BBC Bias - Part 2

In-depth debate on all topical issues
Post Reply
User avatar
Zambo
Registered user
Posts: 25632
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:18 am
Location: VAR office

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Zambo »

Let's all rejoice, and celebrate the rise of diversity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCiiMB6IRQ
When your heart is blue, there is nothing you can do. Keep Right On

User avatar
Steve Hunt
Winner POTY - 2010 !!!!
Posts: 12535
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:57 am
Location: The Effiminates Stadium,London, N7

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Steve Hunt »

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/

User avatar
m4rkb
Registered user
Posts: 11315
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:35 pm
Location: Ape City

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by m4rkb »

subsub wrote:
Roy Twing wrote:
subsub wrote:
Roy Twing wrote: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…
:rolleyes:


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

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


As a journalist yourself ( :lol: ) 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.

User avatar
subsub
Registered user
Posts: 21901
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:02 am
Location: Herts

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by subsub »

m4rkb wrote:As a journalist yourself ( :lol: ) 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.

Littlejohn is successful at tapping into the fears of Middle England and encouraging prejudice and bigoted thinking.
Not sure why I'd be envious of that :rolleyes:
WOKE AND PROUD

User avatar
Ralph
Forum Admin
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:42 pm

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Ralph »

m4rkb wrote:
subsub wrote:
Roy Twing wrote:
subsub wrote:
Roy Twing wrote: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…
:rolleyes:


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

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


As a journalist yourself ( :lol: ) 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.

User avatar
Hillman avenger
Registered user
Posts: 13963
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:50 pm
Location: north and south

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Hillman avenger »

Steve Hunt wrote: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.
Listen to Talksport and let it be a lesson to you

User avatar
Steve Hunt
Winner POTY - 2010 !!!!
Posts: 12535
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:57 am
Location: The Effiminates Stadium,London, N7

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Steve Hunt »

Great answer, Hillman. You make some very good points.

But you haven't really addressed the key point I was making. Which is: why should I fund an organisation that fails to obey its own founding principle of impartiality?

It is not doing what it says on the tin.

User avatar
Zambo
Registered user
Posts: 25632
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:18 am
Location: VAR office

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Zambo »

Steve Hunt wrote:Great answer, Hillman. You make some very good points.

But you haven't really addressed the key point I was making. Which is: why should I fund an organisation that fails to obey its own founding principle of impartiality?

It is not doing what it says on the tin.

I agree Steve, but I also agree with Hillman on certain points. I hate paying money to fund a corrupt organisation like the BBC, but I'm also not happy about paying more for my dustbin to be emptied, than a family of ten who have three dustbins and who live in a council house.

You can quote examples of unfairness ad infinitum.
When your heart is blue, there is nothing you can do. Keep Right On

User avatar
Holden Mcgroyne
Registered user
Posts: 10194
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:13 pm

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Holden Mcgroyne »

Hillman avenger wrote:
Steve Hunt wrote: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.



My sub for Private Eye is £28, how much do you pay ?
There's no poem, just prose.

User avatar
Steve Hunt
Winner POTY - 2010 !!!!
Posts: 12535
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:57 am
Location: The Effiminates Stadium,London, N7

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Steve Hunt »

Holden Mcgroyne wrote:
Hillman avenger wrote:
Steve Hunt wrote: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.



My sub for Private Eye is £28, how much do you pay ?



Private Eye subscription = £30.00 per year https://www.subscription.co.uk/private- ... bscription

BBC Licence Fee = £150.50 per year (from April 1st) http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidet ... icencefee/

User avatar
Hillman avenger
Registered user
Posts: 13963
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:50 pm
Location: north and south

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Hillman avenger »

Steve Hunt wrote:Great answer, Hillman. You make some very good points.

But you haven't really addressed the key point I was making. Which is: why should I fund an organisation that fails to obey its own founding principle of impartiality?

It is not doing what it says on the tin.

The issue of impartiality is separate from the others.
It is the only one, in the UK, and possibly the world, which has a fundamental obligation to be impartial.
Bu that is a complex issue, for these reasons:
1. You have to separate what people on the BBC say, and what the BBC says. Often the complaints on here are about the former, rather than the latter. Yesterday Twing was complaining about a play on R4 which involved a "socialist" theme, FFS. If this obsession applies even to drama, can you think of the great stuff they would be unable to broadcast ( such as "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist" or "The Grapes of Wrath" and all the rest)?
2. Reith's guidelines say that topics should be approached with a balance and specifically disapproves of turning every item into a punch and judy , left/right game. The test is, is the topic covered in a balanced way over a period, and not in any one programme? So you will hear views which you don't like, and maybe not be listening when the alternate view gets airtime.
3.The protocol also puts the responsibility on the editors, not the presenters. The BBC has every week programmes presented by people like Evan Davis, Paxman and Andrew Neill. Neill presents 5 hours of political reporting every week. They are all rightists, but do their jobs impeccably. Because there's an editor on the case.
Another issue- does the BBC risk being accused of bias if it challenges any particular group? The Iraq dossier is an example. In isolation that could have easily been portrayed as an example of the BBC being anti-Labour or anti-Blair. I trust you wouldn't want them pulling their punches for fear of that?

If, despite all that, you are determined it's biased, tell them. Feedback on Radio 4 - worth listening to, and how seriously it takes it.

Oh yes, don't know where the cost of PE came from. But if anyone here really wants to support proper challenge from the media, do the same.
Last edited by Hillman avenger on Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Listen to Talksport and let it be a lesson to you

User avatar
Steve Hunt
Winner POTY - 2010 !!!!
Posts: 12535
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:57 am
Location: The Effiminates Stadium,London, N7

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Steve Hunt »

Hillman avenger wrote:
Steve Hunt wrote:Great answer, Hillman. You make some very good points.

But you haven't really addressed the key point I was making. Which is: why should I fund an organisation that fails to obey its own founding principle of impartiality?

It is not doing what it says on the tin.

The issue of impartiality is separate from the others.
It is the only one, in the UK, and possibly the world, which has a fundamental obligation to be impartial.
Bu that is a complex issue, for these reasons:
1. You have to separate what people on the BBC say, and what the BBC says. Often the complaints on here are about the former, rather than the latter. Yesterday Twing was complaining about a play on R4 which involved a "socialist" theme, FFS. If this obsession applies even to drama, can you think of the great stuff they would be unable to broadcast ( such as "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist" or "The Grapes of Wrath" and all the rest)?
2. Reith's guidelines say that topics should be approached with a balance and specifically disapproves of turning every item into a punch and judy , left/right game. The test is, is the topic covered in a balanced way over a period, and not in any one programme? So you will hear views which you don't like, and maybe not be listening when the alternate view gets airtime.
3.The protocol also puts the responsibility on the editors, not the presenters. The BBC has every week programmes presented by people like Evan Davis, Paxman and Andrew Neill. Neill presents 5 hours of political reporting every week. They are all rightists, but do their jobs impeccably. Because there's an editor on the case.
If, despite all that, you are determined it's biased, tell them. Feedback on Radio 4 - worth listening to, and how seriously it takes it.



C'mon Hillman.

Even you must accept that the corporation displays an inherent bias now.

Just look at the recent (non, until the MP raised it in Commons) coverage of Telford or indeed the newly released breakdown of QT panellists.

As for it's Brexit coverage...................

User avatar
Hillman avenger
Registered user
Posts: 13963
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:50 pm
Location: north and south

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by Hillman avenger »

No, I don't agree.
Not my experience.
The Telford story WAS covered, but not with the prominence that some here demand, perhaps because it is historic.
But it was the same BBC who did the dramatisation about Rochdale.
As for Brexit...in the campaign itself it was actually criticised by Remain for a Leave bias!..and since, all it has done is what it should, report. It's the reality of the mess that is the problem, not somebody holding up a mirror to it.
Oh and when you consider QT you should also look at the representation on Any Questions ( which I believe has an audience of similar scale).
Listen to Talksport and let it be a lesson to you

User avatar
AlcoholBrazil
Registered user
Posts: 11582
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:41 am

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by AlcoholBrazil »

subsub wrote:Littlejohn is successful at tapping into the fears of Middle England and encouraging prejudice and bigoted thinking.
Not sure why I'd be envious of that :rolleyes:


I remember Littlejohn being too sexist for Michael Winner who became an unexpected champion for feminism and took him
down a peg.
6uild 6ack 6etter .
You will own nothing and be happy.

User avatar
AlcoholBrazil
Registered user
Posts: 11582
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:41 am

Re: BBC Bias - Part 2

Post by AlcoholBrazil »

Hillman avenger wrote:The Telford story WAS covered, but not with the prominence that some here demand, perhaps because it is historic.


Historic ? There is plenty to suggest it is still going on today.
6uild 6ack 6etter .
You will own nothing and be happy.

Post Reply