Discussion
Well folks, its finally happened. The BBC have given in to the re/progressive bulls
t machine!
Just read an article where the author insisted on using Mx instead of Mr. So it's official; the BBC has been infected and they're not hiding it anymore.
We all knew they've been swinging left for a while now but at least there used to be a shred of neutrality.
Anyone know of any reliable, trustworthy, centrist news websites?
(I'm aware that last sentence is approaching a paradox)
t machine!Just read an article where the author insisted on using Mx instead of Mr. So it's official; the BBC has been infected and they're not hiding it anymore.
We all knew they've been swinging left for a while now but at least there used to be a shred of neutrality.
Anyone know of any reliable, trustworthy, centrist news websites?
(I'm aware that last sentence is approaching a paradox)
The BBC are far from perfect but it would be helpful if we avoid needlessly doing the 'spitting out our cornflakes reading the Daily Express' thing. I've no idea what article you refer to but assuming they think it's worth publishing, would it make sense not to do so because the author wants Mx as a title; why does it bother you so much? Nobody is forcing you or I to change Mr to Mx.
Moreover, although this is not a foolproof measure of an organisation being balanced, it is amazing how the BBC gets loads of stick for being too left wing, but if you hop on Twitter you will see masses of left wing people hammering them for being too cosy with the Tories and not challenging them enough.
Moreover, although this is not a foolproof measure of an organisation being balanced, it is amazing how the BBC gets loads of stick for being too left wing, but if you hop on Twitter you will see masses of left wing people hammering them for being too cosy with the Tories and not challenging them enough.
TomTheTyke said:
Moreover, although this is not a foolproof measure of an organisation being balanced, it is amazing how the BBC gets loads of stick for being too left wing, but if you hop on Twitter you will see masses of left wing people hammering them for being too cosy with the Tories and not challenging them enough.
The day the BBC shows any favouritism to any party slightly right of centre will be memorable. They've been left-leaning since inception. In light of the fact the Conservatives have marked the end of days for the TV Licence they won't change their stance now. Anyone on the hard-left will naturally see anything to their right as bias.A short while before this virus thing kicked off they started doing a climate emergency bks article a day and really upped the ante with shoving it all down your throat. Their leftie agenda has just gone nuts.
I deleted all my BBC news bookmarks and BBC links and have never looked at their so-called news output since.
ks article a day and really upped the ante with shoving it all down your throat. Their leftie agenda has just gone nuts.I deleted all my BBC news bookmarks and BBC links and have never looked at their so-called news output since.
Dog Star said:
A short while before this virus thing kicked off they started doing a climate emergency bks article a day and really upped the ante with shoving it all down your throat. Their leftie agenda has just gone nuts.
I deleted all my BBC news bookmarks and BBC links and have never looked at their so-called news output since.
I didn't realise climate change was a left/right issue. ks article a day and really upped the ante with shoving it all down your throat. Their leftie agenda has just gone nuts.I deleted all my BBC news bookmarks and BBC links and have never looked at their so-called news output since.
PositronicRay said:
Dog Star said:
A short while before this virus thing kicked off they started doing a climate emergency bks article a day and really upped the ante with shoving it all down your throat. Their leftie agenda has just gone nuts.
I deleted all my BBC news bookmarks and BBC links and have never looked at their so-called news output since.
I didn't realise climate change was a left/right issue. ks article a day and really upped the ante with shoving it all down your throat. Their leftie agenda has just gone nuts.I deleted all my BBC news bookmarks and BBC links and have never looked at their so-called news output since.
DrSteveBrule said:
TomTheTyke said:
Moreover, although this is not a foolproof measure of an organisation being balanced, it is amazing how the BBC gets loads of stick for being too left wing, but if you hop on Twitter you will see masses of left wing people hammering them for being too cosy with the Tories and not challenging them enough.
The day the BBC shows any favouritism to any party slightly right of centre will be memorable. They've been left-leaning since inception. In light of the fact the Conservatives have marked the end of days for the TV Licence they won't change their stance now. Anyone on the hard-left will naturally see anything to their right as bias.But see here for some examples https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec...
You could also add into this things like BBC reporting of the Miners' Strike, where the BBC themselves were aware that their reporting might not have been as impartial as was appropriate. https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/miners-strike-30-ye...
Overall, however, I agree that the BBC has tended to lean left, it certainly leant to Remain rather than Leave, but a blanket statement saying the BBC has never favoured any party right of centre is an oversimplification IMHO.
PositronicRay said:
I didn't realise climate change was a left/right issue.
Poor writing on my part (maybe I should write for the BBC? 
)I meant that sentence as a separate point to the "climate emergency" screaming.
The endless daily articles about transgender rights, articles about Oscars, Brits whatever awards - and all they are is a whinge about the lack of black/female/underprivileged nominees or winners. It got beyond a joke.
TomTheTyke said:
The BBC are far from perfect but it would be helpful if we avoid needlessly doing the 'spitting out our cornflakes reading the Daily Express' thing. I've no idea what article you refer to but assuming they think it's worth publishing, would it make sense not to do so because the author wants Mx as a title; why does it bother you so much? Nobody is forcing you or I to change Mr to Mx.
Moreover, although this is not a foolproof measure of an organisation being balanced, it is amazing how the BBC gets loads of stick for being too left wing, but if you hop on Twitter you will see masses of left wing people hammering them for being too cosy with the Tories and not challenging them enough.
Indeed. It's all eyes and beholder stuff. Moreover, although this is not a foolproof measure of an organisation being balanced, it is amazing how the BBC gets loads of stick for being too left wing, but if you hop on Twitter you will see masses of left wing people hammering them for being too cosy with the Tories and not challenging them enough.
The BBC is one of the few news channels that is required to be impartial. This seems to have given rise to the phenomenon you highlight; being criticised by all sides for being biased. It is almost surreal.
I'm not sure why Mx and Mz should be considered left-wing, although I do see the shock and resentment of someone being upset by it as reactionary. Who cares what they call themselves? It is nothing to do with anyone else but them. Such an attitude is more liberal than socialist.
The desire not to be classified by marital status and gender is hardly avant guarde. It dates back to at least art nouveau, although it was rather fledgling in those days. I see it as inarguable. I hope I'm more than what is between my legs, although common terminology for said bits is the first term that comes to mind to define people who are aghast at those who don't want to be limited.
A problem with our English language is the lack of gender-neutral pronouns. They, despite it being well on the road to gaining universal acceptance as the prescribed alternative to he and she - apart from reactionaries of course - is too cumbersome. Crack that, and I think it will become the norm to ignore gender when it is not vital.
I'm not supporting using Mx. That's because it is nothing to do with me.
Dog Star said:
Poor writing on my part (maybe I should write for the BBC? )
I meant that sentence as a separate point to the "climate emergency" screaming.
The endless daily articles about transgender rights, articles about Oscars, Brits whatever awards - and all they are is a whinge about the lack of black/female/underprivileged nominees or winners. It got beyond a joke.
Again I think I've made my point on this thread but I think you are in danger of proving the idea re. views of the BBC depending on the viewer's own beliefs. )I meant that sentence as a separate point to the "climate emergency" screaming.
The endless daily articles about transgender rights, articles about Oscars, Brits whatever awards - and all they are is a whinge about the lack of black/female/underprivileged nominees or winners. It got beyond a joke.
I agree the 'whinging' can feel a little overwhelming at times but it is also abundantly clear that black people, women and those from underprivileged backgrounds are indeed underrepresented in creative industries and for that matter across a whole range of senior positions in the public and private sectors. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing for a public service broadcaster to discuss, or should we just assume we give everything to the best person for the job and it just turns out the best person is always a privately educated wealthy white man?
s1962a said:
Well this is a shocker. The BBC doesn't conform to your liberal/illiberal brand of thinking so must be bad.
Which news sources are more 'impartial' as far as you are concerned?
The Daily Mail seems to be the gold standard of unbiased journalistic excellence, judging by how often our esteemed PH'ers quote the fWhich news sources are more 'impartial' as far as you are concerned?
king thing.TomTheTyke said:
Dog Star said:
Poor writing on my part (maybe I should write for the BBC? )
I meant that sentence as a separate point to the "climate emergency" screaming.
The endless daily articles about transgender rights, articles about Oscars, Brits whatever awards - and all they are is a whinge about the lack of black/female/underprivileged nominees or winners. It got beyond a joke.
Again I think I've made my point on this thread but I think you are in danger of proving the idea re. views of the BBC depending on the viewer's own beliefs. )I meant that sentence as a separate point to the "climate emergency" screaming.
The endless daily articles about transgender rights, articles about Oscars, Brits whatever awards - and all they are is a whinge about the lack of black/female/underprivileged nominees or winners. It got beyond a joke.
I agree the 'whinging' can feel a little overwhelming at times but it is also abundantly clear that black people, women and those from underprivileged backgrounds are indeed underrepresented in creative industries and for that matter across a whole range of senior positions in the public and private sectors. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing for a public service broadcaster to discuss, or should we just assume we give everything to the best person for the job and it just turns out the best person is always a privately educated wealthy white man?
REALIST123 said:
It’s been a long time since I heard that outdated view. Where have you been?
Happy to admit I was condensing a very complicated issue into a sentence, and indeed one that will take decades to change because, for example, improvements to accessing higher education for ethnic minorities would not translate into more black CEOs for 30 or so years. But would you be kind enough to clarify exactly what part of the view is 'outdated?' I'd also add I'm not arguing in favour of excessive 'positive discrimination,' I'm not particularly comfortable with all women shortlists for MP selections. However, the facts speak for themselves and those groups are underrepresented, and by a greater degree than can just be explained by natural variation. Two thirds of judges were privately educated. Obviously, we want educated people in that job but something there is not right.
Edited by TomTheTyke on Tuesday 14th April 12:13
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff