BBC Admits Showing “Bias” Against Andrew Bridgen Over Excess Deaths Coverage and Issues Apology
The BBC has issued an apology after it admitted that captions it put up during the debate on excess deaths in Britain led by Reclaim MP Andrew Bridgen were “biased”. The Express has more.
The adjournment debate called by Reclaim and former Tory MP Andrew Bridgen was linked to concerns he has been raising about the impact of COVID-19 vaccines.
Throughout his speech, which Mr. Bridgen has claimed was carefully researched, the BBC Parliament channel ran a series of captions purporting to correct what he was saying.
After complaints were made the BBC today issued a statement accepting they had acted in a biased way.
A spokesman said: “We accept there was a lack of consistency in the use of our captions and that the number posted during the speech was not proportionate, nor always relevant which created the incorrect impression that there was an editorial approach in relation to the views expressed.
“We apologise for this and are reviewing the way we use such captions during proceedings.”
A source at the Reclaim Party has told the Express that the plan now is to sue the BBC after it admitted bias.
Worth reading in full.
Bridgen has also asked why he was expelled from the Conservatives for alleged “antisemitism” (he said he agreed that the Covid vaccines were the “biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust”) but Crispin Blunt, who said Hamas had “legitimate targets”, is still a Tory MP. Good question. It’s almost as though the Tory leadership don’t actually care about antisemitism but just weaponising it against troublesome MPs.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Bang on with that last paragraph, Will. The hypocrisy is off the charts. I wonder how many pro-Hamassholes will be arrested for antisemitism at the weekend. Talk about perspective…Poor Bridgen was well and truly shafted wasn’t he? Anyway, my money’s on white police arresting/warning white patriots for waving their British flags and generally being patriotic. Especially if they’re all cut from the same cloth as that godawful ”Lesbian Nana” horror.
And the BBC obviously only apologized due to getting shed-loads of complaints so I’m glad ‘people power’ is still effective to some extent.
I’m glad to see this article, because I complained to the BBC about what they did just to see what they would say. They didn’t address specifically what I wrote and just sent a general reply to everyone, because clearly a lot of people complained. This is what they wrote…..“Thank you for getting in touch about the House of Commons Adjournment Debate ‘Trends in Excess Deaths’, broadcast on BBC Parliament on 20 October. To allow us to reply promptly to your concerns, and to ensure we use our licence fee resources as efficiently as possible, we are sending this response to everyone. We are sorry not to reply individually, but we hope this will address the points you have raised. It is normal practice for BBC Parliament to show what are known as ‘story astons’ (or captions) which put debates into context for viewers. They are not comments, but editorial context written by journalists working on the live output. The first aston made clear to viewers that Reclaim MP Andrew Bridgen had tabled the debate. In accordance with the BBC’s guidelines on due impartiality, the remaining astons reflected (and are attributed to) the majority medical and scientific view that vaccines… Read more »
I got that response initially, so I raised my complaint to the next level and then got the one reported in the article.
I’m still deciding whether I’ll pursue it to the next level. I suspect it would be batted away with a response that basically says “the BBC has admitted a mistake and apologised, so Eff Off” ….. but I still may do it.
It’s almost as if antisemitism had been a spectre of the past¹ until it was unearthed as weapon of choice against Jeremy Corbyn, presumably for want of real arguments. Since then, the powers-which-are have come to really like it and keep on antisemiting at every opportunity — after all, no one can think of a better way to argue about politics than claim the people on the other side are all Nazis or sort-of-Nazis.
¹ This is not strictly true. Governments of Israel have compiled yearly antisemites lists, usually including anyone who wasn’t a Jew and nevertheless critical of any of their policies, for a long time. But this used to be background noise until Corbyn.
While I suspect Corbyn, like many politicians, is more interested in strategy than harbouring any personal animosity towards Jewish people, he (like some others) has shown himself perfectly capable of hitching his wagon to a movement that is overtly, murderously anti-Semitic, presumably to bolster his support base. This mural has more than a few overtones of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
https://news.sky.com/story/senior-labour-figures-defend-jeremy-corbyn-over-anti-semitic-mural-row-11303966
It’s really useles to try to dump this story on me. Antisemitism was a political movement in Germany from the 19th to the early 20th century and that’s what the people controlling Israel are alluding to when they use the term. The large numbers of Arabs and muslims in general successive governments of Israel have – quite intentionally – alienated to the point where they’ve become their sworn enemies never had the power to do to Jews whatever they wanted to, hence, what they’d be doing if they ever had this power, something that’s exceedingly unlikely to happen, because Israel has unquestioning support of all greater powers of the world, is entirely unknown. In any case, this has no connection to what people have been trained to think of when they hear the term antisemitism namely Something like what the Nazis did!
This nazicalling in lieu of making an actual argument is childish and strongly suggests that the people who claim that the Holocaust was a singular event in human history don’t really believe this themselves. It can’t both be singular and ubiquitious.
Suggest you read the Quran if you think anti-semitism is a modern movement…
Anti-Zi*nism perhaps, but certainly not anti-sem*te. All people of the Levant are Semites.
Isn’t it nice to be an establishment corporation and to be able to get away with spurious attacks on people by simply issuing carefully worded apologies, months after the fact and that pretty much no one will read or report on (least of all, of course, the BBC itself).
Still continuing with the bias during their Kings Speech broadcast where the presenters condemned the Govt planned annual oil and gas licences.
You have to wonder about people still thinking you can power the 21st century by wind & solar power and that electric cars are feasible.
Nick was even more uninformed than Huw, and muddled the names of two officials, although one wore Army red & the other Navy blue.
The BBC have exclusive access to all, but I was finally able to move to GB News when they started their coverage and who manage better with far less resources.
Can anyone find this apology? Should it be publicly visible?
Well, it is actually buried away here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications
They should be regulated to make their apologies for these gaffs more open.
“We accept there was a lack of consistency in the use of our captions and that the number posted during the speech was not proportionate, nor always relevant which created the incorrect impression that there was an editorial approach in relation to the views expressed. We apologise for this and are reviewing the way we use such captions during proceedings.”
Twaddle!
>M1 and Clive; I am in complete agreement; this is as gaslighting in extremis. That weasel phrase is more revealing than the admission they got it wrong – BUT THAT WAS INTENTIONAL!!!!!! The BBC’s output is ALWAYS approached from an “editorial” pov; ffs they are an alleged news outlet!!!!! – if that is NOT (ever) the case, their content would contain a warning that, eg, “the views expressed are those of the author [ who would/must be named] and not the BBC…….” followed by the usual self absolving disclaimer of liability. I do not ever recall this being employed other than very rarely? It is a sign of the mounting pressure that some of the UFLW within the BBC can make a disastrous editorial decision ( and the streamline banner content must have been prepared well in advance ) but STILL feel so bombproof they can issue an apology which is nothing of the sort. The BBC are under tremendous pressure – IMHO they have made a disastrous decision to make their complaints process the personal responsibility of Davie – he of the AWG/CC “settled science” self professed bias. He is a marketing man with not one shred of journalistic… Read more »
“which created the incorrect impression that there was an editorial approach in relation to the views expressed”
Frustrating isn’t it – how those pesky word things just keep spontaneously appearing on the screen, by complete chance in exactly the right order to create an incorrect impression!
Happens all the time doesn’t it: I notice that petrol round our way is £1.59/litre, which I think is absurdly expensive; I must have been given the incorrect impression – you know, by those words and that!
“It’s almost as though the Tory leadership don’t actually care about antisemitism but just weaponising it against troublesome MPs.”
Parliamentarians, double standards – well blow me down…..