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

I have emailed a complaint to the BBC reference the above and await their reply with bated breath. It will no doubt contain the normal left wing bollox...wait out
Thanks - I read it and passed it on to Tony Hall.
 
She's there because the BBC's attention is drawn to it by various charities and NGOs who are right now preparing the media for their next appeal.

Skiing holidays and private schools for the needy children of their CEOs and directors don't come cheap you know.
Even now, MSF are compiling a Who's Who of the prettier 12-year olds.
 
She's there because the BBC's attention is drawn to it by various charities and NGOs who are right now preparing the media for their next appeal.

Skiing holidays and private schools for the needy children of their CEOs and directors don't come cheap you know.
She's there because it's a story that needs to be covered - it's nothing to do with external influence from NGOs bigwigs... It has everything to do with following up on reports from the poor sods working for charities whilst being bombed by the Saudis.

I was there for the BBC 2 years ago - it was a scary place and in the end we had to do a bunk.
Guerin, her cameraman Tony, and her security bloke John are doing a great job in very difficult and dodgy conditions.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
BBC morning news today lauding Mandela and his legacy, quite sickening. No mention of how the legacy is turning to shite and how South Africa is slowly travelling down the same route as Zimbabwe.
Ditto May and Corbyn at PMQs today.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
What have the Yemenis done to deserve twopence from charities?
 
She's there because it's a story that needs to be covered - it's nothing to do with external influence from NGOs bigwigs... It has everything to do with following up on reports from the poor sods working for charities whilst being bombed by the Saudis.

I was there for the BBC 2 years ago - it was a scary place and in the end we had to do a bunk.
Guerin, her cameraman Tony, and her security bloke John are doing a great job in very difficult and dodgy conditions.
Seems her living is delivering ill-informed and anti British propaganda from dangerous sh1tholes.

Doubt she was forced into it!
 
Last edited:

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Serns her living is delivering ill-informed and anti British propaganda from dangerous sh1tholes.

Doubt she was forced into it!
She sounds Oirish to me which may explain things.
 
She sounds Oirish to me which may explain things.
Isn't she from some backward corner of Canada where English isn't a first language?
 
She's there because it's a story that needs to be covered - it's nothing to do with external influence from NGOs bigwigs... It has everything to do with following up on reports from the poor sods working for charities whilst being bombed by the Saudis.

I was there for the BBC 2 years ago - it was a scary place and in the end we had to do a bunk.
Guerin, her cameraman Tony, and her security bloke John are doing a great job in very difficult and dodgy conditions.
I appreciate why BBC reporters are there. My concern at the Guerin/Keane type of reporting is that it is directed at viewers' emotions. It creates an emotion-based reaction and doesn't do much exposition. That reporting style has helped to create, for example, a generation of young people who think that Palestine = 100% good and Israel is 100% bad. The style of news story crosses into human interest territory as opposed to reportage.
We saw the baleful effect of such reporting during the migrant crises. It amounts almost to blackmail - reporters creating an agenda which seems clearly aimed at producing a reaction from government.
It's the definition of power without responsibility.
 
I appreciate why BBC reporters are there. My concern at the Guerin/Keane type of reporting is that it is directed at viewers' emotions. It creates an emotion-based reaction and doesn't do much exposition. That reporting style has helped to create, for example, a generation of young people who think that Palestine = 100% good and Israel is 100% bad. The style of news story crosses into human interest territory as opposed to reportage.
We saw the baleful effect of such reporting during the migrant crises. It amounts almost to blackmail - reporters creating an agenda which seems clearly aimed at producing a reaction from government.
It's the definition of power without responsibility.
Usually coupled with the mealy-mouthed, 'Can you give us a sense of . . . ?': to my unreconstructed view, this is shorthand for 'Please feel free to regale us with your personal (and undoubtedly, biased) view of these events'.
 
I appreciate why BBC reporters are there. My concern at the Guerin/Keane type of reporting is that it is directed at viewers' emotions. It creates an emotion-based reaction and doesn't do much exposition. That reporting style has helped to create, for example, a generation of young people who think that Palestine = 100% good and Israel is 100% bad. The style of news story crosses into human interest territory as opposed to reportage.
We saw the baleful effect of such reporting during the migrant crises. It amounts almost to blackmail - reporters creating an agenda which seems clearly aimed at producing a reaction from government.
It's the definition of power without responsibility.
Do you really want anodyne replica broadcasters? Guerin isn't my cup of tea but she's a bit different, same for Andrew Neil when he's good. There's obvious bias in the person, so what?

We're all able to look at different perspectives aye? In respect of Israel, they don't help themselves, a bit more trigger discipline at times and they could justify themselves easier, some I met had an arrogance bordering on that of any master race. The ME and that part in particular is effed up beyond belief, they're born and grow in conflict. You should know how that affects all sides.

Always remember "If it bleeds, it leads" works in all mediums. It's what the viewers want. They'll deny it of course.
 
Do you really want anodyne replica broadcasters? Guerin isn't my cup of tea but she's a bit different, same for Andrew Neil when he's good. There's obvious bias in the person, so what?

We're all able to look at different perspectives aye? In respect of Israel, they don't help themselves, a bit more trigger discipline at times and they could justify themselves easier, some I met had an arrogance bordering on that of any master race. The ME and that part in particular is effed up beyond belief, they're born and grow in conflict. You should know how that affects all sides.

Always remember "If it bleeds, it leads" works in all mediums. It's what the viewers want. They'll deny it of course.
Those are fair points. I can't really argue.
I suppose my concern is mainly that the emotion-driven reporting seems sometime to imply that we (the UK) should be solving problem A, etc.
I agree about some Israelis by the way. The lack of exposition is the issue there: how many of those who are pro - Palestinian have been exposed by the BBC to an account of why Israel controls Jerusalem? I know it would be difficult to explain that Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc tried to wipe Israel out but without that context, talking about Palestine's issues today is simplistic.
True about bad news being news btw. There was a hillside fire here a few days ago. It was put out before it reached the nearest houses. Bit of an anticlimax :)
 
Seems her living is delivering ill-informed and anti British propaganda from dangerous sh1tholes.

Doubt she was forced into it!
The BBC are one of the few credible broadcasters to have reported from there - how do you know she's ill informed? Since the start of the war in Yemen, the UK has approved arms export licences to Saudi Arabia worth $6.3bn. This was a fact stated in the House of commons.

The Saudis have been destroying hospitals, refugee camps, and vast areas of civilian occupied Yemen.
I have personally witnessed these atrocities. I don't have opinion on the moral issue of continuing to sell weapons to these Wahhabist loonies however there's no doubt they are ******* people up with the stuff.
 
I appreciate why BBC reporters are there. My concern at the Guerin/Keane type of reporting is that it is directed at viewers' emotions. It creates an emotion-based reaction and doesn't do much exposition. That reporting style has helped to create, for example, a generation of young people who think that Palestine = 100% good and Israel is 100% bad. The style of news story crosses into human interest territory as opposed to reportage.
We saw the baleful effect of such reporting during the migrant crises. It amounts almost to blackmail - reporters creating an agenda which seems clearly aimed at producing a reaction from government.
It's the definition of power without responsibility.
You're not wrong.
 
Those are fair points. I can't really argue.
I suppose my concern is mainly that the emotion-driven reporting seems sometime to imply that we (the UK) should be solving problem A, etc.
I agree about some Israelis by the way. The lack of exposition is the issue there: how many of those who are pro - Palestinian have been exposed by the BBC to an account of why Israel controls Jerusalem? I know it would be difficult to explain that Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc tried to wipe Israel out but without that context, talking about Palestine's issues today is simplistic.
True about bad news being news btw. There was a hillside fire here a few days ago. It was put out before it reached the nearest houses. Bit of an anticlimax :)
The problem for Palestinians is that nobody likes them, they're the Roma of the ME, just wait until Jordan kicks off again. Young uns sympathise because they see unarmed kids their own age being killed, the RSPs have the valid argument that you don't know who the feck is going to blow up next to you.

The leaders have let down their people badly on all sides, all eight of them.
 
There's obvious bias in the person, so what?
If that's true it contradicts their own guidelines.
Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.
BBC - Impartiality: Introduction - Editorial Guidelines
 
The BBC are one of the few credible broadcasters to have reported from there - how do you know she's ill informed? Since the start of the war in Yemen, the UK has approved arms export licences to Saudi Arabia worth $6.3bn. This was a fact stated in the House of commons.

The Saudis have been destroying hospitals, refugee camps, and vast areas of civilian occupied Yemen.
I have personally witnessed these atrocities. I don't have opinion on the moral issue of continuing to sell weapons to these Wahhabist loonies however there's no doubt they are ******* people up with the stuff.
Fair points all accepted . I believe she is ill informed because she looks at everything without context. Or apparent knowledge of the behaviour of Arabs towards one another throughout history. Or the Yemenis' flirtation with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Happy to accept that British behaviour in Arabia had been without glory but mention of all this would be more informative than another picture of a fly-covered skeletal child. Just like real life, it's a lot more complicated than that.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top