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

Indeed it is - there was also a great deal of smoke. My personal experience of him was pretty positive - many of my colleagues would not say the same.
One of the married couple used to be Today programme.
Confirmed the prima donna / awkward customer bit, but said it was always a better product when he was on the roster
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
I've said more than once on this thread that many of the Left and Remain camps view the BBC as biased against them. Seems to me that people can't take criticism or see their fantasies taken apart with facts.
Two groups of people both screaming that a third organisation is biased against them and only them does not cancel out the evidence that one of them is correct.

I am more than happy to say that in this instance, Laura Kuennsberg did an excellent job of presenting the events in an unbiased and fair manner. That doesn't mean that she or the rest of the BBC are not guilty of biased reporting in favour of a liberal, Remain standpoint, some of it conscious, some of it unintentional

Here's an amusing example of what I mean:

 
Two groups of people both screaming that a third organisation is biased against them and only them does not cancel out the evidence that one of them is correct.

I am more than happy to say that in this instance, Laura Kuennsberg did an excellent job of presenting the events in an unbiased and fair manner. That doesn't mean that she or the rest of the BBC are not guilty of biased reporting in favour of a liberal, Remain standpoint, some of it conscious, some of it unintentional

Here's an amusing example of what I mean:

John Humphrys no bias? Andrew Neil no bias?

You, and others through Britain, dislike the BBC because it doesn't reflect your views only. So, left, right, centre, gay, straight and god know who else are kicking off against it.

You all seem incapable of understanding that you're judging the BBC from your own biased perspective.
 
Or indeed the ongoing hysteria over odd-looking Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg and the Climate change strike.

There is zero perspective applied - the impression given is that the "strike" is undeniably a "good thing", as opposed to inciting the impressionable to truant, while ignoring the rather large Asian elephant (Panda?) in the room.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
John Humphrys no bias? Andrew Neil no bias?

You, and others through Britain, dislike the BBC because it doesn't reflect your views only. So, left, right, centre, gay, straight and god know who else are kicking off against it.

You all seem incapable of understanding that you're judging the BBC from your own biased perspective.
A suggested read for you:

 
What percentage of BBC producers, in your opinion, vote for a non-left wing party?
I've got no idea how they vote. The bloke I worked with for many years at Millbank ended up working for UKIP.
He was a little too right wing for them and got the arse.
 
Cold_Collation said:

I see that Owen Jones, that master of political comment, was on the panel.

What happened next?
"Something something white people, something something Boris Johnson, something something we need Jeremy Corbyn"

surely you missed "they're all RACIST" in a high pitched scream.
 
FWIW as I do not have "a dog in this fight":
 
And "a socially conservative Christian" is neutral?
Would not the answer depend on the substantive nature and quality of the metrics used to arrive at a particular conclusion rather than the personal qualities/beliefs etc. of the person(s) putting forth the conclusion? Obviously all humans have their own personal beliefs, views, prejudices etc. but if we dismiss something said by a person merely on those bases how are we ever to inform ourselves about any issue such that we can then form our own (hopefully informed and "fact"-based and not over-ridden by our own beliefs, views, prejudices) rational conclusions?
 
Last edited:

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Would not the answer depend on the substantive nature and quality of the metrics used to arrive a particular conclusion rather than the personal qualities/beliefs etc. of the person(s) putting forth the conclusion? Obviously all humans have their own personal beliefs, views, prejudices etc. but if we dismiss something said by a person merely on those bases how are we ever to inform ourselves about any issue such that we can then form our own (hopefully informed and "fact"-based and not over-ridden by our own beliefs, views, prejudices) rational conclusions?
Beautifully put, sir.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer

Latest Threads

Top