Evidence of BBC bias?

[Em3bbs]

The problem the BBC have now is that although they may be balanced, people's opinions are so polarised that if you dare say a single tiny negative thing about their comrades or ideologies then they will switch off in a tantrum. An perfect example of how far this goes - a single 90 second clip on Twitter from someone like Carole Cadwalladr like this one is always followed by hysterical people claiming BBC bias, laughingly in this case even though the guy's predictions actually all turned out to be true:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1167732825069670400

A similar, but even more whiney 'bias' tweet with the same clip from Dr. Jennifer Cassidy:

https://twitter.com/OxfordDiplomat/status/1167881779681775619

Just have a look at the comments and bear in mind this guy's predictions turned out to be correct. This is what the BBC are up against, on both sides.

 

[mrochester]

The problem the BBC have now is that although they may be balanced, people's opinions are so polarised that if you dare say a single tiny negative thing about their comrades or ideologies then they will switch off in a tantrum. An perfect example of how far this goes - a single 90 second clip on Twitter from someone like Carole Cadwalladr like this one is always followed by hysterical people claiming BBC bias, laughingly in this case even though the guy's predictions actually all turned out to be true:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1167732825069670400

A similar, but even more whiney 'bias' tweet with the same clip from Dr. Jennifer Cassidy:

https://twitter.com/OxfordDiplomat/status/1167881779681775619

Just have a look at the comments and bear in mind this guy's predictions turned out to be correct. This is what the BBC are up against, on both sides.

How do we bring people back to the middle and common ground? This polarisation feels to me like people sparring for a fight, or worse, a war.

 

[Em3bbs]

How do we bring people back to the middle and common ground? This polarisation feels to me like people sparring for a fight, or worse, a war.

Unfortunately I don't think it's possible - the genie is out of the bottle. While people like Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, Carole Cadwalladr and Owen Jones seek to polarise people even more, opinions become even more entrenched. It's a real problem if you want to run a balanced mainstream service like the BBC when people are turning into extremists.

 

[mrochester]

Unfortunately I don't think it's possible - the genie is out of the bottle. While people like Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, Carole Cadwalladr and Owen Jones seek to polarise people even more, opinions become even more entrenched. It's a real problem if you want to run a balanced mainstream service like the BBC when people are turning into extremists.

I guess the fact that these people have easy access to platforms that allow them to broadcast far and wide is the crux of the problem.

 

[BowdonUK]

The BBC is baised because it takes for granted left wing statements and doesn't challenge them. Meanwhile if a right wing group says something then they are being heckled.

A good example of this is when Rod Liddle was on the BBC representing a Leave vote and there was also Tom Baldwin of the Peoples Vote there too. It was a newsnight programme and Emily Maitlis kept personally attacking Rod Liddle yet didn't challenge the other guy on anything. So it ended up being a 2 on 1 segment.

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-...neering-newsnight-discussion-with-rod-liddle/

The BBC has upheld a complaint that claimed Emily Maitlis was “sneering and bullying” towards columnist Rod Liddle during a live Newsnight discussion.

The BBC’s internal executive complaints unit found that Maitlis was too “persistent and personal” in her criticism of Liddle during the discussion on 15 July, leaving her open to claims she had “failed to be even-handed".

 

[Meridian]

A good example of this is when Rod Liddle was on the BBC representing a Leave vote and there was also Tom Baldwin of the Peoples Vote there too. It was a newsnight programme and Emily Maitlis kept personally attacking Rod Liddle yet didn't challenge the other guy on anything.

And out of interest, because I can't be bothered to watch the clip, who was lying the most? If that is the "journalist" Rod Liddle then I will guess he won handily. Which brings up the question: ff party A lies a lot, but party B does not, do you challenge them equally to show "non-bias" given that the the lying is pretty important? It was pointed out repeatedly that during the last GE (and the Brexit referendum) one side lied far more than the other, but they were challenged about the same. Is that bias? Which bias is more important: showing up lies, or asking the same number of equally difficult questions to two side, when one is lying far more. Bias really is not that simple.

 

[BowdonUK]

And out of interest, because I can't be bothered to watch the clip, who was lying the most? If that is the "journalist" Rod Liddle then I will guess he won handily. Which brings up the question: ff party A lies a lot, but party B does not, do you challenge them equally to show "non-bias" given that the the lying is pretty important? It was pointed out repeatedly that during the last GE (and the Brexit referendum) one side lied far more than the other, but they were challenged about the same. Is that bias? Which bias is more important: showing up lies, or asking the same number of equally difficult questions to two side, when one is lying far more. Bias really is not that simple.

The reason the complaint was upheld was because Maitlis started attacking him personally and not keeping to the subject they were talking about i.e. Brexit.

That's what happens more often is the favoured person won't be challenged. It'll be taken for granted that his/her opinion is right and the direction turns to how they can solve the problem. When its someone the BBC don't like they will start challenging them on everything, like when Boris Johnson went on the Marr show last time, Marr asked him a question and within 5 to 10 seconds Marr was asking another question. This repeated through-out the whole interview. It was going over the top to the point it was a wasted of time. Marr had a complaint upheld against him from the previous weeks were he read off some negative statistics and then accused Priti Patel of smiling when she wasn't.

Andrew Marr's interview with Boris Johnson attracts 12,000 complaints
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50778240

Chuntering and untruths: why Andrew Marr's interview with Boris Johnson was so controversial
https://www.theguardian.com/media/s...rview-with-boris-johnson-was-so-controversial

BBC apologises after Andrew Marr accuses Priti Patel of laughing at him during Brexit interview
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ew-marr-accusing-priti-patel-laughing-brexit/

BBC apologises after Andrew Marr suggested Priti Patel was 'laughing'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50150993

I think John McDonald let the cat out of the bag about Marr, saying how he remembers Marr selling the socialist worker party magazine in his youth. There is also a number of other BBC employees who dabble in and out of politics, Hugh Pym stood for the Lib Dems. Also currently Gavin Esler stood for Change UK at the last election. I never hear of BBC employees standing for the Conservatives or other right wing parties.

What annoys me is when cases would come up in the past about BNP members exposed as teachers the big complaint is they wouldn't be able to teach the children unbiasly. I think BNP members are banned from certain professions purely based on the view they wouldn't be able to carry out their duties in an unbiased manner. Yet we are to believe people on the left can go back and forth in these positions with no bias?

I'm not against the BBC. But I think there seems to be two sets of rules depending on who is in front of them.

 

[Panos]

The BBC picks and chooses what to tell us. If you watch some of the foreign broadcasters you see the gaps. E.g. They will crop video footage so you don't see the full story. By cutting those few seconds it sometimes puts a totally different spin on the story.

My friend you are the only one wrote what I'm saying here for a long time.
See what happens now when effectively the Turkish invasion to Libya to support the Tripoli government.
This appeared on the UK news today, while is on Greek, Italian, French, Israeli, Egyptian news for months daily.

While still forgetting to mention anything else about it. That the Turkish born leader of the Tripoli government (which isn't recognized by the Libyan parliament) signed the subjugation of the country to Turkey, effectively making it a vassal state and opening the way for Turkey to send troops there to fight LNA (Already has sent Syrian Turkish "rebels" two weeks ago).

The LNA is backed by Russia, France, Italy & Egypt and the last thing they want is Turkey gain control of Libya. Especially the Italians who fought 30 years there to kick them out at the start of the 20th century.

 

[VincentHanna]

My friend you are the only one wrote what I'm saying here for a long time.
See what happens now when effectively the Turkish invasion to Libya to support the Tripoli government.
This appeared on the UK news today, while is on Greek, Italian, French, Israeli, Egyptian news for months daily.

While still forgetting to mention anything else about it. That the Turkish born leader of the Tripoli government (which isn't recognized by the Libyan parliament) signed the subjugation of the country to Turkey, effectively making it a vassal state and opening the way for Turkey to send troops there to fight LNA (Already has sent Syrian Turkish "rebels" two weeks ago).

The LNA is backed by Russia, France, Italy & Egypt and the last thing they want is Turkey gain control of Libya. Especially the Italians who fought 30 years there to kick them out at the start of the 20th century.

The BBC focuses on UK news, imagine that.

I bet if you watch the World Service you would get more of the sort of stuff you are talking about.

 

[Panos]

The BBC focuses on UK news, imagine that.

I bet if you watch the World Service you would get more of the sort of stuff you are talking about.

All news outlets in UK are dead silent on what's potential a new war brewing with European countries directly involved, when also one of the affected countries the UK has military bases on it. (on their World news sections)
Yet they bother with trivial things like the selfie a firefighter took in USA, about some drones in Nebraska and blasting at China and Russia over nothing on their World news almost daily or what Trump said out of context.

And when they report on something ignored for months, they pick only the headline and report just on it, without reporting the whole diplomacy going on for months, which is big news across the rest of Europe, ME and N Africa.

UK Media and especially BBC, shape a narrative they (Gov) wants for you to believe to. Completely left in darkness until you are ready to believe the headlines they put out, even if the big picture is completely different and ongoing for months on the rest of the world news outlets, exactly what @Nasher was talking about.
If that isn't bias what it is then?

Hell BBC run an article few days ago, making everyone believe that Trump has lost the 2020 elections already and Democrats won, which is far from the truth given that even if he loses by 7 millions votes as is predicted, he is going to win the electors and remain President.

 

[jsmoke]

The real question is, why do people watch the news in the first place. We have a whole internet of information.

 

[Combat squirrel]

Of course the BBC is biased. Half the BBC political unit went to the same private schools as half the Tory ministers and then the same universities. They're very pally overall and generally dig into the Labour Party. Then you have BBC Question time with Pro-Brexit guests by the dozen, Farage who's a closet Tory anyway and very few from other parties. Then the 'editorial mistakes' in the run up to the election showing Boris in a good light and Corbyn in a bad one. I can only assume that the OP hasn't watched much BBC political output in recent months.

This, the BBC is right wing.

I avoid it....well I avoid all TV now so I don't get brainwashed. I'll tune in at the parents for wildlife documentaries though, that is all.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

This, the BBC is right wing.

I avoid it....well I avoid all TV now so I don't get brainwashed. I'll tune in at the parents for wildlife documentaries though, that is all.

Lol, the BBC lives in a metropolitan i.e. London-centric, muliticultural/diversity aware/ Remain voting bubble oblivious to all else outside of that. It quotes the Guardian constantly and Owen Jones is on so many times you'd think he works for them. You must be left of Corbyn to even think its vaguely right leaning.

I don't believe the OP's original argument stands up though.

 

[StriderX]

Lol, the BBC lives in a metropolitan i.e. London-centric, muliticultural/diversity aware/ Remain voting bubble oblivious to all else outside of that. It quotes the Guardian constantly and Owen Jones is on so many times you'd think he works for them. You must be left of Corbyn to even think its vaguely right leaning.

I don't believe the OP's original argument stands up though.

Yet it's executive board and most of it's political correspondents are/have been right wingers... Who cares if the proles are a bit lefty, they can't do anything near as much as a presenter/host/correspondent can, and even they're ultimately at the behest of the executive.

Cameron knew what he was doing when he refit the organisation to his liking, at the very least pro-his-government. So what if it quotes the Guardian, as I can only see that as being your bias seeing what you want to see.

Question time in particular with Pedley (evidence implies quite a lot about her political positions) choosing audiences for showpieces rather than discussion made otherwise niche opinions seem widespread than they ought to be. A respectable show under the BBC's articles should be randomly picking people to legitimately show the actual breadth of opinion in the country, rather than say inviting an orange order person on multiple times, strangely being allowed each time to ask their question... that isn't balanced, though it could just be incompetence in audience selecting, I can certainly believe that to some extent.

The real issue is that, the fundamental issue with the BBC is that balance is earned, not given and to give 'balance' is to misinform people by it's very nature. The charter needs to change so that damaging opinions - like anti-vax - are given no airtime, or if they must be, in such a manner that it is negatively portrayed.

 

[hominid]

Vote with your wallet, if you don't like what the BBC are doing, like me, then don't pay the TV license - it's as easy as that. I haven't watched live TV in about 5/6 years and I'm so much better for not having my daily dose of 'programming'.

 

[VincentHanna]

Vote with your wallet, if you don't like what the BBC are doing, like me, then don't pay the TV license - it's as easy as that. I haven't watched live TV in about 5/6 years and I'm so much better for not having my daily dose of 'programming'.

What are they doing you don't like?

And how do you know you don't like what they are doing if you aren't watching it?

 

[Nasher]

Not paid mine for a year. It's about time they scrapped the licence and moved to ads or a subscription, like every other broadcaster.

 

[Meridian]

Again I find myself saying: if you (in general) can't even agree on which way the BBC is biased, then the bias clearly isn't very big. There are posts here accusing them of every possible bias. Of course they are biased. But a **** of a sight less than every other alternative out there.

 

[Werewolf]

The real question is, why do people watch the news in the first place. We have a whole internet of information.

Because broadcast news where you've got some form of provenence for the stories, fact checking and regulations to try and ensure they're truthful is seen as a little more reliable than "the honest truthers" youtube channel where everything is blamed on chemtrails and the nwo, and where ordering a ham and pineapple pizza is claimed to be a code for a red haired virgin served up in the basement of a building that has no basement?

 

[Alex_6n2]

This, the BBC is right wing.

I avoid it....well I avoid all TV now so I don't get brainwashed. I'll tune in at the parents for wildlife documentaries though, that is all.

Best way to have an objective understanding of the world is to avoid all sources that don't fit your own political bias. Good one.

Is there a lot of echo in your chamber?

Just because you read or watch something, doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Remain objective and you won't get brainwashed.