Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[CaptainSlow]

OK, the bias is ok then, because it's just the culture.

[SKP555]

Tuna
I'm fairly sure that's right about it being mostly a culture that has developed rather than a consciously driven agenda* but then it comes back to the question of why we have a state broadcaster at all, let alone one that is so huge and influential and allowed to trade on this image of being all impartial and pluralistic?

• A few caveats on certain issues but that's another topic.

[Tuna]

CaptainSlow said:

OK, the bias is ok then, because it's just the culture.

No. I asked a while back if you could suggest a news outlet that isn't biased... still waiting on that one.

The point is *all* news and media outlets are biased. The BBC is left wing, Sky News right wing, the Daily Record is.. you get the idea (slowly). If we closed down news outlets because they were biased, we'd have none left.

And the point still stands that the BBC don't have a monopoly on news or media in this country - not by a long shot.

And (on the whole) this country benefits from having a well funded media organisation that doesn't have to chase audience bucks to survive. That can't be done without bias, so the choice is either (a) enjoy the benefits it does bring and go get your news balance elsewhere or (b) end up with TV the quality of Australia. I vote for (a).

[CaptainSlow]

Tuna said:

CaptainSlow said:

OK, the bias is ok then, because it's just the culture.

No. I asked a while back if you could suggest a news outlet that isn't biased... still waiting on that one.

The point is *all* news and media outlets are biased. The BBC is left wing, Sky News right wing, the Daily Record is.. you get the idea (slowly). If we closed down news outlets because they were biased, we'd have none left.

And the point still stands that the BBC don't have a monopoly on news or media in this country - not by a long shot.

And (on the whole) this country benefits from having a well funded media organisation that doesn't have to chase audience bucks to survive. That can't be done without bias, so the choice is either (a) enjoy the benefits it does bring and go get your news balance elsewhere or (b) end up with TV the quality of Australia. I vote for (a).

And as I said, name me another news outlet that has compulsory funding, comparing with commercial outlets is irrelevant.

At the weekend you said the BBC was "middle of the road", now you're saying it has a "left-wing media-luvvie view", which is it?

[Tuna]

CaptainSlow said:

And as I said, name me another news outlet that has compulsory funding, comparing with commercial outlets is irrelevant.

At the weekend you said the BBC was "middle of the road", now you're saying it has a "left-wing media-luvvie view", which is it?

Why does the sort of funding it gets have any relevance? It's one of how many media outlets in the UK and they all compete for viewers pretty successfully. The fact that one of them is free(er) from commercial pressures is a good thing. Just because we pay for it through a different route doesn't mean we can expect it to defy all known experiences and magically become 'unbiased'.

I'll stick by what I said, the BBC is soft-left (New Labour left if you like!) - left wing media luvvies are not exactly rabid communists, they're way too middle class bourgeoisie for that.

[Balmoral]

Tuna said:

The point is *all* news and media outlets are biased.

Your point is correct, but the point is also that the BBC, uniquely, is not supposed to be, it is supposed to be impartial, it's in their charter.

[CaptainSlow]

Balmoral said:

Tuna said:

The point is *all* news and media outlets are biased.

Your point is correct, but the point is also that the BBC, uniquely, is not supposed to be, it is supposed to be impartial, it's in their charter.

quite

[Tuna]

I don't know what you lot are going to do when you find out how left wing state schools are.

[Balmoral]

My wife's a teacher (and a lefty, of course). I've had to mix at work friends party's and school gatherings and stuff, and they're all lefty's, I've had over thirty years of it.

[Atomic12C]

It may well be true that there is no top-down written agenda that is dictated by the BBC, and that their lefty political swing may indeed be a trait of recruiting from left wing bias sources.... but then the agenda is self-created via the working group that are the BBC employees.

The editors/news script writers for example may not be dictated an agenda from higher management (as doing so would breach their charter), but as they may ALL be left wing with nobody to question the element of balance, it would then naturally turn out to be the group agenda of those in the working corporation.


p.s.
Is Sky news right wing?
Not sure.
I think Sky may be a little to the right of the BBC but not sitting in the right, not these days anyways.
Just need to look at their Trump coverage to see that they do have a strong anti-right persuasion.

[TTwiggy]

Atomic12C said:

Just need to look at their Trump coverage to see that they do have a strong anti-right persuasion.

Just to snip this bit... You are assuming that Trump is right-wing and by extension any negative coverage directed at him is anti-right-wing. I'd argue that Trump (or certainly the policies that got him elected) is not right-wing at all - at least not in the conventional sense.

[rscott]

T6 vanman said:

Blue One said:

Unrelated stuff to my post I find this persistent agenda-driven attached reporting quite nauseating.

Prime example today being the reporting of republican support for Donald Trump
Note the underlined message .. is a measly 41%
Now to you & me what do we know about the average approval rating of another countries president??


Well as they say ... Google is your friend (well Gallop anyway)
Statistics of low point approval ratings

Now we know Obama will be massively popular with one demographic / ethnic population in America and overseen a reasonable time in office during economic recovery ... His approval ratings

Several months where his approval ratings are at/below 40%????

The question .... Does the story need is a measly 41% or does this drive the readers opinion??

Edited by T6 vanman on Wednesday 15th March 12:57

Given that Trump's average approval of 42% is the lowest of any President since 1937 (source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presid... ) and his highest approval rating of 46% is 20% below the next lowest President (Nixon), calling it measly isn't that far out of order..

[T6 vanman]

rscott said:

T6 vanman said:

Blue One said:

Unrelated stuff to my post I find this persistent agenda-driven attached reporting quite nauseating.

Prime example today being the reporting of republican support for Donald Trump
Stuff

Edited by T6 vanman on Wednesday 15th March 12:57

Given that Trump's average approval of 42% is the lowest of any President since 1937 (source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presid... ) and his highest approval rating of 46% is 20% below the next lowest President (Nixon), calling it measly isn't that far out of order..

Glad others are looking at the statistic's
I agree the best metric would be to compare average ratings Vs average ratings .... Of course with trump having been in the job for all of ..... 5 minutes ,, Give the polling a chance to demonstrate some movement / volatility, before comparing would be wise

A couple of months of good positive economic news across the water could change things,
Of course the US economy going down the pan could change things the other way

[princealbert23]

This problem is being approached the wrong way. The answer to the problem of bias is for the licence fee to be split and wholly fund the Daily Mail website, Fox and Sky News. That way the scales would be balanced.

Edited by princealbert23 on Friday 17th March 06:59

[rscott]

T6 vanman said:

rscott said:

T6 vanman said:

Blue One said:

Unrelated stuff to my post I find this persistent agenda-driven attached reporting quite nauseating.

Prime example today being the reporting of republican support for Donald Trump
Stuff

Edited by T6 vanman on Wednesday 15th March 12:57

Given that Trump's average approval of 42% is the lowest of any President since 1937 (source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presid... ) and his highest approval rating of 46% is 20% below the next lowest President (Nixon), calling it measly isn't that far out of order..

Glad others are looking at the statistic's
I agree the best metric would be to compare average ratings Vs average ratings .... Of course with trump having been in the job for all of ..... 5 minutes ,, Give the polling a chance to demonstrate some movement / volatility, before comparing would be wise

A couple of months of good positive economic news across the water could change things,
Of course the US economy going down the pan could change things the other way

Or you could just compare like for like - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/28/us/...
That has approval ratings for all the recent presidents over the first 30 days and it's very clear he's way below all others.

[Tuna]

rscott said:

Or you could just compare like for like - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/28/us/...
That has approval ratings for all the recent presidents over the first 30 days and it's very clear he's way below all others.

As Atomic said earlier though, we're in a new world of social media. This is the first president who's had to really face the full wrath of Twitter and Facebook. How would some of the other presidents have fared if they'd been followed around by people tweeting every last stupid thing they said? Not saying that Trump is good, just that we've had the filter of 'the fourth estate' removed by Facebook memes.

[rscott]

Tuna said:

rscott said:

Or you could just compare like for like - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/28/us/...
That has approval ratings for all the recent presidents over the first 30 days and it's very clear he's way below all others.

As Atomic said earlier though, we're in a new world of social media. This is the first president who's had to really face the full wrath of Twitter and Facebook. How would some of the other presidents have fared if they'd been followed around by people tweeting every last stupid thing they said? Not saying that Trump is good, just that we've had the filter of 'the fourth estate' removed by Facebook memes.

I think Trump tweets enough nonsense himself to do massive harm to his reputation amongst many Americans.

[Tuna]

rscott said:

I think Trump tweets enough nonsense himself to do massive harm to his reputation amongst many Americans.

For sure. Imagine George W. Bush being given the same tool...

[grumbledoak]

rscott said:

Or you could just compare like for like - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/28/us/...
That has approval ratings for all the recent presidents over the first 30 days and it's very clear he's way below all others.

Not exactly a fair and honest summary, was it?

linked article said:

Mr. Trump has more support among Republicans at this point in office than any president other than George W. Bush.

[rscott]

grumbledoak said:

rscott said:

Or you could just compare like for like - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/28/us/...
That has approval ratings for all the recent presidents over the first 30 days and it's very clear he's way below all others.

Not exactly a fair and honest summary, was it?

linked article said:

Mr. Trump has more support among Republicans at this point in office than any president other than George W. Bush.

So which previous presidents does he rank above in the views of the all, not just Republicans?