BBC Bias

2»

Comments

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    sungod wrote:

    - kill the vox pops, the opinions of the ill-informed/bigoted are at best nonsense and at worst damaging to society

    We would have missed the gem from Stoke on Trent, talking to a "cross section of the local community" about the Supreme Court judgment.

    Ryan: I agree on Joris Bohnson, we should stop Parliament, sort this Brexit out and we should leave.
    Interviewer: The court has found that he's broken the law, what do you think about that?
    Ryan: Mmm. People should just get on with it, just leave it.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Besides, how can people's odious views be shown for what they are if their views are not to be reported?

    Reporting them is what they do already. Failure to challenge them or - at the very least - explain/justify them - is what's missing.

    The comment of an uninformed idiot should not be used to 'balance' an expert opinion. It happens on the BBC far too often.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    Imposter wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Besides, how can people's odious views be shown for what they are if their views are not to be reported?

    Reporting them is what they do already. Failure to challenge them or - at the very least - explain/justify them - is what's missing.

    The comment of an uninformed idiot should not be used to 'balance' an expert opinion. It happens on the BBC far too often.

    I assume you hadn't read as far as my next post then?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Besides, how can people's odious views be shown for what they are if their views are not to be reported?

    Reporting them is what they do already. Failure to challenge them or - at the very least - explain/justify them - is what's missing.

    The comment of an uninformed idiot should not be used to 'balance' an expert opinion. It happens on the BBC far too often.

    I assume you hadn't read as far as my next post then?

    Yes I've read it. What about it?
  • bonzo_banana
    bonzo_banana Posts: 256
    I complained to the ombudsman that there was no proper analysis on the financial effects of joining the EU with regard the debt, destroyed industries and the large trading deficit which should be in the mix of data provided by the BBC to give people an informed choice. The ombudsman wasn't helpful as they don't seem to be setup for missing information only making sure what information is there is unbiased so you can have a political slant by missing out information. I'm not sure the BBC is biased in that regard or just not technically capable of deep analysis of such data though. It's destroyed my faith in the BBC to present data in a competent and fair way. Just seems the BBC like most news sources in this internet age simplify everything to make it more interesting to a wider audience but ultimately serves no real purpose.

    As tax payers we are forced to pay 10's of millions to the office of national statistics who create fantastic data on our economy but most news sources don't see it as worthy of inclusion in their programs. I remember in the past such data was presented to the public regularly.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,269
    Think it was more Thatcher than joining the EEC/EU which 'destroyed industries' but whatevs, have a whinge at the BBC why don't you?
  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,430
    Ballysmate wrote:
    sungod wrote:
    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?
    where did i do that?

    the bit you highlighted does not propose barring anyone, the bbc can report x spouting lies/nonsense - it regularly does so - but it should be on the ball and call out the lies/nonsense for what they are, especially in the case of those in power, not let them stand as if it has no responsibility

    otherwise it is simply a mouthpiece for the state, as was pravda
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    BBC presenter this morning:

    "..and now for moron Boris Johnson's new Brexit plan".

    :lol:
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    sungod wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    sungod wrote:
    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?
    where did i do that?

    the bit you highlighted does not propose barring anyone, the bbc can report x spouting lies/nonsense - it regularly does so - but it should be on the ball and call out the lies/nonsense for what they are, especially in the case of those in power, not let them stand as if it has no responsibility

    otherwise it is simply a mouthpiece for the state, as was pravda

    If you refuse to give people a platform you are effectively barring them. As a national public funded broadcaster you can't no platform someone because of their views, unless what they espouse is illegal. Any broadcaster being selective on what it is willing to show is showing bias.
    It would be ridiculous for the private broadcasters' news programmes to be able to allow a broad range of opinions whilst the BBC was restricted to broadcasting a Terry & June view of the world.
    Where I do agree with you and have stated so above is that people should be rigorously interviewed and challenged on their views.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    If you refuse to give people a platform you are effectively barring them. As a national public funded broadcaster you can't no platform someone because of their views, unless what they espouse is illegal. Any broadcaster being selective on what it is willing to show is showing bias.
    It would be ridiculous for the private broadcasters' news programmes to be able to allow a broad range of opinions whilst the BBC was restricted to broadcasting a Terry & June view of the world.
    Where I do agree with you and have stated so above is that people should be rigorously interviewed and challenged on their views.[/quote]

    We have been down this road with Choudry and others. This is a guy that thought holy war was fair play on UK soil because some Muslims in another country were not being allowed to create a backwards state. Be careful what you wish for unless you want the BBC full of religious fundamentalists and flat earthers etc. It should not be up to another guest on the show to spend 30 minutes ripping into someone else's views that the majority of society think are ridiculous.
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    john80 wrote:
    If you refuse to give people a platform you are effectively barring them. As a national public funded broadcaster you can't no platform someone because of their views, unless what they espouse is illegal. Any broadcaster being selective on what it is willing to show is showing bias.
    It would be ridiculous for the private broadcasters' news programmes to be able to allow a broad range of opinions whilst the BBC was restricted to broadcasting a Terry & June view of the world.
    Where I do agree with you and have stated so above is that people should be rigorously interviewed and challenged on their views.
    We have been down this road with Choudry and others. This is a guy that thought holy war was fair play on UK soil because some Muslims in another country were not being allowed to create a backwards state. Be careful what you wish for unless you want the BBC full of religious fundamentalists and flat earthers etc. It should not be up to another guest on the show to spend 30 minutes ripping into someone else's views that the majority of society think are ridiculous.

    How can they tell what the majority thinks
    How big must the majority be
    Will it be decided by a referendum
    Will it be a binding 'advisory' referendum?
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Robert88 wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    If you refuse to give people a platform you are effectively barring them. As a national public funded broadcaster you can't no platform someone because of their views, unless what they espouse is illegal. Any broadcaster being selective on what it is willing to show is showing bias.
    It would be ridiculous for the private broadcasters' news programmes to be able to allow a broad range of opinions whilst the BBC was restricted to broadcasting a Terry & June view of the world.
    Where I do agree with you and have stated so above is that people should be rigorously interviewed and challenged on their views.
    We have been down this road with Choudry and others. This is a guy that thought holy war was fair play on UK soil because some Muslims in another country were not being allowed to create a backwards state. Be careful what you wish for unless you want the BBC full of religious fundamentalists and flat earthers etc. It should not be up to another guest on the show to spend 30 minutes ripping into someone else's views that the majority of society think are ridiculous.

    How can they tell what the majority thinks
    How big must the majority be
    Will it be decided by a referendum
    Will it be a binding 'advisory' referendum?

    I have given you the example of Choudry which the BBC have been criticised for widely in giving air time to as lets face it whilst he might have been subtle I clearly took the view that he regarded aggression against non Muslims as totally acceptable if it forwarded his religious agenda. In 2016 he was sent to jail for these views. In the case of a flat earther should they be given a platform to set out a viewpoint that science had routinely proven to be nonsense. Creating conflict within shows purely for viewing figures is not where the BBC's serious news and political shows should be. I would expect a professional manager of these shows to be able to assess their proposed guests and what benefit they are bringing to the show and in both cases above someone with no talent for the role could have figured this out in advance. As for referendums it would seem that then the majority do not vote as you would wish then history is shown that they are ignored unless something changes on the 31st of October.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    There's always been something called editorial decision. Basically a senior BBC current affairs official with years if experience in bbc and journalism takes a view on a topic. What they let through isn't censored but what they don't is. Where the cut off is actually located is clearly a subjective decision.

    How can you argue for giving one person airtime and not another without banning someone?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    john80 wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    If you refuse to give people a platform you are effectively barring them. As a national public funded broadcaster you can't no platform someone because of their views, unless what they espouse is illegal. Any broadcaster being selective on what it is willing to show is showing bias.
    It would be ridiculous for the private broadcasters' news programmes to be able to allow a broad range of opinions whilst the BBC was restricted to broadcasting a Terry & June view of the world.
    Where I do agree with you and have stated so above is that people should be rigorously interviewed and challenged on their views.
    We have been down this road with Choudry and others. This is a guy that thought holy war was fair play on UK soil because some Muslims in another country were not being allowed to create a backwards state. Be careful what you wish for unless you want the BBC full of religious fundamentalists and flat earthers etc. It should not be up to another guest on the show to spend 30 minutes ripping into someone else's views that the majority of society think are ridiculous.

    How can they tell what the majority thinks
    How big must the majority be
    Will it be decided by a referendum
    Will it be a binding 'advisory' referendum?

    I have given you the example of Choudry which the BBC have been criticised for widely in giving air time to as lets face it whilst he might have been subtle I clearly took the view that he regarded aggression against non Muslims as totally acceptable if it forwarded his religious agenda. In 2016 he was sent to jail for these views. In the case of a flat earther should they be given a platform to set out a viewpoint that science had routinely proven to be nonsense. Creating conflict within shows purely for viewing figures is not where the BBC's serious news and political shows should be. I would expect a professional manager of these shows to be able to assess their proposed guests and what benefit they are bringing to the show and in both cases above someone with no talent for the role could have figured this out in advance. As for referendums it would seem that then the majority do not vote as you would wish then history is shown that they are ignored unless something changes on the 31st of October.

    I would like to hear the opinions of climate change deniers and I don’t mean some ‘yard on the M4
  • bonzo_banana
    bonzo_banana Posts: 256
    orraloon wrote:
    Think it was more Thatcher than joining the EEC/EU which 'destroyed industries' but whatevs, have a whinge at the BBC why don't you?

    Thatcher certainly did destroy some industries but I'd struggle to blame her for industries destroyed while she was out of office or even dead and there is huge evidence showing the damage the joining the EU has caused, some by EU policies and others purely because we couldn't compete with an over-valued pound and high level of wages in a EU free market that consists of many countries with much cheaper labour. Normally in such a free market as we stopped exporting so much the economy would go into recession and people's wages would be much lower slowing imports and making us more competitive for exports again but it seems UK governments just decided to borrow instead, propping up the value of the £ and causing more damage by excessive imports as they kept the economy from shrinking. It is unfair to burden future generations with the debt caused by living beyond our means. It's basic economics and I find it annoying that it something not dealt with by the media which doesn't seem to think such debt is important and follow an idealist agenda that is unsustainable. We won't be able to move away from Brexit until we work out a sustainable, realistic relationship with the EU otherwise even if Brexit is cancelled soon we will have Brexit #2 in a few years when the national debt is much higher and austerity much worse. There is no escaping the debt. It was £1.8 trillion in May which is about £60,000 of debt for every income tax payer in the UK (about 30 million I think). The worse thing is when lenders lose confidence in the UK economy and refuse to lend more money or ramp up interest rates and we have no more assets to sell off.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... /march2019
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Bonzo Banana wrote:
    orraloon wrote:
    Think it was more Thatcher than joining the EEC/EU which 'destroyed industries' but whatevs, have a whinge at the BBC why don't you?

    Thatcher certainly did destroy some industries but I'd struggle to blame her for industries destroyed while she was out of office or even dead and there is huge evidence showing the damage the joining the EU has caused, some by EU policies and others purely because we couldn't compete with an over-valued pound and high level of wages in a EU free market that consists of many countries with much cheaper labour. Normally in such a free market as we stopped exporting so much the economy would go into recession and people's wages would be much lower slowing imports and making us more competitive for exports again but it seems UK governments just decided to borrow instead, propping up the value of the £ and causing more damage by excessive imports as they kept the economy from shrinking. It is unfair to burden future generations with the debt caused by living beyond our means. It's basic economics and I find it annoying that it something not dealt with by the media which doesn't seem to think such debt is important and follow an idealist agenda that is unsustainable. We won't be able to move away from Brexit until we work out a sustainable, realistic relationship with the EU otherwise even if Brexit is cancelled soon we will have Brexit #2 in a few years when the national debt is much higher and austerity much worse. There is no escaping the debt. It was £1.8 trillion in May which is about £60,000 of debt for every income tax payer in the UK (about 30 million I think). The worse thing is when lenders lose confidence in the UK economy and refuse to lend more money or ramp up interest rates and we have no more assets to sell off.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... /march2019

    You have a reasonable understanding of economics but bizarrely try and link everything to EU membership.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    I would like to hear the opinions of climate change deniers and I don’t mean some ‘yard on the M4[/quote]

    What would be the point in this debate. The climate is warming and here are all the issues that are likely to arise. Nah it is all a hoax.

    Maybe the best editorial decision is that climate change is a thing and then set up a debate about how to change human behaviour to minimise its impacts. We might then learn something. Your guests could then range from living in a tend to milder forms of change.
  • bonzo_banana
    bonzo_banana Posts: 256
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Bonzo Banana wrote:
    orraloon wrote:
    Think it was more Thatcher than joining the EEC/EU which 'destroyed industries' but whatevs, have a whinge at the BBC why don't you?

    Thatcher certainly did destroy some industries but I'd struggle to blame her for industries destroyed while she was out of office or even dead and there is huge evidence showing the damage the joining the EU has caused, some by EU policies and others purely because we couldn't compete with an over-valued pound and high level of wages in a EU free market that consists of many countries with much cheaper labour. Normally in such a free market as we stopped exporting so much the economy would go into recession and people's wages would be much lower slowing imports and making us more competitive for exports again but it seems UK governments just decided to borrow instead, propping up the value of the £ and causing more damage by excessive imports as they kept the economy from shrinking. It is unfair to burden future generations with the debt caused by living beyond our means. It's basic economics and I find it annoying that it something not dealt with by the media which doesn't seem to think such debt is important and follow an idealist agenda that is unsustainable. We won't be able to move away from Brexit until we work out a sustainable, realistic relationship with the EU otherwise even if Brexit is cancelled soon we will have Brexit #2 in a few years when the national debt is much higher and austerity much worse. There is no escaping the debt. It was £1.8 trillion in May which is about £60,000 of debt for every income tax payer in the UK (about 30 million I think). The worse thing is when lenders lose confidence in the UK economy and refuse to lend more money or ramp up interest rates and we have no more assets to sell off.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... /march2019

    You have a reasonable understanding of economics but bizarrely try and link everything to EU membership.

    Why would you write such a strange comment. I've already accepted and agreed that Thatcher did a lot of damage so clearly haven't stated 'everything' is due to EU membership but yes the EU is in my view the main issue by a long way. Not only due to the trade deficit but also the huge payments we have made to them that we had to borrow to make. Something like 1/2 Trillion net has been paid to the EU and with compound interest that alone makes up a huge chunk of our national debt before you even include the issues of running a large trade deficit with the EU. So yes the EU has been hugely damaging to the UK economy and I don't see how anyone could see it any other way realistically considering the data. The only debatable bit really is whether EU policies have actually been very damaging to the UK, here you definitely can have different opinions as its more complicated and there is a mixture of both good and bad, overall in my opinion it is mainly bad but unless someone actually goes through the timeline since joining analysing the effects of such policies year by year it is more difficult. Certainly our government was prevented in intervening in many industries to prevent them disappearing due to EU rules and many EU tariffs have protected large industries on the EU mainland meaning here in the UK we are forced to pay more for goods from outside the EU, increasing the cost of such goods meaning an increased trade deficit as imports cost more and tend to favour higher cost products from the EU. For example e-bikes from China face up to a 80% tariff, so a e-bike from China that costs $500 instead costs $900 which allows EU assembled E-bikes made from mainly Chinese components to compete on price or even undercut Chinese e-bikes at lets say $850 that's a 70% increase in import costs to the UK for 1 e-bike and there are many EU tariffs across many industries.

    Ultimately whatever your politics the current situation is unsustainable, building up more and more debt, I don't care what the solution is as long as there is a solution to this debt and trade deficit whether inside or outside the EU. I just want an end to moronic idealism and people constantly criticising everything but utterly clueless about a solution. If you fall into a hole in the ground you don't just criticise how rubbish it is being in that hole you climb out.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    The trade argument and the costs argument are two separate issues.
    With regard to EU costs, it is not lost money. Not only does a chunk of the money we pay to the EU get invested back into the UK, a lot of the money actually goes on centralised costs that we will still have after we leave the EU. Only they will be higher as we have lost pooled economy of scale.
    E.g. all those admin staff managing trade tariffs and agreements that we pay for in the EU will need to be replaced by UK bodies.
    Yes, we're a net contributor so put in more than we get back but it's not like we're getting the mythical £350M extra to spend.

    Portraying the EU as a cost with no benefits is like portraying a car solely as a cost with no benefits.

    As for the trade argument, there are definite pro's and cons but the overall net benefit or loss is different to different people. However, we became the world's 5th largest economy whilst in the EU. Before my time, but by all accounts we weren't in great shape before joining.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Bonzo Banana wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Bonzo Banana wrote:
    orraloon wrote:
    Think it was more Thatcher than joining the EEC/EU which 'destroyed industries' but whatevs, have a whinge at the BBC why don't you?

    Thatcher certainly did destroy some industries but I'd struggle to blame her for industries destroyed while she was out of office or even dead and there is huge evidence showing the damage the joining the EU has caused, some by EU policies and others purely because we couldn't compete with an over-valued pound and high level of wages in a EU free market that consists of many countries with much cheaper labour. Normally in such a free market as we stopped exporting so much the economy would go into recession and people's wages would be much lower slowing imports and making us more competitive for exports again but it seems UK governments just decided to borrow instead, propping up the value of the £ and causing more damage by excessive imports as they kept the economy from shrinking. It is unfair to burden future generations with the debt caused by living beyond our means. It's basic economics and I find it annoying that it something not dealt with by the media which doesn't seem to think such debt is important and follow an idealist agenda that is unsustainable. We won't be able to move away from Brexit until we work out a sustainable, realistic relationship with the EU otherwise even if Brexit is cancelled soon we will have Brexit #2 in a few years when the national debt is much higher and austerity much worse. There is no escaping the debt. It was £1.8 trillion in May which is about £60,000 of debt for every income tax payer in the UK (about 30 million I think). The worse thing is when lenders lose confidence in the UK economy and refuse to lend more money or ramp up interest rates and we have no more assets to sell off.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... /march2019

    You have a reasonable understanding of economics but bizarrely try and link everything to EU membership.

    Why would you write such a strange comment. I've already accepted and agreed that Thatcher did a lot of damage so clearly haven't stated 'everything' is due to EU membership but yes the EU is in my view the main issue by a long way. Not only due to the trade deficit but also the huge payments we have made to them that we had to borrow to make. Something like 1/2 Trillion net has been paid to the EU and with compound interest that alone makes up a huge chunk of our national debt before you even include the issues of running a large trade deficit with the EU. So yes the EU has been hugely damaging to the UK economy and I don't see how anyone could see it any other way realistically considering the data. The only debatable bit really is whether EU policies have actually been very damaging to the UK, here you definitely can have different opinions as its more complicated and there is a mixture of both good and bad, overall in my opinion it is mainly bad but unless someone actually goes through the timeline since joining analysing the effects of such policies year by year it is more difficult. Certainly our government was prevented in intervening in many industries to prevent them disappearing due to EU rules and many EU tariffs have protected large industries on the EU mainland meaning here in the UK we are forced to pay more for goods from outside the EU, increasing the cost of such goods meaning an increased trade deficit as imports cost more and tend to favour higher cost products from the EU. For example e-bikes from China face up to a 80% tariff, so a e-bike from China that costs $500 instead costs $900 which allows EU assembled E-bikes made from mainly Chinese components to compete on price or even undercut Chinese e-bikes at lets say $850 that's a 70% increase in import costs to the UK for 1 e-bike and there are many EU tariffs across many industries.

    Ultimately whatever your politics the current situation is unsustainable, building up more and more debt, I don't care what the solution is as long as there is a solution to this debt and trade deficit whether inside or outside the EU. I just want an end to moronic idealism and people constantly criticising everything but utterly clueless about a solution. If you fall into a hole in the ground you don't just criticise how rubbish it is being in that hole you climb out.

    Because nobody and I literally mean nobody thinks that EU membership is bad for the UK economy. I am including Farage and JRM in my nobody.

    Things I disagree with;
    Citation needed for half a trillion
    Cheaper labour overseas is not an EU issue it is Asian
    Not convinced £ is over-valued, even less convinced this is due to EU membership
    Our trade deficit is not due to EU membership. If anything SM helps us export services.
    Non-intervention is a Tory staple and as they have been in power more often than not over the last 45 years
    tariffs on Chinese e-bikes should help BoP

Categories