What do you think of this article? Is the BBC biased?

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Headline on BBC today:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37661794

    Although I'm politically against him, I really feel sorry for him.

    The rape accusations are baseless, and the accused is innocent until proven otherwise. It is also strange that the accusations all arise during the last month of the presidential election, and none of them are suing DT in court. I'm not saying that they are lying, because I have no prove. I just feel that the point of assumption is more on personality at the moment, rather than on the merit of the case.

    Ben Carson was asked whether he feels the woman are lying, which is obviously a headline trap from the journalists. He refused to answer that and pointed out the question is aimed to characterise him, the journalists just shouted him down not letting him explain. I think it's very unfair that the host and Katty Kay are ganging up on him and pressuring him to answer something which will obviously be used against him either way.

    He then asked the host to silent Katty's mic because he was talked over just a few seconds after he was allowed to answer.

    And now Katty Kay is dipping her pen in acid on BBC and trying to portray him as being 'Soviet' and a sexist.

    I thought the BBC is meant to be impartial, but this is very biased and unprofessional.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    To top it all off, it is also a fairly poorly written article.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The media is bias. They been rather hush hush about Bill Clinton's similar accusations recently.

    But when Trump comes up they are like PUSH IT OUT!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Of course the BBC are biased. They dont even try to hide it any more.
    This wouldnt be a problem but for the fact that we are taxed to fund it weather you use it or not.
    A Rightwing friend summed it up for me a while ago in a way id never thought about it. He said could you imagine the uproar if evryone that was left wing had to pay a fox news/sky subscription even though they never watched it just so that they could watch the BBC and other channels.
    He has a point.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Headline on BBC today:
    I thought the BBC is meant to be impartial, but this is very biased and unprofessional.
    It's not a news article, it's an opinion piece, a fundamentally different type of story on a news site or paper.

    Yes, of course an opinion piece is biased. Because it's someone's opinion.
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Headline on BBC today:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37661794

    Although I'm politically against him, I really feel sorry for him.

    The rape accusations are baseless, and the accused is innocent until proven otherwise. It is also strange that the accusations all arise during the last month of the presidential election, and none of them are suing DT in court. I'm not saying that they are lying, because I have no prove. I just feel that the point of assumption is more on personality at the moment, rather than on the merit of the case.

    Ben Carson was asked whether he feels the woman are lying, which is obviously a headline trap from the journalists. He refused to answer that and pointed out the question is aimed to characterise him, the journalists just shouted him down not letting him explain. I think it's very unfair that the host and Katty Kay are ganging up on him and pressuring him to answer something which will obviously be used against him either way.

    He then asked the host to silent Katty's mic because he was talked over just a few seconds after he was allowed to answer.

    And now Katty Kay is dipping her pen in acid on BBC and trying to portray him as being 'Soviet' and a sexist.

    I thought the BBC is meant to be impartial, but this is very biased and unprofessional.
    The BBC were biased since I could remember
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Man this thread was hijacked hard. Going back to the original point, I don't think it shows a bias in the BBC as it's more of a Katty Kay article rather than a "BBC article" as such. Same with other online news outlets, ones that really make a big deal out of who the writer is at the top let the writer do effectively what they want, whereas the more "official" articles don't big up the writer and come across as less obviously biased (Guardian online comes to mind for this, the ones where writers get free reign are ****in wild on there)

    It specifically says at the top of the webpage that "this is the place for my take on what's happening" as opposed to "this is an official bias-less BBC article"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is water wet?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Headline on BBC today:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37661794

    Although I'm politically against him, I really feel sorry for him.

    The rape accusations are baseless, and the accused is innocent until proven otherwise. It is also strange that the accusations all arise during the last month of the presidential election, and none of them are suing DT in court. I'm not saying that they are lying, because I have no prove. I just feel that the point of assumption is more on personality at the moment, rather than on the merit of the case.

    Ben Carson was asked whether he feels the woman are lying, which is obviously a headline trap from the journalists. He refused to answer that and pointed out the question is aimed to characterise him, the journalists just shouted him down not letting him explain. I think it's very unfair that the host and Katty Kay are ganging up on him and pressuring him to answer something which will obviously be used against him either way.

    He then asked the host to silent Katty's mic because he was talked over just a few seconds after he was allowed to answer.

    And now Katty Kay is dipping her pen in acid on BBC and trying to portray him as being 'Soviet' and a sexist.

    I thought the BBC is meant to be impartial, but this is very biased and unprofessional.
    Of course, articles from major publications/companies are commonly opinionated pieces. I doubt anyone treats it as fact, though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It's not a news article, it's an opinion piece, a fundamentally different type of story on a news site or paper.

    Yes, of course an opinion piece is biased. Because it's someone's opinion.
    I don't feel that the BBC should give platform for this kind of journalism.

    They are more for the Guardian or Daily Mail.

    Although something to note is that the article is actually a 'feature'.

    The BBC is respected for its supposedly impartial reporting, so anything on their website should and will carry that reputation. The article was pushed to their front page by their editors for maximum exposure. Even if it is an 'opinion piece' it does not fully diminishes their responsibility because some people will make assumptions due to the BBC's reputation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I don't feel that the BBC should give platform for this kind of journalism.
    Don't blame them for your misunderstanding.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Don't blame them for your misunderstanding.
    I'm really not misunderstanding anything. The BBC is, in a way taking a stance by approving this carefully drafted article to their front page.

    It's more like you lack the flexibility to understand that not everything is black or white.

    Just think about it. The BBC is using taxpayers money to hire someone to write these extremely biased pieces and then approve it to their front page for a whole day. They are responsible for providing a platform for the personality attacks carried out by this article.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Of course the BBC are biased. They dont even try to hide it any more.
    This wouldnt be a problem but for the fact that we are taxed to fund it weather you use it or not.
    A Rightwing friend summed it up for me a while ago in a way id never thought about it. He said could you imagine the uproar if evryone that was left wing had to pay a fox news/sky subscription even though they never watched it just so that they could watch the BBC and other channels.
    He has a point.
    The other problem is that on their broadcasts its also illegal, but then nobody seems to care about that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I'm really not misunderstanding anything. The BBC is, in a way taking a stance by approving this carefully drafted article to their front page.

    It's more like you lack the flexibility to understand that not everything is black or white.

    Just think about it. The BBC is using taxpayers money to hire someone to write these extremely biased pieces and then approve it to their front page for a whole day. They are responsible for providing a platform for the personality attacks carried out by this article.
    Except they aren't. BBC America is a commercial arm, not paid for by the TV licence.

    Every news outlet has opinion pieces / columnists. This is no different.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Except they aren't. BBC America is a commercial arm, not paid for by the TV licence.

    Every news outlet has opinion pieces / columnists. This is no different.
    And yet it appears on BBC.co.uk.

    Every other news outlet is fine to me, but not the BBC which I help to fund.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    And yet it appears on BBC.co.uk.

    Every other news outlet is fine to me, but not the BBC which I help to fund.
    Why wouldn't it appear? It's a reporting of an incident that's occurred. That it's from one person's point of view is clearly pointed out.

    You're kicking up a fuss for no reason. And making it look like you don't understand how news works.

    And it's been pointed out to you that you've had no part in funding it whatsoever.

    So can you make your mind up over what it is that's bothering you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Why wouldn't it appear? It's a reporting of an incident that's occurred. That it's from one person's point of view is clearly pointed out.

    You're kicking up a fuss for no reason. And making it look like you don't understand how news works.

    And it's been pointed out to you that you've had no part in funding it whatsoever.

    So can you make your mind up over what it is that's bothering you?
    Don't accuse me of not understanding this when I'm pointing out the subtleties of journalistic bias.

    Also it's interesting now you are saying it is a report, when you said previously it is an opinion piece.

    We are funding the BBC website which offered a platform for the article. It is not a report, nor an analysis. I do not pay, nor do many others, want to pay the BBC to give platform to opinion pieces, especially those heavily biased to unfairly characterise someone else.

    I have made it very clear what I am dissatisfied with. It just seems that you are unhappy that I disagree with you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I have made it very clear what I am dissatisfied with.
    Actually, you haven't.

    At first you were railing against a biased news article. When it was made clear to you that this wasn't an article, but an op-ed, you then changed your tune to saying you didn't want your money funding it. Then it was pointed out that you don't fund it.

    So no, unless the underlying point is you support Trump, it's not very clear what your disagreement is.

    Would you like to start over?



    For the record, despite what people here say, the BBC is a very good provider of unbiased reporting in general. What complaints it does get about being biased one way are almost always balanced out by complaints about it being biased the opposite way.
    I remember seeing one piece get 400 complaints about a "pro-Israeli" agenda. The same piece had 398 complaints about an "anti-israeli" agenda. To me, that's a pretty good job of being in the middle.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Actually, you haven't.

    At first you were railing against a biased news article. When it was made clear to you that this wasn't an article, but an op-ed, you then changed your tune to saying you didn't want your money funding it. Then it was pointed out that you don't fund it.

    So no, unless the underlying point is you support Trump, it's not very clear what your disagreement is.

    Would you like to start over?



    For the record, despite what people here say, the BBC is a very good provider of unbiased reporting in general. What complaints it does get about being biased one way are almost always balanced out by complaints about it being biased the opposite way.
    I remember seeing one piece get 400 complaints about a "pro-Israeli" agenda. The same piece had 398 complaints about an "anti-israeli" agenda. To me, that's a pretty good job of being in the middle.
    This is really an article. It is an article on their 'features' section, which they pushed to their front page.

    I have been clear from post 1, I am dissatisfied with the BBC using public money to provide a platform for this kind of journalism which aims to assassinate another person's character, making accusations without any basis. It is exactly against their supposed reputation. Even IF it is an opinion piece, there are standards and responsibilities you must carry as public broadcaster. You can't just say it is an opinion piece, and then let the journalist write whatever she wants, because all articles will carry and represent that reputation. They must ensure that there are some basis on the journalist's accusations. As a taxpayer and TV licence owner I am fully entitled to question the manner and standards in which they select and screen all articles.

    Now what are you still not clear with?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

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.