18,000 complaints about shithouse on BBC Newsnight

[Squire Haggard]

18,000 complaints about Emily 'shithouse' Maitlis showing blatant bias on Newsnight. Video on link below.

External Link/Members Only

I've added my complaint.

External Link/Members Only

[winkywanky]

 

She may not be coming back at this rate.

[winkywanky]

I'm also interested in how many of the editorial team were involved in this.

Did she go rogue? Or were others complicit, especially the programme editor?

[King Nuts]

I'm surprised 18,000 people actually watch Newsnight.

[King Nuts]

Did she go rogue?

Don't know. But for all we know, she could've gone commando.

[Matrix]

Great to not see her ugly fucking mug on a platform I never watch.

[winkywanky]

Don't know. But for all we know, she could've gone commando.

I'm gonna check on iPlayer, in minute detail.

[threechilliman]

I'm surprised 18,000 people actually watch Newsnight.

Yup. Must be 20 years at least since I last watched it.

[CamJon]

Fucking cretins you are, she was right to do it. It's our journalists jobs to call this shit out.  Blind leading the goddam blind in this country.

[willie loman]

Not all the 18000 are complaining about her, some are complaining about her being suspended.

[Matrix]

Fucking cretins you are, she was right to do it. It's our journalists jobs to call this shit out.  Blind leading the goddam blind in this country.

Not at the taxpayers expense, she wasn't.

[David1970]

Not at the taxpayers expense, she wasn't.

Some points
1 Does anyone watch Newsnight anymore?
2 If she is a serious journalist she should be calling out double standers by our ruling class, who else will do it?
3 I believe she is paid by TV licence payers, not taxpayers. I think large cooperations and the super rich pay their TV licence, if not their tax.

[boardyhell]

cancel tv licence, pensioners won't have to pay to watch tv anymore
most can be caught elsewhere in this digital age

[Handel2020]

2 If she is a serious journalist she should be calling out double standers by our ruling class, who else will do it?

She isn't.

The interesting thing with these BBC indiscretions is that they are directed to follow "guidelines". However the guidelines are not actually compulsory so in reality there is no consequence for ignoring them.

About 15 years back I had an email exchange with a BBC journalist. When I pointed out that they had selectively ignored the guidelines based on their agenda they stopped replying. That case was an example of how the guidelines work. They can be cited to justify a particular angle, and totally ignored at other times with no consequence.

So much for Ofcom and impartiality. Well at least RT get sanctioned for not being balanced and Press TV are taken off the air.

[bhudda]

The interesting thing with these BBC indiscretions is that they are directed to follow "guidelines". However the guidelines are not actually compulsory so in reality there is no consequence for ignoring them.

Well if thats not ironic i dont know what is

[winkywanky]

She isn't.

The interesting thing with these BBC indiscretions is that they are directed to follow "guidelines". However the guidelines are not actually compulsory so in reality there is no consequence for ignoring them.

About 15 years back I had an email exchange with a BBC journalist. When I pointed out that they had selectively ignored the guidelines based on their agenda they stopped replying. That case was an example of how the guidelines work. They can be cited to justify a particular angle, and totally ignored at other times with no consequence.

So much for Ofcom and impartiality. Well at least RT get sanctioned for not being balanced and Press TV are taken off the air.

That's wrong, the rule book is held by Ofcom, and adjudicated on by them also. Sanctions can be imposed, including fines I think.

This wasn't the case however, 15yrs ago.

In this case, Ofcom weren't even involved, the BBC reacted quickly to the complaints and issued its own apology. Ofcom will certainly look at this, whether they take any action now is up to them.

[winkywanky]

Also worth noting, when you say these BBC indiscretions, the BBC are required to comply with exactly the same rules as ITV and other public service broadcasters in the UK, as well as Sky.

[Kev40ish]

Fucking cretins you are, she was right to do it. It's our journalists jobs to call this shit out.  Blind leading the goddam blind in this country.

She’s a presenter and should stick to that...

[scutty brown]

When you get down to it, what did she do wrong? She merely voiced what the voiceless majority were thinking
Cummings is a two-faced hypocrite, and so is his pocket-patsy, Boris

[winkywanky]

When you get down to it, what did she do wrong? She merely voiced what the voiceless majority were thinking
Cummings is a two-faced hypocrite, and so is his pocket-patsy, Boris

How do you know that?

And in any case, it's certainly not her place to say that, her place is to present the facts and then to question selected advocates on either side of an argument in order to get their opinions. NOT give her own.

It's basic journalism, and it's page 1 at the BBC, and for any TV journalist in the UK.

[sparkus]

What I don't get is the sudden attitude of hers? Generally speaking she's been felt to give the left a much harder time in interviews, almost to the point of like Paxman (who did on retirement not only come out as a Tory but even suggest he'd be open to offers from them).

Same with Piers Morgan, who at the Mirror and not long after framed himself as some kind of 'honest left-wing journalist' then when his mate Trump got elected could not get his arse quick enough.  Covid came along and it all went to his head, like some kind of weird messiah complex.  I don't consider him 'left' as his current detractors do as his track record over the past few years screams otherwise (that and he's a cunt per se).

[winkywanky]

What I don't get is the sudden attitude of hers? Generally speaking she's been felt to give the left a much harder time in interviews, almost to the point of like Paxman (who did on retirement not only come out as a Tory but even suggest he'd be open to offers from them).

Same with Piers Morgan, who at the Mirror and not long after framed himself as some kind of 'honest left-wing journalist' then when his mate Trump got elected could not get his arse quick enough.  Covid came along and it all went to his head, like some kind of weird messiah complex.  I don't consider him 'left' as his current detractors do as his track record over the past few years screams otherwise (that and he's a cunt per se).

I actually don't think it's sudden? I think she's always been a bit like that, especially if it's something she feels passionately about. But that's the job, despite what you feel passionately, you must be to a great extent dispassionate.

Yes of course you can be strongly adversarial (like a good barrister) but you have to dish it out to both sides, equally. That is the mark of a good journalist/political presenter.

You should be able to watch a presenter have two opposing politicians, give them both a damned good roasting, and at the end of the item have simply no idea of what the presenter's politics or personal views are.

What Maitlis did was the complete opposite of that. Very unprofessional.

By the way, Piers Morgan is a joke, I've watched a little bit of GMB lately and have been quite shocked at the level of brazen editorial opinion he gives. Twice as bad as Maitlis, but then again he's on ITV so he can get away with a lot more. That is the Cross the BBC bears, that it's expected to be whiter than white. But that's what they signed up for, and that's what people rightly expect when they pay their licence fee.

[Wadebridge]

Fucking cretins you are, she was right to do it. It's our journalists jobs to call this shit out.  Blind leading the goddam blind in this country.

+1. Totally agree fella. 
I think the reason journalists, who are by and large workaholics, well read and educated people, generally don't call out double standards, lies and crookedness by politicians and other bigwigs is not that they don't have an opinion  one way or the other, but because they are driven by the necessity to safeguard their jobs, and feel it's more than their job's worth to do so.
Kudos to Emily Maitlis for voicing publicly what I'd say 80% of the general public were thinking.
Newsnight's reporting has been exposing for weeks and weeks the woeful government response to this pandemic. Whether it be in regard to testing, track&trace, ppe supplies, the care homes scandal etc, compared to the efficient way some European and other countries have been stifling the disease and keeping numbers of infections under control. Coupled with the fact that Newsnight has not been able to scrutinise anyone from the government on their policy because no one cares to turn up.
Maitlis has been biting her tongue for several weeks, same as most journalists, who try not to let their views show. But obviously the arrogance of Cummings,  and the fact that his actions have likely weakened the case for public compliance to lockdown, was for her obviously the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Wadebridge]

When you get down to it, what did she do wrong? She merely voiced what the voiceless majority were thinking
Cummings is a two-faced hypocrite, and so is his pocket-patsy, Boris

+1. Bang on fella.
After Newsnight tonight, just switched over to BBC1 and caught the tail end of Question Time, to see the cabinet's Helen Whately floundering and unable to answer a self employed person's concerns about how they would go on for financial help if the new Track, Trace & Isolate scheme being rolled out by the government requires a person to isolate for 14 days, if they are identified as having been in close proximity to a covid infected person, and then targeted again, days or weeks down the line, if further identified as a close contact of another one. With its lethargy and all the policy U-turns the government have let the numbers get too large to allow TT&T to be effective, and problems like the issue raised above, for which the govt doesn't have an answer, will just grow and escalate.

[Steve2]

After Newsnight tonight, just switched over to BBC1 and caught the tail end of Question Time, to see the cabinet's Helen Whately floundering and unable to answer a self employed person's concerns about how they would go on for financial help if the new Track, Trace & Isolate scheme being rolled out by the government requires a person to isolate for 14 days, if they are identified as having been in close proximity to a covid infected person, and then targeted again, days or weeks down the line, if further identified as a close contact of another one. With its lethargy and all the policy U-turns the government have let the numbers get too large to allow TT&T to be effective, and problems like the issue raised above, for which the govt doesn't have an answer, will just grow and escalate.

That would affect a lot of the self employed

[King Nuts]

I think the reason journalists, who are by and large workaholics, well read and educated people,

I disagree. I'ved worked amongst a number of them and I can tell you it's the opposite. They are mostly bone idle, they do not leave their desks, and they think everything and everyone should come to them. And it does.

[King Nuts]

Maitlis has been biting her tongue for several weeks, same as most journalists, who try not to let their views show. But obviously the arrogance of Cummings,  and the fact that his actions have likely weakened the case for public compliance to lockdown, was for her obviously the straw that broke the camel's back.

Then she needs to be better than that. Her job is not to rabble rouse. It is to report. And the BBC, by charter and by the fact it's funded by a compulsory fee levied on the general public, has to have more than just a semblance of impartiality.

I'm not interested in Emily's opinions. If I want to listen to people rant and rave, I can come here. I can sit in a pub (whenever they're going to fucking open again.) It is her job to tell us what is actually going on in the world.

[David1970]

It is her job to tell us what is actually going on in the world.

King Nut she also should be questioning the ruling elite, bring truth to power, or is your attitude how dare she question them?

[kippydon]

This goverment must be the worst Tory goverment in history, have not had a clue fromday one, it really embarassing and shocking to see it ravel in front of the world

[King Nuts]

King Nut she also should be questioning the ruling elite, bring truth to power, or is your attitude how dare she question them?

Her job is to present facts, and of course she should be questioning the elite.

But ranting her own opinion of something is neither of those things.

[Stapler]

This goverment must be the worst Tory goverment in history, have not had a clue fromday one, it really embarassing and shocking to see it ravel in front of the world

They have no choice. They are just following the agenda given to them.

[David1970]

18,000 complaints about Emily 'shithouse' Maitlis showing blatant bias on Newsnight. Video on link below.

External Link/Members Only

I've added my complaint.

External Link/Members Only

Seems there were complains about her opening to the piece about Cummings breaking the lockdown, say she was bias.
There were also complaints about here being reprimanded, people supporting her.

What is really funny is BBC hating Daily Mail complaining about people being bias.

[Handel2020]

That's wrong, the rule book is held by Ofcom, and adjudicated on by them also. Sanctions can be imposed, including fines I think.

This wasn't the case however, 15yrs ago.

In this case, Ofcom weren't even involved, the BBC reacted quickly to the complaints and issued its own apology. Ofcom will certainly look at this, whether they take any action now is up to them.

Then how is it "wrong"?

I have complained to Ofcom in the past. To my recollection that was around 15 years ago. They also used their guidelines to justify their particular view. When I looked up the name of the person at Ofcom who had replied to me he was an ex BBC employee.

The term "regulatory capture" springs to mind.

[winkywanky]

Then how is it "wrong"?

I have complained to Ofcom in the past. To my recollection that was around 15 years ago. They also used their guidelines to justify their particular view. When I looked up the name of the person at Ofcom who had replied to me he was an ex BBC employee.

The term "regulatory capture" springs to mind.

Er, well as I just explained, 15yrs ago there was a different complaints procedure involved, and I believe the Board of Governors would have been involved in those days? The 'BBC Guidelines' have been in existence for many years now, but AFAIK the regulation has changed a lot since then.

I think the BBC Guidelines are separate and distinct from Ofcom's actual role, but of course they'll be saying similar things. The final arbiter for serious complaints though, will certainly be Ofcom, the govt-appointed body for regulation of the industry, and the BBC and other UK broadcasters are legally required to adhere to Ofcom's rules, which are actually the law.

Also, I think Ofcom is a very different beast from what it used to be, with far more 'teeth' these days.

I'm a little confused by your post though, where you said: The interesting thing with these BBC indiscretions is that they are directed to follow "guidelines". However the guidelines are not actually compulsory so in reality there is no consequence for ignoring them.

About 15 years back I had an email exchange with a BBC journalist. When I pointed out that they had selectively ignored the guidelines based on their agenda they stopped replying. That case was an example of how the guidelines work. They can be cited to justify a particular angle, and totally ignored at other times with no consequence.

So much for Ofcom and impartiality. Well at least RT get sanctioned for not being balanced and Press TV are taken off the air.

One minute you're saying you were talking to a BBC journalist, the next you're saying Ofcom  .

The BBC Guidelines are as far as I know, discretionary, the BBC sets them itself and expects its programmes to follow them, and has its own disciplinary framework to deal with that. Ofcom's rules are actually law, and must be legally adhered to, they override the BBC's own rules if need be.

[Rabbit63]

'The relationship of a journalist to a politician should be that of a dog to a lamp-post'   

[winkywanky]

Which one is the lamppost?

[badsin]

Fucking cretins you are, she was right to do it. It's our journalists jobs to call this shit out.  Blind leading the goddam blind in this country.

No. It's the opposition's job. The media, especially unbiased media should report fact's.
The opposition is unable to do anything as MP's within that party did actually break the rules, with no consequence, which is why their keeping quiet

[bhudda]

Which one is the lamppost?

Depends wbich paper the journalist works for

[Marmalade]

This goverment must be the worst Tory goverment in history, have not had a clue fromday one, it really embarassing and shocking to see it ravel in front of the world

Honestly? You seem to have missed the last few! 
But given the number of typos it was maybe a hurried decision on your part.

[Marmalade]

No. It's the opposition's job. The media, especially unbiased media should report fact's.
The opposition is unable to do anything as MP's within that party did actually break the rules, with no consequence, which is why their keeping quiet

It used to be WikiLeaks. They soon banned that.

[sparkus]

The numbers speak for themselves: External Link/Members Only

But... in the past Maitlis has nothing short of skewered Labour politicos to the point of (deserved) cruelty.  I don't sense any pinko or liberal agenda on her part.  Granted that during the Miliband era it was like shooting a fish in a barrel, ditto Corbyn if not more so.

I'm willing to go with anti-Boris but pro-Tory.  If so, why? Possible she's been a past thigh fondle victim?

[sparkus]

Which one is the lamppost?

Ask Mussolini.

[winkywanky]

It's hard to talk when you're hanging upside down 

[LLPunting]

'The relationship of a journalist to a politician should be that of a dog to a lamp-post'   

So Boris is pissing on himself every walk he gets?  We could only wish!

[Handel2020]

I'm a little confused by your post though, where you said: The interesting thing with these BBC indiscretions is that they are directed to follow "guidelines". However the guidelines are not actually compulsory so in reality there is no consequence for ignoring them.

About 15 years back I had an email exchange with a BBC journalist. When I pointed out that they had selectively ignored the guidelines based on their agenda they stopped replying. That case was an example of how the guidelines work. They can be cited to justify a particular angle, and totally ignored at other times with no consequence.

So much for Ofcom and impartiality. Well at least RT get sanctioned for not being balanced and Press TV are taken off the air.

One minute you're saying you were talking to a BBC journalist, the next you're saying Ofcom  .

The BBC Guidelines are as far as I know, discretionary, the BBC sets them itself and expects its programmes to follow them, and has its own disciplinary framework to deal with that. Ofcom's rules are actually law, and must be legally adhered to, they override the BBC's own rules if need be.

That is easily explained if you weren't playing Sherlock Holmes. I had the exchange with the BBC journalist over one issues which I knew to be contrary to the guidelines. My complaint to Ofcom was about another issue.

Your last point about the BBC guidelines is only the same point I made earlier in the thread. I said they are guidelines and do not have to be followed. Maybe you will have an example of the BBC taking disciplinary action over a BBC employee breaking it's guidelines on reporting. I don't recall hearing of any.

I'm dubious of your ideas about Ofcom 15 years ago. If they did not have teeth back then I would not have complained to them. In fact I believe they did have teeth but being staffed by former employees of the BBC it was unlikely they would use them against a British news broadcaster.

[winkywanky]

That is easily explained if you weren't playing Sherlock Holmes. I had the exchange with the BBC journalist over one issues which I knew to be contrary to the guidelines. My complaint to Ofcom was about another issue.

Your last point about the BBC guidelines is only the same point I made earlier in the thread. I said they are guidelines and do not have to be followed. Maybe you will have an example of the BBC taking disciplinary action over a BBC employee breaking it's guidelines on reporting. I don't recall hearing of any.

I'm dubious of your ideas about Ofcom 15 years ago. If they did not have teeth back then I would not have complained to them. In fact I believe they did have teeth but being staffed by former employees of the BBC it was unlikely they would use them against a British news broadcaster.

Ofcom do indeed regulate the BBC, yet you seem to think it's all a stitch-up because it's totally staffed by ex-BBC?

AFAIK BBC staff are required to follow BBC guidelines, or perhaps they're just there for show?


Ofcom becomes the first independent, external regulator of the BBC on 3 April. Our role is to hold the Corporation to account against the delivery of its public purposes, while its new unitary board will govern and run the BBC.

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

I guess the whole gang might be controlled by the BBC as some kind of conspiracy, although if you were to Google the various members of the Board and management Team, perhaps there's a chance you might find someone who's not ex-BBC and not had the BBC Chip-Implant fitted yet? They may even be reachable off-grid via the dark web, who knows?

[NIK]

Didn't release she came from Sheffield and went to a state school.
Although she was born in Canada and her old man was a uni professor at Sheffield. She went to Oxford.

I note her husband has a good solid working class job to boost their socialist credentials. 

[winkywanky]

Yeah, perhaps she married him on purpose, purely to enhance her sheer pretence? 

[Marmalade]

External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only

Yeah, perhaps she married him on purpose, purely to enhance her sheer pretence? 

Doesn't hide the fact that she's ugly.

Left wingers are more likely to have a face like an arse. It's been proved 
probably they look in the mirror and think it's unfair and when they 'grow up' they'll have something to complain about. Or maybe they get uglyines from continuously whining and demanding someone fixes the unfairness. Some just take a pride in it so they can attack normals.

Who do you think is the ugliest left winger?

[winkywanky]

External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only

Doesn't hide the fact that she's ugly.

Left wingers are more likely to have a face like an arse. It's been proved 
probably they look in the mirror and think it's unfair and when they 'grow up' they'll have something to complain about. Or maybe they get uglyines from continuously whining and demanding someone fixes the unfairness. Some just take a pride in it so they can attack normals.

Who do you think is the ugliest left winger?

Abbott.

Without a shadow of a doubt.

I actually think Maitlis is pretty hot. And I reckon you'd be lying if you didn't at least want to punishment-fuck her  .