The BBC

pqrdef

BBC News is staffed by journalists, so they aren't interested in a genuine understanding of anything, they're only interested in the "story". Quite often they'll try several different slants on a news item before they figure out what the story is, but then they'll stick with their story even when it's clear they've got it wrong. Sometimes I think the newsreaders must want to scream at the autocue, but mostly they're too well-disciplined to comment on the junk they get given to read out, though it has been known to happen.

They want the thing in one sentence, shortened to a headline. Something they can hassle a politician about and ask an idiot in the street about. Do you think the boss of Barclays should get a big bonus when his profits are £200 million down?

As for politicians, they just want to put somebody on the spot and watch them squirm. They don't care who, so long as it's somebody recognisable. Labour is safe because Miliband doesn't talk to them and Balls is the only other known face. Go on, then name some more Shadow Cabinet members.

But overall they can't avoid being swept along with the Zeitgeist. They've bought the line that taxes are bad and deficit reduction is necessary in a way that wouldn't have happened in the 70s.

A._Badger

olly300 wrote: »

The BBC employ both right wing and left wing leaning journalists.

All governments and political parties complain about how they are treating them. Labour has complained about them recently.

No, the BBC employs predominantly Left-leaning journalists and there is a vast acreage of evidence to prove this if you can be bothered to look for it.

A good starting point is here (note the side bars)

http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Former luminary of the BBC, Peter Sissons, has this to say:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

Yes, the BBC attacked NuLabour. From the Left. Its gripe with Blair over Iraq was based on the stream of propaganda from the far-Left Stop The War Coalition and its fellow travellers and where it faulted Brown and others, it did so (astonishingly) because it objected to their Tory-like policies.

I should add, I am not a Tory. Neither am I blind to raging editorial bias.

Masomnia

For me the best example recently was the jump in services in the PMI, coupled with manufacturing, with business confidence growing at its fastest for 10 years, hiring up etc.

The BBC didn't have it on the front page, relegated it to the business section where few would read it. If the survey showed business confidence falling at the fastest rate for ten years, plus a contraction in services and manufacturing, you can bet it would be top story.

Running_Horse

I was watching their unemployment discussion; some kid moaned the Job Centre were not finding him work like they should; nobody suggested finding work was also his responsibility.

UrWntr

Proxy wrote: »

Because they have fallen 3%.

This is very common in reporting on financial results. A profit of £6 gazillion is fantastic on its own, but if it represents a 96% fall then shareholders won't be pleased. Context is everything.

Thanks for the lesson but you're missing the point of this thread.

The BBC aren't reporting financial results to the shareholders, they're a national media outlet.

They had a choice to put either a negative or a positive slant on this story at a time when the public have little confidence in the banking industry and the economy.

They chose negative.

pqrdef

UrWntr wrote: »

They chose negative.

If profits had been up, they'd have been negative about that as well. Profits are always bad when made by companies perceived as evil. So are losses. So are just about everything else. Boss goes - bad. Boss doesn't - bad. Etc. Journalistically, Barclays are a no-win company, along with energy companies, train companies and the like.

macaque_2

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I don't think so, they just recognise that the coalition needs challenging in order to deconstruct their web of lies.

They were no more sympathetic to Labour when they were in power - Iraq being a case in point.

Would your position have been different if program makers in the BBC had been biased in favour of the war (rather than biased against it)? People support political bias when it aligns with their personal politics. The reality is that media bias is ultimately destructive and destabilising.

In the mid nineties, the BBC had a clear agenda to undermine the Tory government. The reporting was extremely negative and even the comedy shows turned into anti government rants. We are now living with the catastrophic results of a Labour landslide in the 1990's followed by a 10 year honeymoon from the media.

It is not for the BBC to make political judgements. Whatever views you might have about the Iraq war, it did prove that vicious tyrants are not invunerable. Will history take a different view on the Iraq war and would Libya or Egypt be free countries today without it? I am not saying that's the case. I am just asking the question..... and if the BBC were doing their job properly, they would ask themselves the same question before imposing their own values on the public.

sheffield_lad

Interesting that the view is yes the beeb are left wing, far worse is the negative way they report news with plenty of examples above. With newspapers I don't mind but this is a national broadcaster who pride themselves on being balanced which is clearly incorrect of late. The irony is right now on 5live they are discussing Murdock being to powerful and wording stories for his benefit!!

Proxy

UrWntr wrote: »

Thanks for the lesson but you're missing the point of this thread.

The BBC aren't reporting financial results to the shareholders, they're a national media outlet.

They had a choice to put either a negative or a positive slant on this story at a time when the public have little confidence in the banking industry and the economy.

They chose negative.

I'm not missing the point of anything. Declining profits is a negative story, end of. It is neutral to say so.

If you can provide a few examples of negative stories when profits for a company are increasing, then I'll take your point.

UrWntr

Proxy wrote: »

I'm not missing the point of anything. Declining profits is a negative story, end of. It is neutral to say so.

If you can provide a few examples of negative stories when profits for a company are increasing, then I'll take your point.

Oh dear, still missing the point.

Try reading the OP to see what we are discussing here. I'm not saying that BBC shouldn't be reporting all of the facts, in fact they absolutely should point out that the profits are slightly down versus the period before.

The BBC made the decision to lead with a negative headline, at a time when massive profits should be applauded.

I fully understand what you're saying, but you're completely ignoring the context to my post and the BBC report.