Log in

View Full Version : BBC admits to bias and offically regards eurosceptics as 'mad'



-:Undertaker:-
05-09-2010, 10:19 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308215/Yes-BBC-biased-Mark-Thompson-admits-massive-lean-Left.html

BBC admits to left-wing bias during the Thatcher years


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/09/02/article-1308215-028FAE710000044D-967_468x308.jpg



BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past. The TV chief also admitted there had been a 'struggle' to achieve impartiality and that staff were ' mystified' by the early years of Margaret Thatcher's government. But he claimed there was now 'much less overt tribalism' among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a 'broader church'. He claimed there was now an 'honourable tradition of journalists from the right' working for the corporation. His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.

The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias. That report criticised the BBC for coming late to several important stories including euroscepticism and immigration, which it described as 'off limits in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone'. Speaking of the time when he joined the BBC, Mr Thompson told the magazine: 'In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979] there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the Left.

'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. 'There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC.'http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100052434/the-bbc-officially-regards-eurosceptics-as-mad/

BBC offically regards eurosceptics as 'mad'


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2010/09/lorpearspm.jpg
If the excellent Lord Pearson is mad, so are 55 per cent of us



There’s a fascinating snippet in Rod Liddle’s column today (secured behind the fastness of the Times paywall). He writes of being summoned to see his boss at the BBC following a complaint about the Corporation’s bias against Eurosceptics. The complaint had been made by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, then a Tory peer. Rod writes:
The [BBC] panjandrum listened to my nervous musings and then held aloft Lord Pearson’s latest letter and said: “Rod, you do realise that these people are mad?”
See how the concept of insanity has been redefined by our state broadcaster? Malcolm Pearson was, and is, the most decent of men (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100050821/lord-pearson-of-rannoch-resigns-as-ukip-leader-i-am-not-much-good-at-party-politics/). Instead of raging publicly against the BBC, he had set out, politely and patiently, to convince it that it could do better. To this end, he employed a professional firm to monitor all BBC current affairs programming over a period of six months.Its methodology was thorough and empirical (http://www.globalbritain.org/BBC.asp). It measured, to the second, how much airtime was given to enthusiasts for closer integration, how much to soft sceptics, and how much to opponents of EU membership. It looked at the background clips, and at the remarks of presenters. Its conclusion – as I well remember, having been involved with the project – was inescapable. The BBC was consistently biased against Eurosceptics, not only in the sense of rarely inviting them on air but – more insidiously – in the sense of casting them as eccentrics.

Malcolm was perhaps naïve in believing that his findings would be enough to induce a culture shift within the Beeb. But “mad”? If so, then the 55 per cent of British voters who, according to the BBC’s own opinion poll (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/9238909/Would_Britain_vote_to_leave_the_EU/), want to leave the EU, must be dribbling loons. To be fair, the BBC did start to include anti-Brussels voices in its broadcasts after the Pearson exercise – whether because it genuinely recognised that it was in the wrong or, as Rod’s anecdote would suggest, simply to get us psychotics off its back. But anyone who thinks that the Beeb is now neutral on the issue of European integration need only compare its coverage of UKIP and the Greens (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100004661/anti-ukip-and-pro-green-the-bbc-at-its-most-blatantly-biased/). Most bias takes the form of opinions being presented as fact – a process which is, almost by definition, unconscious. If you begin from the belief that EU membership is vital to Britain’s prosperity – if you regard this as a datum, rather than an arguable proposition – your coverage of the European question is bound to seem biased to the 55 per cent who disagree. They, in turn, will strike you as people who cannot accept objective reality – in other words, as mad.Well hardly suprising as Lord Pearson does run Global Britain (http://www.globalbritain.org/) which tracks and follows BBC bias. I myself have seen in numerous times on the television whilst watching BBC news such as the time when I saw the reporter who was reporting a UKIP conference somehow felt the need to bring the BNP into the report when the BNP has nothing to do with the conference. The BBC is also funded by the government (of which left wing governments are naturally good at, handing out our money) and more importantly; it is funded by the European Union (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3257748.ece).

It is high time the license fee was scrapped and all news corporations should be free from the government - and if the news corporations wish to be biased then they should be allowed to - however people should be given the choice what channels and broadcasters they pay for and more importantly; people should be told the truth when it comes to neutrality and impartiality.

Thoughts?

Caution
05-09-2010, 10:34 PM
How can they call Eurosceptics mad when they're paying loudmouths like Chris Moyles around 800k? It's ridiculous.

immense
05-09-2010, 10:37 PM
BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past.

Pretty much summed it up for me.

We used to have slaves and imprison people for being gay too.

-:Undertaker:-
05-09-2010, 10:48 PM
How can they call Eurosceptics mad when they're paying loudmouths like Chris Moyles around 800k? It's ridiculous.

Indeed, there many stories of BBC waste about - and its our money they are wasting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251065/BBC-spends-2-000-week-Alan-Shearer-Co-Match-Day-taxis.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-413528/BBC-refurbishment-20m-budget-waste-money.html
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/media/2010/06/daily-mail-bbc-summer-junket-1000-staff-in-splurge-on-wimbledon-the-world-cup-and-glastonbury.html
+numerous more.


Pretty much summed it up for me.

We used to have slaves and imprison people for being gay too.

Well the source by Dan Hannan MEP below the Daily Mail article suggests nothing has changed, unless you haven't read what i've posted? or maybe (and more likely as it seems) you choose to ignore it?

alexxxxx
05-09-2010, 11:20 PM
It is high time the license fee was scrapped and all news corporations should be free from the government - and if the news corporations wish to be biased then they should be allowed to - however people should be given the choice what channels and broadcasters they pay for and more importantly; people should be told the truth when it comes to neutrality and impartiality.

Thoughts?
[/COLOR][/LEFT]


How dangerous do you think it is to have non-partisan media. it sells, yes, but it doesn't sell truth. If you go for the whole 'well that's what people want' idea - well that means democracy will be diluted to even more of a joke when we have media tycoons controlling what goes on. Murdoch's TV & newspaper empire in the USA (Fox news sells 'news' via partisan 'news personalities,' who's objectives are not to have meaningful debate but to distort to the extraordinary, fund and support political rally's and sell and promote, leaving angry and uninformed electorate. The same is true on the more 'left' side with NBC, but is much less militant) - this is growing in the UK is what's to come. Sky News' appalling coverage of the election is a warning - where the personality is larger than the news itself. After Cameron decided he'd reduce the powers of Ofcom, news corp suddenly decided they'd support him - hardly surprising as a controlling steak holder in BSkyB (who often have issues with Ofcom), distributor and producer of television. The viewing figures towards the BBC speak for themselves. British television is admired throughout the world and so is the BBC - but a valid argument in my view is that even though Sky's revenue is much higher than the BBC's - its in-house or commissioned output is incredibly low and shows hours upon hours of US imports of varying quality with little, if any, PSB. I doubt any channel is going to admit to a particular bias.

If you want to see even more marginalisation of parties such as UKIP - pull the plug on the regulation and on the BBC, because i doubt you'll be on telly anywhere.

-:Undertaker:-
05-09-2010, 11:30 PM
How dangerous do you think it is to have non-partisan media. it sells, yes, but it doesn't sell truth. If you go for the whole 'well that's what people want' idea - well that means democracy will be diluted to even more of a joke when we have media tycoons controlling what goes on. Murdoch's TV & newspaper empire in the USA (Fox news sells 'news' via partisan 'news personalities,' who's objectives are not to have meaningful debate but to distort to the extraordinary, fund and support political rally's and sell and promote, leaving angry and uninformed electorate. The same is true on the more 'left' side with NBC, but is much less militant) - this is growing in the UK is what's to come. Sky News' appalling coverage of the election is a warning - where the personality is larger than the news itself. After Cameron decided he'd reduce the powers of Ofcom, news corp suddenly decided they'd support him - hardly surprising as a controlling steak holder in BSkyB (who often have issues with Ofcom), distributor and producer of television. The viewing figures towards the BBC speak for themselves. British television is admired throughout the world and so is the BBC - but a valid argument in my view is that even though Sky's revenue is much higher than the BBC's - its in-house or commissioned output is incredibly low and shows hours upon hours of US imports of varying quality with little, if any, PSB. I doubt any channel is going to admit to a particular bias.

If you want to see even more marginalisation of parties such as UKIP - pull the plug on the regulation and on the BBC, because i doubt you'll be on telly anywhere.

Sky News is just as bad, and the BBC also focuses on personality and small issues - the BBC actually turned against Brown during the run up to the election and has held meetings with Tory officals because for the first time in a long time as Peter Hichens points out in the book, the Cameron Delusion - the Tory Party was actually treated with respect by the BBC and was addressed the Conservative Party rather than the Tory Party. The same goes for the period under John Major where Europe was made into a rattling issue and although it has been a rattling issue for the Conservative Party, it was turned into something it was not by the media and press.

In general media has declined (including the newspapers, all of them) as most stories are now taken from Reuters and no effort goes into it what so ever - however I will give the newspapers more credit as they do dig in deeper than the BBC and Sky News who report as you have vaguely mentioned, personality stories. Here below is another example of Sky News and the way they slander parties such as UKIP just as the BBC does so;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcPohYFXINg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcPohYFXINg


'extreme right', 'far-right' and so forth - all not needed to be mentioned not to mention the fact UKIP is actually mainly a libertarian party which has far more liberal and mild policies than them of the Labour Party and Conservative Party (ID cards being one prime example along with the CCTV state and government/EU interference). If anyone is extreme its the parties who continue to erode our civil liberties - you could also argue that 'far-right' is actually far more suited to be called 'far-left' as most despotic regimes have been to the left and not the right. The way the reporter also plays what Pearson has said as a joke is another example of the bias that plagues the main broadcasters.



The post you make about losing the BBC and regulation would have more substance to it (of which I actually agree to a point), provided the BBC was not biased - which sadly, it is.

Inseriousity.
06-09-2010, 06:55 PM
BBC admits to being bias? I don't see how this is news, every media outlet is biased to some extent. That's like the Pope saying he's Catholic. I'm sure if it was biased towards the right-wing side of things, you would be supportive and pleased that the BBC was finally "speaking the truth" about such issues.

Although I admit that the following article is worrying. Calling someone 'mad' for an opinion shouldn't be allowed.

AgnesIO
06-09-2010, 07:08 PM
Brilliant the BBC is biased.

I would still rather use the BBC for news, than the crap who wrote this article ;)

-:Undertaker:-
06-09-2010, 07:51 PM
BBC admits to being bias? I don't see how this is news, every media outlet is biased to some extent. That's like the Pope saying he's Catholic. I'm sure if it was biased towards the right-wing side of things, you would be supportive and pleased that the BBC was finally "speaking the truth" about such issues.

Although I admit that the following article is worrying. Calling someone 'mad' for an opinion shouldn't be allowed.

The difference is that the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Telegraph and many other media outlets do not pretend to not be biased - the BBC on the other hand is funded by a stealth tax and is supposed to be neutral and in its position of trust should be upheld and not abused as it has now emerged it has been. If the BBC were biased towards something I supported I would still not agree with it because the BBC should not be biased in anyway - full stop. If the BBC is there to provide neutral news coverage then that is what it should do. I have mentioned the stirring up it did against Gordon Brown and i'm no fan of Gordon Brown or the Labour Party.


Brilliant the BBC is biased.

I would still rather use the BBC for news, than the crap who wrote this article ;)

Of course you would, because you live on a planet where crime is falling, the European Union is popular, anyone against the EU/mass immigration is a xenophobe or a racist and a planet where (if watching the BBC) you'd be led to believe we are all going to die via drowning from Global Warming which is going to boil the seas and kill us all.

AgnesIO
06-09-2010, 08:03 PM
The difference is that the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Telegraph and many other media outlets do not pretend to not be biased - the BBC on the other hand is funded by a stealth tax and is supposed to be neutral and in its position of trust should be upheld and not abused as it has now emerged it has been. If the BBC were biased towards something I supported I would still not agree with it because the BBC should not be biased in anyway - full stop. If the BBC is there to provide neutral news coverage then that is what it should do. I have mentioned the stirring up it did against Gordon Brown and i'm no fan of Gordon Brown or the Labour Party.



Of course you would, because you live on a planet where crime is falling, the European Union is popular, anyone against the EU/mass immigration is a xenophobe or a racist and a planet where (if watching the BBC) you'd be led to believe we are all going to die via drowning from Global Warming which is going to boil the seas and kill us all.

Hate to tell you, but what an idiotic comment.

I do not believe humans are causing global warming - considering there have been ice ages in the past, and the earth must have warmed up or most the ice would still be here.

But we all know what a load of crap the daily mail talks.

-:Undertaker:-
06-09-2010, 08:07 PM
Hate to tell you, but what an idiotic comment.

I do not believe humans are causing global warming - considering there have been ice ages in the past, and the earth must have warmed up or most the ice would still be here.

But we all know what a load of crap the daily mail talks.

No but you see, thats the type of nonsense the BBC spouts - you may not agree with the Daily Mail, but the Daily Mail isn't funded via a stealth tax and the Daily Mail doesn't claim to be neutral - unlike the BBC which you are so keen on defending and attacking the Mail over.

As usual it boils down to who is telling the truth and who is not, and the BBC has been caught out no matter how you try to skew it.

AgnesIO
06-09-2010, 08:11 PM
No but you see, thats the type of nonsense the BBC spouts - you may not agree with the Daily Mail, but the Daily Mail isn't funded via a stealth tax and the Daily Mail doesn't claim to be neutral - unlike the BBC which you are so keen on defending and attacking the Mail over.

As usual it boils down to who is telling the truth and who is not, and the BBC has been caught out no matter how you try to skew it.

BBC hasn't been caught out? The guy admitted it - he hasn't been tricked??

We all know you hate the BBC sadly, I still don't understand what your problem is with them, afterall if you didn't pay tax for the BBC the money would probably go towards benefits anyway. And I would rather watch the bbc than pay for lazy gits.

-:Undertaker:-
06-09-2010, 08:16 PM
BBC hasn't been caught out? The guy admitted it - he hasn't been tricked??

We all know you hate the BBC sadly, I still don't understand what your problem is with them, afterall if you didn't pay tax for the BBC the money would probably go towards benefits anyway. And I would rather watch the bbc than pay for lazy gits.

The BBC have been caught out on the second part, Mark Thompson (good on him for admitting bias during the Thatcher years - I have in the past also called the BBC bias and was ridiculed for even suggesting it was bias against Thatcher) still presides over an organisation which remains biased.

As for the second point - how about leaving the peoples money in their own pockets and allowing them to decide what broadcaster they wish to pay for? how about letting people decide how to spend their own money? now wouldn't that be a nice change. I would rather people have their own money in their own bank accounts, not having to pay for benefit spongers and not having to pay for a bloated and biased organisation.

AgnesIO
06-09-2010, 09:52 PM
The BBC have been caught out on the second part, Mark Thompson (good on him for admitting bias during the Thatcher years - I have in the past also called the BBC bias and was ridiculed for even suggesting it was bias against Thatcher) still presides over an organisation which remains biased.

As for the second point - how about leaving the peoples money in their own pockets and allowing them to decide what broadcaster they wish to pay for? how about letting people decide how to spend their own money? now wouldn't that be a nice change. I would rather people have their own money in their own bank accounts, not having to pay for benefit spongers and not having to pay for a bloated and biased organisation.

But the point is NO government, not UKIP, no one, could just remove tax like that. Don't get mw wrong, obviously less tax would be great, but realistically the governemtn are hardly going to stop 100's of millions of pounds of tax.

-:Undertaker:-
06-09-2010, 10:08 PM
But the point is NO government, not UKIP, no one, could just remove tax like that. Don't get mw wrong, obviously less tax would be great, but realistically the governemtn are hardly going to stop 100's of millions of pounds of tax.

A government can do that, small state is achievable - just as Reagan and Thatcher both proved during the 1980s in both the United States and United Kingdom. Infact they even found that tax revenue increased with lower taxes due to private business rapidly expanding and growing. The fact is that at the moment the public sector is far too large by many hundreds of thousands (even into the millions) and government does what a lot of private business could do/government does what is not needed just because it can. The same theory goes with Ron Paul in the United States (it would be fantastic if he got the nomination for 2012) who proposes the abolition of the Fed and so forth - it sounds drastic, even loony - but we [the west] have now reached the stage where we have too much legislation, regulation and government and its simply unmanagable.

GommeInc
09-09-2010, 02:07 PM
I'm amazed this has come out :P All media companies stir controversy, it's sort of what they do :P Bias varies from sector to sector in each of these broadcasting companies. They'd have a tough time otherwise, to reach a wider audience. As far as I see it, the person who said "Eurosceptics are all mad" was probably talking about himself and/or a small minority of the company.

Niall!
13-09-2010, 12:51 AM
If we scrape the TV license that means that Doctor Who will take even longer to come back.

If this happens I will hunt you down good sir.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!