The BBC take on spinning the knife stats story
Its that old compare and contrast question again. Spot the state run broadcaster with guaranteed tax payers money (for that's what the TV poll tax is) year on year, and which has numerous of its employees going to join the Labour party and being generally very left wing ....
Exhibit A: The Press Association (click to enlarge )
Exhibit B : The BBC (Click to enlarge - but be perpared to rench at the toadying )
There is only one solution - break up and privatise the BBC.
7 comments:
Perhaps they are down as the victims are dead, they should put the morgue stats by them then we would get a comparision.
Interestingly, I recently posted an article about this and then discovered that mysteriously the original link lead to an article favourable to the Government instead of where it was supposed to, namely here. Suffice to say, it has been corrected.
Your post seemed to have some merit. So I had a look at the BBC article as I found it odd that you only included a shortened version. Following your cut-off point the article goes on to say:
'The NHS figures, based on admissions due to assault by sharp objects, including knives, show the drop in knife crime was much less than the government had originally suggested at the end of the last year.
Statistics row
In December, when the government partially released these figures, it was accused of "cherry-picking" and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had to apologise.
The information released had suggested that admissions for knife wounds had fallen by 27% in 10 areas between July and September 2008, even though statisticians had warned that they were "potentially inaccurate".
So, why did you deliberately mislead and will you now retract your allegation?
Hey Anonymous, you are wrong.
The BBC has been through 9 versions of their story so far, and "Statistics Row" was not included in the original version. It was added for their 3rd version of the story, and has been further tinkered with since.
Sure, between the time that Man in a Shed saw the story hit and when they wrote this post, the BBC might be using a new version - but that's the chance you take with these BBC toads. If you're lucky (it feels like luck) you can get them to fix their articles.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/205017/diff/1/2
It's the nature of news that there are developments. When these developments happen, stories are updated.
If the BBC was trying to spin the story to favour the government, why is the article not doing that now? How does that correlate with the original accusation?
Developments? The additions were clearly old news:
"In December, when the government partially released these figures, it was accused of "cherry-picking" and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had to apologise."
Oh, wait, by developments perhaps you mean when people complain to the BBC about the advocacy journalism we are forced to pay for - sometimes this leads to updates. Well, OK then.
@ Anon 2:45pm - Thanks for you comment. Perhaps you can see the irony in it. You actually make my point for me - your initial reaction is the one that usually counts.
The game here is the headlines and first few paragraphs. What follows is about as influential as the small print in a travel insurance policy - almost no one reads it.
Balance is not about a balance of words somewhere, but about equal prominence. As all good leftwing Beeboids know full well. The two headlines tell very different stories. One is very much in favour of the government, the other against.
Post a Comment