The Student Room Group

Are the BBC biased?

A view on it from Peter Sissons and for those who may not know who he is...

For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current *affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to *answer the question that nags at many of its viewers β€” is the BBC biased?


Good question, is there a political bias at the BBC?

In my view, β€˜bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the *pervading culture. The better word is a β€˜mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.

By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. *Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on *running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told β€˜it’s all in there’.


Hmm, not the Mail then?

If you want to read one of the few copies of the Daily Mail that find their way into the BBC newsroom, they are difficult to track down, and you would be advised not to make too much of a show of reading them. Wrap them in brown paper or a copy of The Guardian, would be my advice.


So that bias, how does it express itself?

At any given time there is a BBC line on everything of importance, a line usually adopted in the light of which way its senior echelons believe the political wind is *blowing. This line is rarely spelled out explicitly, but percolates subtly throughout the organisation.
Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good β€” it is heresy to question any of its activities.

The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC *people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology.

All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both.

Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers. Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically. The Royal Family is a bore. Islam must not be offended at any price, although *Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.


Really?!

And, inside the organisation, you challenge that collective view at your peril. In today’s BBC only those whose antennae are fully attuned to the corporation’s cultural mindset β€” or keep quiet about their true feelings β€” are going to make progress.

Moreover, making progress these days doesn’t mean just achieving the influence and prestige of a senior job with the world’s greatest broadcaster, once considered reward enough. For those breaking through into the senior ranks, there’s now big, big money and a gold-plated pension to be had

Which is why, although there has been plenty of grumbling on the shop floor about the escalation of pay for top BBC managers in recent years, it’s muted. No one wants to wreck his or her chances of a well-paid place in the promised land. The newsroom has many talented journalists of middle rank, who know what’s wrong with the organisation, but who don’t rock the boat for fear of blowing their futures.

Not that talent alone is enough to get on at the BBC. The key to understanding its internal promotions system is that, for every person whose career is advanced on ability, two are promoted because it solves a problem for management.

If Human Resources β€” or Personnel, as it used to be known β€” advise that it’s time a woman or someone from an ethnic minority (or a combination of the two) was appointed to the job for which you, a white male, have applied, then that’s who gets it.

But whatever your talent, sex or ethnicity, there’s one sure-fire way at a BBC promotions board to ensure you don’t get the job, indeed to bring your career to a grinding halt. And that’s if, when asked which post-war politician you most admire, you reply: β€˜Margaret Thatcher’.


An interesting insight into the Corporation by someone who knows it, excerpts from his book in 2011. Good thing it came out before the feminist takeover, he must have a very low opinion of it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

Scroll to see replies

BBC = Bullsh*t Broadcasting Corporation
Reply 2
Not really.
(edited 5 years ago)
I don't think that the TV news arm is that bad, but the online news arm is complete millenial-targeted drivel. Talking about Trump's hair and when some lass realised being a Muslim boxer was possible.
Reply 4
Original post by Notoriety
I don't think that the TV news arm is that bad, but the online news arm is complete millenial-targeted drivel. Talking about Trump's hair and when some lass realised being a Muslim boxer was possible.


Yes I have noticed an increase in those sorts of silly stories. Not necessarily biased, just a bit bizarre.

One thing I do find the BBC News rather good at is providing a basic understanding of complex issues and stories in layman terms, in a sort of 'so what's going on?' sort of way. Especially when you haven't been following stories closely and want a quick basic summary before reading more in depth articles.
absolutely, watch the first half of America's hate preachers, then simply watch the pastor's sermons then tell me whether they're biased.
Reply 6
Is the BBC biased? Is the pope Catholic?

Anyone that tells you the BBC isn't biased is one of two things; either ignorant of its bias or benefitting from it.
Original post by Notoriety
and when some lass realised being a Muslim boxer was possible.


lol....Thats kinda funny...but so true.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 7
Original post by Pinkisk
lol....Thats kinda funny...but so true.

Is the BBC biased? Is the pope Catholic?

Anyone that tells you the BBC isn't biased is one of two things; either ignorant of its bias or benefitting from it.


Everything and everyone is biased. Every time you give an opinion or speak about an issue you will be biased. But it's certainly not some left wing commie loving station that people seem to accuse it of. I mean it very much doesn't like Corbyn, for example.
Original post by DSilva
Yes I have noticed an increase in those sorts of silly stories. Not necessarily biased, just a bit bizarre.

Whatever we may want to call them, they are a projection of that 'mindset' Sissons refers to. BBC 3 is a pure reflection of the Guardianista list of social concerns, with their overblown and frankly obsessive dedication to genderism and racism. Down with nationalism and the flag, rewrite history and open those bluddy borders. To them, it is not a matter of what the people want, it is about what they ought to have.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by DSilva
BBC 3 doesn't exist anymore.

I just saw a video clip on the BBC titled 'when knee slides go wrong'. Is that about social concerns, genderism and racism?

It's online only, look it up if you want.
Reply 10
Original post by zhog
It's online only, look it up if you want.


Have done. What exactly am I supposed to be looking at?
Is the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation biased?
Reply 12
Essentially Tony Blair/ David Cameron then? It's certainly not economically leftist.
Yes, the Big Black **** organisation is very biased.

But selling yourself out to work for them is a great way to force your values and opinions down other people's throats.
Original post by DSilva
Have done. What exactly am I supposed to be looking at?

Things like this, it is not an 'impartial' feature in my opinion. The view of the flag as a racist and oppressive symbol is offered a privileged platform and BBC 3 have much more that projects the mindset Sissons refers to, voluntarily or otherwise. On BBC 4 you can find it in things like an endless list of guests and opinions favouring a second referendum, of course that chimes with many but the imbalance is obvious to everybody else.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bbbc+3+flag
Original post by zhog
It is not a matter of what the people want, it is about what they ought to have.


Leftism/Communism 101.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 16
Original post by zhog
Things like this, it is not an 'impartial' feature in my opinion. The view of the flag as a racist and oppressive symbol is offered a privileged platform and BBC 3 have much more that projects the mindset Sissons refers to, voluntarily or otherwise. On BBC 4 you can find it in things like an endless list of guests and opinions favouring a second referendum, of course that chimes with many but the imbalance is obvious to everybody else.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bbbc+3+flag


That was a debate between someone arguing the flag was racist and someone arguing it wasn't. That's giving both sides a chance to speak. That's free speech no? You can't claim to be pro free speech and then moan that a station allows people with views you disagree with to speak.

You also get lots of people on the BBC wanting a no deal. How many times has Rees Mogg been interviewed by them recently?
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 17
I think it's impossible for a news outlet to not be bias, because at the end of the day it's made by humans and the BBC is technically government run. However, I think the BBC is interesting because they write things that get people on both the Left and Right pissed off. I think it's the closest news outlet in being 'neutral' politically (or at least it tries to be).
Original post by DSilva
That was a debate between someone arguing the flag was racist and someone arguing it wasn't. That's giving both sides a chance to speak. That's free speech no?

For sure but not given an equal standing, that's what I meant.
Reply 19
Original post by zhog
For sure but not given an equal standing, that's what I meant.


How were they not? One guy gave his opinion on why the flag was racist, the other guy responded saying it wasn't. What's your issue with it? You can't be pro free speech and then moan about a station giving a platform to someone you disagree with.

Quick Reply

Latest