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

[Motorrad]

DieselGriff said:

What about people that want to watch other channels legally?

Then they watch them legally and don't pay the BBC a penny using whatever means they can to stay within the law.

Or they grow a pair.

[turbobloke]

Not watching, not paying, and growing a pair are all irrelevant to the biased output.

[thinfourth2]

DieselGriff said:

What about people that want to watch other channels legally?

I love this place

We must obey all laws apart from speed limits

[turbobloke]

thinfourth2 said:

DieselGriff said:

What about people that want to watch other channels legally?

I love this place

We must obey all laws apart from speed limits

And presumably apart from wacky backy, underage drinking, certain interpersonal practices depending on who else is present or not etc

[DieselGriff]

I see our frothing friends think I worry about the legalities of watching broadcast television simply by asking the question.

Must be great living such a simple life.

[Motorrad]

turbobloke said:

Not watching, not paying, and growing a pair are all irrelevant to the biased output.

It depends if the people complaining about the biased output aren't prepared to back up their whining with action doesn't it?

Of course if whining and complaining makes them feel better when they hand over whatever money the BBC is extorting these days then I suppose it's worthwhile.

[turbobloke]

Motorrad said:

turbobloke said:

Not watching, not paying, and growing a pair are all irrelevant to the biased output.

It depends if the people complaining about the biased output aren't prepared to back up their whining with action doesn't it?

It's all still irrelevant. If somebody doesn't watch the bias it's still there, same thing with not paying a licence fee and growing pairs of things. The bias is still there.

Motorrad said:

Of course if whining and complaining makes them feel better when they hand over whatever money the BBC is extorting these days then I suppose it's worthwhile.

Yes indeed maybe it's like that, for some.

[Sticks.]

Motorrad said:

It depends if the people complaining about the biased output aren't prepared to back up their whining with action doesn't it?

Of course if whining and complaining makes them feel better when they hand over whatever money the BBC is extorting these days then I suppose it's worthwhile.

Think that's a bit unfair as TB has said he's going to write to CMD, asking why he's not done anything about it, when he gets time.

[A Scotsman]

Certainly in Scotland the BBC is considered to be the media arm of the Labour party.

[Motorrad]

turbobloke said:

It's all still irrelevant. If somebody doesn't watch the bias it's still there, same thing with not paying a licence fee and growing pairs of things. The bias is still there.

Obviously the bias will still be there (assuming it exists) however my suggestion is that if you don't like something then fk it off, don't buy it, don't consume it.

I feel many things are biased in a way I find offensive to my viewpoint, therefore I don't give them my money and I don't even have to discuss it.

All I've been saying is if you think the BBC is biased and you don't like it then fk 'em and move on.

Alternately you can bleat about it on a BBS and continue to pay for the very thing you say you hate.

[turbobloke]

Motorrad said:

turbobloke said:

It's all still irrelevant. If somebody doesn't watch the bias it's still there, same thing with not paying a licence fee and growing pairs of things. The bias is still there.

Obviously the bias will still be there (assuming it exists) however my suggestion is that if you don't like something then fk it off, don't buy it, don't consume it.

I understand that but at the same time how is the presence or removal of bias going to be tracked if the only people left watching it are those that approve?

Motorrad said:

I feel many things are biased in a way I find offensive to my viewpoint, therefore I don't give them my money and I don't even have to discuss it.

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

Motorrad said:

All I've been saying is if you think the BBC is biased and you don't like it then fk 'em and move on.

See first comment above. That's not a realistic option.

Motorrad said:

Alternately you can bleat about it on a BBS and continue to pay for the very thing you say you hate.

Plenty of things have been done and will be done beyond the keyboard and internet forums. It would be quite wrong to think that this is all there is.

That said, there's nothing wrong with drawing attention to unacceptable BBC bias and discussing it on a forum.

'as you do'

[ExChrispy Porker]

So.
The BBC is anti the Conservative government, but pro MMGW. Allegedly.
Am I wrong but is not MMGW part of Government policy?
So The BBC are supporting the government stance on MMGW ?
Or have I got it all a bit arse about face??

[turbobloke]

ExChrispy Porker said:

So.
The BBC is anti the Conservative government, but pro MMGW. Allegedly.
Am I wrong but is not MMGW part of Government policy?
So The BBC are supporting the government stance on MMGW ?
Or have I got it all a bit arse about face??

Any atomistic approach like that is way too flawed.

The EU is government policy - read CMD's statements after his 'veto' of a particular issue - and the BBC push that too.

The point isn't whether their bias is consistent or not with another interest group, that isn't necessary to define bias.

Existence of any bias is the end of it, the BBC should not be pushing any agenda on anything in any way. It should report in a balanced way offering both sides of a controversial or current affairs story equal time, weighting, representation etc. And it fails spectacularly.

[NoNeed]

ExChrispy Porker said:

So.
The BBC is anti the Conservative government, but pro MMGW. Allegedly.
Am I wrong but is not MMGW part of Government policy?
So The BBC are supporting the government stance on MMGW ?
Or have I got it all a bit arse about face??

The goverment is a coalition NOT a conservative one. It is also possible to support a particular policy that is held by the three main parties without supporting one of those parties.

[ExChrispy Porker]

turbobloke said:

Any atomistic approach like that is way too flawed.

The EU is government policy - read CMD's statements after his 'veto' of a particular issue - and the BBC push that too.

The point isn't whether their bias is consistent or not with another interest group, that isn't necessary to define bias.

Existence of any bias is the end of it, the BBC should not be pushing any agenda on anything in any way. It should report in a balanced way offering both sides of a controversial or current affairs story equal time, weighting, representation etc. And it fails spectacularly.

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?

[pacman1]

I seem to notice that straight pieces of beeb reporting that don't particularly suit the lefty agenda are given little if any airing on TV or radio, but can be available on the net, except you have to go look for it.

[donna180]

This is interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080789/No...

[And note more red background back in 2002..... ]

[turbobloke]

ExChrispy Porker said:

turbobloke said:

Any atomistic approach like that is way too flawed.

The EU is government policy - read CMD's statements after his 'veto' of a particular issue - and the BBC push that too.

The point isn't whether their bias is consistent or not with another interest group, that isn't necessary to define bias.

Existence of any bias is the end of it, the BBC should not be pushing any agenda on anything in any way. It should report in a balanced way offering both sides of a controversial or current affairs story equal time, weighting, representation etc. And it fails spectacularly.

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?

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.

[turbobloke]

Peter Sissons formerly of the BBC commenting on BBC bias in various interviews has said:

At any given time there is a BBC line on everything of importance, a line usually adopted in the light of which way its senior echelons believe the political wind is ­blowing. This line is rarely spelled out explicitly, but percolates subtly throughout the organisation.

. . .

Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities. The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC ­people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology.

. . .

All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both.

. . .

Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers. Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically. The Royal Family is a bore. Islam must not be offended at any price, although ­Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.

. . .

By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. ­Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on ­running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

Not that it takes Peter Sissons or the Labour Party to indicate the reality of BBC news and current affairs output.

[ExChrispy Porker]

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.