Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
chris watton said:
TBH, when I was your age (mid-20's), I never even contemplated the thought of bias in the BBC, I lapped it all up. However, as you got older, you do tend to notice it a lot more.
Are you acknowledging then that the amount of bias you see relates to your own political viewpoint?Randy Winkman said:
chris watton said:
TBH, when I was your age (mid-20's), I never even contemplated the thought of bias in the BBC, I lapped it all up. However, as you got older, you do tend to notice it a lot more.
Are you acknowledging then that the amount of bias you see relates to your own political viewpoint?I do not, or do my best to avoid any BBC-related news and current affairs content the same way I avoid any overt right wing content. I would never subscribe to Fox news, for example. I listen perhaps 5 minutes per day to main news headlines.
My political view points are quite soft compared to those of you on both sides of the political spectrum, so have little need to endure confirmation bias.
This myth that seeing bias is purely down to individual politics is laughable.
According to those political diagnosis plots, which are on the internet so must be right and according to my own self-diagnosis I vote Conservative and hold a libertarian perspective.
I can see that there are editorials in the Mail and DT that have a right-wing bias. This is simple.
By virtue of using the same critical faculties with the BBC, it is quite obvious that the BBC has a left-wing bias.
Also I would object to BBC bias if it was right-wing since it's the duty of the national broadcaster to be impartial whereas there is no duty on newspapers such as The Guardian or the Daily Mail.
Why this non-point keeps recurring is most strange. The left-wing bias is in BBC output, as confessed by the BBC (see earlier in this and other BBC threads n times).
According to those political diagnosis plots, which are on the internet so must be right
and according to my own self-diagnosis I vote Conservative and hold a libertarian perspective.I can see that there are editorials in the Mail and DT that have a right-wing bias. This is simple.
By virtue of using the same critical faculties with the BBC, it is quite obvious that the BBC has a left-wing bias.
Also I would object to BBC bias if it was right-wing since it's the duty of the national broadcaster to be impartial whereas there is no duty on newspapers such as The Guardian or the Daily Mail.
Why this non-point keeps recurring is most strange. The left-wing bias is in BBC output, as confessed by the BBC (see earlier in this and other BBC threads n times).
Halb said:
Corbyn/English labour has a pretty massive success yesterday; considering how Corbin is viewed, how he is undermined by his own MPs, and the whole storm over nothing thing about Red Ken...and considering all of the above, how much people hought English labour would lose.
Avoiding a car crash result isn't a massive success, he needed to be winning lots of seats/councils to be able to claim any kind of success against a PM/government that has been in power for 6 years, what happened in Scotland has probably killed Labours chances of ever getting into power again. The Tories have been having a U turn feast and are openly fighting each other on Europe, junior doctors in full scale revolt and he still couldn't gain any real traction, if he gets to the GE the result will be an embarrassment.
Wills2 said:
Halb said:
Corbyn/English labour has a pretty massive success yesterday; considering how Corbin is viewed, how he is undermined by his own MPs, and the whole storm over nothing thing about Red Ken...and considering all of the above, how much people hought English labour would lose.
Avoiding a car crash result isn't a massive success, he needed to be winning lots of seats/councils to be able to claim any kind of success against a PM/government that has been in power for 6 years, what happened in Scotland has probably killed Labours chances of ever getting into power again. The Tories have been having a U turn feast and are openly fighting each other on Europe, junior doctors in full scale revolt and he still couldn't gain any real traction, if he gets to the GE the result will be an embarrassment.
turbobloke said:
This myth that seeing bias is purely down to individual politics is laughable.
According to those political diagnosis plots, which are on the internet so must be right and according to my own self-diagnosis I vote Conservative and hold a libertarian perspective.
I can see that there are editorials in the Mail and DT that have a right-wing bias. This is simple.
By virtue of using the same critical faculties with the BBC, it is quite obvious that the BBC has a left-wing bias.
Also I would object to BBC bias if it was right-wing since it's the duty of the national broadcaster to be impartial whereas there is no duty on newspapers such as The Guardian or the Daily Mail.
Why this non-point keeps recurring is most strange. The left-wing bias is in BBC output, as confessed by the BBC (see earlier in this and other BBC threads n times).
Who gets to decide what a neutral slant on the news is? A guardian reader or a telegraph reader? what if the overton window has shifted over time so what was once right wing in now seen as centralist.According to those political diagnosis plots, which are on the internet so must be right
and according to my own self-diagnosis I vote Conservative and hold a libertarian perspective.I can see that there are editorials in the Mail and DT that have a right-wing bias. This is simple.
By virtue of using the same critical faculties with the BBC, it is quite obvious that the BBC has a left-wing bias.
Also I would object to BBC bias if it was right-wing since it's the duty of the national broadcaster to be impartial whereas there is no duty on newspapers such as The Guardian or the Daily Mail.
Why this non-point keeps recurring is most strange. The left-wing bias is in BBC output, as confessed by the BBC (see earlier in this and other BBC threads n times).
hifihigh said:
turbobloke said:
This myth that seeing bias is purely down to individual politics is laughable.
According to those political diagnosis plots, which are on the internet so must be right and according to my own self-diagnosis I vote Conservative and hold a libertarian perspective.
I can see that there are editorials in the Mail and DT that have a right-wing bias. This is simple.
By virtue of using the same critical faculties with the BBC, it is quite obvious that the BBC has a left-wing bias.
Also I would object to BBC bias if it was right-wing since it's the duty of the national broadcaster to be impartial whereas there is no duty on newspapers such as The Guardian or the Daily Mail.
Why this non-point keeps recurring is most strange. The left-wing bias is in BBC output, as confessed by the BBC (see earlier in this and other BBC threads n times).
Who gets to decide what a neutral slant on the news is? A guardian reader or a telegraph reader? what if the overton window has shifted over time so what was once right wing in now seen as centralist.According to those political diagnosis plots, which are on the internet so must be right
and according to my own self-diagnosis I vote Conservative and hold a libertarian perspective.I can see that there are editorials in the Mail and DT that have a right-wing bias. This is simple.
By virtue of using the same critical faculties with the BBC, it is quite obvious that the BBC has a left-wing bias.
Also I would object to BBC bias if it was right-wing since it's the duty of the national broadcaster to be impartial whereas there is no duty on newspapers such as The Guardian or the Daily Mail.
Why this non-point keeps recurring is most strange. The left-wing bias is in BBC output, as confessed by the BBC (see earlier in this and other BBC threads n times).
It's easier than you think, as long as you think.
When James Naughtie speaking live on BBC R4 asks Balls about what happens if "we" win (the election) there's something a bit biased going on.
When Sissons tells you that BBC presenters asking for guidance on a story are often handed a copy of The Guardian with the advice "it's all in there" there's somnething not exactly neutral going on.
When another 20+ year senior staffer points out with concrete examples that left-wing perspectives are in everything else (other than news and current affairs) that the BBC does, there's something non-centralist going on.
When a negative story about Labour doesn't make BBC news but gets coverage on ITV there's something biased going on.
When a BBC 1 studio looks shell-shocked at the announcement of a General Election exit poll which appears to rob Labour of victory, then the next day their lead presenter looks like "a man who's just been told his dog has been run over" at the prospect of a Conservative majority, there's something not quite impartial involved, and when his studio colleague replies to his question about how they felt when the exit poll result came out and they say they wanted to hide under the desk, it's definitely not being covered in an even-hamded manner.
When a BBC web page helping the electorate to vote carries a prominent image around 'how to vote' with the pencil tip poised over the Labour box on the ballot paper, it's not quite cricket.
All of the above examples and a lot more are in this thread and remove any doubt that BBC coverage is NOT biased to the Left...this is helped when BBC employees acknowledge their bias and top brass agree.
Did you read (or re-read) any of the thread before posting?
Wills2 said:
Avoiding a car crash result isn't a massive success, he needed to be winning lots of seats/councils to be able to claim any kind of success against a PM/government that has been in power for 6 years, what happened in Scotland has probably killed Labours chances of ever getting into power again.
The Tories have been having a U turn feast and are openly fighting each other on Europe, junior doctors in full scale revolt and he still couldn't gain any real traction, if he gets to the GE the result will be an embarrassment.
Considering who he is, what he stands for, how alien he is to a lot of the country, UKiPs gunning for Labour in the North, the disloyalty of his team, where he started from, it looks like a decent win to me. People thought he was gonna get smashed to pieces and it never happened.The Tories have been having a U turn feast and are openly fighting each other on Europe, junior doctors in full scale revolt and he still couldn't gain any real traction, if he gets to the GE the result will be an embarrassment.
Back when the Torys were in the same boat and Blair faced the largest public match on the streets in modern Britain, the same pretty much happened. The Torys eventually got rid of their mad leaders. But the poltical landscape now is different.
Wills2 said:
Avoiding a car crash result isn't a massive success, he needed to be winning lots of seats/councils to be able to claim any kind of success against a PM/government that has been in power for 6 years, what happened in Scotland has probably killed Labours chances of ever getting into power again.
There is that.And the boundary revisions.
And they've got their secret Tory weapon, Corbyn.
The BBC will be mentioning this realistic prospect any time now, just after bigging up the local election results, the worst for Labour in ages.
I'm sure if I were to google "right wing bias at bbc" I would be able to find n+1 examples of it, but i can't be arsed. at the end of the day I'm not suprised the bbc is the the left of most people who post in this forum as polls showing voter intention here have shown it to be to the right of the population at large.
hifihigh said:
I'm sure if I were to google "right wing bias at bbc" I would be able to find n+1 examples of it, but i can't be arsed. at the end of the day I'm not suprised the bbc is the the left of most people who post in this forum as polls showing voter intention here have shown it to be to the right of the population at large.
That's also in the thread, repetition such as this is tedious but sometimes necessary.Claims or complaints can be tactical and/or vexatious.
What you posted is in effect irrelevant.
Jockman said:
I wondered why the BBC news was just presenting an 'overall' election vote count with Labour at 31% and Cons at 30%. I've never seen that type of thing before.
It's their prediction of what the share of the vote will be, not what the share of the vote is. Did they make that clear? It may or may not turn our like that.BBC web page bullet point summary last night and content today said:
Counting continues across English councils but the BBC is forecasting that, on the basis of the results so far, Labour would have got a 31% projected share of the national vote, with the Conservatives on 30%, the Lib Dems on 15% and UKIP on 12%.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-36218450Below is today's version of an almost identical web article published yesterday, the one I mention which has a bullet point summary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-36218450
In today's version they've added the Labour London Mayor result, likewise for Bristol, and mentioned Labour winning seats from the Tories in the London Assembly.
The SNP result summary isn't followed by any detail of the Conservatives taking seats off Labour in Scotland.
The same quote (spin) from Corbyn remains today.
hifihigh said:
Who gets to decide what a neutral slant on the news is? A guardian reader or a telegraph reader? what if the overton window has shifted over time so what was once right wing in now seen as centralist.
here in lays the problem , combined withthe confirmation bias of those on both sides politically claimingthe BBC is not neutral ... mph1977 said:
hifihigh said:
Who gets to decide what a neutral slant on the news is? A guardian reader or a telegraph reader? what if the overton window has shifted over time so what was once right wing in now seen as centralist.
here in lays the problem , combined withthe confirmation bias of those on both sides politically claimingthe BBC is not neutral ... It's a non-point.
If somebody complains that the Daily Mail is left-wing biased does that make it so or even plausible?
There are some old and very threadbare excuses being recycled today.
turbobloke said:
Jockman said:
I wondered why the BBC news was just presenting an 'overall' election vote count with Labour at 31% and Cons at 30%. I've never seen that type of thing before.
It's their prediction of what the share of the vote will be, not what the share of the vote is. Did they make that clear? It may or may not turn our like that.Logged into FB, got this from there.
A lot of sorts are chatting about bbc bias.
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/06/the-abysmal-loc...
A lot of sorts are chatting about bbc bias.
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/06/the-abysmal-loc...
Halb said:
Logged into FB, got this from there.
A lot of sorts are chatting about bbc bias.
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/06/the-abysmal-loc...
It's like the anti-PH! A lot of sorts are chatting about bbc bias.
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/06/the-abysmal-loc...
"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."
See earlier reasons why that is irrelevant.
It's FB/canary content and FB/canary people (whoever they are) not BBC or BBC people who know about the BBC; evidence about BBC bias comes only from the BBC's content and BBC people who know about behind-the-scenes stuff which isn't broadcast that we wouldn't otherwise know about.
If people don't understand that very basic reality, I have only sympathy for them.
Then again this is PH so I suspect most people understand only too well but as usual are forgetting it when convenient.
It's FB/canary content and FB/canary people (whoever they are) not BBC or BBC people who know about the BBC; evidence about BBC bias comes only from the BBC's content and BBC people who know about behind-the-scenes stuff which isn't broadcast that we wouldn't otherwise know about.
If people don't understand that very basic reality, I have only sympathy for them.
Then again this is PH so I suspect most people understand only too well but as usual are forgetting it when convenient.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff