Turn on thread page Beta

Biased Broadcasting Corporation? (BBC) watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    'Unemployment may have either decreased by a bit or increased by a bit more' isn't a headline. With a labour market this tight, if you wait for a change to have a 95% significance level then there's no point reporting anything the ONS says.
    Nope, I meant their focus was heavily on the negative news rise in unemployment; not employment up by 80,000 or wage rises or the reason for the unemployment rise being more opportunities with people looking for better jobs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    The way the BBC headline selectively reports from the study is obviously not independent of the wider context of, you know, the news.

    Are you seriously saying you read that headline and thought "oh the BBC is reporting a study" and only later realised the obvious relation to the Brexit debate? I will believe you if you say so. I mean, I'll also think you're pretty thick, but I will believe you.
    Of course you are able to correlate it to wider brexit news, but you are also able to take it as news in its own right.


    A human brain is actually capable of more than one thought at a time.

    You should try it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Of course you are able to correlate it to wider brexit news, but you are also able to take it as news in its own right.


    A human brain is actually capable of more than one thought at a time.

    You should try it.
    That makes no sense at all. I am talking about entertaining multiple thoughts and spotting patterns (which, by the way, I am certain the BBC were deliberately invoking). You are talking about thinking. One. Thought. At. A. Time, without consideration of other relevant information. I really don't see how this makes you bright?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    which, by the way, I am certain the BBC were deliberately invoking
    Oh, you're certain? Well that makes all the difference here!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This is not a subject for debate, the anti Brexit bias of the BBC is a proven fact.

    Of 4,275 guests on BBC's flagship Today programme between 2005 and 2015 who talked about the EU, only 132 were Brexiteers.
    Put another way, just 3.2% of Today interviewees were anti-EU, despite consistent public support for EU withdrawal throughout this time.

    http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/fi...orporation.pdf

    The Guardian describes Today as the most important news programme in the UK, driving the political agenda

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...-today-radio-4

    John Humphries, a presenter on the programme even implicitly admits the bias;

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...BC-bosses.html

    :
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Oh, you're certain? Well that makes all the difference here!
    Come on. You can swear black is white all you want, but when you read that headline you thought of Brexit, as indeed you probably think of Brexit every time Britain's relationship with the EU is mentioned these days. If you don't think the BBC (or indeed any news organisation) is well aware how its headlines will be read you are being willfully naive.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Tonight, Nigel Farage will be on Question Time for the 32nd time, the joint highest this century, despite never being elected as an MP. UKIP have also had a representative on 24% of all Question Time programmes since 2010 despite never coming close to 24% of all MPs

    You can read whatever bias you want into this, but is it over-representation of UKIP, the most right-wing mainstream party and one of the main driving forces behind Brexit? Definitely
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrelaiBoy)
    Tonight, Nigel Farage will be on Question Time for the 32nd time, the joint highest this century, despite never being elected as an MP. UKIP have also had a representative on 24% of all Question Time programmes since 2010 despite never coming close to 24% of all MPs

    You can read whatever bias you want into this, but is it over-representation of UKIP, the most right-wing mainstream party and one of the main driving forces behind Brexit? Definitely
    You unwittingly dismantle your own argument.

    17,410,742 people voted for Brexit, higher than the number that has ever voted for a governing party in any election in British history.

    As a point of comparison the Tories got 13,669,883 at the last election, to win 318 seats. Slightly less than 50% of all MP's. In 1997 Labour got 13,518,167 votes to get 63% of all MP's.

    As you yourself admit UKIP was "one of the main driving forces behind Brexit."

    UKIP's absence of MP's is irrelevant. They were articulating the people's will on this the great issue of our time. Therefore Farage's appearances are quite appropriate, (arguably too few actually).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    You unwittingly dismantle your own argument.

    17,410,742 people voted for Brexit, higher than the number that has ever voted for a governing party in any election in British history.

    As a point of comparison the Tories got 13,669,883 at the last election, to win 318 seats. Slightly less than 50% of all MP's. In 1997 Labour got 13,518,167 votes to get 63% of all MP's.

    As you yourself admit UKIP was "one of the main driving forces behind Brexit."

    UKIP's absence of MP's is irrelevant. They were articulating the people's will on this the great issue of our time. Therefore Farage's appearances are quite appropriate, (arguably too few actually).
    There's no way that Farage has had too few appearances seeing as A) He hasn't been UKIP leader since 2016 and wasn't part of the official leave campaign. Joint highest this century, its ridiculous.

    Yes, Brexit got a lot of votes, but its not the only issue and its not the only issue Question Time debates. If Question Time were solely centred around Brexit then you'd be completely right, but its not. They discuss other issues so the number of MPs a party gets is completely relevant.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrelaiBoy)
    Tonight, Nigel Farage will be on Question Time for the 32nd time, the joint highest this century, despite never being elected as an MP. UKIP have also had a representative on 24% of all Question Time programmes since 2010 despite never coming close to 24% of all MPs

    You can read whatever bias you want into this, but is it over-representation of UKIP, the most right-wing mainstream party and one of the main driving forces behind Brexit? Definitely

    Considering there's normally 5 or 6 guests, that's actually 5% representation. Nigel Farage will say something different to the political class, most senior politicians in the Conservatives/Labour/LibDems sound the same and may as well have been the same person.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by generallee)
    Of 4,275 guests on BBC's flagship Today programme between 2005 and 2015 who talked about the EU, only 132 were Brexiteers.
    Talking about the EU is not the same thing as talking about whether or not we should be a member of the EU. This statistic is meaningless without any context.

    Also there's a certain irony here about talking about a R4 program, a station which basically solely caters to an older audience who happen to be the biggest supporters of Brexit. If there was a bias, surely this group ought to be the first ones to kick up a fuss about it?

    (Original post by generallee)
    Put another way, just 3.2% of Today interviewees were anti-EU, despite consistent public support for EU withdrawal throughout this time.
    You're kidding right? Support for leaving the EU has been incredibly inconsistent, hell even in the run-up to the referendum there were still polls showing a majority support remain, and when the referendum did land Brexit's majority was razor-thin. That can hardly be called consistent support especially if you go back as far as 2005; UKIP got a measly 15% of the vote in the 2004 EU election.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    You unwittingly dismantle your own argument.

    17,410,742 people voted for Brexit, higher than the number that has ever voted for a governing party in any election in British history.

    As a point of comparison the Tories got 13,669,883 at the last election, to win 318 seats. Slightly less than 50% of all MP's. In 1997 Labour got 13,518,167 votes to get 63% of all MP's.

    As you yourself admit UKIP was "one of the main driving forces behind Brexit."

    UKIP's absence of MP's is irrelevant. They were articulating the people's will on this the great issue of our time. Therefore Farage's appearances are quite appropriate, (arguably too few actually).
    And it's about debate, not whipped MPs saying the same thing in proportion to how many there are. If that was the case why has Piers Morgan appeared so often when nobody voted for him.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    Talking about the EU is not the same thing as talking about whether or not we should be a member of the EU. This statistic is meaningless without any context.

    Also there's a certain irony here about talking about a R4 program, a station which basically solely caters to an older audience who happen to be the biggest supporters of Brexit. If there was a bias, surely this group ought to be the first ones to kick up a fuss about it?



    You're kidding right? Support for leaving the EU has been incredibly inconsistent, hell even in the run-up to the referendum there were still polls showing a majority support remain, and when the referendum did land Brexit's majority was razor-thin. That can hardly be called consistent support especially if you go back as far as 2005; UKIP got a measly 15% of the vote in the 2004 EU election.
    Pfft, you can prove anything with facts, can't you?
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrDystopia)
    The fact neither side agrees probably lends weight to the argument that both a) people see the bias they want, and b) the BBC is doing a fine enough job and remaining neutral.
    A sure, b nah why would it especially if a is true.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by the beer)
    A sure, b nah why would it especially if a is true.
    Well considering everyone on both sides tend to agree on the biases of other major media outlets (everyone agrees on the slant of the Daily Mail, or the Independent), it seems to me the only one ever debated is the BBC. Which says to me they're doing pretty well at remaining neutral if both sides can't agree/see the bias they want.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Not as bad as Fox, that's for sure.
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrDystopia)
    Which says to me they're doing pretty well at remaining neutral if both sides can't agree/see the bias they want.
    Or doing a fine job of putting out **** content that pisses everyone off.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrDystopia)
    Well considering everyone on both sides tend to agree on the biases of other major media outlets (everyone agrees on the slant of the Daily Mail, or the Independent), it seems to me the only one ever debated is the BBC. Which says to me they're doing pretty well at remaining neutral if both sides can't agree/see the bias they want.
    A news organisation can't BE "neutral". There is no such thing as objective and "neutral" news dissemination.

    Sure the BBC promotes the conceit that it is "neutral" and uniquely indifferent to the biases and prejudices of its journalists, editors, management and organisational culture, but it is just that. A conceit, that goes right back to Reith.

    And we all know that nine out of ten BBC employees voted Remain. If not more. There is no hard data for that, but you know that, I know that, (although you may pretend otherwise I guess). And those few that did vote Leave probably make the coffee.

    John Humphries even said as much in the interview I quoted. That Broadcasting House was in shock the morning after the Referendum. If the BBC reflected the nation more than half its employees would have been pleased, not in shock.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    A news organisation can't BE "neutral". There is no such thing as objective and "neutral" news dissemination.

    Sure the BBC promotes the conceit that it is "neutral" and uniquely indifferent to the biases and prejudices of its journalists, editors, management and organisational culture, but it is just that. A conceit, that goes right back to Reith.

    And we all know that nine out of ten BBC employees voted Remain. If not more. There is no hard data for that, but you know that, I know that, (although you may pretend otherwise I guess). And those few that did vote Leave probably make the coffee.

    John Humphries even said as much in the interview I quoted. That Broadcasting House was in shock the morning after the Referendum. If the BBC reflected the nation more than half its employees would have been pleased, not in shock.

    It's not possible to be perfectly neutral, but the BBC could become less biased by:

    - Recruiting from all social backgrounds, they obsess over ethnicity quotas.

    - Base themselves around the country, not just in London and metropolitan areas.

    - Report the facts of the news, let viewers/readers make their own minds up. Then offer balanced perspectives and analysis.


    Listening to news-based comedy programmes is often mere abuse of Brexit and Conservatism which gets laughs even when there are no actual jokes. Quite sad it's licence fee funded.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
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

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