BBC Bias

Longshot

Help me out here. I'm confused which way the BBC are biased these days. I'm pretty sure that, not so many years ago, they were widely regarded as a bunch of leftie, tree-hugging peaceniks. At the moment, however, they are righty, Boris-hugging anti-royalists?

What gives?

ballysmate

According to John Humphries who worked there for decades, there is not much doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/ ... om-radio-4

rolf_f

Ballysmate wrote:

According to John Humphries who worked there for decades, there is not much doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/ ... om-radio-4

Because obviously Humphries was without bias so I can see how that would annoy him. (Thankfully no longer having to listen to his woeful interviewing on Today).

Endlessly frustrating how BBC fail to call out liars and give so much air time to the likes of Farage and climate change deniers in the incompetent belief that that is necessary for "balance".

rick_chasey

So there's a theory I sometimes subscribe to, depending on my mood, that the BBC by it's nature (i.e. a media company) attracts folk who are often fairly liberal, and so there is a sort of over-reaction to the opposite view in order to compensate.

Its bigger issue is that it cannot pose anything in any other way than a binary argument.

It also has terrible habits, like inviting pundits over analysts, not interrogating inconsistencies and challenge statements enough and doesn't recognise its own feedback loop, where it reports on things, and then makes the next report up of opinions from people who have formed them by watching the original BBC report, etc etc.

It also doesn't do that well with the "it's raining outside" test; the Russian shooting down of a passenger plane over Ukraine is a good example. It was clear the Russians did it to anyone, especially people who know about that stuff, and yet, STILL, the BBC will report it with "the Russians deny this and say blah", without any recognition that the Russians are plainly lying.

None of this means its biased; it just means it is game-able by unscrupulous people on both sides.

meursault

Was known for it's lefty bias quite a few years ago.

AFAIK lately, BBC has employed ex Murdoch editors and staff, so have gone the other way. Terrified of Corbyn, awful biased coverage against him.

The watershed moment for me not watching any TV 'news' was when I saw (can't remember what channel) "and Richard from Norwich has tweeted in..." Sad day for journalism.

elbowloh

Both the left and the right think it is biased for the other side, so i reckon they probably sit in the middle somewhere.

However, any organisation is made up of individuals who have their own political leanings. Although they may try to apply the veneer of neutrality, they can't always keep it entirely under-wraps, so will will appear biased one way or the other.

I think all in all, they do a pretty good job and long my we continue with a national broadcaster that isn't funded through advertisement and is able to produce brilliant programming that otherwise my never get made because it is not commercial enough.

surrey_commuter

I agree with the idea that both sides think they are biased so must be doing something right but accept this may be to others gaming their policies.

The days of the BBC being a world leader are long gone. To echo the thoughts of a previous poster my tipping point was hearing the tweeted view of Barry on the M4.

In this day and age it is nonsensical that every bugger with a TV is made to pay for a licence. If the BBC is so confident of it's output they should make it a subscription service.

And they should be made to shut down their website as it makes it very hard for UK news sites to charge for their content.

I have the BBC and their sanctimonious navel gazing (I feel better now)

daniel_b

I did have respect for John Humphries, but he's now and gone and sold his book to the Daily Mail.

Irrespective of bias, to my mind, the quality of reporting on the BBC has plummeted in the last 10-15 years, where as when I was growing up, the BBC News was (Or at least seemed to be) the authority you could trust to present facts.

surfercyclist

I do get impression that Laura Kuensberg the BBC political reporter is left wing biased. However, BBC news and reporting is far better than others, eg ITV, CH4/5 etc.

As for Guardian....hang on we've been here before

rick_chasey

I mean, FWIW, one of my bosses called the FT "that left-wing rag" and not really in jest.

mamil314

I do not know which way the BBC is leaning, but Humphries better be liking it to Kremlin for Daily Mail money, otherwise he is utterly clueless.

haydenm

elbowloh wrote:

Both the left and the right think it is biased for the other side, so i reckon they probably sit in the middle somewhere.

However, any organisation is made up of individuals who have their own political leanings. Although they may try to apply the veneer of neutrality, they can't always keep it entirely under-wraps, so will will appear biased one way or the other.

I think all in all, they do a pretty good job and long my we continue with a national broadcaster that isn't funded through advertisement and is able to produce brilliant programming that otherwise my never get made because it is not commercial enough.

This mostly.

A subscription service would mean they would either need to compete with the rest (and become more biased & sensationalist for audience) or die.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I agree with the idea that both sides think they are biased so must be doing something right but accept this may be to others gaming their policies.
w)

This statement really annoys me for some of the reasons listed above.

Longshot

SurferCyclist wrote:

I do get impression that Laura Kuensberg the BBC political reporter is left wing biased.

Except for the fact that she's been getting a whole load of stick from the left over her perceived free passes to Boris.

imposter2.0

Longshot wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

I do get impression that Laura Kuensberg the BBC political reporter is left wing biased.

Except for the fact that she's been getting a whole load of stick from the left over her perceived free passes to Boris.

And that she's been previously heavily criticised by the left for apparent bias against Corbyn..

haydenm

SurferCyclist wrote:

I do get impression that Laura Kuensberg the BBC political reporter is left wing biased.

Seems to be the opposite of what I've seen? She's also twice been embroiled in anti Corbyn criticism apparently, one resulting in being found to have breached guidelines.

From what I've heard of her she's not afraid of giving critical analysis but seems to be fairly cutting on both sides, a good thing if you're bored of the BBC using their impartiality stance as an excuse to be boring and lazy. I'd like to see them call out inaccuracies, lies and contradictions a lot more but inevitably that will look biased depending on which side is lying most at the time...

Having people like Kuenssberg keeps the BBC relevant

surfercyclist

Easy tigers, as I said it was an impression. An inkling, doesn't mean she really is. She may well be utterly neutral or strongly right wing. Whatevs.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I agree with the idea that both sides think they are biased so must be doing something right but accept this may be to others gaming their policies.
w)

This statement really annoys me for some of the reasons listed above.

As referenced re fake news the other day - the problem is that if you post a definite untruth and then a truth the public will think that the real truth lies somewhere between.

Just because both sides think the BBC is biased doesn't mean that they aren't. Another example is Brexiters - they all think that all versions of Brexit (eg Mays) that they don't agree with are soft Brexit or Brino. We know that that is not the truth.

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I agree with the idea that both sides think they are biased so must be doing something right but accept this may be to others gaming their policies.
w)

This statement really annoys me for some of the reasons listed above.

As referenced re fake news the other day - the problem is that if you post a definite untruth and then a truth the public will think that the real truth lies somewhere between.

Just because both sides think the BBC is biased doesn't mean that they aren't. Another example is Brexiters - they all think that all versions of Brexit (eg Mays) that they don't agree with are soft Brexit or Brino. We know that that is not the truth.

It's not a one dimensional spectrum of either "biased my way or their way".

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not a one dimensional spectrum of either "biased my way or their way".

Ah, there's the thing - as you all know well, there's no such thing as "biased my way": I'm not biased at all, I am the very centre of truth in the whirlwind of opinion

fenix

Yes as has been said they get complaints of bias from the left and the right - so as a whole they're doing it correctly and being in the middleground. That's not to say that individuals or programmes may not show bias.

Humphrys sounds like a dick. The BBC didn't gauge the mood of the country. It was split almost exactly 50/50 so wherever you sit you'lll annoy the other half of the country.

rick_chasey

Fenix wrote:

Yes as has been said they get complaints of bias from the left and the right - so as a whole they're doing it correctly and being in the middleground.

Argh!

Pross

Anything is better than ITV where the guy who presents the 10 O'Clock News adds little opinions and comments to the end of each item, it does my head in. That said the BBC's move towards getting opinions from the 'person in the street' on every subject is tedious, just concentrate on facts and expert opinion. It's inevitable that any news organisation is going to have a slant on things no matter how hard they try to avoid that happening but they are still better than most.

tangled_metal

Imposter wrote:

Longshot wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

I do get impression that Laura Kuensberg the BBC political reporter is left wing biased.

Except for the fact that she's been getting a whole load of stick from the left over her perceived free passes to Boris.

And that she's been previously heavily criticised by the left for apparent bias against Corbyn..

I've always thought Laura Kuensberg has always been biased towards herself and self promotion rather than politically biased. Peston is similar.

elbowloh

Pross wrote:

Anything is better than ITV where the guy who presents the 10 O'Clock News adds little opinions and comments to the end of each item, it does my head in. That said the BBC's move towards getting opinions from the 'person in the street' on every subject is tedious, just concentrate on facts and expert opinion. It's inevitable that any news organisation is going to have a slant on things no matter how hard they try to avoid that happening but they are still better than most.

Not just the BBC, but most channels and newspapers.

I don't give two fecks what someone on Twitter thinks about a subject.

Twitter is given undue attention because those in the media where always big users of it, even though only a tiny proportion of the population are on it.

rolf_f

elbowloh wrote:

Pross wrote:

Anything is better than ITV where the guy who presents the 10 O'Clock News adds little opinions and comments to the end of each item, it does my head in. That said the BBC's move towards getting opinions from the 'person in the street' on every subject is tedious, just concentrate on facts and expert opinion. It's inevitable that any news organisation is going to have a slant on things no matter how hard they try to avoid that happening but they are still better than most.

Not just the BBC, but most channels and newspapers.

I don't give two fecks what someone on Twitter thinks about a subject.

Twitter is given undue attention because those in the media where always big users of it, even though only a tiny proportion of the population are on it.

To be fair, we wouldn't be in the Brexit mess if we'd concentrated on facts and expert opinion. That time is passed and seemingly no longer relevant. Rule by Idiot is the way to go.

haydenm

SurferCyclist wrote:

Easy tigers, as I said it was an impression. An inkling, doesn't mean she really is. She may well be utterly neutral or strongly right wing. Whatevs.

Sorry, I didn't see the other comments about her before I posted as someone rudely interrupted me by calling my office number in between writing and pressing submit

sungod

Rolf F wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

Pross wrote:

Anything is better than ITV where the guy who presents the 10 O'Clock News adds little opinions and comments to the end of each item, it does my head in. That said the BBC's move towards getting opinions from the 'person in the street' on every subject is tedious, just concentrate on facts and expert opinion. It's inevitable that any news organisation is going to have a slant on things no matter how hard they try to avoid that happening but they are still better than most.

Not just the BBC, but most channels and newspapers.

I don't give two fecks what someone on Twitter thinks about a subject.

Twitter is given undue attention because those in the media where always big users of it, even though only a tiny proportion of the population are on it.

To be fair, we wouldn't be in the Brexit mess if we'd concentrated on facts and expert opinion. That time is passed and seemingly no longer relevant. Rule by Idiot is the way to go.

all of the above

bbc news needs to clean itself up, in particular:
- being 'unbiased' is not the same as giving liars/bigots/any other scum a platform, doing so creates a moral equivalence, good reporting should attack such people without mercy, and crush them in court if they try suing for libel
- live footage of the latest rain/snow/mud/hail/dress/whatever is not news, it's cheap schedule stuffing
- kill the vox pops, the opinions of the ill-informed/bigoted are at best nonsense and at worst damaging to society
- ditto news article website comment sections
- it mixes 'news' with plugs for its non-news content, i really don't care about strictly come baking while dancing in downton with meerkats or whatever other dross they are plugging

ballysmate

sungod wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

Pross wrote:

Anything is better than ITV where the guy who presents the 10 O'Clock News adds little opinions and comments to the end of each item, it does my head in. That said the BBC's move towards getting opinions from the 'person in the street' on every subject is tedious, just concentrate on facts and expert opinion. It's inevitable that any news organisation is going to have a slant on things no matter how hard they try to avoid that happening but they are still better than most.

Not just the BBC, but most channels and newspapers.

I don't give two fecks what someone on Twitter thinks about a subject.

Twitter is given undue attention because those in the media where always big users of it, even though only a tiny proportion of the population are on it.

To be fair, we wouldn't be in the Brexit mess if we'd concentrated on facts and expert opinion. That time is passed and seemingly no longer relevant. Rule by Idiot is the way to go.

all of the above

bbc news needs to clean itself up, in particular:
- being 'unbiased' is not the same as giving liars/bigots/any other scum a platform, doing so creates a moral equivalence, good reporting should attack such people without mercy, and crush them in court if they try suing for libel
- live footage of the latest rain/snow/mud/hail/dress/whatever is not news, it's cheap schedule stuffing
- kill the vox pops, the opinions of the ill-informed/bigoted are at best nonsense and at worst damaging to society
- ditto news article website comment sections
- it mixes 'news' with plugs for its non-news content, i really don't care about strictly come baking while dancing in downton with meerkats or whatever other dross they are plugging

I would suggest that barring people' whose views you don't share, however odious you find them is showing...er...bias.
That is fine if you a Fox News or CNN looking for a target audience, but not so good if you are a public funded national broadcaster. Pravda
Besides, how can people's odious views be shown for what they are if their views are not to be reported?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

I would suggest that barring people' whose views you don't share, however odious you find them is showing...er...bias.
That is fine if you a Fox News or CNN looking for a target audience, but not so good if you are a public funded national broadcaster. Pravda
Besides, how can people's odious views be shown for what they are if their views are not to be reported?

News shouldn't need pundits.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I would suggest that barring people' whose views you don't share, however odious you find them is showing...er...bias.
That is fine if you a Fox News or CNN looking for a target audience, but not so good if you are a public funded national broadcaster. Pravda
Besides, how can people's odious views be shown for what they are if their views are not to be reported?

News shouldn't need pundits.

Didn't say it did did I?
If politicians or public figures make speeches espousing their views, it is surely in the public interest that they are reported. Equally, if they are being interviewed regarding their views, they should be rigorously questioned. But Sungod goes further and says that people should be attacked without mercy which, again, shows premeditated bias on behalf of the news outlet.
People should be free to form their own opinions of what was said.