Sorry to get Political but the BBC basically boycotts the BNP like most broadcasters on basis of racism but if you look at Policies on Immigration they're the same but on other things such as Health UKIP is to the right of the BNP so I think the BBC could be said to have a right bias in terms of Political Party Coverage.
Nonsense you get on the BBC on a rationed basis determined by local, national and European elections if you're not in Government or the main opposition. When the BNP won a number of European seats they got on Question time and other shows far more often.Off all the broadcasters the BBC easily gave them more coverage in the run up to the last general election. BNP has been losing popularity in Local elections to UKIP so are getting less and less appearances. The party is dying and most of their activists have moved to the EDL.
.
. Plus friends I know who work there, who confirm too (the common wry remark made by them, is that if you want to fit in at the Beeb, carry a copy of the Guardian around with you).
Yeah and all Northerners are thick. You like stereotypes as stupid as the one you posted? The head of news is the former editor of the Times btw. You should also ask the heads of Communications for George Osborne, Cameron and Boris if they are all left wingers. Boris is on his second ex BBCer, the current one is the former producer for Andrew Marr and Cameron's Pr boss is the husband of Joanna Gosling FFS. Oh and the new Tory leader in Scotland is you guessed it an ex BBC Journalist. Ignorance and stereotypes are quite the mix.
Last edited by Cando on 2 October 2013 10:14pm - 2 times in total
The Whole BBC Bias thing is quite interesting - Lefties say it's biased to the right, righties say it's biased to the left. It's a whole opinion thing
- the BBC seems to always criticise the opposition more than the government even though the charter states that it is allowed to criticise the government. Another thing is that the BBC could be said to have a Eurosceptic, Right Wing view as if you look at air time given to each party UKIP gets almost as much as the Liberal Democrats and far more than Parties with actual power such as Respect, the Greens and Plaid Cymru who the latter have 3 HOC seats opposed to UKIPs 0.
Sorry to get Political but the BBC basically boycotts the BNP like most broadcasters on basis of racism but if you look at Policies on Immigration they're the same but on other things such as Health UKIP is to the right of the BNP so I think the BBC could be said to have a right bias in terms of Political Party Coverage. Also is it just me or is the BBC addicted to Michael Gove as I don't think I've caught any political coverage on the BBC in the last fortnight without him cropping up - Newsnight, Question Time, Breakfast ... and he's in the CWF Faction of the Tories. Also in terms of Political Conference Coverage the BBC seems to be oddly critical of Labour's Policy but generally in favour of the Tories Policies this year maybe it's just former head of Oxford Conservative Club, Nick Robinson.
To me, that's a sign that the BBC is doing its job perfectly. If both the political Left and Right can't stand the BBC then it's being equally tough on both of them, which is exactly what it's meant to do. Personally, I don't think the BBC is too biased one way or the other. It's impossible to be totally impartial - human nature dictates that everyone has an opinion and it's only natural for at least some of these to seep through into correspondents' packages whether it's intentional or not. However, of the interviews I've seen during this political conference season, the BBC presenters and reporters have been playing devil's advocate with all three parties. I haven't seen any of the politicians being given an easy ride.
Incidentally, if you're interested in bias and the media, I would highly recommend Nick Robinson's
Live from Downing Street: the inside story of politics, power and the media
. He goes into these themes in some depth and it's a fascinating read for anyone with an interest in the media and/or politics.
The fact that the BBC is being accused of pro-Tory, and anti-Tory biases, is proof enough to me that they are fair and impartial.
Sky News I have given up on (and most tv news if I am honest) mostly because I dislike Sky's pro business agenda, and I suspect there to be right wing bias (but it may be my own political left leaning that influences that view)
Never have bothered with ITV or Channel 5 news.
Channel 4 news I never really watch mostly due to the fact 4OD annoys me and because I catch Newsnight the next day on BBC iPlayer, and that sort of covers the high brow tone for me.
Other than Newsnight, I will go to the BBC News website, use the Windows 8 News app and Windows Phone News app, and I visit the tech news sites religiously, and follow links from social networks.
Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, has accused the BBC of providing only "cursory" news coverage of the march by an estimated 50,000 people in Manchester against austerity cuts to the NHS.
The Labour MP, who spoke at the rally on Sunday, said he had asked the BBC Trust to review the extent and quality of the corporation's coverage of the demonstration, which coincided with the opening day of the Conservative party conference in the city.
"By any reckoning, this was a major national protest and it seems to me that the BBC's coverage did not reflect this," said Burnham in a letter to the trust.
"Indeed, other major news channels seemed to reach a different editorial judgement, covering the story in more depth and interviewing participants."
Burnham asked the trust to examine concerns that "the perceived lack of adequate coverage of yesterday's events follows a pattern" of the BBC failing to adequately cover the impact of government policies on the health service, as well as the sell-off of parts of the NHS to private healthcare companies.
"As I am sure you are aware, there have been many complaints of the BBC's perceived failure adequately to cover the changes to the NHS – in particular, the privatisation of services – in both the run-up to, and aftermath of, the Health & Social Care Act 2012," he said.
"I don't know whether the trust has received complaints about this matter, and had the opportunity to investigate it, but either way, it would be helpful to hear your views on this wider context as part of your response."
Burnham, who said he did not wish to make a formal complaint at this stage, asked the trust to disclose how many BBC journalists and cameras were sent to cover the anti-cuts march.
He added: "It was … a real surprise to me to return home to find what I consider only cursory coverage of the event on BBC news bulletins. As far I could see, there was no specific coverage and it was only mentioned in the wider context of Conservative party conference. There was no explanation as to why people were there in such large numbers, nor direct interviews with participants to find out what had prompted them to travel so far on a Sunday."
I'd definitely recommend Nick's book as well. I haven't finished it (still...) but it's taught me more about politics than about anything else. Media was covered a lot, and it's a really compelling read.
First thank you Cando, for the information on Peter Sissons, I hadn't been aware of that, so fair cop. And good point on his about-turn stance on the Daily Mail, with 'tie-gate'. I'm surprised the BBC didn't consider legal action against his tomes, it would be one way to solve the debate.
Regarding Andy Burnham and his "perceived failure" of the BBC to adequately cover the impact of government policies on the health service, as well as the sell-off of parts of the NHS to private healthcare companies: Rather than automatically take his (naturally partisan) word for it, I like to think for myself; hence I've looked further into this claim and I think it's wise he has not made a complaint at this stage.
So three pieces of BBC coverage for an international audience, which detail the issue, and interviews with those supporting the action (why don't the Guardian mention this, I wonder?). Also I have seen plenty of analyses on BBC News and current affairs of UK Uncut and other union protests about cuts and privatisation since 2010; one of the lead stories the other week, emphasised that private prisons make up the majority of failing establishments in England & Wales. I suggest it's Mr Burnham's monitoring of the BBC that is cursory, not the BBC's coverage on such things (unless he's self-important to think he ought get more coverage, than is fair).
On a broader note, I never hear BBC interviewers challenging Tory on politicians why the UK is debt and borrowing is increasing; despite austerity measures? If it were right-wing, it would be challenging the govt on the lack of deficit reduction. I've yet to see a claim that the BBC is right-wing, that can't be refuted.
And award yourself a prize, if you can indenify an overtly right-wing comedian who regularly appears on its panel shows.
Quote:
You do realise who Anthony Jay is ?? And you have also selectively quoted the others. SLOPPY
I do know who he is: I also know he's writer, broadcaster and director who worked many years for the BBC. I can evaluate relevant information and sources, and think for myself. So I find the above amusing; considering you later mindlessly quote The Guardian and Andy Burnham,and seem happy to take it all at face value. So it's fitting you raise the subject of being sloppy. Speaking of which where did I actually quote "the others"? I mentioned them, but didn't quote them. And you call me sloppy.
Quote:
Yeah and all Northerners are thick. You like stereotypes as stupid as the one you posted? The head of news is the former editor of the Times btw. You should also ask the heads of Communications for George Osborne, Cameron and Boris if they are all left wingers. Boris is on his second ex BBCer, the current one is the former producer for Andrew Marr and Cameron's Pr boss is the husband of Joanna Gosling FFS. Oh and the new Tory leader in Scotland is you guessed it an ex BBC Journalist. Ignorance and stereotypes are quite the mix.
I'm happy to stand corrected on the finer detail of the BBC (indeed 'at worst' I've merely offered my subjective impression of the BBC)-- since I know there are people who are bound to be more knowledgeable about the machinations of the BBC hereon. Clearly you are knowledgeable Cando. I suspect you may even work for the BBC, given your passionate (doth protest too much?) defence you give of the Beeb-- have you a vested interest?
But where did I make an abolutist statement that can be comparable to "all northerners are thick"? I never said that "all" BBC people were left-wingers.The closest I got, was that I felt the "BBC has a left-wing patrician slant at times".(To infer from that I think all BBC folk are lefties, is akin to deducing that the Queen is a premiership footballer; because many premiership footballers are millionaires, the Queen is a millionaire, therefore she a premiership footballer). In addition I pointed out there are BBC correspondents, and I even named, those who are balanced in their work (I'll add another, Andrew O'Neil). I also stated that the BBC isn't explicity bias. Plus I had only reported what BBC friends had told me-- I made no comment as to whether I liked what they said-- and my use of the word "wry", indicates I didn't take them too seriously (even if the corporation recruits wideley from said paper)
You can shrilly use capital letters, swear, superciliously roll your eyes and be peevishly opprobious or sarcastic at me all you like for not agreeing with you, if it makes you feel (ostensbily) superior; but it says more about you, than it does me or anyone else. Such 'tactics' are no substitute for intelligent argument; that and your sophistry, show up your idea of impartiality, for what is. Thus it's ironic that you project accusations of "sloppy, ""stupid", "stereotypes" and "ignorance"; even more so when you have resorted to misrepresenting what I've written, thence attacking a strawman. I suggest you get your own house in order, before blustering at me. I base opinions on facts; when the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?
Quote:
The fact that the BBC is being accused of pro-Tory, and anti-Tory biases, is proof enough to me that they are fair and impartial.
It may be fact they get accused of those things-- but it doesn't mean to say those accusations are valid-- which is why they are not proof to me. I'd say if they are biased towards Tories, it would be those of a Cameroon bent, rather than Redwood bent.
Itsrobert makes some sound points: Completely unbiased reporting, is, I grant, nigh impossible. Let�s take an extreme example: It is self-evident from the news reporting that is it assumed that racism is a bad thing. However this view is of its nature an opinion, a received wisdom and not a demonstrable fact. By starting from this unusually unstated opinion, any subsequent report is going to be biased.
Whilst the vast and overwhelming majority would have no problem with this example of bias (rightly so in my view), it becomes a great deal more contentious when one explores other cultural assumptions (EG gay or women's rights) where there is not nearly such a clear consensus of view in the general population.Thus I would argue that the BBC is biased, as it can be defined by reference to implied assumptions that can be drawn from the general thrust of reporting over the whole output. (To give a few examples: The EU, multi-culturalism and unfettered immigration are autmomatically good things for the UK; prisons should be nothing less than places of rehablitation; Common Purpose values; adherence to the nanny state, metrification and 'political correctness').
I personally don't care what certain BBC reporters' views are on any given subject-- I should never know what they are. he BBC's job is to make us think, not tell us what to think. I would expect reporters working at the BBC to simply report accurately in an even handed way what is happening in world: Thence to carry out their work without imposing their own opinions on others, professional detachment; more rigorous and intelligent discussion/reporting, rather than conjecture and bias.
Whether that bias is good or bad is a separate debate. All I would ask is that the BBC freely admits its biases, so that free debate can then take place with the full understanding of those biases; rather than a pretence (or worse-- self delusion-- confer Question Time and its studio audience), typically by those who share its left-liberal bias, that is does not exist. If it carries on that pretence, it may well end up being monitored for impartiality by some independent agency. Given I like the BBC (as it's a lot better than most), I would hate to see that happen.
Last edited by Roger Mellie on 24 October 2013 8:34pm - 25 times in total
On a broader note, I never hear BBC interviewers challenging Tory on politicians why the UK is debt and borrowing is increasing; despite austerity measures? If it were right-wing, it would be challenging the govt on the lack of deficit reduction. I've yet to see a claim that the BBC is right-wing, that can't be refuted.
Left wing and right wing are inaccurate terms when discussing alleged BBC bias.
The accusations towards the BBC are either that it is dominated by a "liberal metropolitan agenda" or that it "toes the establishment line". NOT that is is plain old lefty or righty.
Left wing and right wing are inaccurate terms when discussing alleged BBC bias.
The accusations towards the BBC are either that it is dominated by a "liberal metropolitan agenda" or that it "toes the establishment line". NOT that is is plain old lefty or righty.[/quote]
True enough, I concede there. Especially as the two factors you mention there, are increasingly intertwined (plus any accusations of RW bias I've seen of the Beeb, can be easily refuted). A very good point there
Last edited by Roger Mellie on 5 October 2013 6:55pm - 2 times in total
