The election 2015
- Thread starter trudij
- Start date
EC1
On a break
we were discussing Beeb bias earlier in the thread...here is a classic example of how the bbc are biased against labour...all week they played on the mcdonnel U turn..while failing to address this U turn..Osbourne making himself look a complete idiot with this outpouring of typical tory p1ss taking..that has now backfired on him.. To me this is a far better/more embarrassing uturn than mcdonnels...the beeb never mentioned it once this week..totally biased
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/654345058204778496
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/654345058204778496
Last edited:
Rubbish. If you think the bbc should gloss over a huge issue within labour and the fact that the shadow chancellor clealy doesn't understand his brief
Anyone who thinks that the bbc is biased against labour is out of their mind. The coverage of thatchers death was a disgrace for a start. Banging on endlessly about miners who were and are irrelevant and throwing up thick students wishing her dead
Anyone who thinks that the bbc is biased against labour is out of their mind. The coverage of thatchers death was a disgrace for a start. Banging on endlessly about miners who were and are irrelevant and throwing up thick students wishing her dead
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
no i don't expect them to gloss over it..i just expect them to show the clip in the above link where osbourne derides the whole idea...he now looks a bigger clown than mcdonnel
lets be honest..both of them have made themselves look daft
this is the problem with the media..when someone does a uturn in a short period of time..they make a fuss..thats fair enough..bet lets not be forgetting that a uturn to the degree osborne has turned..also wants highlighting..when its the same issue
instead of trying to think i'm saying something i'm not ..just read what i put..no mcdonnel..deserves teh stick...but on the same issue..bbc have failed to highlight osbornes massive change of mind..on the same issue
thats not balanced..its reactive lazy journalism related to the present ..as though the past never happened with osborne...but they will delve back 30 years for corbyn to highlight negatives or changes of mind
i don't care what the beeb have done in the past..since corbyn got to be leader..and in run up... they have highlighted his negatives..and completely ignored tory ones..so..thats biased
i'm a neutral here Clive..i don't care for either party..and the bias is glaring..just on this one issue alone
Last edited:
I'll give an example of lack of bbc bias and perhaps a swing the other way. I love the today programme but will often miss a good chunk of it. if I do I catch up on the clips from the programme on the website. They usually have three and nearly always includes the interview of the day just after 8
flabbots interview on tues was probably the worst I've ever heard on the programme . It wasn't even funny (mainly because she has quite a nasty tone) it was seriously embarrassing for labour and the obvious highlight of the programme
was it available on a clip.
No.....
flabbots interview on tues was probably the worst I've ever heard on the programme . It wasn't even funny (mainly because she has quite a nasty tone) it was seriously embarrassing for labour and the obvious highlight of the programme
was it available on a clip.
No.....
The BBC manmagement are generally speaking establishment Tories and have been for decades
The lower ranking journalists/ backroom researcher tend to be soft Liberal/ Labour (Andrew Marr is probably the heaviest 'new labour')
The 'heavy weight' political commentators/ presenters tend to be Tory (Paxman, Dimbleby, Neil, Robinson, Oakley)
Strangely, their economics/ business editors have a reputation for being new Labour (Peston, Flanders, Davies) - although they've all been purged - ok headhunted. They're increasingly using the Asian chap who writes for the Sunday Telegraph (more unrestrained there) whose name escape me right now (Kamal Ahmed?) - now he's a vehement Tory
The overall balance is a conservative bias at the BBC but for the most part it doesn't impact massively on the broadcasting in such a way as the naked partisan broadcasting of the likes of Sky or Fox do
The trend is for which ever party is in government to embolden their own faction within the organisation. Because Tories hold the dominant position in management, it tends to be a little bit more noticeable under conservative governments, and especially when their charter is up for renewal!!!
The lower ranking journalists/ backroom researcher tend to be soft Liberal/ Labour (Andrew Marr is probably the heaviest 'new labour')
The 'heavy weight' political commentators/ presenters tend to be Tory (Paxman, Dimbleby, Neil, Robinson, Oakley)
Strangely, their economics/ business editors have a reputation for being new Labour (Peston, Flanders, Davies) - although they've all been purged - ok headhunted. They're increasingly using the Asian chap who writes for the Sunday Telegraph (more unrestrained there) whose name escape me right now (Kamal Ahmed?) - now he's a vehement Tory
The overall balance is a conservative bias at the BBC but for the most part it doesn't impact massively on the broadcasting in such a way as the naked partisan broadcasting of the likes of Sky or Fox do
The trend is for which ever party is in government to embolden their own faction within the organisation. Because Tories hold the dominant position in management, it tends to be a little bit more noticeable under conservative governments, and especially when their charter is up for renewal!!!
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
do you think osborne looks a tit from that clip?
he clearly does..he's made a donut of himself with one of the biggest uturns of all time
at least mcdonnell admitted it was embarrasing what he did..which it clearly was..osborne has to much ego to admit similar..too arrogant..
your views Clive would have more weight..if you treated each party the same..you don't and come across as dodging the issue
lets be honest..75% of MP's..no matter waht the party are like 75% of most employees..pretty average
imo..in any workplace..there are about 20% of people who are commited and concientious..many people aren't..mps just fit the same stats
to say Preston and flanders were driven out is total bollocks
skymis nothing like Fox News.
I listen to the radio more than tv and it would be extremely difficult to pinpoint any bias with any of the presenters there. The idea that the bbc is a conservative mouthpiece is absurd.
To nail this rubbish once and for all, quotes from some pretty heavyweight broadcasting names who are certainly not all right wing
[h=1]In Their Own Words[/h]When people ask for evidence of an institutional Left-wing bias at the BBC, this is the place to go for evidence. Out of the mouths of Beeboids….
[h=1]In Their Own Words[/h]When people ask for evidence of an institutional Left-wing bias at the BBC, this is the place to go for evidence. Out of the mouths of Beeboids….
The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”.
All this, he said, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.
–Andrew MarrAll this, he said, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.
“It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat.
“If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the earth is round!’, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.”
– Jeff Randall, former BBC business editor“If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the earth is round!’, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.”
By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. *Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on *running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.
– Peter Sissons, Former BBC News and Current Affairs presenter
“In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people’s personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.
“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We’re like that, too.”
– Mark Thomspon, former BBC Director General“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We’re like that, too.”
“I do remember… the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I’ll always remember that”
– Jane Garvey, Radio 4 presenter, recalling Tony Blair’s election victory in 1997
I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the Health Service, state welfare, the social sciences, the environment and state education. But perhaps our most powerful antagonism was directed at advertising. This is not surprising; commercial television was the biggest threat the BBC had ever had to face.
– Sir Antony Jay, former BBC producer and creator, inter alia, of “Yes, (Prime) Minister”
“Liberal sceptical humanists tend to dominate television”.
The “default position in broadcasting” – when covering issues such as gay marriage and the Roman Catholic position on IVF – revolved around human rights, and that opponents should not be treated as “lunatics”.
“All I’m saying is, if you have at the centre of News an editor, he could explain why people in particular areas…are motivated, why they behave as they do and I think that would just increase understanding.”
– Roger Bolton, Radio 4 presenter and former head of Panorama and NationwideThe “default position in broadcasting” – when covering issues such as gay marriage and the Roman Catholic position on IVF – revolved around human rights, and that opponents should not be treated as “lunatics”.
“All I’m saying is, if you have at the centre of News an editor, he could explain why people in particular areas…are motivated, why they behave as they do and I think that would just increase understanding.”
“And, in the tone of what we say about America, we have a tendency to scorn and deride. We don’t give America any kind of moral weight in our broadcasts.”
– Justin Webb (pg. 66), Today presenter and former BBC North America editor
“We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”
– Ben Stephenson, BBC controller of drama commissioning
Reading a full sentance has never been a strong point of yours has it!
Last edited:
stating the actual facts has never been yours
peston is a bit awful and loves attention a little too much. But it was sad he lost his wife
i know someone that's met Flanders. Quite something by all accounts. I think she's a great loss to the bbc and broadcasting in general
I fear you're confusing opinion with facts here Clive.
This has been surveyed before by substantive research teams drawn from academe, not biasedbbc.org who shamelessly cut and paste from
If you want facts and the supporting data then I refer you to this report (which unlike your source isn't monitoring twitter feed from malcontents and right wing whingers like Jeff Randall)
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/breadth_opinion/content_analysis.pdf
Knowing that you won't read it, (and in this case I don't blame you - neither would I) here's a summary
http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028
I'm not the slightest bit interested in what some students or public funded lecturers want to prove. Wont even bother to look
i would far rather listen to what the Marrs and sissons of this world have to tell me. They worked there and they know the score
opinions of insiders with deep knowledge of the orgaisnation ARE facts.
frankly it's pretty odd that anyone would believe that the bbc is not staffed and run by the guardian reading class. It's goes with the terroitry. It's not even worth debating
i would far rather listen to what the Marrs and sissons of this world have to tell me. They worked there and they know the score
opinions of insiders with deep knowledge of the orgaisnation ARE facts.
frankly it's pretty odd that anyone would believe that the bbc is not staffed and run by the guardian reading class. It's goes with the terroitry. It's not even worth debating
Last edited:
Ok I looked at the so called analysis of business representitives
what utter drivel
of course ourse they will have more space on the bbc than itv. Because that channel has limited news airtime and does not cover much in depth at all. It just trots out the stories and rarely conducts the interviews you will get in bbc 24
And believimg that trade unionists should have same exposure as "business leaders". Bit of a giveaway maybe?
Lets ts stop there shall we?
although I would suggest that the bbc are doing the trade unions a favour by not exposing their leaders to difficult questions ??? They are a pretty thick bunch at the best of times
Either way think it's fair to say that business leaders and owners account for rather a greater proportion of the economy and affect rather more peoples lives than the rapid diminishing trade union base.
what utter drivel
of course ourse they will have more space on the bbc than itv. Because that channel has limited news airtime and does not cover much in depth at all. It just trots out the stories and rarely conducts the interviews you will get in bbc 24
And believimg that trade unionists should have same exposure as "business leaders". Bit of a giveaway maybe?
Lets ts stop there shall we?
although I would suggest that the bbc are doing the trade unions a favour by not exposing their leaders to difficult questions ??? They are a pretty thick bunch at the best of times
Either way think it's fair to say that business leaders and owners account for rather a greater proportion of the economy and affect rather more peoples lives than the rapid diminishing trade union base.
Last edited:
Oh god. It gets worse
the city
well quite frankly of course you need financial people to talk about the banking crisis. And who are these "city voices". They haven't exactly segregated the many economists and financial commentators who were heavily and rightly critical of what occurred have they? And I recall dominated the discussion? Rightly so
you could equally argue that it was putting the city on the spot. Ratehr have flabbots view?
This is comical. If the car industry crashed who would you interrogate about it? The nurses?
like so much of this stuff it's clearly set out to prove a point. That simply blows apart any trust in the figures.
i don't believe the bbc is particularly biased either way. It has its moments but generally treads a straight enough line
the city
well quite frankly of course you need financial people to talk about the banking crisis. And who are these "city voices". They haven't exactly segregated the many economists and financial commentators who were heavily and rightly critical of what occurred have they? And I recall dominated the discussion? Rightly so
you could equally argue that it was putting the city on the spot. Ratehr have flabbots view?
This is comical. If the car industry crashed who would you interrogate about it? The nurses?
like so much of this stuff it's clearly set out to prove a point. That simply blows apart any trust in the figures.
i don't believe the bbc is particularly biased either way. It has its moments but generally treads a straight enough line
Last edited:
OK, say you clearly don't know what hurdles an academic paper has to overcome in order to get published in an academic journal. This isn't some student writing an under graduate dissertation Clive (only foreign policy towards Iraq gets formulated that way). Terms of references, and methods are deeply probed by independent peer review panels before they're signed off on and released for publication. Mistakes and methodological flaws are seized with relish in these pedantic cauldrons. Whereas I'll certainly accept that there are some alarming examples of getting bad research through (I can think of two spectacular examples) it's still very difficult, albeit the system isn't infallible. It's a much harder threshold to satisfy than a private sector research consultancy, think tank with an agenda, or market research team (albeit the latter example there tends to be very tight as well come to think of it - they take methodology very seriously too)
Opinions are never facts. I just don't know where you got that from. An opinion is an opinion. It's that straight forward. It's why you have differences of opinion because facts can't settle these areas decisively
The picture that emerges from this is closer to that which I talked about at the start.
The BBC tends to give greater prominence to the government. That makes sense. The government oversee their governance (indirectly) and the state broadcaster consequently has to foster closer relations with the government than the opposition (they'd be stupid not to). However, in terms of profile, they give greater prominence to Conservative government's proportionately. I think you could argue about positive and negative coverage, and whereas as some of that is clear, alot of it starts to fall into the grey area of opinion, and also invites the retort of poorly performing political representatives generating their own negtaive coverage by dint of their capabilties
The rank file employee I believe tends to be soft labour/ liberal, so too I believe do the producers. The management and heavy weight presenters however tend to be conservative. If you ran a number count you'd find more Labour voters, if you tried to do it by influence a different picture emerges
Opinions are never facts. I just don't know where you got that from. An opinion is an opinion. It's that straight forward. It's why you have differences of opinion because facts can't settle these areas decisively
The picture that emerges from this is closer to that which I talked about at the start.
The BBC tends to give greater prominence to the government. That makes sense. The government oversee their governance (indirectly) and the state broadcaster consequently has to foster closer relations with the government than the opposition (they'd be stupid not to). However, in terms of profile, they give greater prominence to Conservative government's proportionately. I think you could argue about positive and negative coverage, and whereas as some of that is clear, alot of it starts to fall into the grey area of opinion, and also invites the retort of poorly performing political representatives generating their own negtaive coverage by dint of their capabilties
The rank file employee I believe tends to be soft labour/ liberal, so too I believe do the producers. The management and heavy weight presenters however tend to be conservative. If you ran a number count you'd find more Labour voters, if you tried to do it by influence a different picture emerges
Last edited:
inthink you have left off presenters such as the dreadful Jeremy Bowen and the rather good john pienar but maybe so
opnions as facts distilled. If they come froma trusted source I would far rather rtake that then some academia
their "survey" is crap frankly
The other issue is clearly that coverage time is hardly indicative or positive coverage is it? Could argue the exact opposite. This is startling naive
would labour welcome heavy coverage at the present time? I don't think so.....
flabbot on day and night. Fcking hell
and I think in 2008 most bankers would rather have hid well away than be interrogated by paxman or humphreys
would labour welcome heavy coverage at the present time? I don't think so.....
flabbot on day and night. Fcking hell
and I think in 2008 most bankers would rather have hid well away than be interrogated by paxman or humphreys
Last edited:
That's what's called an opinion Clive, not a fact!
My own opinion on this, is that the discipline of academic research that needs to be observed mitigates against the outcome.
In this case they have to look for things that can be surveyed objectively (content expressed by time of exposure, time of day, prominence on news bulletins by way of item number, or the number of viewers reached, subject matter covered etc) is a reasonably static variable. These are some of the few cold indicators that they can invoke scientifically. Once they start trying to introduce a dynamic variable such as a subjective opinion as to whether this content was positive or negative they start to walk into a minefield. They had better have a bloody good algorithm behind their classifications to justify their conclusions, otherwise they're merely expressing an opinion and will be slaughtered at peer review, with the consequence that they won't be permitted to publsih with the necessary accreditation. It looks to me as if they've had to pull up short of doing this, which is why the research is framed the way it is and has had to avoid passing a subjective judgement in case it merely becomes opinion
Last edited:
It's just stats .it is assuming that the coverage is equivalent to party political broadcasts which is nonsense
yoummay as well say that the heavy coverage of Israel but not Sudan say, is in Israelis favour.
see my comments above. End of story
yoummay as well say that the heavy coverage of Israel but not Sudan say, is in Israelis favour.
see my comments above. End of story
Last edited:
Statistcis with a full methodology are an evidence base Clive. That becomes critical in this discipline. You'll find that they're accepted as being a sight closer to a fact than tweets are (unless you can turn the tweets into some kind of proxy indicator with a corresponding null or something similar to validate them). You can't dismiss them by saying they're "just stats". Would you do the same about favourable economic indicators?
You can't call for facts on one hand #962 and then dismiss them in favour of opinion if you don't like what you hear
The qualitative issue is of course one I raised earlier for fear that you might miss it #968, but as I also point out in #972, it's an incredibly difficult barrier to overcome as it inevitably drags you into opinion as you start wrestling with dynamic variables, and that's before you start trying to work out how to express these findings in a quantitative analysis once you've captured what ever findings it is you think you've got. Personally, I'd have thought it capable of being done to a qualified level with all the necessary caveats, as academic work is always open to scrutiny, but you're going to introduce an unavoidable element of subjectivity into the findings, albeit stats can also legislate for 'error'
You can't call for facts on one hand #962 and then dismiss them in favour of opinion if you don't like what you hear
The qualitative issue is of course one I raised earlier for fear that you might miss it #968, but as I also point out in #972, it's an incredibly difficult barrier to overcome as it inevitably drags you into opinion as you start wrestling with dynamic variables, and that's before you start trying to work out how to express these findings in a quantitative analysis once you've captured what ever findings it is you think you've got. Personally, I'd have thought it capable of being done to a qualified level with all the necessary caveats, as academic work is always open to scrutiny, but you're going to introduce an unavoidable element of subjectivity into the findings, albeit stats can also legislate for 'error'
Last edited:
Just waffle warbler.
The stats are meaningless as I have shown. Prove nothing at all
do I have to say it again? The point about quantity of coverage is killed stone dead
city bankers (but they clearly blur that line don't they?) interviewed and exposed after 2008 was hardly a positive for them was it?
did Fred Goodwin volunteer to be on the box 24/7? I don't think so
The stats are meaningless as I have shown. Prove nothing at all
do I have to say it again? The point about quantity of coverage is killed stone dead
city bankers (but they clearly blur that line don't they?) interviewed and exposed after 2008 was hardly a positive for them was it?
did Fred Goodwin volunteer to be on the box 24/7? I don't think so