Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
Diderot said:
mybrainhurts said:
tangerine_sedge said:
All the UK News broadcasters have to follow the OFCOM guidelines (LINKY). See rule 5.1 : "News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality."
That's why UK sky news does not look anything like US Fox news. The BBC news is held to exactly the same standards as other UK broadcasters news output.
That's why UK sky news does not look anything like US Fox news. The BBC news is held to exactly the same standards as other UK broadcasters news output.
Cheese Mechanic said:
Strange, is not putting the BBC under the umbrella of OFCOM one of the key points under review, scrapping their self regulating BBC "Trust"?
OFCOM only has limited sway over the the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guid...
Whilst it does seem to have a remit concerning "Fairness" , impartiality is not under OFCOM remit.
Even the Daily Mirror (shock horror) having it out with the Beeb
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbc-must-held-a...
OFCOM specifically state they are not regulator over the BBC when it comes to bias or impartiality.
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/complain/tv-and-radi...
From the OFCOM site: "If your complaint relates to matters of due impartiality, due accuracy, bias or commercial references (with the exception of the relevant product placement rules: see Section Nine of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code) in BBC programming, please make a complaint Directly to the BBC
The BBC Trust
regulates these areas rather than Ofcom. "
OFCOM only has limited sway over the the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guid...
Whilst it does seem to have a remit concerning "Fairness" , impartiality is not under OFCOM remit.
Even the Daily Mirror (shock horror) having it out with the Beeb
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbc-must-held-a...
OFCOM specifically state they are not regulator over the BBC when it comes to bias or impartiality.
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/complain/tv-and-radi...
From the OFCOM site: "If your complaint relates to matters of due impartiality, due accuracy, bias or commercial references (with the exception of the relevant product placement rules: see Section Nine of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code) in BBC programming, please make a complaint Directly to the BBC
The BBC Trust
regulates these areas rather than Ofcom. "
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Tuesday 28th July 09:56
turbobloke said:
Diderot said:
mybrainhurts said:
tangerine_sedge said:
All the UK News broadcasters have to follow the OFCOM guidelines (LINKY). See rule 5.1 : "News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality."
That's why UK sky news does not look anything like US Fox news. The BBC news is held to exactly the same standards as other UK broadcasters news output.
That's why UK sky news does not look anything like US Fox news. The BBC news is held to exactly the same standards as other UK broadcasters news output.
( With a bit of help from OFCOM )
tangerine_sedge said:
Were these the same "silent majority" who were supposed to bring a day of reckoning to the traditional westminster parties and elect Saint Nige and his followers on a groundswell of common sense?
Exactly those people, or if the left were to be believed, the silent majority who would opt for a few months /years of bread and circuses and then genuine austerity imposed by the EU and IMF...The Don of Croy said:
Is this what we expect from 'news' programmes?
What's happened to all those migrants in the med - has that all stopped now? Did they all go home?
1. yes - unless you are only interested in pics of Kim Kardashian's arse, in which case you want "celebrity news" which he Daily Wail will be happy to provide;What's happened to all those migrants in the med - has that all stopped now? Did they all go home?
2. still coming.
Interesting perspective concenring the BBC
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/amazon%E2%80%...
From the DT, seems pretty much nail on head to me.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/amazon%E2%80%...
From the DT, seems pretty much nail on head to me.
Cheese Mechanic said:
Interesting perspective concenring the BBC
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/amazon%E2%80%...
From the DT, seems pretty much nail on head to me.
Yes it's spot on, hence Clarkson's comment about feeling like he'd stepped out of a bi-plane and into a spaceship.http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/amazon%E2%80%...
From the DT, seems pretty much nail on head to me.
This snip almost got the entire scene "...new players have huge pockets, immense marketing and promotional muscle, the best technology and are far better run than the bureaucratic, slumbering, depressed BBC..." all they needed to add was something about not needing to fail at being impartial.
Cheese Mechanic said:
Interesting perspective concenring the BBC
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/amazon%E2%80%...
From the DT, seems pretty much nail on head to me.
We dumped terrestrial TV a while ago and have only Netflix.http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/amazon%E2%80%...
From the DT, seems pretty much nail on head to me.
As the article states, the idea that commercial TV = mainstream only programming is rubbish, we're never stuck for something interesting to watch on Netflix, there are documentaries, independent films, TV series all for £5.99 a month - cheaper than the licence fee we no longer have to pay.
Being on demand means we get to watch what we want when we're ready - just the fact that we don't have to structure our lives around when a favourite programme is on or switch on only to find nothing worth watching is worth the subscription fee alone.
Owing to the fact that my Mum has a very small flat and I didn't want to fall out with my brother who is over from Spain, when I stayed with her over the weekend I had to endure a documentary from the BBC about the slave trade.
My brother, who is still basically a sixth form Marxist at heart, was very keen to see this show which basically consisted of explaining that after making loads of money out of slaves when the trade was abolished the horrible rich people were given loads of money in a government paid for "bail out".
Of course it was then insinuated that was very similar to a much more recent bailout and that the horrible rich people had made a huge fortune out of it. Just two things though, both of which were actually pointed out by the programme.
1.) The rich people then invested a great deal of money into the infrastructure of the UK, which then helped make the industrial and technological advances of the Victorian era possible and consolidated our position as a world power.
2.) They did a great deal of research which proved that a large number of normal, ordinary, newly middle class people had also invested in the slave trade in the same way today that your Gran may have a few shares.
But the main thing that grated was the way the 'host' was almost yelling into the camera about how horrible it all was. The subtext was very clearly.
"This is what your ancestors did in the name of money, don't you feel ashamed? Because you should do. All you horrible middle class people, your great, great, grandmother tortured slaves, you should be ashamed!! And don't even get me started on the decedents of the rich people (who put a lot of the money they were given back into the country), you should kill yourselves. RIGHT NOW!!"
Of course it was terrible but its history, its gone. The Romans took our descendants to Rome to be tortured and thrown to the lions but the only programme we got about that on the BBC is Up Pompeii. Maybe we should all be asking the Italians for compensation. But maybe looking at their current economy perhaps not.
My brother, who is still basically a sixth form Marxist at heart, was very keen to see this show which basically consisted of explaining that after making loads of money out of slaves when the trade was abolished the horrible rich people were given loads of money in a government paid for "bail out".
Of course it was then insinuated that was very similar to a much more recent bailout and that the horrible rich people had made a huge fortune out of it. Just two things though, both of which were actually pointed out by the programme.
1.) The rich people then invested a great deal of money into the infrastructure of the UK, which then helped make the industrial and technological advances of the Victorian era possible and consolidated our position as a world power.
2.) They did a great deal of research which proved that a large number of normal, ordinary, newly middle class people had also invested in the slave trade in the same way today that your Gran may have a few shares.
But the main thing that grated was the way the 'host' was almost yelling into the camera about how horrible it all was. The subtext was very clearly.
"This is what your ancestors did in the name of money, don't you feel ashamed? Because you should do. All you horrible middle class people, your great, great, grandmother tortured slaves, you should be ashamed!! And don't even get me started on the decedents of the rich people (who put a lot of the money they were given back into the country), you should kill yourselves. RIGHT NOW!!"
Of course it was terrible but its history, its gone. The Romans took our descendants to Rome to be tortured and thrown to the lions but the only programme we got about that on the BBC is Up Pompeii. Maybe we should all be asking the Italians for compensation. But maybe looking at their current economy perhaps not.
I wonder if they mentioned how many black people owned slaves in the American south? Or the Barbary slave trade taking European slaves up until the 19th century, which only really ended when the French occupied large chunks of north Africa.
Or was it just another exercise in white guilt?
Or was it just another exercise in white guilt?
AJS- said:
I wonder if they mentioned how many black people owned slaves in the American south? Or the Barbary slave trade taking European slaves up until the 19th century, which only really ended when the French occupied large chunks of north Africa.
Or was it just another exercise in white guilt?
^^^this^^^Or was it just another exercise in white guilt?
100%. The trustafarian host was a mission to make sure all the horrible white people felt terrible about their past and to link into the recent economic events which benefited the 'ruling class'.
The scene where he wandered down what is now a very well-to-do London street bellowing
"This house was owned by a slave trader. And this one! And this one!"
So?
They aren't now. Its like going to the Baths in errr... Bath and saying
"Look! These baths were used by slave traders, they used to pee in them!"
Pathetic, obsolete, sixth form Marxist politics broadcast as history.
AJS- said:
I wonder if they mentioned how many black people owned slaves in the American south? Or the Barbary slave trade taking European slaves up until the 19th century, which only really ended when the French occupied large chunks of north Africa.
Or was it just another exercise in white guilt?
I wonder how many people actually feel "guilty" when watching history programmes? If they're genuinely interested in the slave trade I'd be surprised if they used one BBC programme as their single point of reference.Or was it just another exercise in white guilt?
Countdown said:
AJS- said:
I wonder if they mentioned how many black people owned slaves in the American south? Or the Barbary slave trade taking European slaves up until the 19th century, which only really ended when the French occupied large chunks of north Africa.
Or was it just another exercise in white guilt?
I wonder how many people actually feel "guilty" when watching history programmes? If they're genuinely interested in the slave trade I'd be surprised if they used one BBC programme as their single point of reference.Or was it just another exercise in white guilt?
Countdown said:
I wonder how many people actually feel "guilty" when watching history programmes? If they're genuinely interested in the slave trade I'd be surprised if they used one BBC programme as their single point of reference.
It isn't about peope who are *genuinely interested* in history though, is it? It's about constructing a narrative for people with a passing interest who want something to feel angry and indignant about, and the narrative of rich white oppressors exploiting poor, downtrodden black people is an immensely powerful one. FWIW this isn't just crabby old AJS having a dig at black people. I think this narrative does a lot to foster a victim mentality amongst black people and a feeling of helplessness, and it serves to create a rather smug feeling of inherent superiority amongst liberal whites who believe they should now "give back" to atone for the sins of their ancestors in Africa. I believe it's ultimately just a modern vernacular for what Christian missionaries would have called civilising the savages.
I find a certain irony in the premise of "Black people from third-world countries were abused by white people 100's of years ago. it was terrible. Racism is terrible", when the only thing that has really changed is the public acceptability of it - in that it isn't. Which is quite right on it's own merit but falls far short of the expectations of those who sought to abolish it.
The actual root of the issue is alive and well & flourishes in the parts of the world that still haven't caught up with civilisation - add your own definition here.
I didn't see the BBC programme but did they raise awareness of the ongoing problems by highlighting where in the world such practices are being maintained?
The actual root of the issue is alive and well & flourishes in the parts of the world that still haven't caught up with civilisation - add your own definition here.
I didn't see the BBC programme but did they raise awareness of the ongoing problems by highlighting where in the world such practices are being maintained?
AJS- said:
Countdown said:
I wonder how many people actually feel "guilty" when watching history programmes? If they're genuinely interested in the slave trade I'd be surprised if they used one BBC programme as their single point of reference.
It isn't about peope who are *genuinely interested* in history though, is it? It's about constructing a narrative for people with a passing interest who want something to feel angry and indignant about, and the narrative of rich white oppressors exploiting poor, downtrodden black people is an immensely powerful one. Can I ask - was your view about slavery changed in any way? If not - what makes you think other people are more susceptible to being influenced?
"People who are looking for something to feel angry and indignant about" - I think there's a few of those in NP&E.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Oh, I like that. I like that a lot...Where do I start...?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff