Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
The Don of Croy said:
Did anyone see this nugget last month?
- which is factually correct, but perhaps not as nuanced as the later version which read 'Palestinian kills two Israelis in Old City'.
Is it bias or just seeing what we want to see?
Well its technically more correct than the later headline as that doesn't say that the Palestinian dies at all.- which is factually correct, but perhaps not as nuanced as the later version which read 'Palestinian kills two Israelis in Old City'.
Is it bias or just seeing what we want to see?
Either way of writing could be construed as biased if you wanted to.
Peter Sissons, with 20+ years' experience of BBC bias - including being repeatedly told to take his line on a news item from coverage in The Guardian - and writing under the title "Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA" put it this way.
"Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities. The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology."
"All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both."
"Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers. Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically. The Royal Family is a bore. Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended."
"Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities. The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology."
"All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both."
"Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers. Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically. The Royal Family is a bore. Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended."
Here's another; Chatham House. Who at the BBC decided to give these masters of cod science a platform to preach their nonsense?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3489...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3489...
I had the misfortune to watch BBC news last week. Said "news" comprised of basically news and opinion, then followed by 10 minutes of blatant global warming propaganda. No debate, just spouting the alarmist nonsense.
As for BBc bias toward the left , its profound.
People who maintain its not are either those who do not watch it, those who do not want to see it, and deliberate liars.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the BBc is not independently regulated by OFCOM like other broadcasters when it comes to bias and impartiality , that job being done by the BBC trust. So, the BBc is not biased, because they say they are not , very cosy.
Time the BBc trust was scrapped and they were regulated in all spheres by OFCOM , put the matter to bed for once and all.
As for BBc bias toward the left , its profound.
People who maintain its not are either those who do not watch it, those who do not want to see it, and deliberate liars.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the BBc is not independently regulated by OFCOM like other broadcasters when it comes to bias and impartiality , that job being done by the BBC trust. So, the BBc is not biased, because they say they are not , very cosy.
Time the BBc trust was scrapped and they were regulated in all spheres by OFCOM , put the matter to bed for once and all.
AJS- said:
Never thought I'd say it but I think that is jumping at shadows a bit. How would you report that neutrally?
On one level I doubt any Palestinian/Israeli action can be treated neutrally...However, in the story a Palestinian has murdered two Israelis - murder being the correct term for premeditated killing - before being subjected to lethal force (presumably to prevent further murders).
By using 'Palestinian dead' in the headline it posits a certain thought. 'Israelis killed' is less perjoratative than 'murdered'. The dead Palestinian had a choice that day - the two dead Israelis less so.
Does anybody else get the same impression from Russell Howards' Good News?
Forever barking on at Tory policy and making jokes about Cameron, which, sometimes just go a little too far? Yes you can expect there to be jokes about current events, but he's never once (from my memory - happy to be provided with evidence otherwise) taken the p*ss out of Corbyn and his policies. Which seems odd, given that it's supposed to be about current events and the 'News' (clue is in the name I guess).
I've never considered myself to have any political allegiance but find it sometimes un-bearable watching someone who is quite a decent entertainer waving a Labour flag at every opportunity. The impression you're left with is that the Labour party have never done anything wrong, ever, and the Tories are nothing but evil. A bit of balance would go a long, long way.
Like I say, perhaps I'm just missing those gags or maybe I do have a political agenda I didn't know I did, but I wondered if others had noticed similar?
Forever barking on at Tory policy and making jokes about Cameron, which, sometimes just go a little too far? Yes you can expect there to be jokes about current events, but he's never once (from my memory - happy to be provided with evidence otherwise) taken the p*ss out of Corbyn and his policies. Which seems odd, given that it's supposed to be about current events and the 'News' (clue is in the name I guess).
I've never considered myself to have any political allegiance but find it sometimes un-bearable watching someone who is quite a decent entertainer waving a Labour flag at every opportunity. The impression you're left with is that the Labour party have never done anything wrong, ever, and the Tories are nothing but evil. A bit of balance would go a long, long way.
Like I say, perhaps I'm just missing those gags or maybe I do have a political agenda I didn't know I did, but I wondered if others had noticed similar?
I think ultimately if debating the licensing fee there would be a strong vote for the public to accept advertising on the BBC as opposed to any reform of the current "You must pay this set fee if you've got a telly in your house" format.
I certainly would welcome it, rather than being tied in to paying for something I barely use. I fail to see what benefits there are to not having advertising on the BBC. It's hardly sacred.
I certainly would welcome it, rather than being tied in to paying for something I barely use. I fail to see what benefits there are to not having advertising on the BBC. It's hardly sacred.
Beati Dogu said:
Russell Howard reminds me of Ben Elton's 80s stand up. All he had to do was say "Mrs Thatch, Mrs Thatch" to have his largely metropolitan audience in hysterics.
which in realtiy addresses the issue of political bias in comedy , 'alternative' comedy of the 1980s and ever since is based strongly in people who were left wing ... red wedge and all that ... C.A.R. said:
I think ultimately if debating the licensing fee there would be a strong vote for the public to accept advertising on the BBC as opposed to any reform of the current "You must pay this set fee if you've got a telly in your house" format.
I certainly would welcome it, rather than being tied in to paying for something I barely use. I fail to see what benefits there are to not having advertising on the BBC. It's hardly sacred.
At which point it probably bears mentioning (again) that pretty much every western democracy charges its citizens a licence fee (some less, some more than we pay here) and that none of them recieve a service as comprehensive and as globaly admired as the BBC in return.I certainly would welcome it, rather than being tied in to paying for something I barely use. I fail to see what benefits there are to not having advertising on the BBC. It's hardly sacred.
That doesn't of course preclude any debate about scrapping our fee, it simply means that VFM isn't a strong position to argue from.
TTwiggy said:
C.A.R. said:
I think ultimately if debating the licensing fee there would be a strong vote for the public to accept advertising on the BBC as opposed to any reform of the current "You must pay this set fee if you've got a telly in your house" format.
I certainly would welcome it, rather than being tied in to paying for something I barely use. I fail to see what benefits there are to not having advertising on the BBC. It's hardly sacred.
At which point it probably bears mentioning (again) that pretty much every western democracy charges its citizens a licence fee (some less, some more than we pay here) and that none of them recieve a service as comprehensive and as globaly admired as the BBC in return.I certainly would welcome it, rather than being tied in to paying for something I barely use. I fail to see what benefits there are to not having advertising on the BBC. It's hardly sacred.
Currently the BBC is overstaffed in terms of cushy 'management' posts in an essentially non-competitive environment due to the licence fee, it's too costly anyway, it's culpably biased in convtravention of requirements and overdue for significant reform (at the very least).
turbobloke said:
The global admiration is trading off past glory - and if listening to the World Service is involved, let's charge the buggers a fee for this great service. Technology should be able to cope as easily as it could cope with a pay-per-view approach to consuming the BBC's domestic propaganda.
Currently the BBC is overstaffed in terms of cushy 'managemet' posts in an essentially non-competitive environment due to the licence fee, it's too costly anyway, it's culpably biased in convtravention of requirements and overdue for significant reform (at the very least).
You probably believe that I love the BBC, but I can assure you that as I have to deal with the buggers on an almost weekly basis, I have more reason to detest them than most. Currently the BBC is overstaffed in terms of cushy 'managemet' posts in an essentially non-competitive environment due to the licence fee, it's too costly anyway, it's culpably biased in convtravention of requirements and overdue for significant reform (at the very least).
Like many large organisations they are bloated, staffed by more than their fair share of troughing incompetents, hugely wasteful and set up to be self-serving.
Where I swim against the tide on here is in the view that it is inherently scewed towards the left - the BBC is not organised enough to be so and I think they mostly manage to be as neutral as I would expect them to be - accepting that perception is everything here.
I would also argue that they DO consistently produce quality programming across a broad church of genres. There is certainly room for a review of how they are funded – times have changed since 1923 – but if some sort of licence fee were to remain (and it probably would) then I'd still consider the BBC to be fair recompense for it.
C.A.R. said:
Does anybody else get the same impression from Russell Howards' Good News?
Forever barking on at Tory policy and making jokes about Cameron, which, sometimes just go a little too far? Yes you can expect there to be jokes about current events, but he's never once (from my memory - happy to be provided with evidence otherwise) taken the p*ss out of Corbyn and his policies. Which seems odd, given that it's supposed to be about current events and the 'News' (clue is in the name I guess).
I've never considered myself to have any political allegiance but find it sometimes un-bearable watching someone who is quite a decent entertainer waving a Labour flag at every opportunity. The impression you're left with is that the Labour party have never done anything wrong, ever, and the Tories are nothing but evil. A bit of balance would go a long, long way.
Like I say, perhaps I'm just missing those gags or maybe I do have a political agenda I didn't know I did, but I wondered if others had noticed similar?
I think you will find you are not alone in those thoughts regarding Russell Howard.Forever barking on at Tory policy and making jokes about Cameron, which, sometimes just go a little too far? Yes you can expect there to be jokes about current events, but he's never once (from my memory - happy to be provided with evidence otherwise) taken the p*ss out of Corbyn and his policies. Which seems odd, given that it's supposed to be about current events and the 'News' (clue is in the name I guess).
I've never considered myself to have any political allegiance but find it sometimes un-bearable watching someone who is quite a decent entertainer waving a Labour flag at every opportunity. The impression you're left with is that the Labour party have never done anything wrong, ever, and the Tories are nothing but evil. A bit of balance would go a long, long way.
Like I say, perhaps I'm just missing those gags or maybe I do have a political agenda I didn't know I did, but I wondered if others had noticed similar?
The left wing could create a comically gold hooter of an issue in the news, and he would ignore that in favour of a soundbite that happened in a foreign country months ago. Like a video of a donkey smoking a cigar.
TTwiggy said:
turbobloke said:
The global admiration is trading off past glory - and if listening to the World Service is involved, let's charge the buggers a fee for this great service. Technology should be able to cope as easily as it could cope with a pay-per-view approach to consuming the BBC's domestic propaganda.
Currently the BBC is overstaffed in terms of cushy 'managemet' posts in an essentially non-competitive environment due to the licence fee, it's too costly anyway, it's culpably biased in convtravention of requirements and overdue for significant reform (at the very least).
You probably believe that I love the BBC, but I can assure you that as I have to deal with the buggers on an almost weekly basis, I have more reason to detest them than most. Currently the BBC is overstaffed in terms of cushy 'managemet' posts in an essentially non-competitive environment due to the licence fee, it's too costly anyway, it's culpably biased in convtravention of requirements and overdue for significant reform (at the very least).
Like many large organisations they are bloated, staffed by more than their fair share of troughing incompetents, hugely wasteful and set up to be self-serving.
Where I swim against the tide on here is in the view that it is inherently scewed towards the left - the BBC is not organised enough to be so and I think they mostly manage to be as neutral as I would expect them to be - accepting that perception is everything here.
I would also argue that they DO consistently produce quality programming across a broad church of genres. There is certainly room for a review of how they are funded – times have changed since 1923 – but if some sort of licence fee were to remain (and it probably would) then I'd still consider the BBC to be fair recompense for it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff