Gee, who woulda thunk it?
Edit: Here’s another…
Lies. Damned lies and statistics.
Everyone knows that only Faux News and other outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch or some similar corporate slave-master are biased in any way. Everthing else is straight news all the way.
This seems so weird.
How can a news network that is a state affiliate and not a corporate entity be guilty of bias? After all, it is the presence of “corporate power” that leads to biased news.
What to make of a state-run media engaging in bias?
I am shocked. Shocked.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What to make of a state-run media engaging in bias?
[/quote]
Well, it’s not a socialist state run media. That’s why it went wrong. They pandered to specific “causes” that would generate sympathy and support for specific politicians.
Venezuelan media is completely on the up and up.
:-/
Let’s read it from the horse’s mouth:
"[…] In fact, the report is a remarkably frank dissection of the BBC’s attempts - and difficulties - in maintaining impartiality in the 21st Century, across its wide range of outlets and programmes.
Richard Tait, the BBC Trust member who chaired the team overseeing the report, is a former editor of ITN.
He said: “It doesn’t say the BBC has a liberal bias - it says the BBC will have to work even harder to maintain the trust of the audience in future. […]”
If you read the list of examples of bias (weather maps, sitcoms, sport commentary), you see that it’s indeed a critical analysis of all of its practices - and attempts to amend them.
I’d like to see any other (privately owned) big media firm do that. A critical self-analysis is sign of mature organisation. It would be interesting to see if any other large media outlet would follow this example, and come to a similarly frank (dare I say un-biased) result?
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
Let’s read it from the horse’s mouth:
"[…] In fact, the report is a remarkably frank dissection of the BBC’s attempts - and difficulties - in maintaining impartiality in the 21st Century, across its wide range of outlets and programmes.
Richard Tait, the BBC Trust member who chaired the team overseeing the report, is a former editor of ITN.
He said: “It doesn’t say the BBC has a liberal bias - it says the BBC will have to work even harder to maintain the trust of the audience in future. […]”
If you read the list of examples of bias (weather maps, sitcoms, sport commentary), you see that it’s indeed a critical analysis of all of its practices - and attempts to amend them.
I’d like to see any other (privately owned) big media firm do that. A critical self-analysis is sign of mature organisation. It would be interesting to see if any other large media outlet would follow this example, and come to a similarly frank (dare I say un-biased) result?
Makkun[/quote]
I would too. But most news organizations are to arrogant to self evaluate. I applaud the BBC for taking the time to do this and being honest about it.
The BBC has always been pretty damned good… compared to the trash we get here in North America.
Nimrods.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The BBC has always been pretty damned good… compared to the trash we get here in North America.
Nimrods.[/quote]
They sure are.
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the links before commenting on them.
“Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.”
Ok, the coverage of conventional politics is fair and impartial, but the BBC supported Geldofs war on poverty.
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY NO LESS ! ! !
Instead of fighting the poor. If that isn’t liberal bias, I don’t know what is.
Does this mean the non-liberals (Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the US) finally admit they have a plan to spread poverty? And here I was, thinking poverty was only a side effect of their politics. But no, it’s their only goal.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
makkun wrote:
Let’s read it from the horse’s mouth:
"[…] In fact, the report is a remarkably frank dissection of the BBC’s attempts - and difficulties - in maintaining impartiality in the 21st Century, across its wide range of outlets and programmes.
Richard Tait, the BBC Trust member who chaired the team overseeing the report, is a former editor of ITN.
He said: “It doesn’t say the BBC has a liberal bias - it says the BBC will have to work even harder to maintain the trust of the audience in future. […]”
If you read the list of examples of bias (weather maps, sitcoms, sport commentary), you see that it’s indeed a critical analysis of all of its practices - and attempts to amend them.
I’d like to see any other (privately owned) big media firm do that. A critical self-analysis is sign of mature organisation. It would be interesting to see if any other large media outlet would follow this example, and come to a similarly frank (dare I say un-biased) result?
Makkun
I would too. But most news organizations are to arrogant to self evaluate. I applaud the BBC for taking the time to do this and being honest about it.[/quote]
I love how Pat totally ignores the fact that he was wrong in saying that BBC admitted to having a liberal bias…
Makkun,
While I do commend the BBC for doing such a self-audit - and in full disclosure, I watch the BBC on occasion, often when I am out of the country - if Fox News were to do same audit and state:
“We need to give voice to more viewpoints and try to strive for better balance. Now, we aren’t saying we are conservative, but we do need to have more viewpoints represented.”
Who wouldn’t think that wasn’t a tacit admission of bias, the disclaimer not withstanding?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the links before commenting on them.
“Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.”
Ok, the coverage of conventional politics is fair and impartial, but the BBC supported Geldofs war on poverty.
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY NO LESS ! ! !
Instead of fighting the poor. If that isn’t liberal bias, I don’t know what is.
Does this mean the non-liberals (Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the US) finally admit they have a plan to spread poverty? And here I was, thinking poverty was only a side effect of their politics. But no, it’s their only goal.
[/quote]
Have you run into your dad in the shitter lately, asshole?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pat36 wrote:
makkun wrote:
Let’s read it from the horse’s mouth:
"[…] In fact, the report is a remarkably frank dissection of the BBC’s attempts - and difficulties - in maintaining impartiality in the 21st Century, across its wide range of outlets and programmes.
Richard Tait, the BBC Trust member who chaired the team overseeing the report, is a former editor of ITN.
He said: “It doesn’t say the BBC has a liberal bias - it says the BBC will have to work even harder to maintain the trust of the audience in future. […]”
If you read the list of examples of bias (weather maps, sitcoms, sport commentary), you see that it’s indeed a critical analysis of all of its practices - and attempts to amend them.
I’d like to see any other (privately owned) big media firm do that. A critical self-analysis is sign of mature organisation. It would be interesting to see if any other large media outlet would follow this example, and come to a similarly frank (dare I say un-biased) result?
Makkun
I would too. But most news organizations are to arrogant to self evaluate. I applaud the BBC for taking the time to do this and being honest about it.
I love how Pat totally ignores the fact that he was wrong in saying that BBC admitted to having a liberal bias…[/quote]
I am never wrong…You have to get used to that…It’s hard being humble when your are as great as I am. Kidding of course, but since everybody else seems to be data mining the articles I can play too…
“THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.”
and…
“It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.”
and…
“The report points to the danger of BBC programmes being undermined by the liberal culture of its staff, who need to challenge their own assumptions more. ?There is a tendency to ?group think? with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone,? says the report.”
and…
“Criticisms highlighted from the seminar include: A senior BBC reporter attacking the corporation for giving ?no moral weight? to America. Executives admitting they would broadcast images of a Bible being thrown away ? but not the Koran for fear of offending Muslims. The BBC deliberately championing multiculturalism and ethnic minorities, while betraying an anticountryside bias.”
So, I can find quotes that totally support my point of view without considering the entire article. The point was to point out that the BBC self -evaluated and found themselves to be left leaning in many aspects. Again, I commend them for this evaluation. I wish other organizations would follow suite. Say like Al Jazeera…
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the links before commenting on them.
“Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.”
Ok, the coverage of conventional politics is fair and impartial, but the BBC supported Geldofs war on poverty.
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY NO LESS ! ! !
Instead of fighting the poor. If that isn’t liberal bias, I don’t know what is.
Does this mean the non-liberals (Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the US) finally admit they have a plan to spread poverty? And here I was, thinking poverty was only a side effect of their politics. But no, it’s their only goal.
[/quote]
Having a job and working hard is the best weapon against poverty. You should try it, people will actually pay you for doing things for them. People who work hard don’t need hand outs.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the links before commenting on them.
“Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.”
Ok, the coverage of conventional politics is fair and impartial, but the BBC supported Geldofs war on poverty.
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY NO LESS ! ! !
Instead of fighting the poor. If that isn’t liberal bias, I don’t know what is.
Does this mean the non-liberals (Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the US) finally admit they have a plan to spread poverty? And here I was, thinking poverty was only a side effect of their politics. But no, it’s their only goal.
Having a job and working hard is the best weapon against poverty. You should try it, people will actually pay you for doing things for them. People who work hard don’t need hand outs.[/quote]
…and they get to go to Corfu on business, right, Wreckie?
I’m English, and pretty much all our terrestrial tv-media is left-leaning, BBC, C4, C5 to an extent, ITV isn’t exactly bourgeois but i’d say it’s as close as it gets. That’s fine with me though. Fuck having conservative-based media, the whole rest of the world is influenced by conservatism due the actual facts of hegemony and power, so i’m okay with the BBC being a bit idealistic.
Like wreckless said, this report is mostly in reference to a specific thing (Live8).
On another note, i do believe the way the BBC represents muslims is unbalanced and often preferential, though not just in one way.
They do not openly denigrate Christians though, there are no segments on BBC about ‘persecute the christians’ or any such shit. I honestly believe that people (at least intelligent, left-leaning people from the UK) have just kind of realised by now that we cannot continue to bait and extort the alien culture of Islam. This results in biased deferences and stuff, but that is to avoid further harm i think.
And it would be very hypocritical to force muslim women not to wear their sheets and stuff (as proposed by the government), when a BBC newswoman can openly wear a cross, signifying her own allegiance to an ideology that is not shared by all people in the UK.
It seems like its a kind of balance really
I wish it was that simple Pat. good for you if it really is that easy. Near me they have this thing, ‘unemployment’, which stops even motivated people having jobs, and money, and chances
The old Britain is gone. They have fallen under the influence of the rest of Europe,i.e. the political correctness and anti-free speech of their universities; the pro-Islamic, anti-Jewish sentiments; and the creeping anti-Americanism. Dependence on the EU will surely be this once-great nations downfall.
dannyrat does make a good point regarding Islam.
The more we condemn Islam the stronger it will become.
Make the masses swallow fire and brimstone is easy when the world tries to condemn your religion.
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
I wish it was that simple Pat. good for you if it really is that easy. Near me they have this thing, ‘unemployment’, which stops even motivated people having jobs, and money, and chances[/quote]
It is and it isn’t that that simple, really. In a free democratic capitalistic society, generally hard work pays off and laziness does not. In oppressive societies or shattered societies, this is not the case. Oppressive regimes keep people down despite best efforts given, and shattered or fractured societies such as many in Africa, simply lack the resources for effort to be productive.
In the west wear many of us live, hard work will pay off for the most part. But like you illustrated, handing people money with no opportunity just keeps folks poor and makes them a slave of the system.