You say she's political biased, and I assume you mean she's right wing (because having read your post, you seem the sort of * who thinks left-wing bias is OK, but right wing should be prevented... fine).
You certainly like to discredit yourself, don't you?
ANY kind of policital affliation or bias in British TV news should not be tolerated whatsoever.
You're obviously one of these people who cannot take objective critisism about your beloved Sky News. You fail to realise how stupid you make yourself look sometimes.
Erm, but in her role as a political commentator, she *IS* allowed to show bias - which is what she is doing!
If she were employed into Boulton's role, then I suspect the ITC/Ofcom might have something to say about it *IF* she could be proved to show bias - until that time, they have no juristiction.
Erm, but in her role as a political commentator, she *IS* allowed to show bias - which is what she is doing!
If she were employed into Boulton's role, then I suspect the ITC/Ofcom might have something to say about it *IF* she could be proved to show bias - until that time, they have no juristiction.
I think C@t's comments are valid ..
Yes, I was speaking in "What if..." terms aswell. I apologise for not making myself clear.
It's like Huw Edwards on the BBC - he has strong political biases, and yet he was the BBC's political correspondent in the 1990s, before making the transition into news presenting.
Indeed - but if the "what if" scenario were to come to fruition, then I'm sure than Ms Hartly-Brewer is professional enough to report in an objective manner.
Indeed - but if the "what if" scenario were to come to fruition, then I'm sure than Ms Hartly-Brewer is professional enough to report in an objective manner.
But isn't there the danger of setting a precedent of having politicially biased reporters in the first place?
You can't expect political journalists to come from a political vacuum and not to have their own views and experiences of political life.
Nick Robinson was big in the Young Conservatives, but that doesn't impede him as ITV News's political editor.
Likewise Andrew Marr moved in Labour circles and edited the Independent before his elevation to BBC political editor. Yet few dispute that he is a damn fine journo who has a gift for explaining complicated stories but without apologising for being enthusiastic about the cut and thrust of politics.
Major, everyone in the media has their own personal views and some even have party aliegances. I know which side I prefer, but I keep that private, and don't let it interfere with my job.
I mean, next you'll be saying anyone in journalism shouldn't be allowed to vote to avoid bias!
ANY kind of policital affliation or bias in British TV news should not be tolerated whatsoever.
Let me throw a scenario at you here, and I hope you can catch because they break easily...
The Six O'clock News interviews a Tory, anti-gay adoption chappy on Tuesday about the issue. They do not interview a Labour, pro-gay adoption chappette on the subject at the same time or even in the same programme.
On the Thursday the Six O'clock News interviews a Labour, pro-gay adoption chappette about the issue. They do not interview a Conservative, anti-adoption chappy on the subject at the same time or even in the same programme.
The ITC's verdict: that's fair. Both views have been sufficiently represented for the viewer to make up their own mind. They were on different days, perhaps, and quite clearly not all viewers of Tuesday's show will have seen Thursday's show, and not all viewers of Thursday's show will have seen Tuesday's show. But that's OK.
Now you see what a grey area this is, poppet. It's not all plain and simple.
Ms Hartley-Brewer, as was explained to you by my good friend from Balloon City, was invited on as a guest, a commentator, to give her views. And she did. Guests can say - within limits - what they like, providing it is countered with another view, at another or the same time, opposing it.
Your assertion that TV news should be (and indeed by consequence could be) free of political bias is, frankly, ridiculous.
"but don't you think that..."
"and I'm sure a lot of people would agree with you, Mr/s X, but on the wider issue here, surely you're just..."
"yes, but you have to accept that there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, isn't there?"
That's bias, my love. You hear it all the time but just don't realise it. Is it acceptable for television presenters to take the opposite line from their interviewees, or should they just give them the opportunity to say what they want?
Is it bias for television correspondents to take up a line that directly opposes that of their interviewee, in the name of impartiality?
Tell me, Great Sage of Wisdom, is that bias or is that journalistic questioning?
If you are suggesting that a reporter questioning the truth of someone's comments is an indication of bias, and therefore something to avoid, I suggest you would have been a big hit with the Nazi party.