BBC Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA, says Peter Sissons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative

They're not cutting too much too fast - what about Labour's policy - print money like there's no tomorrow - that would've made inflation worse just like in Germany in the 1920s - so much money was printed that eventually the currency was worthless. That's where we'd be heading under Labour.


Obviously there would have to be an enquiry before the license fee was taken away but there should be one - just because of all the evidence against them.

And it IS racist - because it is putting people above other people because of their race/religion.

---

Sorry I don't see much real substance in your posts. They are too non specific and lack any real evidence such as when did they 'print more money'?

Positive discrimination is not about anybody's religion or their race. Ethnic minorities are made up of many races and religions so thats just a spurious argument.

Whether it is right to positively encourage more gay people, ethinic minorities, women, disabled people into the public services /parliament is a very emotive issue. From my point of view anything that makes our the services/representation in our country truly reflect the cultural diversity of it has my vote. You may not agree but then you don't have to but present an argument that it is more positive to have a country that is better served by keeping a huge majority of white men running it and working in the public services not just say it is 'racist' and unfair. You and Dan can't keep coming down on this argument without presenting the benefits of the existing system.

Personally I think it'd be hard not to show some bias. If you have to be informative you have to pick at the details. Although in saying that, the BBC covered the election by following the main three parties, completely ignoring large (but small :P) parties like UKIP, the Green Party, BNP (they blasted them, but didn't report on them) and so forth. They may suggest they were following "public opinion" on the parties, the big 3, but they should attempt to cover other parties to make their appeal shine through, because many people may agree with The Green Party, UKIP or BNP, but not necessarily know what they stand for in greater detail. The general public are too lazy to follow manifestos or research parties, they like their information easy to access and to the point, and the BBC is one place that should provide for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative

Rupert Murdoch is a completely different situation though. He does not claim to be mutual or fair. He quite clearly shows he is right wing and good for him.

---

err. idk if you guys have the same impression of him as we do in the states, but that dude runs Fox News, whose slogan is "fair and balanced." most people find this slogan to be for the lulz, since anyone with half a brain knows that Fox News is anything but fair and balanced. maybe it's fairly obvious that he's right wing, but he certainly thinks hes being fair and mutual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Personally I think it'd be hard not to show some bias. If you have to be informative you have to pick at the details. Although in saying that, the BBC covered the election by following the main three parties, completely ignoring large (but small :P) parties like UKIP, the Green Party, BNP (they blasted them, but didn't report on them) and so forth. They may suggest they were following "public opinion" on the parties, the big 3, but they should attempt to cover other parties to make their appeal shine through, because many people may agree with The Green Party, UKIP or BNP, but not necessarily know what they stand for in greater detail. The general public are too lazy to follow manifestos or research parties, they like their information easy to access and to the point, and the BBC is one place that should provide for it.

---

exactly. i'm a journalism major, and i can tell you for a fact there isnt a single unbias publication on the planet. if there were an unbias paper, it'd have to be written by robots. but we're human, which means it is literally impossible not to insert bias.