I read this apologia proving I am ready to see the other side. I’m not anonymous and, in this tweet anyway, not abusive. So that’s 3 of your complaints about your critics disposed of.
Your Linked in piece is flawed in these respects:
1 it deals with none of the blatant ..
Your Linked in piece is flawed in these respects:
1 it deals with none of the blatant ..
.. instances of pro-Tory bias in detail. In fact, it refers to none of them at all.
2 it employs the straw man argument that, for your critics to be right, thousands of BBC staff would have to conspire together to an improbable degree
3 it implies that criticism from ...
2 it employs the straw man argument that, for your critics to be right, thousands of BBC staff would have to conspire together to an improbable degree
3 it implies that criticism from ...
.. both right & left somehow proves your impartiality
4 it smears your critics as anonymous, spiteful cranks.
5 finally, its full of trite & patronising averments implying the absence of any case to answer.
From relentless pro-Brexit vox pop to near-criminality (Kuenssberg ..
4 it smears your critics as anonymous, spiteful cranks.
5 finally, its full of trite & patronising averments implying the absence of any case to answer.
From relentless pro-Brexit vox pop to near-criminality (Kuenssberg ..
.. & the postal vote) to subtle & very dirty little tricks which cannot possibly have been accidental the evidence is clear & all tending in the same direction.
Which leaves me wondering whether you really believe what you are saying, in which case the operation is either ..
Which leaves me wondering whether you really believe what you are saying, in which case the operation is either ..
.. too subtle for you to understand or you are so right wing that you locate the mid-point of the political spectrum way off centre.
