Our left wing BBC [with evidence]

A._Badger

StevieJ wrote: »

Interesting that most of the newspapers you quote are relatively highbrow broadsheets with relatively low circulation compared to the low brow mass circulation brain washers.

Changing the subject?

You've already cited the BBC as a counterweight to what you claim is a largely Right wing press and in doing so conceded the original point: that the BBC is institutionally a creature of the Left.

How could it be a counterweight, otherwise?

StevieJ

A._Badger wrote: »

Changing the subject?

You've already cited the BBC as a counterweight to what you claim is a largely Right wing press and in doing so conceded the original point: that the BBC is institutionally a creature of the Left.

How could it be a counterweight, otherwise?

Words in mouth, let us try balanced

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

Interesting that most of the newspapers you quote are relatively highbrow broadsheets with relatively low circulation compared to the low brow mass circulation brain washers.

I would say most of the broad sheets are not purchased because they support a party, just for content, so are read by who support any party.

They don't enter the same kind of political trashing like the Mirror does.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

I find it bizarre the way the Tory mob hate the BBC, I guess it makes sense, they probably prefer their news controlled by big business. It reminds me of those deluded red Scouse football fans and referees

Man U Manager would never accuse refs of being biased would he.

Ferguson claims pro-Chelsea bias after Terry wins red card appeal
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/ferguson-claims-prochelsea-bias-after-terry-wins-red-card-appeal-932911.html

Or
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/apr/03/newsstory.sport7
Ferguson and Queiroz charged after accusing referee of bias


Or if that does not work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/8289089.stm
Ferguson queries referee fitness
I don't hate the BBC at all, but you do seem to have rose tinted glasses on most things you support.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

Man U Manager would never accuse refs of being biased would he.

Ferguson claims pro-Chelsea bias after Terry wins red card appeal
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/ferguson-claims-prochelsea-bias-after-terry-wins-red-card-appeal-932911.html

Or
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/apr/03/newsstory.sport7
Ferguson and Queiroz charged after accusing referee of bias


Or if that does not work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/8289089.stm
Ferguson queries referee fitness
I don't hate the BBC at all, but you do seem to have rose tinted glasses on most things you support.

Nice to see some fahhchts


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaZYhTd2BU

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

I would say most of the broad sheets are not purchased because they support a party, just for content, so are read by who support any party.

They don't enter the same kind of political trashing like the Mirror does.

Are you saying that the broadsheets are not biased?

Generali

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Not the same thing.

The dangerous cranks that infest the BBC (dubbed in years gone by the Blatant Bias Corporation), make no bones about the fact that they see themselves as social engineers and opinion formers.

Most people are conservative (small c, not necessarily anything to do with the Conservative Party), and they see that as something to be changed.

All for the greater good, naturally.

I sort of agree and disagree at the same time.

People are certainly conservative in that they don't like change. The majority also have views that are traditionally seen as 'right wing' on things like law and order and immigration (the majority in the UK supported the death penalty last time I saw a survey and I would also guess that a majority if asked whether immigration was simply 'good' or 'bad' would plump for the latter).

However, I think the majority are 'left wing' in that they look to the Government to solve their problems. Education FUBAR'd? Get the Government to fix it (nowt to do with education not being valued by many in the UK). Too much being imported? Government's fault (nothing to do with people buying stuff made abroad of course).

A typical example on this board is when people (rightly) point out that a solution to there being more people wanting to buy houses at a certain price point than there are houses available at that price point is to build more houses. Every time, someone will post 'The Government hasn't got any money, how are they going to build all the houses?' which is the classic socialist response of course. The Government must be the one to fix the problem. If the Government can't do it, it can't be fixed.

The big left wing bias on the BBC for me is that when they have their 'balanced' discussions, they're really between different forms of big Government. They never seem to look at the bigger picture of whether the problem is something that the Government can realistically fix. The Government can't stop your kids taking drugs, they can't make people value education and they can't make people start being nice to each other. Maybe the world would be a better place if people stopped pretending the Government can do these things and started being nice to each other*.





*Please don't nail me to a tree.

toby3000

I do think there is a curious state-centred bias in the British media mroe generally. Even the right-wing press that frequently rail against the 'nanny-state' will (often in the same edition) run pieces demanding that the government 'do something about' something which realisitically they have no control over.

On the subject of the BBC, their political editor was president of that notoriously progressive, left-wing organisation, The Oxford Univeristy Conservative Association and was national chairman of the Young Conservatives

pqrdef

The BBC picks the lead story in advance, because it has to decide where to send the roving reporter and the spare camera.

On 4th January, the lead story was deemed to be the VAT increase, all day, though it was hardly fresh news, having been announced months earlier and so well trailed over Christmas, you had to be dead not to have heard.

Simon Jack was dispatched to Brent Cross for 6 am, although it didn't open till 10.

Scripts were written in advance. "VAT reaches record levels!" said the screaming headline, ingeniously (though there was once a 25% rate).

Graphics were prepared in advance, showing us that a £449.99 plasma was going up £9.57 (although nobody was actually selling one at £459.56).

Poor Simon Jack, seriously stuck for something to say to fill his airtime, informed us that rising VAT on fuel would affect food prices (though VAT doesn't work that way).

They had the researcher compile a list of things that would go up, and came up with 4 things, including "electrical goods" and "kitchen appliances", both illustrated by washing machines.

They wheeled out the usual talking heads to agree with the newsreader that it was "regressive", but the talking heads didn't co-operate.

The shoppers who were totally re-equipping their kitchens to beat the increase (though supposedly they'd left it too late) didn't seem to be struggling on the breadline.

But so it went on all day, as per schedule, though nothing much was actually happening.


For the bye-election, the Beeb sent Laura Kuenssberg to Oldham, and having paid the train fare, it had to get its money's worth. Well it had to be prepared for a shock result, couldn't afford to get caught on the hop, and if it didn't get one, it couldn't let that mess up the budgeting. Money spent has to translate into sufficient amounts of airtime, irrespective of news value.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

Are you saying that the broadsheets are not biased?

No I am said they are not read by their readers because of their political allegiances but because of their content. FT would be a typical example.