The BBC..... Really

[Columbo]

I don't find the BBC particularly biased but some of the interviews, especially on The Today Programme of late have been a bit cringe worthy.
Some of the points that the presenters seem to labour on are irrelevant and on 2 occasions in the last week I've heard the presenter literally try and put words into the mouth of the person being interviewed.

It's almost like the questioning has an agenda to try and achieve a news worthy result, tactics the BBC should not and does not need to engage in given their funding source.

 

[manic_man]

The "human spin" is largely the problem, especially in the US when you have most of the media owned by a few corporations.

In the old days 'news' would just be the known facts and that's it, these days with 24 hour news which borders on entertainment you get bombarded by opinions from so called 'experts' and politicians that a lot of the time are coming from the same angle as the stations bias, it's a sort of brainwashing really because people aren't just being told the news but they're being told what to think about it.

It is, by its very definition propaganda, from all angles. In many cases it's relatively harmless, the problem is when it is used by a person or regime that has clandestine intentions (think Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany to name a few obvious examples but there are far far more).

The nature of information interleaved with opinion is not going to go away, it is part of human nature, nobody can just give out facts and very few would read/watch somebody doing so. The main problem is a growing population across the globe who are predisposed away from challenging thought. They don't have to be "clever", they just have to have the mindset that they need to consider everything they are told and make their own mind up. You can teach this mindset, we, and most across the globe, currently dont.

 

[mmj_uk]

It's not just that but it's reaching a point where anyone who doesn't mindlessly parrot the mainstream provided narrative is being branded an 'extremist', you either keep in line or get thrown into the same basket as terrorists.

Another problem with the media today is how they ignore stories that don't fit their agenda, Trump made a very good point yesterday about the leaked emails which revealed how Hillary had received the questions to a debate, if it had been Trump that cheated the US media would have crucified him but because it was darling Hillary who they were all strangely rooting for they all conspired to turn a blind eye and most people today still don't even know about it.

 

[VincentHanna]

Another problem with the media today is how they ignore stories that don't fit their agenda, Trump made a very good point yesterday about the leaked emails which revealed how Hillary had received the questions to a debate, if it had been Trump that cheated the US media would have crucified him but because it was darling Hillary who they were all strangely rooting for they all conspired to turn a blind eye and most people today still don't even know about it.

Are you talking about this widely reported incident?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-debate-question-wikileaks-john-a7389886.html

 

[manic_man]

It's not just that but it's reaching a point where anyone who doesn't mindlessly parrot the mainstream provided narrative is being branded an 'extremist', you either keep in line or get thrown into the same basket as terrorists.

Another problem with the media today is how they ignore stories that don't fit their agenda, Trump made a very good point yesterday about the leaked emails which revealed how Hillary had received the questions to a debate, if it had been Trump that cheated the US media would have crucified him but because it was darling Hillary who they were all strangely rooting for they all conspired to turn a blind eye and most people today still don't even know about it.

But this behaviour is effectively the same as a reporter putting their own spin on a set of facts. It's also nothing new, there is a reason that all of the current news outlets have well-defined "sectors" they appeal to. Everybody knows that the Daily Mail is for right-wing fascists while the Guardian is for hemp eating left wing liberals!

The thing to really bear in mind is that just because Trump is bringing these things to the forefront for the first time in a while, he and his administration are just as bad as the news outlets they are calling and the fact they very clearly align with the "truth telling" outlets that were already aligned to the right-wing side of things is a very clear definition of how Trump and his party sit. That isn't a commentary on what is right or wrong, just to bear in mind that EVERYBODY has an agenda and what way to "crush your enemies" than to make it look as though their way of doing things is wrong and your way is right, when in reality they are just two different approaches.

And just for the sake of getting my opinion in and unbalancing the statements, because that's what us human beings do, when the "approach" in question errs towards segregation, hate, scaremongering and name calling then I propose that is not the right approach...

 

[[TFU] Thegoon84]

Even fox news were calling out trump for his lies:

How does that fit the narrative? Fox being big supporters of republican conservatives

wow!!!

 

[scotty365]

It's not just that but it's reaching a point where anyone who doesn't mindlessly parrot the mainstream provided narrative is being branded an 'extremist', you either keep in line or get thrown into the same basket as terrorists.

Another problem with the media today is how they ignore stories that don't fit their agenda, Trump made a very good point yesterday about the leaked emails which revealed how Hillary had received the questions to a debate, if it had been Trump that cheated the US media would have crucified him but because it was darling Hillary who they were all strangely rooting for they all conspired to turn a blind eye and most people today still don't even know about it.

Trump is taking a hammering in the media - it was gonna happen but I hear people saying that it is a deliberate campaign to destroy any credibility he might get from anything he does or says. He is starting to confront the media now and I think it's because of this campaign. I guess the people behind it would like to destabilise the presidencey and get him out - there are people that are frightened of what Trump might do to their cosy 'business as usual' antics.

 

[ebilcake]

I've never thought of the BBC as unbiased, they may try to be impartial but fail most of the time.

Not sure if it's intentional or just incompetence.

 

[Werewolf]

Trump is taking a hammering in the media - it was gonna happen but I hear people saying that it is a deliberate campaign to destroy any credibility he might get from anything he does or says. He is starting to confront the media now and I think it's because of this campaign. I guess the people behind it would like to destabilise the presidencey and get him out - there are people that are frightened of what Trump might do to their cosy 'business as usual' antics.

The reason Trump is getting a hammering is because he keeps telling easily provable lies, and his administration is so far an utter shambles (with people he chose despite warnings about their suitability/backgrounds being forced to resign/sacked within days/weeks).

The White House has never been expected to tell the whole truth all the time, and it's not unknown for them to lie to protect national security.
Under Trump however the White House has gone from somewhere that Journalists know they might not get an answer or might get a partial answer (and need to dig more to get the full story), but rarely an outright lie, to one where the administration is flat out lying to them over trivial matters that are extremely easily checked out.
This isn't things like "There are no American Troops in X" (which technically might be true if it's CIA agents...), this is "I won by the biggest margin since X"or "there was a terrorist attack that no one reported on".

That makes it a story, the fact that the President and his staff are for the first time lying about pretty much everything, including stuff that doesn't matter and isn't important.
Any news agency or journalist worth their salt will call out obvious lies, especially from senior political figures who are using the lies to try and do things.

 

[Cosimo]

Is the BBC news now the publicity machine for the NHS, spending time generating "news" for them? There will soon be less news reporting and more news generation in their thirty minute news programs.

 

[Pixel]

The BBC is a paedophile harbour and not to be trusted.

 

[unwashed potato!]

Who's likely to stop him, his friends in government? I'm sure he wants payback for all the half-truths and lies his rags spout whether it's at election time or throughout the Brexit campaign.

i don't get what you're saying. i'm assuming the lies his rags spout were towards leaving the EU and not remaining, which is not what the government wanted, so why would the government owe him anything?

i personally think it's about as unbiased as an news org can get. they will have moments i'm sure where they lean one way or the other, but in no way do i feel they make excuses for any party or ignore anything a party does just because they like that party.

one issue i see is how when bbc say the are balanced is people then expect the bbc to show support and critism of both sides when one is clearly nuts. for instance hilary vs trump. the crud trump comes up with is clearly crud. the bbc could report that crud, but then they'd get critised for not reporting something bad about hilary. but that's not how it works as much as the anti hilary folk wanted it to be that way. thats when people start incorrectly saying the bbc is biased.

 

[pingu666]

Ive thought laura knusberg? the political lady hasnt liked corbyn, we often have pieces that state labour arent a effective opposition etc, but nothing as to why.

similier to how the eu is in crisis over migrants, while thats true, the line of thinking doesnt extend to what would happen if they really where completely idenpenant states, how would that help the situation, it probably would be a bigger disaster.

 

[Cromulent]

I'll stick to using the BBC, The Financial Times and The Guardian as my main sources of news. Good mix there. One other decent source I could add would be The Times. Might start looking at that more often as well.

 

[VincentHanna]

And in doing so you would be very well informed about world events

Honestly, people on OCUk who use Breitbart and infowars accuse the BBC of Bias, it's ridiculous.

 

[Zethor]

The BBC is quite balanced.

The BBC is a paedophile harbour and not to be trusted.

Out of curiosity, what do you trust?

 

[asim18]

It's not just about "balance" and "bias". The BBC propagates bull ****. The fact that it's "balanced" doesn't negate the fact that it's BS.

For example their reporting of the London City Airport False Flag was utterly horrendous.

 

[Pixel]

Out of curiosity, what do you trust?

Not peadophile harbours, that's for sure.

 

[Sliver]

Honestly, people on OCUk who use Breitbart and infowars accuse the BBC of Bias, it's ridiculous.

Couldn't agree more. The hypocrisy of certain forum members is monumental . The picture below, first posted by Ubersonic in post 113 fits perfectly with how I view various news outlets. So good I just had to repost it.

 

[asim18]

HAHAHA that chart has BBC listed as a "great source of news".

And why the heck is Infowars even on the chart lmao?