well said Emily To put into context, The BBC is currently headed by a former Conservative councillor, regulated by a Conservative Peer, chaired by a Conservative Party donor, and whose CEO is the partner of the Conservative Director of Communications. Robbie Gibb was in charge of the BBC Political output during the time of Referendum and is well known as a hard Brexiteer. He is one of the people who was involved in the set up of GB News. The BBC goes well out of its way to avoid any mentions of Brexit as being a contributing factor to the issues we are experiencing.
@@sayitaintso2900 this still doesn't really answer the question of why the BBC board is stuffed with people that are stuck in a revolving door between the media and the government. If it was a genuinely impartial public broadcaster, politicians and media executives would be two completely separate groups of people. It's almost irrelevant which party they came from when both parties agree on many of the big ideas, e.g. Neoliberalism. The idea that "both parties are represented on the board, so it's ok" is a bit naïve.
@@banksarenotyourfriends But that is not really what bothers Emily. If the issue you mentioned bothered her, what did she do about it while she was working at the BBC? Nothing I suspect. But she has a hissy fit because of one Tory aligned board member.
@@sayitaintso2900 oh sorry, I'm with you now. I think her hissy fit is more over the power that that particular board member wielded, but I agree with you, it does sort of seem like a 'Nuremberg defence' from her at this point. A person with more spine wouldn't have taken part and complained about it afterwards, they'd have refused to take part in the first place.
Assuming democracy, in the UK, and those in the rest of the developed world, actually survives the coming months/years, this speech will become a historic reference for journalists for decades, possibly centuries. Let's hope those present, and their companies, begin to push-back on the populist movement's, exposing their lies and strategies. The thought of replacing Johnson with Truss or Sunak is, frankly, terrifying. Not because they are _worse_ (they aren't) but because they would just be a continuation of the downward spiral the country has been on since Cameron took "control". More than ever we need the journalists to take back control of the news from the politicians.
Cameron is to blame for an awful lot is what's wrong in this country He gave the brexit vote to appease his own party and definitely not the court of the country. People did not understand what they were voting for. Now we're all gonna suffer the consequence.
@@csharpe5787 Nobody knew what joining the EEC was about due to the media being in the back pocket of the Government at the time. It was the first time I saw people being shouted over who were talking the truth.
From the USA I didn't understand why the Brits wanted to get out of the EU, I thought it was just an economic forum. Getting out of the insane asylum of the EU was the best thing for Britain but Boris was just clowning around instead of making new economic contacts around the world. What a lost chance now everything is going downhill globally.
@@sayitaintso2900 Sure, but please extend that courtesy to all others who are concerned with the trajectory of our country. You will be driving day and night for a long, long time my friend. It's heartwarming to know that people who's idea of "solving problems" and "improving society" is strictly limited to "taking the critics to the airport" are very, very few and far between. It must be very sad and lonely where you are, with you mates Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin.
Thank goodness someone in the media has spoken up. Boiling the frog is right. This talk is so refreshing in its clarity of where our media have moved to and the lack of trust it has provoked.
LOL! Well done as a mouthpiece and stenographer for the elites in control of society trying to cancel any debate and discussion about their wrongdoings. She says populists want power as if that is a bad thing when she is defending power.
First point that someone from BBC (being ex gives her freedom) speaks up. But lets not forget that lots of these "journalist" were attending parties of their Tory friends, not as journalist but as the guests. They cosy up to the politicians and then are surprised when they are being asked not to run the story. So the questions is why did you wait so long? Why others are still waiting? So far I could only seen C4 guys standing up and being critical, and they paid the price by not being often invited to do the interviews. I'm sorry to say, but people like her are part of the problem - sort yourselves out !
I recall the continual delay in calling Trump out as the racist that he clearly was from the off, because clearly he was box office and good for business. That is the other elephant in the room that Emily and other now hand wringing conveniently avoid admitting
It's ridiculous to say she's part of the problem she is most definitely not. I agree that channel 4 are brilliant at news it's Disgraceful that they are going to be sold off as a consequence.
I've just watched the Corbyn part of the lecture and couldn't believe my ears when Maitlis spoke about the misunderstanding over the Corbyn/Kremlin graphic as if that was the only time the BBC could have been possibly showing anti-Corbyn bias. Whether the graphic was bias or not I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Maitlis but she cannot possibly believe that the BBC didn't have an anti-Corbyn bias across its news coverage. The anti-Semitism row was not fairly covered and was used to smear Corbyn constantly. The Panarama 'expose' was written and presented by a Corbyn hating hack and the content was not thoroughly investigated or questioned before it was broadcast. Kuensberg, who was the top policital correspondent at the BBC, was also a Corbyn hater and made sure that any coverage she did of Corbyn always showed him in a bad light even if the news item was a positive one in his favour. Yes, I am a Corbyn supporter but I was (and still am) not an uncritical Corbyn supporter. I found many criticisms of his leadership but the BBC's uncritical and unquestioning coverage of the anti-Semitism row and the almost non-existent coverage of the Labour leaks report regarding the sabotage with Labour HQ during Corbyn's leadership and cost Labour the 2017 General Election clearly prove the anti-Corbyn bias at the BBC. The only reference Maitlis made was of the one time the BBC might actually be off the hook regarding biased reporting on Corbyn. If Maitlis really wants the media (and the BBC in particular) to learn the lessons of the past she should at the very least be honest about the past she wants to learn from.
I'm not a Corbyn supporter, but even I had the media anti-Jeremy bias come to mind before Emily even mentioned him. Emily in her demeanour has seldom hidden her feelings whilst presenting at the BBC, so I did find that her (admittedly insightful and entertaining) comments, particularly about guarding against "same sidedness", had a slightly sinister echo to them.
They absolutely discredited Corbyn at every turn, they’ve promulgated transgender ideology to our children on CBBC and they allowed “NO DEBATE” about trans ideology so we now have rapists in womens prisons, drag queen story hour and males running rape crisis centres. They are unwatchable because their agenda is so obvious!
All journalist need to get out of their liberal elite bubbles and start thinking and speaking for themselves instead of toeing the globalist line and they should also have the backbone and the integrity to resign from their cushy positions when they are "editorially guided" into deceiving the people. Where were the MSM journalists asking tough questions or questioning the science during the pandemic?
@@Strange_Club "liberal elite bubbles" - really? You display the same lack of respect for journalists as Trump does. " cushy positions" - you think all journalists have a " cushy position"? Get real man! No, the true villains in this show are the editors and owners of media. Sure journalists need to get better, they aren't bad because they have "cushy" positions - why do Americans ALWAYS think KONEY, MONEY, MONEY? - they're bad because they have been lulled into a fake state of equality, where all opinions and views are seen as equal - which they are not. They have been to some extent fooled into a position where they think that reporting on both sides of the story is more important than reporting on the actual facts. Say again that the idiots on Fox news or any other idiotic fake news right wing garbage media outlet, live in a "liberal elite bubble", and I'll strike you down verbally again you ignoramus.
@@jesmarina I will gladly take a IQ test with you or any of the other brainwashed pea brained NPCs leaving ridiculous comments on here any day. You have absolutely no conception of what truth is and as for altruism, it is not altruistic to promote lies and a totalitarian agenda. There is also such a thing as pathological altruism, quite a good article on Wikipedia about it. The problem with you, Maitliss and our current 'elite' is an all consuming vanity, narcissism and snobbery. The funny thing is that the people you look down on with contempt are actually your moral and intellectual superiors, though many have been shut out of jobs in the media due to cronyism and quotas.
This is such an important speech that hopefully reverberates down the corridors of the BBC - likely won’t as they’re too scared of being told they’re left wing or “woke” by people who’s opinions mean nothing.
@@Strange_Club I think Nixon called them the silent majority, ma and pa moron that are easily manipulated by populist rhetoric, people that don’t bother to educate themselves of facts are indeed and should always be irrelevant to state broadcasting but unfortunately as with everything it’s a race to the bottom. If you think that’s fascist it’s probably cos your too stupid to know your left to your right
Thank you to Emily Maitlis for your insight and honesty. Thank you for opening up and clarifying why it is that I have felt so uneasy watching the news for all of the period that you mention. Trump and Brexit are mentioned - but there are so many other areas of life that have been neutralised by the forces she describes. The main one is the Climate Crisis which is being dealt with as if is were just some blip. I look forward to your work from this point forward and I hope the BBC and others hear and recognise what you have spoken about and make changes to the way they respond to these pressures.
Exactly what Suella Braverman has just done, pivoting from right to left, arguing for removal of the 2 child benefit cap. She's a dangerous populist. Excellent lecture. These tropes and tactics need to be taught to Journalists and to become common online parlance.
I find it strange Emily doesn't acknowledge natural political biases journalists have and their need to be granted access to those in power. Laura Kuenssberg has famously given a softball interview to Boris, but was always hostile towards Corbyn. As for the Newsnight graphic of Corbyn appearing more 'Russian', this needs to be viewed in the context of the obvious vilification he'd endured up to that point. If you're continually treated with hostility, is it any surprise your supporters will respond with hostility?
Corbyn definitely had a Russian bias and he was definitely very bad for the country. He is responsible for Boris Johnson being in power. The Labour Party lost to mean intelligent MP in the f up.
Brilliant and somehow it gives us hope. I imagine presenters of the Today programme for instance might feel empowered to be more critical especially of tropes!
@@andrewdavy9921 yes minorities whether ethnic or gender or sexual orientation are still part of the marginalised even if they happen to be successful! Nice way to out your bias!
Are we to believe that the BBC did not show negative bias when reporting on Jeremy Corbin (I'm not a supporter of any faction of the Labour Party) I'm a Scots Nat and to say the BBC coverage of the independence election was not negative is a clear attempt to rewrite history. The BBC clearly picks sides.
Agree with her overall message but the attacks by her and others in the BBC on Corbyn was conveniently omitted. Also coverage of Palestinian by BBC is pathetic
I would have more respect for Emily if she had said something earlier. I Once left a very good job and made it clear that I left because my HR director had done something illegal. It is not brave after the event to tell the truth
Better late than never. The issue is not so much the degree of respect, or lack thereof, for this or any other journalist. The issue is that the substance of this message has been neglected - or more likely repressed - by very powerful people, to the detriment of both our own nation and the world as a whole.
Well Done Emily. It takes Courage to tell the Truth in Britain. We all knew what was happening within the Media World, but it's still nice to hear it Publicly. Thank You.
Really looking forward to the next chapter in Maitlis' career. This was an honest, sober reflection by someone who has been in the room where it happened. She has witnessed fundamental changes, and she could well be an agent for change. Let's see...
Corbyn criticised the little hats, doing that gets you cancelled. He wouldn't have silently gone along with the Zionist Kalergi Plan currently underway.
Brilliant , spot on. I travel the world and the lack of trust in state run media is happening all over the world at the same time. This is the Tump , Boris , Bosilero effect.
wrong This is the realization that media don't tell truths they twist them for agendas and we don't like being lied to has nothing to do with political leaders
Part 1: Comment up to 25:00mins. What has happened to self reflection and institutional Critique? What has happened then, to checking legitimacy. It seems that they already know what jure means, who has it and where it is to be found. So for them then there are only really two questions and they are questions of facts and causes not questions of justification. So they know what the whole "ought to" look like, and it is only a matter of finding the most efficient psychological and institutional causal techniques for the population to meet that telos. But "they" are not a homogeneous group, there are many different eventing sites that can achieve this and some dispute on the end, but both these only reflect a multi-positionality and some internecine rivalry over who and what gets the highest status. They are in a kind of competition over who and detail but under a generally agreed set of principles. So their's is a complex world, understood in terms of situation and event in complex socio-psychological causation. It is thus a generally agreed settlement in right equality utility and science. This is their world and so journalism is a major player here understood as a scientific causal field of "communication semantics and pragmatics" to be worked on the population as teche. Journalism then is not understood as a mere "passive" critical collection and representation of facts and possible policy consequences for helping the public to critique political discourse and make up their minds on issues. It is not then, a mere mediation in the political cosmology it is, along with a nexus of many other people and institutions both foreign and domestic, a player with an agenda. The ontology of the person and the social here is a mythical scientific metaphysics of right and utility causation in the skin of persons in the skeleton of rules. in a way the purpose is the attempt to actualise the possibility of this ontology and metaphysics. To make their rights science image of man into a reality by Deleuzian frog warming. In post-postmodern middle class Marxism the future is certain its the past that is uncertain. its post-postmodernism because the first phase of Critique and crashing the existing traditions of the past 1930s-1960s, 1970-1990s, they think has mostly been achieved, they have taken over much of these institutions. The current idolatry of right and science has its roots the 2006 Goldsmiths Conference on "Speculative Realism/Reason": they Critiqued the then existing science and right of the powerful, pre 1990 period, then when in those institutions had to re-establish science and right as absolute norms. most people didn't notice this shift as the theories are extremely difficult to understand and critique even for someone very familiar with philosophy. Not least because they do research that mixes up disciplines to make it very hard to critique.
I'd love to hear another journalist giving a lecture in 2022 in our wonderful democracy.. JULIAN ASSANGE... Whatever happened to him ?? Oh I forgot he's rotting away in Belmarsh..
It's good that she is saying this, but, it seems to me that she is looking to excuse her behaviour and the behaviour of the BBC. It's populism's fault not bad journalism. And Laura Kuenssberg???? Don't get me started..
What we have all slept-walked into is a situation where you can all post your one-liners here, and anyone who dissects her argument finds themselves shadow-banned by RUclips for ThoughtCrime. Enjoy your 1984!
At 55'32'', Emily is saying she is "not in any way suggesting such [a big event] might happen in America" (an event that upends democracy).... Until such an event did then in fact happen: on 1 July 2024 the USA Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that USA Presidents had immunity from criminal prosecution for acts conducted under their core consitituional authority as president and "presumptive immunity" for all official acts. The Supreme Court rules that the President >is
So, so necessary. Emily call them out, all of them and please continue to do so….. share, share and share guys or they, yes they, will gaslight you all
I remember well not too long ago when Emily Maitlis interviewed SNP leader Ian Blackford on Newsnight & she sat there holding official figures as to how the SNP were miserably failing the people of Scotland on so many levels, school exam results, drug deaths, NHS Scotland response times, etc etc & each time she confronted Blackford with the figures concerned, he just sat there completely unflustered & repeatedly said with a smug supercilious grin '' I'll think you find the reality is quite different Emily'' as she let him completely uninterrupted dispute all the facts she held.
Pure whataboutism mate. You do know that it is possible for a person to be right on one thing and not on another and two separate events to be judged on their merit?
I am surprised it's taken so long for some jounalists to realise they have a responsibility to speak their minds or resign otherwise what is their raison d'etre . I suspect the good salaries and busy social life probably dulls the intellectual and investigative blade .
@@dgbucko all them it's simple you have 2 choices you either go to your desk and learn something for the first time, culminating in going above the level of a reporter, and thence being able to independently understand an event, or you continue to live the life of a degenerate (like a reporter), understanding nothing
@@jamesburke2094you’re the exact type of gullible mug that populists like Boris Johnson target. No facts & no critical thinking of your own. You just get fed an opinion and spit it back out like you’re smarter than anyone else.
This whole speech is a catalog of Emily’s staggering and continued failure to understand political change. She’s a school monitor for the status quo, but thinks she’s Erin Brockovich.
If the curved screen thing was true, let's say it is for argument's sake, (I don't buy it, but let's say it's true for argument's sake), they would have seen it and yet they still put it out. Let me tell you also, I have a curved screen and this is bollocks.
The Truth is always biased. Therefore trying to avoid the truth, or evade the embarassment the truth causes to those culpable - is a critical failure of journalism.
We are fighting a war: Against higher energy prices Against Putin Against Emily Maitlis Which soldier would you follow over the top? Wimpy, scared looking Keir Starmer? Ha..No! Give me Boris, Jimmy Cleverly & Mark Francois any day. They look mean,tough & able to do real damage!👊
I am an ex-Infantry soldier and I would willingly follow Maitlis into battle. And the person in my sights would be Johnson - a man that could not lead himself let alone the country. I despise that coward with every fibre of my body.
@@badgertheskinnycow yup - more still, could Boris (Lebedev's party in the Italian villa; suppressed report into Russian interference etc) and Trump (several instances of undermining US intelligence vs Putin) actually be with the enemy on the other side of the lines? I'm with Maitlis. Let's have truly independent journalists give us some actual truth, and drain this swamp of lies and fake news
Blocking more dimwit liars from the wave of new BBC recruits is not something the FT is going accurately report. This is merely one long view on the views of accomplices on the inclusion of opinions in your reporting (i.e. defying the definition of your role).
@@dgbucko When you have been ideologically primed to prescibe to a leftist/ identity politics/critical race theory narrative which requires being told what to think as opposed to thinking for one's self
@@mikipiediaelburro7588 That's your position though, which is a bit weired, but you are entitled to it. I asked what does woke mean? I will help you, it means to be aware or to be awake to stuff, such as injustices, racism, etc. It's actually a possitve thing... same as liberal means to be free thinking and open to new ideas. conservatives meanwhile wish things to be as they were, no change, no forward thinking. You do know the most Conservative countries in the world are N Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran... you would fit right in mate.
Emily Maitlis is pissed... she was riding a wave of adulation after 'that interview' and suddenly, she's deemed unprofessional and her career is in jeopardy. This is her response... to dig and claw her way out of it. She's not the smartest, most diplomatic person in the 'show business' of modern news presenters. But she was on 'three hundred and twenty five thousand' a year at the BBC. So perhaps she's right to be so 'royally' pissed off. She's part of the affluent bourgeoisie that's been brought up to feel they're always right, and everyone else... is always wrong. She's worked in/for a particular circle of people that are disgusted with the uneducated, and their political choices. This 'lecture' is just a propaganda fluff piece, a showreel to court new offers... as she knows 'times are hard' ...and right now, she needs a proper six digit job... and fast. It's disheartening that people on both sides of the political spectrum say that the BBC is biased. It's too 'woke', too lefty for some... or it's only catering to the conservatives and big business for others. We live at a time when every major media outlet is openly biased. To the point that it's impossible to find any 'news' that's impartial at all. Every single media outlet caters to a specific audience... feeding them, exactly what they tuned in for. That's why the BBC is so hated. It doesn't tell them 'those that already have an extreme bias' - exactly what they want to hear. So they get pissed off with it. Then leave for the other outlets, that will tell what they want to hear. It's a no-win situation for an organisation that's really trying to be impartial. In a world that hates impartiality.
@@jesmarina Whether you're on left or right... is the ultimate gauge as to the verity of her statements in this video. Her career at the BBC ended because she brazenly crossed a line... she thought she was more important than 'the stated impartiality' of the current affairs news program she was hosting. She spent some time in the US and wanted to be some sort of Brian Stelter figurehead. Now she wants to be seen as a powerful future network anchor or important ambassador for the liberal cause by making a video lecture like this one. Vanity is her cause, pride at being hurt by the BBC is the flavour of her revenge. Her pay-packet is in the region of four-to-five hundred thousand - minimum. The world needs less Maitlis, less spreading of hate for the other political side... to which she has no answer.
@@commonwunder the most important message she tells is ignored by you. That message is journalists should not be made mouth dead by a reigning party in the country they're working in. That is a sign democracy detoriates in fascist mode.
@@commonwunder mate, you're coming off as disingenuous yourself. you imply that you sit outside of the left/right shitshow and are thus politically impartial yourself. even if that is true, and what you're saying comes from an unbiased place in that respect, you *really* seem to dislike maitlis specifically, which is essentially irrelevant to the discussion. i'm all for open debate but i fear it's a waste of time to engage with posts like yours. i'd like to bear that in mind more in the future
@@pukeyourguts You and I, and probably Maitlis too... live in a world where the top ten richest people in the world 'doubled their money' during the Covid pandemic period. Maitlis and her peers 'fight the little fight' ...knocking over little people and feeling great about it. She's not a journalist... hers is a pretence at keeping order. Snitching on those that 'most obviously' are caught for not playing the game properly. So others know to keep inline. It's about virtue signalling and control. There is no left-right divide - that is an illusion for people that prefer their politics tied up into cliques and gangs. Where petty tribalism is used blatantly as a diversion to divert the easily distracted. . I don't dislike Ms.Maitlis specifically - just the idea that she's on some sort of higher ground. That people like her are fighting for us. That the left are the goods guys and that life is really that simple.
Emily Maitlis speech start at 10:01
well said Emily To put into context, The BBC is currently headed by a former Conservative councillor, regulated by a Conservative Peer, chaired by a Conservative Party donor, and whose CEO is the partner of the Conservative Director of Communications. Robbie Gibb was in charge of the BBC Political output during the time of Referendum and is well known as a hard Brexiteer. He is one of the people who was involved in the set up of GB News. The BBC goes well out of its way to avoid any mentions of Brexit as being a contributing factor to the issues we are experiencing.
I've quoted your reply on Facebook
He is one person on a board. And he is outnumbered by Labour advisors, donors,etc.
@@sayitaintso2900 this still doesn't really answer the question of why the BBC board is stuffed with people that are stuck in a revolving door between the media and the government. If it was a genuinely impartial public broadcaster, politicians and media executives would be two completely separate groups of people. It's almost irrelevant which party they came from when both parties agree on many of the big ideas, e.g. Neoliberalism.
The idea that "both parties are represented on the board, so it's ok" is a bit naïve.
@@banksarenotyourfriends But that is not really what bothers Emily. If the issue you mentioned bothered her, what did she do about it while she was working at the BBC? Nothing I suspect. But she has a hissy fit because of one Tory aligned board member.
@@sayitaintso2900 oh sorry, I'm with you now. I think her hissy fit is more over the power that that particular board member wielded, but I agree with you, it does sort of seem like a 'Nuremberg defence' from her at this point. A person with more spine wouldn't have taken part and complained about it afterwards, they'd have refused to take part in the first place.
Assuming democracy, in the UK, and those in the rest of the developed world, actually survives the coming months/years, this speech will become a historic reference for journalists for decades, possibly centuries. Let's hope those present, and their companies, begin to push-back on the populist movement's, exposing their lies and strategies. The thought of replacing Johnson with Truss or Sunak is, frankly, terrifying. Not because they are _worse_ (they aren't) but because they would just be a continuation of the downward spiral the country has been on since Cameron took "control". More than ever we need the journalists to take back control of the news from the politicians.
Cameron is to blame for an awful lot is what's wrong in this country He gave the brexit vote to appease his own party and definitely not the court of the country. People did not understand what they were voting for. Now we're all gonna suffer the consequence.
@@csharpe5787 Nobody knew what joining the EEC was about due to the media being in the back pocket of the Government at the time. It was the first time I saw people being shouted over who were talking the truth.
If you are so terrified, can I drive you to the airport?
From the USA I didn't understand why the Brits wanted to get out of the EU, I thought it was just an economic forum. Getting out of the insane asylum of the EU was the best thing for Britain but Boris was just clowning around instead of making new economic contacts around the world. What a lost chance now everything is going downhill globally.
@@sayitaintso2900 Sure, but please extend that courtesy to all others who are concerned with the trajectory of our country. You will be driving day and night for a long, long time my friend.
It's heartwarming to know that people who's idea of "solving problems" and "improving society" is strictly limited to "taking the critics to the airport" are very, very few and far between. It must be very sad and lonely where you are, with you mates Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin.
Thank goodness someone in the media has spoken up. Boiling the frog is right. This talk is so refreshing in its clarity of where our media have moved to and the lack of trust it has provoked.
Yes - so brave - she waited a very long time to speak up....
Beautifully written, cogently argued and well delivered! Well done, Emily Maitlis!
I agree. I love this. But I still cringe at "Jonald J Trump". Wish she'd taken a second to correct the tongue-typo
LOL! Well done as a mouthpiece and stenographer for the elites in control of society trying to cancel any debate and discussion about their wrongdoings. She says populists want power as if that is a bad thing when she is defending power.
First point that someone from BBC (being ex gives her freedom) speaks up. But lets not forget that lots of these "journalist" were attending parties of their Tory friends, not as journalist but as the guests. They cosy up to the politicians and then are surprised when they are being asked not to run the story. So the questions is why did you wait so long? Why others are still waiting? So far I could only seen C4 guys standing up and being critical, and they paid the price by not being often invited to do the interviews.
I'm sorry to say, but people like her are part of the problem - sort yourselves out !
I recall the continual delay in calling Trump out as the racist that he clearly was from the off, because clearly he was box office and good for business. That is the other elephant in the room that Emily and other now hand wringing conveniently avoid admitting
It's ridiculous to say she's part of the problem she is most definitely not. I agree that channel 4 are brilliant at news it's Disgraceful that they are going to be sold off as a consequence.
I've just watched the Corbyn part of the lecture and couldn't believe my ears when Maitlis spoke about the misunderstanding over the Corbyn/Kremlin graphic as if that was the only time the BBC could have been possibly showing anti-Corbyn bias. Whether the graphic was bias or not I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Maitlis but she cannot possibly believe that the BBC didn't have an anti-Corbyn bias across its news coverage. The anti-Semitism row was not fairly covered and was used to smear Corbyn constantly. The Panarama 'expose' was written and presented by a Corbyn hating hack and the content was not thoroughly investigated or questioned before it was broadcast. Kuensberg, who was the top policital correspondent at the BBC, was also a Corbyn hater and made sure that any coverage she did of Corbyn always showed him in a bad light even if the news item was a positive one in his favour. Yes, I am a Corbyn supporter but I was (and still am) not an uncritical Corbyn supporter. I found many criticisms of his leadership but the BBC's uncritical and unquestioning coverage of the anti-Semitism row and the almost non-existent coverage of the Labour leaks report regarding the sabotage with Labour HQ during Corbyn's leadership and cost Labour the 2017 General Election clearly prove the anti-Corbyn bias at the BBC. The only reference Maitlis made was of the one time the BBC might actually be off the hook regarding biased reporting on Corbyn. If Maitlis really wants the media (and the BBC in particular) to learn the lessons of the past she should at the very least be honest about the past she wants to learn from.
I'm not a Corbyn supporter, but even I had the media anti-Jeremy bias come to mind before Emily even mentioned him. Emily in her demeanour has seldom hidden her feelings whilst presenting at the BBC, so I did find that her (admittedly insightful and entertaining) comments, particularly about guarding against "same sidedness", had a slightly sinister echo to them.
Kuensberg, the berg bit of the name says it all, KALERGI PLAN.
Corbyn will never be PM. Try to move on....
They absolutely discredited Corbyn at every turn, they’ve promulgated transgender ideology to our children on CBBC and they allowed “NO DEBATE” about trans ideology so we now have rapists in womens prisons, drag queen story hour and males running rape crisis centres. They are unwatchable because their agenda is so obvious!
@@sayitaintso2900 I accepted that before he'd been Labour leader for more than a couple of weeks. Doesn't make anything I said wrong though.
Every journalist NEEDS to see this!
All journalist need to get out of their liberal elite bubbles and start thinking and speaking for themselves instead of toeing the globalist line and they should also have the backbone and the integrity to resign from their cushy positions when they are "editorially guided" into deceiving the people. Where were the MSM journalists asking tough questions or questioning the science during the pandemic?
@@Strange_Club "liberal elite bubbles" - really? You display the same lack of respect for journalists as Trump does. " cushy positions" - you think all journalists have a " cushy position"? Get real man!
No, the true villains in this show are the editors and owners of media. Sure journalists need to get better, they aren't bad because they have "cushy" positions - why do Americans ALWAYS think KONEY, MONEY, MONEY? - they're bad because they have been lulled into a fake state of equality, where all opinions and views are seen as equal - which they are not. They have been to some extent fooled into a position where they think that reporting on both sides of the story is more important than reporting on the actual facts.
Say again that the idiots on Fox news or any other idiotic fake news right wing garbage media outlet, live in a "liberal elite bubble", and I'll strike you down verbally again you ignoramus.
Are you a 'journalist' like Maitlis? Utterly ridiculous.
@@jodypritchard5425 No - some people can actually be altruistic - I know you don't know what that means or how it feels.
Have a nice day.
@@jesmarina
I will gladly take a IQ test with you or any of the other brainwashed pea brained NPCs leaving ridiculous comments on here any day. You have absolutely no conception of what truth is and as for altruism, it is not altruistic to promote lies and a totalitarian agenda. There is also such a thing as pathological altruism, quite a good article on Wikipedia about it. The problem with you, Maitliss and our current 'elite' is an all consuming vanity, narcissism and snobbery. The funny thing is that the people you look down on with contempt are actually your moral and intellectual superiors, though many have been shut out of jobs in the media due to cronyism and quotas.
This is such an important speech that hopefully reverberates down the corridors of the BBC - likely won’t as they’re too scared of being told they’re left wing or “woke” by people who’s opinions mean nothing.
They are woke. And its not for you to decide whose opinions mean nothing. That is typical Remainer arrogance.
@@davidb9531 Yes you did as you sipped the Woke punch...
@@sayitaintso2900 nah nothing
People whose opinions mean nothing? Who would they be then? That sounds very fascistic to me.
@@Strange_Club I think Nixon called them the silent majority, ma and pa moron that are easily manipulated by populist rhetoric, people that don’t bother to educate themselves of facts are indeed and should always be irrelevant to state broadcasting but unfortunately as with everything it’s a race to the bottom. If you think that’s fascist it’s probably cos your too stupid to know your left to your right
Lucid and thoughtful. I have enormous respect for Emily Maitlis.
Thank you to Emily Maitlis for your insight and honesty. Thank you for opening up and clarifying why it is that I have felt so uneasy watching the news for all of the period that you mention. Trump and Brexit are mentioned - but there are so many other areas of life that have been neutralised by the forces she describes. The main one is the Climate Crisis which is being dealt with as if is were just some blip. I look forward to your work from this point forward and I hope the BBC and others hear and recognise what you have spoken about and make changes to the way they respond to these pressures.
The Climate Crisis is a blip.
Exactly what Suella Braverman has just done, pivoting from right to left, arguing for removal of the 2 child benefit cap. She's a dangerous populist. Excellent lecture. These tropes and tactics need to be taught to Journalists and to become common online parlance.
I find it strange Emily doesn't acknowledge natural political biases journalists have and their need to be granted access to those in power. Laura Kuenssberg has famously given a softball interview to Boris, but was always hostile towards Corbyn.
As for the Newsnight graphic of Corbyn appearing more 'Russian', this needs to be viewed in the context of the obvious vilification he'd endured up to that point. If you're continually treated with hostility, is it any surprise your supporters will respond with hostility?
Corbyn definitely had a Russian bias and he was definitely very bad for the country. He is responsible for Boris Johnson being in power. The Labour Party lost to mean intelligent MP in the f up.
Any journalist showing overt bias should be fired, they are not journalists they are propaganda tools.
"Do not normalise this moment." Powerful advice and true to the current democratic system across many countries.
Translation: Illegitimize that which we don't agree with.
@@Strange_Club Au contraire. It is a profound statement which, if logic is maintained, can apply to all arguments.
@@Strange_Club as in you agree with the current system?
Brilliant and somehow it gives us hope. I imagine presenters of the Today programme for instance might feel empowered to be more critical especially of tropes!
Emily starts speaking at 10mins in if you want to skip the fluff
Ok just skip past the marginalised voices get straight to white woman who absolutely helped this shitshow into No10!? Thanks white man!
@@AbsoluteTiger grow up!
Fluff?!!
@@AbsoluteTiger marginalised voices but yet stood on the stage?
@@andrewdavy9921 yes minorities whether ethnic or gender or sexual orientation are still part of the marginalised even if they happen to be successful! Nice way to out your bias!
Are we to believe that the BBC did not show negative bias when reporting on Jeremy Corbin (I'm not a supporter of any faction of the Labour Party) I'm a Scots Nat and to say the BBC coverage of the independence election was not negative is a clear attempt to rewrite history. The BBC clearly picks sides.
Does anyone remember Terrahawks? Long time since I've seen it, but it suddenly came back to me.
How inappropriate! Terrahawks, "is" a bit late for me. I'm thinking "ought" to be Space 1999.
The greatest moral principle of journalism is to serve every democratic value.
Nigel Farage was never off the BBC , during Brexit coverage, for the reasons highlighted in this
Shadow-banned from commenting on this, which perfectly sums up her arguments....
She didn't have these principles of fairness in democracy when newsnight were villifying Corbyn at every opportunity.
He deserved all of it and more.
Agree with her overall message but the attacks by her and others in the BBC on Corbyn was conveniently omitted. Also coverage of Palestinian by BBC is pathetic
I would have more respect for Emily if she had said something earlier. I Once left a very good job and made it clear that I left because my HR director had done something illegal. It is not brave after the event to tell the truth
I would add that what she calls ‘coping strategy’ is actually cowardice in the face of obvious and consistent lies and misinformation
Better late than never. The issue is not so much the degree of respect, or lack thereof, for this or any other journalist. The issue is that the substance of this message has been neglected - or more likely repressed - by very powerful people, to the detriment of both our own nation and the world as a whole.
So in fact, you need to do yourself what you are accusing others of.
Exactly, so all that time she was doing what they wanted, after damages are done.
@@sabar2453 Well, better late than never. I don't like to criticise someone who has seen the error of her ways - to me that just seems churlish.
Well Done Emily.
It takes Courage to tell the Truth in Britain.
We all knew what was happening within the Media World, but it's still nice to hear it Publicly.
Thank You.
Really looking forward to the next chapter in Maitlis' career. This was an honest, sober reflection by someone who has been in the room where it happened. She has witnessed fundamental changes, and she could well be an agent for change. Let's see...
Well your impartiality totally failed Corbyn. Even in this lecture.
Not at all, Corbin damage this country beyond belief.
Corbyn criticised the little hats, doing that gets you cancelled. He wouldn't have silently gone along with the Zionist Kalergi Plan currently underway.
Corbyn's failure is his own fault.
Nah. We can all see it, mate. Hopefully you can now too x
Lol - YES, the press DID latch on to just one line.
Let us never-ever-be-cooked.
This is not just about media. Or press. It`s about our very own consciousness. Every single one of us.
Please reupload with High Definition. Thanks.
And edit it just to show Emily Maitlas
It's already in HD- check your settings.
Brilliant , spot on. I travel the world and the lack of trust in state run media is happening all over the world at the same time. This is the Tump , Boris , Bosilero effect.
There is no state run media favoring Trump, in fact he is criticized regularly by all media, state and private...
wrong
This is the realization that media don't tell truths
they twist them for agendas
and we don't like being lied to
has nothing to do with political leaders
Part 1: Comment up to 25:00mins. What has happened to self reflection and institutional Critique? What has happened then, to checking legitimacy. It seems that they already know what jure means, who has it and where it is to be found. So for them then there are only really two questions and they are questions of facts and causes not questions of justification. So they know what the whole "ought to" look like, and it is only a matter of finding the most efficient psychological and institutional causal techniques for the population to meet that telos. But "they" are not a homogeneous group, there are many different eventing sites that can achieve this and some dispute on the end, but both these only reflect a multi-positionality and some internecine rivalry over who and what gets the highest status. They are in a kind of competition over who and detail but under a generally agreed set of principles. So their's is a complex world, understood in terms of situation and event in complex socio-psychological causation. It is thus a generally agreed settlement in right equality utility and science. This is their world and so journalism is a major player here understood as a scientific causal field of "communication semantics and pragmatics" to be worked on the population as teche. Journalism then is not understood as a mere "passive" critical collection and representation of facts and possible policy consequences for helping the public to critique political discourse and make up their minds on issues. It is not then, a mere mediation in the political cosmology it is, along with a nexus of many other people and institutions both foreign and domestic, a player with an agenda. The ontology of the person and the social here is a mythical scientific metaphysics of right and utility causation in the skin of persons in the skeleton of rules. in a way the purpose is the attempt to actualise the possibility of this ontology and metaphysics. To make their rights science image of man into a reality by Deleuzian frog warming. In post-postmodern middle class Marxism the future is certain its the past that is uncertain. its post-postmodernism because the first phase of Critique and crashing the existing traditions of the past 1930s-1960s, 1970-1990s, they think has mostly been achieved, they have taken over much of these institutions. The current idolatry of right and science has its roots the 2006 Goldsmiths Conference on "Speculative Realism/Reason": they Critiqued the then existing science and right of the powerful, pre 1990 period, then when in those institutions had to re-establish science and right as absolute norms. most people didn't notice this shift as the theories are extremely difficult to understand and critique even for someone very familiar with philosophy. Not least because they do research that mixes up disciplines to make it very hard to critique.
"Let's not be bias but do not question murderers either".
Start time: 9:58
Says it directly, the editor in chief tells his journos " do not normalise this moment".
The end of the BBC as a credible journalist organisation.
I'd love to hear another journalist giving a lecture in 2022 in our wonderful democracy.. JULIAN ASSANGE... Whatever happened to him ?? Oh I forgot he's rotting away in Belmarsh..
If he gave a lecture, it might break the internet !!
Which is where Emily belongs.
Brilliant!
breath of fresh air
What a great inspired informative and on point lecture Emily, maybe even use this as a platform to start your own news publication
That nobody will care about because Emily is a political activist not a journalist.
It's good that she is saying this, but, it seems to me that she is looking to excuse her behaviour and the behaviour of the BBC. It's populism's fault not bad journalism. And Laura Kuenssberg???? Don't get me started..
Absolutely riveting and very scary. What the hell are we all sleep walking into!
actual truth and not what she and all the rest tell you
and its glorious
What we have all slept-walked into is a situation where you can all post your one-liners here, and anyone who dissects her argument finds themselves shadow-banned by RUclips for ThoughtCrime. Enjoy your 1984!
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER !
Maitilis---my God, THE SHILL OF ALL SHILLS!
Where is Edward Snowden ?
At 55'32'', Emily is saying she is "not in any way suggesting such [a big event] might happen in America" (an event that upends democracy).... Until such an event did then in fact happen: on 1 July 2024 the USA Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that USA Presidents had immunity from criminal prosecution for acts conducted under their core consitituional authority as president and "presumptive immunity" for all official acts. The Supreme Court rules that the President >is
So, so necessary. Emily call them out, all of them and please continue to do so….. share, share and share guys or they, yes they, will gaslight you all
Who is "them"? Back to the barricades Comrade Martyn!
@@sayitaintso2900 give you one guess my right wing friend
@@sayitaintso2900 assume you’re loving those Brexit benefits matey
@@sayitaintso2900 let me guess you’re in your late 40’s/50’s and a glutton for punishment by a government gaslighting you 😂
@@martynstill4507 Why do you need to sort people based on age and political inclination? So that you can send your enemies to the gulag, comrade?
I remember well not too long ago when Emily Maitlis interviewed SNP leader Ian Blackford on Newsnight & she sat there holding official figures as to how the SNP were miserably failing the people of Scotland on so many levels, school exam results, drug deaths, NHS Scotland response times, etc etc & each time she confronted Blackford with the figures concerned, he just sat there completely unflustered & repeatedly said with a smug supercilious grin '' I'll think you find the reality is quite different Emily'' as she let him completely uninterrupted dispute all the facts she held.
Pure whataboutism mate. You do know that it is possible for a person to be right on one thing and not on another and two separate events to be judged on their merit?
@@dgbucko Just pure facts mate concerning a ten minute or so interview with Blackford & goodness knows what you're blabbering on about.....
This annoyed Carole Malone. You’re only ok if you are pro Brexit. Can’t analyse or test.
Funny, I expected news not history. Never had Maitlis down for stating the bleeding obvious but here we are.
No Kuensberg was not above reproach.
I am surprised it's taken so long for some jounalists to realise they have a responsibility to speak their minds or resign otherwise what is their raison d'etre .
I suspect the good salaries and busy social life probably dulls the intellectual and investigative blade .
Part 3 Take some responsibility!
One argument not addressed. BBC is not great on Palestine. Getting better but not as good as they could be.
I prefer Andrew Lawrence’s view on Maitless.
Brava bravissima Emily!!!!!!!
Wow. These elitists really hate it when the peasants/peons/gammon/great unwashed have a say in things.
Meh. Good she's found the time to say something.
A must listen
She deliberately leaves out all the relevant facts, some of which is down to her having no clue what any events signify
Explain please James, with examples. You have peaked my interest here.
@@dgbucko all them
it's simple
you have 2 choices
you either go to your desk and learn something for the first time, culminating in going above the level of a reporter, and thence being able to independently understand an event, or
you continue to live the life of a degenerate (like a reporter), understanding nothing
Give us some facts Einstein.
@@jamesburke2094 That smells of opinion mate. Which facts are you speaking of?
@@jamesburke2094you’re the exact type of gullible mug that populists like Boris Johnson target. No facts & no critical thinking of your own. You just get fed an opinion and spit it back out like you’re smarter than anyone else.
next time edit the dorks out of the beginning and get to the content in the title
I.e. call out bullshit when you smell it, dear journalists
Complacent, complicit onlookers. Don't be that.
This whole speech is a catalog of Emily’s staggering and continued failure to understand political change. She’s a school monitor for the status quo, but thinks she’s Erin Brockovich.
If the curved screen thing was true, let's say it is for argument's sake, (I don't buy it, but let's say it's true for argument's sake), they would have seen it and yet they still put it out. Let me tell you also, I have a curved screen and this is bollocks.
The Truth is always biased. Therefore trying to avoid the truth, or evade the embarassment the truth causes to those culpable - is a critical failure of journalism.
🇨🇵🤝🇪🇺🤝🏴
Interesting and frankly damning critique here: ruclips.net/video/WJ_5buL3gnU/видео.html
Great watch love news night too.
Perverting common wisdom is the hallmark of all great conspiracies…
Emily Maitlis
9:53+
oh, emily, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO
Curved screen my arse
Best comedian in Edinburgh this year by far
British bias corporation
Is right wing joke of the year
Clear winner
Made her name with Prince Andrew interview. Too independent minded for BBC.
50 minutes of autofellatio.
Emily Maitlis has a face for radio.
Woke nonsense
We are fighting a war:
Against higher energy prices
Against Putin
Against Emily Maitlis
Which soldier would you follow over the top?
Wimpy, scared looking Keir Starmer?
Ha..No!
Give me Boris, Jimmy Cleverly & Mark Francois any day.
They look mean,tough & able to do real damage!👊
I am an ex-Infantry soldier and I would willingly follow Maitlis into battle. And the person in my sights would be Johnson - a man that could not lead himself let alone the country. I despise that coward with every fibre of my body.
@@badgertheskinnycow yup - more still, could Boris (Lebedev's party in the Italian villa; suppressed report into Russian interference etc) and Trump (several instances of undermining US intelligence vs Putin) actually be with the enemy on the other side of the lines? I'm with Maitlis. Let's have truly independent journalists give us some actual truth, and drain this swamp of lies and fake news
Utter garbage but then what else did you expect. A conservative agent? What about the Labour agents? What about James Parnell?
Blocking more dimwit liars from the wave of new BBC recruits is not something the FT is going accurately report.
This is merely one long view on the views of accomplices on the inclusion of opinions in your reporting (i.e. defying the definition of your role).
Would you expand on your comment please James?
Your bombastic and deliberately vague comments are about as decipherable as an underwater fart. You’re not Nietzsche.
Oh dear. The woman at the start, so freaking woke.
Your asleep then
What does woke mean mate?
@@dgbucko When you have been ideologically primed to prescibe to a leftist/ identity politics/critical race theory narrative which requires being told what to think as opposed to thinking for one's self
@@mikipiediaelburro7588 That's your position though, which is a bit weired, but you are entitled to it. I asked what does woke mean? I will help you, it means to be aware or to be awake to stuff, such as injustices, racism, etc. It's actually a possitve thing... same as liberal means to be free thinking and open to new ideas. conservatives meanwhile wish things to be as they were, no change, no forward thinking. You do know the most Conservative countries in the world are N Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran... you would fit right in mate.
Emily Maitlis is pissed... she was riding a wave of adulation after 'that interview' and suddenly,
she's deemed unprofessional and her career is in jeopardy.
This is her response... to dig and claw her way out of it.
She's not the smartest, most diplomatic person in the 'show business' of modern news presenters.
But she was on 'three hundred and twenty five thousand' a year at the BBC.
So perhaps she's right to be so 'royally' pissed off.
She's part of the affluent bourgeoisie that's been brought up to feel they're always right,
and everyone else... is always wrong.
She's worked in/for a particular circle of people that are disgusted with the uneducated,
and their political choices. This 'lecture' is just a propaganda fluff piece,
a showreel to court new offers... as she knows 'times are hard' ...and right now,
she needs a proper six digit job... and fast.
It's disheartening that people on both sides of the political spectrum say that the BBC is biased.
It's too 'woke', too lefty for some... or it's only catering to the conservatives and big business for others.
We live at a time when every major media outlet is openly biased.
To the point that it's impossible to find any 'news' that's impartial at all.
Every single media outlet caters to a specific audience... feeding them,
exactly what they tuned in for.
That's why the BBC is so hated.
It doesn't tell them 'those that already have an extreme bias' - exactly what they want to hear.
So they get pissed off with it. Then leave for the other outlets, that will tell what they want to hear.
It's a no-win situation for an organisation that's really trying to be impartial.
In a world that hates impartiality.
But the things she talks about are true though - I don't know her or her back story, but she is right.
@@jesmarina Whether you're on left or right... is the ultimate gauge as to the verity of her statements in this video.
Her career at the BBC ended because she brazenly crossed a line... she thought she was more important than 'the stated impartiality' of the current affairs news program she was hosting. She spent some time in the US and wanted to be some sort of Brian Stelter figurehead.
Now she wants to be seen as a powerful future network anchor or important ambassador for the liberal cause by making a video lecture like this one. Vanity is her cause, pride at being hurt by the BBC is the flavour of her revenge. Her pay-packet is in the region of four-to-five hundred thousand - minimum.
The world needs less Maitlis, less spreading of hate for the other political side... to which she has no answer.
@@commonwunder the most important message she tells is ignored by you. That message is journalists should not be made mouth dead by a reigning party in the country they're working in. That is a sign democracy detoriates in fascist mode.
@@commonwunder mate, you're coming off as disingenuous yourself. you imply that you sit outside of the left/right shitshow and are thus politically impartial yourself. even if that is true, and what you're saying comes from an unbiased place in that respect, you *really* seem to dislike maitlis specifically, which is essentially irrelevant to the discussion.
i'm all for open debate but i fear it's a waste of time to engage with posts like yours. i'd like to bear that in mind more in the future
@@pukeyourguts You and I, and probably Maitlis too... live in a world where the top ten richest people in the world 'doubled their money' during the Covid pandemic period.
Maitlis and her peers 'fight the little fight' ...knocking over little people and feeling great about it. She's not a journalist... hers is a pretence at keeping order. Snitching on those that 'most obviously' are caught for not playing the game properly. So others know to keep inline. It's about virtue signalling and control. There is no left-right divide - that is an illusion for people that prefer their politics tied up into cliques and gangs.
Where petty tribalism is used blatantly as a diversion to divert the easily distracted.
.
I don't dislike Ms.Maitlis specifically - just the idea that she's on some sort of higher ground. That people like her are fighting for us.
That the left are the goods guys and that life is really that simple.