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

Well Labour needs a new cause celebre. Can I suggest a mantra they might like to adopt;

The 'Peoples' BBC, IS NOT FOR SALE !!
Maybe Boris could leak a document saying that he is thinking of selling off the BBC to Trump!
Watch a few heads expolde then!
 

TamH70

MIA
I can dismiss the blessings of the Hard Left for numerous reasons. As I’ve said previously, a refusal to slavishly regurgitate their every utterance does not constitute bias.

However, my thoughts about the BBC are coloured by older stories, such as the empty champagne bottles rattling around in the corridors after Blair was elected. Or the rejection of my letter of objection to the way historical stories focus often on the UK’s foes’ suffering and not the threats and atrocities imposed upon us.

More recently, the attitude of Laura K to Boris, or the repeated ‘accidental’ mis-captioning of images relating to him that somehow never happened to Corbyn.

Or a head of light entertainment who made clear his dislike of Jeremy Clarkson because he wasn’t PC enough - never mind that he was funny and entertaining.

In its way, that last was the most telling. A commercial organisation would never have done what the BBC did.

The BBC has been shielded by the licence fee. And, like a trust fund baby, it hasn’t had to worry about making a living. It’s been able to dabble and indulge itself.

I still maintain that SOME of the news content is far better than that found elsewhere in the world. SOME factual content is still outstanding - though God help us when Attenborough passes.

But for the rest, a very good, sharp kick is needed. I don’t want quotas in drama. Why? Because they’re a lie. I don’t want a sharply cosmopolitan take on everything which happens. Why? Because that empathises with a very narrow purview and alienated many of those currently forced to pay the licence fee.

The BBC does the same as the current Labour Party - it sneers at the very people it purports to represent, then squeals when they object.

And, like Labour’s manifesto, its output is a product.

The BBC needs to ask itself this: if it didn’t have the licence fee, would people buy that product? If the answer is no, then it needs to change.

The usual retort is that that would mean commercialism, a race to the bottom. Well, no. People will pay for quality television, be it factual or drama. Some of the BBC’s commercial rivals are already proving that.

Like politicians, the BBC’s employees work for us, not the other way round. It’s about time they remembered that.
Most of that I agree with. It's self-evidently true, after all, but it's funny how much the loony left-wing in the Labour Party utterly despise Kuenssberg if she's so pro-Corbyn as you say. Or did you miss the whole "she had to get bodyguards at a Labour Party conference in 2017 because she got death threats" thing? The Independent, the Guardian and the Daily Mail certainly didn't.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Most of that I agree with. It's self-evidently true, after all, but it's funny how much the loony left-wing in the Labour Party utterly despise Kuenssberg if she's so pro-Corbyn as you say. Or did you miss the whole "she had to get bodyguards at a Labour Party conference in 2017 because she got death threats" thing? The Independent, the Guardian and the Daily Mail certainly didn't.
No, I didn't.

I didn't say pro-Corbyn. I highlighted her distinct dislike of Johnson.

Just because the Hard Left doesn't like her, doesn't mean that she isn't Leftist.

Two very different things.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
I can dismiss the blessings of the Hard Left for numerous reasons. As I’ve said previously, a refusal to slavishly regurgitate their every utterance does not constitute bias.

However, my thoughts about the BBC are coloured by older stories, such as the empty champagne bottles rattling around in the corridors after Blair was elected. Or the rejection of my letter of objection to the way historical stories focus often on the UK’s foes’ suffering and not the threats and atrocities imposed upon us.

More recently, the attitude of Laura K to Boris, or the repeated ‘accidental’ mis-captioning of images relating to him that somehow never happened to Corbyn.

Or a head of light entertainment who made clear his dislike of Jeremy Clarkson because he wasn’t PC enough - never mind that he was funny and entertaining.

In its way, that last was the most telling. A commercial organisation would never have done what the BBC did.

The BBC has been shielded by the licence fee. And, like a trust fund baby, it hasn’t had to worry about making a living. It’s been able to dabble and indulge itself.

I still maintain that SOME of the news content is far better than that found elsewhere in the world. SOME factual content is still outstanding - though God help us when Attenborough passes.

But for the rest, a very good, sharp kick is needed. I don’t want quotas in drama. Why? Because they’re a lie. I don’t want a sharply cosmopolitan take on everything which happens. Why? Because that empathises with a very narrow purview and alienated many of those currently forced to pay the licence fee.

The BBC does the same as the current Labour Party - it sneers at the very people it purports to represent, then squeals when they object.

And, like Labour’s manifesto, its output is a product.

The BBC needs to ask itself this: if it didn’t have the licence fee, would people buy that product? If the answer is no, then it needs to change.

The usual retort is that that would mean commercialism, a race to the bottom. Well, no. People will pay for quality television, be it factual or drama. Some of the BBC’s commercial rivals are already proving that.

Like politicians, the BBC’s employees work for us, not the other way round. It’s about time they remembered that.
Excellent points. For me the thing that really grates about the BBC's non-news output is the appallingly obvious preachiness of it all. Nature programmes may as well be hour-long PPBs by the Friends of the Earth now. The vast majority of fictional output seems to have a "feisty" female lead or three, a weak and vaccillating man to overcome, arrogant "establishment" enemies and a narrative which makes it clear that unless you're black, female and gay you might as well be a stormtrooper back from book burning. Every programme has a not-so-subliminal message that the status quo of Great Britain is, if not evil, then damn close to it, and absolutely everything is our fault.

There are very few BBC series I bother to watch after the first episode; the only exception at the moment being His Dark Materials, which whilst having being chopped and changed from the original for the sake of inclusivity, at least has a decent story line. Some of the History stuff on BBC 4 is still good, but the quality does appear to be slowly deteriorating thanks to woke bias.

The news / current affairs output is still high quality in patches, but the patches are getting sparse. To pretend that the BBC is not biased against the current Government as many BBC staff do is to either deceive themselves or lie to us.
 

TamH70

MIA
No, I didn't.

I didn't say pro-Corbyn. I highlighted her distinct dislike of Johnson.

Just because the Hard Left doesn't like her, doesn't mean that she isn't Leftist.

Two very different things.
Not really, if you listen to the Corbynistas. According to them, she's further to the right than Maggie ever was, and they're the ones shouting the loudest from the left flank.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Huw made a very good case but I have the feeling he only sees things from his side of the camera. On the night of the GE the expressions on the faces of what he likes to call journalists gave the game away although it is obvious that those who follow that trade often tend to be of a left wing persuasion politically.
With regard to general broadcasting the BBC can do some good stuff but the metropole aspect of every news programme having entertainment shows rather than news is off putting. Further so many programmes produced by/for the BBC were how somebody felt it should be portrayed rather than respecting the original idea. Examples include history, documentaries, drama, nature, reality shows, all reasons why I stopped watching/listening to the BBC output.

It is a shame because the BBC is capable of producing some very good output but doesn't.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Not really, if you listen to the Corbynistas. According to them, she's further to the right than Maggie ever was, and they're the ones shouting the loudest from the left flank.
You've just repeated exactly what I said.

The Corbynistas will call her right-wing because she's not as far left as them. But that doesn't mean she's not leftist. She's certainly not right-wing.

The Corbynistas want a propaganda machine, not a news organisation. That's why I can so readily dismiss their ramblings.

But mark this: the BBC as an organisation would far rather have had a Corbyn government than a Johnson one. That I'm able to discern that means it's long since gone past impartiality.
 
Last edited:

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Not really, if you listen to the Corbynistas. According to them, she's further to the right than Maggie ever was, and they're the ones shouting the loudest from the left flank.
I think Laura is despised by both left and right because she is still employed as a form of "attack dog" and has not yet learned how to mature into a formidable form for one who so often interrogates interviews others.
 

Truxx

LE
Great idea.
'Tonight, we have three potential targets - Chris Packham, Andrew Marr, and Victoria Derbyshire - but only two 9mm bullets. Who will get shot? Dial (insert no) to vote.
Npw, Chris, why shouldn't you be shot?'
Packham. Double tap. The other two don't know you only have two rounds so would be amenable at that point to them getting some re-education.
 
Aside from perceived bias, one way or the other, one of the things an awful lot of people despise about the BBC is the inflated salaries given to people who are clearly lefties. This is one thing that could be the undoing of the Beeb. One of the things they like to tell us is that they like to champion up and coming talent, yet the one thing stopping that talent is those very people at the top of the salary pyramid, and I think many would like to see them toppled to allow those at the bottom to progress. The BBC like to 'freshen things up', and one of the best ways to do that is to turf out the likes of Linekar, and in so doing will save a small fortune to be ploughed back into new talent and new productions.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
She is a Blaire groupie.
As is much of the BBC hierarchy. Granted there are some outliers on the loony left and very few on the centre right, but the organization is on the whole politically "third way" liberal, centre left, pro-multiculturalism, anti traditional Britain. The average BBC journo's cultural and moral home is New Labour IMHO.
 
Aside from perceived bias, one way or the other, one of the things an awful lot of people despise about the BBC is the inflated salaries given to people who are clearly lefties. This is one thing that could be the undoing of the Beeb. One of the things they like to tell us is that they like to champion up and coming talent, yet the one thing stopping that talent is those very people at the top of the salary pyramid, and I think many would like to see them toppled to allow those at the bottom to progress. The BBC like to 'freshen things up', and one of the best ways to do that is to turf out the likes of Linekar, and in so doing will save a small fortune to be ploughed back into new talent and new productions.
I know he's an easy target because he's not afraid of expressing his luvvy opinions but lets be honest here, Gary Lineker is not the problem with the BBC, he is merely one of its creations.
 
Their forensic examination of Labour's much deserved kicking last week. It's all, what did Labour do wrong, not what did the Tory's do right. If the result had gone the other way, I doubt that Boris would be under the microscope.
 
I know he's an easy target because he's not afraid of expressing his luvvy opinions but lets be honest here, Gary Lineker is not the problem with the BBC, he is merely one of its creations.
Indeed, and I was just using him as an example of their largesse with our money.
 

Latest Threads

Top