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

Auntie has long been accused of failing in its duty of impartiality and of “promoting an institutional pro-European Union bias in a damning report that it commissioned” - The Times January 28 2005.

"BBC guilty of pro Europe bias, its own inquiry finds".
The BBC “suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentionial bias” and that, despite the good intentions of producers, “nobody thinks the outcome is impartial”
The BBC knows and admits that people’s perceptions of its impartiality have soured, while it still pleads that "impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences", BBC - Impartiality: Introduction - Editorial Guidelines.

The corporation and its supporters seem to like misdirection, and it's worked out well for them so far; quote: "Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles". Therefore it's okay for BBC staff to slip cultural and Freudian bias into content? You have to admit it's clever.

Ambiguous guidelines and the Charter give the Beeb room to manoeuvre, for instance it retains the right to exercise “editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/assets/guidelinedocs/Producersguidelines.pdf
BBC - Impartiality: Principles - Editorial Guidelines.

Pointing at phantom bogeymen right-wingers doesn't satisfy pissed off licence payers and households sick to death of BBC tactics. While we're seeing so many complaints about BBC content, including the alleged creeping bias in its programmes: a new independent monitoring body pointed directly at the BBC - from outside the industry i.e. not Ofcom - would be a good start and about time too.
 
Auntie has long been accused of failing in its duty of impartiality and of “promoting an institutional pro-European Union bias in a damning report that it commissioned” - The Times January 28 2005.

"BBC guilty of pro Europe bias, its own inquiry finds".
The BBC knows and admits that people’s perceptions of its impartiality have soured, while it still pleads that "impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences", BBC - Impartiality: Introduction - Editorial Guidelines.

The corporation and its supporters seem to like misdirection, and it's worked out well for them so far; quote: "Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles". Therefore it's okay for BBC staff to slip cultural and Freudian bias into content? You have to admit it's clever.

Ambiguous guidelines and the Charter give the Beeb room to manoeuvre, for instance it retains the right to exercise “editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/assets/guidelinedocs/Producersguidelines.pdf
BBC - Impartiality: Principles - Editorial Guidelines.

Pointing at phantom bogeymen right-wingers doesn't satisfy pissed off licence payers and households sick to death of BBC tactics. While we're seeing so many complaints about BBC content, including the alleged creeping bias in its programmes: a new independent monitoring body pointed directly at the BBC - from outside the industry i.e. not Ofcom - would be a good start and about time too.
All part of the Kalergi Plan.
 
All part of the Kalergi Plan.
I don't get the connection with BBC bias or my post. Kalergi Plan as in Kalergi the pacifist? Or the tinfoil hatters claiming that the EU engineers social and ethnic diversity as the supposed antidote to nationalism in Europe.

Hijacked by far-right nutters blaming stuff on a Jewish conspiracy: neo-Nazis push the 'Kalergi Plan' in their deluded racist fantasies blaming 'the Joos'.
 
I don't get the connection with BBC bias or my post. Kalergi Plan as in Kalergi the pacifist? Or the tinfoil hatters claiming that the EU engineers social and ethnic diversity as the supposed antidote to nationalism in Europe.

Hijacked by far-right nutters blaming stuff on a Jewish conspiracy: neo-Nazis push the 'Kalergi Plan' in their deluded racist fantasies blaming 'the Joos'.
Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the Pan European Union, a United States of Europe, run by elites. He was one of the founding fathers of the EU and the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize in 1950, awarded for distinguished service to European unification. Other recipients include Tusk, Merkel, Shultz,, Van Rompuy and, not forgetting, our own Tony Blair. Kalergi's ideas are all there in his book,Practical Idealism (1925). He could see no future for national sovereignty - he could also see no democratic participation by the 'peasants', or those who were not one of the 'elite'. The pro-EU bias shown by the BBC helps the pursuance of the Kalergi Plan.
 
And that's another part of it.

"It happened."
"It didn't."
"It did."
"Can you prove it."
"No. But it did."
"I disagree."
"That's because you subscribe to the traditional news media. They're all run by Zionist billionaires, you know."
"But the traditional media are held to editorial standards by the ombudsman. There is legal sanction for untruths. On social media and the internet you can post pretty much what you like and state it as fact without challenge."
"The Tories kill people, you know."
Tories don’t kill people milkshakes do !!!

Or scrotes with knives

YM
 
But that's part of the cunning strategy - the bogeyman (other genders are available) that is the 'Far Right'.

Remember that HUGE surge in racist attacks immediately after we voted to leave the EU? Remember those swinging cuts to NHS funding? Remember that Trump came over intending to buy the NHS for American corporations?

Labour's going to build a million new homes for the homeless, and abolish student loans, and, and, and...

It, er, it's not exactly true, is it?
Ref. Trump. saying he that if it was his he could make it profitable, isn't quite the same as saying he could become the President of Britain..
 
Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the Pan European Union, a United States of Europe, run by elites. He was one of the founding fathers of the EU and the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize in 1950, awarded for distinguished service to European unification. Other recipients include Tusk, Merkel, Shultz,, Van Rompuy and, not forgetting, our own Tony Blair. Kalergi's ideas are all there in his book,Practical Idealism (1925). He could see no future for national sovereignty - he could also see no democratic participation by the 'peasants', or those who were not one of the 'elite'. The pro-EU bias shown by the BBC helps the pursuance of the Kalergi Plan.
@Type 66 is bashing the mong buttons :)

Churchill was a prominent recipient of the Charlemagne Prize, compared to that array of numbnuts you've listed. Hard to disprove your BBC pro-EU bias allegation, or the elitism, I grant you. But it's odd that this Kalergi Plan isn't well-known.

However, the BBC is backing a loser if it's biased towards unified states against xenophobia and extreme nationalism (not to be confused with patriotism, not at all a dirty word) and anti-Semitism. That ideology thrived on real events and on needs existing a long while ago. Things have moved on and any such 'plan' has demonstrably failed several times over, miserably.

I suspect any BBC bias is more likely to be cultural and political; as usual it will be good old self interest, among supporters, staff and 'talent' (term used loosely).
 
Nice to see it full tinfoil.
 
"The Tories kill people, you know."
On the BBC New site today, an article about CJD (My cousin died of it last year, one of 177 deaths in thirty odd years, poor bugger).

"The documentary shows how the Conservative government at the time failed to stop cattle infected with BSE getting into the human food chain - and failed to alert the public to the possible dangers posed by the disease".

Just how is 'Conservative' relevant to the story? It isn't, it's just another crass attempt at a smear.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
So, not one word about the Panorama program last night then.......

well I am surprised, it's almost like there is confirmation bias somewhere.
Last night's programme seems to have balanced the score card somewhat.
 
Last night's programme seems to have balanced the score card somewhat.
has it made the press? I thought it was pretty uninspiring. It looked like a bunch of 20 something snowflakes having a whinge. I was expecting some serious evidence to support the accusations, and nothing really stood out that much
 
They aren't balancing anything. They are only anti-Corbyn because he dramatically reduces the chances of Labour getting into power.

Not ever her eyebrows were balanced



I couldn’t take it seriously after she was on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
They aren't balancing anything. They are only anti-Corbyn because he dramatically reduces the chances of Labour getting into power.
Now that is one hell of a way to look at it!
 
Hmm:

BBC boss warns against 'assault on truth'

I think that the good Tony Hall should have a long, hard stare into the nearest mirror.
This question has long been a concern of mine. Few things or situations are simple truths. Take the resignation of the UK Ambassador to the US. The facts are easily explained - his memos were leaked, The President wasn't impressed, the Ambassador resigned. In the 70s and 80s, the news bulletin would have covered the facts of the case in five or fewer minutes. I recall news reports from the Falklands where reporting was five minutes and then another subject. The BBC bias has been exposed by rolling news - reporters fill time by speculation, and that speculation - a matter of the reporter's opinion - is where their character and views shine through.
The speculation itself is pointless. Two years of BBC reporters moist speculation was wasted on the Trump/Russia 'story'. And this week. I just wish the reporters could be honest:
'What does the President think?'

'Why ask me? Just read Twitter'
 

Similar threads


Top