Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
I have no doubt that there is bias in the BBC. What, and how much of it there is, probably depends on one's own POV (or dare I say bias). I know some proper lefties (i.e not the people on here who get labelled as such via a lazy insult) and they can all point to what they percieve as right-wing bias in the BBC.
The corporation could probably be made to be entirely unbiased, but I suspect that if you wanted an absolute lack of bias across all their broadcast mediums and all programming it would require a 'policing' dept that would dwarf every other part of the corporation and suck up a vast amount of the funding. And then there'd be much less original programming and everyone would complain about that instead.
The corporation could probably be made to be entirely unbiased, but I suspect that if you wanted an absolute lack of bias across all their broadcast mediums and all programming it would require a 'policing' dept that would dwarf every other part of the corporation and suck up a vast amount of the funding. And then there'd be much less original programming and everyone would complain about that instead.
TTwiggy said:
The Don of Croy said:
Back to the beeb though - I'll happily accept the bias if they lay off the criminal prosecutions and mandatory charges.
The licence fee is a fee to receive broadcast media. Most (almost all) western democracies levy a licence fee. Some are more expensive than ours, some are cheaper. None of them get a service as comprehansive as the BBC in return. Those who choose not to pay make themselves criminals.Are there any other western democracies that levy the tax and then hand it over to a largely ungoverned corporation to do as they wish with it, to the tune of £3.5B + per year?
From what I have read, there are a few countries that charge more per capita than the UK but they are generally smaller in population. There are a few who spend more in total on 'state TV' but they are bigger in population and have lower per capita costs. For the size of population we seem to tax and spend highly both overall and per capita.
REALIST123 said:
TTwiggy said:
The Don of Croy said:
Back to the beeb though - I'll happily accept the bias if they lay off the criminal prosecutions and mandatory charges.
The licence fee is a fee to receive broadcast media. Most (almost all) western democracies levy a licence fee. Some are more expensive than ours, some are cheaper. None of them get a service as comprehansive as the BBC in return. Those who choose not to pay make themselves criminals.Are there any other western democracies that levy the tax and then hand it over to a largely ungoverned corporation to do as they wish with it, to the tune of £3.5B + per year?
From what I have read, there are a few countries that charge more per capita than the UK but they are generally smaller in population. There are a few who spend more in total on 'state TV' but they are bigger in population and have lower per capita costs. For the size of population we seem to tax and spend highly both overall and per capita.
longblackcoat said:
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.
Anyway just to pitch my hand grenade into the affray .... Has anyone noticed the slow but steady increase of writers and editors from the Huffington Post becoming regulars for comments and interviewee's during political debate
turbobloke said:
What about the quotes, which are BBC sourced not DM sourced. Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday is merely passing on what BBC people have said.
Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
Agree it's biased, I don't think the DM is a barometer of reason in the debate. To have an outlook on life like Peter Hitchin must be depressing.Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
truck71 said:
turbobloke said:
What about the quotes, which are BBC sourced not DM sourced. Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday is merely passing on what BBC people have said.
Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
Agree it's biased, I don't think the DM is a barometer of reason in the debate. To have an outlook on life like Peter Hitchin must be depressing.Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
turbobloke said:
The DM is 'Right-minded' we know that, it's allowed to have a political slant whereas the BBC isn't, but then again you will have noticed that my post was about quotes from BBC sources not DM editorials or journalist opinion pieces.
Indeed. I think originally I quoted the post with the link rather than your post.turbobloke said:
truck71 said:
turbobloke said:
What about the quotes, which are BBC sourced not DM sourced. Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday is merely passing on what BBC people have said.
Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
Agree it's biased, I don't think the DM is a barometer of reason in the debate. To have an outlook on life like Peter Hitchin must be depressing.Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
Here it is in full (my bolding added):
"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.
“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We're like that, too. We have an honourable tradition of journalists from the right [working for us]. It is a broader church. The BBC is not a campaigning organisation and can't be, and actually the truth is that sometimes our dispassionate flavour of broadcasting frustrates people who have got very, very strong views, because they want more red meat. Often that plays as bias. People think: 'Why can't they come out and say they are b
ds?' And that can play out on left and right."You can dislike the BBC all you like, and you can judge whether or not they've been successful in being less biased. However, to use a selective quote from six years ago to accuse it of political bias in the present when the interview makes clear that Thompson was referring to a period thirty years prior and which he specifically states is no longer present ..... it simply does you no favours, and is proof only that you either didn't read all of the document or you've disingenuously presented only that snippet that you felt supported your argument.
You always exhort people to look at the primary sources to ascertain facts. In this case, how about giving the whole picture.
some bloke on the internet said:
Any bias is out of order, Left or Right
Wonder who that was?longblackcoat said:
turbobloke said:
truck71 said:
turbobloke said:
What about the quotes, which are BBC sourced not DM sourced. Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday is merely passing on what BBC people have said.
Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
Agree it's biased, I don't think the DM is a barometer of reason in the debate. To have an outlook on life like Peter Hitchin must be depressing.Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
Here it is in full (my bolding added):
"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.
“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We're like that, too. We have an honourable tradition of journalists from the right [working for us]. It is a broader church. The BBC is not a campaigning organisation and can't be, and actually the truth is that sometimes our dispassionate flavour of broadcasting frustrates people who have got very, very strong views, because they want more red meat. Often that plays as bias. People think: 'Why can't they come out and say they are b
ds?' And that can play out on left and right."You can dislike the BBC all you like, and you can judge whether or not they've been successful in being less biased. However, to use a selective quote from six years ago to accuse it of political bias in the present when the interview makes clear that Thompson was referring to a period thirty years prior and which he specifically states is no longer present ..... it simply does you no favours, and is proof only that you either didn't read all of the document or you've disingenuously presented only that snippet that you felt supported your argument.
You always exhort people to look at the primary sources to ascertain facts. In this case, how about giving the whole picture.
some bloke on the internet said:
Any bias is out of order, Left or Right
Wonder who that was?It was clear to any sensible soul during that period that the BBC was biased. Yet those who flagged it up were told it was their imagination, or it was because they themselves were biased, etc etc . Sound familiar?
What credence should we put then to modern day assertions that the BBC is not biased? That Thompson seems to think that the New Statesman somehow represents some sort of middle of the road ( I think he describes it as technocratic rather than left wing?) position politically, and as such is an acceptable comparator for the BBC tells you everything you need to know about the way the BBC views itself.
longblackcoat said:
turbobloke said:
truck71 said:
turbobloke said:
What about the quotes, which are BBC sourced not DM sourced. Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday is merely passing on what BBC people have said.
Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
Agree it's biased, I don't think the DM is a barometer of reason in the debate. To have an outlook on life like Peter Hitchin must be depressing.Mark Thompson said in 2010 that the BBC had suffered a ‘massive bias to the Left’.
Andrew Marr said the Corporation was ‘a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large’ (which) ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
John Humphrys said: ‘The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative.’
These are a relatively small number of BBC insiders who know only too well that the BBC has a left-wing bias. Any bias is out of order, Left or Right.
Here it is in full (my bolding added):
"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.
“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We're like that, too. We have an honourable tradition of journalists from the right [working for us]. It is a broader church. The BBC is not a campaigning organisation and can't be, and actually the truth is that sometimes our dispassionate flavour of broadcasting frustrates people who have got very, very strong views, because they want more red meat. Often that plays as bias. People think: 'Why can't they come out and say they are b
ds?' And that can play out on left and right."You can dislike the BBC all you like, and you can judge whether or not they've been successful in being less biased. However, to use a selective quote from six years ago to accuse it of political bias in the present when the interview makes clear that Thompson was referring to a period thirty years prior and which he specifically states is no longer present ..... it simply does you no favours, and is proof only that you either didn't read all of the document or you've disingenuously presented only that snippet that you felt supported your argument.
You always exhort people to look at the primary sources to ascertain facts. In this case, how about giving the whole picture.
There's also the output itself, manifestly biased from Noughtie on Balls to Huw on the exit poll and Con majority. And a whole lot more besides, as posted in this and other threads.
A lot of people can see the bias, it's quite clear, if you can't see itor do see it and accept it, that's OK for you but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and it clearly isn't. Protest all you like, protest too much if you wish, but the Left-wing bias of the BBC is obvious and people can/will point it out.
turbobloke said:
I've given something like 20 quotes from different BBC staffers, many senior, over the course of the thread - your choice of one is in effect of no consequence and if you accuse me of selectivity, which isn't the case over time (repeating every quote in every post would be criticised and it's a daft idea) then you're guilty of cherry picking with Mark T. For goodness sale show the whole picture.
A lot of people can see the bias, it's quite clear, if you can't see itor do see it and accept it, that's OK for you but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and it clearly isn't. Protest all you like, protest too much if you wish, but the Left-wing bias of the BBC is obvious and people can/will point it out.
I know people who claim the organisation has right-wing bias. They will happily point out examples of it. They are very vocal about it too. Are they wrong?A lot of people can see the bias, it's quite clear, if you can't see itor do see it and accept it, that's OK for you but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and it clearly isn't. Protest all you like, protest too much if you wish, but the Left-wing bias of the BBC is obvious and people can/will point it out.
andymadmak said:
So for all that time in the 70s and 80s ( and possibly even the 90s?) when the BBC was saying that it was not in any way biased, when all its supporters were saying it was not biased, and when the left was complaining it was actually biased to the right, it was in fact the case that there was "massive bias" to the left, but this was only admitted to in 2009?
It was clear to any sensible soul during that period that the BBC was biased. Yet those who flagged it up were told it was their imagination, or it was because they themselves were biased, etc etc . Sound familiar?
What credence should we put then to modern day assertions that the BBC is not biased? That Thompson seems to think that the New Statesman somehow represents some sort of middle of the road ( I think he describes it as technocratic rather than left wing?) position politically, and as such is an acceptable comparator for the BBC tells you everything you need to know about the way the BBC views itself.
Again, read the interview properly. He's saying that the New Statesman used to be all of one hue, and now is not, and that the BBC has moved in the same way. He's talking about the movement of political position rather than the position itself.It was clear to any sensible soul during that period that the BBC was biased. Yet those who flagged it up were told it was their imagination, or it was because they themselves were biased, etc etc . Sound familiar?
What credence should we put then to modern day assertions that the BBC is not biased? That Thompson seems to think that the New Statesman somehow represents some sort of middle of the road ( I think he describes it as technocratic rather than left wing?) position politically, and as such is an acceptable comparator for the BBC tells you everything you need to know about the way the BBC views itself.
And why is it that you are willing to accept at face value, from an interview, that the BBC was biased but won't accept (from the same interview!) that it's changed. That's a rather curate's egg way of looking at things, is it not?
I absolutely know that most participants on this thread are resolutely convinced that the BBC is a seething bed of anarcho-syndicalists - your view, you're entitled to it - but it rather grates when wilfully selective quoting is used to 'prove' a point. I just looked at the first one on TB's list. Seems little point in going further if this level of bias is shown; those who are convinced will simply use their prejudice to convince themselves further of the 'facts'.
I'm simply asking you to read more widely and to challenge the source, even of something that appears to support your argument.
TTwiggy said:
turbobloke said:
I've given something like 20 quotes from different BBC staffers, many senior, over the course of the thread - your choice of one is in effect of no consequence and if you accuse me of selectivity, which isn't the case over time (repeating every quote in every post would be criticised and it's a daft idea) then you're guilty of cherry picking with Mark T. For goodness sale show the whole picture.
A lot of people can see the bias, it's quite clear, if you can't see itor do see it and accept it, that's OK for you but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and it clearly isn't. Protest all you like, protest too much if you wish, but the Left-wing bias of the BBC is obvious and people can/will point it out.
I know people who claim the organisation has right-wing bias. They will happily point out examples of it. They are very vocal about it too. Are they wrong?A lot of people can see the bias, it's quite clear, if you can't see itor do see it and accept it, that's OK for you but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and it clearly isn't. Protest all you like, protest too much if you wish, but the Left-wing bias of the BBC is obvious and people can/will point it out.
Claims and complaints can be vexatious and/or tactical. They are not evidence of bias.
Evidence of bias relates to actual output (too many examples to count in this thread alone) and to information from behind the cameras and microphones as to how the bias arises (top brass Labour donors, left-wing producers using The Guardian to select stories while handing copies of The Guardian to presenters as advice on how to cpver the stories).
If the BBC happened to be biased to the right, which it plainly isn't and such claims are completely refuted by actual evidence as opposed to opinion, that would still be a problem and it would still be unacceptable.
longblackcoat said:
I absolutely know that most participants on this thread are resolutely convinced that the BBC is a seething bed of anarcho-syndicalists
Hyperbole, poor form. The BBC is staffed by people in which there is a large majority of left-liberal individuals. The BBC agrees. The only person mentioning anarcho-syndicalists is you.There is a large majority of people on this thread with workable critical faculties who can see, hear and read how the BBC has a left-wiong bias. Not that numbers matter, the evidence presented in the thread is all that's needed for people with those workable critical faculties.
The DM has a Right-wing bias, the BBC has a Left-wing bias. Both are very easy to discern but only one is acceptable, that's the DM given that the BBC has a duty to be impartial...and it fails badly.
turbobloke said:
TTwiggy said:
turbobloke said:
I've given something like 20 quotes from different BBC staffers, many senior, over the course of the thread - your choice of one is in effect of no consequence and if you accuse me of selectivity, which isn't the case over time (repeating every quote in every post would be criticised and it's a daft idea) then you're guilty of cherry picking with Mark T. For goodness sale show the whole picture.
A lot of people can see the bias, it's quite clear, if you can't see itor do see it and accept it, that's OK for you but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and it clearly isn't. Protest all you like, protest too much if you wish, but the Left-wing bias of the BBC is obvious and people can/will point it out.
I know people who claim the organisation has right-wing bias. They will happily point out examples of it. They are very vocal about it too. Are they wrong?A lot of people can see the bias, it's quite clear, if you can't see itor do see it and accept it, that's OK for you but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and it clearly isn't. Protest all you like, protest too much if you wish, but the Left-wing bias of the BBC is obvious and people can/will point it out.
Claims and complaints can be vexatious and/or tactical. They are not evidence of bias.
Evidence of bias relates to actual output (too many examples to count in this thread alone) and to information from behind the cameras and microphones as to how the bias arises (top brass Labour donors, left-wing producers using The Guardian to select stories while handing copies of The Guardian to presenters as advice on how to cpver the stories).
If the BBC happened to be biased to the right, which it plainly isn't and such claims are completely refuted by actual evidence as opposed to opinion, that would still be a problem and it would still be unacceptable.
TTwiggy said:
turbobloke said:
TTwiggy said:
turbobloke said:
I've given something like 20 quotes from different BBC staffers, many senior, over the course of the thread - your choice of one is in effect of no consequence and if you accuse me of selectivity, which isn't the case over time (repeating every quote in every post would be criticised and it's a daft idea) then you're guilty of cherry picking with Mark T. For goodness sale show the whole picture.
A lot of people can see the bias, it's quite clear, if you can't see itor do see it and accept it, that's OK for you but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and it clearly isn't. Protest all you like, protest too much if you wish, but the Left-wing bias of the BBC is obvious and people can/will point it out.
I know people who claim the organisation has right-wing bias. They will happily point out examples of it. They are very vocal about it too. Are they wrong?A lot of people can see the bias, it's quite clear, if you can't see itor do see it and accept it, that's OK for you but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and it clearly isn't. Protest all you like, protest too much if you wish, but the Left-wing bias of the BBC is obvious and people can/will point it out.
Claims and complaints can be vexatious and/or tactical. They are not evidence of bias.
Evidence of bias relates to actual output (too many examples to count in this thread alone) and to information from behind the cameras and microphones as to how the bias arises (top brass Labour donors, left-wing producers using The Guardian to select stories while handing copies of The Guardian to presenters as advice on how to cpver the stories).
If the BBC happened to be biased to the right, which it plainly isn't and such claims are completely refuted by actual evidence as opposed to opinion, that would still be a problem and it would still be unacceptable.
Translation in the real world: evidence shows that the BBC has a Left-wing bias and I post that evidence. Other people don't like it.
turbobloke said:
Not at all. That personalisation of the debate is unnecessary and as usual a deliberate tactic to divert attention from the evidence.
Translation in the real world: evidence shows that the BBC has a Left-wing bias and I post that evidence. Other people don't like it.
But I know people who can point - in their view - to evidence of right-wing bias. You are dismissing their veiws. Translation in the real world: evidence shows that the BBC has a Left-wing bias and I post that evidence. Other people don't like it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff