It’s a disgrace on sky news and I think Adam Bolton should be sacked. Is this what passes for impartial news reporting today!!

duffflash

Nodin wrote: »

In fairness, getting annoyed by Alistair Campbell does not indicate bias.

Please look at the video!

Nodin

duffflash wrote: »

Please look at the video!

I did. It doesn't seem to cover the full interview and is of limited value. However I'd imagine that Boulton finally lost the head with Cambell and his crap. They have history, and Boulton and quite a few others could never stand Campbells overaggressive penis waving manner in dealing with the press. He also remarks in his memoirs about the casual relationship between Campbell and the truth, and its contrast with previous press secretaries. In other words, there's a lot more going on than just the subject matter.

cml387

Adam Boulton is a highly respected pol corr. (and incidentally married to one of Tony Blair's ex-spin doctors).

It looked unprofessional on his part, but I would plead mitigation as it was Alastair Campbell he was dealing with.

Maybe they had some words off air beforehand.

Nodin

cml387 wrote: »

Maybe they had some words off air beforehand.

...over a few years.

cml387

Nodin wrote: »

...over a few years.

Was he at the wedding?:D

loldog

Sky News becoming Fox "News".

.

Nodin

The full thing, which I'm now watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8

ejmaztec

Despite Adam Boulton denying bias in the election-night set-to with Alastair Campbell, it was obvious that Murdoch had decided to set his multi-media attack-dogs onto the Labour Party a long time ago. Boulton also showed that he was carrying out his master's wishes when it was Sky's turn to host the leaders' debate.

Nodin

.....yes...Rupert said 'Go on there and lose the run of yourself'.

cml387

Alastair Campbell's behaviour towards the BBC over the "dodgy dossier" was a disgrace.He is an attack dog for the Labour party.

I detest Rupert Murdoch and all he stands for,but SKY news cannot be compared to Fox.

dsmythy

duffflash wrote: »

Please look at the video!

I did and Campbell seems like an incredibly annoying cocky individual.

Nodin

loldog wrote: »

Sky News becoming Fox "News".

.

I'm sure they'd love to, but Sky, like most European broadcasters, is monitored under legislation to prevent that kind of thing.

cml387

Alastair accused Adam of wanting David Cameron to be in power (according to Guardian blog).

Nodin

cml387 wrote: »

Alastair accused Adam of wanting David Cameron to be in power (according to Guardian blog).

If you watch it from 3 minutes in, you can see the jibes starting to hit home, culminating in that.

ongarite

The Murdock media empire did a deal with the Conservatives before the election to give them support. All his newspapers and Sky News have shown a pro-Tory stance since, during and now after the election.

In return, Murdock wanted OFCOM to be disbanded and BBC to be neutered.

cml387

The great Brian Redhead once had a set to with Nigel Lawson,when Nigel accused him of political bias.

"Do you think we should have a one minute silence now in this interview, one for you to apologise for daring to suggest that you know how I vote"

steelcityblues

Lets not forget SKY were Labour friendly, or at least Blair friendly for too many years!

Murdoch really has no party loyalty, only so far as what can any of the main parties do for him and his ego!

Memnoch

steelcityblues wrote: »

Lets not forget SKY were Labour friendly, or at least Blair friendly for too many years!

Murdoch really has no party loyalty, only so far as what can any of the main parties do for him and his ego!

Your attempts to paint sky's behaviour as some kind of benign equivalence are quite disingenuous. Murdoch may have allied with labour in the past, but it is crystal that Sky have bet their house on the conservatives this time around and that is clearly where their loyalty lies.

Been watching some sky news this evening and Boulton's behaviour is becoming increasingly desperate. Practically shouting everyone else down who isn't conservative/pro-conservative.

I really hope the lib-lab coalition get going, get in PR and lock the tories out for a generation, would be a big F U to Murdoch and his political interference and electioneering and send the perfect message to Cameron and the cronies (tories).

steelcityblues

Memnoch wrote: »

Your attempts to paint sky's behaviour as some kind of benign equivalence are quite disingenuous. Murdoch may have allied with labour in the past, but it is crystal that Sky have bet their house on the conservatives this time around and that is clearly where their loyalty lies.

Been watching some sky news this evening and Boulton's behaviour is becoming increasingly desperate. Practically shouting everyone else down who isn't conservative/pro-conservative.

I really hope the lib-lab coalition get going, get in PR and lock the tories out for a generation, would be a big F U to Murdoch and his political interference and electioneering and send the perfect message to Cameron and the cronies (tories).

True that they have become Tory friendly since Brown took over no.10, but just ask people like George Galloway and Tony Benn how biased they were against them in interviews over the years. All because they would not lick up with the New Labour mandate!

In a way this is karma for creeps like Campbell who had the media in deference to him for too long! Boulton knows this firsthand!

AllGunsBlazing

Murdoch likes to back the winner. He saw which way the wind was blowing back in the late 90's and backed New Labour. He sees Labour slipping down the popularity slope and flips back to the Tories. He didn't throw his weight behind the Conservatives until quite late on in the game.

I think this is because he genuinely held Brown in greater esteem than he did Cameron. In fact I don't think he rates Cameron very highly at all. But the Tories were clearly on the ascendancy so all aboard the band wagon.

cml387

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

Murdoch likes to back the winner. He saw which way the wind was blowing back in the late 90's and backed New Labour. He sees Labour slipping down the popularity slope and flips back to the Tories. He didn't throw his weight behind the Conservatives until quite late on in the game.

I think this is because he genuinely held Brown in greater esteem than he did Cameron. In fact I don't think he rates Cameron very highly at all. But the Tories were clearly on the ascendancy so all aboard the band wagon.

Everyone wants to be on the winning side I suppose.
I mentioned it before,but the harm done to the BBC by the Hutton enquiry was far worse than anything the Conservatives did during their tenure.
My point is that both sides do their utmost to spin the media to their side.
This will lead to accusations of bias and dust ups that you saw today.
I bet the Conservatives have their own Alastair Campbell waiting in the wings.

Memnoch

steelcityblues wrote: »

True that they have become Tory friendly since Brown took over no.10, but just ask people like George Galloway and Tony Benn how biased they were against them in interviews over the years. All because they would not lick up with the New Labour mandate!

In a way this is karma for creeps like Campbell who had the media in deference to him for too long! Boulton knows this firsthand!

I have no love for Labour, Campbell, brown or co. I've been especially disappointed with them since they followed Bush into Iraq. Though I've no doubt the Tories would have done any different.

But what irks me the most right now about the unholy conservative-murdoch coalition party is the prospect of the Britain and British politics mirroring America. Sky have already demonstrated their willingness to go the Fox news way in this election, and should Cameron get the opportunity to hamstring the BBC, it will only get worse, which in turn puts more power into the hands of Murdoch and his allies and allows them to engineer another Iraq type situation should they consider it profitable.

sxt

maynooth_rules wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJh2bTK1ew

This is an example of Kay Burley and Skys 'journalism'. Her line of questioning in that interview is close to moronic. They are slowly and surely becoming Fox news of the UK and there biased towards the Conservatives is very very clear. Murdoch media really is a disgrace.

And an hour later the table turns...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roRAUpph1UM

cml387

Memnoch wrote: »

I have no love for Labour, Campbell, brown or co. I've been especially disappointed with them since they followed Bush into Iraq. Though I've no doubt the Tories would have done any different.

But what irks me the most right now about the unholy conservative-murdoch coalition party is the prospect of the Britain and British politics mirroring America. Sky have already demonstrated their willingness to go the Fox news way in this election, and should Cameron get the opportunity to hamstring the BBC, it will only get worse, which in turn puts more power into the hands of Murdoch and his allies and allows them to engineer another Iraq type situation should they consider it profitable.

We shall have to wait and see I suppose. But I'd bet that if the Conservatives do get in,SKY news will report the news as fairly as they can. They have a reputation to maintain.

Also there's no equivalent on SKY news to the foaming mouth brigade like Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck.

BroomBurner

I don't understand how people can't see the bias. I've watched quite a lot of Sky recently and the manner in which they interview Labour party members differs entirely to the way they handle the Conservatives.

There is only one news reporter on Sky that has so far proved himself to be capable of remaining calm and interviewing in a fair and friendly way, and that's the guy that interviewed Campbell and Boulton.

Boulton disgraced himself today. He, and everyone else at Sky, need to remember what and who they all are. They are news reporters. They are not political commentators, they are not investigative journalists, they are simply news reporters. Their personal views and ideas should never be aired or be present in how they deal with people.

On a positive note, nice to see Kay Burley has been kept away from the cameras since Saturday.

cml387

BroomBurner wrote: »

I don't understand how people can't see the bias. I've watched quite a lot of Sky recently and the manner in which they interview Labour party members differs entirely to the way they handle the Conservatives.

There is only one news reporter on Sky that has so far proved himself to be capable of remaining calm and interviewing in a fair and friendly way, and that's the guy that interviewed Campbell and Boulton.

Boulton disgraced himself today. He, and everyone else at Sky, need to remember what and who they all are. They are news reporters. They are not political commentators, they are not investigative journalists, they are simply news reporters. Their personal views and ideas should never be aired or be present in how they deal with people.

On a positive note, nice to see Kay Burley has been kept away from the cameras since Saturday.

"Their personal views and ideas should never be aired or be present in how they deal with people."

That's precisely why Boulton got annoyed with Campbell, because he was accused of having a personal view.

themont85

cml387 wrote: »

"Their personal views and ideas should never be aired or be present in how they deal with people."

That's precisely why Boulton got annoyed with Campbell, because he was accused of having a personal view.

Which was pretty much confirmed as true when Boulton said Cambell and Mandelson had 'cocked things up' and didn't care about the country.

BroomBurner

cml387 wrote: »

"Their personal views and ideas should never be aired or be present in how they deal with people."

That's precisely why Boulton got annoyed with Campbell, because he was accused of having a personal view.

The correct and professional response would have been for Boulton to not rise to the obvious jibe by Campbell, and instead take the moral high ground. His over-the-top reaction was erring on the "he doth protest too much" side of things, as well as just being professionally inept.

I have no idea why Sky think they can interview their own news reporters. These people are reporters, not commentators or even journalists for that matter. They exist as personalities to deliver the news. Nothing more.

cml387

BroomBurner wrote: »

The correct and professional response would have been for Boulton to not rise to the obvious jibe by Campbell, and instead take the moral high ground. His over-the-top reaction was erring on the "he doth protest too much" side of things, as well as just being professionally inept.

I have no idea why Sky think they can interview their own news reporters. These people are reporters, not commentators or even journalists for that matter. They exist as personalities to deliver the news. Nothing more.

All media organisations do that.RTE interviewed George Lee who gave his views. The role of the senior political correspondent is to give his views.
It makes very boring viewing just to hear reporters quote what they were told by the last spin doctor.
The point is that in that important role he must be seen to be impartial.It's a difficult line to tread and being accused of bias is therefore an attck on their professionalism.

One of the better books to read on this subject is Andrew Marr's "My Trade" and see how politics is reported now and in the past.

Memnoch

cml387 wrote: »

All media organisations do that.RTE interviewed George Lee who gave his views. The role of the senior political correspondent is to give his views.
It makes very boring viewing just to hear reporters quote what they were told by the last spin doctor.
The point is that in that important role he must be seen to be impartial.It's a difficult line to tread and being accused of bias is therefore an attck on their professionalism.

One of the better books to read on this subject is Andrew Marr's "My Trade" and see how politics is reported now and in the past.

Except he HAS been DEEPLY unprofessional. Today when Gordan Brown resigned, he starting ranting and raving and practically foaming at the mouth about how this was a cynical ploy to hold on to power and how a Lib-lab coalition would be completely undemocratic and how plans by labour and the Lib dems to change the voting system would be the same.

He also brought up that Sun garbage during the debate against Clegg which was specifically against the rules of the debate.

Sky news have been completely biased and Boulton has been the worst of the lot and I'm delighted that a politician finally had the guts to call him out for the cheap whore of a hack that he is.

Memnoch

cml387 wrote: »

We shall have to wait and see I suppose. But I'd bet that if the Conservatives do get in,SKY news will report the news as fairly as they can. They have a reputation to maintain.

Also there's no equivalent on SKY news to the foaming mouth brigade like Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck.

Oh I'm sure they'll do their best to be "fair" after the fact, but right now when it matters they're doing everything they can to help it be that way. As for having to maintain a reputation, if Cameron does get in and succeeds in hampering the BBC, that will only increase their strangle hold and reduce the counter weight.

Beck and O'Reilly are certainly out there, but Boulten and Burly have been doing their best at a solid imitation of the later at least, if not the former.

Mr.Micro

When a news channel takes a side/stance it of course no longer becomes objective or fair or neutral, as in the case of Sky news. It has always been Murdoch policy to push the Sky news stance and not necessarily the truth either hence the likes of Mr Burley and Boulton doing their masters bidding. If one wants unbiased reporting Sky news is the last place to go..... think of The sun, The Star etc... nuff said.

dsmythy

Boulton just got his knickers in a twist on SkyNews again over whether the conservatives won or not.

1in4

Adam is still at it!!!!!!

duffflash

1in4 wrote: »

The exchange was gripping TV for sure. Any one know if Adam or any of his colleagues made any further reference to the exchange this evening? No chance of an apology to Alister I suppose.

God no, an apology would have been seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the Sky-Con alliance.

Dont be at yourself

Jesus Boulton has a bee in his bonnet about labour.

Inquitus

What labour are attempting to put together at the moment is an affront to democracy, to put together a Lib, Lab, SDLP, PC, SNP and whoever the **** else coalition to change the electoral system just so they can get a better result in 6mths time is an absolute disgrace. Any change to the electoral system has to be done via a referendum, as it effects the very fabric of a nations democracy.

To sell ones soul to nationalist elements from Wales, NI and Scotland who won't be getting their budgets cut on the back of this, and use Scottish MPs to force cuts on England who voted overwhelmingly Tory is simply breathtaking. I am pretty ambivalent to UK politics, but surely this stitch up can't be tolerated in the UK.

They'll have Brown as PM for another 4 months, after the UK Public gave him a firm thumbs down, then foist the second unelected PM in succession on the UK Public via a labour leadership contest. Its about as undemocratic as it gets.

BroomBurner

That was hilarious. I'm starting to think that Murdoch has decided to punish Boulton by having him work 20 hours a day and sit beside Labour party members who now know how to wind him up, all to not have to pay him a retirement fund...

As far as I'm aware, to be a news broadcaster in the UK, you must be impartial, you must, by law, report the news without bias. As a reporter, Boulton falls under this rule. If Sky News want to become Sky Entertainment, then they should just go ahead and do it and stop mascarading as a serious news channel. Sky can give him whatever title of "political editor" they want, but all he is is a news reporter.

Memnoch

Inquitus wrote: »

What labour are attempting to put together at the moment is an affront to democracy, to put together a Lib, Lab, SDLP, PC, SNP and whoever the **** else coalition to change the electoral system just so they can get a better result in 6mths time is an absolute disgrace. Any change to the electoral system has to be done via a referendum, as it effects the very fabric of a nations democracy.

So to get the majority of the parties in the UNITED KINGDOM working together to decide policy is undemocratic.

The nations "democracy" as it stands is a total and utter sham. How can you justify a party that get's only 35% of the vote getting nearly 50% of the seats? How can you justify the fact that the value of the vote of some citizens is far greater than the value of the vote of others?

Surely in a fair DEMOCRACY everyone's vote would be equal? I get that the Cons and their supporters are scared of this because more than half of the British electorate have endorsed Centre left parties.

To sell ones soul to nationalist elements from Wales, NI and Scotland who won't be getting their budgets cut on the back of this, and use Scottish MPs to force cuts on England who voted overwhelmingly Tory is simply breathtaking. I am pretty ambivalent to UK politics, but surely this stitch up can't be tolerated in the UK.

Right, but it's okay to sell your soul to Ruport Murdoch and the Sky empire. Nothing stiched up at all about the Murdoch Media machine doing it's level best over throughout the election to ensure a Cameron victory. If you truly want the English majority to have sole say over how the country is run then you should set the other areas free.

They'll have Brown as PM for another 4 months, after the UK Public gave him a firm thumbs down, then foist the second unelected PM in succession on the UK Public via a labour leadership contest. Its about as undemocratic as it gets.

I believe the LAST conservative prime minister, John Major was also unelected, as have been many premieres in the past, not that I necessarily agree this should continue to be allowed. But Brown as PM for another 4 months doesn't mean much here or there. He's simply going to be in a custodial position to ensure a smooth transition for the next PM who WILL be implementing policies based on the electoral mandate of the majority of the UK electorate. (if a lib-lab + rainbow coalition comes to pass)

Mr.Micro

BroomBurner wrote: »

Sky can give him whatever title of "political editor" they want, but all he is is a news reporter.

What better way for Sky news to get the answers/biased opinion it wants? Interview its own biased reporters and editors.

Mr.Micro

Inquitus wrote: »

What labour are attempting to put together at the moment is an affront to democracy,

Not so as it amounts to a coalition, something we are well used to here.

Memnoch

A brilliantly informative post on HYS about the issue of selecting a prime minister.

A program of education on constitutional matters seems appropriate for the BBC's political staff.

The post of Prime Minister is a constitutional one and in the last fifty years or so there have been ten Prime Ministers four of whom were the leader of their party at the time of the general election in which they met success: Wilson; Heath; Thatcher and Blair.

The remaining six assumed the role during the course of a parliament without the involvement of the electorate: Eden; Macmillan; Douglas-Home; Callaghan; Major and Brown. Four Conservatives and two Labour.

Conclusion: the usual way for someone to assume the post of Prime Minister is without reference to the electorate.

In what way would a new leader of the Labour Party assuming the post be anything other than the normal constitutional way?

I hope people moaning about "unelected" prime minsters realise just how un-informed they sound. By all means, if you don't like the current system campaign for change, I'd probably side with you on that. But to claim that this is somehow an unprecedented subversion of the great British democracy, that's just naieve.

Inquitus

Memnoch wrote: »

So to get the majority of the parties in the UNITED KINGDOM working together to decide policy is undemocratic.

The nations "democracy" as it stands is a total and utter sham. How can you justify a party that get's only 35% of the vote getting nearly 50% of the seats? How can you justify the fact that the value of the vote of some citizens is far greater than the value of the vote of others?

Surely in a fair DEMOCRACY everyone's vote would be equal? I get that the Cons and their supporters are scared of this because more than half of the British electorate have endorsed Centre left parties.



Right, but it's okay to sell your soul to Ruport Murdoch and the Sky empire. Nothing stiched up at all about the Murdoch Media machine doing it's level best over throughout the election to ensure a Cameron victory. If you truly want the English majority to have sole say over how the country is run then you should set the other areas free.


I believe the LAST conservative prime minister, John Major was also unelected, as have been many premieres in the past, not that I necessarily agree this should continue to be allowed. But Brown as PM for another 4 months doesn't mean much here or there. He's simply going to be in a custodial position to ensure a smooth transition for the next PM who WILL be implementing policies based on the electoral mandate of the majority of the UK electorate. (if a lib-lab + rainbow coalition comes to pass)

Labour has benefited from this form of undemocratic democracy for 13 years, they never tried to change it as it clearly favours them over the Cons and Lib Dems. Labour would not have had a majority under AV in either of the last 2 elections. AV is almost as unfair as FPTP and certainly doesn't come anywhere near a decent form of PR. They are simply moving from one bad system to another that happens to favour them more.

You work within the framework of your democracy, you can't then do shady deals and try and change a country's democracy when you get a result you don't like, certainly not without going to the public in a referendum.