BBC Bias - Part 2

[m4rkb]

A lighthearted take on the lunacy that has infested us - not specifically targeting the bbc, but if the cap fits (and it certainly does):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... enses.html

Sharing Richard Littlejohn articles and expecting people to take you seriously…

'Seriously'? what part of 'lighthearted' didn't you understand?

Then why share the link, if you don't want others to read it?

As a journalist yourself ( ) I would have thought you'd appreciate RLJ's success in the industry. He earns close to £1m a year for a reason.

But as far as the article is concerned , the one you won't read but somehow you know is all made up bullshit, which paragraph is not correct?

Not hard for an experienced sub editor like yourself.

He writes what the billionaire press barons who pay his £1 million a year want him to.

No he doesn't, he has his own niche which is commenting on the utter stupidity we see in public life. If you read the article which you clearly haven't and also clearly don't intend to you'd see his swipes were:

1) Feminists gatecrashing a men only swimming session by self identifying as men which the staff let by lest they be accused of transphobia
2) A paragraph about how hospitals have stopped using the word 'mother' in maternity wards.
3) A comment about gender neutral Mother's Day cards.
4) Gender neutral toilets in a girls school with no transgenders
5) A swipe about PE in schools being racist as it's steeped in white supremacy and colonialism
6) An asylum seeker who specifically stated his hatred for Britain who then went on to attempt to murder as many people as possible being lavished with our hospitality and money while no one (on the left) saw a potential threat.
7) The stupidity of ordering an aircraft carrier with no planes to put on it
Several government departments turning a blind eye to mass rape of children because it might be racist to point it out.

That's virtually a concise list of points RLJ raised you had no idea about because you never read the articles so have no idea what you're talking about.

So, to you and SubSub, precisely which of those points and issues do you support and not find utterly ridiculous?
After all Littlejohn is just a bigot isn't he?

[m4rkb]

They haven't reported on the three recent bans into the UK by three conservative commentators either bearing in mind it's one of the biggest stories of the day. Naturally the mainstream media describe them all as 'far right' as all even 'small c' conservatives are now described in this way.
The three in question are Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and her boyfriend Martin Sellner who were prevented entry to the UK under terrorist legislation.

May I remind you this is a conservative government which has done this but we all know they are leftist liberals

Here's a picture of these two female far right terrorists.


Meanwhile, the UK government has let back into the UK over 400 ISIS fighters and lavished them with prizes to integrate them back into British society, not to mention a whole host of other Islamic extremists they have willingly let in.

We are watching a concerted assault on moderate right wing values here being described as extremism just so they can silence their own impotence over proper terrorism rather than admit it's out of control.

There's lots of commentary on this on the internet at present, but I'll give you the first part of PJWs sarcastic take on it.

This is what scares me. They banned these two, how long before they start knocking on the doors of those with slight right wing leanings? Have the Left gone completely mad or something about not wanting to have open and frank debates about the state the world is in?

They're not even waiting for that. Youtuber Count Dankula was today convicted of hate crime for making his dog do a nazi salute as a joke.

The ultra liberal agenda has been such a dismal failure in gaining the support of normal people they are now literally having to enforce it by authoritarian jackboot methods.

Anyone remotely concerned about the consequences of anything they push on us is now convicted - rather than previously just accused , of hate crime.

Hate crime is just another form of terrorism if you think about it, so that will be the next step unless we grow the balls enough to stop it.

Christ on a bike! UK banned far right terrorist Lauren Southern has been given a big platform to speak - and it's only the E-fucking-U.

[m4rkb]

Peter Hitchens predicting the imminent criminalisation of any right wing opinion.

He actually made a mistake in his commentary around about 5.31 describing the ruling elite as the *liberal majority*.
They aren't.
They are a minority group which has seized control of the mainstream media so effectively they now have carte blanche to portray themselves as the voice of the people.

[Roy Twing]

Can Hillman or anyone from the other side of the debate to me regarding the BBC please answer me this:

Why should everyone in the UK be forced to pay a poll tax to support an institution which has so conspicuously failed for so long to obey its founding principle of impartiality?’

Now, before I hear 'but IT IS impartial', please look at the evidence, which overwhelmingly now proves this not to be the case. Regardless of all the evidence posted on here, even The Centre for Policy Studies finds compelling evidence of bias in BBC news reporting:

http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/bias-at-the-beeb/

We will not agree about this.

I think the licence fee is both essential and good value.

It is a funding mechanism other countries admire. Americans find the quality of the BBC something better than their main channels.
But the most important aspect is that it means the BBC is free of both government and commercial pressure.

That means it can, and does, poke about in state affairs and industry practices without being afraid of being punished for it.
Remember the "sexed-up dossier" was a BBC story.
Most of the big journalistic revelations in the last 30 years or so have come from the BBC, or to a lesser extent, C4 who also get state funds but not in the same way.
Any organisation that can piss off both Alastair Campbell and Thatcher's press guy (Bernard Ingham?) must be doing something right.

For the same reasons, I subscribe to Private Eye, which incidentally costs more than the BBC.

Value for money- a Sky subscription, which I keep only to watch football, costs 4 times as much. Its TV output is way behind the BBC and it does not bear the cost of radio, which is cross-subsidised in the licence fee.

Then there's the World Service and the overseas BBC new channel. It covers the cost of the licence for over-75s. The way the BBC commissions drama and music which otherwise would die. There is 20 hours a week of original drama on Radio 4 .The Proms. The public service broadcasting it is obliged to do.Local radio: I don't listen to it much, but some people do.

But there is a massive tactical reason to keep it funded this way. If the BBC had to live off ad revenue, overnight the commercial TV and radio sector would be badly damaged. Advertisers would stampede to get in front of the BBC's audience. Radio 4 alone has 11m and it is very largely ABC1 profile. LBC , for example, would probably be wiped out.

And do you really want channels like Fox here? It has become Trump's RT. In return for outrageous manipulation in his favour, it gets exclusive access. A truly unhealthy set up.

As for " I don't listen to the BBC- why should I pay for it?"..there''s a great deal of government funding I pay for out of my taxes, way beyond the licence fee, which I would rather not support. So the mechanism is different, but the point is the same.

There were some good arguments from hillman, that much is true, being fair.

But there are also some basic errors/inaccuracies, - namely, to argue that other countries admire the BBC is spurious, as it is not universal, - many in other countries undoubtedly do not admire the BBC, and similarly it could be argued that many in the UK admire the broadcasters in other countries.

Also, most of hillman’s argument around American biased channels is just the reverse of the BBC, which is invariably biased against any right of centre political viewpoint, so the Trump comments are also spurious.

If the BBC were truly unbiased, few would object to it, but true impartiality in a broadcaster is impossible it seems, and that reason, if nothing else, negates the justification for the BBC in its current funding format.

The BBC fails its raison d'etre - it would be the equivalent I suppose, of the police having a crime-committing division, or a local council with a section that dumps rubbish on our streets.

[Robert Heenan]

Can Hillman or anyone from the other side of the debate to me regarding the BBC please answer me this:

Why should everyone in the UK be forced to pay a poll tax to support an institution which has so conspicuously failed for so long to obey its founding principle of impartiality?’

Now, before I hear 'but IT IS impartial', please look at the evidence, which overwhelmingly now proves this not to be the case. Regardless of all the evidence posted on here, even The Centre for Policy Studies finds compelling evidence of bias in BBC news reporting:

http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/bias-at-the-beeb/

We will not agree about this.

I think the licence fee is both essential and good value.

It is a funding mechanism other countries admire. Americans find the quality of the BBC something better than their main channels.
But the most important aspect is that it means the BBC is free of both government and commercial pressure.

That means it can, and does, poke about in state affairs and industry practices without being afraid of being punished for it.
Remember the "sexed-up dossier" was a BBC story.
Most of the big journalistic revelations in the last 30 years or so have come from the BBC, or to a lesser extent, C4 who also get state funds but not in the same way.
Any organisation that can piss off both Alastair Campbell and Thatcher's press guy (Bernard Ingham?) must be doing something right.

For the same reasons, I subscribe to Private Eye, which incidentally costs more than the BBC.

Value for money- a Sky subscription, which I keep only to watch football, costs 4 times as much. Its TV output is way behind the BBC and it does not bear the cost of radio, which is cross-subsidised in the licence fee.

Then there's the World Service and the overseas BBC new channel. It covers the cost of the licence for over-75s. The way the BBC commissions drama and music which otherwise would die. There is 20 hours a week of original drama on Radio 4 .The Proms. The public service broadcasting it is obliged to do.Local radio: I don't listen to it much, but some people do.

But there is a massive tactical reason to keep it funded this way. If the BBC had to live off ad revenue, overnight the commercial TV and radio sector would be badly damaged. Advertisers would stampede to get in front of the BBC's audience. Radio 4 alone has 11m and it is very largely ABC1 profile. LBC , for example, would probably be wiped out.

And do you really want channels like Fox here? It has become Trump's RT. In return for outrageous manipulation in his favour, it gets exclusive access. A truly unhealthy set up.

As for " I don't listen to the BBC- why should I pay for it?"..there''s a great deal of government funding I pay for out of my taxes, way beyond the licence fee, which I would rather not support. So the mechanism is different, but the point is the same.

The BBC is a propaganda outlet. Pure and simple!

There is just so much evidence of BBC bias that to make out the BBC as an impartial news outlet is bring extremely naive at best and totally pathetic a la Comical Ali at worst.

Forget evidence... It's just so blatantly bloody obvious... I mean it'd like denying that the sun never shines in Florida

[Hillman avenger]

Peter Hitchens predicting the imminent criminalisation of any right wing opinion.

He actually made a mistake in his commentary around about 5.31 describing the ruling elite as the *liberal majority*.
They aren't.
They are a minority group which has seized control of the mainstream media so effectively they now have carte blanche to portray themselves as the voice of the people.

How funny

You have to hand it to Hitchens. There is not the slightest chance of it, but he drops it in to keep people like you addicted.

Just like the Mail, if it runs out of stuff for its readers to be upset about, it starts predicting stuff in the future.

Rest easy. There aren't going to be any laws which will prevent you from displaying your paranoia.

As for the "liberal media" we could do with some!

[m4rkb]

You really do live a complete bubble don't you.

The recent news stories about youtuber Count Dankula, the banning of two women journalists from entering Britain and the continued assault on moderate right wing opinion being re-classified as hate crime has obviously escaped you. Like everything else, if it wasn't on the BBC it doesn't exist in your insanely blinkered world.

[Hillman avenger]

You really do live a complete bubble don't you.

The recent news stories about youtuber Count Dankula, the banning of two women journalists from entering Britain and the continued assault on moderate right wing opinion being re-classified as hate crime has obviously escaped you. Like everything else, if it wasn't on the BBC it doesn't exist in your insanely blinkered world.

Don't make the many mistakes you have here.
I am no more "in a bubble " than you.
I don't only listen to the BBC. I use others. Whereas you and others who reject the BBC end up as misinformed as you show.
What you regard as the current headlines is laughable.
Not really bothered either way about the women being denied entry. There are probably good reasons. After all, we are quite well supplied with ignorant bigots, so I'm not sure it's much loss.
Trump is unravelling before your eyes and you think this is important.

[Roy Twing]

Peter Hitchens predicting the imminent criminalisation of any right wing opinion.

He actually made a mistake in his commentary around about 5.31 describing the ruling elite as the *liberal majority*.
They aren't.
They are a minority group which has seized control of the mainstream media so effectively they now have carte blanche to portray themselves as the voice of the people.

You only have to look at the make-up of the various panels shown in that clip to see how the BBC (the tame voice of the liberal elite that hitchens describes) works, - they are packed with establishment figures to shout down and/or ridicule the usually lone dissenting voice, and of course, the audience will be similarly skewed, so as to make the lone non-liberal elite voice appear to be delivering an unpopular message.
It has served the establishment well, and continues to do so.

[m4rkb]

You really do live a complete bubble don't you.

The recent news stories about youtuber Count Dankula, the banning of two women journalists from entering Britain and the continued assault on moderate right wing opinion being re-classified as hate crime has obviously escaped you. Like everything else, if it wasn't on the BBC it doesn't exist in your insanely blinkered world.

Don't make the many mistakes you have here.
I am no more "in a bubble " than you.
I don't only listen to the BBC. I use others. Whereas you and others who reject the BBC end up as misinformed as you show.
What you regard as the current headlines is laughable.
Not really bothered either way about the women being denied entry. There are probably good reasons. After all, we are quite well supplied with ignorant bigots, so I'm not sure it's much loss.
Trump is unravelling before your eyes and you think this is important.

Trump is not 'unravelling before our eyes' unless you belong to one of those obsessive groups who think he is and intake nothing but their propaganda. The BBC is one.

Maybe Trump is the reason the BBC failed to reported on the Shropshire abuse scandal too because other news was more important? Lastly are you comfortable with draconian terrorism laws being used to keep out people who are clearly not terrorists while ,as has been reported on every network bar the BBC that we have allowed - sorry welcomed, over 400 active jihadists back into the country?

Clearly you aren't.

[Darkyboy]

You really do live a complete bubble don't you.

The recent news stories about youtuber Count Dankula, the banning of two women journalists from entering Britain and the continued assault on moderate right wing opinion being re-classified as hate crime has obviously escaped you. Like everything else, if it wasn't on the BBC it doesn't exist in your insanely blinkered world.

Don't make the many mistakes you have here.
I am no more "in a bubble " than you.
I don't only listen to the BBC. I use others. Whereas you and others who reject the BBC end up as misinformed as you show.
What you regard as the current headlines is laughable.
Not really bothered either way about the women being denied entry. There are probably good reasons. After all, we are quite well supplied with ignorant bigots, so I'm not sure it's much loss.
Trump is unravelling before your eyes and you think this is important.

Trump is not 'unravelling before our eyes' unless you belong to one of those obsessive groups who think he is and intake nothing but their propaganda. The BBC is one.

Maybe Trump is the reason the BBC failed to reported on the Shropshire abuse scandal too because other news was more important? Lastly are you comfortable with draconian terrorism laws being used to keep out people who are clearly not terrorists while ,as has been reported on every network bar the BBC that we have allowed - sorry welcomed, over 400 active jihadists back into the country?

Clearly you aren't.

I think someone is unravelling/unravelled and it is not Trump. The BBC's (along with many media outlets) would like us to think a certain way, but those people with a degree of nous can see the truth.

It's worth noting that this thread (part 1) had any number of examples of BBC liberal bias and bias against Trump and Brexit. It was at that point, those on the left disappeared from the thread, because they had no answers.

[Hillman avenger]

You really do live a complete bubble don't you.

The recent news stories about youtuber Count Dankula, the banning of two women journalists from entering Britain and the continued assault on moderate right wing opinion being re-classified as hate crime has obviously escaped you. Like everything else, if it wasn't on the BBC it doesn't exist in your insanely blinkered world.

Don't make the many mistakes you have here.
I am no more "in a bubble " than you.
I don't only listen to the BBC. I use others. Whereas you and others who reject the BBC end up as misinformed as you show.
What you regard as the current headlines is laughable.
Not really bothered either way about the women being denied entry. There are probably good reasons. After all, we are quite well supplied with ignorant bigots, so I'm not sure it's much loss.
Trump is unravelling before your eyes and you think this is important.

Trump is not 'unravelling before our eyes' unless you belong to one of those obsessive groups who think he is and intake nothing but their propaganda. The BBC is one.

Maybe Trump is the reason the BBC failed to reported on the Shropshire abuse scandal too because other news was more important?
They did report on it.
Lastly are you comfortable with draconian terrorism laws being used to keep out people who are clearly not terrorists while ,as has been reported on every network bar the BBC that we have allowed - sorry welcomed, over 400 active jihadists back into the country?
That was reported too. The difference is that those 400 are UK citizens and have a right of entry. If they have committed offences under UK law they can then be arrested.

Clearly you aren't.

[Steve Hunt]

They did report on it.

Eventually.

But only after the Telford MP threatened to table an early motion questioning why they weren't

[m4rkb]

You really do live a complete bubble don't you.

The recent news stories about youtuber Count Dankula, the banning of two women journalists from entering Britain and the continued assault on moderate right wing opinion being re-classified as hate crime has obviously escaped you. Like everything else, if it wasn't on the BBC it doesn't exist in your insanely blinkered world.

Don't make the many mistakes you have here.
I am no more "in a bubble " than you.
I don't only listen to the BBC. I use others. Whereas you and others who reject the BBC end up as misinformed as you show.
What you regard as the current headlines is laughable.
Not really bothered either way about the women being denied entry. There are probably good reasons. After all, we are quite well supplied with ignorant bigots, so I'm not sure it's much loss.
Trump is unravelling before your eyes and you think this is important.

Trump is not 'unravelling before our eyes' unless you belong to one of those obsessive groups who think he is and intake nothing but their propaganda. The BBC is one.

Maybe Trump is the reason the BBC failed to reported on the Shropshire abuse scandal too because other news was more important?
They did report on it.
Lastly are you comfortable with draconian terrorism laws being used to keep out people who are clearly not terrorists while ,as has been reported on every network bar the BBC that we have allowed - sorry welcomed, over 400 active jihadists back into the country?
That was reported too. The difference is that those 400 are UK citizens and have a right of entry. If they have committed offences under UK law they can then be arrested.

Clearly you aren't.

There is a clear pattern now of the BBC ignoring stories which call into question the multicultural utopia we apparently live in, and them suddenly appearing days later when people question why the BBC has not reported on them before or at the beginning.

Your defence towards welcoming back over 400 Jihadis who could not state their hatred of Britain and the West any louder is pitiful.

They may have a right to entry but it's similar to the right of entry of a pupil to a school when his intention is to unload an assault rifle on his classmates.

Some people can see these problems as they form and others (you and your leftist cohorts) cannot.

[Hillman avenger]

You really do live a complete bubble don't you.

The recent news stories about youtuber Count Dankula, the banning of two women journalists from entering Britain and the continued assault on moderate right wing opinion being re-classified as hate crime has obviously escaped you. Like everything else, if it wasn't on the BBC it doesn't exist in your insanely blinkered world.

Don't make the many mistakes you have here.
I am no more "in a bubble " than you.
I don't only listen to the BBC. I use others. Whereas you and others who reject the BBC end up as misinformed as you show.
What you regard as the current headlines is laughable.
Not really bothered either way about the women being denied entry. There are probably good reasons. After all, we are quite well supplied with ignorant bigots, so I'm not sure it's much loss.
Trump is unravelling before your eyes and you think this is important.

Trump is not 'unravelling before our eyes' unless you belong to one of those obsessive groups who think he is and intake nothing but their propaganda. The BBC is one.

Maybe Trump is the reason the BBC failed to reported on the Shropshire abuse scandal too because other news was more important?
They did report on it.
Lastly are you comfortable with draconian terrorism laws being used to keep out people who are clearly not terrorists while ,as has been reported on every network bar the BBC that we have allowed - sorry welcomed, over 400 active jihadists back into the country?
That was reported too. The difference is that those 400 are UK citizens and have a right of entry. If they have committed offences under UK law they can then be arrested.

Clearly you aren't.

There is a clear pattern now of the BBC ignoring stories which call into question the multicultural utopia we apparently live in, and them suddenly appearing days later when people question why the BBC has not reported on them before or at the beginning.

Your defence towards welcoming back over 400 Jihadis who could not state their hatred of Britain and the West any louder is pitiful.
Who talked about "welcoming back" the Jihadis? I didn't. I said they have UK passports, which allow them entry. If they have done sstuff abroad which breaks UK law, they should then be arrested. You don't seem to understand we have laws about these things.
They may have a right to entry but it's similar to the right of entry of a pupil to a school when his intention is to unload an assault rifle on his classmates.

Some people can see these problems as they form and others (you and your leftist cohorts) cannot.