BBC News online coverage of Election 2010

I am already bored to tears with the election coverage.

What was the point of wasting money on a helicopter shot of Gordon Brown's car travelling to St Pancras Station from Downing street. It told us nothing and was a huge waste of money.

Your coverage should not only be about personalities! Let us hear (condensed) policy statements.

Will the BBC publish a list of topics it will censor during the election.

Overkill or what? Plenty of overtime for the journos speculating wildly on which one of the two parties might win, and minutely dissecting every single utterance when we just know that neither of the contestants are going to do anything remotely exciting or newsworthy. It'll be like watching paint dry. The GE will be won, as it always is, in the 'key marginals'. The voting system in the UK ensures that next to nothing ever changes, and your one vote is worth less than the paper it's printed on in some areas. Mine for one. The same guy gets in year after year without even bothering to campaign. I wouldn't mind, but he died in 1974. And by the 6th May, you'll wish you had too!

You should do a non-election section as well to be fair

Why is there no swingometer for the other nations of the UK. Using your current swingometer, as it applies to Scottish constituencies, is a meaningless exercise. If you have as you do a scottish link on this website then why not link it to a specific Scottish swingometer. or is our multi-party politics just to complex for the 'BBC Boffins'

I would like to hear more about the smaller parties who just might be holding the balance of power in a Hung Parliament.

Will the BBC be including their policies, points of view etc?

I still do not understand why the BBC continues to promote the services of Twitter (a private company!) in this way. There is a "live" text service on the BBC Election 2010 website - why do the correspondents also need pages on Twitter?

Unfortunately we are going to have to put up with wall to wall coverage or more likely, switch off. The BBC will be concentrating on the three main political parties even though the public have lost confidence in our political masters. Why should a discredited political establishment be granted all the media publicity to propagate their lies and deceptions. Anyone with any sense may to vote for some local independent candidate untainted by political dogma. Saturation coverage therefore is a complete waste of time and money.

Maybe do a smaller parties section too

There should be a section on Page 700 on red butten

Perhaps you should rename the News section to Politics... as all we are going to hear from you for the next few weeks are the mouthings of politicians of various flavours.

Those of us who want to know what's going on in the real world had probably find another site.

We, the electorate, your licence payers, expect you to give us in depth coverage of the issues, the pledges and the promises. However, if your first 8 hours coverage is anything to go by, you'll be giving us soundbites, staged photocalls, and hourly quotes from Mandelweasel.

Please put the in-depth analysis before the frippery.

It's interesting that in your comparison of the main policy areas party by party you avoid the issues of the media, the law of libel and certain other key issues around press freedom/reform.

One can understand a certain amount of BBC angst - if the Tories get in, OFCOM will be castrated and Chairman Rupert will claim his pound of flesh. The BBC will be emasculated to boost his profits from Sky and News International. So how does the BBC maintain journalistic objectivity there?

There are those in both parties who would like to see an end to libel tourism (as sponsored by certain High Court judges) so that professional people with standing are able to publish without fear. And TV/radio producers should be able to make and broadcast their programmes without fear of 'super-injunctions' from expensive solicitors.

But the same politicians are paranoid that they might release a whole new flood of gutter journalism of which they might well be victims.

Interesting issues - how does the BBC tackle them?

Please please please can the BBC do something about the idiots trying to put poster boards and chant while they are interviewing guests by Westminster perhaps an alternative venue?. No matter what political affiliation you have, it is surely the right of every voter to hear what the guests have to say without interference from idiots trying to get noticed for things other than what the interviewees are being questioned on.

I hope you can encourage the editor of the BBC's main Election Night broadcast to post here, as I for one would like to hear what's in store for the show and ask questions about it.

Currently on BBC News homepage:

NEWSBEAT: What would a celebrity do if they were prime minister?

Yes yes, I know your election coverage goes deeper than this (and very good it looks too), but good lord... is this what they call "reaching out" and "connecting with" the younger generation?

We're dooooomed!

1. At 2:45pm on 06 Apr 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:
I am already bored to tears with the election coverage.

What was the point of wasting money on a helicopter shot of Gordon Brown's car travelling to St Pancras Station from Downing street. It told us nothing and was a huge waste of money.

Absolutely. Well, thankfully Brownie can't force us to watch TV. This morning...I don't know about wasting money on a helicopter but the whole palaver could have been got into 5 minutes. What a waste of transmission and electricity broadcasting the staff. I did my bit to save...turned the telly off.

Is it perhaps indicative that as the Great British Public have returned home and logged on to this website the most read stories list as at 19.00 fails to contain any election coverage..................???

I fear this will be the Apathy Election with turnouts below 60% being the norm.

All I ask of the BBC for the next 4 weeks on the election is for informed and IMPARTIAL coverage. Whether you believe it or not, there is a clear view amongst many 'ordinary' voters that the BBC has a clear left-bias agenda. This is the most important election for many years. With the level of distrust in Politicians at an all-time high, NOW is the time for the BBC to DEMOSTRATE to everyone that you really are IMPARTIAL and a "Public Service" broadcaster. If we can't get the clear, impartial facts from the BBC, then where can we get them!!

I agree 100% with some posters who crave more from the minor parties, those who cannot afford huge PR and media machines.

The major trio spend so much of our news time that I'm no longer engaged by them at all.

The last thing I want is day after day of Conservative/Lib dem/Labour. One cannot expect better than apathy if that's the fare on offer. We know they haven't much of a clue about what the public at large wants: their figures are seriously massaged or simply fantasy. They are unlikely to meet their deficit cut targets; unlikely to have any room for manoeuvre so they'll all be dishing up vacuous nonsense.

Can we please have less of the type of interview that took place between N.Kinnock & J Humphries today, when J.H. took on the role of the Tory central office. Now the election has started let us have less of the biased ego trips from the BBC presenters.More factual reporting & less personal opinions would be very welcome.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

#21. At 8:07pm on 06 Apr 2010, maxwell1929 wrote:

"Can we please have less of the type of interview that took place between N.Kinnock & J Humphries today, when J.H. took on the role of the Tory central office. Now the election has started let us have less of the biased ego trips from the BBC presenters.More factual reporting & less personal opinions would be very welcome."

Well I've just listened to that interview (having missed the original TX) and I would not call it biased, JH might well have been taking the Devils Advocate position but that is not the same as saying he was being bias and most certainly not standing in for the Tory Party central office, in fact you comments in trying to suggest that there was bias does more to show your own bias than anything else!

Hi, I'm Sgt Bob, So far, and only one day into date being reveiled for election, im so so bored with it, and heard Browns and Camerons opening statements, which i found was just a slagging match. I certainly wont be voting for Labour or the Torries. i would rather hear or see things about an alternative to polititions and politics, as its like a Whirlygig, it just goes round and round every five years or so, and we get no were. Time for a change of system altogether, and get rid of polititions altogether, and have ten main advisors, elected by the people, and one leader, elected by the people, who will rule for 40 years. Corruption will be made illegal for all depts, Councils, leaders. Any one caught, goes to jail, not get massive pay-offs and pensions then have cover-ups. the Capitalistic system is corrupt through and through.
And i dont mean to go into a Stalinistic system either, there are other alternatives to that. Definatly not the American or Chineese systems either, there so corrupt also. We would all benefit from a new begining, and i await that day, and pray someone in this election speaks of something totaly different for us, instead of this constant rubbish being spouted from polititions, and also the media. Lets see who in among the Media, is brave enoough to ask that question: Would you vote for a total new system?

I have to say it'll hardly be as much fun to watch the likes of Brown and Cameron as it was over the US election with characters like Palin and true oratory leadership by Obama. Still, looking forward to some impartial coverage by the BBC.

I agree with MacA (#19) - this is certainly one of the most important elections in the UK in recent times and hope the BBC fulfills the role of Public Broadcaster by not introducing bias with its coverage. As for Sgt Bob (#24) - agree with you wholeheartedly! It would be great if some of the smaller parties could get a bigger voice so at least the public knows what options are available if nothing more. Labour and the Tories certainly have the brand but severely lack the leadership to take the UK out of its current mess.

Olga Rikova

I suspect that journalists are not getting so hysterically excited by the election just that it gives them the chance to stuff more money into their pockets and that is what fills them with excitement.

The first point in your 10 point guide to the election says:
"Remember all those earnest articles in 2001 and 2005 telling you how vitally important it was that you paid attention and voted in that year's general election? Well, they exaggerated. But this time your vote really does matter. For the first time since 1997 there is a realistic prospect of a change of government. Your vote on 6 May could help set the course for Britain for decades to come." https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8571807.stm

Is it the BBCs job to encourage people to vote like this? Should impartial reporting also include the right to not vote in the election?

Day 2 and seems BBC is becoming MBC - Mandelscum Broadcasting Co - this unelected liar is everywhere and being given unparalleled coverage.

When do rules for equal coverage begin?

Can somebody please explain why the Scottish "Blether With Brian" blog has recently started being shut down for comments after a period of around 24 hours ?

Can somebody please explain why this policy does not appear to be being extended to any of the News or Politics blogs other than BwB ?

Does Steve or any other of the editors have any comment on this ? Do they feel that shutting down a forum for Scottish Political Issues is in concert with the stated intention of the BBC for Impartiality ?

Is this the much-vaunted Union Dividend - that we are "forced" to take our contributions to "United Kingdom" blogs ?

It is bad enough the way the BBC news broadcasts over emphasise the importance of an election by always making a lead item. Today for example political catcalling and bluster preceded the death of 2 fireman in the line of duty, wrong!.

But what is worse is the way you waste news broadcast time with material which is not news. If you want to broadcast somebody playing chess put in in its own program so I know that I can choose to miss it. Keep the scheduled news broadcasts fo news and put the drivel of interest to a minority elsewhere

And before you claim it is in the public interest it is not. The majority do not vote, of this that do vote many vote for one party irrespective of policy and the changing voters will mostly have made up their minds.

Has Gordon Brown been on a different planet for the last 13 years? He's running his campaign on honesty, telling the truth and promising the electorate a vote on electoral reform. Remember last manifesto promising a vote on EU constitution and the one before that promising a vote on the Euro? His promises are like pie crusts, easily broken.

And by the way, When questioning party leaders will the journalists please insist they answer the questions before they move onto the next one. They will soon realise that unless they give a direct answer they will not get their message across as less questions will be asked.

No problems with the coverage itself (so far) but please, please change the Election 2010 site. Having the main articles squashed to about 1/4 of the page width and sandwiched between two thick black lines is just horrible!

It makes the articles difficult to read and looks nasty.

Please change it asap!!

Today’s journalists may be the highest paid but not the smartest.
Some don’t seem to know Labour has been in power for 13yrs.

Jon Sopel in his lunchtime interviews on the economy and the competence of the relevant parties failed to mention that this Government was over £800 billion pound in debt.

Didn’t he know or perhaps chose to forget it.
Has he been a guest at No 10.

There are other things happening in the UK and around the world, please stop over reporting the election.

When there is something to say report it but for goodness sake don't drown us in non-stories.

Released without proper testing as usual for the BBC recently.
The Election Map has numerous errors. Clicking on Glasgow East points to Renfrewshire East and clicking on Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellhill points to Colchester! Typing in Colchester says "no results available".
All reported a day ago and still the same.
Oh, and another grumble is the reliance on Adobe's Flash. Impossible to use on most devices especially the iPhone and over some networks which prohibit Flash. The same goes for the "new and improved" weather site which is appalling (and also tied to Flash).

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

Dear Sirs

National Insurance Contributions Increase.

Could somebody please report the truth and expose the nonsense talked about this increase by taking note of the arithmetic in all this.

First of all NI is NOT A TAX but a form of insurance that contributes to our free health care, pensions etc. We are going to have to experience future increases in any case due to people living longer.

Secondly, the amount of increase is tiny and how it can be represented as a tax on jobs is beyond me. In the last tax year, my total of employee and employer contributions totalled about £5k on a salary of £26k. A 1% increase of NI would cost an additional £50 per year, either to me, my employer or a combination of both.

A company I was CEO of had 100 employees and a turnover of £6m pa. Taking the above average salary example, the increase would cost £5k pa if the company had to pay it all. This is equivalent to one fifth of an employee and with a nett profit of £450k, the effect would be a minute 1.1% decrease in profits.

Businessmen are always moaning about tax and NI whilst looking for more and more ingenious ways of avoiding tax and therefore not contributing to the good of the nation as a whole.

Politicians rely on people’s ignorance and anxieties to win votes and it’s the responsibility of an unbiased news channel to deal with facts not emotions

Anton Smith

Why is no one challenging those bosses and Tories who suggest that the NI rise in NI shouldn't happen. They want the deficit cut but not at the expense of their profit, its not about a tax on jobs. They have a choice - NI rise or deeper public service cuts. We know what the Tories and Bosses choose and we know who they think should pay yet again, Joe Public.

PS - I realise that my comment (no 37) uses figures based on an absolute increase of 1% on the NI paid. If the increase is at the rate of 1% on gross salary, then the increase per person would be £250pa. Totalled up this would mean an increase overall of £25K pa, or one person's salary and a reduction in Nett profit of just 5% - hardly resulting in a trip to the bankuptcy court

Anton Smith

I listened to the R4 i/v this morning with Brown and it was made crystal clear that the interview was intended to question Brown on his position not to allow him a platform to attack his opponents. This was clearly pointed out to Brown in what was an excellent interview.

However, on reading your web 2010 site I see the story has been twisted and the whole focus switched onto Brown's critique of the Tories with "Conservative economic policies are built on a "myth", Gordon Brown has told the BBC as he hits back at criticism of his tax plans."

This is a total distortion of the content of the interview which, for the first time on the BBC, really took time to expose Brown's role in the financial crisis and revealed the emptiness of his claim that it was all someone else's fault. RBS was the world's largest bank, the City one of the world's largest financial centres, Brown set up the regulators to run it, encouraged masssive personal debt and the housing boom to milk it for extra tax and the whole mess he created and ran collapsed miserably. Brown repeatedly refused to accept anything more than general responsibility for this and the interview brilliantly exposed this shameless evasion.

Your web story is a misrepresentation of the interview. The casual reader will miss what was so deftly exposed during this interview. It is this type of reporting which makes many readers, right or wrong, feel the BBC has an institutional left wing bias.

Why is it that every time I switch on the BBC News channel I am fed a party political broadcast by the Prime(?)Minister or other politician?? Is this why I pay my licence fee?? Coverage of the election is already boring and at time cras - the same lies, deceit, muddled figures and political dogma repeated ad nausea by all parties.
If it's a NEWS channel then give us some NEWS - see how it's spelt?? New - New - new - NEWS! Hearing about the '19080s' from the Luddites and the past 13 years of Labour from the Cons - that's HISTORY
You'r currently making me watch CNN.
Oh; and by the way I won't be wasting shoe leather on May 6th. but am doing everything in my powers to enable my grandson to emigrate.

John_from_Hendon How can the read condensed policy statements when the Conservatives won't say what their policy's are?

I'm the younger generation and I dont like Celebs

Re my post (#32). Thank you!!

Lets' get down to specifics in this election and away from ill-defined general policy pronouncements.
For example, let's get a discussion going about the value of free bus passes for the over 60's.

My view is that this is one of the best 'green' policies yet devised cutting pollution, reducing fuel consumption, reducing wear & tear on the roads. It also helps pensioners with transport costs, as interest from any savings has virtually disappeared over the past few years.

If the Tories get in, bus passes are for the chop. If you are 60 or over don't fall for this hidden axe!

Are MPs involved in this election? Or is it only for the party leaders and their wives? Even the election material shoved through my door is produced by the central offices of the major parties. Obviously the reporters will stick to the leaders - they will be staying in the best hotels I suppose. But it would be nice to see coverage of local candidates. I have no idea who is standing in my constituency, and cannot be bothered to check it on the internet. It would be ingteresting to meet a real live candidate.

#46. At 10:03am on 09 Apr 2010, Davidethics wrote:

"I have no idea who is standing in my constituency, and cannot be bothered to check it on the internet. It would be ingteresting to meet a real live candidate."

But would you realise that s/he was a candidate, such is your apparent disinterest? How difficult is it to check who are local candidates (once the deadline for nominations close). Unfortunately I fear that we are well and truly into the 'play-station' era, of anything that is not served, pluf'n'play like, on a platter just being ignored or forgotten about, then the same self people will be the ones who complain the loudest that politics is irrelevant to them...

Your current lead story (1pm Friday 9th April) says, "The Tories outline for the first time how public spending could be cut by £12bn - using the savings to curb plans to raise National Insurance" but search through all the rest of your election coverage as I may, no further details are to be found.

Could you tell me if your report is the sum total of what the Conservatives said, or if you have omitted to give a full report on what they are proposing?

I dont see why it needs to be clamped as it is

Is there anyone working for the BBC who can get Gordon Brown to actually answer a question. You all allow him to go off at a tangent & spill his pre rehearsed statement regardless of the question.I have given up watching anything on BBC which involves Gordon Brown.

#51. At 8:18pm on 09 Apr 2010, Davesaid wrote:

"Is there anyone working for the BBC who can get Gordon Brown to actually answer a question."

Unless you are suggesting the use of torture, no I suspect not, no one cane make someone say something they do not want to do - of course has it not occurred to you that just perhaps he has answered the question, it's just that the answer is not the answer you wanted to hear.

Oh and before anyone suggests bias, I don't see/hear any political leader/candidate doing anything different, they all have a tenancy to prefer giving their pre rehearsed statements regardless of the questions...

Why do you give such prominence to the Conservatives marriage tax proposal as the main item on news 24 on saturday 10 April. I think that the liberal democrats comments on the tax issue would have been a main item. I feel you are biased against the liberal democrats and labour in so many ways.

Perhaps the BBC can tell us in advance to what extent you will be promoting Labour while bashing the Tories - just so we know in advance what to expect.

# 53. At 08:40am on 10 Apr 2010, ray philpott wrote:

"Why do you give such prominence to the Conservatives marriage tax proposal as the main item on news 24 on saturday 10 April. I think that the liberal democrats comments on the tax issue would have been a main item. I feel you are biased against the liberal democrats and labour in so many ways."

# 54. At 09:06am on 10 Apr 2010, TrueToo wrote:

"Perhaps the BBC can tell us in advance to what extent you will be promoting Labour while bashing the Tories - just so we know in advance what to expect."

The BBC are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't, as I've said many times before, bias is - like beauty - in the eyes of the beholder.

Such diverse and opposing comments would be funny if the implications were not so serious...

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

55. Boilerplated,

I don't know what ray philpott is on about in comment 53, but anyone who doubts the BBC's bias in favour of Labour must have been asleep for decades. With the election this close, though, the BBC will be obliged to at least pretend to be impartial. I'm wondering if they will be able to pull it off.

Anyone wanting evidence of the BBC's pro-Labour bias should have a look at Jane Garvey's blunder a few years back on Radio 5 Live in a discussion with Peter Allen on Labour's victory in the 1977 election. I think the clip has gone the way of all recordings but here's the transcript:

"Ah, well - I had been up for most of the night but I was doing this Five Live breakfast programme with our colleague at the time - it was a bloke called Peter Allen so - I had to get a bit of sleep, and I do remember I walked back into - we were broadcasting then from Broadcasting House in the centre of London - all very upmarket in those days - and the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles - I will always remember that (Allen laughs) - er - not that the BBC were celebrating in any way shape or form (Allen, laughing - "no, no, no, not at all") - and actually - I think it's fair to say that in the intervening years the BBC, if it was ever in love with Labour has probably fallen out of love with Labour, or learned to fall back in, or basically just learned to be in the middle somewhere which is how it should be - um - but there was always this suggestion that the BBC was full of pinkos who couldn't wait for Labour to get back into power - that may have been the case, who knows? but as I say I think there have been a few problems along the way - wish I hadn't started this now..."

Note how she sees her gaffe and tries to do some damage control, but then realises it's hopeless and gives up.

#57. At 12:59pm on 10 Apr 2010, TrueToo wrote:

"55. Boilerplated,

I don't know what ray philpott is on about in comment 53, but anyone who doubts the BBC's bias in favour of Labour must have been asleep for decades."

Sigh, as I said, bias is in the eye of the beholder...

"With the election this close, though, the BBC will be obliged to at least pretend to be impartial. I'm wondering if they will be able to pull it off."

If you really do think that there has been party political bias, make a formal complaint, but of course people like you (those who make such comments about such bias) never seem to actually ever 'put-up'.

Oh, and before you ask/suggest, yes I would say the same had your complaint been about supposed support for the Tories or any other political party and no I'm not connected with the BBC in anyway.

"Anyone wanting evidence of the BBC's pro-Labour bias should have a look at Jane Garvey's blunder a few years back on Radio 5 Live in a discussion with Peter Allen on Labour's victory in the 1977 election. ../cut for brevity/.."

Err, there was no (general) election in 1977, sorry but if you can't get the basic facts correct how can anyone believe that you are either selectively quoting at best and miss quoting at worst. Anyway, even if your 'quoted' transcript is correct I don't see proof of party political bias in their reporting, yes perhaps some - who ever, what ever their grade or position - celebrated after the event...

58. Boilerplated,

The Internet is bursting at the seams with the weight of evidence of the pro-Labour and general pro-left bias of the BBC. Yes I made a typo - obviously it's the 1997 election I was referring to - but last time I looked a typo was not evidence of ignorance. The Garvey gaffe is well-known, though obviously not to you, and having heard the recording of the original clip myself I know that the transcript is accurate.

Believe, if you insist on it, that only "some" BBC staff celebrated Labour's victory even though in Jane Garvey's own words, "The corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with champagne bottles." And believe, as well, that BBC staff are capable of shelving their bias in their reporting on Labour. In other words, keep your blinkers on and stay stuck in your denial of the obvious.

Anyone else who wants to have a look at the BBC's Labour-supporting, liberal-left bias with an open mind, check out this ex-BBC man:

The General Election of 1992 put things into sharp focus. The BBC had privately rejoiced at the downfall of Thatcher in 1990 and there was widespread expectation of a Labour victory.

But that optimism was misplaced. Neil Kinnock failed to convince the voters.

On Election night, the atmosphere in the newsroom was one of palpable deflation. A young female producer was in tears.

https://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385944-what-is-the-loneliest-job-in-britain-being-a-tory-at-the-bbc.do

And this one:

It [media liberalism] was (and is) essentially, though not exclusively, a graduate phenomenon. From time to time it finds an issue that strikes a chord with the broad mass of the nation, but in most respects it is wildly unrepresentative of national opinion. When the Queen Mother died the media liberal press dismissed it as an event of no particular importance, and were mortified to see the vast crowds lining the route for her funeral, and the great flood of national emotion that it released.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557389/Here-is-the-news-as-we-want-to-report-it.html

59. At 3:29pm on 10 Apr 2010, TrueToo wrote:

../cut biased rant/..

Thanks for proving my point, quoting from the Telegraph group and the Daily/Sunday Mail group, both newspaper groups being well known for both their pro-Tory and anti BBC stances... As I said, bias is in the eyes of the beholder/believer...

If you still insist that the BBC is/has been biased, that is, has been found guilty of such bias, you will have no problem in citing both the formal complaint and investigation (results).

What you seem to be forgetting in your wish to have a biased 'rant' of your own is that during an election period the BBC (and other broadcasters, unlike the printed press and internet) has a legal duty to be both balanced and impartial, if they are not, there are legal sanctions that could be applied.

Of course, there doesn't seem to be many (if any) such formal complaints, probably because the political parties know that there is nothing more than political posturing behind the suggestions of such bias.

60. Boilerplated,

What a poor response. And how transparent, fooling nobody. Instead of dealing with the evidence provided, you attack the messengers in the hope that it might disguise your inability to debate the issue.

Yes, I know the BBC is obliged to report on this election impartially, i.e. make a strenuous effort to shelve its bias for a month. As I indicated, I don't think it can do it. Re complaining to the BBC Trust, if you'd ever tried it, you'd be less optimistic about it.

Now do check that your blinkers are firmly in place. You wouldn't want them to slip.

forget about bias iam a paraniod celtic fan let's talk about policies and the far right wing tory party and it's honophphobic stance! where is chris grayling anyway must be in a B&B ?

#61. At 5:33pm on 10 Apr 2010, TrueToo wrote:

"Instead of dealing with the evidence provided, you attack the messengers in the hope that it might disguise your inability to debate the issue."

Then you will have no problem in citing the formal complaints made and the result of the subsequent investigation...

On the evidence of the first week of election coverage , I'm afraid MacA's hope ( in comment 19 ) that the BBC would be impartial was sadly misplaced .Every Tory policy has been denigrated whilst New Labour and the Lib-Dems have been given an easy ride. The BBC really is the T.V. version of the Guardian . P.S. I am not a member of the Conservative party .

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

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

OH MY GOD - a BBC blog that has not been closed down - it must be England.

There are now no open political BBC blogs in Scotland - they have all been closed down.

Why is that you may ask?

Well it is due to the close links that BBC Scotland have with the Scottish Labour party, and the recent scandals concerning Labour politicians, i.e., Purcellgate, Twittergate and Gangstergate.

These gates are remarkable in the way that BBC Scotland have NOT reported them and how they have tried to kill the stories.

This has resulted in a growing controversy on how BBC Scotland are reporting the election north of the border.

1. There have been allegations of a pro Labour bias.

2. There have been allegations of online censoring of comments critical of Labour.

3. There have been allegations of attempts to close down news stories critical of the Labour party.

4. There have been instances where BBC blogs have been closed down in response to critical newspaper stories of the Labour party deliberating preventing online discussions.

5. There have been allegations that certain BBC Scotland reporters are acting in an outwardly partisan way by the friendly manner in which Labour politicians are being interviewed.

Any attempt to raise an official complaint with BBC Scotland has resulted in ......... SILENCE.

BBC Scotland are effectively gagging all criticisms of how this election is being reported north of the border. If that were to happen in England there would be outrage.

..... but this is Scotland.

Re comments @ #67:

Looking at the evidence (obviously there is no way I nor anyone else outside of the BBC knows what was contained in comments moderated out) there seem to be plenty of on-topic comments in the "Blether with Brian" blogs, could the problem be that that the BBC is not censoring comments critical of Labour but how people are expressing their criticism - the BBC can't just publish and be dammed, the BBC is legally accountable for what it published, it will be the BBC who gets hauled before the law courts not the commentator. On the other hand if people are trying to post "criticisms of how this election is being reported north of the border" in a blog that is not discussing such moderation/editorial policy is it any wonder that such off-topic comments get blocked at source or removed due to referral?...

In case some have not seen this blog, posted on the day the election was called;
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/04/moderation_during_the_election.html

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

I'm in England and I think Scotland should have blogs

#70. At 8:21pm on 12 Apr 2010, Hyperstar wrote:

"I'm in England and I think Scotland should have blogs"

They do, they have extra blogs on top of those aimed at the UK as a whole, a more pertinent question is why England doesn't have a blog aimed at just the English at times of elections...

#71 Boilerplated

And you are seeking evidence of BBC bias..... It travels in many different formats.

The conservative want the people to be part of their proposed government. However they will veto local government. The conservatives only believe in democracy as long as it is their version of democracy.

Cameron believes in the green issues - however he rides his bike while his official car drives behind.

Hypocrisy is the base of this superficial party. Vote for them at your peril.

#72. At 07:45am on 13 Apr 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:

"And you are seeking evidence of BBC bias..... It travels in many different formats."

Err, I see no bias, that is, political bias, regional bias perhaps - think about it...

I was very glad that the BBC News decided to use a brass band to indicate they were in the North of England this morning, how else would people know where they were. I suppose we will have pearly kings and queens dancing in London or perhaps yokels with smock coats, straw hats and pieces of straw sticking out of their mouths to indicate the South West...

#74 Boilerplated

"I see no bias"

So not having a specific English web page when you have one for the other three members of the Union is not indicative of preference, another word for bias?

I now understand your problem. Have you discussed this with your optician?

#76. At 11:34am on 13 Apr 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:

"I now understand your problem. Have you discussed this with your optician?"

That is more than rich coming from someone who obviously can't read more than four words, your selective quoting does your rant not good what so ever, this is what I actually said;

"Err, I see no bias, that is, political bias, regional bias perhaps - think about it..."

Are you really stating that you can't grasp the difference between political bias and geographical bias?...

#77

Four words?

Nice to know your arithmetic matches your eyesight.

78. At 12:39pm on 13 Apr 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:

"Nice to know your arithmetic matches your eyesight."

Stop talking about yourself all the time!

As I said, are you really stating that you can't grasp the difference between political bias and geographical bias?...

#79

Your wit is on the same poor level as your arithmetic, your eyesight, and your comprehension, Boilerplated, and since you are such a troubled person I'll offer you some help.

I never mentioned what kind of bias, period, simply pointing out that the BBC does indeed demonstrate bias as you yourself indicated. You began with "Err, I see no bias" only to contradict yourself in the same sentence. As to how you presuppose to have in-house knowledge why the BBC demonstrate bias, as they do in many things, is down to you and your conscience. There are, of course, plenty of childish people who just do not want to say they were wrong. You like picking others off, but are not quite so fond of being picked off yourself.

Maybe I was wrong to think you may have something useful to say, and if that is the case, I am sorry to have engaged you in conversation.

80. At 3:29pm on 13 Apr 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:

"I never mentioned what kind of bias, period,

So you admit to being both a troll and off topic then! In the context of the blogs subject you are 'debating' "BBC News online coverage of Election 2010" (as per the blogs title)...

Jeremy Paxman was very very weak in his questioning of the Conservative this evening.
There has been a lot of rant about the BBC being bias towards the Labour party. How very wrong those comments have been.
The conservative was pathetic and Paxman failed to highlight that weakness.
As a none labour supporter I am very disappointed in the BBC and in particular of Paxman in his lack of in depth questioning.

82. At 11:02pm on 13 Apr 2010, Gareth wrote:

"The conservative was pathetic and Paxman failed to highlight that weakness."

Err, so how come you managed to come to that conclusion then, he couldn't have failed totally then?! Duh...

Three ways that BBC political coverage perpetuates economic myths:
1. You always fail to challenge the government's myth that the recession is 'global' - in fact, 3 of the world's 5 main banks have their head offices in the UK; the problems fanned out from here (and the USA) - so we weren't merely 'victims' of something 'out there'.
2. You always fail to challenge the government's myth that 'nobody could have seen this crisis coming'. In fact, the Spanish government banned their banks from dealing in collateralised assets in 2004, enabling a toxin-free Santander to buy up half our UK banks for a snip. Why didn't self-styled economic guru Gordon Brown have that foresight?
3. You always fail to question the government's myth that there are 'less people unemployed now than in 1995'. In fact, most of today's unemployed are hidden away on obscure training programmes or are simply termed 'students'. Today, over a fifth of working-age people don't actually work or pay tax - a vastly bigger figure than 1n 1995.

In short, your journalists need to gen up! Challenging these myths is a vital part of our democracy, otherwise the government looks like it has a better record than it really has. But will you print this comment or simply 'pre-moderate' it because it's not too flattering?

The Nelsons and the Wengers of this place may wish to read this.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/04/radio_1_and_the_general_electi.html

You know who you are.

Could the BBC manage to do live broadcasts at Westminster without Banner Waivers and people shouting over the interviewer? If not - use a studio!

Would someone at the BBC like to give figures for the 'viewing' hours that have been made available so far to a) Brown, b) Cameron and c) Clegg on its websites (and TV channels)?? People are'watching' so you will be found out in the end.
In the meantime the DG might care to pull a dictionary off the bookshelf and look up 'impartial', 'equal', 'balanced' etc. etc.

I was looking at your election coverage and links to party websites, and was wondering why there is no mention of the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition?

dear writer,
I am regular writer and watcher of your TV channels.
But,till today, i have not come crossed any very lively debates on forthcoming British elections.
Honestly saying, British newspapers had given much coverages of the main three political parties manifesto and leaders speeches, interviews etc., in wider perspective.i also wrote lot of comments on these three major parties to many world well known news channels, networks, all my comments were published.today, also, my comment on liberal parties views,projections etc,were published in Guardian.UK. and in some other networks.
Your videos and some speeches by Liberal party leader,his supporters in prominent locations are quite interesting.
Hope to get more lively updates on this crucial election at British soil in forthcoming days.
With best wishes.,

How frustrating to see the BBC News at 12.00 today. Four reports from four airports to say that the airports are closed. What wasted effort : complete overkill. Then a vulcanoligist explaining volcaoes. Meanwhile the vital and crucial question not even considered or asked. The question that needs to be asked is:
'How long might the cloud of volcanic dust continue to hang over Britain?' Surely it matters whether airports are closed for one day or one month!???

You have to laugh. I see Dumbleby is 'moderator'for the BBC covered debate - Why?. Another reason for not watching. At least with the debate 'rules' (read 'restrictions') the leaders hopefully are n't going to get his opinionated interuptions every five seconds that spoil every edition of Question Time I watch.

Dumbleby isn't anchoring another election night is he. It's like watching grass grow in a pitch black night time thunderstorm with ocassional flashes of dim lightening.

Re comments 91 & 92:

Your abusing miss spelling says far more about yourselves that it does anyone else, also you obviously can read as this is not a blog about the BBC's election night television coverage of the election, it's about how the BBC website will be covering the election.

Anyway, if you want whiz, bang hype rather than calm considered reporting of the results then might I suggest that you watch either ITV or Sky, were you will surely feel more at home, it's bad enough that the BBC carries on with an obviously hyperventilated Mr Vine and his CGI on election nights, Bob Mackenzie must be spinning in his grave at how his swing-ometer has been adulterated in the hyperbolic nonsense it is now...

Where can I find information on Local Elections? There appears to be nothing on this site regarding those.

I want to be able to use the BBC site t o find my candidates and check previous election results, as I do at every local election.

I have never known the BBC coverage of a general election campaign to be so one sided. The lack of objectivity is extraordinary and I am amazed that this has not been picked up by political commentators and the politicians (unless I have missed it).
Not only does Nick Robinson make no secret of his own political views, but the whole BBC news coverage is clearly geared towards a Tory victory. I hope that when the election is over there will be a full investigation of the BBC's news coverage, backed by academic research setting out chapter and verse.
(For instance, tonight's 5.50 pm BBC TV news made no mention of the Ministerial meeting called by Mr Brown to discuss the airline/volcanic ash story. It was left to Channel 4 news 40 minutes later to cover the story in full and to give the Prime Minister the coverage he deserved. Either the BBC was unaware of the No. 10 meeting, which I cannot imagine was the case, or it deliberately chose to ignore the meeting, which proves my point).

95. At 7:06pm on 18 Apr 2010, NCA wrote:

"I have never known the BBC coverage of a general election campaign to be so one sided. The lack of objectivity is extraordinary and I am amazed that this has not been picked up by political commentators and the politicians (unless I have missed it).
Not only does Nick Robinson make no secret of his own political views, but the whole BBC news coverage is clearly geared towards a Tory victory."

Funny that, read other comments both here or in the other blog cited and many Tory supporters are complaining about the exact opposite! Bias is, like beauty, always in the eye of the beholder...

"Either the BBC was unaware of the No. 10 meeting, which I cannot imagine was the case, or it deliberately chose to ignore the meeting, which proves my point)."

Or aware that a meeting was occurring but there being nothing to report, "PM holding meeting at No.10" is hardly news, if the BBC had reported just that people like you would have been making similar complaints about the lack of detailed reporting!

By definition such news is fast moving, thus a news programme going off air at - for example - 6pm might not be able to broadcast a news story (or even a breaking news headline) that a news programme going on air at 6pm might have as a lead story and perhaps even the leading 'breaking news' headline.

Re 93 Whilst I concede that my comment wasn't about the BBC website per se I feel it is quite acceptable to comment on other peoples remarks as you have you have done to mine. As for spelling mistakes and grammatcal errors some of us are not as infallible as others - particularly at 09:00 on a Sunday morning. As for Dimbleby my opinion of him is all the equal of yours of Vine.

If the BBC doesn't think that 'PM holds emergency meeting at No. 10 on the airline grounding story', when that is THE big story of the moment and thousands of Britons around the world are stranded, then it has lost its news sense. The very fact that a meeting is being held IS news. I repeat, you either didn't know the meeting had been called, in which case your political staff weren't on the ball (unlikely,or your editor felt it was not worthy as a news item, which is blatant nonsense. Therefore, the only other reason is that it was omitted for political purposes. And why would that be?

#98. At 10:17pm on 18 Apr 2010, NCA wrote:

"If the BBC doesn't think that 'PM holds emergency meeting at No. 10 on the airline grounding story', when that is THE big story of the moment and thousands of Britons around the world are stranded, then it has lost its news sense. The very fact that a meeting is being held IS news."

It was reported Friday that HMG were 'holding meetings', that in its self is NOT news (government are always holding meetings and HMG has been having meetings regarding the travel problems since Thursday), what they discuss is, and as I said, if the BBC had just reported the mere fact that there was a meeting but reported no facts (about the meeting) then people like you would be slagging off the BBC about not having any details - with people like you the BBC are dammed is they do and dammed if they don't...

"Therefore, the only other reason is that it was omitted for political purposes. And why would that be?"

If it was for 'political' reasons then perhaps it was to be politically neutral, on the other hand, just why you seem to want what was (in the end) a rather insignificant meeting - basically agreeing to have a COBRA meeting this morning - headlined as some sort of "Gordon Brown rides to the rescues of Brits stuck abroad" sort of lead report suggests that you are the one who is actually seeking to gain political advantage out of the situation...

Steve,

Please will you bring yourself, the BBC, to break the deadlock that does not permit discussion of the National Debt.

I have a shop and I meet lots of people everyday. They all think that things are dandy because we are on course to half the deficit in four years. We have even made it law in the Fiscal Responsibility Bill with one labour MP in attendance.

The BBC has a duty to inform the public that halving the annual deficit in four years does also mean that we will double the National Debt in five years.

You have to get through to the public that it is more than trillions and sillians but an inexorable rise in the cost of servicing our debt that will excede the cost of the NHS in five years time.

I cannot tell everyone. I and many others pay you £179 per year to inform the public. You are failing. We are sleep-walking into an 80 year mortgage.

About three years ago BBC 24 News repeated again and again one Sunday night that their big story was exclusive pictures of a prince leaving a London nightclub with his girlfriend and getting into a taxi. You have to change your game.