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

I received a reply concerning the article on travelling/holidaying in the EU. I have highlighted the part that explains why they couldn't mention holidaying outside the EU. it was a time constraint. IMO utter bollox.

Thank you for contacting us regarding BBC One’s ‘Breakfast’ which was broadcast on 7 August.

I understand you were unhappy that the item on travelling to EU countries in the event of a no-deal scenario did not mention that the situation will “probably be much the same as booking holidays and/or travel to countries outside the EU” and note your view that we should not be “concentrating on the pure negatives.”

Our Rome correspondent James Reynolds reported from the Amalfi coast in Italy on the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on UK citizens travelling to the EU. James spoke with a number of British tourists who voiced their concerns about issues such as queuing and mobile phone roaming charges.

Whilst I appreciate you would have liked the report to compare this possible scenario with what UK travellers face at present when visiting non-EU nations, it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the various aspects of a subject within the space of an individual report. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant opinions and trends on any issue.

In terms of our wider reporting on Brexit, the BBC does not have an opinion on the European Union or on the United Kingdom’s relationship with it. In the period since the referendum in June 2016, we have tried to explore and explain the often complex factors which affect our audience and we have provided representatives from across the political spectrum with the opportunity to air their views.

We do not aim to denigrate any view or to promote any agenda on this issue. Our goal is simply to provide our audience with enough information in order that they can draw their own conclusions.


Nevertheless, I would like to assure you that we value your feedback. All complaints are sent to senior management every morning and we included your points in our overnight reports. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future output.
Very interesting.
I have complained a few times about the BBC's coverage of Brexit. That line -

Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant opinions and trends on any issue.

implies that, in coverage we have presumably missed, the argument you made has been covered. It implies that, somewhere on the BBC, Brexit is being covered more even handedly. The problem is, there's little evidence of this and it is interesting that the person who replied was not able to direct you to a programme where the issue was dealt with fairly.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
They managed to discuss the cause (businesses not spending as stock held due to March 2019 Brexit deadline) and dismiss it at the same time. It is complete media panic.
*checks calendar.

It’s silly season. It’s journalists talking up a non-story. Remember when Robert Peston actually managed to cause a run on the banks some years ago?

I had a spat on social media yesterday with someone who declared, after admitting that there was no proof, it is ‘seemingly incontrovertible’ that we will suffer most.

I pointed out ‘no proof’ and ‘incontrovertible’ are a contradiction. I was accused of missing off the ‘seemingly’ and therefore misquoting and causing a lie.

I then pointed out the ‘seemingly incontrovertible’ is up there with ‘nearly unique’. In other words, something is incontrovertible or not.

It went quiet but the stoking goes on.

I’m waiting for the news organisations to really get going on drugs ‘shortages’.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Very interesting.
I have complained a few times about the BBC's coverage of Brexit. That line -

Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant opinions and trends on any issue.

implies that, in coverage we have presumably missed, the argument you made has been covered. It implies that, somewhere on the BBC, Brexit is being covered more even handedly. The problem is, there's little evidence of this and it is interesting that the person who replied was not able to direct you to a programme where the issue was dealt with fairly.
It also covers their confirmation biases - something quite major can occur but if it doesn’t fit their mindset it can be dismissed as a blip.

Minor upshift in the EU economy as we stall slightly? Hugely significant. German car industry facing a three-day week in the event of no-deal? Pure speculation and not covered.

...thousands of veterans marching against NI prosecutions? Meddlesome dinosaur minority. 200 climate protesters turn up in London? Groundswell of public opinion being represented by a few brave radicals.

Etc. Yes I’m angry...
 
Better than average chance you're not the only one angry. As in the US election, a silent majority may at some point upset the apple cart. This will not go down well with your intellectual betters and any result going against the perceived wisdom will be roundly ignored. The Brexit fiasco being the tip of that particular iceberg.

When guillotines appear on the steps of Broadcast House there will be consternation among the chattering types infesting that edifice, and as among the Democrats in the US, they will still fail to understand why it all went against them.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Better than average chance you're not the only one angry. As in the US election, a silent majority may at some point upset the apple cart. This will not go down well with your intellectual betters and any result going against the perceived wisdom will be roundly ignored. The Brexit fiasco being the tip of that particular iceberg.

When guillotines appear on the steps of Broadcast House there will be consternation among the chattering types infesting that edifice, and as among the Democrats in the US, they will still fail to understand why it all went against them.
Yes, but the BBC is very Labour-leaning no matter who is in power.

Slightly different dynamic in that the US doesn’t have a state-sponsored news organisation.

I agree however that there’ll be a meltdown of understanding.
 
Quite. Part of the anger is in no small part due to the perception, right or wrong, of bias in the institution, and the unwillingness to submit to enforced licence fees to fund an organisation many find reflects the views of a minority.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Quite. Part of the anger is in no small part due to the perception, right or wrong, of bias in the institution, and the unwillingness to submit to enforced licence fees to fund an organisation many find reflects the views of a minority.
@Jack_Prior nails it in posts 2,422 and 2,461.

Dare I sat it, it’s a little like Labour’s self-policed ‘struggle’ with anti-Semitism. It’s being told by the people affected that there’s an issue but its self-righteousness leads to denial.

The BBC is failing, I think spectacularly, to adequately address the needs and views of the majority of its audience. That (a national broadcaster reflecting the majority’s views) is not discrimination; there is plenty of opportunity to educate and inform. However there’s a huge difference between that and rank propaganda. Yet, when this is pointed out, we are told in pious tones that what it is doing is fair and balanced.
 
I would be curious to see what the hotel or conference centre was providing to the scientists when chillaxing of an evening or the BBC café serves up and how popular the veggie dishes are... Similarly the starlets who promote vegetarianism spend most of a day lounging about, between exercise periods (bit like the RAF). If they worked in a physical job, they may find said diet is inappropriate and leave them low on energy.

Dr Who is a classic example of fictional programming which has morphed from telling stories to one more akin to the bible and parables of the modern time i.e. they are pieces of propaganda.
Some years ago I was sent on a tree hugging course at a conference venue funded by Blue Circle (Quid pro quo for mining in an area of outstanding natural beauty). The waitress, a local girl asked for my breakfast order, "Normal or veggie". Real people, real food.
 
@Jack_Prior nails it in posts 2,422 and 2,461.

Dare I sat it, it’s a little like Labour’s self-policed ‘struggle’ with anti-Semitism. It’s being told by the people affected that there’s an issue but its self-righteousness leads to denial.

The BBC is failing, I think spectacularly, to adequately address the needs and views of the majority of its audience. That (a national broadcaster reflecting the majority’s views) is not discrimination; there is plenty of opportunity to educate and inform. However there’s a huge difference between that and rank propaganda. Yet, when this is pointed out, we are told in pious tones that what it is doing is fair and balanced.
There is a grotesque privileged society within the statutory corporation independent from direct government. And self-righteous does seem apposite, but how about sententious, for size.

However, the people driven off to independent radio stations are probably sick of the endless parade of asinine luvvies and their mates, advertising their latest concerts and pushing belt-fed cult-prog guilt agendas.

Long suffering victims may find this rubber radio, useful.
1565452288866.png

Doesn't bounce off windows nor off the wife's sad fat f(r)iends.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
There is a grotesque privileged society within the statutory corporation independent from direct government. And self-righteous does seem apposite, but how about sententious, for size.

However, the people driven off to independent radio stations are probably sick of the endless parade of asinine luvvies and their mates, advertising their latest concerts and pushing belt-fed cult-prog guilt agendas.

Long suffering victims may find this rubber radio, useful.
View attachment 409689
Doesn't bounce off windows nor off the wife's sad fat f(r)iends.
Fair. It’s the endless virtue-signalling.

I keep using it as an example but Doctor Who has gone from intelligent and involving to asinine and unwatchable.

No doubt this will be blamed on dinosaurs and gammons not being able to cope with a female lead. The reality is that quota-filling, over-simplification and condescension have edged out any enjoyment.

For that, rinse and repeat across drama, comedy, documentary and so on.

I would LOVE the BBC to be rather more untouchable, or else its employees and their output more directly affected.

That’s not about censorship. It’s about credibility.
 

Wightsparker

War Hero
There is a grotesque privileged society within the statutory corporation independent from direct government. And self-righteous does seem apposite, but how about sententious, for size.

However, the people driven off to independent radio stations are probably sick of the endless parade of asinine luvvies and their mates, advertising their latest concerts and pushing belt-fed cult-prog guilt agendas.

Long suffering victims may find this rubber radio, useful.
View attachment 409689
Doesn't bounce off windows nor off the wife's sad fat f(r)iends.

Rubber radio?????

Now you have REALLY puzzled the Septics!
 
Rubber radio?????

Now you have REALLY puzzled the Septics!
The Lexon Tykho rubber radio is available in yellow, white, red, grey, green, orange, fuchsia and blue. Proper woke, crap kitsch and overpriced but it might survive half a dozen chucks at the wall Monday to Friday between midday and 2PM.
 

Truxx

LE
I saw that too. The first bit was banging the "climate change" drum, the second was blowing the Brexit trumpet. You could almost claim the BBC was being balanced!
They forgot to mention that all the scientists had flown to Geneva so they could tell us all about cows farting.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top