BBC bias in question (which way do they lean?)

The BBC have the Army in their sights - a new class war developing?

Are too many Army officers privately educated?
The BBC has revealed that privately-educated individuals are most likely to be motivated to serve their country in the British Army and qualify for commissions. I find this encouraging.

Perhaps the BBC should be asking: "Which segments of society are least motivated to serve their country in the British Army, let alone qualify for commissions, and why?"
 
Last edited:
The BBC has revealed that privately-educated individuals are most likely to be motivated to serve their country in the British Army and qualify for commissions. I find this encouraging.

Perhaps the BBC should be asking: "Which segments of society are least motivated to serve their country in the British Army, let alone qualify for commissions, and why?"
How many employees/contractors at the BBC are privately educated?
 
I've sent a couple of basic enquiries by email, not formal FOI requests. The responses I got are best described as "haughty".
Which style of haughty? Eton (I'm posher than you), Harrow (I'm more foreign royal than you), Winchester (I'm cleverer than you), Rugby (I'm harder than you), Gordonstoun (I'm colder than you) etc.?
 
Has anyone here ever sent the BBC an FOI? I’d be interested to know the result.
I just used their feedback form:
Should we not be happy that so many of those with a private education are motivated to serve in defence of the UK?

When can we expect an article questioning the number of privately educated people employed by the BBC?
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
The BBC has revealed that privately-educated individuals are most likely to be motivated to serve their country in the British Army and qualify for commissions. I find this encouraging.

Perhaps the BBC should be asking: "Which segments of society are least motivated to serve their country in the British Army, let alone qualify for commissions, and why?"
This segment, who knew that living in a hole in the mud for a week without washing or having to put up with snow, ice, sandstorms or spooky, clammy, snake-infested jungle was far less appealing than sinking a quick gin and enjoying a hot shower on coming off watch.
 
Interesting to watch how the politicians these days are seeming to stop the constant barracking from the likes of Marr, Kuensberg, et al, by stopping the quickfire different questions , designed , imho to get them flustered and demanding they be allowed to answer one relevant question at a time

looks like the inquisitors don't like being put in their place
Even Hunt did it on Marr this morning
guests just aren't allowing the presenters to take total control these days, and about time
 
Interesting to watch how the politicians these days are seeming to stop the constant barracking from the likes of Marr, Kuensberg, et al, by stopping the quickfire different questions , designed , imho to get them flustered and demanding they be allowed to answer one relevant question at a time

looks like the inquisitors don't like being put in their place
Even Hunt did it on Marr this morning
guests just aren't allowing the presenters to take total control these days, and about time
Oh yes indeedy.
These "presenters" will only allow the interviewee to answer the question if the answer is one they want to have aired.
Come up with something they disagree with & they'll do their best to shut you down.

BBC & C4 (to all intents wholly owned by the BBC...) are notorious for this.

F**k 'em, I want to hear what politicians have to say, form no matter which side of the divide.
 
Following the fragrant Ms Maitliss haranguing Boris during last night's debate these are the points I feel were the most obvious examples of anti Boris / anti Tory / pro Remain bias:

a. During the hour she read out at least four quotes of Johnson's previous statements to refute what he was saying. She only read out one for Hunt, and none for anyone else that I heard
b. She continually interrupted Johnson, far more than any other candidate, and allowed Stewart to speak relatively freely in contrast. Not so the other candidates, and it was regularly a shouting match between them with Maitliss ineffectually shouting from the side lines failing to restore order.
c. The questioning (although the BBC had undertaken to only ask questions on policy) was partially designed to catch out Boris ("Words have consequences"), and most of the questions appeared to be from a leftish or Remain point of view.
d. The "members of the public" questioners appear to have been somewhat unevenly selected, with a Corbyn supporting, Jew hating, misogynist imam / teacher learning that his words certainly do have consequences, and a suspended Corbyn supporting lawyer from Leigh Day solicitors asking if it's not all a bit anti democratic and shouldn't we have a general election. Apparently both were vetted, honest.

Beside the obvious bias, the debate was appallingly run; as mentioned above, it regularly descended into a shouting match and was incredible poorly controlled by Maitliss, who appeared to think that being unpleasant and sulky was the way to get them to behave.

This used to be the sort of thing that the BBC was world class at, with a chair selected for gravitas and intelligence, a sensible format rather than a lowest common denominator vox pop, and a deep, forensic questioning of each of the candidates rather than a shrewish attack which was all Emily seemed to have in her journalistic armoury. Robin Day, Jeremy Paxman, Andrew Neill, they all would have done a far better job than Maitliss with their eyes closed, and half a crate of blue nun down the hatch.

Even Channel 4 was better at this on Sunday, and that wasn't exactly prize winning political TV journalism. By the end of the BBC's hour I was hardly more aware of the candidates' strengths or weaknesses than I had been before.

This was biased, but just as worryingly it was a poorly designed and presented programme about the most important issue of the time, which did nothing to inform, educate or entertain.
 
Robin Day, Jeremy Paxman, Andrew Neill, they all would have done a far better job than Maitliss with their eyes closed, and half a crate of blue nun down the hatch.
Having seen him in action at a college founder's day dinner with Woy Jenkins, he'd have managed the debate with ease after the best part of two crates of finest port (as long as he was able to accompany it with large amounts of cheese and biscuits which he claimed soaked up the alcohol and kept him sharp. I think he just liked cheese). Jenkins was no slouch in putting the port away, but no match for RD.
 
Following the fragrant Ms Maitliss haranguing Boris during last night's debate these are the points I feel were the most obvious examples of anti Boris / anti Tory / pro Remain bias:

a. During the hour she read out at least four quotes of Johnson's previous statements to refute what he was saying. She only read out one for Hunt, and none for anyone else that I heard
b. She continually interrupted Johnson, far more than any other candidate, and allowed Stewart to speak relatively freely in contrast. Not so the other candidates, and it was regularly a shouting match between them with Maitliss ineffectually shouting from the side lines failing to restore order.
c. The questioning (although the BBC had undertaken to only ask questions on policy) was partially designed to catch out Boris ("Words have consequences"), and most of the questions appeared to be from a leftish or Remain point of view.
d. The "members of the public" questioners appear to have been somewhat unevenly selected, with a Corbyn supporting, Jew hating, misogynist imam / teacher learning that his words certainly do have consequences, and a suspended Corbyn supporting lawyer from Leigh Day solicitors asking if it's not all a bit anti democratic and shouldn't we have a general election. Apparently both were vetted, honest.

Beside the obvious bias, the debate was appallingly run; as mentioned above, it regularly descended into a shouting match and was incredible poorly controlled by Maitliss, who appeared to think that being unpleasant and sulky was the way to get them to behave.

This used to be the sort of thing that the BBC was world class at, with a chair selected for gravitas and intelligence, a sensible format rather than a lowest common denominator vox pop, and a deep, forensic questioning of each of the candidates rather than a shrewish attack which was all Emily seemed to have in her journalistic armoury. Robin Day, Jeremy Paxman, Andrew Neill, they all would have done a far better job than Maitliss with their eyes closed, and half a crate of blue nun down the hatch.

Even Channel 4 was better at this on Sunday, and that wasn't exactly prize winning political TV journalism. By the end of the BBC's hour I was hardly more aware of the candidates' strengths or weaknesses than I had been before.

This was biased, but just as worryingly it was a poorly designed and presented programme about the most important issue of the time, which did nothing to inform, educate or entertain.
And today, Sky News continues the anti-Boris bias. It appears the ratio of commentors/studio guests for and against Boris is 1:2. The Kay Burley Show even had one harridan claiming that "60 million people do not want a 'no deal' deal." (Speak for yourself,love,but not for me). Do they just make up their stats in true Goebbels fashion? Yet accuse Leavers of quoting fictional figures. If Boris does get in, the melt-down in the metropolitan elite 'we know better than you' lefties will be even more fun to watch than when the results of the referendum hit the media desks three years ago - remember Faisal Islam?
 
And today, Sky News continues the anti-Boris bias. It appears the ratio of commentors/studio guests for and against Boris is 1:2. The Kay Burley Show even had one harridan claiming that "60 million people do not want a 'no deal' deal." (Speak for yourself,love,but not for me). Do they just make up their stats in true Goebbels fashion? Yet accuse Leavers of quoting fictional figures. If Boris does get in, the melt-down in the metropolitan elite 'we know better than you' lefties will be even more fun to watch than when the results of the referendum hit the media desks three years ago - remember Faisal Islam?
I am looking forward to a Conservative/Brexit coalition. Then watch Snowflake and SJW heads explode UK wide!
 
If there was any doubt before, then that has been lifted following today's revelations. The BBC slip deeper into the mire of tabloid tele'journalism'. They are, indubitably, the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. Even a cursory glance at the last 'member of the public's online persona would have flagged that he's a full-on Labour activist.

But the phrase of the times has to be, 'Words have consequences'.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top