Do you believe the BBC has an inherent left wing bias?

[turbobloke]

ExChrispy Porker said:

turbobloke said:

Apparently not

The gov't stance on MMUGW is basically identical to Labour. There are some signs of reality creeping in, mostly pushed by Osborne in terms of the cost of it all and adverse impacts on the economy, but do you see the massively expensive and largely hopeless wind turbine programme being cancelled any time soon? CMD put Huhne in charge ffs, 'greenest ever' blah blah.

The EU as already pointed out is something where, in terms of retaining membership, the Coalition and Opposition agree, any disagreement is on the terms and conditions and there are people in each party pushing for either complete withdrawal or further integration. Since the eurozone crisis and the evident failure of the euro, BBC output on related items has been more muted, which is good - greater realism with a bit less missionary zeal is one step in the right (oops) correct direction.

The BBC shouldn't be an advocacy group it should be a neutral and impartial conveyor of information with balance in all coverage in every way possible.

Just to make it very simple - though if you try hard you can still miss it - while the issue of bias is one of a general leftist flavour, as acknowledged by various presenters and former news staff and as confirmed by watching and listening to BBC news and current affairs output, some individual issues don't define left or right on their own as they have supporters and detractors across the political spectrum, but may well be areas where there is broad affiliation in one political direction. The BBC shouldn't be pushing any of these issues or any partisan agenda, regardless of what the issues or agenda may be.

Thanks.
It seems to me that whatever the BBC do there will always be one group or another accusing them of bias.
Thinking about it, that's probably a good sign. Personally I find the best policy is to let all this political talk wash over me and ignore it. They are all liars anyway.

You're right, the accusations will continue, as will the BBC leftist bias since it's sewn into their DNA.

Accusations of leftist bias accord with the evidence, accusations of right wing bias don't, but they do resemble diversionary tactics by those seeking to maintain and extend the bias out of self-interest. Pushing any agenda is wrong for the BBC.

HNY

[don4l]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Hm
So the BBC are seen to be biased to wards the left wing, but are also seen to be supporting the govt stance on MMGW and the EU?
Have I got it now?

Are you under the impression that we have a right-wing government?

Don
--

[turbobloke]

don4l said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

Hm
So the BBC are seen to be biased to wards the left wing, but are also seen to be supporting the govt stance on MMGW and the EU?
Have I got it now?

Are you under the impression that we have a right-wing government?

Don
--

[Countdown]

don4l said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

Hm
So the BBC are seen to be biased to wards the left wing, but are also seen to be supporting the govt stance on MMGW and the EU?
Have I got it now?

Are you under the impression that we have a right-wing government?

Don
--

Its all relative, depending where on the political spectrum the observer is.

For example, if the observer is extreme right wing then he/she will consider everybody else to be a raving lefty.

[ExChrispy Porker]

don4l said:

Are you under the impression that we have a right-wing government?

Don
--

Not particularly , no.
But I know very little about politics, that is why I posed the question.
As I said, the BBC seem to be in a 'no win' situation, whatever they do someone will accuse them of bias.
I don't watch political programmes so I guess I am not much of a judge

[chris watton]

Countdown said:

Its all relative, depending where on the political spectrum the observer is.

For example, if the observer is extreme right wing then he/she will consider everybody else to be a raving lefty.

There's that 'Extreme righ wing' comment again! AFAICT, the only member displaying 'extreme right wing' views was Sheeda Pistol. I do not recognise anything as bad as that from any other member in the NP&E forum!

[Sticks.]

chris watton said:

Countdown said:

Its all relative, depending where on the political spectrum the observer is.

For example, if the observer is extreme right wing then he/she will consider everybody else to be a raving lefty.

There's that 'Extreme righ wing' comment again! AFAICT, the only member displaying 'extreme right wing' views was Sheeda Pistol. I do not recognise anything as bad as that from any other member in the NP&E forum!

Nothing in Countdown's post mentioned NPE/Phers.

[Countdown]

chris watton said:

Countdown said:

Its all relative, depending where on the political spectrum the observer is.

For example, if the observer is extreme right wing then he/she will consider everybody else to be a raving lefty.

There's that 'Extreme righ wing' comment again! AFAICT, the only member displaying 'extreme right wing' views was Sheeda Pistol. I do not recognise anything as bad as that from any other member in the NP&E forum!

I never said any member of PH was extreme right wing. (Equally it doesn't mean that there aren't. IF PH is representative of the wider community then there are bound to be people of all political persuasions).

[turbobloke]

chris watton said:

Countdown said:

Its all relative, depending where on the political spectrum the observer is.

For example, if the observer is extreme right wing then he/she will consider everybody else to be a raving lefty.

There's that 'Extreme righ wing' comment again! AFAICT, the only member displaying 'extreme right wing' views was Sheeda Pistol. I do not recognise anything as bad as that from any other member in the NP&E forum!

Nor me, though I can't say I read enough of SP's posts to comment.

And it's not necessary to hold opposing views to spot bias, neither does perception of bias necessarily depend on the vantage point - that's nonsense. I can spot right wing bias and use the same objective judgement to identify the BBC's left leaning stance. Bias involves various ways of favouring one viewpoint over another and as such the techniques are obvious whatever the issue or its political affiliation.

[chris watton]

Countdown said:

I never said any member of PH was extreme right wing. (Equally it doesn't mean that there aren't. IF PH is representative of the wider community then there are bound to be people of all political persuasions).

You are right, my mistake Sorry...

[turbobloke]

chris watton said:

Countdown said:

I never said any member of PH was extreme right wing. (Equally it doesn't mean that there aren't. IF PH is representative of the wider community then there are bound to be people of all political persuasions).

You are right, my mistake Sorry...

It's probably true that PH isn't representative of the entire population, but several of those differences beyond politics are positives.

If there are a significant number of people 'out there' waiting to be told what to do by politicians or the media, they don't seem to be well represented on PH. We may not agree what needs to be done but I'd say we are good at examining the information available and making our own minds up.

Universal agreement would be less interesting, but there is a lot of common ground, not surprisingly.

[don4l]

ExChrispy Porker said:

don4l said:

Are you under the impression that we have a right-wing government?

Not particularly , no.
But I know very little about politics, that is why I posed the question.
As I said, the BBC seem to be in a 'no win' situation, whatever they do someone will accuse them of bias.
I don't watch political programmes so I guess I am not much of a judge

Before the last general election I read all the main parties' manifestos. The Labour and Conservative manifestos were almost identical.

Tony Blair made Labour electable by taking Labour into the "centre". Cameron has copied Blair. The result is that we have lost all conviction in modern politics. It is all about spin and PR.

Even though I would be considered a bit right wing by many people, I still like my news to be impartially reported. For example, when the Independant newspaper was launched, I cancelled my subscription to the Telegraph. Sadly, the Independant swung to the left and so I no longer read it.

Two weeks ago there was a great example of "bias" in action at the BBC. The Office for National Statistics were due to release revised GDP figures for the UK. On Radio 4, The Today programme tried to spin the story before the figures were released http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_966600.... As you can see in the link, the BBC were expecting the figures to be "worse than previously thought".

When the ONS released the figures, they showed that growth in the last quarter was higher than expected. Later in the day the Beeb quitely dropped the story.

There are two worrying aspects to this. One is that the Beeb seems to be trying to talk down confidence in our economy. The other is that the early morning reports were nothing but unsubstantiated rumour - yet the BBC gave them more prominence than the actual facts, once they became known. That is a clear demonstration of a lack of impartiality, IMHO.


Don
--

[Countdown]

don4l said:

Before the last general election I read all the main parties' manifestos. The Labour and Conservative manifestos were almost identical.

Tony Blair made Labour electable by taking Labour into the "centre". Cameron has copied Blair. The result is that we have lost all conviction in modern politics. It is all about spin and PR.

I'd argue that the reason for the similarities between Conservative & Labour (the move towards the Centre) is because that is what most people, on average, want.

[Sticks.]

Countdown said:

don4l said:

Before the last general election I read all the main parties' manifestos. The Labour and Conservative manifestos were almost identical.

Tony Blair made Labour electable by taking Labour into the "centre". Cameron has copied Blair. The result is that we have lost all conviction in modern politics. It is all about spin and PR.

I'd argue that the reason for the similarities between Conservative & Labour (the move towards the Centre) is because that is what most people, on average, want.

Aka most likely to getthem re-elected, which is the principle aim of any politician/party.

[thinfourth2]

don4l said:

Two weeks ago there was a great example of "bias" in action at the BBC. The Office for National Statistics were due to release revised GDP figures for the UK. On Radio 4, The Today programme tried to spin the story before the figures were released http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_966600.... As you can see in the link, the BBC were expecting the figures to be "worse than previously thought".

When the ONS released the figures, they showed that growth in the last quarter was higher than expected. Later in the day the Beeb quitely dropped the story.

There are two worrying aspects to this. One is that the Beeb seems to be trying to talk down confidence in our economy. The other is that the early morning reports were nothing but unsubstantiated rumour - yet the BBC gave them more prominence than the actual facts, once they became known. That is a clear demonstration of a lack of impartiality, IMHO.


Don
--

You see that as bias against the tory party

I see it as the doom mongering that the media has a hard on for

[turbobloke]

Credit where it's due. There's less than usual to complain about in a comparison across these three BBC web pages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16289866

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16290790

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16287395

The little that could be complained about includes no mention in the 70 to 140 word deficit carried by the Conservative article when it finally appeared, and ideally somewhere around the penultimate paragraph, of the better than expected economic figures mentioned by don4l; the high levels of international confidence in a Tory-led Coalition which produced 10-year bond yields below 2% for the first time; and Cameron's very substantial personal lead over both Miliband and Clegg in addition to the Party's narrow lead in the polls.

[don4l]

thinfourth2 said:

don4l said:

Two weeks ago there was a great example of "bias" in action at the BBC. The Office for National Statistics were due to release revised GDP figures for the UK. On Radio 4, The Today programme tried to spin the story before the figures were released http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_966600.... As you can see in the link, the BBC were expecting the figures to be "worse than previously thought".

When the ONS released the figures, they showed that growth in the last quarter was higher than expected. Later in the day the Beeb quitely dropped the story.

There are two worrying aspects to this. One is that the Beeb seems to be trying to talk down confidence in our economy. The other is that the early morning reports were nothing but unsubstantiated rumour - yet the BBC gave them more prominence than the actual facts, once they became known. That is a clear demonstration of a lack of impartiality, IMHO.

You see that as bias against the tory party

I don't know if that is a question - or a statement.

However, if you look at my post, you will notice that I didn't mention the tories.

Think about it.

You are arguing against an opinion that doesn't exist. Why?

Furthermore, if you would take the time to read my posts, you would realise that I consider this government to be "left wing".

thinfourth2 said:

I see it as the doom mongering that the media has a hard on for

I agree. However, the BBC is supposed to be impartial.

Don
--

[Motorrad]

turbobloke said:

It's not offensive, it's wrong. As in, the difference between right and wrong.

Some interesting points there but in the interests of making it readable I'll quote just one above.



You see the issue of BBC bias as black and white as that?

If so I suggest if you think it's biased then take action and encourage others to do the same. Even if it means sticking your head above the parapet.

If enough people who believed that refused to pay them then that would go a lot farther to resolving any perceived bias although I think it's missing the bigger picture.

I'll nail my colours to the mast: I believe the BBC like all mass media is a tool of the establishment in it's wider sense. Therefore any perceived bias is irrelevant because like the political system it exists to perpetuate the status quo.

Therefore I don't pay them (any media) a red cent if I can possibly avoid it, while consuming their products if I choose to do so, being fully aware their purpose is to influence my thinking and set the agenda.

That the BBC is merely part of the state apparat is blindingly obvious once you're gone from the UK for any period of time and watch their laughable hate week style moral panics designed to get the drones heading in one direction or the other.

Talking about party political bias is missing the point.

[turbobloke]

Motorrad said:

turbobloke said:

It's not offensive, it's wrong. As in, the difference between right and wrong.

Some interesting points there but in the interests of making it readable I'll quote just one above.

You see the issue of BBC bias as black and white as that?

What's right about it?

Motorrad said:

Talking about party political bias is missing the point.

Some of the time it is, unless the BBC's bias is applied to party politics, which it often is.

Which is why some are referring to general leftist bias, pushing of specific agendas and so on. As confirmed by Peter Sissons, Paxo et al.

Even the BBC's complaints handling isn't immune, they put a Labour local election candidate in to manage complaints of biased election coverage.

Neat.

[Disgusted]

Hold on chaps, from the Grauniad: BBC is 'pro-coalition', says Labour

"Labour turns on BBC over 'pro-coalition coverage'
Party prepares for series of policy announcements by accusing corporation of becoming coalition 'echo chamber'"


Poor Mr Miliband.