大象传媒

I think it is wrong for 大象传媒 commentators to be involved with this especially in an election campaign.

Comments such as the 大象传媒鈥檚 wish for the government to employ more social workers (from 大象传媒 Radio Five Live approximately 9:30am on 27th April 2010) are utterly wrong and an interference in the democratic process.

Re comments made @ #1:

KennethM, what are you suggesting, that the 大象传媒 should not report anything about the election, and if the 大象传媒 can't should any media outlet, including radio and the press?!

On the other hand, if you actually have proof that the 大象传媒 has been showing blatant bias then make an official complaint (there are very strict media laws within the election period, covering such things as bias, interview timing and reporting methods etc.), or is this just another example of the all to common "Bias rant" that have been spammed across the 大象传媒's social media for the last four weeks, containing more hot air than that old Nimble balloon...

#2 Boilerplated: "KennethM, what are you suggesting, that the 大象传媒 should not report anything about the election"

No

I would to complain about Ed Smith鈥檚 thoughtless commentary today, clumsily trying to score a clever link between sport and politics, in which he has clearly (at the end) accused the Liverpool fans of ceding the match against Chelsea (as if they could - its up to the players).
鈥淯nlike the the Liverpool鈥︹��

How dare he?

Agree with Boilerplated - there is far too much unnecessary bias rant against the 大象传媒. What is ridiculous is the comments on many of the other 大象传媒 blog entries seem to complain of bias to different parties (which practically by default implies that the 大象传媒 is providing fair coverage!)

Bar possibly the insufficient coverage of smaller parties for the upcoming election, I think the 大象传媒's coverage has been excellent so far. I have to say, the viewership stats on the economic debate certainly counter my current view on the level of - I guess it remains to be seen exactly what the turnout will be at the voting stations.

Steve, If you're concerned about culling any part of your coverage please don't stop the stream of short text updates - for those of us where video coverage is lousy or that are accessing the election coverage by mobile, updates on twitter on the like work really well. Having a summary page with outline facts and stats and would be most handy too.. thanks

Sadly, I had to make my mind up before I had seen all the election material as I voted from abroad by post. I had to download manifestos from the internet, and none of the political parties contacted me personally. I am prohibited from using i-Player in France. I am probably illegally watching UK TV via satellite owing to licensing constraints. So I have voted without being able to become as well-informed as I would like. Do UK voters not have a right to be fully informed before voting? Can't i-Player allow me to watch even the News channels while abroad? Why were the ministerial debates not broadcast on channels which are universally available even within the UK? How many voters missed the Sky debate through no fault of their own?

Or don't the politicians give a damn whether or how we vote?

How dare the 大象传媒 commentators record what some heckler said during GB speech in Sunderland and not mention the fantastic speech he made. The media Pack have a lot to answer for in this election

#5. At 1:49pm on 01 May 2010, Anna Sempe wrote:

"I have to say, the viewership stats on the economic debate certainly counter my current view on the level of voter apathy in UK - I guess it remains to be seen exactly what the turnout will be at the voting stations.
..//..
Steve, If you're concerned about culling any part of your coverage please don't stop the stream of short text updates - for those of us where video coverage is lousy or that are accessing the election coverage by mobile, updates on twitter on the like work really well"

The 大象传媒 have an interesting web page that is primarily about but what it also shows the voter turn-out percentage, it's interesting as it clearly show that voter turn out hasbeen affected either by the "Blair years" or the growth in Internet use.

I'm minded to dismiss the first as the turn-out during the "Thatcher years" (an equally divisive government) remained in the low to mid 70 to 80% mark, nor was it due to periods of continuous government as the turn-out for the period 1951 to 64 saw some of the highest post war turn-outs, nor has Afghanistan or Iraq wars been the cause as the lowest turn-out (@ 59.4%) in the last 60 years was in 2001 before the attacks of 11 September of that year.

Could it be, that the more informed we have become, the more we find solace in searching out and reading others opinions that correspond to our own, the more we can 'sound-off' about our own political views and opinion (on Usenet, message boards and blogs etc.) the less we feel the need to vote and if so, perhaps, the 大象传媒 and other media outlets should be 'culling' at least some of their election/political coverage?

7. At 2:05pm on 01 May 2010, comeclean wrote:

"How dare the 大象传媒 commentators record what some heckler said during GB speech in Sunderland and not mention the fantastic speech he made. The media Pack have a lot to answer for in this election"

Hmm, "not mention the fantastic speech he made", wouldn't that be showing opinion and/or bias, making mention of a 'fantastic' speech.

Sorry to ask this but, would you be saying the same had it been either Clegg or Cameron who was being heckled, what about Nigel Farage, what about Caroline Lucas, what about Nick Griffin?...

I had some difficult viewing the stream on facebook.. am based in South Africa though so not sure if the stream is restricted in any way outside the UK?

I'm glad that guy interrupted that ridiculous stage-managed event. Brown should go stand outside in a crowd of real people and answer questions from critics as well as his adoring fans.

@ #8 Boilerplated - thanks much for the link on the voter turnout.. had not seen it before and its very interesting indeed.

@ Newbunkie - NO, Gordon can't go and mix with real people. Look what happened last time! He got in all kinds of trouble....

I'm not a Labour supporter, I vote SNP as I believe in an independent Scotland that stands on its own two feet financially. However I feel sorry for Gordon Brown. He is now observing the mighty power of the most powerful political force in this election. Not Clegg (which by the way,in Scotland, is the name for a blood sucking fly) or Cameron, but the mighty 大象传媒 who effectively chose the next PM, by subliminally showing or emphasizing particular clips to embrace the party they like the least, or even worse, in the case of the SNP in Scotland, silencing them completely. Maybe Labour supporters will now see and understand the anger of SNP supporters at their treatment by the 大象传媒

KennethM, every local radio station, TV station as well as local and national newspaper employs journalists who report, not just do the news.

If you object to organisations you have not voted for reporting editorially acceptable views of their employees, you can start writing letters about this. There are so many organisations that I suggest you buy a crate of stamps. It's not interference. It's healthy democracy.

cj8652 wrote:
"Clegg (which by the way,in Scotland, is the name for a blood sucking fly)"

Wow. That's rather funny! Live and learn.
Regards
Phos

14. At 9:06pm on 01 May 2010, cj8652 wrote:

"but the mighty 大象传媒 who effectively chose the next PM, by subliminally showing or emphasizing particular clips to embrace the party they like the least, or even worse, in the case of the SNP in Scotland, silencing them completely."

Tell you what, perhaps the 大象传媒 could cut a deal on this, when the SNP start putting up candidates UK wide then the SNP leader - who isn't actually standing for election to Westminster, so could never be the SNP leader in the UK parliament, never mind in the wildest imagination be the leader of the UK [1] - can then take a place at a podium on such debates...

[1] the SNP, due to the total number of Westminster seats in Scotland, will never be the 'King' maker in any hung Westminster parliament even if they won every constituency in Scotland.

It is unbelievable that the 大象传媒 can continue to move continuously to demonstrate its anti-Labour bias. This morning鈥檚 Andrew Marr show once again demonstrates a failure to challenge the Tory lie that somehow the current recession is the fault of the current Government. Unless Gordon Brown has led some secret life manipulating the housing market in the US, and directing investment bankers and hedge fund gamblers, then how can they blame the current government? Similarly to allow, without challenge, the repeated lie that somehow we have all suffered badly over the past 13 years is disgraceful. Clearly it is well know that the 大象传媒鈥檚 Chief political correspondent , Nick Robinson is an ex-Tory student activist, but Marr and co should be less enthusiastic in their anti Labour line.
Let us remember that over the past 13 years we have seen the longest period in post war history of continuous economic growth and prosperity (Under Brown鈥檚 chancellorship) NHS funding more than doubled, an end to NHS waiting lists, an end to long waits on trolleys. The minimum wage, new schools and new hospitals in almost every part of the country, GP鈥檚 who are made to open up surgeries in the evenings, and until the global recession, high rates of employment. Higher school standards, more teachers, more nurses and doctors.... I could go on, but if the past 13 years has been bad, people need to be reminded about the previous 18 years of Thatcherism (Poll tax riots, race riots, 4 million unemployed, hospitals and wards closed, 1000鈥檚 of NHS workers redundant, schools with peeling paint and few text books, large class sizes.......) My memory is long.
This election is about policies not personalities, yet the 大象传媒 embrace鈥檚 the politics of the naive, seemingly sucked into the 鈥榵-factor鈥�, style over substance world where real politics are replaced with plastic smiles and airbrushed sound-bites.

#18. At 12:45pm on 02 May 2010, Robq wrote:

"It is unbelievable that the 大象传媒 can continue to move continuously to demonstrate its anti-Labour bias.

../cut the political campaigning rant/.."

Yawn...

Funny that, only the other day someone else was complaining that the 大象传媒 was showing a bias towards Labour in their election coverage, whilst others have said similar things about the Libdems.

As I've said through out and before this election, bias is a always in the eye of the beholder, so please, for goodness sake, all of you - SHUT-UP going on about what only constituency party stalwarts are seeing, if there really is bias then not only would the party grandees be making the same sort of complaints but more importantly they would be "putting-up" and making formal complaints to the electoral commission, Ofcom and perhaps even the police.

The 大象传媒 has had it in for Labour since the Dr Kelly affair where the 大象传媒 were the ones who were found to be in the wrong. The 大象传媒 tabloid hack got the bones of a story from Dr Kelly but the poor chap didn't even recognise that he was the source so "sexed up " was it by the time it hit the news. Since then the tone of the 大象传媒 has been to critisise the Labour party. Normally this is done subtley but even the addition of a few words can totally change the slant of a news report. However the most telling factor is the emergence of commentary on politics instead of just reporting events. We are used to newspapers having editorials but these are expreesly to further their political objectives. As the 大象传媒 is supposed to be neutral there really is no need for commentaries as they will almost certainly have a political bias to them

#20. At 2:49pm on 02 May 2010, aredstar wrote:

"The 大象传媒 has had it in for Labour..//.."

Yet another 'the 大象传媒 is showing bias' rant...Yawn.

As I've said, if you have proof then make a formal complaint....

Oh and yes, I would be saying the same if the 'complaint' had been about bias against the Tories (or who ever), and have done so in the past, before someone suggests anything.

I note that the 大象传媒 does not encourage homophobia or inpartiality in its Journalists. Can you explain why Andrew Marr overstepped his brief this morning and why the 大象传媒 are not broadcasting the Philippa Stroud story? This is a much bigger story of intolerance, lack of education and bigotry than the one you are following.

The Times reports that: Cameron promises to try to take the whole country with him.

Surely we all will not fit into his country estate however large it may be. Not even if he extends his estate to include the massive estate owned by his father in law.

By the way, will his in laws be amongst the top 3 thousand to benefit from his proposed inheritance tax changes.

People may be interested to read the comment posted on the Guardians Live Blog by ProfKiwi 2 May 2010, 7:50PM.
"Just read about Cameron telling Marr that they'd protect frontline public services (and only cap public services numbers, not cut them). That's exactly what the tories here in NZ promised 18 months ago (do the UK tories use Crosby/Textor like the NZ ones do?) and, of course, they have cut public service numbers and found, lo and behold, that what "frontline" means is wonderfully adaptable!
Beware...he's lying, just like John Key ("smile and wave" we call him, because that it what he consists) our PM did and does."

@Boilerplated (#21) and Anna Sempe (#5) - you're both right about the unnecessary rants. There are even more comments on these blogs showing that 大象传媒 is partial to labour than against it!

"What do you look for when you're following a big event online"?

I look for the ability to watch video on demand, at a time that suits me. Unfortunately the 大象传媒 don't like me because I'm a British person living abroad. So I have to download my news from YouTube instead.

When David Cameron says he is bringing Change, he has no one believing him: Real change, on Nick Clegg's Agenda, is what the Tories are holding out against. More of the same with David Cameron, despite all of the huff and puff and PR gloss. There will be more change from both of the other main parties, as their manifestos have spelt out.

I am becoming increasingly disapointed in the bias of the 大象传媒 in its coverage of the elections. Mr Brown,recieved a very warm reception from Citizens UK, significantly warmer than that recived by Mr Cameron or Clegg and this was acknowledged by the reporter covering the event - news in itself compared to some comparable events recently. Yet your reporter went on to cover in greatest detail and for over 50% of the item, the brief interuption by a banner carrying heckler as if this was some how stimulated by the PM. This was not reflected in her coverage of other speakers. I feel the bias is creeping into too much of your coverage and the 大象传媒 is the poorer for it.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

It would be most helpful if Newsnight ran a 30min programme, 10mins for each of the main parties, to inform the public of policies apart from the economy. A similar programme for 3 other parties would be welcome and long overdue.

28. At 5:40pm on 03 May 2010, allerton wrote:

"Yet your reporter went on to cover in greatest detail and for over 50% of the item, the brief interuption by a banner carrying heckler as if this was some how stimulated by the PM."

The report I saw (having also watched the event carried live on the media) about the Citizens UK event was balanced, on the election issues each of the three parties had equal coverage, but I think you miss the point that was being made in that report and why so much time was given over to it, yes 50% of the report might have been given to the security blunder but after such a breach Brown (or who ever) might not be PM/Party Leader today, he might be dead - what if that man hadn't just been carrying an anti-nuclear placard but something more deadly - the security breach was actually the bigger story (IMO)...

Could all those complaining that they can't get 大象传媒 streaming feeds from abroad, please answer the question; do you pay your UK TV Licence Fee in the countries in which you're now resident?

#32. At 10:40am on 04 May 2010, Khrystalar wrote:

"Could all those complaining that they can't get 大象传媒 streaming feeds from abroad, please answer the question; do you pay your UK TV Licence Fee in the countries in which you're now resident?"

Not sure if that rational should apply to news/current affairs content...

I have heard little about the elderly, pensioners. What about their future. Health, Money. When things go up what protection have they got from the cost of living. Pensioners have done their bit, they have put into the systems for 44years, they now rely on that same system to look after them financially and health wise. Who is their mentor, or night in shinning armour to ensure what ever days they have left are good for them. As we paid for the previous generations so should the current generation pay for us, that's how it works. I would like the 大象传媒 and all the press to take the fight on behalf of those very vulnerable group of people who have NO VOICE. Regards Bob Hed

@ BoilerPlated, post #33;

"Not sure if that rational should apply to news/current affairs content..."

Agreed, in principle at least. If we're gonna have the best, most unbiased news service in the world - which we do, and should be proud of - then we should be sharing it with the rest of the world, and encouraging them do do the same.

My problem is simply with people - like Phil at post #26 - who think they should be entitled to have an opinion on the 大象传媒, and be allowed to disparage it, despite paying nothing in to it.

Ideally, I would be happy for us to offer 大象传媒 services to the entire world; but, practically speaking, this simply isn't possible without people like you and I picking up all the costs.

Entities such as 大象传媒 Worldwide and (I believe?) 大象传媒 America exist to sell off 大象传媒 Content to other providers, thus relieving the burden on the UK Licence Fee Payer. Simply providing free content to all and sundry would undermine this, and end up with you and I subsidising the entire world for their free information.

All I'm saying - to the "Rest Of The World" - is, we're more than happy to do what we can to share unbiased news coverage with you. Just... don't feel you have the right to complain about it. You don't. We do, because we fund this thing.

The 大象传媒 is under obligation to provide services to the Licence-Fee Payers of this country. Nobody else.

If that's not good enough for you - go pay Rupert Murdoch a similar amount (or possibly much more, depending on your package) per year, to hear what he wants you to believe is the truth.

You're welcome to what we're prepared to give, for free. Just don't presume you have the right to demand anything else.

Mr Brown said he might do charity or voluntary work, and that he didn't "want to do business or anything else - I just want to do something good".
GB on GMTV today.

So finally Brown's true colours are surfacing. It speaks volumes about his attitude to business - as against 'good' activities. The purpose of business in his book, as far as I can see it, is feed his coffers, to "increase" (as opposed to "reducing") "the economy" which in his eyes is the amount the treasury has to play with.

Well let's hope people are hearing his defeatist talk and give him the mandate to go do his charity work!

#35. At 1:45pm on 04 May 2010, Khrystalar wrote:

"Ideally, I would be happy for us to offer 大象传媒 services to the entire world; but, practically speaking, this simply isn't possible without people like you and I picking up all the costs."

We already do, it's called the 大象传媒 World Service... Duh!

"The 大象传媒 is under obligation to provide services to the Licence-Fee Payers of this country. Nobody else."

When did they reintroduce the Radio reception licence then?... Duh!

"If that's not good enough for you - go pay Rupert Murdoch a similar amount (or possibly much more, depending on your package) per year, to hear what he wants you to believe is the truth."

If Murdoch runs his US non UK news service like he does the UK, his news is free, just like Sky News is in the UK... Duh!

Hmm, nice rant though, full marks for that!

@ Boilerplated, post #37;

Firstly, my apologies for my gross mistake, above. I had assumed, from the seemingly-mature commentary on some of your other posts, that you were actually over the age of 14. Very sorry, as I said; I'll try and phrase my comments to you accordingly in future.

The 大象传媒 World Service is mainly a radio-based service, giving basic news and information, in bulliten format, to various countries throughout the world. That's not the same thing as offering streaming video, or the rest of the 大象传媒 services, to everybody who decides they want it. Duh!

The Radio Reception Licence - a sort of "half" TV Licence which would only entitle you to receive broadcasts via radio - has not been re-instated, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. There is nothing in it - or our current TV Licence, for that matter - which pertains to the 大象传媒 being obliged to provide services to anybody other than Domestic Licence Fee payers. Duh!

And no; outside of the UK, all of the Murdoch-owned news outlets - such as Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, etc. - you need to pay in order to access (barring a few of the papers, a selection of the stories from which are available online). Quite why you think he's giving his news away for free, is beyond me. Duh!

Got anything else? Or would you like to go back to poking the semi-literate partisans on minor issues, to make it look like you have some idea about politics, now?

#38. At 4:47pm on 04 May 2010, Khrystalar wrote:

"@ Boilerplated, post #37;

Firstly, my apologies for my gross mistake..//.."

As I am, sorry for thinking that I was attempting to debate the issue with someone who had at least a clue as to how the 大象传媒 works and is funded, rather than someone without a clue and only here for a cheap rant at those s/he obviously consider as being 'jolly foreigner' - but 'jolly foreigner' they may not be, more like British citizens who actually have a vote, pay UK tax etc. and just be out of the country on business or holiday, having voted via a postal vote or by proxy...

Personally, I think the coverage by the 大象传媒 has been very fair.

I have read an article on here that suggests that new voters, in particular, young voters, are more interested in the election because they like and have been used to voting as in reality TV programmes. I disagree with the expressed sentiment that they are not necessarily less interested in the issues. I think that is precisely the case, the issues matter much less and its down to image not substance. I think the researchers don't want to be thought of as narrow minded and want to embrace the idea that people are truly engaged but in reality they are not. It is all a beauty contest in reality. Look at the reactions to brown, people saying ' i don't like him' when its labour policies that are the issue. The whole thing is a very sad development and will get worse, more and
more superficial.

Anna Sempe wrote:
Agree with Boilerplated - there is far too much unnecessary bias rant against the 大象传媒. What is ridiculous is the comments on many of the other 大象传媒 blog entries seem to complain of bias to different parties (which practically by default implies that the 大象传媒 is providing fair coverage!)


You should be used to it by now Anna, it appears that there are a lot of people who use these blogs just to attack the 大象传媒 regardless of the story or issue being discussed.
In the last few weeks I've read posts on these blogs accusing the 大象传媒 of being;
Pro Israel
Pro Palestine
Pro Labour
Pro Conservative
Pro Lib Dem
Pro American
Anti American
Left wing
Right wing
And pretty much everything else.

From what I can tell some people that have an opinion about something that isn't reflected in what they see and hear on the 大象传媒 use the default argument of bias when what they really mean is that a particular article, story or program has shown facts, evidence or opinion that disproves or disagrees with their preconceived ideas.
I've always thought the 大象传媒 were pretty even handed when reporting most issues, they're not perfect but they are a in a different league to most of the UK media which is often so biased that they're an unreliable and untrustworthy source of information.

I think the 大象传媒 have done a very good job of remaining neutral during this election, the only time I thought they were a bit out of line was when Nick Griffin was interviewed last week and the interviewer spent most of the show repeating one or two questions and ignoring many of the other issues Nick Griffin was trying to bring up.
This isn鈥檛 because I鈥檓 a BNP supporter (quite the opposite in fact), I just thought it was a cheap attack on the BNP that ended up making Nick Griffin look like he was being treated unfairly.
This isn鈥檛 something new for the 大象传媒, they do have a history of dismissing the BNP as a fringe party of racists and lunatics and while I do agree with this assessment I think the way the 大象传媒 treats them is actually counter-productive as it allows them to look like the victims and could well be getting them a lot of sympathy support from certain sections of our society.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

On a live page any live video feed starts automatically.
It has always been my understanding that I may not watch live streaming 大象传媒 coverage without being a license fee payer. (On demand video is exempt from this ruling).
Am I breaking the law by visiting a live page and allowing the video to play? Is news coverage somehow exempt from this?