Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
El stovey said:
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?
I am certainly biased. I make no pretence otherwise - anyone that does is most likely kidding themselves
As I said from the start in my initial post, it's nigh on impossible to be completely neutral when reporting the news
But the BBC certainly has positions on some subjects which do not seem neutral, or at least, to take everyone's positions into account.
The Dangerous Elk said:
TTwiggy said:
You realise that questions like this essentially support the view that the BBC will never be able to appear unbiased to every observer?
No it does not.The 'fulcrum' cannot be placed in a way that will please everyone. It can only be placed in a way that satisfies most people and fulfills the corporation's obligation to be objective.
This is why true 'lefties' see the BBC as a mouthpiece of the government, and the more extreme users of PH view it as a Socialist conspiracy.
Most people just moan about repeats or the snooker knocking 'Doctors' off the schedule.
Even if they only report the stories, without any comments whatsoever, they'll still be accused of bias shown by which stories they chose to report or even the position of on the site. Not long ago there was someone complaining that BBC was not reporting/hiding a story. It turned out that the story was on the front page.
tangerine_sedge said:
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.
yarpAttacked 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.
jonby said:
Indeed it could be
I am certainly biased. I make no pretence otherwise - anyone that does is most likely kidding themselves
As I said from the start in my initial post, it's nigh on impossible to be completely neutral when reporting the news
But the BBC certainly has positions on some subjects which do not seem neutral, or at least, to take everyone's positions into account.
I agree with the first part of your post.I am certainly biased. I make no pretence otherwise - anyone that does is most likely kidding themselves
As I said from the start in my initial post, it's nigh on impossible to be completely neutral when reporting the news
But the BBC certainly has positions on some subjects which do not seem neutral, or at least, to take everyone's positions into account.
However, if we accept that everybody is biased to some degree, does this not automatically mean that BBC will ALWAYS appear "biased" UNLESS it's a topic where our personal biases are exactly in line with the BBC's position?
Johnnytheboy said:
As others have said, it's not about reporting the news in an arbitrarily centrist manner.
Ideally, it's about reporting a wide range of stories in a neutral manner.
Reporting on is mostly not the problem, commenting upon often is. The personal position of the journalist is more obvious whilst "on screen". It is why "each sides" pet Tv presenter/ journalist is easy to spot. Ideally, it's about reporting a wide range of stories in a neutral manner.
It is the more insidious processes of group-think that infects so much of the BBC's output both from Current Affairs/News and another notable programming.
Johnnytheboy said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
where is the fulcrum point positioned to achieve this balance most people demand.? Who decides ?
As others have said, it's not about reporting the news in an arbitrarily centrist manner. Ideally it's about reporting a wide range of stories in a neutral manner.
iphonedyou said:
This thread forming the metaphorical cage within which Stovey et al have managed to corral a great number of utterly mental posters, is there any way we can now close the gate and keep them here ad infinitum?
We just need to entice the mentalists on the climate thread over. Then chuck away the key.Johnnytheboy said:
Hmmm. Maybe the BBC didn't send quite their usual massive posse of presenters that they send to Glastonbury.
Maybe that's why it was half empty?
LolMaybe that's why it was half empty?
El stovey said:
Yeah, people can get simple facts for free all over the place. News providers are then expected to provide analysis and journalism.
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.
Is this not a reason why the BBC should provide news that is largely free of editorialised content? Precisely because others have to persuade someone to pay for it and the BBC does not.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.
More than anything I wish Radio 4 would stop producing s
t comedy. I don’t mind politically biased satire, if it’s funny, but Jeremy Hardy he is about as amusing as Pol Pot.
gadgetmac said:
iphonedyou said:
This thread forming the metaphorical cage within which Stovey et al have managed to corral a great number of utterly mental posters, is there any way we can now close the gate and keep them here ad infinitum?
We just need to entice the mentalists on the climate thread over. Then chuck away the key.Thank you gents for providing such perfect examples.
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
iphonedyou said:
This thread forming the metaphorical cage within which Stovey et al have managed to corral a great number of utterly mental posters, is there any way we can now close the gate and keep them here ad infinitum?
We just need to entice the mentalists on the climate thread over. Then chuck away the key.Thank you gents for providing such perfect examples.
PRTVR said:
A good example of the problem in two posts, the refusal to consider an alternative view coupled with group thinking and the echo chamber, that is the BBC , along with name calling if you question their view.
Thank you gents for providing such perfect examples.
So a thread full of people complaining about the bbc being an echo chamber run by groupthink has itself become an echo chamber run by groupthink. Thank you gents for providing such perfect examples.
Or are you saying people complaining about this thread (which is complaining about the bbc being an echo chamber) itself being an echo chamber are themselves actually in an echo chamber?
El stovey said:
So a thread full of people complaining about the bbc being an echo chamber run by groupthink has itself become an echo chamber run by groupthink.
Or are you saying people complaining about this thread (which is complaining about the bbc being an echo chamber) itself being an echo chamber are themselves actually in an echo chamber?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQkIEkxm7kOr are you saying people complaining about this thread (which is complaining about the bbc being an echo chamber) itself being an echo chamber are themselves actually in an echo chamber?
El stovey said:
Yeah, people can get simple facts for free all over the place. News providers are then expected to provide analysis and journalism.
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.
Just wait for the new EU legislation to kick in, there won't be any sharing of "facts for free", because they'll be filtering what people can post to the internet and only "authorised" news sites will be allowed past the filters, that basically means mainstream/fake news or nothing. It'll also affect Google (and other big search providers) search results.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.
I think they're a little bit p*ssed about Brexit tbh, if not for the access to different opinions/facts I think the Brexit vote would have gone the other way.
What's next? A 2nd referendum after access to "free facts" is removed? You bet! Democracy in action........
Also notice how the BBC kept silent on the EU vote up until it was too late to do anything.
Edited by lyonspride on Thursday 21st June 08:58
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff