BBC Radio 4 bias.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by lsquared, May 26, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I have finally cracked! (We knew that years ago, I hear you mutter/growl/shriek).

    I believe that the BBC, as exampled by Radio 4, has broken the terms of its charter by:

    - a constant and discernible political bias;

    - a blind adherence to specific party political 'lines' - 'global warming';

    - never missing an opportunity to snipe at the Royal Family;

    - constant 'playing' of the 'class war card'.

    - unfailing grovelling to everything emanating from Europe;

    - an unending stream of failed ministers given airtime - why?

    They failed. (Today alone: Balls; Darling; Byrne; Balls (again); Harman; assorted Millibands, et cetera).

    Thirteen years of destruction and these social misfits, these self-interested third-raters cannot grasp reality - they lost; they are NOT wanted; goodbye; read the biographies; blame Mrs. Thatcher; disappear; slink away, but most of all, pluck up the courage to say:

  2. You know, your biases might be affecting your perception.

    - a constant and discernible political bias; OK, agreed on that one.

    - a blind adherence to specific party political 'lines' - 'global warming'; That was a policy decision when it became obvious that the deniers had nothing.

    - never missing an opportunity to snipe at the Royal Family; Maybe.

    - constant 'playing' of the 'class war card'.I haven't noticed apart from hating Eton college.

    - unfailing grovelling to everything emanating from Europe; Not noticed that.

    - an unending stream of failed ministers given airtime - why? They have time to be interviewed. The actual new ministers are probably all a tad busy right now.

    It hasn't actually been 13 years of destrucction though. They did OK in their first term when they left the economy alone. It was in their 2nd term that Brown starting throwing cash away on anything except defence. IIRC.
  3. The BBC have a rolling bank 'facility' of €100m from the ECB. That's why there is little (any) criticism.
    Follow the money, that usually gets to the root of the 'problem'.
  4. Looks like someone believes the rubbish the Daily Mail prints.
  5. I belive Isquared has the paper delivered in the morning, liquidises it then intravenousley pumped into his veins! 8O
  6. Then has a study of the Western Mail (as a Welshman should) :D
  7. Sounds like it. Funnily enough I think they've got a bit more balanced in recent years, or is that me just getting more mature?
  8. What they want everyone deported to the east?
  9. <two penn'orth>I don't think it's as straightforward as a institutionalised bias, although I have heard many people remark independently of one another that broadcast media folk tend to be a bit pink at the edges. Conversely, I don't believe that Isquared's assertion is so ludicrous that it can be so easily dismissed out of hand as two posters before me seem to imply.

    I can't name specific instances over the long term (because writing them down would be sad) but I have certainly built up the impression that BBC journalists are too often (wilfully?) outclassed by their interviewees. One example that I can recall (since it was yesterday) was Diane Abbott being challenged about sending her son to a private school. She launched, Prescott-stylee, into a rant about how the interviewer was an enemy of her own gender for doubting that her re-election was anything other than a thunderous vindication of this act.

    I was left staring at the radio, as I have done on countless occasions in the past few years, conscious of two things: the first that the journo did nothing—and in some cases this amounted to criminal negligence—to counter some of the twisted, baseless and evasive arguments or at least point out that the question had not been answered; the second that the interviewee was invariably a Labour MP or minister.

    Two notable exceptions are obviously Paxman and Dimbleby the Elder, but they're mainly TV.

    I don't read the Mail and I don't blindly adhere to any one political ideology; its just my impression of poor journalism which might well be the result of sending boys to do men's work rather than an editorial conspiracy.</two penn'orth>
  10. No broadcast media is - or ever will be - un-biased.

    Funding the BBC is like paying Persil for the right to own a washing machine.

    It's all about the internet. innit?
  11. On the whole, I like the licence fee. Science and nature programmes such as David Atenborough makes would not be produced otherwise. the same thing goes for high-quality costume dramas and the proms.

    The BBC also used to produce the most informative and unbiased news programmes. Sadly I no longer think that is true. They have become just as bad as the commercial stations IMO.
  12. The problem with the Beeb- and I say this having briefly worked in Current Affairs production there- is that, as Fox News claim to be, they have to remain Fair and Balanced.

    The need to hang on to the licence fee means that they can't criticise the current government too effectively (see Campbell's assault on them post-Gilligan); yet they also can't take sides on seemingly clear issues of right and wrong.

    I was working there during the Gaza War/Turkey Shoot, and the sheer number of cut'n'pasted emails from retired Stanmore dentists accusing us, en masse, of anti-semitism resulted in the Beeb as a whole pulling its punches; yet pro-Palestinian groups saw this as craven submission to the hasbara brigade. What can you do? It was a similar, and contemporaneous, thing with Sri Lankans/Tamils, the only time I've ever been besieged in my office by protestors.

    If you think that the Today programme, or Newsnight, never held New Labour to account, then you're an incurable mong. That said, C4 News is still the best thing going (and sadly, I don't work there, before you point).

    The advantage of all the above is that the Beeb is the only broadcaster trusted worldwide, especially by people held under unfriendly regimes where UK Plc would rather we had some clout. If you can't see that, you're an O2 thief... er...
  13. A more measured discussion developing I see. I think some bias is a symptom of the speed and pressure under which journalists have to produce stories about subjects with which they are not familiar. I think we've all read, watched or listened to stories in the media about which we have some knowledge and are able to pick holes in what is being said. On many occasions I've also listened to reports, on Radio 4 no less, that have referenced earlier stories as fact, but which in the intervening period had been discredited. It just smacks either of lazy journalism, or someone in a rush to get a story out and recalling an earlier story with all the errors and bias that comes with that.

    Another factor is a lack of information. A good friend of mine used to be a journalist. He said many of his colleagues, under pressure from an editor to get a story out, just used to make up things if they were unable to get information from official sources. Having worked briefly in as a journalist myself, the red flags for me are phrases such as "Sources close to..." and "Sources inside...". That is journalistic shorthand for making it up.
  14. Ooops! Did I irritate a BBC card-holding 'floozie'? I wish I had heard the item when the Today Labour Party supporters held 'New' Labour to account - I would have had it framed.

    Regarding being 'trusted worldwide', I was unaware that Radio 4 was available worldwide.

    First item I heard today involved Naughtie gleefully announcing and 'stirring' the news that a certain Tory back-bencher had been elected Chairman of the 1922 and declaring that it was a poke in the eye for 'David Cameron' - clearly he couldn't bring himself to say 'prime minister'. He went on to announce that some unknown was resigning as head (?) of NHS London. The individual concerned was almost certainly a Labour appointment. Stand-by for a general clear-out of Labour appointees fearing that they cannot 'work with the new Coalition minister.

    A rare morning when I am unable to listen to the entire programme - most accurately listen to the never ending 'questions' posed by the verbose twerp Naughtie, who makes Kinnock's speech sound clipped.

    As I finish a Labour 'luvvie' explaining how good Labour was when in government - why is air-time being wasted like this?
  15. You have the same choice as everyone else.If you don't like it,turn it off.