Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

BBC Bias

MaxwellBygravesMaxwellBygraves Posts: 1,455
edited February 2014 in The cake stop
A new study by researchers at Cardiff University has produced evidence to demonstrate the BBC is biased towards the right.

Professor Lewis of Cardiff University:
The available evidence on the BBC centre of gravity does not suggest a leftist tilt. On the contrary, its dependence on certain dominant institutions notably in the business world and the national print media – would appear to push it the other way.

Mike Berry, lecturer at Cardiff University:
So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda.

Interesting food for thought especially in light of the repeated unsubstantiated claims from many on the political right about left-wing BBC bias.

Sources:
https://theconversation.com/hard-eviden ... -bbc-17028
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 29639.html
"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer

Posts

  • DesB3rdDesB3rd Posts: 285
    UKIP/right Conservatives think the BBC is a hive of commi conspiracy while Guardian/Indy types think it's a prop to the worst elements of the privileged establishment; to me that suggests that even if they do lean slightly one way or other they're not doing to bad a job of walking the middle.

    Frankly good luck to Pr.Lewis - anyone trying to define something as wooly & subjective as the "political middle" is going to lay themselves open lay themselves open to criticism of "choosing their conclusions."
  • I've said many times, the BBC always seems to get under the skin and irritate whichever party is in government. This to me shows it is a great institution not afraid to ruffle feathers, long my it continue.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • I had the misfortune to see BBC Breakfast a few months ago and was so incensed that they unquestioningly let Iain Duncan Smith peddle his beliefs as facts that I wrote and complained (the one and only time I might add).

    The BBC response was that if they'd challenged his "beliefs" he wouldn't have come on the programme so they toadied up to him instead. A colleague later told me that John Humphries wasn't much better allowing him to get away with mistruths as fact on the Today programme.

    For political balance, I hated how the BBC would always promote big headline stories from Labour at the weekend before their full release on Monday as a way of gauging public opinion. Cameron said he would stop such politics by media but of course he u-turned on that idea.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 46,746 Lives Here
    Broadly fair. They rely on the same faces too often on Newsnight.
  • sungodsungod Posts: 12,210
    I've said many times, the BBC always seems to get under the skin and irritate whichever party is in government. This to me shows it is a great institution not afraid to ruffle feathers, long my it continue.

    this

    although, i'd like them to do more feather ruffling, and less populist shite
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • There is a report into alleged bias on one particular issue that the BBC have refused to publish, for some reason.

    I mean it's not like we paid for it or anything, is it?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    I don't think the question of bias is something I'm overly concerned with, it's more the general crappy, superficial reporting these days. More or Less is good though.
  • floreriderflorerider Posts: 1,046
    They never asked the one piercing question about Gordon Brown German TV did, which was to ask how many languages Gordon brown spoke, it must be a lot since he always removed his head phones after speaking in the European Parliament and evidently understood everyone else's point of view in their native language.

    No sense of humour these Germans.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 39,612
    Nice to hear they've got the right sort of bias. Here was me thinking the BBC was a bunch of pinko liberals trying to subvert our great nation :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • smoggystevesmoggysteve Posts: 2,918
    I had the misfortune to see BBC Breakfast a few months ago.

    What was Susanna Reid wearing? Only reason I can think of to watch BBC breakfast.
  • I had the misfortune to see BBC Breakfast a few months ago.

    What was Susanna Reid wearing? Only reason I can think of to watch BBC breakfast.
    I'm more a Carol Kirkwood man.
  • MattC59MattC59 Posts: 5,433
    Dr Who is clearly a Tory !
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • If both sides are accusing you of bias then chances are you aren't biased.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,035
    Intelligent comment (from the Telegraph, but written by Dan Hodges who has a Union/Labour background)
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danho ... overnment/
  • "The second standard BBC argument is “It’s our job to hold the government of the day to account.” But it isn’t. It’s the voters' job to hold the government of the day to account. It’s the BBC’s job to give them the facts – in an even-handed and unbiased way – to enable them to make an informed judgment when they do."

    I don't really agree with that. It's broadcasters responsibility, and especially a state broadcaster like the BBC, to hold the government to account and challenge them, and they appear to be doing just that. This is the British tradition.
  • ProssPross Posts: 22,153
    If both sides are accusing you of bias then chances are you aren't biased.

    This. I used to listen to Radio 5 on my way home and you could guarantee that after Peter Allen interviewed any politician you would have people accusing him being a liberal pinko and others of being a rabid facist which to me suggests he's a decent journalist who plays devil's advocate well.
  • Pross wrote:
    a decent journalist who plays devil's advocate well.

    This is the typical fashion of political interviews, made famous by Paxman amongst others. It's the interviewers job to put the opposing point of view and have the politician justify it. Standard opening gambits being along the lines of "Well minister, this is all a total shambles isn't it?"
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 46,746 Lives Here
    bompington wrote:
    Intelligent comment (from the Telegraph, but written by Dan Hodges who has a Union/Labour background)
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danho ... overnment/

    He's arguing a different point to the research. The research principally says that the BBC relies too heavily on expert opinion and talking heads which are from traditionally right professions, and has a tendency to over look those from more traditionally left wing professions.

    These are often, though not always, presented as a reasonably 'neutral' position, and why not, if they're the only expert?

    Newsnight is a good example.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 46,746 Lives Here
    Pross wrote:
    If both sides are accusing you of bias then chances are you aren't biased.

    This. I used to listen to Radio 5 on my way home and you could guarantee that after Peter Allen interviewed any politician you would have people accusing him being a liberal pinko and others of being a rabid facist which to me suggests he's a decent journalist who plays devil's advocate well.

    I object to this idea that if "both sides" are complaining is good, for a number of reasons.

    a) it assumes that all issues are two sided. They clearly never are. The wider press (though the bbc is the worst offender) has a particular propensity to reduce every single issue to a binary argument. It's reductive to the point of being divisive for the sake of 'debate' and public engagement in the news, which is totally overrated. Any issue should be reported as simply as possible, but never simplified so it compromises any accuracy.

    - Speaking of which, I genuinely don't give a flying f*ck what the man in the street thinks unless an official poll is the actual news story. I can see why they do it - reporting the news and the public reaction's to the news generates a lovely feedback loop which fills the gaping holes that their programming has because they've been so reductive in their reporting and it fills the criteria of 'public engagement'. Just tell me the bloody news as it actually is, and give me some expert analysis. In all that time I listen to talking heads who are telling the news about what they thought the same news station had told them they could have actually giving me some impartial analysis.


    b) just because everyone is complaining about the coverage and bias doesn't mean it's neutral. All it means is that the news is being reported in a divisive way. If they actually just reported the facts and gave analysis, rather than finishing every news story with 'critics are saying' then it would be up to everyone to draw their own conclusions from what they've seen, rather than foam at the mouth.
Sign In or Register to comment.