Proof that news.bbc is manipulating its output

[tinman0]

It really doesn't suprise me, or anyone else reading this, but check out the news covered by news.bbc regarding Ken's little outburst.

As we know the outburst was gainst an Evening Standard journalist, not a Daily Mail journalist, and as we know the Daily Mail and ES are owned by the same company.

However, the Daily Mail takes so much flak regarding the fact that it is anti-everything, especially anti-Labour.

Has anyone noticed the increase in jibes that the Daily Mail is getting from our Political Elite? Could it be the Daily Mail is the only newspaper that actually isnt a fawning pawn in the game called "100 Years of Labour"?

Anyway, i digress.

Here are the early reports from news.bbc that talk about Ken vs Evening Standard:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4256549.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4261587.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4262833.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4272895.stm

Now take the latest peice today which is now modified to show Ken vs Daily Mail:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4286633.stm

Followed closely by the anti Daily Mail lynch mob:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4286839.stm


For all the problems with modern journalism - at least the Daily Mail is consistent - it attacks everything.

But what annoys me the most - is that the BBC custmoise its output so deliberately.

I will put money on it that the news (BBC and C4) this evening will not say Associated Newspapers, or Evening Standard, but Daily Mail Group.

[bruciebabe]

tinman0 said:

Has anyone noticed the increase in jibes that the Daily Mail is getting from our Political Elite? Could it be the Daily Mail is the only newspaper that actually isnt a fawning pawn in the game called "100 Years of Labour"?

The Daily Mail is one of the few things in Britain worse than the Labour party. It is the total, absolute, complete and utter pits. It deserves all the criticism it receives and much more.
It is not the only newspaper not up Bliar's bum. Look at the Independent and Telegraph for instance, both these papers employ journalists that are not intellectually sub-normal.

[vetteheadracer]

My problem with the Daily Mail is it is inaccurate or plain wrong on most occassions.
I want my news to be fact based not opinion or hearsay of lazy opinionated journalists.

I want my news delivered in an unbiased way various elements of the BBC (particluarly Radio 5 Live) for example are openly anti-american.

I want news not is not religion biased, not politically biased and above all true.

Is this to much to ask?

[tinman0]

Your response proves my point though.

They have turned Ken vs Evening Standard into Ken vs Daily Mail. Your disdain of the Daily Mail is used to support Ken by default.

[JagLover]

The reason why I get so pi33ed off with the BBC's biased crap is that you have no choice about paying for them to produce it.

With the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Guardian etc you know they have their own angle for every news story but you choose whether to buy their paper or not.

With the BBC you have no choice and that is why it is vital they should be politically balanced.

[GingerNinja]

tinman0 said:

Your response proves my point though. They have turned Ken vs Evening Standard into Ken vs Daily Mail. Your disdain of the Daily Mail is used to support Ken by default.

Equally, you're very obviously pro-Daily Mail and are adopting their very anti-Ken attitude.

I could care less which paper cover this - as far as I'm concerned, it's a non-story. Ken didn't say anything anti-Jewish - he was simply having a go at an overly-aggressive Journalist who decided to hide behind the race card. No apology needed to anyone.

[tinman0]

yup, i probably am pro-Daily Mail. Its like a rabid dog, it bites everyone.

but thats not my point though. the Daily Mail is being used as a way of turning this saga around.

regardless of the Daily Mail - something quite unrelated is being brought into a saga to deliberately sway public opinion, and its being done by a corporation that we all contribute to.

if you don't like the Daily Mail - don't buy the paper. if you don't pay the BBC - you go to jail.

[GingerNinja]

tinman0 said:

yup, i probably am pro-Daily Mail. Its like a rabid dog, it bites everyone. but thats not my point though. the Daily Mail is being used as a way of turning this saga around. regardless of the Daily Mail - something quite unrelated is being brought into a saga to deliberately sway public opinion, and its being done by a corporation that we all contribute to. if you don't like the Daily Mail - don't buy the paper. if you don't pay the BBC - you go to jail.

Daily Mail doesn't bite everyone - it's rabidly right wing. And you only go to jail with the BBC if you have a television and don't buy a license fee. The website that you've been liberally referencing is totally free.

[Jinx]

GingerNinja said:

Equally, you're very obviously pro-Daily Mail and are adopting their very anti-Ken attitude. I could care less which paper cover this - as far as I'm concerned, it's a non-story. Ken didn't say anything anti-Jewish - he was simply having a go at an overly-aggressive Journalist who decided to hide behind the race card. No apology needed to anyone.

From what I have heard from the transcript of the conversation the journalist wasn't particularly aggressive - Ken was lashing out at him as the "representative" of the Evening Standard group. The "reasons" given by Ken for this ungentlemanly conduct were spurious and also hypocritical if Ken's previous jobs are taken into account. His lack of manners needs apologising for if nothing else.
Back on topic though - I am thoroughly disgusted by the BBC and its political bias in reporting, just look at the order of stories and you can identify the groups/beliefs that the BBC considers "important".

[tinman0]

its not free, we pay for it through our tv license fee.

2 points:

1) don't you feel disgusted that our own money is being used to manipulate us?

2) dont you feel that the news in general is designed to manipulate us? like the trevor macd thing yesterday where they drag on Brake's latest victim that is totally unrelated to the programme?

[GingerNinja]

tinman0 said:

its not free, we pay for it through our tv license fee. 2 points: 1) don't you feel disgusted that our own money is being used to manipulate us? 2) dont you feel that the news in general is designed to manipulate us? like the trevor macd thing yesterday where they drag on Brake's latest victim that is totally unrelated to the programme?

The website is free to you - you don't pay any extra for it. If you didn't have a TV, you still wouldn't pay anything for it.

2) No, not really. BBC does lots of things I don't like - however, I'm not really paying for it's non-bias - I'm paying for no advertisements.
2) News might be designed to manipulate us/me - or certainly restrict it's content based on a political bias - that's why I gather my news from various sources.

[dilbert]

I am disgusted that the media is manipulated.

At the moment it generally seems to be working in my favor, so I'll not complain too much.

I guess that the Labour party didn't pay it's subs this year!

[Jinx]

GingerNinja said:

The website is free to you - you don't pay any extra for it. If you didn't have a TV, you still wouldn't pay anything for it.

In Tinman's defence - the website is free at point of access - a bit like the NHS (If you don't have a job you don't pay for it). But ultimately it is paid for by the (TV)Tax payer.

[vixpy1]

The BBC, so full of left wingers, the caf only serves Lentils!

[GingerNinja]

vixpy1 said:

The BBC, so full of left wingers, the caf only serves Lentils!

What, like Jeremy Clarkson?

[vixpy1]

GingerNinja said:

vixpy1 said: The BBC, so full of left wingers, the caf only serves Lentils! What, like Jeremy Clarkson?

Ok, there are exceptions, I'm not sure that Clarkson actually works directly for the BBC, I think he works for a company which makes TOPGEAR for the BBC.

???

[pesty]

vetteheadracer said:

My problem with the Daily Mail is it is inaccurate or plain wrong on most occassions. I want my news to be fact based not opinion or hearsay of lazy opinionated journalists.

This is interesting. do you have any proof to back up that statement?

[tinman0]

yeah but they needed JC back though. they discovered car programmes with "Daewhos and various other sensible family cars that would appeal to the broader audience" didnt work. so he came back on his owns terms, and thats why its refreshingly unPC.


>> Edited by tinman0 on Tuesday 22 February 14:25

[tinman0]

GingerNinja said:

you're very obviously pro-Daily Mail and are adopting their very anti-Ken attitude.

didn't see this bit.

i am anti-Ken. Totally.

i want him hanging from the Tower over this but not because of what he said.

i want the tower reopened - because if it had been a tory politician who had said these things - he would be in the tower by now.

there is a terrible anti-tory thing going around. if a tory slips up, they get hung out to dry. if a labour politician slips up - nothing really happens - and it gets swept under the carpet.

so yes, i want blood. i want the same PC noose that hangs the enemies of Labour to start hanging the Labour politicians also.

[bga]

vixpy1 said:

Ok, there are exceptions, I'm not sure that Clarkson actually works directly for the BBC, I think he works for a company which makes TOPGEAR for the BBC. ???

Most of the presenters have a contractor arrangement (or at least did in 1999/2000) with the BBC if they are not going through a company selling the program directly.