Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
PRTVR said:
jjlynn27 said:
PRTVR said:
If that was the case comments on all articles would be open, but what we see is if they have found comments not to there liking, no comments are available, the message has not to be polluted with alternative views.
Must be hard feeling constantly oppressed. 'their'.
even if I never watched any BBC programs and God forbid only watched coronation Street, I would still have to pay the BBC,
so as a customer my view is equal to any other customer, but it has chosen to ignore a lot of its customers because it knows they cannot change supplier, no need to accept different viewpoints,
the present path of the BBC will eventually lead to it demise in its present form, sad really considering what it once was.
The line ' the message has not to be polluted with alternative views.' is just Infowars territory. As insane as when you read actual lefties b
hing about BBC being fully paid up mouthpiece of Tory party. PRTVR said:
jjlynn27 said:
PRTVR said:
If that was the case comments on all articles would be open, but what we see is if they have found comments not to there liking, no comments are available, the message has not to be polluted with alternative views.
Must be hard feeling constantly oppressed. 'their'.
even if I never watched any BBC programs and God forbid only watched coronation Street, I would still have to pay the BBC,
so as a customer my view is equal to any other customer, but it has chosen to ignore a lot of its customers because it knows they cannot change supplier, no need to accept different viewpoints,
the present path of the BBC will eventually lead to it demise in its present form, sad really considering what it once was.
You mean a massively expanded public service, with more channels, covering more geographies and subject areas than ever before, one of the world’s most visited websites, a pioneer in catchup/on demand tv, etc etc.
lyonspride said:
I go on many news websites, first port of call is the BBC, I take a story of interest and then I set out across the internet with some fact checking. I simply don't believe what they say without checking elsewhere first, there's nothing at all wrong with that. What I get annoyed about is when they skew the truth in favour of their own political agenda AND the fact they make it impossible for anyone to counter their in-factual propaganda stories. If they were neutral, they would welcome factual debate and even debunking of their stories, but they do not.
So no different to any other news site then.The Dangerous Elk said:
eccles said:
So no different to any other news site then.
Yes it is, you PAY for the BBC.Why not imagine that your paltry fee goes to the things in the bbc you actually enjoy instead of desperately trying to find evidence of bias everywhere and making yourself angry thinking you’re paying for it?
El stovey said:
Stop your pathetic cry baby whinging.
Why not imagine that your paltry fee goes to the things in the bbc you actually enjoy instead of desperately trying to find evidence of bias everywhere and making yourself angry thinking you’re paying for it?
accept it, the BBC accept as fact that which you claim is untrue. Why not imagine that your paltry fee goes to the things in the bbc you actually enjoy instead of desperately trying to find evidence of bias everywhere and making yourself angry thinking you’re paying for it?
With today's NEWS being about 60%+ "analysis" no such organisation could be/can be seen as independent these days, it is not the BBC's fault.
Brooking10 said:
PRTVR said:
jjlynn27 said:
PRTVR said:
If that was the case comments on all articles would be open, but what we see is if they have found comments not to there liking, no comments are available, the message has not to be polluted with alternative views.
Must be hard feeling constantly oppressed. 'their'.
even if I never watched any BBC programs and God forbid only watched coronation Street, I would still have to pay the BBC,
so as a customer my view is equal to any other customer, but it has chosen to ignore a lot of its customers because it knows they cannot change supplier, no need to accept different viewpoints,
the present path of the BBC will eventually lead to it demise in its present form, sad really considering what it once was.
You mean a massively expanded public service, with more channels, covering more geographies and subject areas than ever before, one of the world’s most visited websites, a pioneer in catchup/on demand tv, etc etc.
perhaps it was always this way, the difference is the easy availability of alternative views and information, the BBC has a responsibility to be unbiased , in this regard it is failing, perhaps understandable due to the London centric environment that it exists in,
the BBC as a large media organisation can have a big influence on the population,
It has strong liberal view's and as such these come through in news reports, it attempts to influence the population instead of informing them, this I believe is wrong, I do not want biased views be they left or right.
PRTVR said:
Brooking10 said:
PRTVR said:
jjlynn27 said:
PRTVR said:
If that was the case comments on all articles would be open, but what we see is if they have found comments not to there liking, no comments are available, the message has not to be polluted with alternative views.
Must be hard feeling constantly oppressed. 'their'.
even if I never watched any BBC programs and God forbid only watched coronation Street, I would still have to pay the BBC,
so as a customer my view is equal to any other customer, but it has chosen to ignore a lot of its customers because it knows they cannot change supplier, no need to accept different viewpoints,
the present path of the BBC will eventually lead to it demise in its present form, sad really considering what it once was.
You mean a massively expanded public service, with more channels, covering more geographies and subject areas than ever before, one of the world’s most visited websites, a pioneer in catchup/on demand tv, etc etc.
perhaps it was always this way, the difference is the easy availability of alternative views and information, the BBC has a responsibility to be unbiased , in this regard it is failing, perhaps understandable due to the London centric environment that it exists in,
the BBC as a large media organisation can have a big influence on the population,
It has strong liberal view's and as such these come through in news reports, it attempts to influence the population instead of informing them, this I believe is wrong, I do not want biased views be they left or right.
The fact that the BC has dozens of regional news netoworks operating via tv, radio and web, with their own editorial teams seems lost in that statement.
The BBC has always been attacked.
Attacked because it directly competes against commercial offerings, the drip drip feed of stories from the Murdoch press illustrate this.
Attacked because it can't be bought by people with an agenda to push.
Attacked from the fringes because it takes a centre middle class path through its output.
Attacked because it directly competes against commercial offerings, the drip drip feed of stories from the Murdoch press illustrate this.
Attacked because it can't be bought by people with an agenda to push.
Attacked from the fringes because it takes a centre middle class path through its output.
tangerine_sedge said:
The BBC has always been attacked. Yes:
Attacked because it directly competes against commercial offerings, the drip drip feed of stories from the Murdoch press illustrate this.
Oh, competition slags off the opposition, that is a surprise.
Attacked because it can't be bought by people with an agenda to push.
because it is controlled by people with an agenda to push.
Attacked from the fringes because it takes a centre middle-class path through its output.
thanks for pointing out it does indeed have an agenda to push, and does.
now, define "centre middle-class path"Attacked because it directly competes against commercial offerings, the drip drip feed of stories from the Murdoch press illustrate this.
Oh, competition slags off the opposition, that is a surprise.
Attacked because it can't be bought by people with an agenda to push.
because it is controlled by people with an agenda to push.
Attacked from the fringes because it takes a centre middle-class path through its output.
thanks for pointing out it does indeed have an agenda to push, and does.
Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Wednesday 20th June 08:55
I have never understood why the part of the BBC that is supposed to report the news cannot do simply that without having to express an opinion about it in the next breath. What is wrong with just reporting the facts as they are known/understood at the time? Why does the BBC (or any other news provider for that matter) insist on expressing opinions?
The practice of reporters interviewing reporters and then passing that opinion/speculation off as "fact" is toxic imho.
Likewise, why should the BBC be adopting a "position" on any given topic? There is a clear route to accusations of bias when there is news about a topic on which the BBC has a position, and the reporter is then encouraged to express an opinion in the context of the BBC's preferred position rather than simply report the facts.
The practice of reporters interviewing reporters and then passing that opinion/speculation off as "fact" is toxic imho.
Likewise, why should the BBC be adopting a "position" on any given topic? There is a clear route to accusations of bias when there is news about a topic on which the BBC has a position, and the reporter is then encouraged to express an opinion in the context of the BBC's preferred position rather than simply report the facts.
andymadmak said:
I have never understood why the part of the BBC that is supposed to report the news cannot do simply that without having to express an opinion about it in the next breath. What is wrong with just reporting the facts as they are known/understood at the time? Why does the BBC (or any other news provider for that matter) insist on expressing opinions?
The practice of reporters interviewing reporters and then passing that opinion/speculation off as "fact" is toxic imho.
Likewise, why should the BBC be adopting a "position" on any given topic? There is a clear route to accusations of bias when there is news about a topic on which the BBC has a position, and the reporter is then encouraged to express an opinion in the context of the BBC's preferred position rather than simply report the facts.
News reporting has contained a large element of 'opinion' for years now. If the BBC coldly reported nothing but facts they'd be accused of either being comically behind the times or 'not caring' enough. The practice of reporters interviewing reporters and then passing that opinion/speculation off as "fact" is toxic imho.
Likewise, why should the BBC be adopting a "position" on any given topic? There is a clear route to accusations of bias when there is news about a topic on which the BBC has a position, and the reporter is then encouraged to express an opinion in the context of the BBC's preferred position rather than simply report the facts.
'400 children died today when a mudslide destroyed their orphanage'
'A dog in Lincoln can bark the national anthem'
'A cure for cancer has been discovered in the Amazon'
'Russia has moved nuclear missiles onto Ukranian soil'
TTwiggy said:
News reporting has contained a large element of 'opinion' for years now. If the BBC coldly reported nothing but facts they'd be accused of either being comically behind the times or 'not caring' enough.
'400 children died today when a mudslide destroyed their orphanage'
'A dog in Lincoln can bark the national anthem'
'A cure for cancer has been discovered in the Amazon'
'Russia has moved nuclear missiles onto Ukranian soil'
Yeah, people can get simple facts for free all over the place. News providers are then expected to provide analysis and journalism. '400 children died today when a mudslide destroyed their orphanage'
'A dog in Lincoln can bark the national anthem'
'A cure for cancer has been discovered in the Amazon'
'Russia has moved nuclear missiles onto Ukranian soil'
There have been loads of failed news sites that have just reported facts. Not enough people want that and certainly not enough to pay for it.
TTwiggy said:
andymadmak said:
I have never understood why the part of the BBC that is supposed to report the news cannot do simply that without having to express an opinion about it in the next breath. What is wrong with just reporting the facts as they are known/understood at the time? Why does the BBC (or any other news provider for that matter) insist on expressing opinions?
The practice of reporters interviewing reporters and then passing that opinion/speculation off as "fact" is toxic imho.
Likewise, why should the BBC be adopting a "position" on any given topic? There is a clear route to accusations of bias when there is news about a topic on which the BBC has a position, and the reporter is then encouraged to express an opinion in the context of the BBC's preferred position rather than simply report the facts.
News reporting has contained a large element of 'opinion' for years now. If the BBC coldly reported nothing but facts they'd be accused of either being comically behind the times or 'not caring' enough. The practice of reporters interviewing reporters and then passing that opinion/speculation off as "fact" is toxic imho.
Likewise, why should the BBC be adopting a "position" on any given topic? There is a clear route to accusations of bias when there is news about a topic on which the BBC has a position, and the reporter is then encouraged to express an opinion in the context of the BBC's preferred position rather than simply report the facts.
'400 children died today when a mudslide destroyed their orphanage'
'A dog in Lincoln can bark the national anthem'
'A cure for cancer has been discovered in the Amazon'
'Russia has moved nuclear missiles onto Ukranian soil'
The point being that all news and indeed all history, is reported to one degree or another with an element of bias. We 'know' our history based on how it was reported at the time and how it is recorded, which itself is often skewed - just look at how the Guy Fawkes story is taught and though of generally and compare it to the recent TV programme which gave it all a very different slant
The general rule of thumb is that if both sides of the argument consider the BBC is biased, they aren't far off a sensible middle ground
Oh and for the record, I do think the BBC is very biased on some issues, include Europe, immigration and Palestinians (pro, pro & pro). I think they should do better. But it's not easy to report without any bias whatsoever
jonby said:
Oh and for the record, I do think the BBC is very biased on some issues, include Europe, immigration and Palestinians (pro, pro & pro). I think they should do better. But it's not easy to report without any bias whatsoever
I've said it before. I think the BBC tries to be unbiased but they are starting from the prism of their own staff's views. So their staff start by prioritising topics they consider important, then attempting to report them in a balanced manner. You end up with a news agenda closer to the Guardian/Indy than the Times/Telegraph.
Listen to the presenter's summary of the news on the hour (almost always three bullet points) of R4's Today and play Today Programme Bingo like I do.
- Trump (the Trump Administration have Done Something Bad - nil points for them getting something done)
- Brexit (Brexit is Really Bad/Tories aren't getting their own way/Brussels are getting theirs - nil points for any progress being made or potential benefit of Brext)
- The NHS (is underfunded in some way. nil points for stories about inefficiency, or failings not easily attributed to funding)
Johnnytheboy said:
jonby said:
Oh and for the record, I do think the BBC is very biased on some issues, include Europe, immigration and Palestinians (pro, pro & pro). I think they should do better. But it's not easy to report without any bias whatsoever
I've said it before. I think the BBC tries to be unbiased but they are starting from the prism of their own staff's views. jonby said:
Agreed - I think they would be surprised to learn how biased they are, but rather like many politicians, they live in a southern liberal bubble which means their norm is different to the national norm
That sounds like you think your norm is the National norm and the bbc are biased and in a bubble.It might be that you are biased or in your own bubble and the bbc is more representative of the nation?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff