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

I see your point. One could then describe 9/11 as a collision between aircraft and a building. Accurate but not really telling the full story.
Is there a full story to tell yet? Other than a car crashed into some cyclists then a barrier, I haven't seen any other details so far.

Why so worried about how it's reported? They've reported what happened, they've reported that the police are treating it as a terror attack, they've reported the arrest, they've reported the searches of various properties.

What do you think they've missed out given that seems to be all the police are saying so far?
 
Is there a full story to tell yet? Other than a car crashed into some cyclists then a barrier, I haven't seen any other details so far.

Why so worried about how it's reported? They've reported what happened, they've reported that the police are treating it as a terror attack, they've reported the arrest, they've reported the searches of various properties.

What do you think they've missed out given that seems to be all the police are saying so far?
I can agree with most of your comments without resiling from mine. The wording of the headline is my only concern. It seems to me to underplay what happened. The BBC does this a lot, as well as placing key words in quotation marks to make it clear that it is reporting something but not necessarily agreeing with it. For example:

1534274818826.png

Or assigning blame to objects rather than people:

1534274921094.png

To return to your story, here is a quote from the BBC report of the Finsbury Park Mosque attack:

A man has been arrested on suspicion of terror offences after he drove a van into a group of worshippers close to a mosque in north London.

Compared to today's:

A vehicle swerved into cyclists and pedestrians shortly after 07:30 BST before crashing into a barrier outside the Houses of Parliament.

In the first wording, a man is arrested after he drove into pedestrians. In the second, a vehicle swerved. It didn't swerve, it was aimed at cyclists and then driven deliberately into a lane the attacker believe lead to Parliament. One wording reports the actions of a person, the other those of a vehicle.

Committed to print as it were, well, it does sound a bit in tin foil territory but stand by it!
 
Last edited:
Hello, we're the Campaign To Abolish The BBC. We think the BBC should be abolished.

If you agree with us, YOU can help us.

Here's how:

1. Sign the latest anti-BBC petition. Petition: Revoke the BBC's Royal Charter.
2. Visit our website: Campaign To Abolish The BBC
3. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishthebbc@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions.
4. We're especially keen to hear from anybody who can promote our campaign and spread the word. Perhaps you have a network of contacts or influences that will help?

Even if you disagree with abolishing the BBC, you may still wish to sign the petition as it helps put pressure on for reform.

THANK YOU!
 
Hello, we're the Campaign To Abolish The BBC. We think the BBC should be abolished.

If you agree with us, YOU can help us.

Here's how:

1. Sign the latest anti-BBC petition. Petition: Revoke the BBC's Royal Charter.
2. Visit our website: Campaign To Abolish The BBC
3. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishthebbc@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions.
4. We're especially keen to hear from anybody who can promote our campaign and spread the word. Perhaps you have a network of contacts or influences that will help?

Even if you disagree with abolishing the BBC, you may still wish to sign the petition as it helps put pressure on for reform.

THANK YOU!
No
 

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
Hello, we're the Campaign To Abolish The BBC. We think the BBC should be abolished.

If you agree with us, YOU can help us.

Here's how:

1. Sign the latest anti-BBC petition. Petition: Revoke the BBC's Royal Charter.
2. Visit our website: Campaign To Abolish The BBC
3. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishthebbc@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions.
4. We're especially keen to hear from anybody who can promote our campaign and spread the word. Perhaps you have a network of contacts or influences that will help?

Even if you disagree with abolishing the BBC, you may still wish to sign the petition as it helps put pressure on for reform.

THANK YOU!
Ok let's say you got your way...

That's a lot of decent hardworking people who'd be out of a job. Everyone from the big bosses who we don't care about, to the admin staff, cleaners, security, building maintenance, HR, technical services, PR staff, make up depts., costume, vehicle maintenance, radio DJs, etc etc... all because you can't turn over and watch ITV or Channel 4 instead?

Don't like something we abolish it?

Sounds awfully "dictatorish" to me, sorry.
 
Ok let's say you got your way...

That's a lot of decent hardworking people who'd be out of a job. Everyone from the big bosses who we don't care about, to the admin staff, cleaners, security, building maintenance, HR, technical services, PR staff, make up depts., costume, vehicle maintenance, radio DJs, etc etc... all because you can't turn over and watch ITV or Channel 4 instead?

Don't like something we abolish it?

Sounds awfully "dictatorish" to me, sorry.
He probably watches Love Island, whatever that is.
 
He probably watches Love Island, whatever that is.
You cultural zero, it's the programme with an ugly, lisping Dwarf guy that Roger Moore once shut in a suitcase, going "Boss, de plane,de plane!" at the beginning of each episode.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Hello, we're the Campaign To Abolish The BBC. We think the BBC should be abolished.

If you agree with us, YOU can help us.

Here's how:

1. Sign the latest anti-BBC petition. Petition: Revoke the BBC's Royal Charter.
2. Visit our website: Campaign To Abolish The BBC
3. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishthebbc@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions.
4. We're especially keen to hear from anybody who can promote our campaign and spread the word. Perhaps you have a network of contacts or influences that will help?

Even if you disagree with abolishing the BBC, you may still wish to sign the petition as it helps put pressure on for reform.

THANK YOU!
You obviously do not get the message. Nobody really wants the BBC abolished. It would just be rather nice to see them with an unbiased attitude.
 
Hello, we're the Campaign To Abolish Politics. We think Politics should be abolished.

If you agree with us, YOU can help us.

Here's how:

1. Sign the latest anti-Politics petition. Petition: Imprison anyone who engages in Politics.
2. Visit our website: Campaign To Abolish Politics
3. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishpolitics@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions.
4. We're especially keen to hear from anybody who can promote our campaign and spread the word. Perhaps you have a network of peers or MP or influences that will help?

Even if you disagree with abolishing Politics, you may still wish to sign the petition as it helps put pressure on the BBC to stop banging on about it repeatedly.

THANK YOU!
Fixed, no charge, that's all you need.

PS. If you lose Strictly or Blue Planet, you'll have the current mrs_mush to contend with !!!
 
You obviously do not get the message. Nobody really wants the BBC abolished. It would just be rather nice to see them with an unbiased attitude.

To be fair, there is essentially zero chance of effecting a fundamental cultural change in any very large organisation such as the BBC, and particularly one in which the existing culture stems from a proselyting ideology. For several decades, the BBC has recruited and promoted "people like us" - people with a shared belief system. A monolithic and mono-ethical organisation like that will be impervious to external drivers to change.

If its a more neutral or even "c"onservative BBC thats required (and many people seem to think we ought to have the popular BBC of 50 years ago), then perhaps the best option would be to reduce and rebrand the current BBC with a different name and spin it off as, say, another version of Channel 4. You could then perhaps start over again with a new national broadcaster, perhaps built up around a core news function.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
No political party will ever have the guts to discipline the BBC.
 
Ok let's say you got your way...

That's a lot of decent hardworking people who'd be out of a job. Everyone from the big bosses who we don't care about, to the admin staff, cleaners, security, building maintenance, HR, technical services, PR staff, make up depts., costume, vehicle maintenance, radio DJs, etc etc... all because you can't turn over and watch ITV or Channel 4 instead?

Don't like something we abolish it?

Sounds awfully "dictatorish" to me, sorry.
Not if you privatise it - might even make a profit on the sale...
 
Not if you privatise it - might even make a profit on the sale...
We on about the BBC or the NHS?

Two great British insitutions, one that needs reform, and .... oh, hang on.
 
Ok let's say you got your way...

That's a lot of decent hardworking people who'd be out of a job. Everyone from the big bosses who we don't care about, to the admin staff, cleaners, security, building maintenance, HR, technical services, PR staff, make up depts., costume, vehicle maintenance, radio DJs, etc etc... all because you can't turn over and watch ITV or Channel 4 instead?
Why do you assume they won't be able to find other jobs? And has it occurred to you that the market dominance of the BBC in certain areas of broadcasting, media and education is stifling economic activity and resulting in fewer job opportunities?

Don't like something we abolish it?
Where did we say that something should be abolished simply because we don't like it? We have a point-of-view, which we haven't explained exhaustively on here, but which is explained on our website.

Sounds awfully "dictatorish" to me, sorry.
How is abolishing a state-owned broadcaster and insisting on choice dictatorial? Surely what is dictatorial is state involvement in media, information and broadcasting? Is this the 1940s? Requiring everybody to fund such an organisation, through a combination of general taxation (mostly for the World Service) and a mandatory licence fee (most of the rest), is bossy, dictatorial and authoritarian.

You may think that abolition is going too far, but at least sign the petition to send a message to the Establishment that we want reform. That said, we are of the view that abolition is necessary. As another poster has explained on here, the BBC cannot be reformed. It has to go.

Thank you.
 
You obviously do not get the message. Nobody really wants the BBC abolished. It would just be rather nice to see them with an unbiased attitude.
And how do you propose to persuade the BBC, or really any media organisation, to be unbiased?

Can you point to an example in the real world (rather than your imagination) of a media organisation that is unbiased? Just one?

Can you provide us with an example of a media organisation that was once biased and was persuaded to be unbiased?

We explain the problem with your position here: Campaign To Abolish The BBC: #BBCswitchoff: The Myth of Media Impartiality
 

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
Why do you assume they won't be able to find other jobs? And has it occurred to you that the market dominance of the BBC in certain areas of broadcasting, media and education is stifling economic activity and resulting in fewer job opportunities?



Where did we say that something should be abolished simply because we don't like it? We have a point-of-view, which we haven't explained exhaustively on here, but which is explained on our website.



How is abolishing a state-owned broadcaster and insisting on choice dictatorial? Surely what is dictatorial is state involvement in media, information and broadcasting? Is this the 1940s? Requiring everybody to fund such an organisation, through a combination of general taxation (mostly for the World Service) and a mandatory licence fee (most of the rest), is bossy, dictatorial and authoritarian.

You may think that abolition is going too far, but at least sign the petition to send a message to the Establishment that we want reform. That said, we are of the view that abolition is necessary. As another poster has explained on here, the BBC cannot be reformed. It has to go.

Thank you.
Maybe you should have registered your username as "Reform the BBC" instead then?

You don't generally abolish something you like, do you?

And since you have the choice not to watch TV, you're free not to pay their license fee either.

I use the BBC a lot. Sports, weather, local news, business news, markets, etc.

I like to think I'm intelligent enough to work out when their broadcasting services are being a little biased / PC and turn to other sources for a more balanced view.

I don't suddenly have the urge to see a long standing British Corporation get kyboshed because a few disgruntled pensioners are a bit angry that it's no longer acceptable to have elephants smoking in television studios, women in bikinis on game shows and Sid James cackling over Babs Windsor's breasts.

So the bosses command huge salaries. Twats like Chris Evans get paid a fortune to do one season of Top Gear. I still get paid the same and for £12 a month, I don't really mind the blatantly biased news reports and bland "comedy". Not enough to read your website and sign a petition anyway.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should have registered your username and "Reform the BBC" instead then?

You don't generally abolish something you like, do you?
We detect here the beginnings of a dishonest debating tactic. Let's just recap:

1. You claimed that we want to abolish the BBC because we don't like it, as if our position is whimsical.

2. We replied by explaining that we have reasons for wanting to abolish the BBC and kindly referred you to our website. It is not, or not just, that we dislike the BBC.

3. You now reply stating that since we are not abolishing the BBC because we dislike it, that must mean that we like the BBC and therefore we can't have a good reason for abolishing it.

4. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that liking or dislking something is not necessarily related to wishing to either reform, change or abolish something.

Before you reply on this point (if you do burden us with another response), could we ask that you read carefully what we have just said and try to think logically.

And since you have the choice not to watch TV, you're free not to pay their license fee either.
Here you dishonesty omit our points that:

(i). the BBC is part-funded out of general taxation, in the form of government grant aid money; and,
(ii). under the relevant statute and supporting regulation, a licence fee is required to be paid by all persons who are in possession of television-receiving equipment.

Both these points nullify your argument.

I use the BBC a lot. Sports, weather, local news, business news, markets, etc.

I like to think I'm intelligent enough to work out when their broadcasting services are being a little biased / PC and turn to other sources for a more balanced view.
Our complaint in regard to bias is not predicated on the belief that the BBC should be unbiased, rather it is predicated on the belief that since media organisations will be biased, there should be a competitive marketplace and people should be allowed to fully exercise choice. The existence of the BBC precludes this. Payment for the BBC is compulsory for us all as taxpayers and mandatory for all those who possess television-receiving equipment. With respect, that is not choice. That is authoritarianism.

I don't suddenly have the urge to see a long standing British Corporation get kyboshed because a few disgruntled pensioners are a bit angry that it's no longer acceptable to have elephants smoking in television studios, women in bikinis on game shows and Sid James cackling over Babs Windsor's breasts.
It's not clear what you are talking about here.

So the bosses command huge salaries. Twats like Chris Evans get paid a fortune to do one season of Top Gear. I still get paid the same and for £12 a month,
We don't object to the salaries paid. But they can be paid by the private sector based on the choices exercised by viewers and listeners.

I don't really mind the blatantly biased news reports and bland "comedy". Not enough to read your website and sign a petition anyway.
That's entirely your choice - so far, nearly 5,000 people disagree with you, and that petition has only been running for a few days. We think there will be more support.
 
We detect here the beginnings of a dishonest debating tactic. Let's just recap:

1. You claimed that we want to abolish the BBC because we don't like it, as if our position is whimsical.

2. We replied by explaining that we have reasons for wanting to abolish the BBC and kindly referred you to our website. It is not, or not just, that we dislike the BBC.

3. You now reply stating that since we are not abolishing the BBC because we dislike it, that must mean that we like the BBC and therefore we can't have a good reason for abolishing it.

4. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that liking or dislking something is not necessarily related to wishing to either reform, change or abolish something.

Before you reply on this point (if you do burden us with another response), could we ask that you read carefully what we have just said and try to think logically.



Here you dishonesty omit our points that:

(i). the BBC is part-funded out of general taxation, in the form of government grant aid money; and,
(ii). under the relevant statute and supporting regulation, a licence fee is required to be paid by all persons who are in possession of television-receiving equipment.

Both these points nullify your argument.



Our complaint in regard to bias is not predicated on the belief that the BBC should be unbiased, rather it is predicated on the belief that since media organisations will be biased, there should be a competitive marketplace and people should be allowed to fully exercise choice. The existence of the BBC precludes this. Payment for the BBC is compulsory for us all as taxpayers and mandatory for all those who possess television-receiving equipment. With respect, that is not choice. That is authoritarianism.



It's not clear what you are talking about here.



We don't object to the salaries paid. But they can be paid by the private sector based on the choices exercised by viewers and listeners.



That's entirely your choice - so far, nearly 5,000 people disagree with you, and that petition has only been running for a few days. We think there will be more support.
Excellent stuff! You've cracked this internet forum thing, haven't you: establish a profile so as to promote a rather esoteric single-issue POV and, within 4 posts pompously announce to a Moderator that you believe him to be dishonest.

Go you!

. . . oh, and 5000 signatures gathered from a population of 60-odd million just doesn't stand close scrutiny.
 
Excellent stuff! You've cracked this internet forum thing, haven't you: establish a profile so as to promote a rather esoteric single-issue POV and, within 4 posts pompously announce to a Moderator that you believe him to be dishonest.

Go you!

. . . oh, and 5000 signatures gathered from a population of 60-odd million just doesn't stand close scrutiny.
None of this is an argument.

And the other person's argument are crap.

Anybody else?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top