Forum menu
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.
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?