Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
I think it is relevant as it shows that the perception of bias depends what side of the fence you sit on.
I said a while back I have dealt with lots of journos over the years. Most are left leaning. So the media as a whole is not usually a fan of the right. I think as PH is much more to the right than the average, the allegations of bias on here get very overdone.
And I speak as a capitalism loving ex City worker.
I said a while back I have dealt with lots of journos over the years. Most are left leaning. So the media as a whole is not usually a fan of the right. I think as PH is much more to the right than the average, the allegations of bias on here get very overdone.
And I speak as a capitalism loving ex City worker.
limpsfield said:
I think it is relevant as it shows that the perception of bias depends what side of the fence you sit on.
I said a while back I have dealt with lots of journos over the years. Most are left leaning. So the media as a whole is not usually a fan of the right. I think as PH is much more to the right than the average, the allegations of bias on here get very overdone.
And I speak as a capitalism loving ex City worker.
"It" is relevant, are you referring in essence to the Cardiff report? See below for responses to what was cited in that regard.I said a while back I have dealt with lots of journos over the years. Most are left leaning. So the media as a whole is not usually a fan of the right. I think as PH is much more to the right than the average, the allegations of bias on here get very overdone.
And I speak as a capitalism loving ex City worker.
Secondly the political opinion of a viewer or listener isn't relevant to output being biased or not. It's objectively clear that when a presenter talks with a senior Labour MP in the first person plural (we), beeb presenters are regularly handed copies of The Guardian for their take-to-air on a story, and when BBC staff confess - as they have. As indicated there's a two-faced aspect to this when Left and Right agree that the Daily Mail has a right-wing bias but the same critical faculties fail those on the left when discussing the BBC. The reason is obvious.
Anyway, to Cardiff we go and the citations from canaries.
1 Whichever party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time.
1 Exactly how much more air time is it and what in detail was the total sample used to determine this (see 2 below) and far more importantly any party spokesperson from the Conservatives interviewed at any time may be given a tough ride i.e. constantly interrupted, questioned off-topic, with sneering interviewer responses suggesting disbelief etc within an attempt to make them look uninformed, incompetent, sly, untrustworthy and wrong, whereas Labour representatives may have been given an easy rise on the marginally fewer occasions they appeared - the study lacks sufficient information on this and it may be that the result is evidence of bias against the Conservatives if the treatment given to a greater number of people was systematically unequal
2 On BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespersons by more than five to one (11 vs 2) in 2007 and by 19 to one in 2012
2 Why the sub-optimal sampling in this instance? Otherwise known as cherry picking. What about BBC TV News at other times, BBC Radio News, website coverage, and so on. There's no explanation in Cardiff reporting of their research that I can recall and I have files on it.
3 When it comes to the Financial Crisis, BBC coverage was almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices.
3 If these people are invited in for target practice and their treatment and editing is in any way less than completely impartial then the bias is again to the Left not the Right (business in this case as a proxy for the Right and Unions as a proxy for the Left, that's Cardiff not me) and once again we don't know the answer from the study cited and nor do we know (because the nature of the statement excludes it) whether a BBC correspondent or editor i.e. non-external person was used to put the other position – see 4 below – they would conveniently not figure in the tally of people “invited into the studio”
4 On a different note, not sung about by the canaries afaics, the researchers did happen to note that the Today programme and other output relies heavily on BBC journalists to express professional judgements and views - unfortunately the implications were not fully examined; this is itself a form of bias as left-wingers dominate in terms of BBC staff, and as far as correspondents are concerned their opinions are presented as factual content and importantly they would not feature in lists or counts of invited guests from the Right or Left as they are staffers...see 3 above
The Cardiff report was naturally grabbed by the Left like a drowning non-swimmer clutching at straws but it doesn't do what's claimed in credulous articles that don't seem to know which questions to ask in their haste to swallow the lot rather than provide an intelligent analysis.
I speak as a person with sufficient by way of critical faculties to detect bias in e.g. the Daily Mail and the BBC when it occurs.
limpsfield said:
It's like the anti-PH!
"Whichever party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time.
On BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespersons by more than five to one (11 vs 2) in 2007 and by 19 to one in 2012.
When it comes to the Financial Crisis, BBC coverage was almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage."
A bit. It's rather amusing to come to PH, see one side and then go to FB and see the polar opposite. "Whichever party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time.
On BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespersons by more than five to one (11 vs 2) in 2007 and by 19 to one in 2012.
When it comes to the Financial Crisis, BBC coverage was almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage."
Harji said:
You can always count on The Canary for a balanced opinion 
Gogoplata said:
Harji said:
You can always count on The Canary for a balanced opinion Gogoplata said:
Harji said:
You can always count on The Canary for a balanced opinion Let's face it, anything more liberal than the views of Franco is considered loony left on here.
zygalski said:
Gogoplata said:
Harji said:
You can always count on The Canary for a balanced opinion In the case of the BBC's bias, and to repeat for the nth time, it has nothing to do with a person's politics as the problem isn't with left wing bias - the problem is bias. Any bias in any direction.
zygalski said:
Let's face it, anything more liberal than the views of Franco is considered loony left on here.
Rather than do that, which would be wrong as there's insufficient evidence to support what is in effect another knee-jerk one-liner, let's face the real reality that if there's evidence for something then people will consider it, unlike throw-way cheap shots ^^ which aren't worth tuppence.
limpsfield said:
I think it is relevant as it shows that the perception of bias depends what side of the fence you sit on.
I said a while back I have dealt with lots of journos over the years. Most are left leaning. So the media as a whole is not usually a fan of the right. I think as PH is much more to the right than the average, the allegations of bias on here get very overdone.
And I speak as a capitalism loving ex City worker.
Two of your points sum up the issue for me and many fail to connect them.I said a while back I have dealt with lots of journos over the years. Most are left leaning. So the media as a whole is not usually a fan of the right. I think as PH is much more to the right than the average, the allegations of bias on here get very overdone.
And I speak as a capitalism loving ex City worker.
1. Seeing bias is based on your beliefs.
2. Most journalists are left leaning.
The only conclusions from this is that what the average journalist thinks is neutral will actually be left leaning.
Journalists are not inherently better at being impartial. If anything they are worse because they are journalists because they think their opinion is important and want it broadcast.
The only way to make a broadcaster impartial as a whole is at the recruitment stage. This will however take decades to filter into the upper roles.
Smollet said:
zygalski said:
Just the same as getting a balanced opinion from N,P & E.
Let's face it, anything more liberal than the views of Franco is considered loony left on here.
I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking thatLet's face it, anything more liberal than the views of Franco is considered loony left on here.
alock said:
limpsfield said:
I think it is relevant as it shows that the perception of bias depends what side of the fence you sit on.
I said a while back I have dealt with lots of journos over the years. Most are left leaning. So the media as a whole is not usually a fan of the right. I think as PH is much more to the right than the average, the allegations of bias on here get very overdone.
And I speak as a capitalism loving ex City worker.
Two of your points sum up the issue for me and many fail to connect them.I said a while back I have dealt with lots of journos over the years. Most are left leaning. So the media as a whole is not usually a fan of the right. I think as PH is much more to the right than the average, the allegations of bias on here get very overdone.
And I speak as a capitalism loving ex City worker.
1. Seeing bias is based on your beliefs.
2. Most journalists are left leaning.
Journalists are not inherently better at being impartial. If anything they are worse because they are journalists because they think their opinion is important and want it broadcast.
Why would numbers of senior BBC staffers confess if there was no bias; on what basis around neutrality and impartiality would producers hand The Guardian to presenters to give them a line on a story; and why do people who have no concern with the direction of bias still note that it clearly exists (and happens to be bias to the Left). This isn't a matter of personal politics it's a matter of BBC output and the evidence for bias in this and other BBC threads is overwhelming. Evidentially there's no credible case for holding that the BBC is neutral. If anyone is suggesting that leftism in media journalism is somehow an explanation or justification, it isn't. The impartiality requirement for our national broadcaster doesn't have a get-out clause excusing bias because the BBC appoints mainly lefties.
Gogoplata said:
Harji said:
You can always count on The Canary for a balanced opinion "Corbyn surprises everyone by gaming social media like a boss on election day"
williamp said:
Gogoplata said:
Harji said:
You can always count on The Canary for a balanced opinion "Corbyn surprises everyone by gaming social media like a boss on election day"
Going back to the BBC. It would seem that both the left & right are complaining that the BBC are biased. Perhaps it's just a matter of perception depending on your political leaning and therefore the BBC have the balance just right?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff