BBC bias sick of it.

To be pedantic, no you don't, you only need to pay if you USE your TV to receive broadcasts. Just because it is capable of doing so, doesn't mean you need to pay the licence fee tax.

quite. Given that the complaint is about BBC News, which you can quite happily read online without a TV license, ridiculous seems quite appropriate.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;14694495 said:
They report what they want because they sit around and decide which stories they feel are the most important to fit into their 30 minute slot. If this story didn't make the cut, then that's just because that sometimes happens.

It's not bias.

this
 
Watch a news network like FOX in America then you'll know the meaning of bias.

To be fair I think the BBC is unquestionably biased, and they don't even make a particularly big secret about it. They admitted as much recently. They said that they only include opinions from the mainstream parliamentary consensus, and anything that deviates from that world view simply does not get reported on their website or their news programmes.
 
I'm sick of you posting serious topics where you will reply to well constructed arguments with one sentance replies, ignoring the majority of the argument.
 
I just saw this article which seems to be another example of poor BBC reporting.

A row has started over Oxford Airport which changed its name to London Oxford Airport despite being about 60 miles away from the capital.

The airport in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, said it hoped the rebranding would raise its international profile.

When they say 'from the capital' they actually mean from Parliament square.

Distance to London Airports
London Heathrow 18 miles (29km)
London Gatwick 30 miles (48km)
London Luton 34 miles (55km)
London Stansted 43 miles (69km)
London Southend 43 miles (69km)
London Oxford 62 miles (100km)
London Ashford 73 miles (117km)
Source: Google Maps- shortest route starting from Parliament Square
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8205130.stm

Surely the distance to London should refer to the moment you enter London, not to its centre?
 
I just saw this article which seems to be another example of poor BBC reporting.



When they say 'from the capital' they actually mean from Parliament square.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8205130.stm

Surely the distance to London should refer to the moment you enter London, not to its centre?

Actually the accepted definition of London is Marble Arch. That's the case for any road sign you see in the country.
 
Well it shouldn't be seen as a positive thing - houses are the only thing we buy where we are conditioned to believe a rise in the price of them is desirable, which I find perverse.

+1

Increases in house prices are like paper money. The money isn't real, you still have to sell your house and buy another, which will have also gone up!
 
Actually the accepted definition of London is Marble Arch. That's the case for any road sign you see in the country.

Surprised it's not Apsley House, since it's address is 1, London.

It's only logical to measure to a known fixed point near the centre since the edge of any city / town will constantly move. It's the same for all road signs in the UK.
 
Last edited:
The BBC is incredibly biased. I remember when the elections were on and it was reporting about the BNP... I'm not a supporter of the BNP but I can't believe how badly the BBC portrayed them in interviews and reports. It was some of the most biased news I have ever had the misfortune of watching. It reminded me of watching "brass eye" if anyone remembers that, it was cringe worthy.
 
Over the past 5 years the BBC service certainly does seem to have dumbed down.
It isn't so much moving with the times as pandering to people of low intellect, unsure why this is the case but it is clearly evident on many of their newsfeeds, not so much the main news programs, but a great deal of radio news broadcasts, and channels other than BBC have very odd target audiences.

Radio 1 and BBC 3 for example, do not seem to aim for the young demographic as one might expect, it aims for the low intelligence demographic of all ages, and I considered using the R word but would rather turn my point into a flame fest. Radio 1 however, would usethe word and then spend 20 minutes explaining why using the word is bold or naughty or not-hip. It appears they expect their audience to be idiots rather than young.

Does 1-extra carry news? Can't say I have listened, but if they do I'd love to compare the sister-stations.
 
Back
Top Bottom