BBC Boss ADMITS left bias!!!

[chris watton]

Parrot of Doom said:

Don said:

What? Whaaat? Andrew Marr, I mean, come ON! Really?

What? Whaat? Andrew Neil, I mean, come ON! Really?

Hmm, but who has the prime time Sunday morning slot, who has their main show on at 11.30pm on Thursdays?

Anyway, arn't they all going to go on strike, due to pension changes, poor lambs.....

ETA - and what about Nick Robinson's startling admission yeasterday in his blog ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/09/bl... )

A summary of the blog, taken from elswhere*;

"I'll paraphrase the essence of Robinson's article: " I apologise for concealing evidence regarding the madness of Gordon Brown, rejecting stories that might upset the labour party, spending the past decade painting a false picture of the Labour government - avoiding discussing the raw hatred that gripped both ends of Downing St" And yet the man hasn't resigned. He *admits* he has intentionally failed to uphold common journalistic standards, uphold the BBC producers guidelines, uphold the BBC charter obligations, and yet he hasn't resigned."

• http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100052099/the-bbc-worldview-opponents-of-papal-visit-are-decent-human-rights-activists-opponents-of-new-york-mosque-are-racists-and-loonies/#disqus_thread

Edited by chris watton on Thursday 2nd September 10:53

[Fume troll]

It would be immensely helpful if people would take the time to prefix their Daily Mail threads with "Daily Mail Story:". Then in my mind I can change that to "None of the following happened: ", avoid clicking the link and accidentally reading the pointless reactionary nonsense contained therein.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,

FT.

[MX7]

The difference between the BBC and other media outlets is that the BBC has a charter which requires them to remain neutral. Other organisations don't.

[7thCircleAcolyte]

Bing o said:

7thCircleAcolyte said:

If you watch News At Ten on BBC1 and don't see any left leaning then I'd suggest you're more part of the problem than the solution.

Can you suggest a news source with no bias or agenda. Right after you do that, I've got a slice of brie I'd like you to turn into gold....

Mmmm cheesey gold. Tasty.

Erm, no, I can't. However I can't think of another news source I'm compelled to fund to excess every year, under threat of imprisonment, regardless of whether or not I consume its output. No other news source has a charter by which it is bound to be impartial.

While maintaining an absolute position in the centre is unviable, the beeb should be expected to oscillate gently just either side of centre, rather than a never ending lean to the left.

The beeb has so many lefties working there that they simply no longer understand that their output isn't central or politically neutral. The idea that they can have a stated position on climate change is barking mad and totally out of order - a flagrant breach of their charter that continues unbated.

If the BBC cannot reform then it must end.

[Fittster]

MX7 said:

The difference between the BBC and other media outlets is that the BBC has a charter which requires them to remain neutral. Other organisations don't.

Which is of course impossible for them to meet. If you have people reporting news, you will have bias.

[limpsfield]

Whenever these threads come up - or ones questioning the licence fee - it seems the only programme the protagonists are watching is newsround or some such.

Listen to Radio 4, you reactionary Wail-ers.

[Willie Dee]

The hypocrisy of the topic with the Daily Mail link is either amazing satire or the OP is a retard.

Edited by Willie Dee on Thursday 2nd September 11:05

[chris watton]

Willie Dee said:

The hypocrisy of the topic with the Daily Mail link is either amazing satire or the OP is a retard.

Edited by Willie Dee on Thursday 2nd September 11:05

You'r right! We should all be less 'tardish', and use more balanced material from the Guardian instead......

[blindswelledrat]

Fume troll said:

It would be immensely helpful if people would take the time to prefix their Daily Mail threads with "Daily Mail Story:". Then in my mind I can change that to "None of the following happened: ", avoid clicking the link and accidentally reading the pointless reactionary nonsense contained therein.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,

FT.

That is exactly what I do too.
In fact, if I ever see a thread title in the News section which makes sounds unusual or suprising, I immediately think 'I bet it's the Daily Mail and I bet it didn't happen'

[MX7]

Fittster said:

MX7 said:

The difference between the BBC and other media outlets is that the BBC has a charter which requires them to remain neutral. Other organisations don't.

Which is of course impossible for them to meet. If you have people reporting news, you will have bias.

I don't agree. People are capable of remaining neutral, even if it contravenes their personal views.

For those who get hysterical whenever the Daily Mail is sourced, the original interview was in the New Statesman, as mentioned in the Mail article.

[Fume troll]

blindswelledrat said:

Fume troll said:

It would be immensely helpful if people would take the time to prefix their Daily Mail threads with "Daily Mail Story:". Then in my mind I can change that to "None of the following happened: ", avoid clicking the link and accidentally reading the pointless reactionary nonsense contained therein.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,

FT.

That is exactly what I do too.
In fact, if I ever see a thread title in the News section which makes sounds unusual or suprising, I immediately think 'I bet it's the Daily Mail and I bet it didn't happen'

My favorites are the ones that start "I know it's the Daily Mail but...", and THEN launch into the farcical hyperbole. It's a weird sort of oxymoron, akin to saying "I know this isn't true, but I think it is."

This one's great

"I know it's the Daily Mail but I couldn't find it elsewhere."

Is about like saying:

"I know it was in the toilet, but that's the only place I could find poop".

Cheers,

FT.

[Mojocvh]

chris watton said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Don said:

What? Whaaat? Andrew Marr, I mean, come ON! Really?

What? Whaat? Andrew Neil, I mean, come ON! Really?

Hmm, but who has the prime time Sunday morning slot, who has their main show on at 11.30pm on Thursdays?

Anyway, arn't they all going to go on strike, due to pension changes, poor lambs.....

ETA - and what about Nick Robinson's startling admission yeasterday in his blog ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/09/bl... )

A summary of the blog, taken from elswhere*;

"I'll paraphrase the essence of Robinson's article: " I apologise for concealing evidence regarding the madness of Gordon Brown, rejecting stories that might upset the labour party, spending the past decade painting a false picture of the Labour government - avoiding discussing the raw hatred that gripped both ends of Downing St" And yet the man hasn't resigned. He *admits* he has intentionally failed to uphold common journalistic standards, uphold the BBC producers guidelines, uphold the BBC charter obligations, and yet he hasn't resigned."

• http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100052099/the-bbc-worldview-opponents-of-papal-visit-are-decent-human-rights-activists-opponents-of-new-york-mosque-are-racists-and-loonies/#disqus_thread

Edited by chris watton on Thursday 2nd September 10:53

Yep indeed. The confessional beckons....

[7thCircleAcolyte]

Fume troll said:

My favorites are the ones that start "I know it's the Daily Mail but...", and THEN launch into the farcical hyperbole. It's a weird sort of oxymoron, akin to saying "I know this isn't true, but I think it is."

This one's great

"I know it's the Daily Mail but I couldn't find it elsewhere."

Is about like saying:

"I know it was in the toilet, but that's the only place I could find poop".

Cheers,

FT.

It could be worse

Now bear in mind this is what supposedly passes for science journalism over at the Guardian. My favourite part is "...but in fact i am offering ORG the chance to use me as a mouthpiece for your righteous rightness."

If its a choice between the wail or the groan, well that's like asking a man to choose between his left nut or his right. Two sides, one coin.

[Fume troll]

No-one is perfect!

However I have an opinion as to which is worse in terms of both magnitude and frequency.

Cheers,

FT.

[blindswelledrat]

Fume troll said:

My favorites are the ones that start "I know it's the Daily Mail but...", and THEN launch into the farcical hyperbole. It's a weird sort of oxymoron, akin to saying "I know this isn't true, but I think it is."

This one's great

"I know it's the Daily Mail but I couldn't find it elsewhere."

Is about like saying:

"I know it was in the toilet, but that's the only place I could find poop".

Cheers,

FT.

Very good.
Im going to add these to my little game Im playing elsewhere on exactly this subject
http://www.chew-the-fat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=...

[JagLover]

Don said:

I see little of anything left-leaning in their political coverage, however. Anyone listening to Labour politicians being grilled on R4's Today programme would understand that.

What? Whaaat? Andrew Marr, I mean, come ON! Really?

I accept the news people do not let the Labour guys off too easily. Personally I find the BBC biased. Worse - they purport to impartiality they do not have.

Agreed

Maybe the Today programme is unbiased. But the output for the casual TV news watcher is certainly biased.

[andymadmak]

There is no doubt that the BBC has had a left wing bias for years. For those who deny it, then I'm sorry, but even the BBC disagrees with you!
However, as others have pointed out, it is in the BBC charter that it is REQUIRED to be impartial. I couldn't give a rats testicle which way the Guardian leans, the Mail leans, Fox News leans or even which way Channel 4 leans - why? because I don't have to pay for them. But I do have to pay for the BBC. Moreover, to watch (say) Fox or C4 I HAVE to pay my levy to the BBC. It would be like only being allowed to buy the Telegraph if I had to buy the Guardian as well.
Its just not on.

Now, at least the BBC has admitted that it WAS biased. The question is, does the bias persist today? And the answer to that, by any rational analysis of how the news is presented, where the emphasis is placed, how politicians of all parties are cross examinded (and not just on the primary questions but also on the follow ups and the levels of interruptions) is that the BBC is still very much left leaning, but is getting rather better at camoflaging it.
A great example was the Today program yesterday.... (The Today program being frequently cited on here as being evidence that the BEEB is indeed now neutral) Just listen to how the Program presented the fact that only a handful of additional schools had achieved academy status by the start of the upcoming term....... It was always known that it would be extremely tough for the hundreds of schools which applied for Academy status under the Gove scheme after the election to be ready in time, yet the reporter presented this as a "wholesale rejection of the Conservative policy by the schools". This is simply a lie. The rest of the report was sympathetic to the notion of local authority control of schools etc.... Now, as it happens I think nearly 900 schools applied for academy status under the Gove scheme. Most are still working through it as the system was swamped by the demand - hardly a rejection methinks!

[Fume troll]

blindswelledrat said:

Very good.
Im going to add these to my little game Im playing elsewhere on exactly this subject
http://www.chew-the-fat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=...

Add this: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Cheers,

FT.

[turbobloke]

Hedders said:

Parrot of Doom said:

I see little of anything left-leaning in their political coverage, however. Anyone listening to Labour politicians being grilled on R4's Today programme would understand that.

Which labour politican? was it Blair?

When i see them giving Blair a good 'roasting' then i might start to think they are becoming neutral.

The BBC are nowhere near neutral. Giving lefties a grilling (sometimes) is only part of the point, the other part being that they often appear on radio and TV unopposed.

Instances of bias from BBC presenters are everywhere, one of the best being James Naughtie pre-2005 election on the Radio 4 'Toady' prog giving a good grilling to Ed Balls by asking “If we win the election, does Gordon Brown remain Chancellor?”

If we win - ffs. There's plenty more.


BBC admits Labour bias on Newsnight broadcast.....

The BBC has a strong Labour bias, puts on too many repeats and dumbed down.....

Is the BBC institutionally biased? Can you trust the BBC.....

This bias and cultural Marxism has become blatant, to the point where many BBC employees don't even feel the need to conceal their agenda.....


http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm

http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/gp_responses/A/...

http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2007-03/bbcbias.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...

[oyster]

I expect them to be a bit left-leaning. They are a more creative organisation than most media channels.

I sometimes find the audience on QT a bit infuriating, but that's because lots of middle-of-the-road conservative-leaning people won't even apply for the show.

I don't think they're biased.

And all this stuff about climate change - there are a alot of right-leaning people believe in that bullcrap too.