The BBC - Impartial or not?

Scroll to see replies

I don't think that the BBC is totally reliable and impartial but I don't think it is possible to be so. As long as people recognise that the BBC, or any institution for that matter, has a subjective element/agenda, I think that this is far less cause for alarm.

Reply 81

Spam-mi-am

Zakaz

no, certainly not.

They're controlled by the Labour party, of course they're not!

One only needs to look at the recent Griffin trial and the thing that caused it to see how absurd it is to suggest that they are impartial. The BBC put together their silly little documentary on the BNP using undercover filming. This portrayed the party in very bad light, and was aired just before the general election. ie. so the BNP would look bad and get less votes.

However, they came out with rather a lot of votes. Far too many for Labour's liking. So what do they do? Charge an innocent man with 'inciting racial hatred' (against a religion!!! NOT a race) for saying that islam is an evil cult and that muslims will eventually blow up london. THe fact that Griffin was right means nothing evidently! How was the evidence for this obtained? secret BBC filming of a private members meeting without any muslims in the room.

Not only this, but what about the fact the bloke who did the documentary was a former member of UAF (a group that exists solely to destroy the BNP)? The bloke was a marxist! Impartial documentary? no, I don't think so either.

Then what about how they brush over white murders but devote evenngs to black ones? Or how we know exactly what race a criminal is if the race is not mentioned on BBC?

THE BBC ARE THE LABOUR PARTY'S LITTLE TOOL. THEY ARE TRYING TO SHOW HOW 'INCREDIBLY WONDERFUL' MULTICULTURALISM IS AT EVERY WAKING MOMENT THEY CAN. THEY ARE NOT AFRAID TO DO THIS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TRUTH!

Impartial? ^o)

My ****!

I suppose that in your opinion the BBC will only be reliable and impartial when the BNP or those sympathetic to the BNP are the ones who run it?

Reply 82

Zakaz

When my party runs it, mate. :wink:

Reply 83

Spam-mi-am

Zakaz

When my party runs it, mate. :wink:

I'm glad we cleared that up, then.

Reply 84

Vienna

Spam-mi-am

I entirely agree, but then the BBC Charter, the basis by which we are obliged to fund the BBC through taxes, claims impartiality.

Reply 85

mipmapped

I think anyone who thinks that the Labour government and the BBC are on good terms really needs to google "Andrew Gilligan".

I don't think it is impartial. Ultimately the editors decide what gets put into the programme, and their views will alter their output, no matter how much they deny it.

Even if the BBC were completely impartial, the output would still be too leftist for some.

Reply 86

Will Grimes1

The BBC are suckers to Islam, they report Christianity differently to Islam. There are several subtle differences you will notice, firstly when refering to Mohammad they will say "peace be upon him" however when refering to Jesus they do not say "our lord". The BBC also take Islam as fact for example Mohammad was the last messenger of Allah compared their reporting style of Christianinty where they say "supposedly" or "according to Christianinty".

Reply 87

technik

the bbc is getting progressively worse and the presenters they employ these days dont really challenge anyone or tell it how it really is. half of them struggle to read an autocue too.

more and more errors on their site aswell...every other item i read on it doesnt make sense, has spelling errors, or factual inaccuracies in it. too much pandering to minorities and PC too

Reply 88

Beekeeper

technik

more and more errors on their site aswell...every other item i read on it doesnt make sense, has spelling errors, or factual inaccuracies in it.

I've noticed this aswell, it is quite shameful really that the BBC, the pioneers of 'BBC English' can't even spell or punctuate properly, and often have typos in articles.

This is something i've seen increasingly occuring on the BBC website, but it does not appear to be a problem I encounter with the other resources I use (Timesonline, Economist, heck even CNN!), so I think it is something they ought to address sooner rather than later.

Reply 89

bitter old lady

The BBC has been pretty much kept in line with the establishment since the Hutton report and the follow-up from that. As a result of that, they are less independent than they formerly were, and have become more limited in their perspective, which is a real shame. For a decent criticism of the government's policy on things such as Iraq you're better looking to C4 or to More4.

As for people who think that the BBC is full of "leftist bias"... don't make me sick into my own scorn. Where do you mark the centre - the Times? The Daily Mail?

Reply 90

Vienna

bitter old lady

Where do you mark the centre - the Times?

Yes.

I would have said the BBC was on a par with the Guardian, but the BBC doesnt overtly apologise for Communism or Islamic terrorism.

Reply 91

thorondor

Atomik

I hope you realise that papers like the Guardian are not completely impartial either. I don't particularly read the Daily Mail - more of a Times reader myself - but I'm sick of poofter Guardian readers slagging it off.

I am also a Times reader, i find it the most reliable and readable newspaper. I only ever read the Daily Mail when i'm depressed and need a laugh.

Reply 92

thorondor

Zakaz

And as we can all see this person is completely impartial themselves :wink:

If you truely believe most of what you have said then i really pity you, your post shows nothing but ignorance of not just this specific topic, but of the much wider issue.

Reply 93

Zakaz

JaDaAu

And as we can all see this person is completely impartial themselves :wink:

If you truely believe most of what you have said then i really pity you, your post shows nothing but ignorance of not just this specific topic, but of the much wider issue.

yes, I'm completely impartial.

Why would I post something I do not believe? Of course I believe it. What is this wider issue then?

Reply 94

Made in the USA

Johnny

Since CNN is owned by AOLTimeWarner, it has to make a profit as all news programmes in America are expected to by their networks, as they compete for audience ratings.

Competition always improve products. The BBC's product is their news and their coverage of American news reeks of BS. They can get away with such shoddy journalism because they don't need to compete with other news outlets. The BBC gets your tax dollars no matter what, so why would they even bother spending the extra time it takes to do an accurate, well-reseached story when they can serve up the usual anti-US propaganda?

Reply 95

naivesincerity

Competition means journalists want a story, not necessarily that they'll act with any more integrity.

Reply 96

thorondor

Zakaz

yes, I'm completely impartial.

Why would I post something I do not believe? Of course I believe it. What is this wider issue then?

You seem to be a very mixed up person. Did you actually read my post at all??

I never said you do not believe what you said, i said it was worrying that you did. And any person who claims to be 100% impartial as you do, is a fool.

The wider issue here that you have brought to the debate is multicultural society, racism and religious discrimination, that of course being the specialist topic of people like yourself :wink:

Reply 97

mattyboi2k8

Do you have any evidence for this please?

Reply 98

Lord Waddell

Hmm. I'd say that the BBC's news broadcasting services on television are of a quality unparalleled elsewhere, and that it is much less biased than other news-channels and media-outlets. However, they could do with being more impartial, and their website most certainly is not impartial. For example, I've taken this quote out of Niall Fergusson's book Empire, which in turn recieved it from a children's BBC, history site:

The Empire came to greatness by killing lots of people less sharply armed than themselves and stealing their countries, although their methods later changed; killing lots of people with machine guns came to prominence as the army's tactic of choice...[It] fell to pieces because of various people like Mahatma Gandhi, heroic revolutionary protestor, sensitive to the needs of his people.

Is that not biased?

Reply 99

djchak

Johnny

So you believe that despite the fact that "the more globalized(sic) a channel gets, the more responsible the channel has to be". Fair point. However the BBC is the biggest global news corporation and thus in your logic it must be the most responsible so why does it push the negative stereotypes of Americans that you claim it does?

I honestly don't know the full reason why it stereotypes the USA and americans, and it depends a lot on the reporter (obviously). But they stand to improve a lot when it come sto coverage. I would say it's on par with the Guardian. Perhaps they should consider a merger.

Johnny

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the Al Jazeera channel would not be very popular in America would it now? But when Al Jazeera goes global (sorry 'gets globalized...) and finds that it "has a low base of support in America" it will suddenly become more responsible (by which I assume you mean 'objective'- or do you because a typically arrogant american opinion would be that the Al Jazeera, with its negative slant on America is therefore irresponsible?) even though it will have 'nothing' to lose if it doesn't?

Hmm it seems that your thought is garbled or at worst just anti-BBC.

Oh and I believe that Bush is still in the White House...

How do you know that Al Jazeera wouldn't be popular in the US?
How do you know what "because a typically arrogant american opinion would be"
What is your point here? That any "typically arrogant american opinion" on the BBC is basically incorrect, as the BBC can only be impartial becuase they say so?