Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[mph1977]

Europa1 said:

BlackLabel said:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/16/bbc-b...

Quality journalism by the Daily Fail - the male presenter is actually sat on the right of the sofa.

it seems to be related to how the production team signify the different seats at the desk / on the sofa

'number 1' being left of screen (looking in) / right of set (looking out)

[mybrainhurts]

iphonedyou said:

Surely it could just as easily be construed as the lady presenter is always on viewers' right, hence in the 'prime' position.

Or, of course - there's no such thing as a prime position.

Dumb whingers, can't they see it's the ultimate PC?

Women on the right because women always right...

[Hol]

Europa1 said:

BlackLabel said:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/16/bbc-b...

Quality journalism by the Daily Fail - the male presenter is actually sat on the right of the sofa.

I wonder how many signatures the expected petition for change to Parliament will get???

[The Hypno-Toad]

Young female doctor commits suicide, BBC feels the need to 'suggest' that Jeremy Hunt helped drive her to it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36015693

I thought that this sort of information was usually only revealed at an inquest and with the family's consent? And where the would the beeb have got such information in the first place?

Maybe the beeb and D & C Police have something in Common?

[gruffalo]

Well she mentioned Hunt several times before going missing and again on the note left in her car.

Don't think this can be labelled as political bias at the BBC.

[The Don of Croy]

I'll admit that some of the perceived 'bias' is more exasperation at the way a story is handled, and some piss-poor reportage.

Step forward the Scottish schools fiasco - the headline on Sunday showed a collapsed wall but made no mention of the event happening months ago, or indeed it was a collapsed wall. They did keep repeating the phrase 'public private partnership' as though that was some new building code and fundamental to the way bricks come to be placed.

Regardless of the outcome (some lapse in site management at the very least) the phrase 'public private partnership' is now linked with poor building, at least for now.

Ditto the Cameron offshore story - when the news reader says 'some people are asking' I always want to know WTF has such influence, and why can they not be named? Furthermore, if we need to know what CMD earns why not the news presenters who 'hold the government to account'?

[anonymous-user]

The Don of Croy said:

I'll admit that some of the perceived 'bias' is more exasperation at the way a story is handled, and some piss-poor reportage.

Step forward the Scottish schools fiasco - the headline on Sunday showed a collapsed wall but made no mention of the event happening months ago, or indeed it was a collapsed wall. They did keep repeating the phrase 'public private partnership' as though that was some new building code and fundamental to the way bricks come to be placed.

Regardless of the outcome (some lapse in site management at the very least) the phrase 'public private partnership' is now linked with poor building, at least for now.

Ditto the Cameron offshore story - when the news reader says 'some people are asking' I always want to know WTF has such influence, and why can they not be named? Furthermore, if we need to know what CMD earns why not the news presenters who 'hold the government to account'?

The same thing occurred to me. Why no mention of the building inspectors making sure it complied with regs? How does the way a building is financed affect the way the bricks are laid.

I put it down to typical BBC ignorance rather than bias in this case though.

[motco]

REALIST123 said:

The Don of Croy said:

I'll admit that some of the perceived 'bias' is more exasperation at the way a story is handled, and some piss-poor reportage.

Step forward the Scottish schools fiasco - the headline on Sunday showed a collapsed wall but made no mention of the event happening months ago, or indeed it was a collapsed wall. They did keep repeating the phrase 'public private partnership' as though that was some new building code and fundamental to the way bricks come to be placed.

Regardless of the outcome (some lapse in site management at the very least) the phrase 'public private partnership' is now linked with poor building, at least for now.

Ditto the Cameron offshore story - when the news reader says 'some people are asking' I always want to know WTF has such influence, and why can they not be named? Furthermore, if we need to know what CMD earns why not the news presenters who 'hold the government to account'?

The same thing occurred to me. Why no mention of the building inspectors making sure it complied with regs? How does the way a building is financed affect the way the bricks are laid.

I put it down to typical BBC ignorance rather than bias in this case though.

According to some character on 'Today' it's Michael Gove's fault because he was only wanting to make bankers rich and not architects. A first class political rant was aired by BBC

[Europa1]

It only took the BBC a week to make the distinction between a family trust and an investment fund. Dozy pricks.

[turbobloke]

The Don of Croy said:

I'll admit that some of the perceived 'bias' is more exasperation at the way a story is handled, and some piss-poor reportage.

The mere 'way a story is handled' can and does reflect bias, as illustrated by the Panama story and the BBC (as reported on PH) telling people CMD had not paid CGT without also telling people that no CGT was due.

If bias is perceived because a story is handled in a biased manner, usually when a presenter has been handed a copy of The Guardian after being told "it's all in there" as revealed by Sissons, then it's bias not perception alone acting as some form of imagination.

Poor reporting on a regular basis from the best journalists that lots of money can buy (i.e. money flowing in from the TV licence)? Not likely - for the most part it's quite deliberate. It happened too often when I was still watching and listening to the BBC's information pollution and it's still all over their website. From PHer reports on here it's still happening on TV and radio and that's hardly surprising as the stables would need hosing down completely to change anything noticeably.

[Smiler.]

The BBC is a very large organisation with many departments & editors, producers presenters operating somewhat autonomously. It's not surprise that their recruits from the media & artistc pools have a politically tinted view of life.

I have to say, I'm rather surprised at the current R4 programmes covering the Deobandi movement in the UK. I think there must be a lot of uncomfortable people in the BBC right now.

If only such open journalism was the norm rather than the exception for licence payers.

[The Hypno-Toad]

Europa1 said:

It only took the BBC a week to make the distinction between a family trust and an investment fund. Dozy pricks.

Funnily enough, that didn't seem to be a problem for the Beeb when they were investing close to £80 million of tax payers money into an offshore account in Bermuda for their pension scheme according to order-order.com.

[CambsBill]

motco said:

REALIST123 said:

The Don of Croy said:

I'll admit that some of the perceived 'bias' is more exasperation at the way a story is handled, and some piss-poor reportage.

Step forward the Scottish schools fiasco - the headline on Sunday showed a collapsed wall but made no mention of the event happening months ago, or indeed it was a collapsed wall. They did keep repeating the phrase 'public private partnership' as though that was some new building code and fundamental to the way bricks come to be placed.

Regardless of the outcome (some lapse in site management at the very least) the phrase 'public private partnership' is now linked with poor building, at least for now.

Ditto the Cameron offshore story - when the news reader says 'some people are asking' I always want to know WTF has such influence, and why can they not be named? Furthermore, if we need to know what CMD earns why not the news presenters who 'hold the government to account'?

The same thing occurred to me. Why no mention of the building inspectors making sure it complied with regs? How does the way a building is financed affect the way the bricks are laid.

I put it down to typical BBC ignorance rather than bias in this case though.

According to some character on 'Today' it's Michael Gove's fault because he was only wanting to make bankers rich and not architects. A first class political rant was aired by BBC

Just googled this story and the schools were apparently built 10 years ago. I look forward with not a lot of hope to the BBC headlines screaming about "Labour's PFI building scandal"

[vournikas]

I've just stumbled across these two articles from the Institute of Economic Affairs, both of which are fairly damning of the way in which the BBC operates:-

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/bbc-bias-by-presentatio...

This above interesting in how contributor "health warnings" are broadcast prior to debates.

http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/in-foc...

In both, I find compelling reasons for a top-down reorganisation of the BBC

[steveatesh]

I thought this article was interesting, about th Radio 4 Today program "thought for the day".

http://capx.co/revealed-radio-4-thought-for-the-da...

Article is headed "Radio 4 Thought for the Day proven to be 65% anti-capitalist" which paints a picture of what it is about.

[longblackcoat]

steveatesh said:

I thought this article was interesting, about th Radio 4 Today program "thought for the day".

http://capx.co/revealed-radio-4-thought-for-the-da...

Article is headed "Radio 4 Thought for the Day proven to be 65% anti-capitalist" which paints a picture of what it is about.

Proven? Check the source.

[turbobloke]

longblackcoat said:

steveatesh said:

I thought this article was interesting, about th Radio 4 Today program "thought for the day".

http://capx.co/revealed-radio-4-thought-for-the-da...

Article is headed "Radio 4 Thought for the Day proven to be 65% anti-capitalist" which paints a picture of what it is about.

Proven? Check the source.

Link said:

...in a new book on the BBC, the Institute for Economic Affairs reveals the truth about Thought for the Day, with statistics and everything. In a sample of 976 separate editions of Radio 4’s Thought for the Day, 167 included discussions on economics, business and finance. Two thirds (65%) expressed a negative opinion on capitalism, markets and business, whilst just 8% gave any sort of positive perspective. Negative commentary outweighed positive commentary by a factor of more than eight to one...

It's the IEA a free market think-tank, which examined actual BBC Thought for the Day content to obtain the data. After your implied smear I had thought it would be the BBC itself, which in a way it is as they broadcast the anti-capitalist messages dressed up as of mushy religion for the masses.

Maybe you expected The Guardian to check up on the BBC.

[longblackcoat]

turbobloke said:

It's the IEA a free market think-tank, which examined actual BBC Thought for the Day content to obtain the data. After your implied smear I had thought it would be the BBC itself, which in a way it is as they broadcast the anti-capitalist messages dressed up as of mushy religion for the masses.

Maybe you expected The Guardian to check up on the BBC.

The source being the IEA, who have a degree of self-interest. Or are you claiming them to be unbiased?

[limpsfield]

longblackcoat said:

turbobloke said:

It's the IEA a free market think-tank, which examined actual BBC Thought for the Day content to obtain the data. After your implied smear I had thought it would be the BBC itself, which in a way it is as they broadcast the anti-capitalist messages dressed up as of mushy religion for the masses.

Maybe you expected The Guardian to check up on the BBC.

The source being the IEA, who have a degree of self-interest. Or are you claiming them to be unbiased?

Exactly this. Think tanks are all bks regardless of their political leanings. Would apply zero weight.

Front page of their website -



I am not saying privatisation would be good/bad as, like most people, I have bigger things to worry about - but it does suggest a certain leaning.

Edited by limpsfield on Tuesday 3rd May 19:31

[turbobloke]

limpsfield said:

longblackcoat said:

turbobloke said:

It's the IEA a free market think-tank, which examined actual BBC Thought for the Day content to obtain the data. After your implied smear I had thought it would be the BBC itself, which in a way it is as they broadcast the anti-capitalist messages dressed up as of mushy religion for the masses.

Maybe you expected The Guardian to check up on the BBC.

The source being the IEA, who have a degree of self-interest. Or are you claiming them to be unbiased?

Exactly this. Think tanks are all bks regardless of their political leanings. Would apply zero weight.

They're a free market think-tank. As I already pointed out. The Guardian is a blinkered lefty rag and the BBC uses it for briefing presenters and newscasters, while the Daily Mail has a right-wing flavour with a penchant for Samantha Brick and a house price in every story. None of this means that whatever appears in The Guardian or Mail or indeed via the IEA website is automatically wrong because two people don't like it.

Both of you have the IEA contact details or can easily find them, write and ask for the data they used i.e. the R4 TftD output. Meanwhile unless you have an alternative sample of BBC R4 Thought for the Day and have analysed it to produce a different result, you've got nothing but an attempted smear and I'll bet you a shilling on the side neither of you can make it stick as above.

As for dismissing all think tank output, that's beyond hilarious.