[iup=3572312]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:[iup=3572146]Karl[/iup] wrote:I thought that Nick Robinson interview gaffe was a poor showing, but on the whole I felt they were the same centrist fence-sitters they always are. Am I wrong? I didn't watch the coverage as religiously as some here, no doubt!
I can't even find an abstract for his first paper, which is mildly annoying.
To his first points; it's unsurprising that the bbc would take issue with something that claims they aren't impartial.
After that he seems on a minor power trip where he believes his report to be worthy of mass coverage in the mainstream media, presumably over the tens - if not hundreds - of other academic articles written on every possible facet of the independence debate.
It makes sense for the ratio of news stories that have 'anti-Yes' statements to be greater than 'anti-no' ones, simply because the newsworthiness of the stories tended to come from the fact X big business or highly respected economist was saying Y about independence (and Y was generally negative towards yes, for various reasons that don't need to be touched upon here). As he says, a 3:2 ratio is actually surprisingly high; especially considering the number of negative stories that came out about the yes campaign were of a much greater magnitude than the no campaign.
As regards to sequencing, anyone will know you lead with the biggest, most important nugget of information in your opening line. Someone from the yes camp saying everything will be fine with, say, tax revenue, then moving onto Paul Krugman saying that actually his new report found it wouldn't be, makes absolutely no sense. That
would be a biased way of reporting the news.
The fact bad news has an effect on viewers is nothing to do with the BBC. Their duty is to report the news, which by its very nature is often negative. The repetition as well is a moot point, because all positive Yes aspects will also be repeated. So as long as balanced in one piece is achieved it doesn't matter how many times in a day it's shown.
That covers it up to about 5:30. It is an intriguing video, though, would be interested to hear your thoughts on my rebuttals.