Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[RichB]

thinfourth2 said:

Odd stuff

What a juvenile way to participate in a debate

[mybrainhurts]

RichB said:

thinfourth2 said:

Odd stuff

What a juvenile way to participate in a debate

...lefties, eh? All the same, no sense of reality...

[Sticks.]

RichB said:

Of course the BBC are biased towards the left. For anyone to deny it is naive. Yesterday the top news story was obviously Cameron and the EU Treaty. However they led their story with 5 or 6 mins. of opinion and argument why it was wrong for Britain before they ran the video of Cameron and what he actually said. Any unbiased program would have led with Cameron - he's the Prime Minister - and then followed up with supporting argument and counter argument. It is common for the BBC to position a piece to camera from Balls, Millerband or some other opposition spokesman before the government statement, if they run anything from the government at all. Now I would think people might be interested to know what our Prime Minister has said on an issue, but obviously the BBC think it's less important than the opposition's view.

In contrast here, the first comment from Miliband/Opposition comes in the 3rd to last paragraph
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16122895

[RichB]

Well that's good to see.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Eric Mc said:

Do you ever watch "This Week"?

Some tongue in cheek late night show with an audience of 3 hardly offsets institutional bias in 95% of the remaining entirety of national news and 'serious' documentary output - does it!

[Sticks.]

From another person's perspective, bias.

The Analysis, well, wasn't. Drivel. The Prime Minister, with capitals I would have thought.

[Fittster]

null said:

Fittster said:

Can anyone name a news source that wouldn't consider to be biased by either the left or right?

The BBC itself. Pre-1997. It was a while ago now but I don't remember them frothing at the mouth in news reports so much then.

I think that misses the point though. I don't have a problem with BBC bias, so long as I'm not required to pay for it to get to other organisation's content.

The idea that the BBC changed in 1997 isn't right, I can remember the old Tory joke, what does the BBC stand for? Buggers Broadcasting Communisms being told long before Blair.

No one minds a media outlet being biased as long as it reinforces their own bias point of view (see Soovy and the Dailywail). Any media that is put together by humans will reflect the authors bias, just the way it is.

So the question is compulsory tax to pay for the BBC or make it fund itself?

[Vytalis]

Fittster said:

So the question is compulsory tax to pay for the BBC or make it fund itself?

I'm sure if the Tory party felt that the BBC was biased against them, it wouldn't be hard to make a very positive announcement that all stations needed to be fair and competitive and therefore the tv licence was only needed if you wished to view the BBC channels live...

Something that easy to implement and that hard to argue against would have been done by now if they felt it important enough?

[Fittster]

Vytalis said:

Fittster said:

So the question is compulsory tax to pay for the BBC or make it fund itself?

I'm sure if the Tory party felt that the BBC was biased against them, it wouldn't be hard to make a very positive announcement that all stations needed to be fair and competitive and therefore the tv licence was only needed if you wished to view the BBC channels live...

Something that easy to implement and that hard to argue against would have been done by now if they felt it important enough?

Maybe the don't consider it a big deal.

I wonder if there's any evidence on what impact the media has on election outcomes?

[turbobloke]

It's not appropriate for the BBC to be biased, and it is clearly biased.

What the political leaning is, when it started, what the effects are, don't matter.

It needs sorting.

[otolith]

Funny comment on The Now Show on Radio 4 today - someone was talking about Clarkson's comments, and about how they were about the BBC's editorial policy and not about shooting strikers in the face, and said;

"It was a joke about the BBC policy of editorial balance, an honourable well intentioned policy which means for example that in Radio 4 comedy a comedian from the far Left has to be balanced by one from the centre Left. And believe me I'm grateful for the work"



Many a true word spoken in jest

[thinfourth2]

Of course people see bias where they want to see bias

Hence we have one loony screaming that the BBC choose the colour red to show support for Labour

and at the other end of the loony scale we have

http://shibleyrahmanbbc.com/2010/12/09/bbc-news-si...

Of course i am completely and utterly wrong as my daily driver is red so i support labour

But my two land rovers are blue

[Eric Mc]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Eric Mc said:

Do you ever watch "This Week"?

Some tongue in cheek late night show with an audience of 3 hardly offsets institutional bias in 95% of the remaining entirety of national news and 'serious' documentary output - does it!

No, that's why I didn't just mention that programme.

[chris watton]

"Sir Antony Jay: slash the BBC by two thirds!"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

It concludes:

"As the economic squeeze tightens, the case for a drastic slimming down of the BBC gets stronger every day. Cash-strapped households might be glad of the extra £100 a year, even at the expense of repeats, movies, imported programmes, quiz show and panel games – not to mention the sporting events we would see on other channels if the BBC hadn’t outbid them – that the BBC currently uses to fill out its schedules. But in some ways, the strongest case of all is made by Christopher Booker: if the BBC is to be paid to propagate the opinions of a liberal elite minority, it should not be allowed to dominate the national airwaves as it does today. Its voice should be heard, but it should not be allowed to drown out the others."

[thinfourth2]

chris watton said:

"Sir Antony Jay: slash the BBC by two thirds!"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

It concludes:

"As the economic squeeze tightens, the case for a drastic slimming down of the BBC gets stronger every day. Cash-strapped households might be glad of the extra £100 a year, even at the expense of repeats, movies, imported programmes, quiz show and panel games – not to mention the sporting events we would see on other channels if the BBC hadn’t outbid them – that the BBC currently uses to fill out its schedules. But in some ways, the strongest case of all is made by Christopher Booker: if the BBC is to be paid to propagate the opinions of a liberal elite minority, it should not be allowed to dominate the national airwaves as it does today. Its voice should be heard, but it should not be allowed to drown out the others."

They do that and i will stop paying the license fee as i don't want quiz shows and soap operas


Of course a large amount of folk who scream about the license fee being too much will quite happily pay far more for sky

[Zaxxon]

thinfourth2 said:

They do that and i will stop paying the license fee as i don't want quiz shows and soap operas


Of course a large amount of folk who scream about the license fee being too much will quite happily pay far more for sky

However Sky has far wider choice and amongst all of the chaff there are somecexcellent programmes, so yes, I would happily stop paying to watch BBC if there was an option.

Only if they still showed future episodes of Top Gear on Dave though

[MX7]

Zaxxon said:

However Sky has far wider choice and amongst all of the chaff there are somecexcellent programmes

Reminds me of A Bit of Fry & Laurie!

[turbobloke]

On here, I've only read about complaints over the licence fee that relate to effectively funding the biased news and current affairs output of the BBC, not that the licence is unaffordable, nor about the relative price of Sky.

[marcosgt]

donna180 said:

I'd be happy to opt completely out of the BBC and just use Sky but that's just me.

I think the Govt, need to act now and act hard - after all, I'm sure Labour would do something if the situation were reversed. The BBC's bias is just comical now....

Ah, well there you have it.

You'll believe what Sky tells you, but not the BBC!

Maybe the BBC are biased or maybe you are and just aren't used to more objective reporting?

I take it you don't read the papers or are you under the impression that they're all totally impartial politically?

As for "Labour Red" - For God's Sake, for years the logos were white on a BLUE background? I assume you wrote to complain about that? Thought not... It's just a colour - I'm happier for them to spend license payer's money on programmes than on a full branding overhaul to appease your political paranoia...

M.

[turbobloke]

marcosgt said:

donna180 said:

I'd be happy to opt completely out of the BBC and just use Sky but that's just me.

I think the Govt, need to act now and act hard - after all, I'm sure Labour would do something if the situation were reversed. The BBC's bias is just comical now....

Ah, well there you have it.

You'll believe what Sky tells you, but not the BBC!

Nobody should accept BBC news and current affairs programme content as something to believe, more likely it's something to laugh at these days. As to 'believing' Sky, why would somebody do that? Surely the way to approach the media's output is to watch or listen to or read as many offerings on a theme of interest as there is available time for, then ideally make additional reference to relevant primary sources.

Obviously I believe everything that Nigella Lawson tells me about how to melt a popsicle.