Following a complaint and in keeping with my disclaimer under ‘About Me’ I’ve taken down the guest blog ‘Ulster – mainstream media is part of our problem’
Maybe the lack of history and etymology on the site scared him,PF, or maybe you will elaborate on which penny and who dropped it where or maybe you will be content with a sneers throwaway remark?
Jude
Can we ask what monitoring you do on guest blogs?As it appears that there’s been a complaint from an individual named in the blog,surely a quick read beforehand by yourself might have identified a possible difficulty.I appreciate you can’t monitor each and every post in response to blogs but there seems to be a greater licence given to bloggers who are clearly Sinn Fein partisans!
You know what pisses me off? This man gives his time and money to run this blog and all yo can do is whinge that themins are getting ore thanks. Grow up
michael and Gearóid
It seems pretty clear to me.
The article suggested bias on the part of 3 journalists because they were allegedly unionist.
No evidence was offered and such an allegation might be damaging to a journalist’s reputation and career prospects.
It was irresponsible on the part of the writer and Jude probably had no choice but to take it down.
That is my view anyway.
Regular commenter Mark claims some expertise on the subject of defamation so perhaps he can give us the legal lowdown.
Having read the blog, the contentious part seemed to be suggesting that NI Protestant = British Unionist. Interesting you note that ‘such an allegation might be damaging to a journalist’s reputation and career prospects’ – that’s progress of sorts I guess 😉
I don’t really see the what all the (relative) kerfuffle is about. Most journalists have a fairly obvious political viewpoint – few write for both the Daily Mail and Morning Star. Was it that it referred to BBC journalists? There are few who would consider the BBC to be impartial on matters relating to NI for obvious reasons.
Alex Kane and Newton Emerson are fairly unrepentant in their Unionism, though usually worth a read and both seem unafraid to criticise Unionism where they see fit. Nolan, Crawley and Carruthers are arguably no less Unionist but presumably bound to adhere to certain BBC editorial guidelines. One could argue that the contentious blog was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in this.
The BBC is the broadcasting arm of the British state. NI/the north/our wee country/the occupied six has a somewhat contentious existence. It stands to reason that the BBC is unlikely to hand over political reporting to a bunch of republicans. A degree of balance would be nice though.
Nolan, Spotlight and Sam McBride’s roles in bringing the RHI incompetence/corruption scandal to wider attention are to be welcomed but the BBC’s political affiliations are no less obvious than the Newsletter’s.
If nothing else, at least we know that referring to someone as a Unionist is now potentially defamatory. The times they are a changin’
RJC
Don’t be silly. The defamatory part is in regard to them showing bias.
Put it this way;
If an online blogger says;
BBC presenter A is a supporter of the policies of political party X and for that reason is going easy on questioning members of political party X then that seems defamatory to me. It does not matter if X = unionist or republican.
Does that clarify it for you?
If presenters have made their views known in the past they could hardly claim any defamation on that ground but they could still argue that they had not shown bias and it would be up to the one making the claim to prove it.
As far as I know none of the 3 presenters have made their political leanings public.
There’s no need for condescension when debating an opposing view.
Your example relates to political party affiliation, whereas I was referring to the (possible) position held by the aforementioned journalists on the constitutional question. Though if we are talking about political party x then it is perhaps worth noting that Nick Robinson spent a decade as Political Editor of the BBC having previosuly been President of the Oxford University Conservative Association during his student days. The BBC have considerable form in this regard.
I have no idea either if any of the 3 presenters have ever made their political leanings public, but this is Northern Ireland – I think it’s fairly safe to say that one’s background has some bearing on one’s position on the constitutional question. Bias can be a difficult thing to prove, but BBC Radio Ulster only has licence fee payers in 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster. Perhaps they need to change their name?
RJC
Look your point was silly as I am sure you know.
The allegation of media bias is common enough but I have yet to see the hard evidence, which must be plentiful.
All we ever get is anecdotal stuff.
So where is the research?
I do remember something about Nick Robinson alright and I have something in my memory about Brian Walden being a tory but I might be wrong. He was a very good interviewer though.
But if journalists have kept their political views private then unfounded allegations are just asking for trouble.
Surely you would accept that?
You cannot make assumptions about people based on their background. That is exactly what is wrong with this place.
“The allegation of media bias is common enough but I have yet to see the hard evidence, which must be plentiful.”
If you haven’t seen evidence of media bias in Ireland, it is because you fully subscribe to the media bias in the first place.
The media in Ireland can be sickeningly biased, pompous, sanctimonious and downright insulting. I do not expect anyone to keep their views hidden, I do expect all opinions to be respected however – including that of republicans.
Ruaidri Ua ConchobaiFebruary 27, 2017 at 10:47 am#
Giordanobruno,
If you properly read my relevant blog post, you know your contention ‘no evidence was offered’ is inaccurate. The true fact being that my opinion piece provided a) a date b) name and c) summary of a particular event (I had embedded links to each programme but Jude removed these as is his propagative).
What was that you were saying about ‘bias’…. well, I never!!!
Ruaidri
If you read my comment you will see I say that only anecdotal evidence is offered, which is what yours amounts to in my view.
It would be east to provide contradictory examples of the 3 named journalists giving DUP reps a hard time say.
So I am asking is there any research into media bias in the BBCNI for example to back up what you say?
Do you accept you should not have used the term British Unionist to describe them in the first place?
I am by the way prepared to believe there may be some bias but I would like concrete evidence rather than examples where people see what they want to see.
“Do you accept you should not have used the term British Unionist to describe them in the first place?”
I never got to read the article before it was taken down, but the above gio is more of your nonsense.
Unionists in Ireland may be Irish but the union in question when referring to is the union with Britain which is another island. The correct term for them should be British separatists as the union they support is multi national and divides a geographical national territory within the island of Ireland.
British unionists are also british nationalists. They may not like that either but it is equally true.
jessica
That is the risk of commenting on something you have not read.
The term British Unionist was used specifically in regard to 3 journalists.
Since Ruaidri does not actually know their voting preference he clearly should not have used the term.
Fair enough?
“Since Ruaidri does not actually know their voting preference he clearly should not have used the term.”
I know you have claimed to be a republican on this site, I don’t know your voting preference, but I do believe you are a unionist gio and I will not be stopped from speaking my opinion by you or anyone.
It appears to me that the press media are entitled to express their opinions without detailing the evidence they have for them.
But individuals who provide a more valuable blog media service on a not for profit basis are subject to more stringent restrictions on what they can publish, not having the bank balance and legal re-presentation that the mainstream media has, or the same backing from the establishment.
We are however, entitled to make the same assertions by simply pointing out they are our own personal beliefs and allowing others to choose as to whether or not they think our opinions hold water.
I believe the british state colluded in many murders here and have covered it over, I believe that the media has done very little to highlight the extent the current british state go to cover it up still and therefore we as members of the public should be entitled to express our opinions and views on any reporter who publishes stories into the public realm as to whether we agree or disagree. And if over time we find ourselves in regular disagreement, then we are entitled to point out the fact that we have different political views, and if that appears to be down the constitutional issue road then that is what it is.
If these so called journalists don’t like being referred to as term British Unionist, perhaps they should be taking a good look at themselves and ask first of all why it is they are ashamed of being referred to as a British Unionist and then why the readers of their work might be coming to that conclusion.
Ruaidri Ua ConchobaiFebruary 27, 2017 at 12:08 pm#
Giordanobruno,
It was a blog post, not a thesis.
If before publishing a article or conducting a talk show journalists were to meet your ‘is there research’ requirement, newspapers and talk shows would never see the light of day.
The scope and context in which the blog post was to be considered was made clear at the 4th and penultimate paragraphs. Alas, you it seems weren’t paying sufficient attention and became engulfed in an emotional assessment.
Follow me on Twitter @Irish_Ulster and check my last tweet…
The thing is Ruaidri is that “opinions” can be damaging and affect peoples lives. If you can back up these opinions with evidence then that’s fair enough, but when those opinions have no basis in fact then they are worthless opinions and when they have no grounding in evidence plus potentially damaging they are illegal under the law.
Are you saying that by expressing the opinion that someone is a british unionist based on their actions or publically expressed views, is potentially damaging and could affect peoples lives?
In what way Scott?
Some might see this as simply excusing political bias within the media on the establishment side?
I really don’t agree but I suppose there is a danger in all this that we could be going full circle, especially with the changing demographic and brexit, and that what was once a risk to be associated with republicanism is now becoming a similar taboo for unionism.
I was not aware that this was the case but it could be that it is being felt among the unionist community first.
May I ask whether you feel that the actions of the DUP and its supporters are making it uncomfortable for some to declare themselves or even accept that they are a british unionist in Ireland?
“Are you saying that by expressing the opinion that someone is a british unionist based on their actions or publically expressed views, is potentially damaging and could affect peoples lives?
In what way Scott?”
No Jessica I’m not. I’m saying that claiming a journalist whos job depends on them remaining impartial so that they can chair debates are biased because they are Unionists without specific examples of bias is damaging and the law protects people from defamation.
I think Ruaidri fell foul because he called them biased, not because he called them Unionists. It is of course possible for them to be Nationalist, Unionists or neither and still remain unbiased in their professional capacity.
“Some might see this as simply excusing political bias within the media on the establishment side?”
Some might but I don’t believe there is institutionalized political bias in the BBC. I understand though many don’t agree with me, thats just my personal opinion.
“I really don’t agree but I suppose there is a danger in all this that we could be going full circle, especially with the changing demographic and brexit, and that what was once a risk to be associated with republicanism is now becoming a similar taboo for unionism.”
As I said above I don’t think its saying a journalist has a certain political persuasion that is illegal, its claiming (without support) that they are biased which is illegal and wrong especially if it damages them professionally. The law protects people from discrimination on political belief.
“May I ask whether you feel that the actions of the DUP and its supporters are making it uncomfortable for some to declare themselves or even accept that they are a british unionist in Ireland?”
Honestly I have no idea. I can only speak for myself and say I have no problem with calling myself a Unionist despite the incompetence of the DUP. I have never voted for them or supported them so I dont see how their actions reflect on me. Their version of a right wing Unionism isn’t mine. Probably the only thing I agree with the DUP on is their Unionist position. On socioeconomic policy we are worlds apart, with perhaps the exception of corporation tax. I agree with them on that one.
“Some might but I don’t believe there is institutionalized political bias in the BBC. I understand though many don’t agree with me, thats just my personal opinion.”
Do you think it is ok for the BBC to allow politicians to refer to Sinn Fein as Sinn Fein/IRA?
Some might, I don’t, it smacks off and is blatant bias.
Have any of the journalists mentioned not allowed this biased language to be used, but told their abusive guests to stop using such language.
If they have then I will defend them, if they haven’t then they have indeed displayed political bias and deserve the reputation that goes along with it.
It is time we stopped allowing them away with it so I would support calling media people out on their behaviour. We should indeed monitor them more closely and draw attention to such bias, especially in the BBC which republicans contribute to.
jessica
Seriously please read what you are responding to.
It is a simple point.
Ruaidri suggested they were biased because they were according to him unionist.
He offered no evidence they were unionist and the evidence of bias was based on his subjective opinion on a few interviews.
You can call me a unionist if you like, I won’t sue you.
I just think it remarkably ignorant of you when I have told you many times I am not a unionist, but then why would you care about being ignorant to someone eh?
Ruaidri
My assessment was not emotional at all it was purely rational.
On the contrary it was you who made an emotional assessment of the 3 journalists when you made assumptions about them which you have still not backed up.
I am sure you are familiar with confirmation bias and that is what appears to be happening here.
As someone has pointed out the DUP frequently complain about BBC bias based on the same flimsy evidence.
You made a mistake(we all do it ) and it would be more honest and probably more respectful to Jude if you actually admitted your responsibility.
I think I have heard both Nolan and Crawley pull people (usually Jim Allister) on using SF/IRA when describing SF. Granted they don’t stop him in his tracks every time he says it, but I am sure the presenters would NEVER use that term.
I’ve definitely heard both Nolan and Crawley pull people up when a guest or caller says something like SF murdered people during the Troubles. They always make it clear that SF are a political party and they didn’t murder anyone.
The DUP agree with you anyway that the presenters are biased only they claim it the other way. Strange old world I guess
Well, I have heard William Crawley myself pulling people so I would not consider him to be a biased journalist whatever his views on the union may be. I actually enjoy listening to his show and find him quite reasonable.
In my own view, Nolan is more interested in money and doesn’t like the DUP other than to use them to get people riled up to get the listener stats up and therefore his wages.
Scott,
Your ‘without specific examples’ is patently untrue – pay more attention in future.
Giordanobruno,
Your ‘you have still not backed up’ accusation is untrue.
You both will know, the truth is that I directed readers to the specific programme(s) wherein they would find the material(s) supporting the opinion I summarised within the blog post!?!
You both should grasp the implicit ‘British Unionist’ point being made: neither the BCC nor UTV has a Nationalist presenting their platform programmes. The END.
Ruaidri
I think we are at a dead end.
You brought a complaint down on Jude and labelled 3 journalists as unionist and suggested they were biased but you still don’t get it.
Not much more to be said.
Yeah I listen everyday and do prefer Talkback myself.
Both shows have very different styles, which I suppose is fair enough considering they are really a similar idea.
Williams show tends to be a little more gentle and less confrontational and deals with slightly more abstract topics/ideas. Today’s show about the connections between Nationalism (in the global sense) and racism is a good example. Incidentally I saw William Crawley chairing a debate during the C.S Lewis festival about whether god exists or not. I have to admit the man can work a room and keeps the debates flowing like water.
Stephen Nolan is a bit of a Marmite figure, you either love him or hate him. He definitely stirs the pot a bit more. I like him though he plays the devils advocate during debates and WHICHEVER political party he was on that day he argues the other side of the argument ferociously and won’t take waffle as a answer.
I’ve heard people sometimes say he’s a intellectual minor leaguer, but I completely disagree. He’s always well briefed and across the details of his subject often more so than the politician. Again this morning with Steve Aiken of the UUP was a prime example. Nolan can eat most politicians for breakfast in a debate, but it’s often a rough ride.
We’re Nolan really excels though is when he interviews a non politician. He done a interview a while back with a Holocaust survivor and I have to say it was magnificent.
BBC radio Ulster alone is worth the licence fee in my opinion.
From what you appear to be saying Gio. it seems certain, of the MSM journalist named in this blog yesterday were, rightly or wrongly, upset by the mention of their names with ‘Ulster Unionist’ appended.
Now, and again, there is a Constitutional right to one’s opinion, whether in the six, or doubly, in the twenty six counties.
It is possible the writer was simply expressing their opinion on the perceived political bias of these particular journalists, if so, they ought have stated such given they were, as above, ‘guest bloggers’ and running the risk of getting the site owner into some difficulty.
Jude has acted correctly in complying with, what here appears to be some ‘notice and take down’ request, albeit I should suspect there may have been no legal obligation, following what I pointed to above, to have done so but, better safe than sorry.
A further alternative is, those offended journalists could of course, remember, next time they are writing articles and/or questioning subjects, that the rights of the questioned are the same as those posing the question, you can hold your opinion, and express it and this should be done without fear of censure.
Jude I am afraid you have experienced a wee example of the subtle bullying and threats that regularly occur from those of a British/English unionist persuasion. How dare you express an opinion? Dontcha know you are only permitted to opine if it tallies with the rulers? Imagine now why some Irish people have to keep their beliefs quiet in their everyday lives. They have ways of making you not talk you know! God bless ‘freedom’ but always read the small print.
Surely unionists like yourself wouldn’t see a problem with someone being labelled a unionist? Surely you should be exclaiming what’s the big problem being a unionist? Is there something wrong with being a unionist etc etc? Nope, rather the unionists on here smell an opportunity to put the boot in and fake outrage. Alas the letsgetalongerists on t.v must be protected at all costs as they do an important job for unionists, lest we forget.
There’s a line between opinions and defamation which is libellous WT, sometimes the line between the two can be blurred but obviously in this case Jude felt the line was crossed. That’s my reading of it anyway.
Lol Hello gio, i was expecting a retort from your good self. After all you are the gatekeeper for ‘letsgetalongerism’ on this blog. Now if you would be as so kind as to quit with the fake outrage and deflection and address perhaps the point made in the said article?
“”address perhaps the point made in the said article?”
You mean address the point in the article we can no longer read?
Well, I know that there are many unfounded opinions expressed on this site, but that would be a feat too far, even for here.”
Well I am sure Gio had a gawk at it before it was taken down? In fact I am sure quite a few regulars had a gawk at it too as they are like white on rice at times, when it comes to posts on this forum. Penny dropped yet?
But I rather think that the point is that discussing an article that we can no longer read presents a problem beyond the normal.
Which was my point.
On the point of pennies, if you’re going to bat back remarks, you might care to address the main issue beforehand.
But to be clear, when a website, such as this one, determines to indulge in regular and relentless negative stereotyping against a community and individuals, including those who post here and which might reasonably be described as sectarian, then it should not be a surprise if it falls foul of itself every once in a while.
We should really focus on how people are behaving now in 2017.
I want to have the best future for my children and indeed their children.
Is that going to be better within the UK or outside of it?
If remaining within the UK means an eternal groundhog day of casting up what happened in the conflict while not addressing the root causes, then we should leave and move on.
If remaining within the UK is preventing unionism as represented by the DUP, their majority voice from showing respect to nationalists and republicans, then we should leave and move on.
If remaining within the UK is going to result in a customs border and create economic problems for the people on both sides of the border, then we should leave and move on.
Can someone tell me why we should not have a proper debate and referendum to resolve this once and for all?
Don’t you see that opinions can be with evidence or without evidence and that depending on the degree of evidence anyone has about anything it then begins to be possible to determine if something is ‘founded’ or ‘unfounded’?
A documentary film was made about BBC bias during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum campaign. Although specific to the 2014 Scottish referendum setting, many of the points it raises can be applied more generally, particularly to Northern Ireland.You’ll find a link to it here
As far as I know nothing similar has been produced about BBC bias in Northern Ireland – which is not to say it doesn’t exist, just that no real evidence has been put forward either way.
In any case the BBC does what it says on the tin – it’s British broascasting
Am Ghobsmacht,
It isn’t ‘funny’: we won’t have a Fenian about the place leading our main platform programmes, seems to be a sentiment the BBC and UTV share with those hard-line Unionists elements – if you don’t think the make-up of BBC and UTV shows should better represent the population it serves then this interaction ends here.
You’re just the flip side of a hard line unionist/loyalist;
They see the BBC as overly biased towards SF, to you it’s the opposite.
They see alliance as nationalist you see them as unionist.
The common theme here is that if you don’t agree with an extremist’s view point then you’re on ‘their side’.
Furthermore if i did name BBC mainstays of a nationalist or Catholic background then you’d just revert to some sort of character assassination to discredit them.
When it suits you AG, you talk about the nuances, the shades of grey that exist within points of view, which I accept.
I see it as a sliding scale more than a black and white hard line choice which has a flip side.
At the extreme right, you have the hard line unionist views you refer to. They wish to return to the days of penal laws, where Catholics are subdued, afforded less rights and can be walked over by the loyal british unionist. Those who marching is a means of showing that superiority still exists.
They would see opposition to this as a threat to be neutralised, hence republicans are referred to as terrorists and compared to ISIS as per Sammy Wilsons recently aired comments supporting the view that Sinn Fein are considered the same as ISIS.
Such talk is extremely offensive to many nationalists but the BBC having aired it, has not considered it to be worthy of pursuing or that there is anything wrong with such an assertion from a leading member in the DUP who are likely to be the largest unionist party. And if they don’t see it worthy to challenge this in the week running up to an election, then the view that they are not politically biased is going to be hard to swallow for some.
On the far left, you have people who want Ireland not only free of british rule, but free of capitalism. Who want a new Irish state to control all and, property, public services, business and to follow marxist principals.
I would be equally abhorred with either of those extreme views.
Add to that, there is not one single sliding scale but many and you can see how complex the situation is.
The truth is, we are all biased to some degree, I know I am when it comes to whether we should remain in the UK or not.
Hard to see how the BBC which would not exist in NI if we left the UK would not be biased, especially when it comes to displaying of the poppy.
where on earth would one get a silly idea that people who constantly make programmes about how great Ulster Protestants are, are born and raised in the Shankill or have an OBE would be British Unionists is completely beyond me, the very idea..
Meh
All you are doing is displaying a narrow minded view of the world.
You think no prod ever becomes a republican, or no taig could ever be a unionist?
Meh
You widened it yourself from the specific individuals to a general point about people born and raised on the Shankill m8!
It was not just referring to them as British Unionist that got it pulled,at least in my opinion.
It was the suggestion that because they were British Unionist they were going easy on Unionist interviewees.
An unsustainable allegation so wisely Jude took it down. Simple.
no, one of the three was born and raised on the Shankill and regularly regales his listeners with his 12th anecdotes with great relish. I’ve really enjoyed watching a programme by another of the threesome on the Protestants who fought the 1798 rebellion… never!!. And the third has an OBE. Now you can judge a coat on the cut of the cloth imo. There was no need to take the blog down if you ask me, all it was, is an opinion. whoopdedoo.
ps. Do you think David Dunseith ex RUC / special branch brought a hidden bias to talkback? I’ve always though he did a great job & i’m not going to lie, I was surprised to learn of his background after his death.
I thought Dunseith was excellent and I cannot remember him showing any obvious bias.
I was not aware he was in Special Branch. Do you have a link for that?
well I can’t really post a link to my memory m8, I don’t remember the specifics other than what was said after his death in tribute on the wireless. had a wee look but most links I’ve taken the time to look at on your behalf just use a vague “police officer”. It doesn’t really matter given how I’ve already stated that as a broadcaster I thought he was very good at hosting talkback. I wasn’t expecting the Spanish inquisition.
Penny dropped, yet?
Maybe the lack of history and etymology on the site scared him,PF, or maybe you will elaborate on which penny and who dropped it where or maybe you will be content with a sneers throwaway remark?
That wasn’t a throw away remark – far from it.
Seems the me the only thing thrown away was the article in question.
Sorr eeee “sneery”
Jude
Can we ask what monitoring you do on guest blogs?As it appears that there’s been a complaint from an individual named in the blog,surely a quick read beforehand by yourself might have identified a possible difficulty.I appreciate you can’t monitor each and every post in response to blogs but there seems to be a greater licence given to bloggers who are clearly Sinn Fein partisans!
You know what pisses me off? This man gives his time and money to run this blog and all yo can do is whinge that themins are getting ore thanks. Grow up
….more than usins……
see fb has took it up.
Jude, I hate the fact that you have censored this article, why?
I read the article in question earlier.What was wrong with it?
michael and Gearóid
It seems pretty clear to me.
The article suggested bias on the part of 3 journalists because they were allegedly unionist.
No evidence was offered and such an allegation might be damaging to a journalist’s reputation and career prospects.
It was irresponsible on the part of the writer and Jude probably had no choice but to take it down.
That is my view anyway.
Regular commenter Mark claims some expertise on the subject of defamation so perhaps he can give us the legal lowdown.
Having read the blog, the contentious part seemed to be suggesting that NI Protestant = British Unionist. Interesting you note that ‘such an allegation might be damaging to a journalist’s reputation and career prospects’ – that’s progress of sorts I guess 😉
I don’t really see the what all the (relative) kerfuffle is about. Most journalists have a fairly obvious political viewpoint – few write for both the Daily Mail and Morning Star. Was it that it referred to BBC journalists? There are few who would consider the BBC to be impartial on matters relating to NI for obvious reasons.
Alex Kane and Newton Emerson are fairly unrepentant in their Unionism, though usually worth a read and both seem unafraid to criticise Unionism where they see fit. Nolan, Crawley and Carruthers are arguably no less Unionist but presumably bound to adhere to certain BBC editorial guidelines. One could argue that the contentious blog was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in this.
The BBC is the broadcasting arm of the British state. NI/the north/our wee country/the occupied six has a somewhat contentious existence. It stands to reason that the BBC is unlikely to hand over political reporting to a bunch of republicans. A degree of balance would be nice though.
Nolan, Spotlight and Sam McBride’s roles in bringing the RHI incompetence/corruption scandal to wider attention are to be welcomed but the BBC’s political affiliations are no less obvious than the Newsletter’s.
If nothing else, at least we know that referring to someone as a Unionist is now potentially defamatory. The times they are a changin’
RJC
Don’t be silly. The defamatory part is in regard to them showing bias.
Put it this way;
If an online blogger says;
BBC presenter A is a supporter of the policies of political party X and for that reason is going easy on questioning members of political party X then that seems defamatory to me. It does not matter if X = unionist or republican.
Does that clarify it for you?
If presenters have made their views known in the past they could hardly claim any defamation on that ground but they could still argue that they had not shown bias and it would be up to the one making the claim to prove it.
As far as I know none of the 3 presenters have made their political leanings public.
There’s no need for condescension when debating an opposing view.
Your example relates to political party affiliation, whereas I was referring to the (possible) position held by the aforementioned journalists on the constitutional question. Though if we are talking about political party x then it is perhaps worth noting that Nick Robinson spent a decade as Political Editor of the BBC having previosuly been President of the Oxford University Conservative Association during his student days. The BBC have considerable form in this regard.
I have no idea either if any of the 3 presenters have ever made their political leanings public, but this is Northern Ireland – I think it’s fairly safe to say that one’s background has some bearing on one’s position on the constitutional question. Bias can be a difficult thing to prove, but BBC Radio Ulster only has licence fee payers in 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster. Perhaps they need to change their name?
RJC
Look your point was silly as I am sure you know.
The allegation of media bias is common enough but I have yet to see the hard evidence, which must be plentiful.
All we ever get is anecdotal stuff.
So where is the research?
I do remember something about Nick Robinson alright and I have something in my memory about Brian Walden being a tory but I might be wrong. He was a very good interviewer though.
But if journalists have kept their political views private then unfounded allegations are just asking for trouble.
Surely you would accept that?
You cannot make assumptions about people based on their background. That is exactly what is wrong with this place.
“The allegation of media bias is common enough but I have yet to see the hard evidence, which must be plentiful.”
If you haven’t seen evidence of media bias in Ireland, it is because you fully subscribe to the media bias in the first place.
The media in Ireland can be sickeningly biased, pompous, sanctimonious and downright insulting. I do not expect anyone to keep their views hidden, I do expect all opinions to be respected however – including that of republicans.
Giordanobruno,
If you properly read my relevant blog post, you know your contention ‘no evidence was offered’ is inaccurate. The true fact being that my opinion piece provided a) a date b) name and c) summary of a particular event (I had embedded links to each programme but Jude removed these as is his propagative).
What was that you were saying about ‘bias’…. well, I never!!!
Ruaidri
If you read my comment you will see I say that only anecdotal evidence is offered, which is what yours amounts to in my view.
It would be east to provide contradictory examples of the 3 named journalists giving DUP reps a hard time say.
So I am asking is there any research into media bias in the BBCNI for example to back up what you say?
Do you accept you should not have used the term British Unionist to describe them in the first place?
I am by the way prepared to believe there may be some bias but I would like concrete evidence rather than examples where people see what they want to see.
“Do you accept you should not have used the term British Unionist to describe them in the first place?”
I never got to read the article before it was taken down, but the above gio is more of your nonsense.
Unionists in Ireland may be Irish but the union in question when referring to is the union with Britain which is another island. The correct term for them should be British separatists as the union they support is multi national and divides a geographical national territory within the island of Ireland.
British unionists are also british nationalists. They may not like that either but it is equally true.
jessica
That is the risk of commenting on something you have not read.
The term British Unionist was used specifically in regard to 3 journalists.
Since Ruaidri does not actually know their voting preference he clearly should not have used the term.
Fair enough?
“Since Ruaidri does not actually know their voting preference he clearly should not have used the term.”
I know you have claimed to be a republican on this site, I don’t know your voting preference, but I do believe you are a unionist gio and I will not be stopped from speaking my opinion by you or anyone.
It appears to me that the press media are entitled to express their opinions without detailing the evidence they have for them.
But individuals who provide a more valuable blog media service on a not for profit basis are subject to more stringent restrictions on what they can publish, not having the bank balance and legal re-presentation that the mainstream media has, or the same backing from the establishment.
We are however, entitled to make the same assertions by simply pointing out they are our own personal beliefs and allowing others to choose as to whether or not they think our opinions hold water.
I believe the british state colluded in many murders here and have covered it over, I believe that the media has done very little to highlight the extent the current british state go to cover it up still and therefore we as members of the public should be entitled to express our opinions and views on any reporter who publishes stories into the public realm as to whether we agree or disagree. And if over time we find ourselves in regular disagreement, then we are entitled to point out the fact that we have different political views, and if that appears to be down the constitutional issue road then that is what it is.
If these so called journalists don’t like being referred to as term British Unionist, perhaps they should be taking a good look at themselves and ask first of all why it is they are ashamed of being referred to as a British Unionist and then why the readers of their work might be coming to that conclusion.
Giordanobruno,
It was a blog post, not a thesis.
If before publishing a article or conducting a talk show journalists were to meet your ‘is there research’ requirement, newspapers and talk shows would never see the light of day.
The scope and context in which the blog post was to be considered was made clear at the 4th and penultimate paragraphs. Alas, you it seems weren’t paying sufficient attention and became engulfed in an emotional assessment.
Follow me on Twitter @Irish_Ulster and check my last tweet…
The thing is Ruaidri is that “opinions” can be damaging and affect peoples lives. If you can back up these opinions with evidence then that’s fair enough, but when those opinions have no basis in fact then they are worthless opinions and when they have no grounding in evidence plus potentially damaging they are illegal under the law.
Are you saying that by expressing the opinion that someone is a british unionist based on their actions or publically expressed views, is potentially damaging and could affect peoples lives?
In what way Scott?
Some might see this as simply excusing political bias within the media on the establishment side?
I really don’t agree but I suppose there is a danger in all this that we could be going full circle, especially with the changing demographic and brexit, and that what was once a risk to be associated with republicanism is now becoming a similar taboo for unionism.
I was not aware that this was the case but it could be that it is being felt among the unionist community first.
May I ask whether you feel that the actions of the DUP and its supporters are making it uncomfortable for some to declare themselves or even accept that they are a british unionist in Ireland?
“Are you saying that by expressing the opinion that someone is a british unionist based on their actions or publically expressed views, is potentially damaging and could affect peoples lives?
In what way Scott?”
No Jessica I’m not. I’m saying that claiming a journalist whos job depends on them remaining impartial so that they can chair debates are biased because they are Unionists without specific examples of bias is damaging and the law protects people from defamation.
I think Ruaidri fell foul because he called them biased, not because he called them Unionists. It is of course possible for them to be Nationalist, Unionists or neither and still remain unbiased in their professional capacity.
“Some might see this as simply excusing political bias within the media on the establishment side?”
Some might but I don’t believe there is institutionalized political bias in the BBC. I understand though many don’t agree with me, thats just my personal opinion.
“I really don’t agree but I suppose there is a danger in all this that we could be going full circle, especially with the changing demographic and brexit, and that what was once a risk to be associated with republicanism is now becoming a similar taboo for unionism.”
As I said above I don’t think its saying a journalist has a certain political persuasion that is illegal, its claiming (without support) that they are biased which is illegal and wrong especially if it damages them professionally. The law protects people from discrimination on political belief.
“May I ask whether you feel that the actions of the DUP and its supporters are making it uncomfortable for some to declare themselves or even accept that they are a british unionist in Ireland?”
Honestly I have no idea. I can only speak for myself and say I have no problem with calling myself a Unionist despite the incompetence of the DUP. I have never voted for them or supported them so I dont see how their actions reflect on me. Their version of a right wing Unionism isn’t mine. Probably the only thing I agree with the DUP on is their Unionist position. On socioeconomic policy we are worlds apart, with perhaps the exception of corporation tax. I agree with them on that one.
“Some might but I don’t believe there is institutionalized political bias in the BBC. I understand though many don’t agree with me, thats just my personal opinion.”
Do you think it is ok for the BBC to allow politicians to refer to Sinn Fein as Sinn Fein/IRA?
Some might, I don’t, it smacks off and is blatant bias.
Have any of the journalists mentioned not allowed this biased language to be used, but told their abusive guests to stop using such language.
If they have then I will defend them, if they haven’t then they have indeed displayed political bias and deserve the reputation that goes along with it.
It is time we stopped allowing them away with it so I would support calling media people out on their behaviour. We should indeed monitor them more closely and draw attention to such bias, especially in the BBC which republicans contribute to.
jessica
Seriously please read what you are responding to.
It is a simple point.
Ruaidri suggested they were biased because they were according to him unionist.
He offered no evidence they were unionist and the evidence of bias was based on his subjective opinion on a few interviews.
You can call me a unionist if you like, I won’t sue you.
I just think it remarkably ignorant of you when I have told you many times I am not a unionist, but then why would you care about being ignorant to someone eh?
Ruaidri
My assessment was not emotional at all it was purely rational.
On the contrary it was you who made an emotional assessment of the 3 journalists when you made assumptions about them which you have still not backed up.
I am sure you are familiar with confirmation bias and that is what appears to be happening here.
As someone has pointed out the DUP frequently complain about BBC bias based on the same flimsy evidence.
You made a mistake(we all do it ) and it would be more honest and probably more respectful to Jude if you actually admitted your responsibility.
Jessica
I think I have heard both Nolan and Crawley pull people (usually Jim Allister) on using SF/IRA when describing SF. Granted they don’t stop him in his tracks every time he says it, but I am sure the presenters would NEVER use that term.
I’ve definitely heard both Nolan and Crawley pull people up when a guest or caller says something like SF murdered people during the Troubles. They always make it clear that SF are a political party and they didn’t murder anyone.
The DUP agree with you anyway that the presenters are biased only they claim it the other way. Strange old world I guess
Well, I have heard William Crawley myself pulling people so I would not consider him to be a biased journalist whatever his views on the union may be. I actually enjoy listening to his show and find him quite reasonable.
In my own view, Nolan is more interested in money and doesn’t like the DUP other than to use them to get people riled up to get the listener stats up and therefore his wages.
Scott,
Your ‘without specific examples’ is patently untrue – pay more attention in future.
Giordanobruno,
Your ‘you have still not backed up’ accusation is untrue.
You both will know, the truth is that I directed readers to the specific programme(s) wherein they would find the material(s) supporting the opinion I summarised within the blog post!?!
You both should grasp the implicit ‘British Unionist’ point being made: neither the BCC nor UTV has a Nationalist presenting their platform programmes. The END.
Ruaidri
I think we are at a dead end.
You brought a complaint down on Jude and labelled 3 journalists as unionist and suggested they were biased but you still don’t get it.
Not much more to be said.
Jessica
Yeah I listen everyday and do prefer Talkback myself.
Both shows have very different styles, which I suppose is fair enough considering they are really a similar idea.
Williams show tends to be a little more gentle and less confrontational and deals with slightly more abstract topics/ideas. Today’s show about the connections between Nationalism (in the global sense) and racism is a good example. Incidentally I saw William Crawley chairing a debate during the C.S Lewis festival about whether god exists or not. I have to admit the man can work a room and keeps the debates flowing like water.
Stephen Nolan is a bit of a Marmite figure, you either love him or hate him. He definitely stirs the pot a bit more. I like him though he plays the devils advocate during debates and WHICHEVER political party he was on that day he argues the other side of the argument ferociously and won’t take waffle as a answer.
I’ve heard people sometimes say he’s a intellectual minor leaguer, but I completely disagree. He’s always well briefed and across the details of his subject often more so than the politician. Again this morning with Steve Aiken of the UUP was a prime example. Nolan can eat most politicians for breakfast in a debate, but it’s often a rough ride.
We’re Nolan really excels though is when he interviews a non politician. He done a interview a while back with a Holocaust survivor and I have to say it was magnificent.
BBC radio Ulster alone is worth the licence fee in my opinion.
From what you appear to be saying Gio. it seems certain, of the MSM journalist named in this blog yesterday were, rightly or wrongly, upset by the mention of their names with ‘Ulster Unionist’ appended.
Now, and again, there is a Constitutional right to one’s opinion, whether in the six, or doubly, in the twenty six counties.
It is possible the writer was simply expressing their opinion on the perceived political bias of these particular journalists, if so, they ought have stated such given they were, as above, ‘guest bloggers’ and running the risk of getting the site owner into some difficulty.
Jude has acted correctly in complying with, what here appears to be some ‘notice and take down’ request, albeit I should suspect there may have been no legal obligation, following what I pointed to above, to have done so but, better safe than sorry.
A further alternative is, those offended journalists could of course, remember, next time they are writing articles and/or questioning subjects, that the rights of the questioned are the same as those posing the question, you can hold your opinion, and express it and this should be done without fear of censure.
Jude I am afraid you have experienced a wee example of the subtle bullying and threats that regularly occur from those of a British/English unionist persuasion. How dare you express an opinion? Dontcha know you are only permitted to opine if it tallies with the rulers? Imagine now why some Irish people have to keep their beliefs quiet in their everyday lives. They have ways of making you not talk you know! God bless ‘freedom’ but always read the small print.
“subtle bullying”
Oh, good grief.
“”subtle bullying”
Oh, good grief.”
Just like that.
Surely unionists like yourself wouldn’t see a problem with someone being labelled a unionist? Surely you should be exclaiming what’s the big problem being a unionist? Is there something wrong with being a unionist etc etc? Nope, rather the unionists on here smell an opportunity to put the boot in and fake outrage. Alas the letsgetalongerists on t.v must be protected at all costs as they do an important job for unionists, lest we forget.
So, who ‘bullied’ whom?
Facts and evidence, please; as I’ve noted on another thread, they are not always presented.
And are you accusing me of bullying too? Perhaps Jude will remove my comment if he thinks it bullying.
The rest is to raise an issue we’re not discussing, and which hasn’t been established.
“Nope, rather the unionists on here smell an opportunity to put the boot in and fake outrage.”
Nope, merely pointing out that freedom of speech requires responsibility and manners if it is to mean anything.
We don’t get to say just what we please and then plead ‘opinion’.
“And are you accusing me of bullying too? Perhaps Jude will remove my comment if he thinks it bullying.”
No PF I wouldn’t want Jude to remove anything you say. Say what you like. I am big and hairy enough to take it.
“”Nope, rather the unionists on here smell an opportunity to put the boot in and fake outrage.”
Nope, merely pointing out that freedom of speech requires responsibility and manners if it is to mean anything.
We don’t get to say just what we please and then plead ‘opinion’.”
I will say what I like and I won’t take lectures on ‘freedom of speech’ from unionists if you don’t mind; that would be plain daft.
There’s a line between opinions and defamation which is libellous WT, sometimes the line between the two can be blurred but obviously in this case Jude felt the line was crossed. That’s my reading of it anyway.
wolfie
Seriously that is the worst bit of moping I have seen from you in quite some time.
The post was dodgy, blame the guy that wrote it maybe.
Lol Hello gio, i was expecting a retort from your good self. After all you are the gatekeeper for ‘letsgetalongerism’ on this blog. Now if you would be as so kind as to quit with the fake outrage and deflection and address perhaps the point made in the said article?
“address perhaps the point made in the said article?”
You mean address the point in the article we can no longer read?
Well, I know that there are many unfounded opinions expressed on this site, but that would be a feat too far, even for here.
“”address perhaps the point made in the said article?”
You mean address the point in the article we can no longer read?
Well, I know that there are many unfounded opinions expressed on this site, but that would be a feat too far, even for here.”
Well I am sure Gio had a gawk at it before it was taken down? In fact I am sure quite a few regulars had a gawk at it too as they are like white on rice at times, when it comes to posts on this forum. Penny dropped yet?
But I rather think that the point is that discussing an article that we can no longer read presents a problem beyond the normal.
Which was my point.
On the point of pennies, if you’re going to bat back remarks, you might care to address the main issue beforehand.
But to be clear, when a website, such as this one, determines to indulge in regular and relentless negative stereotyping against a community and individuals, including those who post here and which might reasonably be described as sectarian, then it should not be a surprise if it falls foul of itself every once in a while.
PF – please clarify. Are you saying I run a sectarian website?
No.
By the same token PF, your opinion that Gerry Adams was in the IRA is unfounded?
I stated that opinion?
Ok, do you believe Gerry Adams was in the IRA?
We should really focus on how people are behaving now in 2017.
I want to have the best future for my children and indeed their children.
Is that going to be better within the UK or outside of it?
If remaining within the UK means an eternal groundhog day of casting up what happened in the conflict while not addressing the root causes, then we should leave and move on.
If remaining within the UK is preventing unionism as represented by the DUP, their majority voice from showing respect to nationalists and republicans, then we should leave and move on.
If remaining within the UK is going to result in a customs border and create economic problems for the people on both sides of the border, then we should leave and move on.
Can someone tell me why we should not have a proper debate and referendum to resolve this once and for all?
What I ‘believe’ is irrelevant.
So you have no beliefs PF, interesting…….NOT!
I did say I had no ‘beliefs’, I said that my beliefs were irrelevant.
It’s no wonder people have trouble communicating on this site when we confuse simple things like ‘belief’, ‘evidence’ and relevance.
Don’t you see that opinions can be with evidence or without evidence and that depending on the degree of evidence anyone has about anything it then begins to be possible to determine if something is ‘founded’ or ‘unfounded’?
Shows a very tentative grip on history and etymology. Hah!
Do elaborate…
A documentary film was made about BBC bias during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum campaign. Although specific to the 2014 Scottish referendum setting, many of the points it raises can be applied more generally, particularly to Northern Ireland.You’ll find a link to it here
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/bbc-bias-london-calling/
As far as I know nothing similar has been produced about BBC bias in Northern Ireland – which is not to say it doesn’t exist, just that no real evidence has been put forward either way.
In any case the BBC does what it says on the tin – it’s British broascasting
Funny.
Some hard-line unionists think that BBCNI is controlled by Sinn Fein…
Very true AG.
If people dont like the message the easy (and lazy) thing to do is try and discredit the messenger .
Supreme example is President Trump
Am Ghobsmacht,
It isn’t ‘funny’: we won’t have a Fenian about the place leading our main platform programmes, seems to be a sentiment the BBC and UTV share with those hard-line Unionists elements – if you don’t think the make-up of BBC and UTV shows should better represent the population it serves then this interaction ends here.
You’re just the flip side of a hard line unionist/loyalist;
They see the BBC as overly biased towards SF, to you it’s the opposite.
They see alliance as nationalist you see them as unionist.
The common theme here is that if you don’t agree with an extremist’s view point then you’re on ‘their side’.
Furthermore if i did name BBC mainstays of a nationalist or Catholic background then you’d just revert to some sort of character assassination to discredit them.
So yes, it is funny to some of us.
When it suits you AG, you talk about the nuances, the shades of grey that exist within points of view, which I accept.
I see it as a sliding scale more than a black and white hard line choice which has a flip side.
At the extreme right, you have the hard line unionist views you refer to. They wish to return to the days of penal laws, where Catholics are subdued, afforded less rights and can be walked over by the loyal british unionist. Those who marching is a means of showing that superiority still exists.
They would see opposition to this as a threat to be neutralised, hence republicans are referred to as terrorists and compared to ISIS as per Sammy Wilsons recently aired comments supporting the view that Sinn Fein are considered the same as ISIS.
Such talk is extremely offensive to many nationalists but the BBC having aired it, has not considered it to be worthy of pursuing or that there is anything wrong with such an assertion from a leading member in the DUP who are likely to be the largest unionist party. And if they don’t see it worthy to challenge this in the week running up to an election, then the view that they are not politically biased is going to be hard to swallow for some.
On the far left, you have people who want Ireland not only free of british rule, but free of capitalism. Who want a new Irish state to control all and, property, public services, business and to follow marxist principals.
I would be equally abhorred with either of those extreme views.
Add to that, there is not one single sliding scale but many and you can see how complex the situation is.
The truth is, we are all biased to some degree, I know I am when it comes to whether we should remain in the UK or not.
Hard to see how the BBC which would not exist in NI if we left the UK would not be biased, especially when it comes to displaying of the poppy.
I didn’t read the article, though, if as suggested a bias on the part of some journalists was mentioned then to be frank, I don’t see the problem.
The idea that journalists and media outlets don’t have a bias is simply laughable.
where on earth would one get a silly idea that people who constantly make programmes about how great Ulster Protestants are, are born and raised in the Shankill or have an OBE would be British Unionists is completely beyond me, the very idea..
Meh
All you are doing is displaying a narrow minded view of the world.
You think no prod ever becomes a republican, or no taig could ever be a unionist?
what’s that got to do with the three specific individuals that were being talked about in the removed blog m8?
ps.
I presume that it was the referring to the three of them as “British Unionists” by the author is the reason that the blog was pulled.
Meh
You widened it yourself from the specific individuals to a general point about people born and raised on the Shankill m8!
It was not just referring to them as British Unionist that got it pulled,at least in my opinion.
It was the suggestion that because they were British Unionist they were going easy on Unionist interviewees.
An unsustainable allegation so wisely Jude took it down. Simple.
no, one of the three was born and raised on the Shankill and regularly regales his listeners with his 12th anecdotes with great relish. I’ve really enjoyed watching a programme by another of the threesome on the Protestants who fought the 1798 rebellion… never!!. And the third has an OBE. Now you can judge a coat on the cut of the cloth imo. There was no need to take the blog down if you ask me, all it was, is an opinion. whoopdedoo.
ps. Do you think David Dunseith ex RUC / special branch brought a hidden bias to talkback? I’ve always though he did a great job & i’m not going to lie, I was surprised to learn of his background after his death.
I thought Dunseith was excellent and I cannot remember him showing any obvious bias.
I was not aware he was in Special Branch. Do you have a link for that?
can’t be arsed looking, you could try Google? but if memory relates, he was something to do with drugs I think.
meh
Sure what does it matter if its accurate or not eh?
As long as it feels true to you!
well I can’t really post a link to my memory m8, I don’t remember the specifics other than what was said after his death in tribute on the wireless. had a wee look but most links I’ve taken the time to look at on your behalf just use a vague “police officer”. It doesn’t really matter given how I’ve already stated that as a broadcaster I thought he was very good at hosting talkback. I wasn’t expecting the Spanish inquisition.
well if you don’t think it matters whether someone was in Special Branch or not I would suggest others would strongly disagree.