BBC accused of institutional 'trendy left-wing bias'

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...titutional+'trendy+left-wing+bias'/article.do

 

well duh

many of us have been saying that about not only the bbc but nbc, cbs, abc, npr, nyt, cnn, msnbc, and just about every bunch of broadcasters, newspapers, and news mags. don't get your hopes up, it'll be brushed under a handy rug by next week.

 

Re: well duh

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

Not suprising given its such a trivial matter...

If the news is not reported in a manner you find agreeable, you can always choose other news outlets. Problem solved by means of 'freedom of information'

Attacking the BBC for being 'too PC' is really scraping the bottom of the barrell of what you can criticise... Even if its true, it should be brushed under the rug because its really not that big a deal... If there were factual errors or discrimination in the news it would be serious, but theres no media outlet in existence that doesn't put a spin on things, and if anything, the BBC's spin is relatively minor and harmless

Besides, as long as clever people like us are there to read between the lines theres no problem is there

 

Also,
One of the reasons why I dont give much credibility to the conservative news outlets, is things like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwIRNM5noY
When worlds collide

A shame because things like this are not that infrequent either

While BBC may pander to the PC-masses, I have seen no evidence of personal attacks or manipulation of words being used to communicate a point in their reports. IMHO BBC are more credible because they dont substitute facts for emotion or opinion on the scale of certain other companies

 

Tell that to the BBC since they commissioned the study,

 

difference between "news" and opinion

i have no problem with outlets giving opinion pieces as long as they are labeled as such. what i take issue with is disguised pieces that masquerade as "news". this can take many forms from misleading headlines to carefully chosen facts to facial expressions and voice tone. slanted news is not news at all but is propaganda. as the old TV show cop always said " just the facts ma'am." anything more or less is not news but something else. how many times have you heard a couple of shots described as a fusillade [ kind of like a small war] or had an auto wreck listed as grinding. words like this carry impressions that may or may not be accurate in any given story but they are often used to give a false impression. IMHO after 40 years as a ambulance critter i have found that most reporters see and report what seems to "fit" their own bias and many times has scant relationship to the truth. its common to find errors like number of injured, details of the accident, causes [ remember one case where a head injury victim was described as badly drunk and as such was of course at fault], and other errors many of which could have been prevented with just a little leg work. todays reporters are lazy and in a hurry. indeed most are face talent and not real reporters. sorry but to me they have much to be charged with but having a close relationship with the truth is not one.

 

some 25 years ago i got into an agument with my brother about some event reported in the local newspaper ...he kept insisting it had to be correct because , after all it was in the paper ...myself and later my dad assured him that that being reported in the paper did not make it absolutly correct by definition ...years later my brother became a police officer then detective and was amazed to see how reporters would twist or disregard facts that eric had personally described to those very same reporters ..a reporter needs a good story ,drama ,excitment , romance ...wrongdoing by city hall ,cops ,rich white people ...thats news ...not some ghetto street thug ....BOREING....ZZZZZZ.....and SMEG .i agree that you ,my brother and i and most members here are savy enough to read between the smug lines of the self loathing media elite but many people are not ..in fact i would argue that most people cannot ...so a lberal bias is imo a real factor in the way ordinary people react and vote and teach their kids ..its unfair ,unbalanced and ultimately bad for america , the uk and for the western world ...the bbc makes cnn and nbc look like bill oreilly and i belive it is entirely funded by the british people ...is it not ?

 

Sure it is! Bias is bias, and its always bad whether its PC liberal racist or whatnot...

But I'm impressed that the BBC are at least making some feigned effort to make the reporting more objective, and to eliminate bias as opposed to the "No we don't do it! Not biased never have been etc" approach that other news outlets take

 

BBC is super liberal. FOX NEWS IS THE BEST> IT SHOWS BOTH SIDES. Bill O'reily is the man.

 

BBC has been biased for years, and don't get your hopes up for any change just because they've commisioned the report themselves. And don't compare BBC with channels like FOX, BBC is government funded, paid for by the taxpayers, and should be as objective as possible.

 

I tend to think that Bill O'Reilly is a shallow utterer of retarded rhetoric with a constant, uptight douche-bag facial expression and a childish way of debating (rapid fire questions, speaking loudly, cutting of mics).

BBC is a lot less "political" than the shallow rhetoric of FOX in my experience, and is a mature and trustworthy news-service overall. I've been quite impressed with Al-Jazeera, who offer an interesting perspective on things, and currently watch their news service.

 

I sincerely hope you are taking the p*ss

 

Europeans should realize that their perspective is very different from that of most Americans. Being different does not make their perspective more correct. IMO the BBC viewpoint seems to more closely fit that viewpoint and Fox News is more compatible with the opinions of the majority of Americans.
Notice I said majority because there are of course many Americans who do not share that consensus view, just as I am sure there are Europeans who do not follow the majority.

 

i have rarely seen bill oreily bested in debate ...i dont think i ever saw him cut a mike unless he had a guy shouting over the other speakers turn to opine ....pman , can you give an actual example of a time when he used retarded rhetoric , i must have missed it....

 

It's opinionated, of course, but these quotes flash red on the retard-o-meter.

Seen in retrospect... :roll:

"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?" -on finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, March 18, 2003

"I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out, and I wouldn't have rescued them." --on his radio show, Sept. 2005

Also, to quote Maddox:

In June of 2003, O'Reilly attacked the only form of media he was powerless in: the Internet. In his "Talking Points Memo" segment, he whined that "nearly everyday, there's something written on the Internet about me that's flat out untrue," continuing with his theory that "the reason these net people get away with all kinds of stuff is that they work for no one. They put stuff up with no restraints. This, of course, is dangerous..." Yeah, real dangerous Bill. Next thing you know, people will get the crazy idea that they have the right to express their opinions as they see fit. Who knows? Maybe this idea will catch on and they'll add it to the Constitution of the United States, giving it a catchy title like "freedom of speech."

Excellent point

I'm sure that if you agree with him then his methods pale in the importance of the contents, as many liberals do when supporting Michael Moore, who is the same type of character...

As long as news agencies, programs, and channels exist to earn money objective news is still somewhat of a utopian concept.

 

Maddox is the man. Outside his egocentric behaviour and delusional self image he has a lot of good articles and makes a lot of good points.

 

I was talking about Fox news not O'Reilly specifically however I would like to see the source for that first quote. I've seen Leftists attribute bogus quotes to Bush and I'm sure they would do the same for O'Reilly.
If it's legitimate so what? One should be intelligent enough to tell the difference between political commentary and the news.

source?

Kind of extreme (by design) but the kind of thing a political commentator who dislikes the UN miggt say.

Not really. Perhaps Maddox doesn't realize that freedom of speech has nothing to do with libel or slander.

Except for the fact that O'Reilly isn't a newscaster. He's a political commentator. Maddox and O'Reilly are both commentators, not newscasters.
Maddox makes all kinds of extreme statements...for entertainment value as well as to make a point. You accept that from Maddox and even applaud it while calling O'Reilly a retard for doing something similar (though less extreme)?
Logical consistency?

 

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dyna ... ml%23a4990

Kind of extreme (by design) but the kind of thing a political commentator who dislikes the UN miggt say.[/quote]

Replace United Nations building with White House, see how reactions change

Not really. Perhaps Maddox doesn't realize that freedom of speech has nothing to do with libel or slander. [/quote]

Yeah, putting up opinions without restraints is dangerous.

Except for the fact that O'Reilly isn't a newscaster. He's a political commentator. Maddox and O'Reilly are both commentators, not newscasters.
Maddox makes all kinds of extreme statements...for entertainment value as well as to make a point. You accept that from Maddox and even applaud it while calling O'Reilly a retard for doing something similar (though less extreme)?
Logical consistency?[/quote]

Maddox is an entertainer at heart whilst O'Reilly is a political commentator at heart, which are two different things. Maddox is a self-ironic caricature.

This guy is the epitome of narcissism, and coming from a guy whose website is titled "The Best Page in the Universe," that's saying a lot.

That explains the difference between them. The logical inconsistency in this case would be comparing Maddox and O'Reilly.

 

I think you have your quotes mixed up in your post. Kinda hard to figure out what you are saying but I'll give it a shot.
Your source link for the O'Reilly quote doesn't work..error 404.

Freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution refers to protection from state interference with speech and has nothing to do with private limits on speech.

I'm not sure you are in a position to make statements about what these people are "at heart". They both are clearly entertainers as well as political and social commentators.
Don't use opinion shows as your sole source of news.
The comparison is inevitable and unavoidable given that Maddox is making statements about O'Reilly and alluding to the success of his website in comparison to O'Reilly's site.
Of course, he wisely avoids making comparisons regarding other aspects of success such as income, fame and influence where I suspect he would not do as well.

IIRC the issue was about comparing the BBC to other news outlets like Fox News. Not comparing the BBC to O'Reilly which is apples and oranges.

As far as your remarks about replacing the UN with the White House I'm not sure what you are getting at. I have heard worse things said in regard to President Bush by Leftist political commentators. If you doubt it cruise by Move on .org or the Democratic Underground site and check out some of the rhetoric.