MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
As you have to be pretty highly educated and bright to work for the BBC they are generally going to be left-wing
Do a quick google for Sarah Sands (R4Today editor), Nick Robinson, Sarah Montague, and "Laura Kuensberg bias allegations". Just for a start.
They let things slide and don’t question the BS.
This is the real issue, though to find out why that is, you have to dig a bit deeper:
I agree that people see bias against their own views all of the time. I'm guilty of that too. but let me express a few frustrations re: BBC brexit coverage.
No-one ever asks the "Taxpayers Alliance" who pays their bills.
No-one ever asks the ERG "So what is your plan then"
No-one ever challenges the "no deal will be fine" fanatics, with why they disagree with 99% of economists.
No-one ever asks how the "easiest deal in history" turned into "there will be adequate food".
No-one ever asks how an advisory referendum became the "will of the people".
No-one ever asks "Why, if we were worried about immigration, did the UK not implement the EU law saying that EU citizens had to support themselves or leave the UK after 3 months?"
(Which incidentally was the main reason the EU sent Cameron home with nothing extra. Because he had everything he wanted already.)
Overall, I agree with those who recommend Channel 4 news.
The BBC jumped the shark pretty cleanly when they decided that 52% = 100%.
People in Scotland complain about the portrayal of the independence movement, but you can't deny that, even today, if Nicola whispers the word it gets on the news.
If only the campaign for a peoples vote on brexit got the same coverage.
Ah Google that most reliable of news sources!!! 😂😂😂
The issue at the moment is people believe what they want to believe
If the media don't adhere to that belief, then it's biased. People are not open to being persuaded nowadays. They are always right, and the possibility they're not is not entertained.
It means the polarisation at either extreme will get worse, and the people in the middle will not have a voice. Those that read the Canary will castigate anyone who even contemplates glancing at the Daily Mail, and those that read the Telegraph will never understand those who support the SNP.
And the problem is there is no demand for that voice to be filled, as the people in the middle (as I mentioned above) really couldn't give a toss, and are too busy 'living'.
It's basically all bollox.
The issue at the moment is people believe what they want to believe
If the media don’t adhere to that belief, then it’s biased. People are not open to being persuaded nowadays. They are always right, and the possibility they’re not is not entertained.
No, the problem is that the media is failing to ask questions of any narratives spouted, it can actually be quite hard for people to question what they don't know and it is the medias job to raise those questions for them. Currently with an alt-right agenda being implemented in the US and the UK, that means the reporting is biased to the right. Maybe if a more left wing agenda was being instigated then the bias would reverse.
No, the problem is that the media is failing to ask questions of any narratives spouted
i rest my case. Maybe they're not asking the questions that fit with your narrative, but questions get asked.
Question Time/Any Questions does quite a good job questioning people. And they're not establishment questions, but public questions. But then when they have some people on it, the BBC get asked why they have them on the programme. Even when they're opened to ridicule.
The BBC has to be impartial (it's in their constitution); if they have someone on who is pro-Climate Change, they have to have someone who is Anti. Even if all but flat earthers know it's rubbish.
Ditto Brexit - have one on saying we're all going to die, they have to have one saying it's a land of milk and honey.
Coupled with the fact the youth (and others) don't watch live TV, and people get their news from SnapChat, twitter, Facebook etc. Generally by following people who they want to follow, so they don't get an opposing view. The BBC still tries to give it, but because it now seems unusual, people think there is a bias (in both directions)
The BBC has to be impartial (it’s in their constitution); if they have someone on who is pro-Climate Change, they have to have someone who is Anti
That isnt what being impartial means. Impartial is reporting the facts without bias. It doesnt mean you have to invite someone who is arguing for a load of bollocks just because you have someone else reporting the facts.
Which is why, for example, you will not see members of the flat earth society invited.
you have to invite someone who is arguing for a load of bollocks
But they still have to show Songs of Praise.
I have not trusted the BBC for a long time. A very clear and obvious establishment / right wing bias. You only have to look at the scottish referendum coverage to see it. twice as many negative questions to pro independence politicians as to pro union. Twice as much airtime for unionists as independence supporters. SNP not invited to the leaders debates but LDs were despite the SNP having 3 times as many seats in Westminster. The single UKIP MEP in scotland given the same billing as Sturgeon in the scottish debate- A lot of analysis was done and the bias was obvious.
The BBC takes its political impartiality as the midpoint between the Mail and the guardian / the average of the press. As the press is overwhelmingly right wing then naturally the BBC is as well. If all the tory press run a story even made up nonsense - then the BBC will run the same story. This is why all the focus on Corbyns past - run by the Tory press so picked up on the BBC. How much coverage of supposed antisemitism in Labour compared to how much coverage of the endemic racism in the tory party?
Used to listen to 5 Live a lot, but had to stop when Peter Allen used to call people 'Mate' when it was someone who he assumed was 'working class'
Impartial is reporting the facts without bias. It doesnt mean you have to invite someone who is arguing for a load of bollocks just because you have someone else reporting the facts.
This. Imagine any other bit of scientific consensus which has to be 'balanced' in this way. Every piece on cancer therapies with some loon who believes modern medicine is rubbish, and drinking your own urine is the solution?
The BBC doesn't get it right every time. Regardless of the status of the Today programme, often it comes down to inexperienced researchers and producers desperately phoning around folk at midnight looking for someone to come on the programme to talk about a story which they know will dominate the news agenda the next day. At that point it's more likely some rentagob from some dodgy pressure group will be the only thing available.
The difference at the BBC is that normally they are at least trying to report without bias, which puts ahead of most media outfits in the UK, who barely give a shit.
press is overwhelmingly right wing
this may be the natural position of the country... there are papers left of centre. Nobody buys them.
Again, it may not fit in with the narrative, but when people are given the choice, you can see what they choose. If they didn't agree with the Sun, the Mirror is an alternative.
The indy has gone bust (to all intents and purposes), the guardian is in free fall. The morning star is under 10k a day.
On the other side, the Telegraph is struggling badly, the times is down, and the mail and sun are mocked.
On the climate change point the BBC has shifted its editorial policy recently to be clear don't need a denier to "balance" the debate.
Took way to long though. There is a general issur with science or any report with stats is that the reporters and presenters don't understand even the basics. This not restricted to the BBC
<div class="bbp-reply-author">chiefgrooveguru
<div class="bbp-author-role"></div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
The right thinks they’re left and vice versa. So they’re probably relatively balanced as news outlets go.
Doesn't really work though, does it? Bias is an absolute but people's perception of it is subjective. If you genuinely believe that Theresa May is a centrist (ie, you are mental), then you'll perceive perfectly centred unbiased reporting as being left wing. And the opposite of course- but as I mentioned earlier, the Tory party and their supporters are much more invested in pretending to be centrists (so that they can extract votes from people they intend to shaft), while Labour (currently at least) are generally more happy to be seen as they actually are, ie wooly lefty moderates, and only take offence when they're tarred as hard left by, well, by biased BBC reporters among others. Because, well, Labour can afford to be seen for what they are, the Tories rely on not.
</div>
Now that post, that's biased. But it's probably true. Again, Laura Kuennsberg and Theresa May's bus.
Took way to long though. There is a general issur with science or any report with stats is that the reporters and presenters don’t understand even the basics. This not restricted to the BBC
Yeah - using big name megabucks egoistic political type presenters who only understand party politics - these people are clueless about even basic science issues so are unable to spot even the most outrageous howlers that are bowled by the fossil fuel lobby. A John Humphreys interview with any specialist science type who knows and understands his topic is also painful thing to listen too.
Re False balance - in science issues - when have they ever had a fundamentaist religious creationist type in to balance an interview by a medic on Antimicrobial resistance - it doesn't happen.
I think deference to the "Establishment" is a useful way of thinking about it - rather than a party political allegiance as such, Here in Wales for example the BBC is seen by many as being unable or unwilling to challenge Wales Government (Labour). Here the "establishment" is both Labour & unionist. Many Wwelsh journalists and broadcasters will happily retire with gongs presented by HM, but ordered up for them by nominally socialist politicians. To use a cycling expression - "Lets not piss in the soup."