BBC Director General: BBC "Massive Bias To The Left"

[cpwill]

i know, i know, shocker, right? the BBC?!? nooooo..... :roll:


Mark Thompson told the right-of-centre Spectator magazine that there was an institutional bias when he joined the organisation, reinforcing the findings of a 2007 internal report which concluded that greater efforts were required to avoid liberal bias.

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left," Thompson said.

"The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher...



mystified indeed; how in the world did chaos and blood not ensue conservative governance? and how dare the unwashed masses not listen to the advise of their betters in the media?

 

[Boo Radley]

yes, an old tactic. Quote someone and say this is proof. Sorry, but it still isn't. And it doesn't matter at all who you quote. It wouldn't matter if I quoted someone who said it wasn't, no matter who that person was I quoted. Until we address what really constitutes evidence, we'll keep seeing these silly threads.

Allow me to repeat: To prove bias, you have to show language that tars (like liberals are socalists) and / or inaccuracies put out without reprecusions. Proving bias requires real rigor and not mistaken premises.

 

[Grim17]

The fact the BBC has had a strong liberal bias for decades isn't news.... What's news here, is that someone who worked there actually had the honesty and integrity to admit it. You just don't see that from the lib media very often.

 

[Boo Radley]

The fact the BBC has had a strong liberal bias for decades isn't news.... What's news here, is that someone who worked there actually had the honesty and integrity to admit it. You just don't see that from the lib media very often.

How do you know he's honest? Or do you equate honest with what fits your view?

 

[Manc Skipper]

The blatant cherrypicking is noted."The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher..."

"Now it is a completely different generation."

Struggling with impartiality in 1980 becomes a present-day "Massive bias to the left" despite there now being "a completely different generation" in post.

So a rightwing boss, appointed six years ago when his predecessor was sacked for allowing the BBC to become too critical of the socialist government, is now cosying up to the ConDem government by claiming that the "bias" is now in their favour......That's proof if ever there was.... :roll:

 

[Harshaw]

The BBC World Service, which I frequently listen to on NPR stations, 1) swings massively to the left, 2) is obsessed with the United States, and 3) doesn't understand how things work here. And never is that more clear than during an American election cycle. Listen this fall. You'll see.

People think the "BTV" network in the silly movie version of "V for Vendetta" is mocking Bill O'Reilly, but no -- it's a pretty spot-on sendup of the BBC.

 

[Boo Radley]

The BBC World Service, which I frequently listen to on NPR stations, 1) swings massively to the left, 2) is obsessed with the United States, and 3) doesn't understand how things work here. And never is that more clear than during an American election cycle. Listen this fall. You'll see.

People think the "BTV" network in the silly movie version of "V for Vendetta" is mocking Bill O'Reilly, but no -- it's a pretty spot-on sendup of the BBC.

Again, based on what? It doesn't affirm your view, so it is biased left, right? Looking at news as affirmation.

 

[Grim17]

How do you know he's honest? Or do you equate honest with what fits your view?

For years, the BBC was the most blatant and obvious example of liberal biased media in the world. The fact that you question this is quite amazing.

The report from their own internal investigation released in 2007 confirmed the bias.

BBC report finds bias within corporation - Telegraph
BBC accused of institutional 'trendy left-wing bias' | News

Then there are the leaked memos that forced executives as well as the "Stars" of the BBC, to admit their liberal bias.

Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives | News
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online

So you know what... There is no reason on God's green earth why myself, or anyone else should doubt this latest admission.

 

[Boo Radley]

For years, the BBC was the most blatant and obvious example of liberal biased media in the world. The fact that you question this is quite amazing.

The report from their own internal investigation released in 2007 confirmed the bias.

BBC report finds bias within corporation - Telegraph
BBC accused of institutional 'trendy left-wing bias' | News

Then there are the leaked memos that forced executives as well as the "Stars" of the BBC, to admit their liberal bias.

Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives | News
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online

So you know what... There is no reason on God's green earth why myself, or anyone else should doubt this latest admission.

A competitor? An accusatation? Opinion? And you think you have enough evidence? Seriously? The thing is you want to believe it, and because you want to believe it, you don't question what is put before you that affirms your belief.

BTW, from your article:

After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation’s coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.

It limits criticism to a specific:

But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.

This hardly supports your claim. In fact, if the study is valid, which isn't proven in the article, it disproves your claim.

 

[Harshaw]

Again, based on what? It doesn't affirm your view, so it is biased left, right? Looking at news as affirmation.

If that's how you look at news, then that's your own hangup. But it would explain why you have no problem seeing the bias of Fox News yet can't seem to detect it anywhere else.

 

[Boo Radley]

If that's how you look at news, then that's your own hangup. But it would explain why you have no problem seeing the bias of Fox News yet can't seem to detect it anywhere else.

I'll give you effort points, but no. I seek actual evidence. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Harshaw]

I'll give you effort points, but no. I seek actual evidence. Nothing more and nothing less.

The BBC itself says so here:

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | BBC 'must become more impartial'


Its personalities say so here:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online


Rundown here:

Confessions of a BBC liberal - Times Online


Very nice summary with specifics here:

Media Bias at the BBC


Now, I'll take it as read that you're simply going to dismiss it all out of hand.

 

[Boo Radley]

The BBC itself says so here:

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | BBC 'must become more impartial'


Its personalities say so here:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online


Rundown here:

Confessions of a BBC liberal - Times Online


Very nice summary with specifics here:

Media Bias at the BBC


Now, I'll take it as read that you're simply going to dismiss it all out of hand.

I don't know why this is so hard to follow. It is not something that can be admitted to by any individual. It is something that has to be proven through a proper study that measures language and accuacy without consequence. These articles aren't really new, and they still don't do what you want to claim they do. One is a general statement that is prue PR, and the other two are simply opinions, with no more weight than the opinions of those that they are not biased. The only study even mentioned so far says the exact opposite. And I have no idea what rigor they used to reach that conclusion. As long as your side keeps presenting opinion, no matter whose opinion it is, or flawed efforts at study (asking the wrong questions or using the wrong standard), you can't prove the bias you claim.

Agian, this is not hard to follow. What you present as evidence, isn't.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't know why this is so hard to follow. It is not something that can be admitted to by any individual. It is something that has to be proven through a proper study that measures language and accuacy without consequence. These articles aren't really new, and they still don't do what you want to claim they do. One is a general statement that is prue PR, and the other two are simply opinions, with no more weight than the opinions of those that they are not biased. The only study even mentioned so far says the exact opposite. And I have no idea what rigor they used to reach that conclusion. As long as your side keeps presenting opinion, no matter whose opinion it is, or flawed efforts at study (asking the wrong questions or using the wrong standard), you can't prove the bias you claim.

Agian, this is not hard to follow. What you present as evidence, isn't.

And you're doing exactly what I said you'd do; you didn't even bother to read anything, much less respond to them substantively. The last article gives you numerous examples of exactly what you asked for. And the first article is FROM the BBC, admitting to its bias, not some individual talking to some other group.

Seriously . . . if the BBC ITSELF admits that it's biased, why can't YOU?

 

[Manc Skipper]

" ... It uses the introduction of the BBC's 3D weather maps in 2005 as an example of how the corporation can be seen as biased towards the south-east of England.

Because of the way the maps were tilted, they appeared to suggest that northern Scotland was on the periphery.. "

Nasty biased BBC! Your "nice summary" berates the BBC for bias in not reporting that Global Warming "stopped ten years ago". GW hasn't stopped.

 

[Harshaw]

Yeah, that's the only thing I posted, and the only part of it..

 

[pbrauer]

It all depends upon where you sit in the political spectrum, if you are on the extreme left you will see the BBC as having a conservative bias and if you are on the far right you will see the BBC as having a liberal bias. It's not all that complicated.

 

[Harshaw]

Or, you can just pay attention to what they say, know what the political spectrum is, and know where they fall on it -- no matter where you happen to. That's the educated way of going about it, anyway.

 

[William Rea]

i know, i know, shocker, right? the BBC?!? nooooo..... :roll:


Mark Thompson told the right-of-centre Spectator magazine that there was an institutional bias when he joined the organisation, reinforcing the findings of a 2007 internal report which concluded that greater efforts were required to avoid liberal bias.

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left," Thompson said.

"The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher...



mystified indeed; how in the world did chaos and blood not ensue conservative governance? and how dare the unwashed masses not listen to the advise of their betters in the media?

What is he actually saying when dogma is dropped and the critical thinking head is put on...

1. His opinion is that when he joined the BBC 30 years ago, the "personal politics" of most of the journalists in BBC current affairs was to the left.
2. His opinion is that this group of journalists with left leaning "personal politics" was vocal within the organisation and were mystified by the politics of a right wing PM.
3. His opinion is that the BBC struggled to be impartial with this dominant "left leaning" grouping BUT it doesn't say that their news output was partial.

Having discussed this with a BBC employee many years ago this is something that I can offer similar opinion/anecdotal evidence for. It is likely that he was referring to the group as "vocal" because the BBC has a lot of painful editorial meetings when they discuss the content of their output in great detail. I can imagine that that would be a very "vocal" meeting.

Dogma is your enemy.

 

[cpwill]

If that's how you look at news, then that's your own hangup. But it would explain why you have no problem seeing the bias of Fox News yet can't seem to detect it anywhere else.

bias = doesn't confirm my preconcieved view of the world.

impartiality = does seek to confirm my preconcieved veiw of the world



i mean, duu-uuhhh...

 

[hazlnut]

i know, i know, shocker, right? the BBC?!? nooooo..... :roll:


Mark Thompson told the right-of-centre Spectator magazine that there was an institutional bias when he joined the organisation, reinforcing the findings of a 2007 internal report which concluded that greater efforts were required to avoid liberal bias.

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left," Thompson said.

"The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher...



mystified indeed; how in the world did chaos and blood not ensue conservative governance? and how dare the unwashed masses not listen to the advise of their betters in the media?

Aren't right and left reversed in the UK?

Left = conservative, right = liberal?

 

[Andalublue]

i know, i know, shocker, right? the BBC?!? nooooo..... :roll:


Mark Thompson told the right-of-centre Spectator magazine that there was an institutional bias when he joined the organisation, reinforcing the findings of a 2007 internal report which concluded that greater efforts were required to avoid liberal bias.

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left," Thompson said.

"The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher...



mystified indeed; how in the world did chaos and blood not ensue conservative governance? and how dare the unwashed masses not listen to the advise of their betters in the media?

Nice thread will, but, as Mark Thompson pointed out, your headline is 30 years out of date.

"POTUS admits the massive racism of the US."
"Barack Obama, speaking about racial segregation 40 years ago, admitted that the US had serious issues with institutional racism until just a few years ago."

Now, had I posted a thread with that headline, could you accuse me of trolling? I think you could and I think you would.

 

[mpg]

bias = doesn't confirm my preconcieved view of the world.

bias = labeling commentary as news

Even if you do it for both sides equally, that only means that half of the time you're biased one way and half of the time you're biased the other way. Throwing commentary into a news article or broadcast is unethical but very common. It's so common that it's the norm. Professionalism in news reporting is rare.

 

[hazlnut]

bias = labeling commentary as news

Actually, I think that's called "fair and balanced".

 

[Harshaw]

What is he actually saying when dogma is dropped and the critical thinking head is put on...

1. His opinion is that when he joined the BBC 30 years ago, the "personal politics" of most of the journalists in BBC current affairs was to the left.
2. His opinion is that this group of journalists with left leaning "personal politics" was vocal within the organisation and were mystified by the politics of a right wing PM.
3. His opinion is that the BBC struggled to be impartial with this dominant "left leaning" grouping BUT it doesn't say that their news output was partial.

Having discussed this with a BBC employee many years ago this is something that I can offer similar opinion/anecdotal evidence for. It is likely that he was referring to the group as "vocal" because the BBC has a lot of painful editorial meetings when they discuss the content of their output in great detail. I can imagine that that would be a very "vocal" meeting.

Dogma is your enemy.

Have you considered that this zeal to label everything as "dogma" is . . . your dogma?