Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should the BBC be held to account for its bias? Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The BBC still hasn't sorted out its bias revealed last year. Their photos of the crisis consisted of 53%children and just 37% men.

    The UN report into the crisis concluded that the migrants are 72 per cent men, 13 per cent women, and just 15 per cent children making the trip to Europe by sea. This was out of a total of 381,412 people, meaning that 274,616 of those making the trip were men, with just 49,583 women, and 57,211 children.

    This highlights the huge misrepresentation the BBC is running, and what punishment does it deserve for massively misinforming the public?

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...-with-reality/
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    The BBC still hasn't sorted out its bias revealed last year. Their photos of the crisis consisted of 53%children and just 37% men.
    You are getting confused between news as a way of reporting the facts of a situation to news as entertainment. Most of the media used to report the facts. Now they are in the entertainment business. So pictures of dead children sell. Pictures of unshaven men don't.

    But I do question a world where people like you are throwing benign statistics like this around. Have people not got better things to do as a way of adding to humanity than comparing the number of men to women in press photos?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The BBC still hasn't sorted out its bias in football. A survey I pulled out of my arse revealed that 99.9% of the time, the first game shown on Match of the Day is not a goalless draw, as opposed to the population wherein 28.4% of Premier League games are goalless draws. End this institutional bias in the BBC right now!

    breitball.com/astonvillaandbournemouthfanswith anearlybedtime
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    You are getting confused between news as a way of reporting the facts of a situation to news as entertainment. Most of the media used to report the facts. Now they are in the entertainment business. So pictures of dead children sell. Pictures of unshaven men don't.
    They're not posting pictures of dead children, they're posting pictures of live children trying to enter Europe.

    Conversely when PEGIDA protested in Cologne they posted a tight shot of protestors carrying three Imperial German war flags - as it turned out the only three in a sea of regular German flags.

    The BBC is motivated on this issue, but not by a desire to sell copy (which they don't anyway) or entertain. It is motivated by the political view of its employees that more young adult male immigrants from Syria, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sub-Saharan Africa should be admitted to Europe in general and Britain in particular without the need to demonstrate value to our labour market or compliance with our values.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    You are getting confused between news as a way of reporting the facts of a situation to news as entertainment. Most of the media used to report the facts. Now they are in the entertainment business. So pictures of dead children sell. Pictures of unshaven men don't.

    But I do question a world where people like you are throwing benign statistics like this around. Have people not got better things to do as a way of adding to humanity than comparing the number of men to women in press photos?
    So the UN's conclusion that it is economic migration is an unreliable one? You're pretty funny tbh. The point is that the BBC are misinforming the public and there should be resignations at least.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The BBC still hasn't sorted out its bias in football. A survey I pulled out of my arse revealed that 99.9% of the time, the first game shown on Match of the Day is not a goalless draw, as opposed to the population wherein 28.4% of Premier League games are goalless draws. End this institutional bias in the BBC right now!

    breitball.com/astonvillaandbournemouthfanswith anearlybedtime
    The problem is that the real figure (73% men) provided by the UN is being ignored when misinforming the public. It's not a survey, it's simple facts you Don't want to hear.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    So the UN's conclusion that it is economic migration is an unreliable one? You're pretty funny tbh. The point is that the BBC are misinforming the public and there should be resignations at least.
    My point, is what difference does it matter whether they are men, women or children?

    Any story is based on the view point of the person telling it. In order to create a truly factual story, you would have to canvas the opinions of many different people who were in many different places seeing the story from all angles. As the pollsters found at the election, even if you ask a lot of people, you can still get it wrong.

    But suggesting the BBC is biased based on the gender of the subjects of the stories they show - come on - really?

    Could I accuse the manufacturers of Smarties of being racist if they didn't put proportionally enough brown ones in a tube of Smarties?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by balanced)
    The problem is that the real figure (73% men) provided by the UN is being ignored when misinforming the public. It's not a survey, it's simple facts you Don't want to hear.
    How much of the sane public do you think is working out what percentage of the people that appear in press photographs are men? This is only misinforming those who are desperate enough to find fault in the BBC's journalism by counting these people; the rest of the public is immune to this b------t and couldn't give a damn.

    This is pretty thin, to be honest.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The BBC is motivated on this issue, but not by a desire to sell copy (which they don't anyway) or entertain. It is motivated by the political view of its employees that more young adult male immigrants from Syria, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sub-Saharan Africa should be admitted to Europe in general and Britain in particular without the need to demonstrate value to our labour market or compliance with our values.
    Or perhaps the reporters who are actually witnessing this horrendous event first hand have compassion and emotion about it which comes across in their reporting? Perhaps they see these desperate folks who have nothing as human beings? You appear to be seeing them as worthless economic units.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Or perhaps the reporters who are actually witnessing this horrendous event first hand have compassion and emotion about it which comes across in their reporting? Perhaps they see these desperate folks who have nothing as human beings? You appear to be seeing them as worthless economic units.
    I'm sure they see it exactly as you describe: a moral crusade to bring about certain policy changes. The point being that a state-funded broadcaster shouldn't engage in moral crusades or take positions on policy questions.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I'm sure they see it exactly as you describe: a moral crusade to bring about certain policy changes. The point being that a state-funded broadcaster shouldn't engage in moral crusades or take positions on policy questions.
    Moral Crusade? Blimey! Well if they are undertaking a moral crusade as you put it, they are failing miserably as general sentiment against taking in refugees into this country clearly shows.

    It seems to me that your beef is less about impartiality and more about the fact that they are not explicitly putting forward your own opinions and views.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Moral Crusade? Blimey! Well if they are undertaking a moral crusade as you put it, they are failing miserably as general sentiment against taking in refugees into this country clearly shows.
    I didn't say they were winning; failed propaganda is still propaganda.

    It seems to me that your beef is less about impartiality and more about the fact that they are not explicitly putting forward your own opinions and views.
    Obviously, as that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    The problem is that the real figure (73% men) provided by the UN is being ignored when misinforming the public. It's not a survey, it's simple facts you Don't want to hear.
    I mean, the fact that they're mostly men isn't especially relevant to the moral question (don't say 'economic migrants' btw because that's far from true for the crisis).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    My point, is what difference does it matter whether they are men, women or children?
    I'm more likely to support letting them in if they're fit women. (and arguably children)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I didn't say they were winning; failed propaganda is still propaganda.
    And what is your opinion on the privately owned and very politically motivated mainstream press?

    I take it you have written a complaint regarding impartiality to the BBC trust? You know, that independent body set up to govern the BBC and hold it to account. They incidentally are also independent of government.

    BTW - which part of their editorial guidelines have been broken in your view?http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidel...s/impartiality
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    And what is your opinion on the privately owned and very politically motivated mainstream press?
    I don't have any problem with private propagada. The Independent, The Guardian, and Socialist Worker are all fine by me. I won't buy them, but I don't mind if others do.

    I take it you have written a complaint regarding impartiality to the BBC trust? You know, that independent body set up to govern the BBC and hold it to account. They incidentally are also independent of government.

    BTW - which part of their editorial guidelines have been broken in your view?http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidel...s/impartiality
    If there's a problem with one article, you can complain about it. If dozens of articles over a period of months (and this being just one issue) are problematic then there's nothing you can do; it's a deliberate policy, not a mistake.

    The deeper problem is there's no such thing as impartiality in reporting. The choice of which events to report, with what significance, and whom to quote is always a matter of preference; there's no objective formula for deciding these things.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If there's a problem with one article, you can complain about it. If dozens of articles over a period of months (and this being just one issue) are problematic then there's nothing you can do; it's a deliberate policy, not a mistake.
    So if there are dozens of articles that are basically just propaganda, it should be simple to post say 5 examples so that we can all see what you mean no?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    The BBC still hasn't sorted out its bias revealed last year. Their photos of the crisis consisted of 53%children and just 37% men.

    The UN report into the crisis concluded that the migrants are 72 per cent men, 13 per cent women, and just 15 per cent children making the trip to Europe by sea. This was out of a total of 381,412 people, meaning that 274,616 of those making the trip were men, with just 49,583 women, and 57,211 children.

    This highlights the huge misrepresentation the BBC is running, and what punishment does it deserve for massively misinforming the public?

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...-with-reality/
    This is an old article. Has any further analysis been done?

    Breitbart is a highly biased news website so I doubt they had been impartial when doing this analysis. Have any other websites been able to replicate their results?

    This analysis looked at images dated 15th to the 21st of September. Prior to this the story of the drowned Syrian boy had been widely covered in the media. It isn't particularly surprising if children had then been the focal point of news images in the weeks after, but maybe that's just me.

    I'm not sure why they have excluded images without a focal point in the analysis. For what reason should they be made invalid? It's understandable why children would be the focal point of an image because... they're children. Children attract the readers attention; people aren't going to want to click on an article if the first picture shows a close up of some sweaty Syrian man who's probably walked hundreds of miles without sufficient rest.

    I've had a look through the images on the BBC website that had been published during September and a lot of them do indeed show children, though this seems to me like more of a journalistic technique than bias.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I mean, the fact that they're mostly men isn't especially relevant to the moral question (don't say 'economic migrants' btw because that's far from true for the crisis).
    Well it is, because if you look at the figures from the UN, they ONLY consider the migration from the safe country of Turkey, to the safe country of Greece. This, regardless of their previous circumstances, changes their status from legitiamte refugees into illegal immigrants.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    Well it is, because if you look at the figures from the UN, they ONLY consider the migration from the safe country of Turkey, to the safe country of Greece. This, regardless of their previous circumstances, changes their status from legitiamte refugees into illegal immigrants.
    On what grounds? Refugees shouldn't necessarily have to stop in the first country they arrive at - we all have a moral responsibility to them.

    I'm mostly concerned with how you arrive at the conclusion that their movement is illegal; pretty sure if they're accepted as refugees OR migrants, they're not illegal immigrants.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.