The Student Room Group

The BBC - Impartial or not?

Scroll to see replies

I have a similar example JonH. This link which shows that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of British Whites were enslaved by Muslim Africans is hidden without link from the relevant host page. I assume that they are created (but then hidden) to show when half challenged that the BBC really does cover all angles.

If you bother to chase this up your own query JonH, also ask how many views the "British enslaved" page gets compared to the various links about slavery concerned with the poor Blacks from both the "Protest and Reform", and "Society and Culture" subsections. Ask why the White-slave page didn't make a link from daddy-pages and could only be discovered by clever search or referral. All things or races being equal it should have warranted a place among these other gems form the British Multiculural History page:

Black History Month; Trace the experiences of communities worldwide and the political style of their greatest leaders. Yeah, how did the GREAT BLACK LEADERS who enslaved Whites justify it?

The Leadership Style of Martin Luther King. Yeah, who wrote your speeches and doctorate "Martin"?

The Passengers on the Windrush. Give me crime rates... I saw the Trevor Phillips documentary-hagiography which had the Black grandad bragging about bringing drugs and loud blues-parties into white neighbourhoods as simply "bringing colour" to a dull country. Crime rates and unemployment rates for second generation please. Steroetypes are usually right.

You also have to ask why

Slave Island in New York by Professor TJ Davis
Multi-racial Britain by Diane Abbot
Caribbean Family History by Kathy Chater
India and World War One by Dr David Omissi
Indian Soldiers in WWII by Marika Sherwood
The British in India by Professor Peter Marshall
Overview of the Holocaust by Dr Steve Paulsson
Adolph Eichmann by David Cesarani
Churchill and the Holocaust by Sir Martin Gilbert
Lieutenant FL Cassell - a wartime experience
Can One Forgive? by Rabbi Albert Friedlander

make the British Broadcating Corporation's "Multicultural History" page yet the enslavement of more than a million Britons by another culture/race/religion which the BBC is highly tolerant or even supportive of within their NewBritain, doesn't warrant a link.

It seems like institutional racism. Please, just one Whites as humans rather than monster link!!!

I think NaiveSincerity unwittingly raises relevant questions in another thread. Are Whites uniquely prone to a universal morality while uniquely unwilling to hold others to the same standards as themselves? Racist idiots.

edit: there's a forum! http://biasedbbc.proboards45.com/index.cgi
JonathanH
I know A-level history teachers love calling all the history students 'historians' (well, they did at my school), but there's a difference between you and a proper historian. Control yourself.

Im not an A-level history teacher or an A-level history student. I am an oxford history graduate, who has done some postgraduate research, and am in the process of applying for MPhil and PhD programs. :rolleyes:
JonathanH
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/haken32.htmRead the bit on 'Why are we socialist?'

Oh yes because we should all take NAZI propaganda at face value. :rolleyes:
pendragon
Im not an A-level history teacher or an A-level history student. I am an oxford history graduate, who has done some postgraduate research, and am in the process of applying for MPhil and PhD programs. :rolleyes:
So what? You're right or wrong, lotsa PhDs are wrong about lotsa things, and you are only applying to join that club.

Status aint the thing in debate, and resort to claims of status look like weakness. It's D&D. If you want to have your ego stroked go to the relevant nerds club on your campus.
pendragon
Oh yes because we should all take NAZI propaganda at face value. :rolleyes:
I don't know what the link says or of it's Nazi, but you ought to respond to it's relevant points if you can.

If you can't you should say that you can't.
ArthurOliver
So what? You're right or wrong, lotsa PhDs are wrong about lotsa things, and you are only applying to join that club.

Status aint the thing in debate, and resort to claims of status look like weakness. It's D&D. If you want to have your ego stroked go to the relevant nerds club on your campus.

I wasnt asserting my status as evidence of my points, I was defending myself from being accused of being an over-inflated A-level student. Read the whole thread before making ignorant comments.
ArthurOliver
I don't know what the link says or of it's Nazi, but you ought to respond to it's relevant points if you can.

If you can't you should say that you can't.

My argument is that NAZI propaganda is not a reliable source that should be taken at face value by historians. I thereby refute his claim that the NAZI's claiming they are socialist is evidence that they really are socialist. I have written many long posts in this thread on related points. Dont make ignorant assertions when you havent read everything, especially the source in the link you mention.
Agent Smith
This issue has come up before. Just because the Nazis said they were something, doesn't mean it was true.

For example: Hitler came across as almost Christian in some speeches, not because he accepted Jesus as his Lord and Saviour but because - drum roll - he as an expert at manipulating people, and part of that skill is appearing to be something you're not. He could switch "masks", or "acts" like a champion, to the extent that he promised bread farmers higher wages and workers cheaper bread in the same speech, possibly even the same paragraph.

:congrats:
djchak
In response to the first paragraph: it's intresting you say that. Just this morning, I was watching the video of Bush's speech in Dehli on the BBC. After 5 minutes, the audio cut off, and they changed back to the main anchor desk. I switched to CNN and the audio was fine. I switched back to BBC once the speech was over, hit record on the VCR, and turned the TV off...

Now, I'm sure there is someone in the US that thinks that the "audio cut off" was a delibirate attempt to sabotage Bush and make the US look bad. But it was probably just a **** up. Ditto for what you describe.... some of these things might be a "highly subtle form of propaganda", but most of the time they are **** ups.

I dont think so in the case I saw. It seems that it would be more effort to get someone to watch him and then repeat into a microphone what he was saying, than to simply put a microphone in front of the guy. I am certain it was intentional, but theres no way to prove it either way if you think what I described could be due to technical problems.
I have noticed over the past few years that the BBC has changed somewhat. In a recent report about children having to sing the national anthem I was quite confused when their primary footage was of a young Muslim child (I assume Muslim/Pakistani or possibly of Indian enthicity). The majority of the class were white and images of them showed them laughing enthusiastically over the singing... when they showed this other girl she was frowning while she sung and looked around in bewilderment. Now... in my opinion, all the children would probably be thinking 'HA THIS IS ST00PED LOLZ @ SINGINGZ!11' or something stupid (considering they are in primary school), yet the BBC have concentrate on someone who isn't white.

I was wondering why people think they've doen this and whether it shows bias.

On another note I also think the BBC's tone has become less professional and more opinionated on issues. They all have bemused expressions as if somehow judges considering themselves above the nonsense of politics and asbos. In my opinion... they are the TV form of tabloid... or atleast getting that way.

THE DECLINE OF THE BBC! I THINK SO! :biggrin:
What I have noticed is a horrendous increase in stupid gimmicks and imagery (as distinct from images) in reports. I suspect dumbing-down.
I agree... but in the quest of appealing to the mainstream this underhanded and somewhat subtle segregation and focus on people of a different ethnicity looks very very poor.

In terms of imagery... I think some moron has got hold of powerpoint and called it the BBC revolution, lol.
Reply 172
ArthurOliver
I have a similar example JonH. This link which shows that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of British Whites were enslaved by Muslim Africans is hidden without link from the relevant host page. I assume that they are created (but then hidden) to show when half challenged that the BBC really does cover all angles.


You also have to ask why

Slave Island in New York by Professor TJ Davis
Multi-racial Britain by Diane Abbot
Caribbean Family History by Kathy Chater
India and World War One by Dr David Omissi
Indian Soldiers in WWII by Marika Sherwood
The British in India by Professor Peter Marshall
Overview of the Holocaust by Dr Steve Paulsson
Adolph Eichmann by David Cesarani
Churchill and the Holocaust by Sir Martin Gilbert
Lieutenant FL Cassell - a wartime experience
Can One Forgive? by Rabbi Albert Friedlander

make the British Broadcating Corporation's "Multicultural History" page yet the enslavement of more than a million Britons by another culture/race/religion which the BBC is highly tolerant or even supportive of within their NewBritain, doesn't warrant a link.

It seems like institutional racism. Please, just one Whites as humans rather than monster link!!!


I don't really see the problem you have here. The fact that Europeans were enslaved is linked to on the multicultural history page.
The BBC doesn't try to obscure the fact at all. I've found plenty of lnks in my brief persual of the site.
I think you may be so desperate to be persecuted that you're inventing instances of it now.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1302&edition=1&ttl=20060316183643&#paginator

Opinion on BBC bias is apparently not limited to this forum, the majority of the most recommended "Readers Recommended" comments complain about it and all from the same direction. 14 of the top 15 Recommended comments are critical as are at least a dozen of the next 15.

BBC bias is not an idea cooked up by pissed-off right-wingers as some people here like to pretend, it's a major issue that a lot of people notice and is stirring up more and more anger amongst the plenty of people who are sick of the BBC pushing a highly-politicised leftist agenda.

Denial of the problem at this stage is head-in-the-sand ignoring of the overwhelming and ever-growing evidence.
I used to think yes, but my opinion has rapidly changed to no over the past three years. :unimpressed:
Original post by TSR Hotel
I used to think yes, but my opinion has rapidly changed to no over the past three years. :unimpressed:


You're 9 years late.
Original post by Craig1998
You're 9 years late.


Original post by TSR Hotel
I used to think yes, but my opinion has rapidly changed to no over the past three years. :unimpressed:


This thread is 9 years old!!!!
I'm just grateful they even still exist. :smile:
The bbc is overly impartial, that might sound odd at first.....

I watch bbc news, daily/Sunday politics and news night ( let's leave question time out of this) and regardless of incorrect the opposing point is to whatever the story it is.

The news should simply report facts as known and leave the audience to decide.

They give too much time to minor views which takes away from real discourse of and of course gives credence to these minor views


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest