Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
Mark Benson said:
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.
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.
Mark Benson said:
Well, a new study shows... as the BBC often start their reports.
Are Civitas a reputable outfit? The figures in that report are astonishing.I notice despite criticism about Brexit bias by a Question Time panellist the other week, ALL politicians last night were Remainers stacked against 1 eccentric actor as a Leaver. They can't help themselves.
They also seem to have dropped being subtle about the Climate b
ks and are now in full on Green mode seemingly coordinating with the London protesters in timing of their Pope Attenborough programme (where are David Bellamy and Johnny Ball these days, hmmm). Also wall to wall lauding of the troubled Swedish schoolgirl plus the main question on QT last night. Not a dissenting voice anywhere of which there are plenty.Northbloke said:
Mark Benson said:
Well, a new study shows... as the BBC often start their reports.
Are Civitas a reputable outfit? The figures in that report are astonishing.I notice despite criticism about Brexit bias by a Question Time panellist the other week, ALL politicians last night were Remainers stacked against 1 eccentric actor as a Leaver. They can't help themselves.
They also seem to have dropped being subtle about the Climate b
ks and are now in full on Green mode seemingly coordinating with the London protesters in timing of their Pope Attenborough programme (where are David Bellamy and Johnny Ball these days, hmmm). Also wall to wall lauding of the troubled Swedish schoolgirl plus the main question on QT last night. Not a dissenting voice anywhere of which there are plenty.It’ll be a sad day when deniers are given an equal shout with the pro-science advocates. I also don’t want to see an equal number of anti-vaxxers on any panel.
gadgetmac said:
Loving the proportionality of Climate Change panellists favouring the pro AGW lobby as it reflects the proportionality of the scientists views and the general publics views on the subject.
It’ll be a sad day when deniers are given an equal shout with the pro-science advocates. I also don’t want to see an equal number of anti-vaxxers on any panel.
wtf have anti-vaxxers got to do with people that don't believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ? It’ll be a sad day when deniers are given an equal shout with the pro-science advocates. I also don’t want to see an equal number of anti-vaxxers on any panel.
in fairness to the bbc as i don't mind criticising when it is due i caught a bit on i think radio 4 today (while making yet another run for bits for my dads mr2) where some ridiculous claims in a paper around insects dying off at an alarming rate somewhere in south america were being challenged quite robustly.
ETA
Please drop the name calling.Edited by Big Al. on Friday 26th April 19:21
wc98 said:
wtf have anti-vaxxers got to do with people that don't believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ?
in fairness to the bbc as i don't mind criticising when it is due i caught a bit on i think radio 4 today (while making yet another run for bits for my dads mr2) where some ridiculous claims in a paper around insects dying off at an alarming rate somewhere in south america were being challenged quite robustly.
Whats it got to do with anti-vaxxers? How thick are you that you can’t see the analogy...but then as die hard denier i expect nothing better. Thankfully the rest of the world relegates you to sit beside the believers in fairies and anti-vaxxers.in fairness to the bbc as i don't mind criticising when it is due i caught a bit on i think radio 4 today (while making yet another run for bits for my dads mr2) where some ridiculous claims in a paper around insects dying off at an alarming rate somewhere in south america were being challenged quite robustly.
wc98 said:
wtf have anti-vaxxers got to do with people that don't believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ?
in fairness to the bbc as i don't mind criticising when it is due i caught a bit on i think radio 4 today (while making yet another run for bits for my dads mr2) where some ridiculous claims in a paper around insects dying off at an alarming rate somewhere in south america were being challenged quite robustly.
They’re often the same types of people that believe in conspiracies involving experts and the media (especially the BBC) and governments and ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus but actually have no proof whatsoever.. in fairness to the bbc as i don't mind criticising when it is due i caught a bit on i think radio 4 today (while making yet another run for bits for my dads mr2) where some ridiculous claims in a paper around insects dying off at an alarming rate somewhere in south america were being challenged quite robustly.
They also get their “facts” from blogs and bloggers instead of boffins and scientific institutions and think they know more than the experts.
For some reason, they’re reluctant to ever use these historic consensus changing revelations and instead prefer to argue on forums instead.
El stovey said:
They’re often the same types of people that believe in conspiracies involving experts and the media (especially the BBC) and governments and ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus but actually have no proof whatsoever..
They also get their “facts” from blogs and bloggers instead of boffins and scientific institutions and think they know more than the experts.
For some reason, they’re reluctant to ever use these historic consensus changing revelations and instead prefer to argue on forums instead.
funnily enough it seems to me it is the other way about. anti vaxxers are the sort that will be 100% behind cagw. how many of those extinction rebellion lot do you think will be anti vaxxers ? plenty new age types among them.They also get their “facts” from blogs and bloggers instead of boffins and scientific institutions and think they know more than the experts.
For some reason, they’re reluctant to ever use these historic consensus changing revelations and instead prefer to argue on forums instead.
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
They’re often the same types of people that believe in conspiracies involving experts and the media (especially the BBC) and governments and ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus but actually have no proof whatsoever..
They also get their “facts” from blogs and bloggers instead of boffins and scientific institutions and think they know more than the experts.
For some reason, they’re reluctant to ever use these historic consensus changing revelations and instead prefer to argue on forums instead.
funnily enough it seems to me it is the other way about. anti vaxxers are the sort that will be 100% behind cagw. how many of those extinction rebellion lot do you think will be anti vaxxers ? plenty new age types among them.They also get their “facts” from blogs and bloggers instead of boffins and scientific institutions and think they know more than the experts.
For some reason, they’re reluctant to ever use these historic consensus changing revelations and instead prefer to argue on forums instead.
Should be easy!
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
They’re often the same types of people that believe in conspiracies involving experts and the media (especially the BBC) and governments and ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus but actually have no proof whatsoever..
They also get their “facts” from blogs and bloggers instead of boffins and scientific institutions and think they know more than the experts.
For some reason, they’re reluctant to ever use these historic consensus changing revelations and instead prefer to argue on forums instead.
funnily enough it seems to me it is the other way about. anti vaxxers are the sort that will be 100% behind cagw. how many of those extinction rebellion lot do you think will be anti vaxxers ? plenty new age types among them.They also get their “facts” from blogs and bloggers instead of boffins and scientific institutions and think they know more than the experts.
For some reason, they’re reluctant to ever use these historic consensus changing revelations and instead prefer to argue on forums instead.
Exactly the same arguments against science and governments and the media and institutions having vested interests.
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
Whats it got to do with anti-vaxxers? How thick are you that you can’t see the analogy...but then as die hard denier i expect nothing better. Thankfully the rest of the world relegates you to sit beside the believers in fairies and anti-vaxxers.
brilliant, reports post because a bad boy called him a name, then posts the above, away and have greet to your mammy about the big bad deniers, at least she might actually give a st 
S1KRR said:
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.
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 f
ktards )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.
Davies is regarded as a crank in the House, in the same way as Diane Abbott is on here. He can hitch a lift on male suicide all he likes but I suspect she was laughing at his voting record on mental health and NHS support issues, in other words, he gives no s
ts unless it suits him. There was something very Dianne about being on a local elections programme where everyone was trotting out cliches about local issues (for local people, snigger), and then banging on about the general election at any question about local elections, despite being told repeatedly there is no general election.
Of course, her summary sentence at the end was used to say that Labour's ready for the general election.
I was in grave danger of feeling some sympathy for Jess Phillips.
Of course, her summary sentence at the end was used to say that Labour's ready for the general election.
I was in grave danger of feeling some sympathy for Jess Phillips.
Camoradi said:
1 minute ago, BBC 2
Dianne Abbott: "What Labour still wants is a general election"
Vicki Young (BBC) "But that's not in our gift, is it Dianne?"
Freudian slip, of course......
A bit like the one that was made on the Today program some years ago when interviewing a labour person at the time of the General Election when Gordon Brown was PM and one of the presenters (might have been James Naughtie) made a slip by saying "when we win the election".Dianne Abbott: "What Labour still wants is a general election"
Vicki Young (BBC) "But that's not in our gift, is it Dianne?"
Freudian slip, of course......
It’s mentioned nine times in the article.
If you prefer, call it “environmentalist propaganda”. Either way, its appearance as the top story ahead of the deaths of 41 people in a plane crash is rather baffling.
What is actually happening is a concerted attempt by the left leaning media to push the idea that there is a literal “environmental emergency”, and giving stories like this greater prominence than actual emergencies and disasters is a big part of the brainwashing process.
If you prefer, call it “environmentalist propaganda”. Either way, its appearance as the top story ahead of the deaths of 41 people in a plane crash is rather baffling.
What is actually happening is a concerted attempt by the left leaning media to push the idea that there is a literal “environmental emergency”, and giving stories like this greater prominence than actual emergencies and disasters is a big part of the brainwashing process.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff