Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
jsf said:
mybrainhurts said:
Lucky Lord Superspiv...
When he got into PCs early, he appeared to be on the up, so I put £2,000 into him.
Before I could blink, he's turned my £2,000 into £200.
When he got into PCs early, he appeared to be on the up, so I put £2,000 into him.
Before I could blink, he's turned my £2,000 into £200.
(Actually they were really good for the time. We had two - the 512 and the 640. And the "portable" version later on.)
Roy Lime said:
coppice said:
Reality check needed- most people in the Arts are left leaning
I agree entirely with this statement, but I've never understood exactly why it is the case.Johnnytheboy said:
As far as I can tell, Alan Sugar bet on the wrong direction, i.e. making budget tech (like the Emailer), when it turned out people wanted Apple.
He is of the sort; to know the price of f
king everything and the value of nothing.Roy Lime said:
coppice said:
Reality check needed- most people in the Arts are left leaning
I agree entirely with this statement, but I've never understood exactly why it is the case.In such a 'people-focused' environment it's an important skill to be able to get along with those around you (who you know, not what..) which tends to mean they are usually surrounded by others who are like-minded and accepting. It therefore follows that those folk are probably more accepting of minority groups and cultures, favour free speech and are often far more relaxed about things like recreational drug use. Quite a bit of that runs counter to 'traditional' conservative views and values and 'normal' lives lived by the rest of us (ie. Mon-Fri, 9-5:30 desk job and 2.4 kids etc)..
The paradox is that often with fame comes fortune and it often seems to be at odds that those who earn vast sums in the field are the ones preaching to the rest of us about moral and social issues such as poverty. Please don't think I'm equating earnings and immorality - I'm not - I'm just surprised by the cognitive dissonance needed to preach about things like corporate greed etc from a £Xm house when you have no need to ever work again. Perhaps it's to assuage some form of guilt (ie. 'giving something back/doing something') and there's a reason the phrase 'champagne socialist' was invented...
Combine all that with a platform that gives them the ability to be heard (TV, radio etc) and you can see why the left-leaning view seems to permeate the media.
Funnily enough I saw an article on some celeb's view on Brexit and thought to myself, "If they weren't famous, no-one would ever hear what they thought and even if they did, they wouldn't give a s
t what they think." It's a strange phenomenon that 'being famous' seems to make your opinion a) informed and b) important/relevant.I have no doubt that 'slebs live in as much of a distorted bubble as politicians in Westminster do and have a view that reflects that - and they're given the ability to air whatever pops into their heads..
That makes sense and agrees with some of what BBC personnel acknowledge about their left-liberal bias, but as lots of people seem to be aware of what the situation is, those highly paid senior beeb staff with responsibility for meeting the key demand for neutrality should put in place steps to make sure "arty leftism" stays within the corporation and is not reflected in their output.
It's less material how this is done, such 'how' detail is a matter for the senior management and the BBC team, but the 'what' (eliminate bias) is still essential as being politically partisan simply shouldn't be present in BBC output.
It's less material how this is done, such 'how' detail is a matter for the senior management and the BBC team, but the 'what' (eliminate bias) is still essential as being politically partisan simply shouldn't be present in BBC output.
Jinx said:
"In 1986 the company produced a range of affordable MS-DOS-based personal computers, the first of which was the PC1512, priced at £399. It was a huge success, capturing more than 25% of the European computer market."
Seemed it was quite successful.
Seemed it was quite successful.
That's s misprint, should read 25% of Hackney Market.
The mans a chav, IMO. Started off selling cheap crap and never changed direction.
Funk said:
Funnily enough I saw an article on some celeb's view on Brexit and thought to myself, "If they weren't famous, no-one would ever hear what they thought and even if they did, they wouldn't give a st what they think." It's a strange phenomenon that 'being famous' seems to make your opinion a) informed and b) important/relevant.
It winds me up when they have luvvies on Question Time. Who cares what they think?t what they think." It's a strange phenomenon that 'being famous' seems to make your opinion a) informed and b) important/relevant.REALIST123 said:
Jinx said:
"In 1986 the company produced a range of affordable MS-DOS-based personal computers, the first of which was the PC1512, priced at £399. It was a huge success, capturing more than 25% of the European computer market."
Seemed it was quite successful.
Seemed it was quite successful.
That's s misprint, should read 25% of Hackney Market.
The mans a chav, IMO. Started off selling cheap crap and never changed direction.
te like the emailer phone ... REALIST123 said:
Jinx said:
"In 1986 the company produced a range of affordable MS-DOS-based personal computers, the first of which was the PC1512, priced at £399. It was a huge success, capturing more than 25% of the European computer market."
Seemed it was quite successful.
Seemed it was quite successful.
That's s misprint, should read 25% of Hackney Market.
The mans a chav, IMO. Started off selling cheap crap and never changed direction.
Timmy40 said:
nikaiyo2 said:
The European Computer Market... in 1986... My new company Unicorn Merkins has 100% share of the current Unicorn Vaginal Wig market.
You should take than on Dragons Den. dxg said:
What did you do, buy one of his PCs?
(Actually they were really good for the time. We had two - the 512 and the 640. And the "portable" version later on.)
I have still got a portable one with a massive 20 Mb hard drive! I designed all my company's PCBs on it with a colour CGA monitor and 'Easy PC' software between 1995 and 2002(Actually they were really good for the time. We had two - the 512 and the 640. And the "portable" version later on.)
Funk said:
I read something on this once and it had something to do with the fact that mostly the arts are about creativity and free thinking, often detached from the traditional 'real world'; it's not your typical 9-5 job and lifestyle. They're often off travelling, keeping strange hours, working in a 'bubble' with other 'non-traditional' people.
In such a 'people-focused' environment it's an important skill to be able to get along with those around you (who you know, not what..) which tends to mean they are usually surrounded by others who are like-minded and accepting. It therefore follows that those folk are probably more accepting of minority groups and cultures, favour free speech and are often far more relaxed about things like recreational drug use. Quite a bit of that runs counter to 'traditional' conservative views and values and 'normal' lives lived by the rest of us (ie. Mon-Fri, 9-5:30 desk job and 2.4 kids etc)..
The paradox is that often with fame comes fortune and it often seems to be at odds that those who earn vast sums in the field are the ones preaching to the rest of us about moral and social issues such as poverty. Please don't think I'm equating earnings and immorality - I'm not - I'm just surprised by the cognitive dissonance needed to preach about things like corporate greed etc from a £Xm house when you have no need to ever work again. Perhaps it's to assuage some form of guilt (ie. 'giving something back/doing something') and there's a reason the phrase 'champagne socialist' was invented...
Combine all that with a platform that gives them the ability to be heard (TV, radio etc) and you can see why the left-leaning view seems to permeate the media.
Funnily enough I saw an article on some celeb's view on Brexit and thought to myself, "If they weren't famous, no-one would ever hear what they thought and even if they did, they wouldn't give a st what they think." It's a strange phenomenon that 'being famous' seems to make your opinion a) informed and b) important/relevant.
I have no doubt that 'slebs live in as much of a distorted bubble as politicians in Westminster do and have a view that reflects that - and they're given the ability to air whatever pops into their heads..
Arts and slebs are not the same- far from it.Most people in the creative arts earn two parts of sod all and certainly don't get the sort of media voice , and earning capacity , of a Graham Norton or whoever. Don't knock all politicians and actors as being in a bubble -plenty of politicians I have met/worked with are hard working and decent. As for actors- only know a couple - one well known and rest struggling in rep etc.They are just normal people - bit like folk who like cars - even though some do try to live up to the knuckle dragging stereotype. (not you M<r F ) In such a 'people-focused' environment it's an important skill to be able to get along with those around you (who you know, not what..) which tends to mean they are usually surrounded by others who are like-minded and accepting. It therefore follows that those folk are probably more accepting of minority groups and cultures, favour free speech and are often far more relaxed about things like recreational drug use. Quite a bit of that runs counter to 'traditional' conservative views and values and 'normal' lives lived by the rest of us (ie. Mon-Fri, 9-5:30 desk job and 2.4 kids etc)..
The paradox is that often with fame comes fortune and it often seems to be at odds that those who earn vast sums in the field are the ones preaching to the rest of us about moral and social issues such as poverty. Please don't think I'm equating earnings and immorality - I'm not - I'm just surprised by the cognitive dissonance needed to preach about things like corporate greed etc from a £Xm house when you have no need to ever work again. Perhaps it's to assuage some form of guilt (ie. 'giving something back/doing something') and there's a reason the phrase 'champagne socialist' was invented...
Combine all that with a platform that gives them the ability to be heard (TV, radio etc) and you can see why the left-leaning view seems to permeate the media.
Funnily enough I saw an article on some celeb's view on Brexit and thought to myself, "If they weren't famous, no-one would ever hear what they thought and even if they did, they wouldn't give a s
t what they think." It's a strange phenomenon that 'being famous' seems to make your opinion a) informed and b) important/relevant.I have no doubt that 'slebs live in as much of a distorted bubble as politicians in Westminster do and have a view that reflects that - and they're given the ability to air whatever pops into their heads..
To give a bit of (light hearted) balance, I was listening to a radio 4 comedy show, presented by (I think) Marcus Brigstocke. He was saying that the BBC had bought the rights to make a UK based version of Breaking Bad, in which a chemistry teacher in a comprehensive school, struggling to pay off his student loan, is diagnosed with cancer, most likely caused by emissions from diesels 4x4s running at idle outside the school. He is given a superb standard of care by dedicated nursing staff at an NHS hospital, thereby avoiding the need to resort to industrial scale production of crack cocaine to fund his treatment.
At least they are a little bit aware of their tendencies
At least they are a little bit aware of their tendencies
coppice said:
Funk said:
I read something on this once and it had something to do with the fact that mostly the arts are about creativity and free thinking, often detached from the traditional 'real world'; it's not your typical 9-5 job and lifestyle. They're often off travelling, keeping strange hours, working in a 'bubble' with other 'non-traditional' people.
In such a 'people-focused' environment it's an important skill to be able to get along with those around you (who you know, not what..) which tends to mean they are usually surrounded by others who are like-minded and accepting. It therefore follows that those folk are probably more accepting of minority groups and cultures, favour free speech and are often far more relaxed about things like recreational drug use. Quite a bit of that runs counter to 'traditional' conservative views and values and 'normal' lives lived by the rest of us (ie. Mon-Fri, 9-5:30 desk job and 2.4 kids etc)..
The paradox is that often with fame comes fortune and it often seems to be at odds that those who earn vast sums in the field are the ones preaching to the rest of us about moral and social issues such as poverty. Please don't think I'm equating earnings and immorality - I'm not - I'm just surprised by the cognitive dissonance needed to preach about things like corporate greed etc from a £Xm house when you have no need to ever work again. Perhaps it's to assuage some form of guilt (ie. 'giving something back/doing something') and there's a reason the phrase 'champagne socialist' was invented...
Combine all that with a platform that gives them the ability to be heard (TV, radio etc) and you can see why the left-leaning view seems to permeate the media.
Funnily enough I saw an article on some celeb's view on Brexit and thought to myself, "If they weren't famous, no-one would ever hear what they thought and even if they did, they wouldn't give a st what they think." It's a strange phenomenon that 'being famous' seems to make your opinion a) informed and b) important/relevant.
I have no doubt that 'slebs live in as much of a distorted bubble as politicians in Westminster do and have a view that reflects that - and they're given the ability to air whatever pops into their heads..
Arts and slebs are not the same- far from it.Most people in the creative arts earn two parts of sod all and certainly don't get the sort of media voice , and earning capacity , of a Graham Norton or whoever. Don't knock all politicians and actors as being in a bubble -plenty of politicians I have met/worked with are hard working and decent. As for actors- only know a couple - one well known and rest struggling in rep etc.They are just normal people - bit like folk who like cars - even though some do try to live up to the knuckle dragging stereotype. (not you M<r F ) In such a 'people-focused' environment it's an important skill to be able to get along with those around you (who you know, not what..) which tends to mean they are usually surrounded by others who are like-minded and accepting. It therefore follows that those folk are probably more accepting of minority groups and cultures, favour free speech and are often far more relaxed about things like recreational drug use. Quite a bit of that runs counter to 'traditional' conservative views and values and 'normal' lives lived by the rest of us (ie. Mon-Fri, 9-5:30 desk job and 2.4 kids etc)..
The paradox is that often with fame comes fortune and it often seems to be at odds that those who earn vast sums in the field are the ones preaching to the rest of us about moral and social issues such as poverty. Please don't think I'm equating earnings and immorality - I'm not - I'm just surprised by the cognitive dissonance needed to preach about things like corporate greed etc from a £Xm house when you have no need to ever work again. Perhaps it's to assuage some form of guilt (ie. 'giving something back/doing something') and there's a reason the phrase 'champagne socialist' was invented...
Combine all that with a platform that gives them the ability to be heard (TV, radio etc) and you can see why the left-leaning view seems to permeate the media.
Funnily enough I saw an article on some celeb's view on Brexit and thought to myself, "If they weren't famous, no-one would ever hear what they thought and even if they did, they wouldn't give a s
t what they think." It's a strange phenomenon that 'being famous' seems to make your opinion a) informed and b) important/relevant.I have no doubt that 'slebs live in as much of a distorted bubble as politicians in Westminster do and have a view that reflects that - and they're given the ability to air whatever pops into their heads..
At what point does 'reporting' become a self-fulfilling prophecy? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36864273
I had hoped the country was possessed of a bit more backbone, grit and determination, but apparently not...
I had hoped the country was possessed of a bit more backbone, grit and determination, but apparently not...
Digga said:
At what point does 'reporting' become a self-fulfilling prophecy? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36864273
I had hoped the country was possessed of a bit more backbone, grit and determination, but apparently not...
It's pathetic isn't it. I had hoped the country was possessed of a bit more backbone, grit and determination, but apparently not...
Could have led with 'Exports up' as they point out in the third sentence, but no, that would put a positive spin on things and we can't have that!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff