[Closed] More shameful left-wing bias from the BBC

It's Stephen Doughty you should be annoyed at for this crass piece of attention-whoring, not the BBC. What news outlet would have turned this kind of stunt down?

Well Kuensberg is obviously a deplorable idiot, but the major point is that a Labour MP should act in a way to maximise the damage to his party leader. It just shows the complete lack of morals or principles on the right of the party, and illustrates what a job Corbyn has ahead of him to rid the party of these sh1ts.

So a political stunt designed to hurt the Labour party as much as possible is considered to represent left wing bias?

The BBC people aren't content to report the news, they go about making it too, and then very often report that too in a self-congratulatory sort of way.

See also "shameful royalist bias from the BBC", "shameful xenophobic bias from the BBC", shameful pandering to the rich and powerful by the BBC"... .

[quote=gonefishin spake unto the masses, saying]So a political stunt designed to hurt the Labour party as much as possible is considered to represent left wing bias?

I sort of assumed that was meant ironically ... 🙂

Does anyone still think the BBC aren't biased? They've been very pro-New Labour for donkeys years so it's no surprise there is a bias against a left wing swing in the Labour party.

On the other hand Corbyn does deserve all he gets - the hypocrisy in wanting to have everyone in the party follow his personal agenda given his rebel past makes him an easy target.

What news outlet would have turned this kind of stunt down?

One with integrity?

I sort of assumed that was meant ironically ...

Thought that was kind of obvious! It was a reference to the supposed left-wing bias of the BBC, which if it ever existed is long gone.

Does anyone still think the BBC aren't biased? They've been very pro-New Labour for donkeys years so it's no surprise there is a bias against a left wing swing in the Labour party.

You think Laura Kuenssberg is following a New Labour agenda? I highly doubt that. Nick Robinson who she took over from as political editor was a former chairman of the Young Conservatives. She's way to the right of him it would seem.

Edukator +1 but it's a lot, lot worse than it used to be.

What news outlet would have turned this kind of stunt down?

One with integrity?

So name that one then.

They are pandering to their paymasters like all media outlets do. The paymasters being the Tory government, not the license fee payers, obviously.

The BBC think objectivity and balance is giving two sides to a story, even when there are more than two perspectives, and/or when one side is clearly lunacy.

Does anyone still think the BBC aren't biased?

Me, for one

Or at least ,as I think you are trying to say they are, I don't think the BBC is biased towards the left, if anything it is too deferential to the current establishment
http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/08/hard-evidence-how-biased-bbc

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/14/bbc-political-bias-news-nick-robinson

Most of the claims of BBC bias come from those, shall we say right of centre, tabloids and broadsheets whose owners have a vested interest in cutting back the BBC output.

It can be more cogently argued that it is BBC''s inherent conservatism ( small c) that should be the thing that should change

This is not as simple as left versus right. It is rather different. The BBC’s political coverage operates on a default presumption of scepticism. Governments propose policy; the BBC subjects those proposals to intense scrutiny. It is reflexively opposed to change. Almost any change. The status quo – being known and therefore endurable – is preferable to the unknown risks of an alternative vision. In this respect it is actually a profoundly conservative institution
Which is also why every government thinks the corporation is instinctively hostile. Because it is. The BBC is a reactive institution (Jones is right about that). It often dominates the news cycle but it rarely sets the news agenda on the back of its own journalism. It feeds off two things: the morning papers and whatever the government announces on any given day.

And it is (almost) always hostile to the government’s agenda. Why are you proposing this? Why do you think, even assuming your idea might work, it’s a good idea? What about the cost? You’re making it up as you go along, aren’t you?
.

alex Massie, The Spectator

On the other hand Corbyn does deserve all he gets - the hypocrisy in wanting to have everyone in the party follow his personal agenda given his rebel past makes him an easy target.

But he doesn't.

He wants - reasonably, it seems to me - for the shadow cabinet to not side with the Tories in attacking him in the way that Doughty did here, and that McFadden did over Paris, and that Eagle did after General Houghton's comments.

I find it all rather amusing being of an age to remember when the beeb was DEFINITELY a nest of commies.

jimw +1 - good post.

So name that one then.

Well there isn't one is there. The BBC possibly used to be one.

I find it all rather amusing being of an age to remember when the beeb was DEFINITELY a nest of commies.

When was that then?? I am an old git as well and commmunists at the BBC it is not something I can recall.

Or am I missing the irony?

Given that they don't introduce our Chancellor of the Exchequer as "and here once-a-bloody-gain is the smarmy mother ****er to end all mother ****ers, the world's greatest COTHO bar none, George Gideon Osborne" I would say they have a definite right wing bias

and that McFadden did over Paris

I'll defend Laura Kuenssberg. The guy was going to resign. He's supposedly an intelligent person and a politician to boot. He should be quite capable of making up his own mind how and where he does that. He could have said no.

and that McFadden did over Paris

Even if Corbyn is completely wrong and McFadden is correct?

I've had some fairly nobbish bosses, but have only publicly said so (and even then not on social media) after the fact.

JC, like it or not (significant proportions of the parliamentary Labour Party clearly don't) was elected leader by supporters of the party (despite being 'unelectable'), and has achieved a higher proportion of votes for Labour in the only by-election held since he became leader.

Further to this, the accusations of him wanting to control the actions of all Labour MPs based on him removing those who have publicly attacked him from the cabinet, and this being hypocrisy based on his back-bench voting history is self evidently bollocks. He does however wish to have a cabinet that, publicly at least, support him (and by extension the grass roots of the party) more than they support, say, the leader of the Conservatives. Which is pretty reasonable.

edit - and in response to the OP, that blog post doesn't really show what it claims to show. Just that the BBC went for a sensationalist story (when there are far more important things they could have reported on, but that's another thread I expect!) given the opportunity. It would've been well in the public domain regardless of the BBC's interview and prominence they gave to this story, unfortunately.

I'll be honest I'm a bit confused by the OP title. Is it sarcastic?

I've had some fairly nobbish bosses, but have only publicly said so (and even then not on social media) after the fact.

You're assuming (because that's what McFadden says) that the reason he was sacked was for that one comment. I'd be very surprised if that were true.
It could well be that he was leaking stories and opinion to the press to undermine Corbyn.
Some of the things that Laura Kuenssberg as been reporting as "from a senior Labour source" after the PLP meetings in particular were utterly ridiculous. Hopefully after the resignations, some of those have gone.

I'll defend Laura Kuenssberg. The guy was going to resign. He's supposedly an intelligent person and a politician to boot. He should be quite capable of making up his own mind how and where he does that. He could have said no.

I'm not taking the responsibility away from him being a traitorous little weasel. I'm talking about Laura Kuessenberg's naked right-wing bias being displayed and whether it's appropriate for a national broadcaster (clue: it's not).

Did anyone watch the interview with Corbyn about Trident? It was disgraceful.

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/naked-bbc-bias-on-comical-display-in-jeremy-corbyn-interview

JC isn't left wing. He's very very left of left wing. So the BBC going after him is consistent with their left wing bias. And he's comedy gold so it would be rude not to. 🙂

[quote=wrecker spake unto the masses, saying]I've had some fairly nobbish bosses, but have only publicly said so (and even then not on social media) after the fact.
To suggest that McFadden called Corbyn "nobbish" is (as you say) bollocks.
McFadden gave an opinion, and nothing more. It happened to be spot on, and obviously was well received by right thinking people which embarrassed Jezza.

McFadden gave his opinion during PMQ, in the form of an invitation to Cameron to join him in labelling Corbyn as an ISIS-sympathiser. The only surprise is why it took so long to sack him.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/the-deceptive-debate-over-what-causes-terrorism-against-the-west/

It was a valid opinion with more than a bit of truth, and if it offended Corbyn, then frankly he deserves to be offended.

JC isn't left wing. He's very very left of left wing.

He's not, he just seems that way because Britain has moved to the right so much.

Disappointed in you wrecker - you really think Corbyn is an ISIS sympathiser?

molgrips +1

I didn't say that grum. I chose to take McFaddens comment as it stood, rather than as a snipe at Jezza. I did say that [i]if[/i] it offended Jezza, then he probably deserves to be offended.

He's not, he just seems that way because Britain has moved to the right so much.

Another BBC bashing thread? What was wrong with the other one (aside from most of the comments)?

I didn't say that grum. I chose to take McFaddens comment as it stood, rather than as a snipe at Jezza. I did say that if it offended Jezza, then he probably deserves it

I think that anyone would be offended to be called an ISIS sympathiser. And on a factual basis this insinuation has no justification.

He didn't call him anything of the sort though did he DrJ?

I must say that I like the insinuation that those who disagree with this;

reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the west do

I believe my colleague Pat McFadden was right to condemn those who would to any degree absolve ISIS for their actions following the atrocities in Paris

molgrips - Member

"JC isn't left wing. He's very very left of left wing."

He's not, he just seems that way because Britain has moved to the right so much.

He didn't call him anything of the sort though did he DrJ?

Do you know the context of his "question"?

Whenever I see anyone complaining of [b]shameful bias[/b] I just kinda assume that its just stating a different opinion to the one they have.

And since I consider most politicians and journalists, at best just morally corrupt fools, I don't really pay a lot of attention to what any of them have to say - although their actual actions are something different...

Do you know the context of his "question"?

The man spoke sense

Clearly people differ on the subject of what constitutes "sense". McFadden and Cameron seem to have lined up against those pinkos at the Pentagon and the Brookings Institution, as per my previous link.

Whenever I see anyone complaining of shameful bias I just kinda assume that its just stating a different opinion to the one they have.

Especially with Auntie!

I can watch a football match with another person and we're both convinced the referees biased against 'our' teams!

Wow some people are really dim in terms of detecting sarcasm aren't they. 🙂

[i]I'm not taking the responsibility away from him being a traitorous little weasel. I'm talking about Laura Kuessenberg's naked right-wing bias being displayed and whether it's appropriate for a national broadcaster (clue: it's not).[/i]

You lot clearly don't know Laura K very well! She's an absolute Rottweiler and will have a go at anyone left or right....if she can get her name in lights. Its actually all about HER!

Its actually all about HER!

And the demands of 24 hour news and the next headline/stunt?

I think if you add up all the biases the BBC is accused of they probably cancel each other out and amount to balanced reporting.