I guess so but I can't say I have made a study of it!

I agree it looked odd and I don't think it is really necessary: we can listen to the reporter's attribution. Presumably they would do it for every party.

Well, waiting for your car to be serviced requires some distractions! Congratulations on your social media hit!

You too! It's an interesting thread.

What exactly do you think the BBC has done wrong here? It sounds as if, when a reporter was reading out a policy statement by Reform, the producer overlaid a Reform graphic, so that we as viewers were clear about the origin of the policy being read out. Is there something wrong with that? What?

Perhaps to emphasize to the viewer that the policy announcement by Party X that is being read out comes from Party X, and not from parties Y or Z? Is that so terrible?

Why not?

You are going to stop watching TV because a Reform press release was displayed with a Reform logo to emphasize that the press release was from Reform? That doesn't sound proportionate; or even slightly logical.

It's the identical situation of displaying a written policy statement that would be an equal companion.

I think Reform announced a policy on the day in question. The BBC couldn't "do a different party every day", as you posit, because there isn't a new policy announcement by every party every day, or anything like every day

Every time, @bladeofthes.bsky.social . Every time.

Did any other party have a press release that morning, or was the Reform one the only one available?

Thanks for watching the whole programme. Can you tell us also if at any point they read out a statement released by any of the other parties?

If they did but they didn't also show that other party's logo, that's inconsistent. If they didn't read any other, I am not sure what the fuss is all about.

I think branding as well as attribution is not unusual, from what I recall. A visual clue like a logo - a red palette and the rose for Labour, a blue palette and the green tree for Conservative - are often used to reinforce the attribution for quick recognition. I don't see anything harmful in that.

He was doing an OB on the political issues that morning, not limited to the Reform press release. Political correspondents choose to do these OBs from Downing Street al.the time.

Yes they should. If a broadcaster displays a statement issued by the Labour Party, I want to see an indicator on screen that what I am reading has come from Labour. Likewise any other party, whichever one has issued it. That doesn't sound controversial to me.

Are you saying that it is highly unusual for a BBC presenter in an outside broadcast to read out a statement from a political party? [Surely it happens a lot?]

Or saying that if a presenter in an OB does do that, there is normally no chyron to show the party's logo? [Hard to say, I don't know].

Your point is, I think, not that the BBC has done it using Reform's branding whilst never doing it for any other party's in the same editorial circumstances, but that it should not do so ever, irrespective of the party.

I don't know if they do it rarely or not. I would say that what I think I have noticed more is displaying a party statement full screen but also, like the chyron here, branded for the relevant party.

That is probably true, I agree with you again.

I don't think this chyron can be used as an example of it, though.

If BBC Breakfast had followed what I think would be a more normal practice, it would have shown the statement whole screen, but it would still have clearly branded it as Reform (or Labour or Conservative etc). It feels as if they were following their normal policy except adapted to a chyron.

Yes I agree with this comment too. I think displaying it whole screen would be a better way of doing it and I think the normal one.

But it is an unusual circumstance so it is hard to find other examples, ie the presenter is reading a statement from a party and the statement is also being displayed at the bottom of the screen. I guess their thinking was to avoid any doubt as to the origin of the (long) statement being read out.

I just don't know what the BBC does, but it's possible that the BBC's reply will be that that is its policy, at least on that programme, for all parties, not just Reform.

The feeling in the thread is that the BBC has favoured Reform over other parties. I am just saying that before we conclude that, we need to know that it is only Reform's branding that the BBC has ever shown in these specific circumstances.

I agree with the different point you have made yourself.

That's a reasonable point of view and I probably agree with it but it is not exactly following on from my own point.

By definition, any market requires two parties: sellers (eg landlords) and buyers (eg renters). You have only illustrated the sellers' side.

Did you mean to say a monopoly? A monopoly is a market that has crashed to function.

If the economy tanks in Britain blame the pedo rapist in the White House and not the Human Rights lawyer in number 10 who is PM.

Shouldn’t have to even say that but here we are.

Are we sure that in the same circumstances, another party's branding wouldn't be shown? The situation here was text that was being quoted at the bottom of the screen and that came from a Reform press release. We need to see what the BBC does in those same circs, except eg a Labour press release.

Starmer is not mentioned even once.