I don’t subscribe https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-pitfalls-of-wrongthink/amp
I’ve just read both articles a couple of times and I’m not seeing a massive difference in the reporting between the two The big difference I see are the quotes which are more negative in the article about the statue protecting protesters than the other one But the overall reporting tone is similar
Opening lines from each article... 13/6/20 Statue demonstrations Police have been attacked by demonstrators in central London, where thousands gathered despite warnings to avoid protests. Groups including some far-right activists congregated in the capital, claiming they were protecting statues from anti-racism activists. Boris Johnson said "racist thuggery has no place on our streets" after officers were seen being punched and kicked. Some peaceful anti-racism protests also took place in London and across the UK. ————— 7/6/20 George Floyd protest A total of 27 police officers were hurt during anti-racism protests in London, the Met Police has revealed. Dame Cressida Dick, Met Police Commissioner, said the attacks were "shocking and completely unacceptable". Protests on Saturday - sparked by the death of George Floyd - were largely peaceful, but were marred later by disturbances outside Downing Street. One demonstrator, who was not at Downing Street, saw officers "acting very aggressively" elsewhere. ———- in first article (statue protection) the police are attacked, in the second (George Floyd protest) the police are hurt. in the first article, the political bias is shown as right wing, even if it just says “some”... there is no political bias shown to the second. in the first, the police are being kicked and thumped by racist thugs... in the second, it is the police who are suggested to be the aggressors. The unlawful behaviour in the statue protest is contrasted with good behaviour of the Floyd protest. I may be missing something, but I find a difference in the emphasis of the reporting in these articles
Similarly @DCS222 I can say: George Floyd: London anti-racism protests leave 27 officers Hurt and London protests: Demonstrators clash with police Are the same main headline which to me sets the tone of the article - Both demonstrations attacked the police Some quotes - with Boris's usual level of articulation Boris Johnson said "racist thuggery has no place on our streets" after officers were seen being punched and kicked. Dame Cressida Dick, Met Police Commissioner, said the attacks were "shocking and completely unacceptable". Similar initial quotes from the establishment Factual statement referencing both demonstrations as violent The Met Police had placed restrictions on several groups intending to protest, including having to finish at 17:00 BST, following violent scenes last weekend. Arrests and Police injuries - interesting there were more arrests and fewer Police injuries at the Statue Protection Demo v the George Floyd one! More than 100 people were arrested during the protests in the capital, Scotland Yard said, for offences including violent disorder, assault on police and possession of an offensive weapon. Six police officers also suffered minor injuries in the violent clashes, a Met Police statement added. and This led to 14 officers being injured, in addition to 13 hurt in earlier protests this week. "We have made a number of arrests and justice will follow. I know many who were seeking to make their voices heard will be as appalled as I am by those scenes. There was then one part of each article that interested me: From the Statue Protectors: Hundreds of mostly white men gathered around the Cenotaph war memorial in Whitehall and the boarded-up statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. There were a number of clashes with police in riot gear as crowds - chanting "England" and raising their arms - surged towards lines of officers. Some protesters managed to break metal barriers around the Cenotaph on Whitehall while hurling flag poles, a smoke flare and a traffic cone towards police who were striking them back with batons. Large groups of right-wing protesters then moved to Trafalgar Square, where fireworks were thrown across the crowds. How much of that is actually not true/factual Then from the George Floyd Demo But Asia Ahmed, an activist who attended several of the protests, said "these situations don't come from nowhere". She told the BBC she had seen the police "acting very aggressively" towards protesters. Ms Ahmed, who was not at Downing Street during the disturbance, said a "lot of people" she spoke to "feared for their lives when they saw police horses". "I don't think that was the best tactic to use if you're trying to create a peaceful environment," she said. This I think is poor journalism - quoted someone quoting someone else is never a good idea, and this Lady probably shouldn't be allowed out without her Mummy - but I can see that from the article and attribute it with the appropriate level of credibility. So overall I don't see a huge difference between the two..
I am sorry that I didn't make the link more readily available when first posted. Thanks to DCS222 for sorting the link. I registered for three free articles a month to be able to read it (just need your name and Email address). For a little effort, it is a great read.
Happy to agree to disagree, I just feel the language, subtle emphasis’s and use of journalistic licence invokes sympathy toward the GL protest and hostility toward the Statues protest and therefore, bias.
BBC R4 today at 18:05. Norman Smith positing his view as Political correspondent saying ' .....if the Prime Minister has miscalculated over reducing the locking down measure then the political consequences will be huge' (copied as best I can remember). In itself true but you can hear in his voice the wish to fail. Not interested in his left leaning slant.
And Kuenssberg asking the PM whether he would take personal responsibility. We are all responsible for our own safety.
BBC website this morning: 'UK must prepare for second wave - health leaders. The warning comes as the prime minister announces sweeping relaxations to lockdown rules in England' . This is to further the Beebs campaign to pin failure on the PM should there be a second outbreak. Until now, the BBC has been having a go because the lockdown is causing difficulties to various groups.
Whether you like Boris or not my point is that the BBC should not be used as an organ to try to unseat the government through political influence of the masses.
On the face of it what you say is true. But you have to take all previous BBC reporting into consideration to detect the subtle nuances that are being used to influence. By the way, my text in quotes was verbatim from their website. Until now the BBC has been harassing ministers for a date when the lockdown will be relaxed as the restrictions are putting the economy in jeopardy for which, they imply, the prime minister is responsible. As soon as the government announce that lock down measures are to be relaxed (but that people should still be cautious) then the beeb start suggesting that the lock down measures are being relaxed too early by use of words such as 'sweeping' and trying to pin all responsibility for the economy/second outbreak virus on Boris - 'cos they want to get rid of him. I can understand that many may (a) dislike this government (b) dislike Boris but to have a state broadcaster trying to influence other peoples opinions because the BBC is predominantly staffed by left leaning journalists is a very dangerous situation. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether this subtle bias at the Beeb is taking place but I do not think I am the only one who thinks it. Regards
The BBC are guilty of reporting THEIR SPECULATION on the news. The NEWS is (or should be) a program of reported facts. The BBC NEWS has become a program of facts distorted by the views and nuances of a predominantly left leaning journalistic team. Should you wish to challenge that last assertion then please research the political backgrounds of the editorial and journalistic staff at the BBC. It is easier to search for those with a right wing bias - as there are next to none.
Not a practitioner of Devil-Lose's law. Haven't called anybody any names. Just reasonably suggested (with evidence) that the BBC might have become an organ of the left. No hysterics, no abuse. No quitting. Regards
