Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
Put this in every box
"The BBC is distinct inasmuch as it is paid for, under threat of prison, to deliver an unbiased and free from opinion broadcast, this it has repeatedly failed to do, the Charter is meaningless and a change is required. It is common knowledge that BBC invests in Green Industry and has paid staff such as R Harribin to promote it via utterly biased and scientifically incorrect material.
This has caused resentment among your licence payers because this is not unbiased and you are now facing a backlash. Remove the fee and carry on or behave in an appropriate manner and continue."
"The BBC is distinct inasmuch as it is paid for, under threat of prison, to deliver an unbiased and free from opinion broadcast, this it has repeatedly failed to do, the Charter is meaningless and a change is required. It is common knowledge that BBC invests in Green Industry and has paid staff such as R Harribin to promote it via utterly biased and scientifically incorrect material.
This has caused resentment among your licence payers because this is not unbiased and you are now facing a backlash. Remove the fee and carry on or behave in an appropriate manner and continue."
2013BRM said:
Put this in every box
"The BBC is distinct inasmuch as it is paid for, under threat of prison, to deliver an unbiased and free from opinion broadcast, this it has repeatedly failed to do, the Charter is meaningless and a change is required. It is common knowledge that BBC invests in Green Industry and has paid staff such as R Harribin to promote it via utterly biased and scientifically incorrect material.
This has caused resentment among your licence payers because this is not unbiased and you are now facing a backlash. Remove the fee and carry on or behave in an appropriate manner and continue."
Or you could just put your underpants on your head and go 'wibble'?"The BBC is distinct inasmuch as it is paid for, under threat of prison, to deliver an unbiased and free from opinion broadcast, this it has repeatedly failed to do, the Charter is meaningless and a change is required. It is common knowledge that BBC invests in Green Industry and has paid staff such as R Harribin to promote it via utterly biased and scientifically incorrect material.
This has caused resentment among your licence payers because this is not unbiased and you are now facing a backlash. Remove the fee and carry on or behave in an appropriate manner and continue."
TTwiggy said:
2013BRM said:
Put this in every box
"The BBC is distinct inasmuch as it is paid for, under threat of prison, to deliver an unbiased and free from opinion broadcast, this it has repeatedly failed to do, the Charter is meaningless and a change is required. It is common knowledge that BBC invests in Green Industry and has paid staff such as R Harribin to promote it via utterly biased and scientifically incorrect material.
This has caused resentment among your licence payers because this is not unbiased and you are now facing a backlash. Remove the fee and carry on or behave in an appropriate manner and continue."
Or you could just put your underpants on your head and go 'wibble'?"The BBC is distinct inasmuch as it is paid for, under threat of prison, to deliver an unbiased and free from opinion broadcast, this it has repeatedly failed to do, the Charter is meaningless and a change is required. It is common knowledge that BBC invests in Green Industry and has paid staff such as R Harribin to promote it via utterly biased and scientifically incorrect material.
This has caused resentment among your licence payers because this is not unbiased and you are now facing a backlash. Remove the fee and carry on or behave in an appropriate manner and continue."
Countdown said:
Which offering yet again misses the point by a country mile. The BBC is required to be impartial so if a score of 10 equates to very impartial then the BBC should be scoring 11 for totally impartial (iyswim).
A score of 6.8 simply isn't good enough and demonstrates the opposite result to the one you almost certainly intended (though clearly the link was posted without comment). To what degree is the BBC trading off its past in this survey...a large degree in my view.
Other news outlets as listed in the survey are not required to be impartial and indeed are not, we know this as it's easy to spot. We also know that the BBC is not impartial, which is also easy to spot, but it's the only one required to be so.
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
A score of 6.8 simply isn't good enough and demonstrates the opposite result to the one you almost certainly intended (though clearly the link was posted without comment). Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
A score of 6.8 simply isn't good enough and demonstrates the opposite result to the one you almost certainly intended (though clearly the link was posted without comment). Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
A score of 6.8 simply isn't good enough and demonstrates the opposite result to the one you almost certainly intended (though clearly the link was posted without comment). Spot the confirmation of bias.
Thinking it's something else - spot the real confirmation bias. Looking at that survey it's possible for every respondent to view the BBC as biased, giving a score around the value shown.
The nature of the survey disguises the evident bias by making a comparison with other media outlets that are not required to be impartial and are indeed not impartial, and by avoiding a binary question on bias.
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
A score of 6.8 simply isn't good enough and demonstrates the opposite result to the one you almost certainly intended (though clearly the link was posted without comment). Spot the confirmation of bias.
Thinking it's something else - spot the real confirmation bias. Looking at that survey it's possible for every respondent to view the BBC as biased, giving a score around the value shown.
The nature of the survey disguises the evident bias by making a comparison with other media outlets that are not required to be impartial and are indeed not impartial, and by avoiding a binary question on bias.
Randy Winkman said:
Is there anything they could do to satisfy you other than close down?
With respect, what a silly question.Yes.
Remain wholly impartial and scrupulously unbiased - no bias in any direction - at all times in every element of output via radio, tv and online...as required.
Drop the archaic funding mechanism, recruit and retain competent managers who can cut the appalling levels of intra-corp largesse and waste.
Porcine aviation may evolve first but that ( ^ ) would be satisfactory.
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
Is there anything they could do to satisfy you other than close down?
With respect, what a silly question.Yes.
Remain wholly impartial and scrupulously unbiased - no bias in any direction - at all times in every element of output via radio, tv and online...as required.
Drop the archaic funding mechanism, recruit and retain competent managers who can cut the appalling levels of intra-corp largesse and waste.
Porcine aviation may evolve first but that ( ^ ) would be satisfactory.
turbobloke said:
In an Opinium-Observer poll in 2013 only 37% of over 1900 people surveyed gave the response that the BBC is neutral in its news coverage. Very poor for a national broadcaster with a requirement to be impartial.
Possibly the 37% just happen to miss disgraceful biased output like this.
have you considered confirmation bias in the sample given that the Observer is effectively the Manchester Guardian on Sunday ? Possibly the 37% just happen to miss disgraceful biased output like this.
much as there is huge confirmation bias in the 'accepted phacts' on PH
Countdown said:
'm genuinely not sure what you were expecting in a programme about slavery - maybe a "Right of Reply" from a rich white oppressor? The programme showed slavery as a bad thing, generally because it was a bad thing. I'm pretty sure that's why it was banned. I watched the programme. It didn't make me think all "rich white people" were bad or that RWP needed to apologise in perpetuity. Perhaps the Beeb should have had a disclaimer saying "Oh some black people also did this. And arabs. And chinese. And Persians. And Romans. In fact slavery was quite common until relatively recently."
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.
Sticking to this narrative is exactly what I would expect of a programme like this on the BBC, and in fairness almost anywhere else. It would be nice to see this sort of collective self-flagellation challenged a bit, but the media isn't really driven by what I think would be nice. 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.
As I said that's not really a criticism of the BBC in isolation though. Slavery was cast in terms of race when I was taught about it at school, and it's constantly reinforced almost every time the subject is discussed. I don't know if this is by conscious conspiracy or just a sort of collective blind spot we have developed.
I suppose in a really ideal world, the independence afforded by it's ingenious funding method of taxing electrical goods, and the world beating quality and objectivity of it's programme making should make the BBC just the organisation to challenge this sort of orthodoxy with some freely available but little discussed facts. Or they could just join in the liberal white guilt orgy.
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
Is there anything they could do to satisfy you other than close down?
With respect, what a silly question.Yes.
Remain wholly impartial and scrupulously unbiased - no bias in any direction - at all times in every element of output via radio, tv and online...as required.
Drop the archaic funding mechanism, recruit and retain competent managers who can cut the appalling levels of intra-corp largesse and waste.
Porcine aviation may evolve first but that ( ^ ) would be satisfactory.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff