Election

Cleaver

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I think you maybe jumping the gun as there seems to be a very large number of people who are convinced the BBC are impartial.

Everyone of them getting there daily nugget of Labour untruth & spin.

I think the BBC are pretty impartial, but I am also intelligent enough to judge for myself whether what they are telling me is wandering in to spin and 'untruth'.

Cleaver

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

The propaganda machine has been on full force for a month now.

That piece was another prime example of media bias coming out of the BBC.

I am not paying my TV licence anymore.

Its just a marketing subsidy for Labour.

This really does make me smile. Imagine for a moment bringing over a poor soul from North Korea, Tibet or China and sitting them down for an interview between John Humphrys and Peter Mandleson or getting them to watch Jeremy Paxman grilling Gordon Brown. Then having the gall to explain to them that this is our 'propagandga machine' and 'marketing subsidy' for the Labour Party. They'd laugh in your face.

Look 1984, you can tell straight from your username that you're a pretty paranoid person who thinks the whole world is connected in to a web of conspiracy and lies and that the public are all idiots who lap it all up without questioning. Neither are true, but it's the latter that is the most offensive. Most people know that the BBC is a bit lefty, that the Daily Mail is quite right wing, that ITV news is mostly sensationalist crap, that The Sun is a hypocritical right wing rag, that Fox News is a vision of the American Right, that the Gaurdian is as lefty as Stuart Downing... but it doesn't matter. We take the stories and output from these companies and we get that they have a slant, or a bias. But most of us are intelligent enough to understand this and we question, we criticise and at the end of the day we make our own minds up.

Again, most people pay their TV license for Gavin and Stacy, Match of the Day, stuff on Radio 4, Panorama and Stricty Come Dancing. They couldn't give a stuff that the news is a bit lefty because it's run by a drama student with w*nky glasses and they can see through it all anyway. If you want to cancel your licence then just do it. But out of interest, can you tell me of a news source when you're going to get your information that has no bias whatsoever?

Sorry for the rant, but people reading far too much in to everything rather than seeing obvious solutions ticks me off a bit.

Rochdale_Pioneers

People who are swivel-eyed right wingers see bias in the BBC because it disagrees with their world view. If fact they think everything that disagrees with them is biased because They Are Right.

The BBC has been accused of bias from both sides for a long time. The Young Ones had a skit (Time I think) with the radio announcing "here is the completely impartial BBC News at 6 O'Clock brought to you on behalf of the Conservative Party". It got a big laugh because the complaint was the inherrent pro-government bias in BBC News when reporting government vs workers stories.

If Cameron does go after the BBC (if he wins) its more on behalf of Murdoch than it is because of bias. Destroying a national institution either out of political dogma and spite, or because you are obligated to an American news magnate who wants the competition out of the way. What a choice!

peterg1965

whathavewedone wrote: »

I have no problem whatsoever with the BBC having a liberal left bias. I just have a problem with being forced to pay for it (a) and the fact that the BBC insists that it's impartial (b).

I generally agree with you. However, I do have a problem with the BBC having any form of bias. They should be impartial and the BBC Trust have a duty to ensure that. The trouble is that most of the senior people on the Trust and the BBC are Labour placemen and that also goes for most of the Quangos established by Labour over the last 13 years. They dance to the tune of the Govt, which is plain wrong.

whathavewedone wrote: »

Not for nothing the champagne bottles littering the corridors of the BBC in 1997.

I wonder who paid for that Champagne? That'll be the Licence Fee payers then - one suspects that BBC executive expenses are as riddled with 'inaccuracies' as our beloved MPs.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Ah

Mr Cleaver.

People have been PPRd for less.


As for my paranoid personality I often wondered if you were indeed Hamish McTwattish...

Sorry for the rant but I do hate !!!!!! who are so far shoved up there own backsides they resort to personal insults & insinuations like people really give a damn.

As for BBC biased you may find they have a history of it, that is if you care to pick up a few books & read them. I take it you can read... These books by the way are the type they teach in University. You know the ones, ones with small text written by people who have studied the subject in depth.

As for my political preferences, you mate, will never know.

As for my username that came about 4/5 years ago due to dubious measures the Government wanted to introduce in the name of terror but really for the purpose of taxation.

Now there are some right !!!!!! on this site but I am thinking that a large number of them could be put down to you.

Certainly not a paranoid judgement but simply down to mathmatical calculations of twattish behaviour. Now all I have to do is work out which T WA TS are indeed you.

Have a great day...

Cleaver

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Ah

Mr Cleaver.

People have been PPRd for less.


As for my paranoid personality I often wondered if you were indeed Hamish McTwattish...

I think most regular users of this forum would be quick to point out that we're quite different. I tend to disgree with him most of the time for a start.

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Sorry for the rant but I do hate !!!!!! who are so far shoved up there own backsides they resort to personal insults & insinuations like people really give a damn.

Is there any personal insults in my post? I assume you might be refering to:

"you can tell straight from your username that you're a pretty paranoid person who thinks the whole world is connected in to a web of conspiracy and lies and that the public are all idiots who lap it all up without questioning"

I don't think this is an insult, more based on your postings on here which I think clearly show that you are pretty paranoid and that you do often think the public are a bit stupid when it comes to working stuff out for themselves. Am I wrong with this?

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

As for BBC biased you may find they have a history of it, that is if you care to pick up a few books & read them. I take it you can read...

Yes, I can read. I thought you weren't in to insults in posts?

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

These books by the way are the type they teach in University. You know the ones, ones with small text written by people who have studied the subject in depth.

Yes, I read some like that at Uni.

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Now there are some right !!!!!! on this site but I am thinking that a large number of them could be put down to you.

Certainly not a paranoid judgement but simply down to mathmatical calculations of twattish behaviour. Now all I have to do is work out which T WA TS are indeed you.

Ahh, go on then, just for a giggle which ones on here are me?

It's interesting that I posted a post that, whilst maybe slightly close to the bone personality-wise, was mainly based around why I don't think the BBC is that biased or, if they are, it's more because of the type of person that enters the BBC rather than a government conspiracy. You haven't countered any of this, you've just said that I should be PPRed for being insulting, then preceeded to call me a tw*t.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Cleaver wrote: »

I don't think this is an insult, more based on your postings on here which I think clearly show that you are pretty paranoid and that you do often think the public are a bit stupid when it comes to working stuff out for themselves. Am I wrong with this?

Since you asked. Yes you are wrong Mr Cleaver.

As for the public, you decide yourself whether they are stupid, you seem to have a clear understanding of their intelligence. Maybe this is something you studied at University. Personally I don't think they are stupid but they certainly are misinformed of the facts.

Fact 1 - Unemployment rose by over 27,000. Did you hear that on the 6 o'clock news yesterday? You may have just caught it on the 10 o'clock news, it was mentioned in depth for about 0.25 seconds out of a story lasting well over 10 minutes.

kennyboy66_2

A brief list of the swivel eyed loonies who are adamant that the BBC is biased against them;

Jews
Muslims
Israelis
Arabs
Catholics
Anglicans
Athiests
Humanists
Tories
Liberals
Labour
Most MP's
The Socialist Worker
The Daily Telegraph
Arthur Scargill
Rupert Murdoch
Nick Griffin
The old Speaker Martin
Bankers
People who don't believe in Global warming
Greens
The BNP
Scientists
People who think MMR cause bowel disease
Americans
Fox hunters
Anti-vivisectionists
Old People
Anti abortionists.
People who wear fur.
The Police

Me - because Vision On didn't show my picture in 1973.

Keep taking the tablets folks !

Cleaver

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Since you asked. Yes you are wrong Mr Cleaver.

As for the public, you decide yourself whether they are stupid, you seem to have a clear understanding of their intelligence. Maybe this is something you studied at University. Personally I don't think they are stupid but they certainly are misinformed of the facts.

Fact 1 - Unemployment rose by over 27,000. Did you hear that on the 6 o'clock news yesterday? You may have just caught it on the 10 o'clock news, it was mentioned in depth for about 0.25 seconds out of a story lasting well over 10 minutes.

There's two scenarios with this isn't there? I fully agree, there are issues, problems, bias, reporting innacuracies and vested interests involved with every single media outlet in the world. Because whilst humans are producing 'stuff', that stuff will have a slant, or a feel to it. So everyone would agree that the BBC has a bias, and no change in government, management, fee structure or anything else will make it completely impartial. Organisations, especially media-based ones, have a bias. So, as I say, two scenarios with the BBC as to why:

Scenario 1
As you suggested in an earlier post, the BBC are basically a "propaganda machine" and "marketing subsidy" for Labour. The bosses of the BBC have secret meetings, possibly with Labour PR men, about how to get Labour policies, messages and ideologies in to things like news bulletins. As you pointed out, a shady BBC exec will have a word in the ear of the editor of the news and say, "Unemployment rose today. Make sure it's burried in the end of the news. Know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink." And the editor, who knows that they are in cahoots with Labour party, does as he's told. The staff all know this, but keep quiet, fearful of their jobs.

Scenario 2
The BBC is a public sector media organisation. The people who go there tend to be people who have studied English, Arts and Media subjects at University. The media tends to attract left wing types anyway, and the BBC attracts even more as it's a public sector organisation. The people who work there tend to more align themselves in their private life to Labour because, well, why wouldn't they? It is (was) a left wing party. Because of the socio-economic make up of the employees attracted to the BBC, the organisation has a 'type' of employee. This 'type' produces and creates output where their personalities and views seeps in. Nothing intentional, just an organisation with bias built in. Like all organisations. The news has a 'slant' which represents the organisation. It isn't a great thing, but a logical conclusion isn't that it's somehow all a 'marketing' organisation for Labour, just that the organisation has flaws with it's employee make up that could do with sorting. As I said before, most people don't care because they take it for what it is and enjoy stuff like Gavin and Stacey.


Obviously, I'm in the scenario 2 camp. Because I know the make up of the BBC I can happily watch something on there that I consider biased and understand why, and I think most normal people can. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's because a shady government agent has blackmailed the news editor, it's because the news editor comes from a lefty household, reads the Gaurdian and studied Media Studies at Luton University.

You mentioned that the public are misinformed of the facts. Well, aren't we misinformed when we read, see or hear anything in the media? Almost everything aside from peer-reviewed academic papers have a bias or slant and it's up to you to filter out what you think you believe and what you don't.

By the way, which other posters am I? I'm still awaiting your paranoid mind dump with baited breath.

kennyboy66_2

whathavewedone wrote: »

Kennyboy you just don't see the bias because it chimes with your personal world view.

Did you see the episode of the One Show in question?

I have no problem whatsoever with the BBC having a liberal left bias. I just have a problem with being forced to pay for it (a) and the fact that the BBC insists that it's impartial (b).

People who buy the Daily Mail know what they're getting but many people think that the BBC is the only truly impartial news outlet. That is quite wrong. If the tories had been as incompetent and mendacious as this lot the BBC would have been all over them. We would have had an election by now and the government would have gone down in a landslide defeat.

As it is we might still get a hung parliament and if we do the BBC will have a lot to do with it. Not for nothing the champagne bottles littering the corridors of the BBC in 1997.

Current Political editor Nick Robinson is hardly a Labour stooge. I lsten to R4, Radio 5 live and watch some news on BBC 1 & 2 but more often it would C4 news or Newsnight.

Does all this chime with my personal views - hardly. You could be forgiven for sometimes thinking that Radio 5 is the aural equivalent of the Daily Mail.

Most independent polls show that the public trust the BBC and think it is broadly impartial ***



*** I know, I know, this shows how they are brain-washed / sheep / idiots.
delete as applicable.