Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[S1KRR]

Recently went on a (first and probably only ) date with a backroom BBC journalist. (ie not on TV)

Perfectly lovely, but inevitably she spends most of her time writing about Brexit. (she attended the recent People vote march professionally "I've never seen so many middle class people" I did point out Jon Snow cant say that anymore)

Politics is always a dodgy choice of conversation, but she brought it up and after some non committal exchanges I had to bite the bullet and reveal that I voted Leave, and I can back it up.

She assumed I voted Remain. I guess because I hadn't made any racist statements, had travelled in Europe and have several European friends, and was utterly disgusted at how the Windrush generation had been treated recently. I just don't fit the mould as a Gammon

Obviously Pro Reman. Her pov is markedly different to mine. It seems to me that the old quote from John Humphreys about "just copy the Guardian headline" wouldn't be a million miles away. For a political journalist, she was far from impartial. And considering this is meant to be her area of expertise a lot of lazy stereotypes were rolled out "everyone under 18 would vote Remain" "the majority have changed their mind" She had no idea who Martin Selmayr was. Or how he'd come to be in the position of authority he had against the EUs own rules.

So my take away is that there's an awful lot of "group think" in BBC News. Presumably for career reasons. As said above though. Unless you are a heavyweight like Andrew Neil, a journo cant really say they are Pro Leave without it hurting them since its a small world in news media.

[TTwiggy]

Jinx said:

TTwiggy said:

You can't generalise about 'the media'. Do you think the Sun recruits the same sort of people who work on Mother & Baby magazine?

Yes you can. In the same way you can generalise about any grouping (the generalisation frequently defines the grouping in the first place). What you can't do assume all generalised traits are held in equal amounts in all elements of the group - ergo your example does not disprove the generalisations.
So I'll ask again - given the Guardian is the "first port of call" for media rolls as per your comment, what does that tell you about the media?

What's a 'media roll', does it come with butter?

That oft-repeated 'fact' about the BBC recruiting via the Guardian is probably 10-20 years out of date. As in most industries, media jobs are now found through the likes of Linkdin etc. There was a time when the Guardian job section was a must-read for media types looking for work, but I doubt it still is.

[TTwiggy]

Brooking10 said:

Crossing over from trade/interest publications to dailies and vice-versa happens all the time.

Not that often (in my experience of 20 years in the industry).

[wc98]

TTwiggy said:

Not that often (in my experience of 20 years in the industry).

mother and baby ?

[TTwiggy]

wc98 said:

TTwiggy said:

Not that often (in my experience of 20 years in the industry).

mother and baby ?

I'm in the same building as them, but it's not a title I've worked on.

[anonymous-user]

TTwiggy said:

Not that often (in my experience of 20 years in the industry).

Hack, flack or newsagent ?

[TTwiggy]

Brooking10 said:

TTwiggy said:

Not that often (in my experience of 20 years in the industry).

Hack, flack or newsagent ?

Paper boy (tough round)

[anonymous-user]

It’s funny-go on twitter and you’d assume that the BBC had a permanent right/anti labour/pro brexit bias. Come on here and it’s he opposite.

Given that the bbc is getting flack from both sides for being biased both ways, seems like they’re probably unbiased most of the time.

[andymadmak]

cookie118 said:

It’s funny-go on twitter and you’d assume that the BBC had a permanent right/anti labour/pro brexit bias. Come on here and it’s he opposite.

Given that the bbc is getting flack from both sides for being biased both ways, seems like they’re probably unbiased most of the time.

lazy thinking

[Not-The-Messiah]

Brooking10 said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

1000 people isn't particularly a large survey and add to the fact 240 of them didn't have opinion on the BBC. Also with no definition of what right or left actually means to the people behing asked the question.

All it tells me is the 14% don't have a clue what they have either been asked or talking about. How anyone can argue that the BBC strongly favours the right is beyond me. You couldn't even say it strongly favours the left. It just in my opinion leans towards the left.

It's what others have said on here it's more a cultural and social thing.

Got ya.

Too many browns and gays right ?

It as nothing to do with race or sexuality. It's only racists and bigots who constantly argue we need less of them and more of them.

[hidetheelephants]

S1KRR said:

<snip>... a lot of lazy stereotypes were rolled out "everyone under 18 would vote Remain" "the majority have changed their mind" She had no idea who Martin Selmayr was. Or how he'd come to be in the position of authority he had against the EUs own rules.

So my take away is that there's an awful lot of "group think" in BBC News. Presumably for career reasons. As said above though. Unless you are a heavyweight like Andrew Neil, a journo cant really say they are Pro Leave without it hurting them since its a small world in news media.

This is a microcosm of what's wrong with a wide swathe of UK media, they're pontificating at length about brexit and the EU from a position of ignorance erected on a scaffolding of received wisdom rather than actual research/knowledge/etc. A journalist should not be allowed to write about the EU if they don't know who Selmayr is and how the dubious process that appointed him worked. A modern day dauphin with huge power.

[S1KRR]

hidetheelephants said:

This is a microcosm of what's wrong with a wide swathe of UK media, they're pontificating at length about brexit and the EU from a position of ignorance erected on a scaffolding of received wisdom rather than actual research/knowledge/etc. A journalist should not be allowed to write about the EU if they don't know who Selmayr is and how the dubious process that appointed him worked. A modern day dauphin with huge power.

I don't think it's limited to just the UK Media.

If you ignore the various trolls on here. It's difficult to find a Remain voter who acknowledges things like Selmayr. Or the unemployment crisis in the southern states. Or the fact the Euro is balanced on a few nations debt that we'll be expected to bail out if/when the deck collapses. Or any of the other multitude of cack bits of the EU.

The closest you tend to get is "yeah its flawed but better to stay in and reform" (aforementioned young lady said those words to me) But they forget that Cameron tried that in the Feb before the Referendum and got no-where. And he's far from the first Head of State to vocalise concern at Eu forward direction and be re-buffed. That there will be NO reform unless you get a complete new top level of people in. But we all know who'll be the next EU President. And he's reading from the same playbook.

Yet at a time when the BBC/Sky/Ch4 etc could do the right thing and draw attention to these points. They don't. So in an ironic twist, Remain voters are probably less well informed on EU future direction than Leavers because the media at large don't provide decent reportage.

[gadgetmac]

andymadmak said:

cookie118 said:

It’s funny-go on twitter and you’d assume that the BBC had a permanent right/anti labour/pro brexit bias. Come on here and it’s he opposite.

Given that the bbc is getting flack from both sides for being biased both ways, seems like they’re probably unbiased most of the time.

lazy thinking

Yep. They’re hideously right wing.

[Randy Winkman]

S1KRR said:

hidetheelephants said:

This is a microcosm of what's wrong with a wide swathe of UK media, they're pontificating at length about brexit and the EU from a position of ignorance erected on a scaffolding of received wisdom rather than actual research/knowledge/etc. A journalist should not be allowed to write about the EU if they don't know who Selmayr is and how the dubious process that appointed him worked. A modern day dauphin with huge power.

I don't think it's limited to just the UK Media.

If you ignore the various trolls on here. It's difficult to find a Remain voter who acknowledges things like Selmayr. Or the unemployment crisis in the southern states. Or the fact the Euro is balanced on a few nations debt that we'll be expected to bail out if/when the deck collapses. Or any of the other multitude of cack bits of the EU.

The closest you tend to get is "yeah its flawed but better to stay in and reform" (aforementioned young lady said those words to me) But they forget that Cameron tried that in the Feb before the Referendum and got no-where. And he's far from the first Head of State to vocalise concern at Eu forward direction and be re-buffed. That there will be NO reform unless you get a complete new top level of people in. But we all know who'll be the next EU President. And he's reading from the same playbook.

Yet at a time when the BBC/Sky/Ch4 etc could do the right thing and draw attention to these points. They don't. So in an ironic twist, Remain voters are probably less well informed on EU future direction than Leavers because the media at large don't provide decent reportage.

Or, judging by some posts on PH, leavers have a more vivid imagination of what might happen in the future.

[S1KRR]

Randy Winkman said:

Or, judging by some posts on PH, leavers have a more vivid imagination of what might happen in the future.

Yeah, damn us for reading the treaties.

Rebate to be lost. Veto to be phased out for QMV

Whilst no one can 100% accurately predict the future. It's sadly inevitable that the EU will continue on its current path. Why would they change? After all, consolidating power to a certain group is far easier when you hide it from the proletariat...

[SpeedMattersNot]

Jinx said:

TTwiggy said:

You can't generalise about 'the media'. Do you think the Sun recruits the same sort of people who work on Mother & Baby magazine?

Yes you can. In the same way you can generalise about any grouping (the generalisation frequently defines the grouping in the first place). What you can't do assume all generalised traits are held in equal amounts in all elements of the group - ergo your example does not disprove the generalisations.
So I'll ask again - given the Guardian is the "first port of call" for media rolls as per your comment, what does that tell you about the media?

That it's the best.

[anonymous-user]

S1KRR said:

Yet at a time when the BBC/Sky/Ch4 etc could do the right thing and draw attention to these points. They don't. So in an ironic twist, Remain voters are probably less well informed on EU future direction than Leavers because the media at large don't provide decent reportage.

Isn’t this just the same as saying leave voters didn’t know what they were voting for-something that leave voters absolutely hate?

This does seem to be symptomatic of a general trend (from both sides) that they are right and the other person is wrong. Not that they agree and disagree, but that one has to be correct and the other isn’t worth listening to.

So when the BBC reports something people don’t agree with its biased, because more and more people believe that they are right, and that opposing views must be wrong. Again this applies to both sides-the twitter users who think it’s biased one way and the PH’ers that think it’s biased the other way.

[S1KRR]

cookie118 said:

S1KRR said:

Yet at a time when the BBC/Sky/Ch4 etc could do the right thing and draw attention to these points. They don't. So in an ironic twist, Remain voters are probably less well informed on EU future direction than Leavers because the media at large don't provide decent reportage.

Isn’t this just the same as saying leave voters didn’t know what they were voting for-something that leave voters absolutely hate?

This does seem to be symptomatic of a general trend (from both sides) that they are right and the other person is wrong. Not that they agree and disagree, but that one has to be correct and the other isn’t worth listening to.

So when the BBC reports something people don’t agree with its biased, because more and more people believe that they are right, and that opposing views must be wrong. Again this applies to both sides-the twitter users who think it’s biased one way and the PH’ers that think it’s biased the other way.

Yes and No


I see the irony of my statement of Remain voters don't know what they are voting for.

But this thread is about political bias at the BBC (and the wider media)

And most people don't tend to go and do their own research on something and choose a media outlet they "trust" (for whatever reason) and take their word for it. And I want them, all of them, to provide balanced coverage.

Take tonight's Robert Muller report.

The R4 journo on the 6pm bulletin actually said words to the effect of "but is not committing a crime a good enough reason not to be punished?"

Take the UKIP candidates retarded comment about "not even rape" Ironically the media don't tend to mention that he said it to her in response to her laughing online about male suicide rates. My view is tell the whole story, warts and all, and let the viewer make up their mind if 1 is better than the other (in this case they're both fktards )

So to pull it back to the EU.
Tell us the good things the EU has done. But also tell us the bad things as well.
Tell us why Remain is good. Tell us why Leave is good.

[Mark Benson]

cookie118 said:

S1KRR said:

Yet at a time when the BBC/Sky/Ch4 etc could do the right thing and draw attention to these points. They don't. So in an ironic twist, Remain voters are probably less well informed on EU future direction than Leavers because the media at large don't provide decent reportage.

Isn’t this just the same as saying leave voters didn’t know what they were voting for-something that leave voters absolutely hate?

This does seem to be symptomatic of a general trend (from both sides) that they are right and the other person is wrong. Not that they agree and disagree, but that one has to be correct and the other isn’t worth listening to.

So when the BBC reports something people don’t agree with its biased, because more and more people believe that they are right, and that opposing views must be wrong. Again this applies to both sides-the twitter users who think it’s biased one way and the PH’ers that think it’s biased the other way.

Well, a new study shows... as the BBC often start their reports.

Civitas said:

The overview provided here is a shocking indictment of the BBC’s failure to achieve impartiality, and in particular to incorporate the views of those who desired to leave the EU into its news output. Despite frequent requests to the Chairman and Director General of the BBC from a cross-party group of MPs concerned about BBC bias, the Corporation has been unable to provide a single programme that has examined the opportunities of Brexit. And we cannot find one either.

[lyonspride]

cookie118 said:

So when the BBC reports something people don’t agree with its biased, because more and more people believe that they are right,

Ok so this is part of the reason why I started losing all faith in the BBC, it actually started in their tech section, that bell end Rory Cellan-Jones, who talks utter bks and is heavily biased toward Apple products. When the BBC started talking bks about a subject that I know very well, I started to look at the rest of their reporting and wonder how much of that is nonsense too, turns out its most of it, there's a little truth and a whole heap of bias in everything they do.

It's like recently there have been attacks and rapes, tonnes of witnesses, the Police are looking for information, but the BBC won't print a description of the suspect, unless the the suspect is white male. Like how the hell is anyone supposed to come forward with information if they don't know what the suspect looks like?