Sky news biased against the Labor party?

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.

Memnoch

Inquitus wrote: »

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.

I agree, Labour have acted disgracefully. But I don't think the conservatives are any better. As it stands the system clearly favours the two big parties. The conservatives with only 36% of the votes got 47% of the seats. Labour with 29% got 40% of the seats. But I still think that Labour are much more likely to change the system now than the cons.

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.

I agree partially. I would much rather PR, and a decent form of PR, I would also much rather have a PROPER referrendum on this. But it's clear that RIGHT NOW neither Labour nor the Cons would allow this, as proper PR would give the lib dems 130+ seats with their 23% level of electoral support.

AV is an acceptable first step. This will give the lib dems another 20 seats in the next election at least and then they will be in a better position to force a referendum on PR.

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.

It seems to me, that a rainbow coalition consisting of many of the parties would be very much within the framework of the democracy. MAYBE if the cons had got anywhere close to 50% of the vote you could make a case that they MUST be in government, but they didn't and they certainly don't reflect the views of the majority of the electorate, not even close.

As for shady deals...

Lets see... a coaltion between the elected representatives of the labour party and the Liberals... or a coalition between the Cons and the Murdoch Media Empire.

At least ONE of the above has an electoral mandate of some kind.

Inquitus

Anyways we are getting ahead of ourselves, its simply not possible that a rainbow coalition could pass a vote on AV. Alot of Scottish and Northern English Lab MPs will never vote for it, and they don't have any votes to play with.

Inquitus

4. It’s reported that “Labour” is offering the LibDems an immediate Bill to ditch FPTP in favour of AV and a referendum on further change afterwards. This cannot be delivered; Labour MPs will not support it. I do hope some senior LibDems are reading this.

http://www.tomharris.org.uk/

DingChavez

Adam Boulton has been on sky news everytime I've turned it on for the last month. I don't think he sleeps.

Memnoch

Inquitus wrote: »

Anyways we are getting ahead of ourselves, its simply not possible that a rainbow coalition could pass a vote on AV. Alot of Scottish and Northern English Lab MPs will never vote for it, and they don't have any votes to play with.

Maybe, maybe not. Let's see what happens.

For now, I'm happy to see the Cameron and Murdoch coalition kept out of government.

btw, has boards been acting wonky for anyone else tonight?

RichTea

Sky News is the British Fox News now. It was a gradual change at first but it became all the more noticeable over the past few months. It started its real Labour baiting around the same time the Sun decided to withdraw its support for Labour (coincidence?). Kay Burley, Adam Boulton et al. If they're what passes for news then I won't be watching it.

They harrassed Labour candidates and supporters and tried to convince people to vote Tory at almost every occassion. It is a farce.


EDIT: And their city editor today, Randle? "The markets are confused by Labour's desperate attempt to cling to power". Nutter.

Memnoch

RichTea wrote: »

Sky News is the British Fox News now. It was a gradual change at first but it became all the more noticeable over the past few months. It started its real Labour baiting around the same time the Sun decided to withdraw its support for Labour (coincidence?). Kay Burley, Adam Boulton et al. If they're what passes for news then I won't be watching it.

They harrassed Labour candidates and supporters and tried to convince people to vote Tory at almost every occassion. It is a farce.


EDIT: And their city editor today, Randle? "The markets are confused by Labour's desperate attempt to cling to power". Nutter.

I love Randle.

"Make Cameron PM or the economy will collapse and the British pound will lose all value."

Not like fox news's fear-mongering at ALL

Steviemak

Inquitus wrote: »

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

I think you need to look up Parliamentary Democracy.:D

Inquitus

Steviemak wrote: »

I think you need to look up Parliamentary Democracy.:D

What the public will accept, and what is technically correct under the definition of Parliamentary Democracy are not one and the same thing.

Changing a country's voting system without a referendum is undemocratic imho. Especially when changing it to one that is still grossly unfair and little improvement on what exists at the moment. Its not like they are going to go to some form of reasonably fair PR, they are simply stitching up a system no better than FPTP, because that suits them better.

loldog

Hey, check out Gordon Brown with Adam Boulton last year: