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

One item of war reporters' kit issue is the ubiquitous child's sandal for foreground shots of rubble.
They've progressed since then & these days use whole dead kids to get their message out - sometimes even the same one in several different places.
 
1546581736690.png

Mr Hardy is not happy with the BBC (understatement). The heading sounds sensationalist but there are definitely some biased media types doing their best (consciously or subconsciously) to skew the news and shepherd their licence paying flock, lest they be led astray (while being led astray themselves).

BBC bias risks public violence

He has a book out under his pen name, David Sedgwick. Here is a review of it:

A Christmas read: The Ministry of Truth, London W1A 1AA | The Conservative Woman

There are some interesting responses in the comments beneath each article.

1546583249901.png
 
As per Damien in 'Drop the Dead Donkey', 1980s sitcom, truer than we knew.
Toy, not shoe

I always keep hoping that this will resurrected for the 21st century. Great programme

 
Gove and Johnson......just saying like. Are there any other sort? "Independent" think tanks....

Revealed: how the UK’s powerful right-wing think tanks and Conservative MPs work together

If anyone hasn't seen this, it's worth viewing.

VIDEO: Newsnight ask who funds the Institute of Economic Affairs? | Blog | Who Funds You?

As I've previously posted, the left are convinced that there's a right wing agenda at work in the BBC and Remain supporters are convinced that there's a pro Brexit agenda whilst the right are convinced it's full of pinkos...go figure.

The BBC is a political animal, it has to be because of its dependence on public funding, it's never going to please all of the people all of the time and is an easy target. Doesn't help itself at times but that's down to them to sort.
I was thinking about your post. You make a good point about those on the Left feeling the BBC is biased against them, and those on the right thinking the corporation is too Left wing.
In accepting that, where does that leave the issue of the liberal/progressive agenda the BBC is pursuing? It could be argued that each person's response to subjects such as race, transgenderism, faith, etc is personal rather than political. I would argue that the BBC demonstrates a corporate view that transgenderism, and an arguably radical feminist agenda, are to be actively promoted. Hence the recent features such as 'How do transgender people choose their names?' and the one posted above about female body hair.
There are still some issues to be resolved in terms of providing women with equal opportunities but the more substantive issues (pay, being able to do the same jobs as men) are attracting less attention from the BBC than discussions about whether it is OK for women to not shave, or wear bras.
In terms of women's rights, I'd welcome the BBC carrying out a campaign about FGM. You can get middle class women to march against Trump (and receive media attention) but not to march to demand that anti-FGM laws be enforced. Fashionable issue beats a less fashionable/less akward one.
That's where the BBC is losing me. Less in the clearly political area and more in the socially progressive agenda it is pushing without challenge (and at licence-payer's expense).
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about your post. You make a good point about those on the Left feeling the BBC is biased against them, and those on the right thinking the corporation is too Left wing.
In accepting that, where does that leave the issue of the liberal/progressive agenda the BBC is pursuing? It could be argued that each person's response to subjects such as race, transgenderism, faith, etc is personal rather than political. I would argue that the BBC demonstrates a corporate view that transgenderism, and an arguably radical feminist agenda, are to be actively promoted. Hence the recent features such as 'How do transgender people choose their names?' and the one posted above about female body hair.
There are still some issues to be resolved in terms of providing women with equal opportunities but the more substantive issues (pay, being able to do the same jobs as men) are attracting less attention from the BBC than discussions about whether it is OK for women to not shave, or wear bras.
In terms of women's rights, I'd welcome the BBC carrying out a campaign about FGM. You can get middle class women to march against Trump (and receive media attention) but not to march to demand that anti-FGM laws be enforced. Fashionable issue beats a less fashionable/less akward one.
That's where the BBC is losing me. Less in the clearly political area and more in the socially progressive agenda it is pushing without challenge (and at licence-payer's expense).
Good point, well made!
 
And now we have a book review of "The Noble Liar. How the BBC distorts the news to promote a Liberal Agenda", which really is nothing new, we all know the BBC has an agenda at times it's employees even let it slip that it's true

Robin Aitken, who worked as a journalist with the BBC for a number of years, argues that the BBC’s impartiality and neutrality – actually written into its own charter – have been fatally compromised because of its obsession with promoting a liberal agenda within society over a number of years.
Why that should be the case can perhaps be understood in view of a throwaway comment made by TV personality Jeremy Paxman at a literary festival last year,when he said that the vast majority of BBC staff that he knew were either Labour or Lib Dem supporters.
Robin Aitken makes the case that from coverage of Donald Trump’s Presidency, to Immigration, Multiculturalism, Identity Politics (including radical feminism), Islam, and more recently its fear-mongering stance on Brexit- this means that the BBC is totally wedded to a metro-centric, liberal perspective on life.
This agenda has furthermore been underpinned and elevated to what could almost be termed a new secular faith position in modern society by the process of political correctness which seeks to denigrate and shame any alternative viewpoints aired. In the author’s words, this amounts to:

"You will tolerate what I say must be tolerated and condemn what I say must be condemned, and if you do not, you will be branded racist or misogynist or Islamophobe and shamed off the public stage”..
There are obviously arguments for the worldviews that the BBC have been foisting on society, and support for these worldviews as well, but the problem is that these views have been deemed the only worthy arguments in town by our overwhelmingly powerful public broadcaster. Opposing viewpoints have not really had a proper look-in, on what is supposed to be a balanced and impartial public broadcaster
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Thirdly, even the BBC rep admitted that if you took all the PR generated stories out of the schedules. I.e. just real news was left in, there'd be a mahooousive hole in the daily output.
I think that's called "blessèd relief."
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
It's interesting to see who responds to the more inflammatory 'outrage' stories in, for instance, The Times, and what opinions are aired. Generally, there are a few 'progressives' defending the latest crime-against-nature, but the voices decrying, deploring and despairing seem to be in a 100:1 ratio (for today, see 'channel migrants', 'Somali women have to pay to get back to UK', and 'praise for Singapore society'). And yet the juggernaut rolls on; it's something they're taught at journalism primary school, involving readership numbers, I think.
I know this is feeding bumnuts to second generation ancestors, but the public perception will mainly be governed by whatever it's fed.

If they see one hundred wailers screaming for land rights for transexual jellyfish and only one voice of reason, then they'll be swayed into believing that "the public" think it's the correct course of action.

Anyone non-supportive or who doesn't think Lenin was a running dog of the imperialist, capitalist baby-killing thieves of the Proletariat will be portrayed as a monster by the same outlets.

It's got Emperor's new clothes written all over it.

Wonder who's running a firm that tries to trade on an outdated reputation of balanced reporting ?
 
It's interesting to see who responds to the more inflammatory 'outrage' stories in, for instance, The Times, and what opinions are aired. Generally, there are a few 'progressives' defending the latest crime-against-nature, but the voices decrying, deploring and despairing seem to be in a 100:1 ratio (for today, see 'channel migrants', 'Somali women have to pay to get back to UK', and 'praise for Singapore society'). And yet the juggernaut rolls on; it's something they're taught at journalism primary school, involving readership numbers, I think.



Often if comments don't suit the agenda of the paper, the comment column is closed like this
"This conversation is closed to new comments"
Or moderated deleting offending views.
 
Often if comments don't suit the agenda of the paper, the comment column is closed like this
"This conversation is closed to new comments"
Or moderated deleting offending views.
Even Guido does that, it's unsurprising how often my comments don't appear when they disagree with the house opinion
 
Jeez You'd need a machete to hack through the undergrowth to get at her fanny, it would probably be denser than this one looking at her monobrow.

In the name of God, man! Some of us peruse Arrse on public transport. I was lucky not to get tossed, err thrown off, the bus.
 

Chalkythedog

Old-Salt
The Media Show on BBC R4 yesterday afternoon dedicated most of it's program to a discussion of the inter-relationships between journalism and PR.

Firstly all the three PR reps present admitted that it's their role, and only role, to get the best possible stories out there for their clients, which are not just household brands for food and detergents, but mostly these days for pressure groups, charities and NGOs. Sometimes it proactive - research (a short poll around the office actually) shows that 9/10 people support x, y or z. Sometimes it's reactive - a minister has actually dared to say something that our client is against, we'd better rebut it as effectively as we can.

Secondly it was admitted that in many cases the PR guff was actually written by journos freelancing for the PR companies adding that the journos would know how to best pitch a story to a news editor

Thirdly, even the BBC rep admitted that if you took all the PR generated stories out of the schedules. I.e. just real news was left in, there'd be a mahooousive hole in the daily output.

Thus are we surprised when the news, and given that it's now all integrated - radio/TV/Web - is heavily influenced without challenge when the left leaning charities, pressure groups and NGOs (are there any other sort) have their stories pumped to the top of the news every day with the added bonus of an extended 3 minute feature at the end of the news on the story of the editor's choice. Just so it's the last thing in our minds as the news ends.

To be fair, I caught Charlie Stayt on BBC breakfast the other day challenging someone who'd racked up expecting to present their pet peeve without issue. He lasted about 15 seconds before Naga Munchetty interupted with a "...and now over to Steph to lecture us about some Northern guy who's been employing refugees and giving them a better life"
Digging up real news requires effort, intelligence, persistence, honesty, and trust. Qualities which are in short supply in the journalistic profession, and even scarcer in the PR business. The Sunday Times Insight team were very good, the current BBC apparatchiks come nowhere near.
Much easier to suckle at the hand-out teat. Don't ask too many questions, don't deviate from the (unwritten) agenda, and above all keep peddling the right-on Socialist crap.
 
In the name of God, man! Some of us peruse Arrse on public transport. I was lucky not to get tossed, err thrown off, the bus.

Indeed, in my message box this am, was a stern warning from a mod, in my defence I had clean forgotten this was in the "current affairs" thread and after seeing the horrific/scary monobrowed creature, I couldn't help thinking about what her bush was like, apparently it has now been deleted.
 
Indeed, in my message box this am, was a stern warning from a mod, in my defence I had clean forgotten this was in the "current affairs" thread and after seeing the horrific/scary monobrowed creature, I couldn't help thinking about what her bush was like, apparently it has now been deleted.
The photo was fine. I closed my screen in record time however as I was sat next to an old dear on the bus. Much scope for embarrassment...
 

O Zangado

War Hero
Moving swiftly on, why is it that presenters on BBC Radio 4's 'The Today Programme' this morning were referring to people trying to get from South to North America across the Mexican/Murcan border as 'illegal immigrants' whilst referring to those trying to get from all points south to the UK across the English Channel as 'migrants'?

OZ
 

Latest Threads

Top