[Closed] Does anyone trust BBC news any more?

I trust their news but they do show a bias as you say.  They let things slide and don't question the BS.

Haven't trusted them for years, too much of an agenda.

I always take what they say and write as some political bias, one way or the other.

R5L got a kicking for promoting Brexit the other day, quite rightly too.

Yes, next question ?

Well, there’s always Russia Today for balance...

I'm not sure they generally have an agenda... I think they're just not overly concerned with truth. I don't mean that they're lying (usually anyway) but that they'll let anyone else lie and not challenge it. And they often repeat untruths that other people have told them. They seem to see their job as carrying the message - that reporting means repeating or giving a platform unchallenged.

I read somewhere- and I don't know if it's true- that their editorial policy is that they should take a middle path in the UK media. So their political position would be influenced by the wider media, which is by and large right-leaning. It seems plausible enough but I don't know if it's the real explanation.

Though there's been a few exeptions even to that- they got caught out with selective camerawork at various political events to boost crowds frinstance- Owen Smith rallies and Jim Murphy soapbox nonsense being 2 examples I remember. That's active biased editorialising, and in a sneaky concealed way too.

<div class="bbp-reply-author">CountZero
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

Well, there’s always Russia Today for balance…

Jokes aside though... On scottish referendum night, there was a post-result Yes party in George Square, which ended up getting crashed and broken up by a gang of unionist/Rangers thugs, which led to some pretty ugly scenes. Most places were covering it as "fighting breaks out between groups" as if it were a 2-sided thing, and that was how it went out on the earlier BBC news broadcasts.

RT just had someone stick a camera out a hotel window and livestream it, so you could see what was happening live and unedited. And that actually led to the wider reporting changing- whether because they were picking up the live feed rather than just repeating what they'd heard, or whether they realised that their version of the story had been debunked, I couldn't say. Little from column a, lots from column b I think.

Just one example but it was pretty interesting to watch it unfold.

</div>

Not for a long time, though it was one of the last sources of news left in my general progression of starting to doubt all news organisations. Not in a JHJ way - no conspiracy. Just that most newsrooms have also spent decades straight being hollowed out by market forces, sinking any time there was to fact check, papers firing their longstanding investigative reporting teams, etc.

I highly recommend reading Flat Earth News if you want to understand a bit more about the industry and why it functions the way it does.

havent done for a long time, too tory for me.

I’m not sure they generally have an agenda… I think they’re just not overly concerned with truth. I don’t mean that they’re lying (usually anyway) but that they’ll let anyone else lie and not challenge it

I'd say it's as much a case of them reporting things without the full context to promote their own bias and repeating it ad-infinitum.

Interestingly, the criticism levelled against the BBC Radio 4 editorial programmes for a long time was of left-wing bias and now we have criticism of right-wing bias!?! I guess it depends on which side of centre the listener stands..,

@ Drj Are you referring to this article? -  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45550003

I think that rape allegations should be taken very seriously and if they are found to be false then the accuser should face the full force of the law. I don't think the article is pro Tory or untrustworthy.

Where do you think is a better source of trustworthy news?

I think all the main political parties and politicians are given a far too an easy time by the BBC (and others) and they all need to be challenged for their lies, lack of action and biased views.

Where do you go to get your news?

The BBC isn't left-or right-wing. It's establishment. It will report whatever supports and maintains that establishment.

Even RT reports both sides of most stories.

I think Blair castrated the BBC news first, following the corrupt report on their involvement into the death of Dr Kelley, and then defunded them at the bequest of Murdoch (because Rupert doesn't like an alternative narrative to his gospel). The tories just continued the trend.

There is also a big problem with the Westminster bubble" far too many in politics (MP's and those in the background), senior civil servants and the media reporting on them come from the same background. Oxbridge educated, probably did a PPE and frequently privately educated. How is anyone meant to question the narrative when they are all just identikit autonomons.

The BBC isn’t left-or right-wing. It’s establishment. It will report whatever supports and maintains that establishment.

Yes, a lot of news orgs have a bias to the status quo, which then gets perceived as bias to left or right depending on who's listening.

The BBC in particular are guilty of false balance, which leads to assorted quacks, fascists, antivaxxers, sock puppets, "climate sceptics", and PR agencies getting a lot of airtime and column inches they just wouldn't if any reporters really still had the time to dig into things.

"Sources are claiming" etc. are also great ways for more partisan news organisations to not get sued - once you look for it you'll notice a lot of things getting couched like this.

Things have been changing for decades. This parting op-ed from Al Jazeera America is worth reading, mainly about a job advert from Vox that's ostensibly editorial, but actually just about sneaking content from advertisers into editorial work. The final line got removed, but it was:

 "And so we who are about to die here at Al Jazeera America salute you, our enterprising Vox masters, with one last upward thrust of our expiring middle finger."

<div class="bbp-reply-author">psling
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

Interestingly, the criticism levelled against the BBC Radio 4 editorial programmes for a long time was of left-wing bias and now we have criticism of right-wing bias!?! I guess it depends on which side of centre the listener stands..,

In the UK, the right's greatest successes recently have all been to do with convincing people they're the centre and that the centre is terrifyingly leftwing. I think this is just another part of this overall success- when the BBC was relatively boring and middly, it was constantly slated for being leftwing, and moved rightwards. To the extent of Laura Kuennsberg describing that horendous Tory conference that had "citizen of nowhere" in it as "parking the bus on the middle ground", when much of it was to the right of thatcher.

</div>

The fact the Canary has a subpage devoted to BBC bias implies some agree with you

However at the other end of spectrum they're complaining about bias the other way

That implies that 5% (10%?) at either end of the spectrum are annoyed. The remainder are probably fine with it

I see people accusing the bbc of left wing bias too (as they always have done) , so maybe the bbc does actually have the balance correct? if both sides are accusing it of bias , maybe its not biased at all?

dunno - must be difficult to be totally unbiased.maybe it depends on the individual doing the talking/writing at the time.

examples of people thinking it is left wing:-

https://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-election-debate-left-wing-bias-jeremy-corbyn-labour-audience-theresa-may-conservatives-a7766311.html

examples of people thinking it is right wing:-

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-bias-jeremy-corbyn-labour-centre-right-robbie-gibb-theresa-may-laura-keunssberg-andrew-marr-a7844826.html

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/bbc-take-david-dimblebys-comments-heart/

The BBC isn’t left-or right-wing. It’s establishment. It will report whatever supports and maintains that establishment.

That would explain why Corbyn and the SNP get a rough ride. On the other hand, there's not been much fuss about Tory MEPs getting into bed with racists, Nick Robinson is a Tory, and Laura Kuenssberg broke impartiality rules

The Tory’s under Dave let it be known in no uncertain terms that if the BBC didn’t tow the line, they’d gleefully slash its funding, then break it up and sell the bits off to Sky or whoever. And they would do too. In a heartbeat.

So, faced with that, what do you expect them to do?

I just go elsewhere for news. Channel 4 news is the only one worth watching, and that’s been the case for years

BBC are best-ish of a very bad lot AFAIC and the fact people from both ends of the spectrum think it's biased against them is pretty good evidence they don't have a strong bias. What current affairs show is better than "Today" on the radio at that time of the morning for my drive to work?

I think the FT is the best reporting out of any media I can think of. (I only listen to the podcast, mind ewe.)

Anyone think of better news sources?

I'd strongly recommend "Flat Earth News" to understand why news is so poor:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B005TKD6DO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Is it true or did you hear it on the BBC? a frequent meme up here north of what the UK calls The North.

Also echoed by old miners and folk from that big island to our west.

The BBC is Establishment and is as reliable a guide as Pravda was..

That first article is literally "BBC is biased, because Jeremy Corbyn kicked Amber Rudd's useless arse". It's not a sign of bias if you run a debate and someone wins.

Nick Robinson thinks the BBC is biased against Corbyn. Former BBC political editor, founder of a chapter of Young Conservatives, former president of the Oxford University Conservative Society, current BBC senior journalist...

Bias is a funny old thing. Climate change is a good example - 97% of independent science supports the view it's a thing but for 'balance' institutions like the BBC need to give the naysayers a voice too even when presenting their opinion as equally valid distorts reality.

In terms of politics I feel both ends of the spectrum could find bias to complain about which is a reasonable litmus test of getting it about right.

My complaint is that on their less 'serious' outlets the BBC attempts to simplify the news and and make it idiot proof. In doing so the nuance is lost entirely and it is the subjective greys that makes world issues what they are. Either treat people like competent adults and leave the news complex and difficult or just don't bother and feed them with reality and celebrity shite.

"Either treat people like competent adults and leave the news complex and difficult or just don’t bother and feed them with reality and celebrity shite."

People whinged at the BBC because they did not make the news 'easy to understand', so they make it easy to understand and then we complain because the miss out the nuance.  Perhaps this explains why the number of people watch C4's excellent news is so small.

@ Drj Are you referring to this article? –  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45550003

I'm referring to that story, yes, but not the article. I'm concerned about the fact that it occupied nearly a whole hour of tonight's PM, with only a token Labour response from well known Corbyn hater Jess Phillips. Yes, it's an important issue, but it's not by any means unique to the Labour Party - so why the concentration on Labour problems when the Tories arguably have a much bigger problem in that area?  In this case it's not about saying something that is not true, it's about which of the many possible true things you choose to report, and to repeat over and over again.

Tonight we have another example - Nick Robinson and soft focus Theresa May puffery.

Science reporting by the Breakfast lot makes me cringe.  Very anti trade union (though I maybe biased here).

And the local news just jump on the band wagon without actually getting all the facts or even both sides of the story.  So everything is taken with a LARGE pinch of salt.

I think they go to some great lengths to be unbiased, after all Right Wingers think they lie, and Left Wingers think they lie, so they must be doing something right.

The great problem with them is their mindless need to be ‘balanced’ I think they have a lot to answer for Brexit. Their version of ‘balanced’ meant they pretty much gave UKIP a block booking for Newsnight and the News for talking heads for 5 years. It gave them credibility. Even News Corp owned Sky News wouldn’t give them airtime.

Sadly I don’t think they’ll last in their current form for much longer, they’re under fire from both sides.

<p>Well I see people bemoaning the leftie liberal BBC all the time. Maybe people just see what they want to see.</p>

 the fact people from both ends of the spectrum think it’s biased against them is pretty good evidence they don’t have a strong bias

Not necessarily. It can just mean they are half way to crazy town. Take climate change. The loonies are given way too much airtime and still whine about it. Whilst others are a tad annoyed they are given any time.

Overall it is pro establishment although varying parts have different bias eg comedy generally has a left wing bias whilst the political reporting is right wing currently.

Judging by this thread, maybe the BBCs best subterfuge has been to convince folk that everything can be viewed as a Left/Right spectrum.

Well I see people bemoaning the leftie liberal BBC all the time.

That's because you read the Daily Mail.

I agree with binners. There was a significant change of tactics once call me Dave and his chums started dismantling all public services. The BBC were told to get back in their box or ‘adverts’. Seem to remember plenty of ‘BBC is a waste of money’ stories around the time as the Tories lay the ground work to get the public onside in case they needed to call the beebs bluff.

They never had to.

Judging by this thread, maybe the BBCs best subterfuge has been to convince folk that everything can be viewed as a Left/Right spectrum.

It might be lazy linguistics but most aspects covered by the umbrella of 'politics' have a broadly traditional left wing and right wing viewpoint. It is obviously possible to be politically schizophrenic and hold views on single issues that would be considered both left and right wing but I can see why the generalisms exist.

the main problem for me is that the BBC's favourite subject is political gossip/tension/in-fighting.  Not actual issues, not poverty in GB or the Windrush scandal etc.  They want leadership challenges its very tabloid and compares to tabloids actively seeking that football managers get sacked.

Westminster bubble also x100

I think it was Daniel Hannan (MEP, Brexiter but probably not a Faragey sort of Brexiter) said that the BBC was attempting to be impartial, but had cultural bias built in because the opinions of the people who work there tend to go one way.

I've also heard enough 'biased BBC' accusations from both sides to think they can't be too far off.

Perhaps view it as 'cock up rather than conspiracy'?

<div class="bbp-reply-author">Ming the Merciless
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

Science reporting by the Breakfast lot makes me cringe.  Very anti trade union (though I maybe biased here).

And the local news just jump on the band wagon without actually getting all the facts or even both sides of the story.  So everything is taken with a LARGE pinch of salt.

Absolutely- and far from just a BBC issue, the "it has been reported" thing means that as soon as one half-reputable news source says anything, it can be picked up and run with and the next thing you know it's The Truth. Not out of malice but just through laziness or inability to do news properly.

</div>
An example I remember- the new year's eve sexual assaults in Cologne. A single source mistranslated a German story on this which said that the attackers broke away from a crowd of 3000, and said instead that there were 3000 attackers. Then that mistranslation was requoted and requoted and by the time the original source corrected it, it was too late.

(I figured this one out myself, not through any sort of genius, but just because it seemed so completely ridiculous thta there was a crowd of 3000 people committing sexual assaults. I mean, the logistics would be a nightmare)

I think the acid test is if there is anyone on here who considers themselves left-wing, believes that the bbc is too left wing. (& the same for the opposite end of the spectrum). It’s funny how the bias is always against the side you yourself believe in. The bbc isn’t perfect but it is much more impartial than some of the posters on here.

? Why would any one here need to be Impartial.

Shock horror!  People on left think BBC has right wing bias, people on right think it has left wing bias. 80% of population think it’s fine....nothing to see here 😂

Shock horror!  People on left think BBC has right wing bias, people on right think it has left wing bias. 80% of population think it’s fine….nothing to see here

Had this conversation earlier. IMO the bbc is mostly central with a bit of a left perspective. Mostly because the country is pretty centralist and arty types are generally more left than right.

You know what you are going to get and compared to some sources they are pretty accurate. Obviously opinion is opinion and what you don’t agree with will strike you as biased

<div class="bbp-reply-author">"timbog160
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">

Shock horror!  People on left think BBC has right wing bias, people on right think it has left wing bias"

</div>
I posted up a perfect example of someone on the right, and who has every reason to deny bias, admitting that it does. But maybe you're more qualified than him?

"the BBC is full of lefties"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-43754737

Now consider the decades of affinity bias , the BBC being located in London and paying low wages for entrant staff (and loads of internships) which means that only the richest home counties graduates with parents who can afford to subsidise them

Just because there is a small amount of challenge from both sides doesn't mean there is no bias, it's a distraction argument

You know the BBC are well trusted when they have to put a link on their website saying "you can trust us" 😂

I’m referring to that story, yes, but not the article. I’m concerned about the fact that it occupied nearly a whole hour of tonight’s PM

20 mins tops

20 mins tops

I take it you weren't listening.  There was a long segment at the beginning that lasted getting on for half an hour, and they returned to the subject later with an interview with Jess Phillips. Then it was reported as the main item on the following 6 o'clock news.

I stopped reading newspapers 27 years ago and also stopped listening to any news when Selina Scott left BBC Breakfast

Once you get over the propaganda you've been fed since birth its easier, I have been much happier for it.

Its surprising sometimes how much out of touch I am

The simple rule with media is to look at who owns it, and expect the bias to be in the owner's interests.

In the case of a state broadcaster, it's kind of obvious - it's usually whatever is the Establishment in that country.

RT or BBC? Take your pick.

That's not to say you won't get objective hard-hitting programmes from them, but you can be sure those won't be programmes that are counter to the interests of the owner.

The quality media used to separate editorial from reporting, and editorial bias is fine so long as the reporting is the truth undistorted by an editorial prism, but even The Times can't be trusted now.

The rule of thumb (as someone who used to work for BBC News) is that if both sides are complaining about your bulletins (occasionally the same bulletin), then you had the balance about right. Not pissing off someone wasn't really an option.

Here we go again - Farage on R4Today.

And simultaneously, Vince Cable is putting the anti-Brexit view on Breakfast telly.

I stopped listening to the BBC's take on the News years ago when they started selling it as entertainment.

And simultaneously, Vince Cable is putting the anti-Brexit view on Breakfast telly.

Sort of my point - the notion that these two gents are in any way equivalent.

Either treat people like competent adults and leave the news complex and difficult or just don’t bother and feed them with reality and celebrity shite.

Well it worked with the Brexit vote so why not?

Mostly because the country is pretty centralist and arty types are generally more left than right.

The centre of what?

Sort of my point – the notion that these two gents are in any way equivalent.

Just because no-one, in your opinion, can be found to diametrically oppose Farage, shouldn't disqualify him from appearing on BBC news outlets. He's not a member of the EDF, and you could argue that politically, he's equally (or more relevant) than Cable in terms of the views he represents. A large swathe of the population agrees with him, and thinks VC is an idiot. I'm sure that they will be receiving complaints of bias from various puce-faced Brexiteers for having Cable on this morning so prominently.

Perfect balance is hard to achieve, but the absence of perfect balance is not necessarily an indicator of bias.

martinhutch says it better then I can. The BBC try to represent the views of the country, which you may not like but isn't biased.

A large swathe of the population agrees with him

Not enough to actually vote him into parliament though. Really - do we have to give space to a liar and a racist? It's no better than giving air time to Nigel Lawson on climate change.

The BBC try to represent the views of the country

Represent? Or form?

I think the way news is presented should be discussed as well, the 24 hour news agenda has distorted the reporting of stories. The life span of a story can be changed and distorted by those with interests. The Labour anti semitic story has been filed away to use for just this type of event, Some pro Trump stories were ready to go at a moments notice (showed up by a predated memo)

Not enough to actually vote him into parliament though. Really – do we have to give space to a liar and a racist? It’s no better than giving air time to Nigel Lawson on climate change.

He's an MEP and former leader of a political party that got a sizeable chunk of the vote share in the 2010 election. He is, in the public eye, an important opinion-former when it comes to the issue of Europe. Of course he's a polarising figure, but news producers have to put aside their opinions of him (and I'm sure many of them share your view) and acknowledge that if you were to exclude him, that would be far more indicative of bias than giving him airtime.

Do try to keep up Nick. They don’t have to do the Labour Party antisemitism thing any more. The party is about to spend the next twelve months prevaricating on how rapey its MP’s should ideally be 😉

Getting back to the BBC... it used to lead the news agenda. It was common knowledge in Westminster that the Today programme set the political news agenda.

Nowadays the BBC is so cowed it lets the tabloids set the agenda and slavishly follows them. There’s loads of overblown hysterical Daily Mail crapnthe BBC now leads with that ten years ago it would just have ignored

It was common knowledge in Westminster that the Today programme set the political news agenda.

That was always slightly illusory and just a mode of self-congratulation. It is only in the last few years that it became blindingly obvious that the true news agenda has always been set by the likes of Dacre and Murdoch, and more recently Twitter and Facebook. It was just that Westminster did not want to address that agenda, and now is forced to do so.

. I have more in mind the “editorial” type programmes like R4 Today and more lately PM (since Eddie Mair left), plus Marr and co.  They are more and more blatant in their pro-Tory agenda – endless focus on the so-called anti-semitism row, now switching to claims of sexual harassment – all ignoring the overall context.

An important thing to consider is whether the BBC is covering these stories in isolation or not. If the antisemitism row wasn't in the rest of the press daily - for instance - if the rest of the news media had only made passing reference to the issue but the BBC was like a dog with a bone and wouldn't let it drop that would be an example of bias. However the reality is these issues are being stirred up repeatedly by our (mostly right wing) press. In the light of that if the BBC doesn't give the issue a comparable degree of coverage to other media outlets then by ignoring the story they'd be much more open to being accused of bias.

If 'everybody' is talking about a topic then the BBC has to as well. But more often than not the prevalence of a topic is being driven by much more openly partisan media outlets.

In answer to the OP's question, no.

The worst case, which reinforced my decision to take any story with a pinch of salt (or better yet to cross refer it) was a few years ago when the BBC reported that "South African police" had "shot striking miners".

Appalled by the headline and having an interest in S.A. I searched the news channels for further details. Both RT and Al Jazeera obliged with graphic, on the ground content which explained the police had, the previous day, been attacked with machetes.

Furthermore - and this was totally clear from video footage - the police did indeed fire toward the miners, to stop them advancing further. The firing was controlled and was aimed at the ground so from what was seen, most injuries were at or below knee level, sustained as the front row walked into the line of fire. All firing stopped, on command from the CO, as soon as miners stopped. This was not some random, gung-ho discharge of arms.

Now I am not saying these reports showed all was fine, as it was a nasty incident all round, but the flatly reported BBC line gave a very false impression of the facts. It was extremely poor and very misleading - at best, obtuse at worst a deliberate attempt to spin the story.

If there's an agenda it's media agenda. Same with Sky News, radio and all the news rags, especially the local news online sites now (mostly owned by Trinity Mirror group).

i.e. whatever boosts viewing figures / reader numbers / likes etc.

Anything that is negative or anti whatever they are talking about or whoever they are interviewing is best, or anything that over dramatizes something happening.

And always, always, anti-cycling, whenever bikes are mentioned for whatever reason. They all do it.

Sky News also have a particular focus on whatever subject they're doing a special feature on at the time. Headlines or interviews will concentrate on that so they can promote their feature.

I had to laugh at the recent reporting of the novichok RT interviews.

'This footage comes from STATE SPONSRED (wink wink) RT"

Also Farage should be on the radio/TV, the problem is they keep bowling him the softest underarm bowls.  Same with TM not the same with JC.

eg Michael Crick and TM on apartheid was a massive shocker, JC gets that digging up past stuff every interview.

Also with foreign policy the been just tow govt line completely.

On climate change (my own pet topic) the BBC R4 today program has been awful for as long as I can remember. Lawson and his pet denialists regularly given a free rein. OTOH the science programming is pretty good.

It has been Brexit Broadcasting Corporation for the last couple of years but with both major parties clearly endorsing that policy it would be hard to do much else. They are however starting to say things like "if brexit" now which would have been unthinkable last year.

The great problem with them is their mindless need to be ‘balanced’ I think they have a lot to answer for Brexit. Their version of ‘balanced’ meant they pretty much gave UKIP a block booking for Newsnight and the News for talking heads for 5 years. It gave them credibility. Even News Corp owned Sky News wouldn’t give them airtime.

I do agree with this ^^ - UKIP as a political force were routed at the last election yet Farage is still invited to speak or quoted.

I also get v annoyed by their (BBC) inability to tackle the oft quoted claim that "that Brexit is what the UK voted for" - it is nowhere near as Black and White as that and they let it slide every single time.

That said they are still the best of a bad bunch, I have to deal with journalists and PR stories quite regularly and none are to be wholly trusted. The BBC are 80% "for real" whereas many others are only 20%.

Not giving someone a platform to speak in the media simply because they did not show well at the latest election (or polls for that matter) would create a very narrow-minded political view. The Lib Dems, UKIPs and Greens should not be pushed out of the media.

Furthermore, one of the worst things about contemporary UK politics is the lack of (viable) choice, in that it is fast becoming an American style, binary (i.e. two party) system. There can become a very negative, cynical dynamic, whereby one party merely exists to criticise the other and pick up the baton every few elections. It is no surprise that many voters in the UK do not feel there is a party that speaks for them.

p.s. Does anyone really want leader debates for elections on TV?

Another Sky News "agenda" going on here. They're pushing the parties to agree to it and claiming it's what the people want. It's just what they want so they can fill their airspace and bump viewing figures. Yeah, people watch it, but people watch any old crap. That doesn't mean it's what they want.

How one leader comes across verses another is fine for American presidential style elections, but in a general election it's supposed to be about the politics of the party and your local candidates.

The Lib Dems, UKIPs and Greens should not be pushed out of the media.

Of those, the Greens basically are pushed out - I agree we should hear a bit more from them - and of the other two UKIP are hugely over-represented at least in some arenas (question time etc).

Of those, the Greens basically are pushed out

True, but we did have a fawning interview with a supporter of Tommy Robinson on R4Today, so not ALL minorities are excluded:-(

If ‘everybody’ is talking about a topic then the BBC has to as well. But more often than not the prevalence of a topic is being driven by much more openly partisan media outlets.

Yes and no - the BBC give far too much weight to some "organs" - "Now a roundup of the papers - in the Mail blah blah blah, in the Sun blah blah, finally on Breitbart blah blah".

The BBC isn’t left-or right-wing. It’s establishment. It will report whatever supports and maintains that establishment.

That's certainly my take on it. It leans toward the incumbent government.

The BBC were promoting a Center’ist party after a poll suggested (of 1500 people, hardly representative of the population as a whole, but never the less..) would vote for a Centerist party.

So, maybe they are listening.

and this is a good observation:

They are however starting to say things like “if brexit” now which would have been unthinkable last year.

Definitely an “if” now in their commentary.

As far as Farage is concerned I do believe he should be given some public commentary space. He does represent a lot of people, whilst you may disagree with his rhetoric or manner he is worthy of airtime.

And it’s good to see Vince on the telly, I think the BBC has had some sort of agenda about keeping him off.. but that’s about to change with bosses at large car plants complaining about reduction in production and facing huge losses, and the IMF pointing out the bleeding obvious about contraction in the economy and mass redundancy.

With these sort of things I generally find "can't be trusted" is just an alternative way of saying "doesn't agree with my own political views".

UKIP are hugely over-represented at least in some arenas (question time etc).

I think when the maths are done... they're not - certainly in relation to QT. They haven't appeared all that often when you compare to appearances by other parties. What makes them seem more often frequently represented is UKIP have very few competent people they can field to appear. So the same two or three faces from UKIP seem to appear a lot, but even then there are individuals from other parties who appear more frequently.

No. I make a point of not watching the news or listening to it on the radio because the dumbing down and lack of pressing the issue when the issue needs to be pressed boils my piss. I do read newpaper websites though; Guardian (supporter), Indie and Torygraph (sometimes, for balance).

" They are more and more blatant in their pro-Tory agenda "

My Tory in-laws think they're anti-Tory.

The right thinks they're left and vice versa. So they're probably relatively balanced as news outlets go.

I’m not sure they generally have an agenda… I think they’re just not overly concerned with truth.

I think they are overly concerned with being seen not to be left-wing. As you have to be pretty highly educated and bright to work for the BBC they are generally going to be left-wing, so they have to pay lip service to the swivel-eyed lunatics to counteract the accusations, which makes them look biased to the right. I trust them to report the facts and I trust myself with the judgement side of things.