BBC to trial Scottish Six

First few seconds, the person speaking can't pronounce the word "definitely". Clearly a quality documentary.

That's a valid way to pronounce the word 'definitely' in Scotland, so I wouldn't write it off on account of that.

However, without watching an hour-and-a-bit of talking heads, I think it's fair to assume that the film has a point to prove and may not be particularly balanced either.

I definently need a source for that.

EDIT: Having watched some of this "documentary", it uses all the classic tropes. Ominous music, out of context quotes, stealing TV Forum mocks without permission to use in the title sequence - clearly far from a quality piece.

I'm not saying it's balanced, the documentary is about how the BBC danced to London's tune. Some may agree, some may not. But it does show on film what many in Scotland have thought and felt since the referendum campaign in 2014. Whether you agree or not does not change that.

The problem is you've watched the documentary having decided its premise is true. The sheer amount of rubbish in it couldn't lead a reasonable person to believe, from a neutral standpoint, that the BBC was doing anything of the sort.

And how have you come to that assumption? What I believe is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not, the documentary was made based on what a large number of people in Scotland believe. It was crowdfunded and has had town hall screenings before being uploaded to YouTube.

The point I was making is that as a vast amount of people in Scotland feel this way, the BBC has to do something to address that. You can't have a national, publicly funded, broadcaster that more than half the country don't trust for news.

Oh Jesus not that GA Ponsonby nonsense. I really hoped we were safe from that on here. For those unaware of his "work", he takes to Twitter the minute anyone dares to do a mildly critical stories slightly referencing the Scottish Government. One classic being BBC Scotland daring to speak to someone from a haulage firm when the Forth Road Bridge was closed as it required repair work. He'd be much happier in North Korea. The problem is, he occasionally stumbles across a fair point but is the archetypical boy who cried wolf. The defence of a documentary based on what a large number of point believe is laughable - a lot of people believe in UFOs.

SOL, the majority of the stories on RS being about the government makes sense - I imagine that's the case on the BBC News at Six about the national government as well. Commercial broadcasters have no more compulsion to be neutral than the BBC, they're all subject to impartiality rules. And you're not the messenger, you clearly believe all this stuff.

The one point I will agree with is that there's no point burying heads in sand over this - some people clearly believe it. How to solve that is a little trickier. But some of the nonsense from both sides - and No can be as bad, I've seen the terrible memes - some people are just going to believe what they believe despite the evidence. Look at Trump and his supporters.

Seeing this is a TV presentation forum, it would be silly of me not to mention that the subtitle on the title screen is, for some reason, partially concealed by the title.

A lot of people may believe that the BBC's coverage was biased in some way. If that video had any genuine grievance, it wouldn't need a small group of people to pay for the creation of a documentary watched by less people than your average Bullseye repeat on Challenge.

Thing is, I'm open to examples. Nick Robinson's report on Alex Salmond's speech was, if not completely inaccurate, misrepresentative of what actually happened. Hilariously we only know that because the BBC News Channel insisted on broadcasting the full speech unedited in a desperate bid to seem unbiased - off memory, I don't think Sky went anywhere near it.

But Jackie Bird giving an SNP person a tougher time than a Labour person? Open to interpretation, and if you're SNP-supporting of course you're going to think your person got a tougher time. Mhairi Black's maiden speech not getting huge coverage? It's a maiden speech, meh. It was viral yes, but that doesn't dictate a news agenda. And 99% of Ponsonby's accusations? Pure nonsense.

I'm not closing my ears to any constructive criticism of the BBC or the Scottish media. I just want it to be based on some sort of coherent argument. Even the often attacked Wings Over Scotland occasionally hits on a very good point but succeeds because he often gives credit to journalists he feels do a good job. Ponsonby aims at everything and as a result hits nothing, and damages his own credibility.

I'm sorry for being grumpy earlier in the thread, btw, but this sort of stuff really annoys me.

Nobody here's linked to Wings Over Scotland yet have they? The self-proclaimed reverend who loves Scotland so much he lives in Bath.

No. And my point was not to support him, merely to suggest that he at least tries to back up his arguments.

We are in danger - partially my fault - of veering waaaay off-topic now though.

I do take offence to comments like "...you clearly believe in all this stuff..." as though it's like believing in UFOs.

The fact I was making is that over a million people, at least, feel like this, and it is not sustainable for any broadcaster, commercial or public service. As it happens, I, personally, do believe there are serious issues in BBC Scotland's coverage of Scottish politics. But that's my opinion and I haven't forced that on anyone here, I was merely trying to back up what I said yesterday regarding the scepticism of the BBC in Scotland.

Like it or not, it's there and it won't go away.