Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[turbobloke]

Lucas CAV said:

Surely you're not taking sources at face value?

BBC sources, speaking of their experience at the BBC, where dozens say the same thing, why yes. What do you take at face value, your own opinion presumably. Your comment is frankly ludicrous.

Lucas CAV said:

You care enough to appear everytime the BBC is mentioned...

I provide evidence to counter the baseless opinion of people like you, though curiously on the 8th you didn't necessarily disagree with me. My how times change.

Lucas CAV said:

Seriously who in the real world cares about this perceived bias AND what difference does it make to ANYTHING - ?

I don't care on an emotional level. I object on a rational level.

BBC bias distorts public debate, as already acknowledged by a BBC source that you reject, on the basis of your opinion alone apparently.

It looks very much as though you don't read posts preferring to just spout same old.

[Lucas CAV]

turbobloke said:

Lucas CAV said:

Surely you're not taking sources at face value?

BBC sources, speaking of their experience at the BBC, where dozens say the same thing, why yes. What do you take at face value, your own opinion presumably. Your comment is frankly ludicrous.

And many, many people have and do work at the BBC - presumably you speak for all of them?

turbobloke said:

Lucas CAV said:

You care enough to appear everytime the BBC is mentioned...

I provide evidence to counter the baseless opinion of people like you, though curiously on the 8th you didn't necessarily disagree with me. My how times change.

Ha! "baseless opinion" unless you know more about me than I suspect, I'll consider that an Ad hom!

On the 8th you didn't answer the question I asked.

The text you DID post wasn't necessarily something I disagree with.

However you didn't answer the question asked.

turbobloke said:

Lucas CAV said:

Seriously who in the real world cares about this perceived bias AND what difference does it make to ANYTHING - ?

I don't care on an emotional level. I object on a rational level.

BBC bias distorts public debate, as already acknowledged by a BBC source that you reject, on the basis of your opinion alone apparently.

It looks very much as though you don't read posts preferring to just spout same old.

Whatever.
Why do you object so vehemently?

I've not rejected anything - I am merely curious as to:

Why you waste so much energy being the crusader for "rational" bias free broadcasting - especially as (in my humble opinion) it makes no difference in the real world.

It doesn't matter in the slightest what my stance on this is.



For someone who spat out his dummy so comprehensively

turbobloke said:

rohrl said:

What pisses me off most about PH is when one person decides to take over a discussion thread by steamrollering everyone else into submission.

They will write out huge long subdivided posts in which they will make spurious claims as if they're the word of God himself. They will pompously accuse everyone else of using strawman and ad hominem arguments. They will make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion through their tedious posting style and possibly most annoying of all they'll use the sniggering smiley which is the badge of the most arrogant of know-it-all prats.

Even worse than that are the whingeing puppies who do use strawmen, go ad hominem at the loss of an argument (i.e. early on), fail to address all aspects of a post they're repying to because they have nothing to offer but will hypocritically criticise others who do, then get annoyed when PHers pick apart what they say, finally running off to cry to mummy in The Lounge about it. At least all the other whiners cam do a me-too and feel better. Not a subdivided post in sight and no smiley, this is rohrl perfection no less and what a relief to have such lofty approval for posting on a public forum...which reminds me, the reeeaaally annoying people are those who moan because they can't control how other people write posts and act like those who think differently are doing something wrong.

you seem oddly quick to start labelling me

[John145]

"Earlier this week Mr Trump said "it looks like we're not going to have a very good relationship" with the UK."
From here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-3631875...

Is wildly inaccurate reporting. They're referring to this quote:

"It looks like we’re not going to have a very good relationship. I hope to have a good relationship with him, but it sounds like he’s not willing to address the problem either."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/16/don...

In reference to CMD - last I remember CMD =/= UK.

[longblackcoat]

John145 said:

"Earlier this week Mr Trump said "it looks like we're not going to have a very good relationship" with the UK."
From here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-3631875...

Is wildly inaccurate reporting. They're referring to this quote:

"It looks like we’re not going to have a very good relationship. I hope to have a good relationship with him, but it sounds like he’s not willing to address the problem either."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/16/don...

In reference to CMD - last I remember CMD =/= UK.

Cameron does not equal the UK, agreed, but if the potential leader of one country states that "we're not going to have a good relationship" when referring to another, is he referring to the leader or the country? And in that instance, is it in fact all that divisible?

Couple that with the remarks aimed at Sadiq Khan (which the BBC report references), and you might think that Trump had a problem with British politicians and ipso facto, Britain itself.

Alternatively, if you had a dislike and distrust of the BBC, you might think there was some form of bias against the racist, misogynistic, lying, duplicitous, hypocritical buffoon PH-approved man of the people who tells it like it is that will be representing the Republican Party this autumn.

[andymadmak]

longblackcoat said:

John145 said:

"Earlier this week Mr Trump said "it looks like we're not going to have a very good relationship" with the UK."
From here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-3631875...

Is wildly inaccurate reporting. They're referring to this quote:

"It looks like we’re not going to have a very good relationship. I hope to have a good relationship with him, but it sounds like he’s not willing to address the problem either."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/16/don...

In reference to CMD - last I remember CMD =/= UK.

Cameron does not equal the UK, agreed, but if the potential leader of one country states that "we're not going to have a good relationship" when referring to another, is he referring to the leader or the country? And in that instance, is it in fact all that divisible?

Couple that with the remarks aimed at Sadiq Khan (which the BBC report references), and you might think that Trump had a problem with British politicians and ipso facto, Britain itself.

Alternatively, if you had a dislike and distrust of the BBC, you might think there was some form of bias against the racist, misogynistic, lying, duplicitous, hypocritical buffoon PH-approved man of the people who tells it like it is that will be representing the Republican Party this autumn.

I think the reporting is selective. If you watch the interview it is clear that Trump is talking about his potential relationship with Cameron. Trump also said that (unlike Obama) the UK would certainly NOT be at the back of the queue when it came to negotiating a trade deal with the USA if Brexit occurs, so you would be hard pressed to believe he was anti UK.
Remarks aimed at Sadiq Khan? Those would be the remarks he made after he said that the temporary ban on Muslims entering USA ( a stupid idea imho) would not apply to Khan, and then Khan rather rudely rebuffed the comments? I think the personal rudeness in that particular spat started with Khan.
But, hey, the world media, political class and chattering classes seem united against Trump, which means much of the world may have some back tracking to do in the unlikely event that Trump were to become POTUS.
We are in for an interesting 6 months, that is for sure!

[The Don of Croy]

Lucas CAV said:

Seriously who in the real world cares about this perceived bias AND what difference does it make to ANYTHING - ?

Sorry to butt in, but you make a crucial point. Who cares? And why?

I care because the Beeb is the de facto news source for a large proportion of the voting public in the UK - like many others I watch the BBC News to see what's been going on.

If they present the facts and then editorialise them - 'give us your opinion on this' then that's a golden opportunity to spin the story. Whether they do or not is up to your interpretation.

Given the range of BBC influence - the online audience, the TV channels, Radio - it has an enormous influence, some obvious but much of it overt. So it does matter if you think the UK public should be correctly informed about what's going on either here at home, or around the World.

Lastly, it gets >£3 billion a year to do this, and currently creates more criminals (AIUI) than any other UK institution through licence fee enforcement.

[Eric Mc]

Does it affect YOU?

Does it change YOUR views?

Or does it just make you angry?

[The Don of Croy]

Like I said, it influences many UK voters and that in turn may have a material affect on me and mine.

Does it make me angry? Not all the time...

[longblackcoat]

The Don of Croy said:

and currently creates more criminals (AIUI) than any other UK institution through licence fee enforcement.

No.

The people who choose to watch live TV and choose not to pay the Government-mandated fee make themselves criminals. Watching TV is not a basic human right, and there's a cost to it in this country. Right or wrong, that's the way it is, and the fact that the Government has just extended the BBC's Charter means that they're fully supportive of this.

There are ever-cleverer ways - legal ones, I mean - of simply not watching live TV and avoiding all BBC content. If people choose not to do this and find themselves in court, that's simply the outcome of a decision they made.

[John145]

longblackcoat said:

John145 said:

"Earlier this week Mr Trump said "it looks like we're not going to have a very good relationship" with the UK."
From here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-3631875...

Is wildly inaccurate reporting. They're referring to this quote:

"It looks like we’re not going to have a very good relationship. I hope to have a good relationship with him, but it sounds like he’s not willing to address the problem either."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/16/don...

In reference to CMD - last I remember CMD =/= UK.

Cameron does not equal the UK, agreed, but if the potential leader of one country states that "we're not going to have a good relationship" when referring to another, is he referring to the leader or the country? And in that instance, is it in fact all that divisible?

Couple that with the remarks aimed at Sadiq Khan (which the BBC report references), and you might think that Trump had a problem with British politicians and ipso facto, Britain itself.

Alternatively, if you had a dislike and distrust of the BBC, you might think there was some form of bias against the racist, misogynistic, lying, duplicitous, hypocritical buffoon PH-approved man of the people who tells it like it is that will be representing the Republican Party this autumn.

I don't believe your logic to be sincere.

Proof: CMD didn't want Tusk as president of the EU, he is president. Does this mean that Cameron does not like the EU? Clearly not.

[Eric Mc]

The Don of Croy said:

Like I said, it influences many UK voters and that in turn may have a material affect on me and mine.

Does it make me angry? Not all the time...

The thing is, people seem dead scared that somehow the BBC will turn the "lumpen proletariat" into a mindless, lefty mob.

Obviously, they exclude themselves from this definition as, being PHers, they are obviously completely above political bias and persuasion and of much higher intellect.

But as for the sub-intelligent masses.....

[longblackcoat]

John145 said:

longblackcoat said:

John145 said:

"Earlier this week Mr Trump said "it looks like we're not going to have a very good relationship" with the UK."
From here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-3631875...

Is wildly inaccurate reporting. They're referring to this quote:

"It looks like we’re not going to have a very good relationship. I hope to have a good relationship with him, but it sounds like he’s not willing to address the problem either."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/16/don...

In reference to CMD - last I remember CMD =/= UK.

Cameron does not equal the UK, agreed, but if the potential leader of one country states that "we're not going to have a good relationship" when referring to another, is he referring to the leader or the country? And in that instance, is it in fact all that divisible?

Couple that with the remarks aimed at Sadiq Khan (which the BBC report references), and you might think that Trump had a problem with British politicians and ipso facto, Britain itself.

Alternatively, if you had a dislike and distrust of the BBC, you might think there was some form of bias against the racist, misogynistic, lying, duplicitous, hypocritical buffoon PH-approved man of the people who tells it like it is that will be representing the Republican Party this autumn.

I don't believe your logic to be sincere.

Proof: CMD didn't want Tusk as president of the EU, he is president. Does this mean that Cameron does not like the EU? Clearly not.

My logic isn't sincere? Logic, by it's very definition, can't have sincerity!

Ask yourself this. Do you think the UK will have a better or worse relationship with America with Cameron and Obama in place, or with Cameron and Trump? My betting is that it'll be worse; there will be many different opinions, but the general view would, I think, be in line with mine. We all know - because he's shown it repeatedly - that Trump has a very thin skin and does not forget an insult, and additionally that he's capable of being exceptionally petulant in business (the Glenfiddich feud as a case in point) due to a slight or perceived slight.

Don't kid yourself. Britain would have a worse relationship with the US if Trump were in power.

[John145]

longblackcoat said:

John145 said:

longblackcoat said:

John145 said:

"Earlier this week Mr Trump said "it looks like we're not going to have a very good relationship" with the UK."
From here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-3631875...

Is wildly inaccurate reporting. They're referring to this quote:

"It looks like we’re not going to have a very good relationship. I hope to have a good relationship with him, but it sounds like he’s not willing to address the problem either."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/16/don...

In reference to CMD - last I remember CMD =/= UK.

Cameron does not equal the UK, agreed, but if the potential leader of one country states that "we're not going to have a good relationship" when referring to another, is he referring to the leader or the country? And in that instance, is it in fact all that divisible?

Couple that with the remarks aimed at Sadiq Khan (which the BBC report references), and you might think that Trump had a problem with British politicians and ipso facto, Britain itself.

Alternatively, if you had a dislike and distrust of the BBC, you might think there was some form of bias against the racist, misogynistic, lying, duplicitous, hypocritical buffoon PH-approved man of the people who tells it like it is that will be representing the Republican Party this autumn.

I don't believe your logic to be sincere.

Proof: CMD didn't want Tusk as president of the EU, he is president. Does this mean that Cameron does not like the EU? Clearly not.

My logic isn't sincere? Logic, by it's very definition, can't have sincerity!

Ask yourself this. Do you think the UK will have a better or worse relationship with America with Cameron and Obama in place, or with Cameron and Trump? My betting is that it'll be worse; there will be many different opinions, but the general view would, I think, be in line with mine. We all know - because he's shown it repeatedly - that Trump has a very thin skin and does not forget an insult, and additionally that he's capable of being exceptionally petulant in business (the Glenfiddich feud as a case in point) due to a slight or perceived slight.

Don't kid yourself. Britain would have a worse relationship with the US if Trump were in power.

He hasn't said that and it's not the role of the BBC to make that baseless accusation.

[Halb]

The BBC will hypothesize, all news outlets do.


At the moment, the odds look favorable to the next PM being Boris Johnson, now Boris has fired a few shots at Trump previously, but is Trump does manage to be US prez then I can see them having a cordial relationship once they get chatting.

[chow pan toon]

Eric Mc said:

The Don of Croy said:

Like I said, it influences many UK voters and that in turn may have a material affect on me and mine.

Does it make me angry? Not all the time...

The thing is, people seem dead scared that somehow the BBC will turn the "lumpen proletariat" into a mindless, lefty mob.

Obviously, they exclude themselves from this definition as, being PHers, they are obviously completely above political bias and persuasion and of much higher intellect.

But as for the sub-intelligent masses.....

Don't forget that the elite of PH are perfectly capable of judging where bias exists as they have none to cloud their own vision.

[The Don of Croy]

Eric Mc said:

The thing is, people seem dead scared that somehow the BBC will turn the "lumpen proletariat" into a mindless, lefty mob.

I don't think the beeb did that on their own.

[Eric Mc]

So you think it has already happened (whether the BBC is to blame or not)?

[Eric Mc]

Halb said:

The BBC will hypothesize, all news outlets do.


At the moment, the odds look favorable to the next PM being Boris Johnson, now Boris has fired a few shots at Trump previously, but is Trump does manage to be US prez then I can see them having a cordial relationship once they get chatting.

Trump. Johnson and Putin.

Shades of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin

[motco]

Eric Mc said:

Halb said:

The BBC will hypothesize, all news outlets do.


At the moment, the odds look favorable to the next PM being Boris Johnson, now Boris has fired a few shots at Trump previously, but is Trump does manage to be US prez then I can see them having a cordial relationship once they get chatting.

Trump. Johnson and Putin.

Shades of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin

Please Miss, he said 'Hitler' - that's deeply offensive and I claim my compo...

[Eric Mc]

I might not have meant Adolf (Although I really did).