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

To some degree this happened with the previous three elections. The BBC among others, were giving so much positive airtime to socialist types and denigrating the small 'c' conservative beliefs so doggedly, that they ushered a significant portion of the electorate into the Tories' camp. They have not learned and on it goes...
You've just convinced me the BBC needs to stay along with the licence fee. A small price to pay as long as you don't have to watch their programmes :)
 
Playing devil's advocate for a moment (and possibly anticipating an official BBC response), if one accepts that there are three main parties in UK politics, the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems, then it could be argued that having one of each on a TV interview/QT etc could be seen as even handed.

In the event of course, the conservative viewpoint ends up being outnumbered and overspoken by two liberal speakers, with the conservative opinions being either unheard, or outnumbered.

The solution (and don't expect to see this anytime soon on on the BBC) is for guests on these shows to be chosen according to their ideology. Nobody is genuinely Centrist; people either lean to the left or to the right, even if it is only slightly. It isn't beyond the wit of man to provide a truly balanced panel, but as the BBC are very happy with the status quo they have neither the wish, nor the incentive to change things.







Unless, that is, someone is dangling the compulsory licence fee of over an open fire.
Personally I think the BBC, who are supposed to be completely impartial, should stop all their political programmes because they attempt to vilify one side or person and present their chosen view/person as the best thing since sliced bread.

They should only be allowed to present each political party an individual slot to put across the subject of current happenings in the political sphere (free of Party Politicking) followed by alternative views by the opposing Partys. A free airing of views presented to the public so they can make their own minds up without the BBC adding their own slant on it.
 
If they stopped trying to "explain" the news to us - as opposed to give us the facts and let us interpret them for ourselves, it would stop most of the nonsense. That and keeping Orla Guerin on the Horror Channel.....
 
If they stopped trying to "explain" the news to us - as opposed to give us the facts and let us interpret them for ourselves, it would stop most of the nonsense. That and keeping Orla Guerin on the Horror Channel.....
This.

The news media are in such a state in part for the drive to compete with other channels and those especially affected are the 24 rolling news channels, Sky and BBC 24 who are stuck in an endless cycle of trying not to repeat that nothing much is going on so we'll start to make stuff up and in some cases, be the news.
I see this as also having infected the print organisations who all have a 'live' online rolling news feed that literally earns them feck all, even when they try subscription.
 
BBC response from their "Executive Complaints Unit" over my refusal to accept their original response to my complaint over Marrs "interviewing" of Boris as posted previously. Whereas they finally admit Marr was wrong in places, they flatly refuse to uphold my complaint, no shock there really!

British Broadcasting Corporation White City, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ
Telephone: Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk

Executive Complaints Unit
dun_n_dusted

CAS-5800137

28 February 2020
Dear dun_n_dusted,

The Andrew Marr Show, BBC One, 1 December 2019

I am writing to let you know the result of my investigation into your complaint about the interview with Boris Johnson on the above programme. I understand you believe Andrew Marr showed a lack of respect towards the Prime Minister and failed to be impartial in the way he questioned him.

The BBC has an obligation under its editorial guidelines, which govern how we work, to be fair to its contributors. Presenters are expected to treat guests ‘with respect’ and not ‘unduly intimidate, humiliate or behave aggressively towards them.’ They must also maintain due impartiality, meaning audiences should not be able to tell their personal opinion on matter of policy or political controversy. It is against these requirements that I have assessed your complaint.

I think it is important to start by acknowledging the inauspicious circumstances under which this interview took place. A recent terror attack meant a significant section of the interview was devoted to the single issue of security which until then had largely been absent from the election campaign. This reduced the time available for the more
standard topics for an interview of this kind, such as the health service and education. There had also been press reports of tension between the BBC and the Conservatives over Mr Johnson’s failure to set a date to be cross examined by fellow BBC interviewer Andrew Neil. And at the time of the interview it was still unclear whether Mr Johnson would be willing to submit himself to another substantial interview on the BBC before polling day.

I note that Andrew Marr himself has accepted that the interview did not turn out as he might have wished. As he told a discussion programme broadcast on Radio 4 in the aftermath of the election campaign There is no way I can give a soft interview on that occasion and therefore if he came on doing stump speeches I have to interrupt which made a very difficult listen to, and cantankerous and rather unsatisfactory exchange on both sides I thought.


With this in mind, I studied the interview carefully. I accept that there were frequent interruptions, and cross talking on both sides and that at times this may have hampered the ability of viewers to follow the arguments. This was regrettable and with hindsight might have been handled differently. But I see no evidence to support the suggestion that Andrew Marr adopted an approach designed to push forward his own personal views. Certainly there was a strong element of him playing ‘devil’s advocate’ when he challenged Mr Johnson on his party’s record in office – but this is a style with which viewers to his programme are very familiar and does not of itself indicate a breach of impartiality.

It seems to me that the main difficulty with the interview was that the Prime Minister primarily wished to answer questions about his party’s manifesto and plans for the future, whereas Andrew Marr sought to put this in context and to hold Mr Johnson to account for the record of the Conservative Party since 2010. I understand why both sides adopted their respective approaches but ultimately they were incompatible and the result made for difficult viewing.

The remit of the ECU does not extend to passing judgement on political interviews in terms of whether they achieved their intended result; ultimately that is a matter for viewers to decide. But beyond the question of impartiality, the assessment I must also make is whether the questioning lacked respect, or amounted to bullying, humiliation or intimidation. And on those counts I disagree that the programme was a serious breach of
BBC standards.

Although at times clearly irritated, the Prime Minister managed to get across the points he wished to make on the main subjects raised, even where the presenter inadvertently interrupted at what with hindsight were inopportune moments (for example when Mr Johnson sought to answer the question about the number of prisoners on early release).


Furthermore it is clear that the interview ran out of time, necessitating a somewhat hasty end to the discussion. But as a seasoned and senior politician Mr Johnson is adept at handling tough interviews under time pressure, and I saw no evidence that he was bullied, humiliated or intimidated by the exchanges. And whilst you may disagree with his approach, Mr Marr was entitled to press the Prime Minister on the record of a party of which he had been a senior member, and to insist that the interview be conducted on his terms and not those preferred by Mr Johnson.

At several points in the discussion Mr Johnson sought to highlight policy positions he claimed had been adopted by his opponents, in particular Mr Corbyn. In the heat of a General Election campaign this is an unsurprising approach for a politician to take. But equally, in my view, Mr Marr was within his rights to interrupt to bring him back to his chosen line of questioning. This is best illustrated in the discussion on terrorism where the Prime Minister sought to blame a previous Labour Government for the early release of the London Bridge attacker Usman Khan, whereas Andrew Marr repeatedly pointed out that the Conservatives had had ten years in power to change policy in this area. It is possible to argue that the point once made did not need to be reiterated. But in the
absence of a substantive response from Mr Johnson, that is a matter of editorial judgement not a breach of standards.

For these reasons I am unable to uphold your complaint. But it remains open to you to contact our independent regulator, Ofcom if you wish. You can find details of how to get in touch and the procedures it will apply at

Complain about something you have seen or heard on the television, radio, a website or an app. Alternatively, you can write to Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, or telephone either 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040.
Yours sincerely,


Executive Complaints Unit
 
I was considering making a complaint about last night's 'Question Time' which developed into a shouting match between Jon Ashworth and Nadhim Zahawi and because of Fiona's trait to constantly interrupt the Tory whilst giving the other panelists free reign.

I decided not to because the BBC will arrogantly deny that it does anything wrong or that its employees are less than perfect and never make a mistake. @dun_n_dusted's reply is the nearest the BBC will ever come to an admission of fault and their overpaid, egotistical presenters will carry on as before.
 
Comedy alert: that total throbber Richard Burgon is shortly to appear on the Andrew Marr Show - he's a candidate for Deputy Leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party, don't ye know
 
Comedy alert: that total throbber Richard Burgon is shortly to appear on the Andrew Marr Show - he's a candidate for Deputy Leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party, don't ye know
The warm up act of the French Minister is easy on the eye, so much so, I’m not really listening to what she is saying! Burgon should be good telly, but not for the reasons he thinks.
 
That French bird was definitely very easy on the eye and ears.

Burgon is in the wrong job. I'm not sure what job he should have but I suspect anything more complex than pushing a stiff broom along a kerb would be beyond his abilities.
 
Last edited:
I stopped listening to Radio 5 in the afternoons some time ago (roughly when Arthanayake took over the slot)
When presenters want to become the news, it's time they stopped presenting.
He is the final straw that stopped me listening to BBC radio. I was chased away from wimmins radio, sorry radio 4, to five live where he delivered the coupe de grace to my BBC consumption. A more up his own arse self absorbed waster is difficult to imagine.
 
Yesterday morning at some ungodly hour, I was unlucky enough to catch Claire Balding (I am recovering slowly) walking part of a footpath in Yorkshire,the Wilberforce Way.
She starts at a school that he attended and mentions that he wrote about slavery when he was 14. "... And who does this remind us of?" "Greta Thunberg" say the pupils.
She then walks along with a Methodist minister, from the Punjab via Kenya and Dudley.
So indicative of the local population......
 
Yesterday morning at some ungodly hour, I was unlucky enough to catch Claire Balding (I am recovering slowly) walking part of a footpath in Yorkshire,the Wilberforce Way.
She starts at a school that he attended and mentions that he wrote about slavery when he was 14. "... And who does this remind us of?" "Greta Thunberg" say the pupils.
She then walks along with a Methodist minister, from the Punjab via Kenya and Dudley.
So indicative of the local population......
Oh dear!
 
It's 40 minutes long, but I found this well worth listening to as it's an interview instead of a screed or rant.

 
BBC World Service at silly o'clock. Health Matters, well yes it does, so why did you waste a chunk talking about a member of your team sketching body parts. First section had been the professor who tells us that we are dying younger due to austerity, a few gentle questions bowled his way. Meh.
Finally we get to the health story of the year and possibly the decade. A few minutes of mostly silly questions from listeners.
 
BBC Newsnight graphic artists channelling 'Hugo Boss'... Just saying

View attachment 451958

:razz:



View attachment 451956

2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich
I've just had to switch her off. I foolishly decided to give Newsnight a reprieve in the hope it may be reporting news and fact after the GE. Nope. Matlis turns a report on Coroner virus in the US into a Trump knocking shop and constantly interrupts a US spokesperson talking over her and not allowing her to speak.

BBC really needs to go. Fingers crossed, Corona will take 50% of them out..........

Wont be watching Newsnight again in a hurry.................
 
Wrt to Victoria Derbyshire...and this is going to sound harsh...

I think her unique selling point disintegrated with bbc when her chemo started to work.

She’s just another hairdo in heels now to them.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top