Discussion
Bloomberg news story:
Headline: U.K. Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Fall Most in Eight Months (3)
March 16 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. unemployment claims unexpectedly fell in February by the most in eight months, adding to signs that the economy may be recovering from the impact of the winter freeze.
BBC new story:
Headline: UK unemployment total hits 17-year high
UK unemployment rose by 27,000 in the three months to the end of January to 2.53 million, the highest since 1994.
Then in the text:
However, the ONS figures also showed that the number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance fell by 10,200 in February to 1.45 million.
Focussing on the positive or the negative, you decide...
???
Sidicks
Headline: U.K. Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Fall Most in Eight Months (3)
March 16 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. unemployment claims unexpectedly fell in February by the most in eight months, adding to signs that the economy may be recovering from the impact of the winter freeze.
BBC new story:
Headline: UK unemployment total hits 17-year high
UK unemployment rose by 27,000 in the three months to the end of January to 2.53 million, the highest since 1994.
Then in the text:
However, the ONS figures also showed that the number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance fell by 10,200 in February to 1.45 million.
Focussing on the positive or the negative, you decide...
???
Sidicks
Telegraph:
"Unemployment surges to 17-year high
Unemployment has reached a 17-year high of more than 2.5m and youth joblessness is at record levels, official statistics showed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8385124/Un...
Daily Mail:
"Youth unemployment highest since records began as total without jobs jumps to 2.53m"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366713/Th...
"Unemployment surges to 17-year high
Unemployment has reached a 17-year high of more than 2.5m and youth joblessness is at record levels, official statistics showed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8385124/Un...
Daily Mail:
"Youth unemployment highest since records began as total without jobs jumps to 2.53m"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366713/Th...
Caulkhead said:
I can't imagine why BBC journalists, who are public sector employees paid vast salaries funded by taxing the man in the street, would be against a government making huge public sector sending cuts. . . . . . .
Because they are journalists... The idea is to give information as to what is going on, not portray who they are annoyed with.Telegraph said:
There were almost half a million job vacancies in the three months to February,
Correction: there were almost half a million job vacancies advertised at the job centre in the three months to February. The majority of job vacancies are advertised elsewhere. You won't find work in a shop, bank, bar, or cinema at the job centre, for example. It's all cleaning jobs, care workers and call centres. But there are well over one million jobs out there if you look hard enough.Brighton Derly said:
Correction: there were almost half a million job vacancies advertised at the job centre in the three months to February. The majority of job vacancies are advertised elsewhere. You won't find work in a shop, bank, bar, or cinema at the job centre, for example. It's all cleaning jobs, care workers and call centres. But there are well over one million jobs out there if you look hard enough.
If you have no job, then a cleaning job, care worker, etc, will have to do. Here's the item. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12757675
Not starting with the main total unemployment figure would be unusual.
As it is, it goes....
parar 1, total;
para 2, total as a %;
para 3 claimant no/s down;
para 4 another record high 16 - 24; etc.
So the biased BBC has hidden the positive news in para 3, is that what you were saying?
I suppose you may have a point, but only for those whose attention span is less than six lines.
Not starting with the main total unemployment figure would be unusual.
As it is, it goes....
parar 1, total;
para 2, total as a %;
para 3 claimant no/s down;
para 4 another record high 16 - 24; etc.
So the biased BBC has hidden the positive news in para 3, is that what you were saying?
I suppose you may have a point, but only for those whose attention span is less than six lines.
Sticks. said:
Here's the item. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12757675
Not starting with the main total unemployment figure would be unusual.
As it is, it goes....
parar 1, total;
para 2, total as a %;
para 3 claimant no/s down;
para 4 another record high 16 - 24; etc.
So the biased BBC has hidden the positive news in para 3, is that what you were saying?
I suppose you may have a point, but only for those whose attention span is less than six lines.
Is the headline positive or negative?Not starting with the main total unemployment figure would be unusual.
As it is, it goes....
parar 1, total;
para 2, total as a %;
para 3 claimant no/s down;
para 4 another record high 16 - 24; etc.
So the biased BBC has hidden the positive news in para 3, is that what you were saying?
I suppose you may have a point, but only for those whose attention span is less than six lines.
sharpfocus said:
I don't mind the bias, it's paying for it that really gets on my tits.
QuiteI can understnad the bias, because I can understand how institutionally left they (probably more so than the labour party). So 'nasty party' get in, talks about cuts, privatisation and job losses, feel threatened and so rebound - with bias.
For the record I see it most on the news, I find it hard to find bias in other areas, WotU has been unbiased so far as was the previous WotSS, Top Gear is about as anti bbc as a bbc program can be etc etc.
The best thing to be honest, is to be thankful that you are aware of it. That way you can also look elsewhere for news too and take an average that's what I do. The BBC play on their reputation and fluffy bunny "Aunti Beeb - oh look how vital to world peace the World Service is" viewpoint and blatently abuse the position. We know from the Legtard debacle that complaining is futile so in my view the only thing to do is carry on or try to raise awareness.
Sorry there isn't an easy answer
sidicks said:
Is the headline positive or negative?
Highest unemployment since 96? Trying to ignore that in favour of a positive headline out of that would appear to be showing bias. The record high unemployment rate for 16-24 year olds of 18% would've been an easy headline but only makes it to para 6.Any article will start with the number of unemployed (it is reporting the latest unemployment figures, after all), and the %, by which means we measure/compare it. So the positive news comes immediately after that.
I thought about how I would re-write this piece in a logical and unbiased way. If you can, then feel free.
Btw, the 'claimant count' was a measure introduced by the last Labour govt which some thought, including me, a means of making the unemployment situation look better than it would otherwise have done.
If the BBC had led with claimant figures as headline 2 years ago, would that have been biased?
If the BBC had led with claimant figures as headline 2 years ago, would that have been biased?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff