Let's talk about reporting.

[Top_gun]

I think already people have a selection bias with the way they go about gathering information, people often reject things that don't come from a source that aligns with their views, reading only those that do. I call this Guardian syndrome, as it's odd to witness people actively seek out to read something only they agree with.

Guardian syndrome indeed!!!

[peterb]

Perhaps because Evan Davis is an Economist and has presented a few interesting BBC documentaries such as 'mind the gap'. In that light he is more than just a Dragon's Den presenter and a lot of his views are very thought provoking.

Pity he gave up the day job, because as a political interviewer, he seems more interested in getting his voice heard than the voice of the interviewee. Perhaps thats why he is perceived as being more successful presenting documentaries.

IMHO of course.

[Top_gun]

Pity he gave up the day job, because as a political interviewer, he seems more interested in getting his voice heard than the voice of the interviewee. Perhaps thats why he is perceived as being more successful presenting documentaries.

IMHO of course.

Perhaps you're a bit upset because he linked Cameron to gang behaviour. Evan Davis was an Oxford Economics graduate so he would have heard about the Bullington Club and their antics.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/camer...r-6439541.html

[peterb]

Perhaps you're a bit upset because he linked Cameron to gang behaviour. Evan Davis was an Oxford Economics graduate so he would have heard about the Bullington Club and their antics.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/camer...r-6439541.html

Not upset in the least. I don't really care what Cameron did or didn't do at University, I'm more concerned about how he does the job he was elected to do.

Unless you are citing that to demonstrate that Evan Davis knows more about the social clubs at Oxford than he does about economics.

[Top_gun]

Not upset in the least. I don't really care what Cameron did or didn't do at University, I'm more concerned about how he does the job he was elected to do.

Like tackling gang culture!!!

[Saracen]

The Trust is the governing body of the BBC and yes, they're part of the BBC as a sovereign body but independent of the executive board and management. They approve the editorial guidelines for the BBC to follow and investigate the actions of the executive board and failure in editing standards which includes bias news reporting.

They approve the editorial guidelines, but don't create them. The editorial guidelines are designed to achieve the principles set out by law, namely, the Charter, and by regulatory bodies (OfCom). And, as I said, the Trust do not make or control editorial decisions, or have any say in day to day management. That's the function of the Executive Board. And yes, the Trust, usually the ESC for the issues you're referring to, is the final level of appeal in complaints, but again, operationally, that goes to the BBC first, such as (depending on the nature of the complaint) the Editorial Complaints Unit, and the Trust at the final stage of appeal.

The process of handling complaints, even of editorial bias, is handled by the BBC under the supervision of the Executive Board. The Trust only gets involved either as that final stage of appeal, or as part of the oversight of the Executive Board.

And even then, the "Tory", as Chirman, is not part of the Trust's Editorial Standards Committee.

So, when you assert

Bias accusations are usually directed to the BBC as a result of them not supporting other people's 'world view'. The Tories are the usual culprits despite having a former Tory as Chairman for the BBC at the time!

I still struggle to see what a former Tory as Chairman has to do with with editorial bias allegations. Would the Trust's discharging of it's legally imposed duties, or it's interpretation of editorial guidelines had been a former Labour person, or someone of no political affiliation?

Presumably, it's Patton you're referring to, and how does he as a Tory affect editorial bias, or allegations of it, when neither he nor the Trust have any control over editorial decisions, beyond setting the strategic objectives of the output?

As for whether it's about "world view" or not, that may be true in some cases, and certainly isn't in others. Short of doing a major review of cases and outcomes, I'd say it varies.

[Top_gun]

Chairman for the BBC Trust, not the BBC. There's a difference. The Trust, by virtue of the ebabling legislation, is operationally independent of the BBC. It has no role in editorial decisions, and doesn't have the staff for that anyway. It's role is in setting the strategic direction, representing licence-payers and a general oversight of the exectutive board. Overall editorial control comes from the board, headed by the DG, not the Trust or it's chairman (or woman).

Wrong, the Chairman of the BBC Trust can also be called the Chairman of the BBC according to its constitution. The reason why he is called Chairman of the BBC Trust is to make the distinction between the Trust and the Executive Board in terms of independence. However, the BBC Trust is the sovereign body of the BBC and can hold the Executive board to account.

[peterb]

Like tackling gang culture!!!

ah yes, the Bullingdon Club, well known for its gun and knife culture - not.

But then much easier to dig up some past story rather than concentrate on your supposed area of expertise (economics) which was the main platform Cameron (and the other one... Clegg) were elected on, clearing up the Brown/Balls up.

But if it is drinking clubs you are concerned about, don't look to hard at medical students - but does that disqualify them fro treating alcohol related diseases?

[peterb]

Wrong, the Chairman of the BBC Trust can also be called the Chairman of the BBC according to its constitution. The reason why he is called Chairman of the BBC Trust is to make the distinction between the Trust and the Executive Board in terms of independence. However, the BBC Trust is the sovereign body of the BBC and can hold the Executive board to account.

Taken from the BC's Annual report for 2012/2013

The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC. We are supported by the Trust Unit, a team of professional staff who report directly to us.

The Trust sets the strategic direction through four strategic objectives for the BBC and issues a service licence to every BBC service, stating what we expect it to deliver and how much it can spend. We uphold the BBC’s editorial standards and protect the BBC’s independence. The Trust is separate from the Executive, which is led by the Director-General and manages the operational delivery of the BBC’s services.

The functions and duties of the Trust are outlined in the BBC’s Royal Charter and the BBC’s Agreement with the Secretary of State. The Trust operates in accordance with published protocols and the way we make decisions is governed by our standing orders. As Trustees, we commit to acting in accordance with our Code of Practice.

The Executive Board, chaired by the Director-General, and its sub-committees are responsible for the delivery of BBC services and day-to-day operations across the organisation.

Taken from The Royal Charter - the emboldened phrase in para 10 is by me.

8. Trust and Executive Board to act separatelyAs described in article 1(2), the Corporation that is the BBC shall comprise all themembers of the BBC Trust and the Executive Board. This reflects the importance of boththe Trust and the Board, and the status and standing which their respective members areto enjoy. However, all the functions of the Corporation shall be exercised through eitherthe Trust or the Board in accordance with the provisions set out in this Charter and anyFramework Agreement. The members of the Trust and the members of the Board shallnever act together as a single corporate body.

9. Relationship between the Trust and the Executive Board(1)The Trust must maintain its independence of the Executive Board.(2)The Trust shall be the sovereign body within the BBC, in the sense that wherever it hasa function under this Charter or any Framework Agreement, it may always fully exercisethat function as it sees fit and require the Executive Board to act in ways which respectand are compatible with how the Trust has seen fit to exercise that function. In particular,where the Executive Board has operational responsibility for activities which are subjectto a Trust function of approval, supervision, review or enforcement, any decision of theTrust in exercise of such a function shall be final within the BBC. (Of course, in certainareas, the activity in question may also be subject to regulation by external bodies, suchas Ofcom.)(3)However, the Trust must not exercise or seek to exercise the functions of the ExecutiveBoard.

10. The Chairman of the BBCThe Chairman of the Trust may also be known as the Chairman of the BBC. In view ofarticle 8, this is an honorary title, as the members of the BBC will never act as a singlecorporate body, but only as members of the Trust or Board to which they belong.

11. Guidance and best practice. The Trust and the Executive Board, in performing their respective functions, must have regard—(a)to such general guidance concerning the management of the affairs of public bodiesas they consider relevant and appropriate; and(b)to generally accepted principles of good corporate governance, but only—(i)where to do so would not be incompatible with sub-paragraph (a), and(ii)to the extent that such principles may reasonably be regarded as applicable inrelation to their respective functions and within the particular constitution of the BBC as a chartered corporation.

(Cut from a Pdf document, hence the slightly off formatting)

The agreement with the Secretary of State, which also forms part of the Constitution, amplifies the role, with particular emphasis on the Trust's responsibility for the financial management of the BBC, and the holding of the Executive Board to account in that respect 9as well as service delivery and so on). (Again, the emphasis is mine.)

[Top_gun]

Thanks Peter, it's confirmation of what I said that the Chairman of the BBC Trust can also be called Chairman of the BBC.

[peterb]

Thanks Peter, it's confirmation of what I said that the Chairman of the BBC Trust can also be called Chairman of the BBC.

As an honorarium - in practice it is meaningless both as a title and in relation to the regulatory function of the Trust.

[Top_gun]

ah yes, the Bullingdon Club, well known for its gun and knife culture - not.

But then much easier to dig up some past story rather than concentrate on your supposed area of expertise (economics) which was the main platform Cameron (and the other one... Clegg) were elected on, clearing up the Brown/Balls up.

But if it is drinking clubs you are concerned about, don't look to hard at medical students - but does that disqualify them fro treating alcohol related diseases?

Well we will always have a difference of opinions on Economics if you're getting info from George Osborne, an illiterate economics Chancellor and toeing the party line . Perhaps you're still smarting when Evan Davis hold 'no idea about economics' George Osborne on some simple economic figures.

I'm afraid you're a bit confused, it was the Banks around the world, including the UK, that screwed up and caused an economic mess around the world in 1997.

[Saracen]

Wrong, the Chairman of the BBC Trust can also be called the Chairman of the BBC according to its constitution. The reason why he is called Chairman of the BBC Trust is to make the distinction between the Trust and the Executive Board in terms of independence. However, the BBC Trust is the sovereign body of the BBC and can hold the Executive board to account.

The title of the Chairman of the BBC Trust as Chairman of the BBC is honorary. There is also a Chairman of the BBC Executive Board, not the same person as the Chairman of the BBC Trust, which is why I pointed out the difference, and the Chairman of the Exec Board is part of the executive, that does have daily management control, and ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions. Such ultimate control is clear, for example, in the process outlined, and in some cases mandated, by the guidelines, which stipulate which type of issue, such as concerns of editorial bias, od accuracy, go to which Director.

Again, the Trust DOES NOT have any control over day-to-day editorial decisions, or day-to-day management. It has oversight, it sets strategic goals (and that's "strategic" goals, not editorial decisions) and it holds the BBC executive to account.

[Saracen]

....

I'm afraid you're a bit confused, it was the Banks around the world, including the UK, that screwed up and caused an economic mess around the world in 1997.

Depends where you draw the starting line, and how wide you look. Arguably, it was politicians that relaxed banking regulation, like reducing and then effectively removing liquidity ratios, that allowed the huge over-leveraging of banks and left them vulnerable. That started in the Reagan/Thatcher era, and sure carried on under Blair/Brown, and Clinton. It was also, in no small part, attempts at social engineeering in the US with respect to allowing "poor" to get mortgages, with scant or naff-all attention paid to ability to pay back, especially if economic conditions took a downturn .... as any economist with an IQ over 3 will tell you WILL happen, sooner or later, to one degree or another. It's merely a question of when, over what, how badly, and how long for.

On the subject of a Chancellor's economic illiteracy, I would point out Gordon Brown's oft-repeated mantra about 'abolishing' boom and bust. If Osborne is economically illiterate, a subject on which the jury is still out, but current conditions suggest he was much more right than wrong, then at least he's got an illiteracy role-model (or two) to look up to, in Brown, and his mini-me (and advisor) Balls.

But there's plenty of blame to go round over the crash. Bear in mind the trigger for the crash .... US sub-prime mortgages. Without that regulatory change, the over-leveraging wouldn't have been possible, and nor would that social engineering. Without banker greed, not least in the City of London, we wouldn't have had the "complex" instruments, the hugely complicated array of "derivatives" that masked the sub-prime nightmare.

But also, without the dead hand of Brown on the tiller here, for instance in interest rates, we wouldn't have had the over-heated property market that left not only our banks, but our entire economy, hostage to fortune.

And frankly, without the mass buy-in by millions of people, all living life high on the hog by taking unsustainable levels of personal credit and debt, "paid for" by anticipated future equity gains on property, we wouldn't have had the over-extension of the banks. After all, they can only lend when there are people wanting to borrow, and ANYONE that borrowed to unsustainable levels faced with a downturn has a part to play in tbe blame for the crash.

Plenty of blame to go round. Who's to blame for millions of people buying into this economic golden age (in reality, a property and credit bubble) - the millions of ordinary, non-economist John and Jane Doe housebuyers, or the "iron" Chancellor preaching for years about abolishing boom and bust, or about a golden age of "unprecedented growth and stability"?

For my part, it's far more the economic illiterate that's supposed to know what he's talking about by virtue of, you know, being Chancellor an-all, than those members of the public stupid enough, or naive enough, or just trusting enough, to buy his political spin.

[peterb]

Well we will always have a difference of opinions on Economics if you're relying on info from Gordon Brown, an illiterate economics Chancellor permanently at odds with his leader.

I'd agree with the version I have corrected for you

you're still smarting when Evan Davis hold 'no idea about economics' George Osborne on some simple economic figures.

As I said earlier, I don't get upset by anything Evan "I like the sound of my own voice more than I like listening to the person I'm interviewing" Davis says - only the manner in which he says it, in particular his refusal to let the interviewee answer a question when he doesn't get the reply that fits in with his agenda - whatever it may be.

And if my criticism of Evan Davis is upsetting you, I don't much care for Jeremy Vine and his breathless sensationalist method of delivery either.

[Top_gun]

Depends where you draw the starting line, and how wide you look. Arguably, it was politicians that relaxed banking regulation, like reducing and then effectively removing liquidity ratios, that allowed the huge over-leveraging of banks and left them vulnerable. That started in the Reagan/Thatcher era, and sure carried on under Blair/Brown, and Clinton.

Agreement on this part.

It was also, in no small part, attempts at social engineeering in the US with respect to allowing "poor" to get mortgages, with scant or naff-all attention paid to ability to pay back, especially if economic conditions took a downturn .... as any economist with an IQ over 3 will tell you WILL happen, sooner or later, to one degree or another. It's merely a question of when, over what, how badly, and how long for.

There is nothing wrong with poor people getting mortgages. My parents were poor but they fully paid for their house. The problem over in the States was corporate greed from misselling of investment backed mortgages to unsuitable people and banks. The banks sold this on to other banks while at the same time leveraging risks and profits which in the end resulted in far bigger losses than writing off the poor people's mortgages. Those who foresaw the consequences of banks' behaviour were tarred as nutters or scare mongerers.

On the subject of a Chancellor's economic illiteracy, I would point out Gordon Brown's oft-repeated mantra about 'abolishing' boom and bust. If Osborne is economically illiterate, a subject on which the jury is still out, but current conditions suggest he was much more right than wrong, then at least he's got an illiteracy role-model (or two) to look up to, in Brown, and his mini-me (and advisor) Balls.

But there's plenty of blame to go round over the crash. Bear in mind the trigger for the crash .... US sub-prime mortgages. Without that regulatory change, the over-leveraging wouldn't have been possible, and nor would that social engineering. Without banker greed, not least in the City of London, we wouldn't have had the "complex" instruments, the hugely complicated array of "derivatives" that masked the sub-prime nightmare.

I don't doubt Gordon Brown's economic credentials and he was always internationally highly regarded. However, he made an assumption that the banks were in control of their financial interests and this was a fatal error considering how many banks' Chief Executives and Chairmen knew nothing about their own risk exposure. Blaming Gordon for the banks' mismanagement is naive. If the banks had behaved responsibly then there would not have been a bust at all. Quite a number of Tory supporters sits on the board of UK banks and what exactly did they do to prevent disaster? Sod all, they all wanted more deregulation.

But also, without the dead hand of Brown on the tiller here, for instance in interest rates, we wouldn't have had the over-heated property market that left not only our banks, but our entire economy, hostage to fortune.

And frankly, without the mass buy-in by millions of people, all living life high on the hog by taking unsustainable levels of personal credit and debt, "paid for" by anticipated future equity gains on property, we wouldn't have had the over-extension of the banks. After all, they can only lend when there are people wanting to borrow, and ANYONE that borrowed to unsustainable levels faced with a downturn has a part to play in tbe blame for the crash.

Plenty of blame to go round. Who's to blame for millions of people buying into this economic golden age (in reality, a property and credit bubble) - the millions of ordinary, non-economist John and Jane Doe housebuyers, or the "iron" Chancellor preaching for years about abolishing boom and bust, or about a golden age of "unprecedented growth and stability"?

For my part, it's far more the economic illiterate that's supposed to know what he's talking about by virtue of, you know, being Chancellor an-all, than those members of the public stupid enough, or naive enough, or just trusting enough, to buy his political spin.

Again more simplistic thinking on your part. What you fail to realise is that the housing market is very competitive due to lack of affordable homes and money coming in from overseas investors. Here in London, land banking is a significant issue where companies are not building houses despite receiving planning consent.

Frankly, your info is all about blaming the last administration and not actually thinking through the consequences of Neoliberalism.