Biased BBC?

princeofpounds

I'd suggest Radio 4 is more worthwhile than BBC 2 which tonight is showing a collection of quiz shows and antique programmes with a touch of gardening.

I'm not even against the BBC making entertainment programs. But when you just see endless filler padding out daytimes and quiet evenings it all just looks so pointless.


It would be so much better if the best stuff on BBC3 and 4 was just on BBC 2. Cut out the filler on gardening and antiques programs - just make one or two but make them good. Same but more for property - do we really need to be taxed with threat of imprisonment for Homes Under the Hammer every. single. day. of. the. week?!

Cornucopia

N1AK wrote: »

Though this rather highlights the naivety of thinking one individuals opinion (including your own) is of any value in this matter.

This is a nonsense argument. Obviously people have opinions about what they watch, what they see in the schedules and don't watch, and what they are paying for.

Honestly, the BBC will be destroyed by this kind of "sacred behemoth" thinking. Much better to be positive and examine the technical and cultural changes that are bringing pressure for change and to address them.

Nick_C

I've just read the article referred to in the OP, and I thought it was a fair assessment. It didn't seem biased to me. Although the BBC often does seem biased and overly PC at times.

Audiences for Question Time are to me to very left wing and unrepresentative of the general population. Ethnic minorities are usually over-represented in the audiences of Question Time (and The Big Question on Sunday mornings), and amongst presenters. I watched The Travel Show a couple of weeks ago. There were three presenters; a black guy in a wheel chair and a couple of people who appeared to be of Asian origin. Nationally, non whites make up 14% of the population. Any alien species watching the BBC could easily think that it is the whites that are in the minority in the UK.

Getting back on track though, I think it was fear of an SNP influenced Labout Government that swung it for the Tories, and destroyed UKIP's chances.

princeofpounds

I've just read the article referred to in the OP, and I thought it was a fair assessment. It didn't seem biased to me.

I'm really surprised by that. It attributed 'fear', 'corrosiveness', 'lockstep', 'thin, 'negative', 'tearing' and 'scaring' to the Tories. It said the Tories won because of incumbency advantage, status quo bias and the ransom argument.


Labour was merely 'fighting in vain against the fear-mongering'.


I suppose at least it admitted the economy is in better shape. And they called the Edstone ludicrous.


But the bias in tone is pretty evident.


But I appreciate the fact that you read it and expressed an opinion. Would be interested for others to pitch in.

Conrad

I watch / listen to every BBC political debate show on both radio and TV and most definitely detect a general liberal / Guardian / Primrose Hill view.
I live in tory land and yet when Radio 4 Any Questions came to my town, God knows how but a load of audience lefties took the thing over.

Nick_C

I suppose I didn't consider it biased cause I think its a bloody miracle that Cameron won a majority, so I think its fair for the BBC to express an opinion on why they think it happened. For me, the strength of the Conservatives was being the leading party in a coalition that started to sort out the economy. Their trump card was sound financial management. I think they threw away the trump card when they made a last minute promise to provide an additional 9 billion a year for the NHS from a magic money tree.

I also think we need tax rises to help to reduce the deficit, and pledging not to increase Income Tax, VAT, or NI was plain stupid. It doesn't help of course that that pledge made me think of the theme to "Only Fools and Horses" (no Income Tax, no VAT), and I have an image of Del Boy Cameron in my mind. I'm glad he won, not least because we will get the euro referendum which he promised (and which he clearly never expected to have to deliver, as he hoped his Lib Dem partners would block it), but I don't trust the man or believe a word he says. I'm not convinced he really is a Tory, but we will now see whether he is or not.

gadgetmind

markharding557 wrote: »

The BBC question time programme was definitely not favourable to Ed Milliband so I don't think this bias thing has any basis.

We don't hold back in Leeds so he was going to get a rough ride no matter what the BBC did!

chewmylegoff

gadgetmind wrote: »

We don't hold back in Leeds so he was going to get a rough ride no matter what the BBC did!

Even the stage was against him. First sandwiches and then television studio fixtures and fittings. Ed never stood a chance.

thor

michaels wrote: »

When Salmond quipped that he knew what was in the first labour budget, because he was writing it there was deafening silence from the BBC, didn't even make it onto HIGNFY. I would thave thought it would have been both directly relevant to the voters and also of considerabel amusement. Surpressing it would appear to be helpful only to Labour?

The key thing here is that Salmond 'quipped'. He was joking in a comedy show. I don't think that the electorate are suddenly thought 'oh no I never thought of that, I better not vote Labour'. I'm pretty sure that jokes are regularly cut out of the show if they are not funny enough and this one wasn't.

michaels

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Even the stage was against him. First sandwiches and then television studio fixtures and fittings. Ed never stood a chance.

It was suggested that he 'tripped' so that the summary news clips would show him tripping rather than showing him claiming to a disbelieving audience that he did not think Labour had overspent.....