BBC Bias EU referendum

[Hosenbugler]

Well, hardly a shock is it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eurefer...

Article pretty much bang on the nail. Time the BBC trust was scrapped, so that they are scrutinised for bias in the same way other broadcasters are.

[Derek Smith]

Hosenbugler said:

Well, hardly a shock is it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eurefer...

Article pretty much bang on the nail. Time the BBC trust was scrapped, so that they are scrutinised for bias in the same way other broadcasters are.

I suppose you know the BBC is, by law, required to be balanced in its programmes and that it can be taken to task if it is not. I suppose you know that no one in this country can be refused a job on the grounds of political affinity. You know, I assume, the the scrutiny that the BBC undergoes is stricter than for 'other broadcasters'. You know that The Telegraph, or at least its management. I suppose you realised that despite them using outside agencies to select the audience for programmes like Question Time, it is heavily criticised in papers such as the Telegraph for being partial as to whom they have in them.

Having read the article there seems to be little or no accusation that the BBC produces programmes that are politically biased. It is short on specifics.

The Telegraph is a political paper. It has no other function. It is right wing. It is Eurosceptic. It uses editorial content to try and convince others of its stance.

The fact that the Telegraph, and in particular Murdoch via the Times, are both for an exit is a massive hurdle to overcome for someone like me who has not made up his mind.

The article could almost be a toungue in cheek criticism of the Telegraph.

But then there is no requirement for the Telegraph, unlike the BBC, to be balanced in its programming.

[Europa1]

Derek Smith said:

Hosenbugler said:

Well, hardly a shock is it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eurefer...

Article pretty much bang on the nail. Time the BBC trust was scrapped, so that they are scrutinised for bias in the same way other broadcasters are.

I suppose you know the BBC is, by law, required to be balanced in its programmes and that it can be taken to task if it is not. I suppose you know that no one in this country can be refused a job on the grounds of political affinity. You know, I assume, the the scrutiny that the BBC undergoes is stricter than for 'other broadcasters'. You know that The Telegraph, or at least its management. I suppose you realised that despite them using outside agencies to select the audience for programmes like Question Time, it is heavily criticised in papers such as the Telegraph for being partial as to whom they have in them.

Having read the article there seems to be little or no accusation that the BBC produces programmes that are politically biased. It is short on specifics.

The Telegraph is a political paper. It has no other function. It is right wing. It is Eurosceptic. It uses editorial content to try and convince others of its stance.

The fact that the Telegraph, and in particular Murdoch via the Times, are both for an exit is a massive hurdle to overcome for someone like me who has not made up his mind.

The article could almost be a toungue in cheek criticism of the Telegraph.

But then there is no requirement for the Telegraph, unlike the BBC, to be balanced in its programming.

Whilst The Telegraph is not neutral, I do believe the BBC does have an ingrained, institutional left wing bias.

The key difference between the 2 is that one is not funded by the taxpayer, and one is.

Edit to delete superfluous "not". Thanks to Greygoose for spotting it.

Edited by Europa1 on Monday 22 February 14:44

Edited by Europa1 on Monday 22 February 14:44

[fido]

Derek Smith said:

I suppose you know the BBC is, by law, required to be balanced in its programmes and that it can be taken to task if it is not.

I wish to present to the Court, Exhibit A: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054v0v2

[greygoose]

Europa1 said:

Whilst The Telegraph is not neutral, I do believe the BBC does have an ingrained, institutional left wing bias.

The key difference between the 2 is that one is not funded by the taxpayer, and one is not.

Both not funded by the taxpayer?

The Telegraph is a dire paper nowadays.

[Hosenbugler]

fido said:

Derek Smith said:

I suppose you know the BBC is, by law, required to be balanced in its programmes and that it can be taken to task if it is not.

I wish to present to the Court, Exhibit A: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054v0v2

In the matter of bias, they are not regulated by OFCOM , complaints of bias are handled by the BBC trust, ie: themselves.

Therefore when "taken to task" if they deem themselves unbiased, then they are not , because they say they are not. The reality is, in the case of bias , they are not "taken to task" at all.

A key reason the BBc trust should be scrapped, along with the license fee of course. They should be funded by choice, not by legal threats and sending people to jail for the heinous crime of not having a "license".

[TEKNOPUG]

Derek Smith said:

Hosenbugler said:

Well, hardly a shock is it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eurefer...

Article pretty much bang on the nail. Time the BBC trust was scrapped, so that they are scrutinised for bias in the same way other broadcasters are.

I suppose you know the BBC is, by law, required to be balanced in its programmes and that it can be taken to task if it is not. I suppose you know that no one in this country can be refused a job on the grounds of political affinity. You know, I assume, the the scrutiny that the BBC undergoes is stricter than for 'other broadcasters'. You know that The Telegraph, or at least its management. I suppose you realised that despite them using outside agencies to select the audience for programmes like Question Time, it is heavily criticised in papers such as the Telegraph for being partial as to whom they have in them.

Having read the article there seems to be little or no accusation that the BBC produces programmes that are politically biased. It is short on specifics.

The Telegraph is a political paper. It has no other function. It is right wing. It is Eurosceptic. It uses editorial content to try and convince others of its stance.

The fact that the Telegraph, and in particular Murdoch via the Times, are both for an exit is a massive hurdle to overcome for someone like me who has not made up his mind.

The article could almost be a toungue in cheek criticism of the Telegraph.

But then there is no requirement for the Telegraph, unlike the BBC, to be balanced in its programming.

The Telegraph is a privately owned business and therefore they are entitled to publish any spiel they wish. I, as a member of the British public, am free to choose whether I give them money in order to read their politically biased commentary or not. The BBC on the other hand, are public owned and state funded and therefore I have little choice in the matter of having to pay for their political bias. What's even worse, is that they claim (and indeed are required) to be "politically neutral". At least with the Telegraph you know that they are Eurosceptic and that their articles contain bias and they have an agenda. The BBC report as if everything they say is indisputable, unquestionable, universally agreed truth.

Do you see the difference?

[speedyman]

The only opinion which counts is your own, don't be fooled by any of the media, they all have an agenda.

[deadslow]

I thought the Beeb showed remarkable restraint. When Dave claimed he was battling for Britain, not a single reporter or presenter fell orf their chair laughing at the clown. Well done BBC!!

[jonby]

TEKNOPUG said:

Derek Smith said:

I suppose you know the BBC is, by law, required to be balanced in its programmes and that it can be taken to task if it is not. I suppose you know that no one in this country can be refused a job on the grounds of political affinity. You know, I assume, the the scrutiny that the BBC undergoes is stricter than for 'other broadcasters'.

What's even worse, is that they claim (and indeed are required) to be "politically neutral". At least with the Telegraph you know that they are Eurosceptic and that their articles contain bias and they have an agenda. The BBC report as if everything they say is indisputable, unquestionable, universally agreed truth.

Do you see the difference?

Being 'required' and proving they haven't met those requirements are two entirely different matters

There is no question in my personal opinion that the BBC take a left wing, luvvie stance on many issues. But by definition, the majority of those who accuse the BBC of that are of more right wing leaning whilst those on the left will not even recognise, let alone support that idea

Case in point - Israel. You will find that in reaction to many BBC reports on Israel, those who 'support' Israel to one degree or another, find the BBC incredibly biased against Israel, failing for instance to ever show a wealthy Palestinian or a poor Israeli, failing to point out that during the last major bombing campaign they were reporting from a site where their output was controlled by Hamas, failing to point out that the Palestinians destroyed the infrastructure left for them in Gaza, etc. Yet pro-Palestinians watching the same programme are inclined to say the BBC is biased the other way, accusing it of being pro-Israel and anti-Islam, accusing them of treating one side as terrorists and the other as legitimate when both are acting in the same way, etc. They can't both be right.

Nobody is arguing that the BBC aren't ordered to present a balanced, neutral view. The question is who will ever be regarded as sufficiently neutral and capable of adjudicating whether they are - do we trust those currently employed to keep the BBC in check ?

[TTwiggy]

Hosenbugler said:

A key reason the BBc trust should be scrapped, along with the license fee of course. They should be funded by choice, not by legal threats and sending people to jail for the heinous crime of not having a "license".

Virtually every 'western' state taxes its citizens for the receipt of broadcast programming. Some tax more than ours, some tax less. None of them get anything as comprehrensive as the BBC in return for their tax. If the BBC were scrapped tomorrow I absolutely guarantee we would still be charged a licence fee.

[valiant]

If only we had a BBC bias thread...

[TTwiggy]

jonby said:

Case in point - Israel. You will find that in reaction to many BBC reports on Israel, those who 'support' Israel to one degree or another, find the BBC incredibly biased against Israel, failing for instance to ever show a wealthy Palestinian or a poor Israeli, failing to point out that during the last major bombing campaign they were reporting from a site where their output was controlled by Hamas, failing to point out that the Palestinians destroyed the infrastructure left for them in Gaza, etc. Yet pro-Palestinians watching the same programme are inclined to say the BBC is biased the other way, accusing it of being pro-Israel and anti-Islam, accusing them of treating one side as terrorists and the other as legitimate when both are acting in the same way, etc. They can't both be right.

On the BBC bias thread there was a poster claiming that the BBC hierachy are all Zionists. Those who look for bias will find whatever flavour they seek.

[0000]

TTwiggy said:

On the BBC bias thread there was a poster claiming that the BBC hierachy are all Zionists. Those who look for bias will find whatever flavour they seek.

What kind of ridiculous quantum theory of bias is that? Presumably therefore there is no bias as only those with perfectly neutral views will know.

[don4l]

So, the pound is up against the Euro today.

It's down a bit against the US Dollar.

BBC said:

The pound is heading for its biggest drop in nearly seven years against the dollar amid uncertainty about a possible British exit from the EU.

At one stage it was down 2.1% at $1.41020, the biggest one-day drop since March 2009.

You cannot report on "one day" drops until the day has finished - so we have not seen "the biggest one-day drop since March 2009". At this point, that claim is an outright lie. The funny thing is that the story was only published 27 minutes ago, when it was already provably untrue.

These people have no shame.

[TTwiggy]

0000 said:

TTwiggy said:

On the BBC bias thread there was a poster claiming that the BBC hierachy are all Zionists. Those who look for bias will find whatever flavour they seek.

What kind of ridiculous quantum theory of bias is that? Presumably therefore there is no bias as only those with perfectly neutral views will know.

I would have thought it's perfectly clear: if your views are generally right-wing, you will see left-wing bias in the BBC. If your views are grenerally left-wing, you will see right-wing bias. If yuor views are pro-Palestine you will see a Zionist conspiracy, if they are pro-Isreal you will see anti-Semitism. Because we all think we 'pay' for the BBC will never be happy with its output unless it agrees with our own politics at every turn.

[deadslow]

TTwiggy said:

0000 said:

TTwiggy said:

On the BBC bias thread there was a poster claiming that the BBC hierachy are all Zionists. Those who look for bias will find whatever flavour they seek.

What kind of ridiculous quantum theory of bias is that? Presumably therefore there is no bias as only those with perfectly neutral views will know.

I would have thought it's perfectly clear: if your views are generally right-wing, you will see left-wing bias in the BBC. If your views are grenerally left-wing, you will see right-wing bias. If yuor views are pro-Palestine you will see a Zionist conspiracy, if they are pro-Isreal you will see anti-Semitism. Because we all think we 'pay' for the BBC will never be happy with its output unless it agrees with our own politics at every turn.

That is the beginning, middle and end of it. Give that man a coconut.

[FredClogs]

BBC institutional biarse, is that like Claire Balding?

[jonby]

TTwiggy said:

0000 said:

TTwiggy said:

On the BBC bias thread there was a poster claiming that the BBC hierachy are all Zionists. Those who look for bias will find whatever flavour they seek.

What kind of ridiculous quantum theory of bias is that? Presumably therefore there is no bias as only those with perfectly neutral views will know.

I would have thought it's perfectly clear: if your views are generally right-wing, you will see left-wing bias in the BBC. If your views are grenerally left-wing, you will see right-wing bias. If yuor views are pro-Palestine you will see a Zionist conspiracy, if they are pro-Isreal you will see anti-Semitism. Because we all think we 'pay' for the BBC will never be happy with its output unless it agrees with our own politics at every turn.

Exactly my point - however much I am categorically convinced the BBC is biased one way, I am by definition biased in my opinion on the BBC to at least a degree, as a result of my own political leanings. It's hard to imagine anyone who doesn't to at least some extent fall into the same camp.

There are degrees of course - I am by & large someone who would be considered right of centre but I still avoid the DM & Fox on the basis they are so extremely right wing they don't even attempt to portray a balanced or remotely accurate view. I would be considered as 'pro-Israel' despite disagreeing with some of Israel's policies, but I prefer to read Haaretz on the basis it gives me a more balanced view even if I don't always like what I read

The broadcaster who is less extreme, but still off centre, is the more dangerous because if they aren't so extreme that it becomes obvious, you are more likely to take their word as fact.

[Eric Mc]

I think the BBC is biased in favour of strawberry ice cream over vanilla - probably because it's a bit red (the strawberry ice cream, I mean).