[Closed] News of the World RIP

In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality

Or how about the BBC's own Impartiality report?

‘It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society’, said The Daily Telegraph’s Jeff Randall about his time as Business Editor of the BBC. ‘As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, “No, no, no, the earth is round!”, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.’

Andrew Marr, former Political Editor, said that the BBC is ‘a publicly- funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people’ compared with the population at large.’ All this, he said, ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.

Michael Buerk said he believed the problem lay with an insufficiently diverse employment policy. ‘Most of the people working for the BBC are middle- class, well-educated, young metropolitan people.’ He said that, although the BBC had made great efforts to widen ethnic and gender diversity, ‘the actual intake of those people has narrowed quite appreciably in terms of age, social category, and education’.

Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, thought that ‘the BBC has in the past been too closed to a wide range of views and we’ve had too narrow an agenda. And I have some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda at times.’

At the seminar, David Jordan cited capital punishment. ‘I challenge anybody in here to mention the last time that the Today programme did capital punishment and didn’t sound as if they were completely against it in principle – or, even in a non British/American context, had somebody on who was in favour of it.

I cannot find a single reference in that which says that the BBC has a left-wing bias.

Can't you do any better than that Zulu-Eleven ?

Sure, once you've answered my question above - which is it? 🙄

j_me :

In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality

To say that people's [u]personal politics[/u] is bias to the left and that the organisation did struggle then with impartiality is not the same as saying that impartiality was not achieved.

Journalists tend to be personally bias to the left - even on publications such as the Daily Mail. Far more so than the general population.

Ernie, i agree. My post was an attempt to highlight he was talking of the BBC in the past tense. He is saying it struggled with impartiality 30 years ago. I should have been clearer.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Sure, once you've answered my question above - which is it ?

Yeah let's not bother - I can't be arsed with your nonsense Zulu-Eleven.

Everyone knows that Murdoch was very close to the neo-cons in Washington and lent heavily on Blair to go to war.

And by pointing out that the Sun was highly critical of Labour when it was in government, is clearly not the same as saying they opposed every policy of New Labour. It's the sort of daft conclusion that only you would come to Zulu-Eleven.

Sometimes it's what is not said that is more important than what is said. It is therefore very important to take into account what is clearly not being said when watching any news story.

I watched the BBC lots, Ernie, I was paid to use news reports and keep up to date with world events, and had a huge TV in my office. When I left that company I watched less and sometime around 2004 I became a very occasional viewer as I had lost all faith in the organisation as a reliable source.

highly critical of Labour when it was in government

didn't [b]dare[/b] to challenge the government's position.

Mutually exclusive claims Ernie! C'mon - which is it?

Cracking debate in comparison to recent ones on here btw, I read with interest.

Bollocks, did i jinx it? 😕

Bollocks, did i jinx it?

You'll note that there is absolutely no doubt expressed by the journalist about Saddam having WMDs. There is no mention of Hans Blix or his team. There is no mention of the increasing cooperation being shown and the unlimited acces to sites being accorded by mid February. The BBC consistently reported the WMD threat and gave little if no credibility to the results being presented by Hans Blix. That's why the BBC was propaganda and TF1 and Eins Extra can be congratulated on balanced reporting.

FFS Edukator, you are being unusually obtuse about this.

Took me about a minute to find this report by the BBC from 3 days after the one you posted highlighting all of the work done by Blix and throwing lots of doubt on the existance of WMD.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2765489.stm ]Another BBC report[/url]

You seem to have backed yourself into a corner and are unwilling to see the wood for the trees.

Edukator - Member

I watched the BBC lots, Ernie

But somehow you missed the "WMD claim was sexed up" story, despite the fact that it was an extremely big story. And now you claim that [i]"the British public were being fed Blair's 45 minutes lie"[/i] by the BBC. You need to pay more attention when you're watching the telly mate 💡

.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Mutually exclusive claims Ernie! C'mon - which is it?

Which bit of "I can't be arsed with your nonsense Zulu-Eleven" can't you understand ?

Yep, the Sun was highly critical of Labour when it was in government, and Yep, they supported the Iraq War. Now try and figure out for yourself what that means.

Sensitive about your BBC aren't some of you, Rightplace.

"Arab press welcomes Blix report". Think a little about how that will be received by the reader. the choice of the word "Arab". They could have used "Middle East" which would have more accurately geographically placed the newspapers or are they talking about the the world over in which case "Muslim" would be more appropriate. How would a report starting "Black press welcomes... ." as a lead to the story about the DSK case be constrewed by the reader? The choice of the word Arab is poor.

Poor word choice then an insulting use of Hans Blix's name. No title, fucntion, position or Christian name. Is this a report about hans Blix or is it about his findings in a report by him in which case the headline should read "Blix's report".

A blatent lack of repstect for the the newspapes concerned and Mr Blix himself in the headline. Propaganda. Tony Blair lost the "Tony" as the media lost its love of him.

YEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSS!!!! GET IN!

Eh?

Oh, sorry- forgot you lot were still arguing. 😳

Presumably that means papers written in by, and produced by, Arabs.

"Black press welcomes... ." as a lead to the story about the DSK case be constrewed by the reader?

Presumably, as papers that were written in by, and produced by, black people (usually promoting a "black" agenda), of which there have been examples ever since the civil marches in America in the sixties and so on....

I'm not sure I'm managing to keep a focus on your point.

What is your point, again?

bring forth the giant watermelon...

They never stopped Elfinsafety! 😆

What din't?

I'm going to have some fish sticks.

Sensitive about your BBC aren't some of you

Well if that's how you want to describe it.

The BBC is one of those few remaining institutions which Britain can be, deservedly, very proud of. It's reputation for excellence in the [i]whole[/i] spectrum of broadcasting, is world renowned. Contrast that with Rupert Murdoch's global media empire.

And another institution which Britain can be immensely proud of is the British police. But go on, tell us how much better the French police are.

"Arab press welcomes Blix report". Think a little about how that will be received by the reader. the choice of the word "Arab". They could have used "Middle East" which would have more accurately geographically placed the newspapers or are they talking about the the world over in which case "Muslim" would be more appropriate. How would a report starting "Black press welcomes... ." as a lead to the story about the DSK case be constrewed by the reader? The choice of the word Arab is poor.

What a pathetic attempt to castigate the BBC by darkly suggesting the term "Arab" is somehow racist. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel mate.

And since you appear to have completely missed this [i]huge story[/i], even though you apparently watch the BBC, have a look at this link :

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3030876.stm ]No 'truce' in Iraq dossier row[/url]

Quote :

[i]"Downing Street has denied declaring a "truce" in its row with the BBC over the government's Iraq dossier."

"The BBC has refused to apologise for its report that a senior intelligence official had said last September's Iraq dossier was "sexed up" at Downing Street's request."

"In response the BBC's head of news, Richard Sambrook, said: "The real question for the BBC is were we right to report what we actually said, when we said it? We believe the answer is 'Yes'."[/i]

For a British government "propaganda" tool in the Iraq War, the BBC were clearly left wanting. How did ITN and Sky compare in holding the government to account ?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

There's no need to mess up a perfectly good watermelon yunki.

I got one of these for later

[img] [/img]

The other half was eaten last night 8)

Ah, what??

Unlucky, but tbh, it was coming. 🙁

That's from June 03, Ernie (not that I continue to address you politely by your forum name rather than "mate" or something I consider more appropriate). They knew what they were reporting before the war started was "sexed-up" but did not inform the public until it was too late.

The BBC is blantant government propaganda, Ernie.

The BBC's world renown reputation for excellence only exists in the UK in reality. Very few people in any other country will have seen anything other than monty python or little britain.

Although I will say it does some of the best natural history programming available, most of the world will not realise them as BBC productions.

OMG Penalties.... 😯

Care to join in Elfin? "Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrivé... ."

Cruel. Just cruel. 😥

It is therefore very important to take into account what is clearly not being said when watching any news story.

Sensitive about your BBC aren't some of you,

They knew what they were reporting before the war started was "sexed-up" but did not inform the public until it was too late

Has Hitler or the Nazis been mentioned yet...?

I think they might have, Bully.

Still pretty boring though.

Sensitive about your BBC aren't some of you, Rightplace.

What?????

What is that supposed to mean? What do you think my "agenda" is. My only relationship to the BBC is when I occasionally watch a programme on the iPlayer, listen to the radio or look at the BBC news website.

Are you wearing your tin-foil hat?

All I'm sensitive to is the fact that you are talking complete and utter rubbish.

Personally I was dead against the war, so if the BBC was as you said, why would I be defending it?

I only dipped into this particular discussion because of the breathtaking scale of your wrongness. It seems unfair to let you continue that way without trying to help.

Thank you highlighting some of my points in your quotes, Junkyard. Pity you seemed to have missed them completely.

Afer a few seconds thought I realised that Hilter can help me with this one, Bullheart. Not reporting information was as crucial to Nazi propaganda as misleading reporting and lies. The vast majority of Germans were unaware of who set fire to the Reichstag, of the fate of communists and Jews that were being rounded up and a host of other events that may have led to mass opposition to the Nazi party and its plans for war.

How many Brits would have supported Gulf war II if they knew the contents of George Bush's fulfilling biblical prophecies telephone conversations with Jacques Chirac or had the same positive reporting of Hans Blix's inspections as other Europeans?

People need all the information to make sound judgements.

People need all the information to make sound judgements.

True.

I suggest you go and find some....

or had the same positive reporting of Hans Blix's inspections as other Europeans?

We did. On the BBC and on our fnon murdoch press - thats why a million people marched against it.

So, as Edukator isn't at all sensitive and seems to think little of those who are, here's a joke (with apologies to Fred, of course):

Edit: no, I musn't. It'd open a whole new can of ugly worms...

A million marched for peace, TJ, and Charles Kenedy complained to the crowd about the government providing "misleading evidence". Now which organisation was relaying that misleading evidence to the Britsih people? That's right, the BBC. When an organisation relays government information it knows or suspects to be misleading it becomes the propaganda agent of government.

I watched news on national TV channels in the run up to Gulf war II and the BBC reports had me spitting. The reports from two nationas told me Blair was lying through his teeth and the BBC just kept reporting the lies as intelligence gained fact.

Jut simply wrong educkator. The BBC did not do that.

Thank you highlighting some of my points in your quotes, Junkyard. Pity you seemed to have missed them completely.

Now which organisation was relaying that misleading evidence to the Britsih people? That's right, the BBC.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2765041.stm ]Biased BBC reporting of the march?[/url]

Oh yeah, about the "Arab press" thing...

What language do you think Al Jazeerah reports in?

Is it "Muslimic"?

Or perhaps "Middle Eastic"?

Oh no, wait a minute...

Edukator - Member

They knew what they were reporting before the war started was "sexed-up" but did not inform the public until it was too late.

Until it was too late ? The government certainly thought those allegations were extremely damaging to them - and they weren't in the least bit happy about the BBC reporting them. I thought you said that the BBC provides "blatant government propaganda". Make your mind up ffs.

The job of BBC News is to report news - not make it up. Andrew Gilligan reported allegations that a dossier published by the British Government had been "sexed up" once those allegations had been made. You wouldn't expect him to report the allegations [i]before[/i] they had been made.

.

Edukator - Member

Thank you highlighting some of my points in your quotes, Junkyard. Pity you seemed to have missed them completely.

Your "debating skills" are starting to resemble more and more those of Zulu-Eleven. Not only are you using diversionary tactics to change an anti-Murdoch thread into an anti-BBC thread, but now you come out with completely meaningless comments devoid of any substance with presumably the intention of "scoring points". Do you two belong to the same debating society ?