“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
When I saw their reasoning in a response to TuS friend AR, I immediately thought of Humpty Dumpty in the above quote from Alice in Wonderland.
Here’s their excuse with my post which had inspired the complaint, below:
No direct evidence of hospital infection link, says medical chief
As you point out, we quote Professor Leanord in the article as saying there is “no evidence of direct transmission” between the hospital environment and patients. We believe it was accurate to have summarised that in the way we have in the first paragraph and headline of the story. However, we have updated the headline to remove the quotation marks to avoid the impression that “no direct evidence” was a direct quote, rather than summing up his opinion.
We do not believe that our reporting of Professor Leanord’s evidence was misleading and would reject the suggestion that there was any bias in our coverage
Here’s what I had posted on October 12, the day of the BBC Scotland broadcast:
On 9th October, BBC Scotland’s Lisa Summers wrote:
‘No direct evidence‘ of hospital infection link, says medical chief. A senior medical director has told an inquiry there is no direct evidence that unusual infections in child cancer patients were linked to a Glasgow hospital building. Professor Alastair Leanord, the chief of medicine for diagnostics at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, was the lead infection control doctor in 2019.
He did not say ‘no direct evidence‘. He said:
I wouldn’t say there was nothing going on… all I’m saying is the data shows there is no evidence of direct transmission between the environment and the patient.
This is quite different. He’s saying unambiguously that there is no, no evidence at all of direct transmission between the environment [including water supply] and the patient. Summers, moved the word ‘direct’ to qualify the confident ‘no evidence’ assertion and make it more open to question, contrary to his finding. This is utterly dishonest and agenda-driven, fake news.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
bbc verify haha
LikeLike
They behave as a spoiled child would do when they are caught out. “If I remove the quotation marks all is ok”, so what are you complaining about?
Liars start to finish, nothing more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thats the thing when you expose liars , they respond with more lies , a corporation like BBC can lie whenever it wants to , knowing that it can in desperation issue fake news and more lies as their excuse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I commented previously that the behaviour patterns of the unionist media, politiciacians, cheerleaders is classic narcissist. We either have a selection process which predicates that the ‘ right ‘ sort exhibit narcissistic behaviours or alternatively that the whole propaganda program is choreographed by a narcissist.
I personally favour the first option.
Golfnut.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“no evidence of direct transmission” – states the expert witness.
“no direct evidence of hospital infection link” – states the BBC Scotland journalist’s alleged summing up of the expert witness’ opinion.
Was there ‘direct transmission’ or not? The expert witness says there is no evidence of direct transmission. As stated, this could not be clearer!
There is a HUGE difference between an expert witness stating ‘NO EVIDENCE of direct transmission’ and a BBC Scotland journalist reporting this witness statement as ‘NO DIRECT evidence’.
So did the expert witness provide indirect evidence of direct transmission? Did BBC Scotland report such indirect evidence? If not, why not? And if not, why this phrasing by the BBC journalist? Was BBC Scotland simply seeking to lodge in the mind of its audience/readers that there was some indirect evidence? Surely the reason here could not be that ‘no evidence of direct transmission’ is counter to a long running, ‘fruitful’ BBC Scotland agenda?
This response from the BBC to the complaint is a disgrace: it shows the depths to which BBC Scotland’s journalism will descend – and with BBC corporate support!
The proposition that all is made good by removing quotation marks beggars belief – it is the clear misrepresentation by the BBC Scotland journalist of documented source material that is at issue. Was it unintended or wilful?
And how many who read the initial article will read it again and notice the removal of quotation marks and the significance of this? None? And even with their removal, the misrepresentation stands – BBC Scotland will still not report what the expert witness actually stated: ‘no evidence of direct transmission’!
More power to the TuS elbow!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
‘We do not believe that our reporting of Professor Leanord’s evidence was misleading’
Eh….. we do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mostly, we are all wise to the BBC and their continual twisting of edidence. Thing is, to get your information from various sources to understand exactly what is going on. It then becomes apparent.
LikeLike
O/T apologies
MSM Monitor Tweet today:
“The big interview on The Sunday Show is apparently Kemi Badenoch. It’s Budget week. Where’s Sarwar? What’s his view on the extension of the tax threshold freeze or the Nat Insurance hike? What’s his definition of a worker? What about the analysis by the House of Commons library showing Scotland’s share of Westminster spending has fallen since 2016”?
Kemi Badenoch ?
Really ?
BBC Scotland “The Sunday Show” chooses her to be their big political interview, that is one of the candidates in the UK Tory leadership contest, so that is being given a prominent part in a supposed, but clearly not, ‘Scottish’ politics programme. (but from a UK perspective obviously).
On the very same week that Labour UK deliver their budget to the UK (that includes BTW Scotland).
Martin Geisler’s Twitter account publicises this interview with Badenoch and his discussion with her on Tory struggles, devolution and the Union.
Who cares what she has to say on any of this or indeed who , via a majority, in Scotland even cares or wants to give any time in thinking about the “Tory struggles” as they have reaped what they have sown , due to them being terrible as various UK governments since 2010.
Also I think that if she, Badenoch, won the Tory leadership then things , for the Tories, would only get far far worse. (as it would for the public too if the Tories got back in again at the next UK GE).
Mind you the other candidate is Robert Jenrick so it is very much, as a choice, a Hobsons choice as to who the Tory members have as options in then selecting one out of these two as their new leader , as one is as bad as the other.
Then of course also on this BBC ‘Scottish’ Politics programme is Lorna Slater of the Green party, who is now saying (again) that they are willing to help bring down the Scottish government in not voting for their budget .
So obvious then why she, Ms Slater, has been invited onto this BBC #SNPBAD programme is it not ?
(Where BTW , “Scottish Greens warn SNP not to take budget support for granted” is the second top story on the BBC website of their Scottish page- it was, this morning, the top story- but has now been replaced by Ian Murray stating that the “Budget to bring ‘era of growth’ for Scotland”)
Ha Ha so Keir Starmer has been predicting doom and gloom via this budget for the UK but now Ian Murray expects us in Scotland to believe that this UK budget for Scotland means “growth” ? .
(Where the BBC are once again only too happy to make that , as in Ian Murray’s false declaration, their top story on their Scotland pages of their website as they, the BBC in Scotland, are always open to promoting Labour’s propaganda here).
Then of course as MSM Monitor states where is Anas Sarwar, in what is a crucial week for Labour UK and the whole UK.
Is he, Sarwar, not Labour UK’s man in Scotland ?
I mean his , Sarwar’s, input on behalf of Labour UK in the recent GE campaign in Scotland was that of someone who the BBC considered then as someone needing a prominent position and also needing and getting excessive exposure on their news programmes, debate shows and also on their BBC website Scottish pages.
All positive publicity (campaigning) by the BBC on behalf of Sarwar’s Labour party during the GE campaign BTW.
Yet now in Labour’s Budget week, which is truly a significant budget and one well publicised, well the BBC here via this supposed ‘Scottish’ politics programme does not consider it important enough to try and get his, Sarwar’s, opinion on it or on other recent statements from Labour UK.
So they , the BBC, are once again protecting him from being attacked and blamed as in the false messaging in the Labour slogans he used in the recent GE campaign where he declared UK Labour would be a UK government for “Change” and a “Fresh start”.
Now he Sarwar , as per, goes into hiding when the going gets tough for Labour and the BBC “allow” him to do so while the opposite is the case for the SNP leader as in the FM. (#Doorstepping)
The BBC in Scotland doing all of the heavy lifting in the media Pro UK propaganda for both the UK as a state and also for all of those political parties who support it.
What other country in the world would allow a media within it’s country to act against it’s best interests as a country and do so on behalf of another country ?
Who indeed ?
BTW just checked and the Green party story is now the sixth story on the BBC website (at 10.02am) but the Ian Murray story is (Jackanory story that is) still the top story on the BBC website Scottish pages- of course it is).
LikeLike
O/T apologies
The UK government are advertising for a “Director of Great British Energy” with applications to be submitted by 11 November 2024.
Role to be based in Aberdeen but with “some travel to other GBE Hub locations around the UK will be required depending on business activities”
(I assume this is being advertised ‘UK wide’ as a job, but as a job , where the HQ of this new GB Energy ‘company’ is based in Scotland, the top job, as in the Director’s role, will not necessarily be one that is either taken by or given to a Scotsman or woman via the UK government).
The section describing “Great British Energy” states that it “will be a publicly owned, operationally independent energy company, designed to drive clean energy
deployment, boost energy independence, create jobs and ensure UK taxpayers, billpayers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, homegrown energy. Setting up Great British Energy is one of government’s first steps for change and we will do this in a way that means it will have both an early impact and long-term success”.
(So not providing actual energy as some have suggested, also not saying lowering energy bills just them saying UK billpayers will “reap the benefits” so assumed lower bills but not directly declared as such. I love the addition of it being “homegrown” but not specific in where most of it will be sourced from within the UK , as a resource. Then of course the obligatory slogan “change” added as part of the Labour spiel).
The section explaining the role states “The Director of Great British Energy Local will be a pivotal member of the Great British Energy leadership team. Responsible for shaping and delivering the organisation’s local delivery function to enable delivery of Great British Energy’s mission. The successful candidate will have experience of and be credible with the community energy sector, Local Authorities and Mayoral Combined Authorities. The role also requires someone who understands grants, debt and equity in this space. Equally important is an understanding of what it takes to make projects works on the ground, including developing a successful business case, community and supply chain engagement”
(“local delivery” and “Mayoral” well local to where ? And who within the UK has Mayors and who does not ? And developing a “business case” is , I assume, required for all of the private investment needed for Labour project).
Some of the key responsibilities for this role includes ” include regional hubs to operate close to customers and build good local knowledge” and “Develop a pipeline of credible local power projects in partnership mayoral combined authorities”.
(Once again “Mayoral” -England have “Metro” Mayors not Scotland- and applying a reference in what they refer to as “regional hubs” , which as a description, is what they often refer to Scotland being, as in not a country but a region of the UK).
Some of the essential criteria in the personal spec for this job states it requires “Strong understanding of UK government policy processes, with good political acumen, and parliamentary engagement” and “Passionate about the Company and its policy objectives to deliver clean energy, drive economic growth, create UK jobs and supply chains and provide value for the UK taxpayer”.
“UK jobs” ? But where are the majority of these jobs going to be within the UK ?
Then also stating to ” “provide value for the UK taxpayer” where the Scottish taxpayers also pays into this.
However the Scottish taxpayers country supplies the majority of resources for green energy to the rest of the UK but fails to see the same or equal benefits as say England will, in that we Scotland are now transmitting electricity to areas in England via what has been called a “Superhighway”).
All aboard yet another UK government project that delivers more for others within the UK than it will ever deliver for us in Scotland.
The new Labour UK government are merely the Déjà vu of the previous Tory government that governed before them.
As in no change but the same old same old as before.
LikeLike