The BBC: are claims of political bias justified? Part 2.

I see, you are saying you are not confused because you don't use a sock. That makes much more sense - although sense and Graculus don't often sit together.
Doesn't equal an admission of using socks. Logic and yourself....
 
I see, you are saying you are not confused because you don't use a sock. That makes much more sense - although sense and Graculus don't often sit together.
I often wonder why 'Graculus' who seems to dislike the UK, is bothered to remain, that is just another example of the lack sense he makes in this thread or any of the others where he consistently wibbles, about how bad it is going to be across the UK. Still I suppose that is why he supports the BBC.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
So last night, watching BBC news channel's 9pm bulletin, an 'expert' is summoned to say how badly Boris is dealing with increased Covid cases in the North.

Teaching Mr. GRB'S grandson to check sources, I googled this lady (oooerrr missis).

She is a psychologist. Member of the Communist party and has contributed to Labour when Corbyn was leader. Oddly none of this appeared worthy of mention by the BBC. I wonder why they asked her particular scientific opinion?
My current customers son is an ICU consultant in chester.

there are no more hospitalised cases up north just reported infections which are totally different.

the hospitals are empty all over the world and yet they are imposing masks 8 weeks after the peak.

99% of the deaths were of people likely to die in 2020 anyway

but the BBC mantra is that Boris..... Grrr must never be seen to be doing anything right.
 
I often wonder why 'Graculus' who seems to dislike the UK, is bothered to remain, that is just another example of the lack sense he makes in this thread or any of the others where he consistently wibbles, about how bad it is going to be across the UK. Still I suppose that is why he supports the BBC.
Do stop making stuff up hen. I dislike fleg waving nationalists of all persuasions, not the UK. You'll have links to me wibbling about how bad it is going to be of course? Or are you just making another submission for your creative writing course?
 
No we haven't. Dont tell lies
Never had you down as one one the screen spittled masses...fair enough, the Conservatives have been in power for 10 years. Happy?
 
I often wonder why 'Graculus' who seems to dislike the UK, is bothered to remain, that is just another example of the lack sense he makes in this thread or any of the others where he consistently wibbles, about how bad it is going to be across the UK. Still I suppose that is why he supports the BBC.
I doubt he has a TV licence, but is dead keen on everyone else paying for the BBC, which he surreptitiously watches on occasion and laughs at the lower orders. I expect he is one of those types, who lives somewhere in Europe for 3-6 months of the year and is furious with the country, for upsetting his cosy existence and like a wake homing torpedo trawls the site to find a target to irritate.
 

Truxx

LE
Holding the loyal opposition to account is part of reporting as well.

Some, such as yourself, appear to be quite happy to be misled and lied to as long as it's the party you support at the time.
Come on champ "holding to account" is a meaningless soundbite. It is relevant if applied to a party in opposition, in that they have the ability, if they can muster sufficient support to take the day in parliament.

When applied to the media, who with the exception of the BBC are businesses, it is dangerous drivel. Dangerous drivel I might add introduced and continually trotted out by the media themselves as well as a few useful idiots. Their other fave is, of course, "in the national interst" or its stablemate "in the public interest". Which is code for something that will catch the media consumer eye.

When that all goes wrong is when that consumer is mugged by the nature of the reportage produced prioritised and presented in a particular way. The information becomes secondary to the message.

The Royal Charter is supposed to iron all this out, and, were it to be followed with much more rigour then we would see a significant gap in style between the BBC and the rest. But we do not. The BBC are so sh1t scared it seems of doing exactly what we pay them to do (which does not include "holding the government to account" much as some would wish it were so) which is inform, educate and entertain.
 

Sadurina

Old-Salt
It seems that the UAE have built and brought online themselves to nuclear power stations, with the assistance of the South Koreans. Fair do's to them.
Quoting Dr Paul Dorfman, head of the international Nuclear Consulting Group, wrote last year that "the tense geopolitical environment in the Gulf makes nuclear a more controversial issue in this region than elsewhere, as new nuclear power provides the capability to develop and make nuclear weapons". [Bleat bleat, nucular bad, Uranium mining harms people. (No mention of coal mining, that well known walk in the park.)]

The BBC blandly described him as a "London-based scientist"

The NCG say " Greenpeace Environmental Trust supports Nuclear Consulting Group "

He has also appeared on Radio 4, in Jan 2019 as " Honorary Senior Research Associate at UCL Energy Institute " where "Dr Dorfman presented the case against building more nuclear power stations in the UK" Dr Paul Dorfman interviewed about plans for new Sizewell nuclear plant on BBC R4's Today Programme

Not exactly unbiased, then?
 
I doubt he has a TV licence, but is dead keen on everyone else paying for the BBC, which he surreptitiously watches on occasion and laughs at the lower orders. I expect he is one of those types, who lives somewhere in Europe for 3-6 months of the year and is furious with the country, for upsetting his cosy existence and like a wake homing torpedo trawls the site to find a target to irritate.
I've said a number of times that I don't watch live TV. Well done Clouseau. I'm not furious at anything and I'd get SalesForce jokes if I was dev on it. HTH sockie.
 
Come on champ "holding to account" is a meaningless soundbite. It is relevant if applied to a party in opposition, in that they have the ability, if they can muster sufficient support to take the day in parliament.

When applied to the media, who with the exception of the BBC are businesses, it is dangerous drivel. Dangerous drivel I might add introduced and continually trotted out by the media themselves as well as a few useful idiots. Their other fave is, of course, "in the national interst" or its stablemate "in the public interest". Which is code for something that will catch the media consumer eye.

When that all goes wrong is when that consumer is mugged by the nature of the reportage produced prioritised and presented in a particular way. The information becomes secondary to the message.

The Royal Charter is supposed to iron all this out, and, were it to be followed with much more rigour then we would see a significant gap in style between the BBC and the rest. But we do not. The BBC are so sh1t scared it seems of doing exactly what we pay them to do (which does not include "holding the government to account" much as some would wish it were so) which is inform, educate and entertain.
You're not bovvered then? You're happy for politicians various to do and say what they want without rigorous questioning?
 
I've said a number of times that I don't watch live TV. Well done Clouseau. I'm not furious at anything and I'd get SalesForce jokes if I was dev on it. HTH sockie.
Isn't that the point. How do you know the BBC is not biased, as you don't have a tv licence ? you seem to follow the school that because the BBC enemies happen to be your enemies on this site, as such the subject to you really is immaterial and that is kind of the thing you bleat loudly about in others.
 
Never had you down as one one the screen spittled masses...fair enough, the Conservatives have been in power for 10 years. Happy?
There, that wasn't too hard was it. If only you paid as much attention to detail in your initial post we wouldn't be here now would we.

Now just who are these screen spittled masses that it seems I must aspire to?
 
This thread, Version 2, has been going for nearly 30 pages so I suppose it is time to turn the question back in the O0, @bigeye

"The BBC: are claims that it is neutral justified?"
A few years ago when I was very much involved in BBC politics (during during two elections) I would have said that I genuinely believed that the the political wing of the BBC went to great lengths to ensure impartiality. BBC Millbank was an autonomous part of the Corporation and the Millbank senior editors attempted to ensure that their journalists provided balanced coverage. They were fully aware of the close scrutiny that would be applied, especially during elections, and that any obvious bias would be jumped on.

Nowadays, I honestly couldn't say.
 

NSP

LE
A few years ago when I was very much involved in BBC politics (during during two elections) I would have said that I genuinely believed that the the political wing of the BBC went to great lengths to ensure impartiality. BBC Millbank was an autonomous part of the Corporation and the Millbank senior editors attempted to ensure that their journalists provided balanced coverage. They were fully aware of the close scrutiny that would be applied, especially during elections, and that any obvious bias would be jumped on.
Yeah, but you were looking at it through the viewfinder, before the editors had got at it and "arranged" it for transmission to where the rest of us saw it; our TV screens.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top