Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[johnxjsc1985]

Timmy40 said:

Again, last night on the radio news I heard 4/5 of members had voted to strike, even the most mathematically challenged journalist could have easily worked out that 80% of 60% is 48%, and reported it as 48% of rail workers voted to strike.

This isn't just lazy reporting, this is a systematic distortion of the facts on an on going and deliberate basis. And I'm getting fedup with it as member of the public.

I WANT UNBIASED TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE REPORTING.

I DONT WANT CONSERVATIVE BIAS

I DONT WANT LABOUR BIAS.

Are Journalists capable of just reporting the News rather than spinning it.I wonder if its possible.

[Timmy40]

Bluebarge said:

As to the BBC reporting, should they therefore be saying that the Conservatives won the election with the backing of fewer than 25% of the electorate and therefore have no legitimacy?

It would hardly be news because by your reckoning the UK hasn't had a legitimate Govt of either colour for decades. Unless of course the BBC had reported that each and every Labour Govt from the mid 1990's wasn't legitimate either.

But you are getting to the heart of the matter, when it's a Labour Govt being elected by 1/4 or less of the population the left are strangely quiet, when a conservative govt are elected under exactly the same system you're all in uproar. It's as that Labour voter writing in the Telegraph said the left want a North Korean style of democracy, everyone gets a vote so long as they vote socialist.

[Hackney]

Jinx said:

Bluebarge said:

As to the BBC reporting, should they therefore be saying that the Conservatives won the election with the backing of fewer than 25% of the electorate and therefore have no legitimacy?

Why would this be the case? In a FPTP system 25% is legitimate.

Because that follows on from the point about the strike.
If you're saying the strike is not legitimate with (as someone said) 48% in support, then by definition the tories have no legitimacy.

But, as under the current system the Tory govt is legitimate, then so is the strike. You can't have one without the other.

[Andy Zarse]

Hackney said:

But, as under the current system the Tory govt is legitimate, then so is the strike. You can't have one without the other.

You can if your a whinging Labour supporter!

[Timmy40]

Hackney said:

Jinx said:

Bluebarge said:

As to the BBC reporting, should they therefore be saying that the Conservatives won the election with the backing of fewer than 25% of the electorate and therefore have no legitimacy?

Why would this be the case? In a FPTP system 25% is legitimate.

Because that follows on from the point about the strike.
If you're saying the strike is not legitimate with (as someone said) 48% in support, then by definition the tories have no legitimacy.

But, as under the current system the Tory govt is legitimate, then so is the strike. You can't have one without the other.

What I said was that the support for the strike was misrepresented. The report simply stated 4 our of 5 rail workers supported the strike, that was factually incorrect and misleading.

No one said anything about it being legitimate or otherwise.

[AnotherClarkey]

Hackney said:

Jinx said:

Bluebarge said:

As to the BBC reporting, should they therefore be saying that the Conservatives won the election with the backing of fewer than 25% of the electorate and therefore have no legitimacy?

Why would this be the case? In a FPTP system 25% is legitimate.

Because that follows on from the point about the strike.
If you're saying the strike is not legitimate with (as someone said) 48% in support, then by definition the tories have no legitimacy.

But, as under the current system the Tory govt is legitimate, then so is the strike. You can't have one without the other.

I thought the point being made was that the BBC inaccurately reported that 4/5 of MEMBERS had voted to strike when in actual fact only 60% of members had voted. Therefore only 48% of MEMBERS had voted to strike.

Timmy40 made no claim about the legitimacy of such a vote, only that that it had been misrepresented by the report.

[Hackney]

Andy Zarse said:

Hackney said:

But, as under the current system the Tory govt is legitimate, then so is the strike. You can't have one without the other.

You can if your a whinging Labour supporter!

And you can if you're a whinging Tory supporter, clearly

[Andy Zarse]

Hackney said:

Andy Zarse said:

Hackney said:

But, as under the current system the Tory govt is legitimate, then so is the strike. You can't have one without the other.

You can if your a whinging Labour supporter!

And you can if you're a whinging Tory supporter, clearly

<Thatcher voice>Con-servatives don't whinge; they get on and do! </Thatcher>

[chris watton]

"BBC under fire after Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton ‘compares extremist preacher Anjem Choudary to Gandhi and Mandela’"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081364/BB...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[The Don of Croy]

In the interests of fairness...


...there's a piece in today's Grauniad (albeit written by a former Labour Party worker) complaining about BBC bias during the GE against Labour.

His particular beef is against the SNP/Labour stitch-up-that-never-was that apparently the Beeb promoted at every turn in the face of Labour denials (but presumably not SNP ones). He may have a point? Anyways, from what I saw the Beeb (and the press) latched onto whatever outlandish claims our tartan friends may have uttered and presented them as fact...rather like the current furore over UKIP and funding/leadership/Carswell etc etc

[turbobloke]

It's not really a matter of fairness or balance though, bias is in BBC output and output analysis over time is where the evidence lies.

If I was a politician or political activist and wanted to muddy the waters in public debate, I could make a vexatious complaint running contrary to an opinion I wanted to discredit, and set lots of hares running and provide fodder for those who agree with me to circle-jerk over ad infinitum in social and other media.

The BBC could interview only Tory spokespeople for an entire month and still be biased pro-Labour and against the Conservatives if those interviews are hostile, edited, preceded or followed by correspondents presenting as fact what is in reality mere opinion that disparages the individuals and their views.

Detail matters - in terms of analysis of output over time not just by frequency but by nature and peripheral commentary; the serial confessions and illustrations of bias from time-served staffers matter; complaints aren't evidence of bias one way or the other as they can be manufactured to order.

[Ali G]

And the effectiveness of alleged bias was seen in the voting - yes?

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

And the effectiveness of alleged bias was seen in the voting - yes?

Yes. Both the boundary changes not made, and the BBC bias still present, will have impacted on the election outcome, but not in precisely quantifiable ways.

25 years at the BBC and Robin Aitken said:

the BBC is biased,and it is a bias that seriously distorts public debate

[Ali G]

turbobloke said:

Ali G said:

And the effectiveness of alleged bias was seen in the voting - yes?

Yes. Both the boundary changes not made,

Controls over electoral boundaries are outside of the control of even the BBC

turbobloke said:

and the BBC bias still present, will have impacted on the election outcome, but not in precisely quantifiable ways.

So you assert - you should now be able to provide hypothesis, causality and reproducible experimental evidence

turbobloke said:

25 years at the BBC and Robin Aitken said:

the BBC is biased,and it is a bias that seriously distorts public debate

Presumably, evidence - particularly that based upon experimental and repeatable results capable of accurate measurement, are relevant in this type of exercise.



perhaps 'appeal to authority' would have been a more appropriate challenge

Edited by Ali G on Thursday 14th May 17:50

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

turbobloke said:

Ali G said:

And the effectiveness of alleged bias was seen in the voting - yes?

Yes. Both the boundary changes not made,

Controls over electoral boundaries are outside of the control of even the BBC

Of course and there was no suggestion otherwise, the two factors mentioned were together for completeness in terms of the two major influences on outcome. I went on to note that the BBC bias impact has a mechanism, skewed public debate, but cannot be easily quantified.

Ali G said:

turbobloke said:

and the BBC bias still present, will have impacted on the election outcome, but not in precisely quantifiable ways.

So you assert - you should now be able to provide hypothesis, causality and reproducible experimental evidence

Not when it's social science, involves a multifactorial issue, and the factors are essentially inseparable, which is the consistent manner in which I treat all such circumstances outside physical science and some within it

The presence of a genuinely valid mechanism, one that would have an impact in a direction consistent with the effect claimed, can still be adduced as a qualitative effect.

Which is what I did, and no more since in the matter in hand and the other which you allude to, I'm not the one claiming refined and spuriously accurate quantitative causally linked outcomes while lacking a valid causative mechamism.

Ali G said:

turbobloke said:

25 years at the BBC and Robin Aitken said:

the BBC is biased,and it is a bias that seriously distorts public debate

Presumably, evidence - particularly that based upon experimental and repeatable results capable of accurate measurement, are relevant in this type of exercise.

Yes, qualitatively, but not quantifiable, which it doesn't have to be.

Ali G said:

perhaps 'appeal to authority' would have been a more appropriate challenge

The 'authority' appeal looks superficially apt from what was posted in a brief reply, but if you would like the details of incidents that sit behind the judgement in question then the article is easily found and there will be transcripts and VT around that could be inspected if there was any credible reason for it.

This is after all an arena within social science not physical science, and evidence from witness testimony corroborated by similar witness testimony from similar credible witnesses (Sissons, Sewell) is available and all of it remains relevant to a social science analysis.

[jogon]

chris watton said:

"BBC under fire after Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton ‘compares extremist preacher Anjem Choudary to Gandhi and Mandela’"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081364/BB...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Not been a good 24hr for the Beeb this lefty journo had one hell of Freudian slip...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11605231/BBC-r...

[turbobloke]

jogon said:

chris watton said:

"BBC under fire after Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton ‘compares extremist preacher Anjem Choudary to Gandhi and Mandela’"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081364/BB...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Not been a good 24hr for the Beeb this lefty journo had one hell of Freudian slip...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11605231/BBC-r...

Plausible deniability, only a silly cult would try that.

[johnxjsc1985]

they have been almost coming in their collective pants today because of the news that UKIP have a few post election issues.

[br d]

johnxjsc1985 said:

they have been almost coming in their collective pants today because of the news that UKIP have a few post election issues.

"Implosion", "Disaster" and "Shambles" have been the key words regarding Ukip today on the BBC, as you say they're positively orgasmic.

[greygoose]

br d said:

johnxjsc1985 said:

they have been almost coming in their collective pants today because of the news that UKIP have a few post election issues.

"Implosion", "Disaster" and "Shambles" have been the key words regarding Ukip today on the BBC, as you say they're positively orgasmic.

Seems to be the main story on Sky too, obviously all of the media are biased against UKIP.