BBC Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA, says Peter Sissons
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Sissons.html
Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA, says Peter Sissons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Sissons
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 — is the BBC biased? In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the pervading culture. The better word is a ‘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 ‘it’s all in there’.
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. I am in no doubt that the majority of BBC staff vote for political parties of the Left. But it’s impossible to do anything but guess at the numbers whose beliefs are on the Right or even Centre-Right. This is because the one thing guaranteed to damage your career prospects at the BBC is letting it be known that you are at odds with the prevailing and deep-rooted BBC attitude towards Life, the Universe, and Everything.
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 — 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.
The increasing tendency for the BBC to interview its own reporters on air exacerbates this mindset. Instead of concentrating on interviewing the leading players in a story or spreading the net wide for a range of views, these days the BBC frequently chooses to use the time getting the thoughts of its own correspondents. It is a format intended to help clarify the facts, but which often invites the expression of opinion. When that happens, instead of hearing both sides of a story, the audience at home gets what is, in effect, the BBC’s view presented as fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Sissons
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 — or Personnel, as it used to be known — 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: ‘Margaret Thatcher’.
What the BBC wants you, the public, to believe is that it has ‘independence’ woven into its fabric, running through its veins and concreted into its foundations. The reality, I discovered, was that for the BBC, independence is not a banner it carries principally on behalf of the listener or viewer.
The story continues if you follow the link.
So now we've had Mark Thompson (BBC Manager) admit BBC bias in the 1980s against the Thatcher Ministry which the left denied (even on this very forum only a few years ago) and now we have Peter Sissons with this attack on the BBC exposing what it really is. Noel Edmonds has also refused to pay his TV license as did UKIP MEP Gerard Batten on the grounds of BBC bias after which the BBC cowardly decided to prosecute his wife instead of Batten himself.
Global Britain which is owned by former UKIP leader Lord Pearson and managed by Lords Stoddart and de Broke also tracks BBC bias concerning the European Union of which you can find information on here. I myself spotted outright bias during the General Election where the BBC was covering a UKIP story and just decided to link the party to the BNP out of the blue despite the BNP not having anything remotely to do with the story they were covering.
If you watch the paper reviews on the BBC or whenever they decide to review a story/the papers, you'll see they give the Guardian often more time than the other papers (the best selling of which are right-wing) or near equal time when in reality the Guardian has appalling and falling sales numbers, kept at the 250,000 mark by schools/universities buying them up along with its website income of which govt organisations such as the BBC pay them to advertise their ridiculous jobs on.
The second part of the story concerning what is basic racism (much like the BNP had or has with its whites-only policy for membership) just shows the hypocrisy of both the BBC and the government when they slam the BNP for its stance on colour-related membership, yet its perfectly fine for government organisations like the BBC to hire based on sexuality/race/gender. A lot of people see the BBC as not biased/impartial, well with the evidence stacking up against it month on month maybe its time for you to think again - just look at its coverage on 'global warming' being the most apparent bias story.
Time to break up the BBC and sell it off which will end the stealth tax which keeps the BBC alive; the TV license.
Thoughts?
