Friday debate: Is there a UK media bias?

Broono83

I would definitely class the BBC as a state broadcaster. It's more subtle than the papers but it toes and enforces the establishment line.

I really quite resent having to pay for the BBC, I don't like the thought of funding it, even less so in the last year or so.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

I would say the BBC are state-funded, but they're not state run, are they? They don't report to the PM, they don't have to toe a party line, AFAIK anyway.

You're right.

He who controls the purse....

seajays

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I would say the BBC are state-funded, but they're not state run, are they? They don't report to the PM, they don't have to toe a party line, AFAIK anyway.

You're right.

He who controls the purse....

Yes - it probably goes something like this:

Prime Minister to Director-General of BBC:

Of course I am 100% committed to the journalistic independence of the BBC. I fully support your autonomy and self-governance both in fiscal and editorial decisions. I can categorically state that this government will not try to influence anything that you broadcast.

Now, remind me - when had we scheduled in that next round of BBC funding negotiations…?

notsoblue

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

All that said, I would say that the BBC has left-leaning tendencies, if anything.

I don't think the BBC is homogenous enough to say it has a leaning either way to be honest. I mostly listen to Radio4, with some BBC 1-2. Its hard to argue that their current affairs are left leaning with people like Nick Robinson, Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys being very influential on flagship programmes. Also, Chris Patten and Rona Fairhead are hardly left wing.

I think you may be muddling people's opinions on climate change with their opinion on social order...

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not too bothered about bias, real or perceived. I manage to read a left wing newspaper without slavishly thinking everything it prints must be gospel. I do find BBC1 news painfully simplistic at times, though. I made the mistake of watching a bit of Question Time last night. IS and what to do about them inevitably came up (as it should given that the UK has supplied a number of their members). Some of the naive drivel being spouted by both panel and audience was downright disturbing. Along with the chorus "it's over there; why should we get involved", one speaker wheeled out the old "we're only getting involved because of the oil" - well it may be rather self-interested, but in case she hadn't noticed our whole way of life relies on supplies of oil. Seems to me that paying particular attention to conflicts that could disrupt that supply is one of the things a government should be doing.

Question Time and Any Questions? are really only as good as the people that appear on the panel. I don't usually tune into these programmes to learn anything other than what "politically influential" people have to say about certain topics.

wgwarburton

It must surely be in the BBCs interests to exist in a liberal democracy... so almost by definition they must have a bias towards the promotion of that interest.

In some eyes that aligns them politically, regardless of balance... You could make a case that they naturally align towards the LibDems politically, since that party is probably the one that best represents their organisational interests in press freedom, education etc...

Both the Tories and Labour have sought to constrain journalistic freedom. For the BBC, to encourage such activity would set them up as turkeys voting for Christmas...

Generally speaking I would say they strive for balance and accept criticism when they fail. That's probably as good as it gets and sets them head and shoulders above the vast majority of media outlets, hence their worldwide reputation.

However, that's only the BBC. When it comes to the UK press and commercial TV, bias is clearly commonplace.

Cheers,
W.

tailwindhome

rjsterry wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

IMO the biggest issue with BBC journalism is their somewhat simplistic approach to "balance".

Say there is a story about the earth being essentially shperical. You'd have a scientist on, who'd explain that the world was spherical, and you'd have a member of the flat earth society explaining that there isn't a shred of evidence for this, plus you'd have a motoring journalist on who would say that they haven't really got a clue but they had been asked to be glib to keep things interesting, and the story would conclude with something like, "and the debate goes on".

When you transfer this approach to politics, you end up being accused of some sort of bias because someone always gets more of a say than the general strength or popularity of their argument would otherwise merit.

Nail on the head there. "Balance" ≠ just find someone (anyone) with a contrary view.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _shit.html

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

IMO the biggest issue with BBC journalism is their somewhat simplistic approach to "balance".

Say there is a story about the earth being essentially shperical. You'd have a scientist on, who'd explain that the world was spherical, and you'd have a member of the flat earth society explaining that there isn't a shred of evidence for this, plus you'd have a motoring journalist on who would say that they haven't really got a clue but they had been asked to be glib to keep things interesting, and the story would conclude with something like, "and the debate goes on".

When you transfer this approach to politics, you end up being accused of some sort of bias because someone always gets more of a say than the general strength or popularity of their argument would otherwise merit.

Nail on the head there. "Balance" ≠ just find someone (anyone) with a contrary view.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _shit.html

Couldn't watch the video for some reason, but I think I got the gist from the quote. Such a shame the BBC stopped screening the Daily Show.

EKE_38BPM

rjsterry wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

IMO the biggest issue with BBC journalism is their somewhat simplistic approach to "balance".

Say there is a story about the earth being essentially shperical. You'd have a scientist on, who'd explain that the world was spherical, and you'd have a member of the flat earth society explaining that there isn't a shred of evidence for this, plus you'd have a motoring journalist on who would say that they haven't really got a clue but they had been asked to be glib to keep things interesting, and the story would conclude with something like, "and the debate goes on".

When you transfer this approach to politics, you end up being accused of some sort of bias because someone always gets more of a say than the general strength or popularity of their argument would otherwise merit.

Nail on the head there. "Balance" ≠ just find someone (anyone) with a contrary view.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _shit.html

Couldn't watch the video for some reason, but I think I got the gist from the quote. Such a shame the BBC stopped screening the Daily Show.

Wasn't it one of the Channel 4 imprints which screened the Daily Show? More 4 I think.

EKE_38BPM

I've just watched the video. It pretty much sums up the problem with "Balance".

So, if that video highlights scientific balance 'issues', what about political bias?
Getting back to politics, UKIP Vs The Greens Vs A. N. Other, how should the media show a lack of bias?
Debates based on the number of European seats to be voted for? Debates based on the number of Westminster seats to be voted for? Debates based on the number of Council seats to be voted for? Debates based on the recent poll results?
I often hear: "I would vote for X but they have no chance of winning, so it would be a wasted vote, so I vote for Y instead as they have a greater chance of winning."
If that is the case, X never really has a chance and people reluctantly vote for Y. How can this 'problem' be 'solved'? Maybe X needs more candidates who look like they would be a fun 'geeza' to 'banter' with down the 'booza'?

Perhaps I should stop putting so many 'questions' in silly 'grave accents'?

surrey_commuter

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I've just watched the video. It pretty much sums up the problem with "Balance".

So, if that video highlights scientific balance 'issues', what about political bias?
Getting back to politics, UKIP Vs The Greens Vs A. N. Other, how should the media show a lack of bias?
Debates based on the number of European seats to be voted for? Debates based on the number of Westminster seats to be voted for? Debates based on the number of Council seats to be voted for? Debates based on the recent poll results?
I often hear: "I would vote for X but they have no chance of winning, so it would be a wasted vote, so I vote for Y instead as they have a greater chance of winning."
If that is the case, X never really has a chance and people reluctantly vote for Y. How can this 'problem' be 'solved'? Maybe X needs more candidates who look like they would be a fun 'geeza' to 'banter' with down the 'booza'?

Perhaps I should stop putting so many 'questions' in silly 'grave accents'?

Proportional Representation would solve the problem but was comprehensively defeated in the recent referendum on a very low turnout which was doubly ironic as was the first time I had voted in decades.

Greens/UKIP etc are essentially single issue campaign groups who have no prospect of forming a govt. What they achieve is to move the debate onto their terms which they have both done very successfully.