How can anyone believe that there is a left wing bias in the media?

Original post by astutehirstute

Even senior BBC reporters themselves admit that their coverage on immigration, for example, was biased.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10551618/Nick-Robinson-BBC-made-a-terrible-mistake-over-immigration-debate.html

The thing is they admit it afterwards, but never at the time.

Robinson's a card-carrying Tory. He's in no position to "admit" that the BBC is supposedly left-leaning.

Reply 22

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Zargabaath

I've never once seen a mainstream media outlet talk about increasing corporate taxes and closing loopholes in the way they attack the working class/disabled for benefits.

errrr... that's what I'm saying.

sarcasmˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/noun

1.

the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Reply 23

Original post by JamesN88

Both sides accuse the BBC of being biased towards the other which says to me that they're doing a pretty good job.

In terms of print newspapers the right has a stronger readership.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/abc-figures-national-press-sees-june-brexit-vote-boost-in-print-and-online/

It's not even just a case of people reading what they agree with though. On the whole, people think the press is too right-wing.

Reply 24

Zargabaath

21

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

errrr... that's what I'm saying.

sarcasmˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/noun

1.

the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Despite taking many online tests, I'm still convinced I'm borderline autistic

Reply 25

astutehirstute

Original post by anarchism101

Robinson's a card-carrying Tory. He's in no position to "admit" that the BBC is supposedly left-leaning.

How about former Head of News Helen Boaden?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10158679/BBC-has-deep-liberal-bias-executive-admits.html

A Dimbleby, no less...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11889234/BBC-presenter-admits-some-of-its-audiences-are-politically-bias.html

Or yet another Beeboid?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/22/ex-bbc-editorial-director-roger-mosey-accuses-corporation-liberal-groupthink

Reply 26

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Zargabaath

Despite taking many online tests, I'm still convinced I'm borderline autistic

See @Little Popcorns, I'm not the only one.

Reply 27

pol pot noodles

The difference is the right is happy to admit their papers are right-wing and biased. We don't take the Daily Mail seriously. We know the Telegraph is unashamedly pro-Tory.
The left on the other hand, being self-righteous as they are, has an obsession with pretending left-wing news is impartial and fair. The Guardian is as sensationalist and biased as the Daily Mail (especially crap by Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee), but the left think it's a fair, respectable source of information. It's really, really not.

Reply 28

astutehirstute

Original post by pol pot noodles

The difference is the right is happy to admit their papers are right-wing and biased. We don't take the Daily Mail seriously. We know the Telegraph is unashamedly pro-Tory.
The left on the other hand, being self-righteous as they are, has an obsession with pretending left-wing news is impartial and fair. The Guardian is as sensationalist and biased as the Daily Mail (especially crap by Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee), but the left think it's a fair, respectable source of information. It's really, really not.

i agree with that.

It comes from how left and right view their opponents. The right can be harshly aggressive, especially in the US, and highly insulting. But we don't think having a particular political view makes us morally better than our opponents. We think we are right and they wrong, but we are not better human beings.

The left does, it really does. If you don't accept that everything is about "social justice" (ie whatever the left wing cause du jour is, transgender toilets or unlimited refugee resettlement, whatever) you are beyond, the pale, ipso facto a bad person.

So any news outlet which supports "social justice" is not only speaking truth but also morally good. And any which criticises it, says it is impractical or not sensible policy, is evil, racist: whatever cist or phobe word is appropriate to use.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 29

Little Popcorns

21

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

See @Little Popcorns, I'm not the only one.

that's someone saying they're convinced they're borderline autistic you say no no no I'm not and throw your dummy out so... sorry back to the only one status :h:

Reply 30

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by pol pot noodles

The difference is the right is happy to admit their papers are right-wing and biased. We don't take the Daily Mail seriously. We know the Telegraph is unashamedly pro-Tory.
The left on the other hand, being self-righteous as they are, has an obsession with pretending left-wing news is impartial and fair. The Guardian is as sensationalist and biased as the Daily Mail (especially crap by Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee), but the left think it's a fair, respectable source of information. It's really, really not.

The problem with this view is that it implies there is a centre ground where ideology doesn't exist and where the real objective truth lies.

Reply 31

pol pot noodles

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

The problem with this view is that it implies there is a centre ground where ideology doesn't exist and where the real objective truth lies.

No, my point is that for all intents and purposes there isn't, it's simply the left that pretends there is and it's the left that pretends that's where they themselves are. It's like when they try and use 'ideological' as a criticism of Tory policies, because they're trying to imply that their views are inherently correct, even though obviously all political views and policies are bourne from ideology, including their own. It's such an effing stupid thing to say by the left.
If media that is clearly left-leaning stopped pretending it was impartial and fair then it wouldn't get so much flack for being obviously biased and unfair.

Reply 32

Original post by astutehirstute

How about former Head of News Helen Boaden?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10158679/BBC-has-deep-liberal-bias-executive-admits.html

A Dimbleby, no less...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11889234/BBC-presenter-admits-some-of-its-audiences-are-politically-bias.html

Or yet another Beeboid?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/22/ex-bbc-editorial-director-roger-mosey-accuses-corporation-liberal-groupthink

The Dimbleby one doesn't say the BBC is biased at all. It says that on some of its smaller political shows, they don't have the budget to make sure the audience is a particular representative sample and distribution of political views in the same way that Question Time does, so invariably some audiences on such smaller shows will be slanted.

The other two seem to be purely concerned with immigration. Indeed, the third article explicitly says "he said the BBC did not have a problem with political bias and editors did not skew the agenda in favour of any party."

So is it just (or mainly) immigration you're getting at? Just want to get that clear before launching into a longer post on the topic.

Reply 33

Original post by pol pot noodles

The difference is the right is happy to admit their papers are right-wing and biased. We don't take the Daily Mail seriously. We know the Telegraph is unashamedly pro-Tory.
The left on the other hand, being self-righteous as they are, has an obsession with pretending left-wing news is impartial and fair. The Guardian is as sensationalist and biased as the Daily Mail (especially crap by Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee), but the left think it's a fair, respectable source of information. It's really, really not.

The Guardian is and always has been a more serious paper than the Mail. The Mail is a quasi-tabloid. It's more serious than the red tops, sure, but it's always been recognised as not being in the top band of decent papers. The Telegraph would be a fairer comparison.

Reply 34

999tigger

The headline stories in the DM yesterday was a woman who had a website and claimed she fed her family on food costing £3 a day followed by the internet oing wild over the fact that Mars had introduced a new packet of Maltesers for £3.50. How ridiculous to compare that to the Guardian. The obvious counterpoint is the Telegraph.

Reply 35

pol pot noodles

Original post by anarchism101

The Guardian is and always has been a more serious paper than the Mail. The Mail is a quasi-tabloid. It's more serious than the red tops, sure, but it's always been recognised as not being in the top band of decent papers. The Telegraph would be a fairer comparison.

The Guardian is only more serious than the Daily Mail in that it focuses on 'proper' news rather than dabbling in celebrity gossip and the like, but it's still just as sensationalist, melodramatic and biased in it's reporting as the Mail is. But like I said, the left think that their causes are inherently 'right'.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 36

astutehirstute

Original post by anarchism101

The Dimbleby one doesn't say the BBC is biased at all. It says that on some of its smaller political shows, they don't have the budget to make sure the audience is a particular representative sample and distribution of political views in the same way that Question Time does, so invariably some audiences on such smaller shows will be slanted.

The other two seem to be purely concerned with immigration. Indeed, the third article explicitly says "he said the BBC did not have a problem with political bias and editors did not skew the agenda in favour of any party."

So is it just (or mainly) immigration you're getting at? Just want to get that clear before launching into a longer post on the topic.

No it is not just immigration I'm getting at.

Reply 37

Reason and Logic

4

The answer lies in human psychology.

We have a tendency to think the media is biased towards the other group. For example in Scotland many Rangers Football Club supporters think the media is biased towards Celtic and vice versa. Both positions cannot be true and it simply shows how the human mind works 'in general'. To illustrate the point, I have no idea what the Manchester press is like but I would be confident that the majority of Man City fans think the media is biased towards Man Utd and I would be confident the majority of Man Utd fans would say it is biased towards Man City.

Posting examples of news articles is pointless, of course there will be heavily right wing articles, as there will be heavily left wing articles and a load in the middle. I would also suggest supply and demand plays a factor and IF there is a right wing bias it probably is being fueled by a demand from rising levels of people prepared to pay for right wing populist news articles.

Reply 38

999tigger

Original post by pol pot noodles

The Guardian is only more serious than the Daily Mail in that it focuses on 'proper' news rather than dabbling in celebrity gossip and the like, but it's still just as sensationalist, melodramatic and biased in it's reporting as the Mail is. But like I said, the left think that their causes are inherently 'right'.

So it focuses on news and has a political leaning like the Telegraph, then? or does the Telegraph or the Right not think think they are inherently right?
Ridiculous comment by you.

Reply 39

BBS_