Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
V8covin said:
Every morning I turn on BBC 1 news and it's Brexit Brexit Brexit.
Change the tune before I change the channel....for good !
I gave up on the BBC news a few months ago for that same reason. I also stopped reading the Telegraph due to page after page of ads and the very select way they reported things. (OR didn't report certain stories).Change the tune before I change the channel....for good !
I liked Countryfile until they went all lefty and blamed the farmers for everything ...floods etc.
Thank F for satellite and 250 + channels....Oh and Dave
mikal83 said:
I gave up on the BBC news a few months ago for that same reason. I also stopped reading the Telegraph due to page after page of ads and the very select way they reported things. (OR didn't report certain stories).
I liked Countryfile until they went all lefty and blamed the farmers for everything ...floods etc.
Thank F for satellite and 250 + channels....Oh and Dave
We watched virtually zero terrestrial TV now, and it has been this way for the past couple of years. I would say that viewing splits into something like, 50% Netflix and Amazon, 40% YouTube and the rest made up of watching Blu-Rays and the occasional SKY programme (Game of Thrones, Westworld, TWD etc. - these are the only reason we have to pay the BBC licence without having no interest in any BBC content)I liked Countryfile until they went all lefty and blamed the farmers for everything ...floods etc.
Thank F for satellite and 250 + channels....Oh and Dave
Having given up on voluntarily watching BBC TV and radio years ago, looking back it was definitely a good move - after all if a dose of blatant left-liberal bias is needed for any reason there's always their website, not forgetting The Guardian as used by BBC producers to give presenters their line on a story.
Mr. White said:
What news source can be trusted to be impartial these days? The Economist?
Genuine question, not rhetorical.
None.Genuine question, not rhetorical.
Your best bet is to read a few deliberately chosen from "left" and "right" and take a view.
What you'll probably find is that they both neutralise each other and hence it's not worth reading any of it. Which ultimately saves a lot of time and worry.
I will be waiting to see how much coverage the Conservative party conference gets in October!
From what I've heard of the Labour conference it would be a disaster if these out of touch snowflakes get into power. I particularly like the £500million pledge to the NHS, like urinating in the ocean!!
As usual politicians (all parties) fail to address the real issues.
From what I've heard of the Labour conference it would be a disaster if these out of touch snowflakes get into power. I particularly like the £500million pledge to the NHS, like urinating in the ocean!!
As usual politicians (all parties) fail to address the real issues.
Mr. White said:
What news source can be trusted to be impartial these days? The Economist?
Genuine question, not rhetorical.
As mentioned already.Genuine question, not rhetorical.
None of them.
But the BBC should not be this way. The BBC has a pressure to be neutral, but due to the people within the organisation they are formed by mostly left-wing entities (allegedly).
This left-wing pressure formed by the people who work within the organisation is very odorous within their published content.
I've mentioned before that people do not want opinion forced on to them, doing such assumes the viewer has little intellect to form their own opinion on matters. In doing so they alienate a huge audience and leave themselves open for ridicule. This then undermines their credibility and the diminishing circle of returns continues as they ramp up their efforts to further promote a left wing position.
turbobloke said:
The BBC as chartered national broadcaster with its current funding model has a requirement to be impartial...at which it fails, badly.
This differentiates it from other media. Direct comparisons are therefore fundamentally flawed.
Presumably you would expect them to offer equal weighting to all views on all subjects then? As to not do so would be to exhibit bias.This differentiates it from other media. Direct comparisons are therefore fundamentally flawed.
So I'm looking forward to the flat earthers getting a chance to face off against NASA and for creationists to take science to task.
Murph7355 said:
Mr. White said:
What news source can be trusted to be impartial these days? The Economist?
Genuine question, not rhetorical.
None.Genuine question, not rhetorical.
Your best bet is to read a few deliberately chosen from "left" and "right" and take a view.
What you'll probably find is that they both neutralise each other and hence it's not worth reading any of it. Which ultimately saves a lot of time and worry.
Have to say one thing, that foreign media can sometimes really show up some of the jingoistic anti Brexit stuff from The Guardian, The (Not So) Independent et al as being a completely uninformed shallow pool of snot, which makes it more amusing as it's the sort of stuff that our Remainer travellers seize on so eagerly. Equally at times the Brexit hubris balloon can be pricked, so it's not all one way. Of course, these foreign sources have their own agendas, which are sometimes rather inscrutable and difficult to grasp.
So would you have the US media?
Answer yes or no simply based on "bias"
If the answer is yes then you can
a) switch over
b) emigrate.
Or
c) I will stick in the UK and write whinging letters to Points of View, er sorry, Piston Heads saying " Dear BBC, why do you not agree with my political viewpoint? You are sick mofo's and I have to pay the licence fee as well. I lost my fingers in an accident 20 years back so my 3 webbed fingers on my left hand were completely severed at just below my brain stem, so I cannot change your current liberal pinko subversive lean to the left. You probably know that so think you can get away with it. Well, I'll tell you this, you cannot!
Even Sir David Attenborough has been corrupted. His next series is the Blue Planet 2. This is just pandering to global warming freaks like Durbster and really it should be called " Blue and white planet 2 due to sea ice that is not melting"
Sadly my wife has locked away her bra's after some unfortunate incidents on my days off, so I cannot burn one of them.
If I could I would !
As Detective Axel Foley once said
"GET THE FECK OUT OF HERE"
Answer yes or no simply based on "bias"
If the answer is yes then you can
a) switch over
b) emigrate.
Or
c) I will stick in the UK and write whinging letters to Points of View, er sorry, Piston Heads saying " Dear BBC, why do you not agree with my political viewpoint? You are sick mofo's and I have to pay the licence fee as well. I lost my fingers in an accident 20 years back so my 3 webbed fingers on my left hand were completely severed at just below my brain stem, so I cannot change your current liberal pinko subversive lean to the left. You probably know that so think you can get away with it. Well, I'll tell you this, you cannot!
Even Sir David Attenborough has been corrupted. His next series is the Blue Planet 2. This is just pandering to global warming freaks like Durbster and really it should be called " Blue and white planet 2 due to sea ice that is not melting"
Sadly my wife has locked away her bra's after some unfortunate incidents on my days off, so I cannot burn one of them.
If I could I would !
As Detective Axel Foley once said
"GET THE FECK OUT OF HERE"
Gandahar said:
So would you have the US media?
Answer yes or no simply based on "bias"
If the answer is yes then you can
a) switch over
b) emigrate.
Or
c) I will stick in the UK and write whinging letters to Points of View, er sorry, Piston Heads saying " Dear BBC, why do you not agree with my political viewpoint? You are sick mofo's and I have to pay the licence fee as well. I lost my fingers in an accident 20 years back so my 3 webbed fingers on my left hand were completely severed at just below my brain stem, so I cannot change your current liberal pinko subversive lean to the left. You probably know that so think you can get away with it. Well, I'll tell you this, you cannot!
Even Sir David Attenborough has been corrupted. His next series is the Blue Planet 2. This is just pandering to global warming freaks like Durbster and really it should be called " Blue and white planet 2 due to sea ice that is not melting"
Sadly my wife has locked away her bra's after some unfortunate incidents on my days off, so I cannot burn one of them.
If I could I would !
As Detective Axel Foley once said
"GET THE FECK OUT OF HERE"
Do they have a TV license?Answer yes or no simply based on "bias"
If the answer is yes then you can
a) switch over
b) emigrate.
Or
c) I will stick in the UK and write whinging letters to Points of View, er sorry, Piston Heads saying " Dear BBC, why do you not agree with my political viewpoint? You are sick mofo's and I have to pay the licence fee as well. I lost my fingers in an accident 20 years back so my 3 webbed fingers on my left hand were completely severed at just below my brain stem, so I cannot change your current liberal pinko subversive lean to the left. You probably know that so think you can get away with it. Well, I'll tell you this, you cannot!
Even Sir David Attenborough has been corrupted. His next series is the Blue Planet 2. This is just pandering to global warming freaks like Durbster and really it should be called " Blue and white planet 2 due to sea ice that is not melting"
Sadly my wife has locked away her bra's after some unfortunate incidents on my days off, so I cannot burn one of them.
If I could I would !
As Detective Axel Foley once said
"GET THE FECK OUT OF HERE"
turbobloke said:
The BBC as chartered national broadcaster with its current funding model has a requirement to be impartial...at which it fails, badly.
This differentiates it from other media. Direct comparisons are therefore fundamentally flawed.
Turbobloke, are you saying that whilst completely eliminating your own bias? A bias you most certainly have.This differentiates it from other media. Direct comparisons are therefore fundamentally flawed.
This is the problem, bias tending to favours ones own beliefs; if it does not confirm to your own belief then it is red mist time.
I'm sure psychologists are having a field day with this.
The thing is, if a news source just put up what was stated, with no gloss either way, I wonder how well they would do? They would be read by other journo's who would cite them, but the general public might give them the cold shoulder, not confirming their bias viewpoint. Nowadays people just one someone to write stuff that melds with their worldpoint.
An example of this are the threads on here such as this one, has it only gone on so long just because the BBC does not tend to confirm the right wing viewpoint of the average PH bloke? Bloke notice? I'd love to get some demographics on here
I think they are
Keep posting. It will be a salve.
Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 28th September 15:43
Gandahar said:
turbobloke said:
The BBC as chartered national broadcaster with its current funding model has a requirement to be impartial...at which it fails, badly.
This differentiates it from other media. Direct comparisons are therefore fundamentally flawed.
Turbobloke, are you saying that whilst completely eliminating your own bias? A bias you most certainly have.This differentiates it from other media. Direct comparisons are therefore fundamentally flawed.
Can I spot political bias when it appears in the Mail or Telegraph? Sure (often R).
Can I spot political bias when it appears in the Guardian or Mirror? Sure (often L).
The idea that the critical faculties which allow me successfully to spot political bias in the Mail, Mirror, etc suddenly go AWOL when faced with the BBC's self-confessed left-liberal bias, is risible.
It's a regular non-point used in failed attempts to dismiss the BBC's self-confessed bias, however, so critical faculties elsewhere need an overhaul.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff