Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[0000]

Yet another BBC article making out that a young remainer who took David Beckham studies before working in Starbucks is more educated than an older leaver.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

[johnxjsc1985]

0000 said:

Yet another BBC article making out that a young remainer who took David Beckham studies before working in Starbucks is more educated than an older leaver.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

its been a narrative they have been pushing for sometime now but guess what us thicko's outnumber them by a huge margin. As for the older voter I like to use the old saying "with age comes wisdom". This is exactly why ordinary people are turning against the Political Elite they think they have a divine right to govern over us and they do not.

[The Don of Croy]

johnxjsc1985 said:

0000 said:

Yet another BBC article making out that a young remainer who took David Beckham studies before working in Starbucks is more educated than an older leaver.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

its been a narrative they have been pushing for sometime now but guess what us thicko's outnumber them by a huge margin. As for the older voter I like to use the old saying "with age comes wisdom". This is exactly why ordinary people are turning against the Political Elite they think they have a divine right to govern over us and they do not.

BBC said:

This ward-by-ward analysis covers 1,070 individual wards in England and Wales whose boundaries had not changed since the 2011 census, about one in nine of the UK's wards. We had very little ward-level data from Scotland, and none from Northern Ireland.

So they've extrapolated it from 1/9th of the total?

In other news, the Friday headline about the abuser employed by a council (Sheffield) even after warnings etc, then re-employed later and allowed to retire early on pension, no interview with council leader or even mention of the party leading (is it always so even-handed?).

Turns out the leader at start of the abuse is notoriously publicity-shy and therefore unlikely to ever offer an opinion outside of his narrow remit. Or it's David Blunkett.

[ou sont les biscuits]

The Don of Croy said:

So they've extrapolated it from 1/9th of the total?

So does this make the results statistically inaccurate?

[The Don of Croy]

ou sont les biscuits said:

The Don of Croy said:

So they've extrapolated it from 1/9th of the total?

So does this make the results statistically inaccurate?

I am unqualified to comment on whether 1/9 is sufficient to cover 9/9th's. Given the accuracy of recent polls one is minded to treat stats with some caution.

[LimaDelta]

BIANCO said:

I see at the older and less educated working class have experienced the real world. And don't live in this fantasy neverland where everyone leave school at the age of 25 and then walk into a job surround by other fking Peter Pans. And don't have a clue how the rest of the world thinks and works.

Hear, hear.

[ou sont les biscuits]

The Don of Croy said:

ou sont les biscuits said:

The Don of Croy said:

So they've extrapolated it from 1/9th of the total?

So does this make the results statistically inaccurate?

I am unqualified to comment on whether 1/9 is sufficient to cover 9/9th's. Given the accuracy of recent polls one is minded to treat stats with some caution.

You said it.

[The Don of Croy]

ou sont les biscuits said:

The Don of Croy said:

ou sont les biscuits said:

The Don of Croy said:

So they've extrapolated it from 1/9th of the total?

So does this make the results statistically inaccurate?

I am unqualified to comment on whether 1/9 is sufficient to cover 9/9th's. Given the accuracy of recent polls one is minded to treat stats with some caution.

You said it.

And the answer is?

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

...
Not sure why would you think that iplayer is not great. Works for me on any platform without any issues whatsoever.

tbf it's not that bad these days. But in the early days its implementation was clunky at best.

End of the day it's merely access to the content. No rationale reason to pay the license fee

The Don of Croy said:

And the answer is?

The answer is "it depends".

If there was logic and weighting applied to the sample, great. If not, then you can tell nothing.

[Johnnytheboy]

It's NHS week on Radio 4's World at One programme apparently.

So rather than the usual token story about how underfunded the NHS is, most of the programme was devoted to it.

They barely had time for an article correlating educational achievement with voting patterns in the EU referendum.

[hidetheelephants]

Johnnytheboy said:

It's NHS week on Radio 4's World at One programme apparently.

So rather than the usual token story about how underfunded the NHS is, most of the programme was devoted to it.

They barely had time for an article correlating educational achievement with voting patterns in the EU referendum.

The 6 O'Clock Handwringing had a segment on the annual winter NHS hospital ZOMG! Crisis! It did look busy in the hospital they visited, but deliberately or otherwise it seemed to me that many of the supplicants waiting a long time to be seen either didn't need to be there at all or could have been better served visiting their GP or a walk-in clinic, so given the place is busy this is an example of triage working as it's supposed to and only a crisis if you are mindlessly attached to waiting times. I can't get excited if it takes 8 hours for someone with a superficial burn to be seen to.

[Hosenbugler]

Did anyone catch the end of Newsnight last night? It was utterly cringeworthy .

I only caught the last 60 seconds or so, the presenter with apparent great glee closing out to a clip of Bercow abusing Trump,(first I'd heard of it) all to background music of Jerusalem. The entire thing was risible.

I no longer watch live TV at home anymore and from this utter junk, it seems I am missing nothing. Is it really that bad, is it really near 24 hours of bleating and hand wringing , Trump, Brexit,wail, blah, blah blah?

It was bad enough when I let my license lapse , I get the impression its got worse.

Ridiculous.

ETA Blimey, I was not alone it seems : http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bbc-bias-row-...

Edited by Hosenbugler on Tuesday 7th February 08:12

[brenflys777]

Radio 4 started a series yesterday after the 12 0'Clock news called "BREXIT a guide for the perplexed". Every single contributor sounded Europhile or were connected to the EU. One of the contributors stated that the EU negotiators were so good and so well prepared that there was nothing the UK could do in negotiation that the EU wouldn't have planned for. Playing chess with scorpions was how he described it! What about the UK money? - not a problem - apparently the EU isn't about economics it's the principal that matters....today. Genuinely surprised that there wasn't even a sniff of an attempt at balance. The series continues today, think I'll give it a miss...

[Biker 1]

Hosenbugler said:

Did anyone catch the end of Newsnight last night? . The entire thing was risible.

I no longer watch live TV at home anymore and from this utter junk, it seems I am missing nothing. Is it really that bad, is it really near 24 hours of bleating and hand wringing , Trump, Brexit,wail, blah, blah blah?

Ridiculous.

I haven't watched Newsnight for years; I stopped watching as I couldn't stand the blatant bias. Same with Radio 4, BBC 'News' et al. Not surprised by the Bercow debacle & now this from the BBC; widely reported in the press.
I guess I should start watching again, just so I understand what some of my work colleagues are bleating on about. Its strange how so many people seem to take the BBC at face value & believe they are correct on everything & impartial; almost brain washing.

[coppice]

No stranger than those who just cannot wait to fly into yet more self righteous outrage about anything , no matter how remotely , which they can find on the BBC which doesn't mirror precisely their own right wing stance .Or so it appears to this endangered species liberal - I am still looking for this elite conspiracy I am supposed to be part of though....

[Stickyfinger]

coppice said:

No stranger than those who just cannot wait to fly into yet more self righteous outrage about anything , no matter how remotely , which they can find on the BBC which doesn't mirror precisely their own right wing stance .Or so it appears to this endangered species liberal - I am still looking for this elite conspiracy I am supposed to be part of though....

Drip drip drip works then. Try switching off the BBC for a week or so, read/listen to lots of other sources, then go back and listen to the little nuances and angles.....

NHS Week, ask why there has yet been (and I bet none) little analysis of the structure and administration/spend of the NHS. Ask yourself what "protective practices" the professional bodies apply to themselves then wonder why there are no comments on that .....then listen to their "pitch" and "heart tugging words" specifically designed to shift the perspective of the viewer.

[FiF]

Moving away from the BBC for a bit, finding myself agreeing with sentiments posted by jjlynn. Shudder.

Did anyone catch that Fake News celebrity panel game on Channel 4. Apart from a spot on rant by Richard Osman about the harm that fake news does, and that what they were discussing was people lying as opposed to fake news, what a crock.

A vehicle for right on virtue signalling, mixed in with bash Trump, bash Brexit, bash Farage, rinse and repeat. Some funny bits but the BBC is a complete paragon of objectivity in comparison.

[coppice]

Stickyfinger said:

Drip drip drip works then. Try switching off the BBC for a week or so, read/listen to lots of other sources, then go back and listen to the little nuances and angles.....

NHS Week, ask why there has yet been (and I bet none) little analysis of the structure and administration/spend of the NHS. Ask yourself what "protective practices" the professional bodies apply to themselves then wonder why there are no comments on that .....then listen to their "pitch" and "heart tugging words" specifically designed to shift the perspective of the viewer.

Why do you assume I only watch the BBC? Bloody hell, I even read that extreme left wing propaganda tool The Spectator....!

[Camoradi]

Stickyfinger said:

Drip drip drip works then. Try switching off the BBC for a week or so, read/listen to lots of other sources, then go back and listen to the little nuances and angles.....

NHS Week, ask why there has yet been (and I bet none) little analysis of the structure and administration/spend of the NHS. Ask yourself what "protective practices" the professional bodies apply to themselves then wonder why there are no comments on that .....then listen to their "pitch" and "heart tugging words" specifically designed to shift the perspective of the viewer.

It has occurred to me that having a BBC film crew on site during the busiest period of the year can't do much to improve efficiency.

[Jazzy Jag]

I received a reply to my complaint about the Ginger To55er on Radio 2 constantly bashing Trump

BBC said:

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

I was sorry to read you were unhappy with Radio 2's 'Chris Evans' on 26 January. I understand you feel Chris continually makes biased comments regarding President Donald Trump.

We do understand your general concern; however the BBC Editorial Guidelines do make it clear that, while there is a requirement for our news output to ensure ‘due impartiality’, there is scope for individual expression in certain styles of programming. The full Guidelines are available online here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/

The relevant section covering Impartiality in Entertainment and Culture says:

4.4.16
The audience expects artists, writers and entertainers to have scope for individual expression in drama, entertainment and culture. The BBC is committed to offering it. Where this covers matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or other 'controversial subjects', services should normally aim to reflect a broad range of the available perspectives over time. Consideration should be given to the appropriate timeframe for reflecting those other perspectives and whether or not they need to be included in connected and signposted output taking account of the nature of the controversy and the subject matter.

Thanks for going to trouble to let us know your concerns, which were included in our daily Audience Log. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly.

We hope you will keep listening to Chris, as we'd hate to lose you as a listener.

Once again, thanks for getting in touch.

Kind regards

Brian Irvine
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

It seem that I was wrong all along, who'da guessed?