On 29 Nov 2015 at 2:35pm Red wrote:
Do you trust the BBC to deliver impartial unbiased, unpropagandized news?
and if not then who does give you that??
On 29 Nov 2015 at 3:06pm Boring now wrote:
Suppose you could always watch al jazeera
On 29 Nov 2015 at 3:23pm bumpkin wrote:
It's better than getting news delivered by channels driven by profits from advertising revenue....
On 29 Nov 2015 at 3:49pm Jennifer wrote:
Breitbart news, now it has a British part to the website, seems a lot closer to the truth and gets the balance correct far more often than the BBC.
On 29 Nov 2015 at 4:04pm news hound wrote:
The trick I think is to get your news from as many sources as possible in order refine your own views and interpretations. Though I know this is difficult in practice. In that sense sometimes watching Al Jazeera may not be such a bad thing. In the same way Channel 4 news whilst reliant on advertising is maverick enough to supply occasional nuggets of alternative truth. Some of their presenters and reporters are excellent journalists.(its news documentary series 'dispatches' is consistently good often covering issues that seldom see the light of day.) the Financial Times too can sometimes reveal a refreshing lack of basis though this may change under its new ownership.
There are also many established bloggers who give interesting slants on often unreported facts.
In a way all news is subjective and is always open to refinement over time. It is which facts are selected and how footage is edited that creates a certain 'picture' of events. (I think the number of people killed at Peterloo still continues to change over time!)
Personally I find that the BBC has taken an establishment lurch to the right. Its coverage of Labour since the election of Jeremy Corbyn has been in my opinion consistently biased. Generally too I find its selection of people to be interviewed on a given topic quite unsteady at times. This is hardly surprising given the economic pressure being exerted on it.
On 29 Nov 2015 at 6:18pm Clifford wrote:
There is no such thing as 'objective' news. The only questions are which way is it biased and is the reporter/news organisation honest about their subjectivity. When I was taught History and Economics the lecturers used to make clear their point of view and explain how this might influence their interpretation of events and policies. That is the best we can hope for. The BBC seems to imagine that 'unbiased' means not supporting either the Tory party or the Labour party.
On 29 Nov 2015 at 8:57pm ? wrote:
No such thing as "News", just observations about certain events selected as worthy of attention at a specific moment. What isn't reported is usually more interesting.
On 29 Nov 2015 at 9:06pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
News Hound is right - read as widely as possible. The BBC does have a strong liberal metropolitan bias, but I'd still trust them far more than I would Murdoch TV. Look at Fox News in the US and be thankful for what we have.
On 30 Nov 2015 at 8:11am Judge Mental wrote:
@Jennifer: Breitbart News Network is a conservative news and opinion website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart. It identifies itself as on the political right.
On 30 Nov 2015 at 9:28am John Smith wrote:
Broadcast news originating from the UK is required to be "impartial" or be subject to Ofcom sanction; the BBC is overseen by the Trust but the requirement is the same. In the recent furore about the Sun's Islamophobic headline it was notable that Sky News' version of the same story was a model of objective reporting. Newspapers are not regulated in the same way, so they're allowed to be as biased as they like although they are obliged to reports the facts truthfully. The spin they add is up to them though.
It's worth adding that your perception of bias is likely to be heavily influenced by your own prejudices and preconceptions - bias goes both ways. As EoL says, Fox News is an object lesson in what broadcast news could be, left to its own devices.
On 30 Nov 2015 at 10:34am tall poppy wrote:
A good example at the moment is the focus on the insignificant addition of a few RAF aircraft to the several hundred available in theatre to "allied" forces. Keep everyone arguing about that while neglecting security of this nation which could be achieved with very little cost and the application of a bit of backbone
On 30 Nov 2015 at 11:02am rippingyarns wrote:
I find the Independent the least 'biased' and has excellent articles. But like above it's best to read a broad range of papers to get a balanced view of current issues although i've found the Telegraph of late almost maniacal in it's attacks on Corbyn and support for Syrian intervention.
To understand the perceived shift in the BBC you have to understand it's outlook is Blairite hence it's broad support of Cameron and the Conservative gov who now occupy New Labour territory and the metropolitan outlook.
I find the BBC to be often banal, middle of the road, unfair to Corbyn and openly hostile to UKIP.
On 30 Nov 2015 at 12:01pm news hound wrote:
Frankly in a dark world this thread gives me hope. it's clear that media spin is becoming more easily detected and derided. It does seem too, much like our new approach of shopping from several different sources, that we are beginning to form our world view from a mosaic of different reports and accounts. In this the internet has been an invaluable tool.Ripping Yarns agree totally with your opinion of the BBC.
On 30 Nov 2015 at 5:13pm HeyHo wrote:
The fact that both Tories and Lefties moan about how the BBC is biased suggests to me that it's pretty good at being objective.
On 30 Nov 2015 at 8:15pm Pn wrote:
Hey ho , a small but noisy gang of extremists complain the BBC is not left wing enough the Blair and Brown administration ( and before ) was characterised by Labour support and Conservative fury . The BBC criticised Blair , true, but only for the left. Funnily enough one of the great haters of Thatcher was Alasdair Milne DG during her time , his son is now working for Corbyn ( The Trostyist Seamus Milne )
The BBC`s model of a centralised state taxing and squeezing out other voices ( media NHS you might say) it supports that model . It is currently putting all its resources and energy into on line news determined to dump as much free product as possible to kill off the nascent on line media . Only the Mail has beaten it by becoming a world wide brand
The headline news and politics has been tidied up since the days of Polly Toynbee at social affairs ( An astonishing appointment amongst many) but the back drop is of fantasy successful integration( East Enders) relentless leftish comedy framing its contrary voices as extreme when they in fact represent mainstream opinion. The BBC is staffed by Guardian readers whereas in the population there are more Beano readers
Alternative blogs were started on the right excluded by the BBC whose bias on Europe immigration became insufferable , the Question Time audience is still a weekly ordeal
The BBC should be slimmed down. It is now threatening to kill off the Free Press entirely and Cameron has let us down woefully by choosing to avoid that battle . What Corbynists think is frankly irrelevant. The Labour Party has now been captured by extremists and they won`t be ahppy unitl they do what they always do and direct the new themselves
On 30 Nov 2015 at 9:05pm sharp eyed wrote:
This man must receive payment via pre-arranged drops!
On 1 Dec 2015 at 2:22am KoS wrote:
A small but noisy extremist complaining that the BBC is not right wing enough
On 1 Dec 2015 at 3:47am Harold wrote:
Pn - are you on drugs?
On 1 Dec 2015 at 7:38am Mark wrote:
Looks like it's not just me that finds you ridiculous Paul.
On 1 Dec 2015 at 10:39am HeyHo wrote:
Paulo, unlike some on here I think you sometimes speak sense, but this seems to be of the issues that gets the chip in your head inserted by Conservative high command working again.
The BBC has huge support among the public, cutting across most income and social groups. It is an institution that is respected around the world, providing us with huge 'soft power. One of the few national edificies unscarred by scandal. It doesn't always behave perfectly, but I think it is generally perceived as a national property that the government (of whichever stripe) would mess with at its peril.
As a conservative I would have thought that - like Burke - you would not want to mess with a tried and trusted national institution?
On 1 Dec 2015 at 12:22pm Lewexias wrote:
The head of BBC news is James Harding ,Murdoch`s former editor and Osborne`s best friend.Impartial news coverage?Pull the other one!
On 1 Dec 2015 at 4:36pm Pn wrote:
Hey ho- Conservative members hate the BBC like poison because of its attack on Thatcher and the long years in which it was virtually the Guardian on air. It has had to address this to some extent. It isn `t reasonable to say oh well I'm sure Jeremy Corbyn feels the same
1 He is not subject to anything like the same sustained attack
2 He was not elected by a majority of the country ( ands will not be )
This cultural war is part of a wider disconnect between the population and the Liberalk elite that circles around the question of immigration.
I am not a Conservative member or much like the people who are and I am not widly anti BBC. The problem is that to justify its funding it always has to do everything . The way we are going there will soon be no plurality of outlooks in the media , the press is dying and the BBC is buying up the internet.
Surely even a lefty Liberal can see this is not acceptable without wishing public sector broadcasting itslef any harm ?
On 1 Dec 2015 at 5:02pm Matron wrote:
PN =Painful Nodule.
On 1 Dec 2015 at 10:27pm King of Sussex wrote:
Oh Pot Noodle, youíve really done it this time:
ďI am not a Conservative member or much like the people who areĒ
Really? You gambol in the Thatcher cult of personality, you love the Daily Mail, and you hate Jeremy Corbyn and the BBC. Iím not sure itís possible to exercise Tory chops more vigorously than you have done over just the last few days.
Why would you distance yourself from the party that so generously fronted you for the Islington candidacy?
Whatís piquing you? Were you sacked for using up a space reserved for Bullingdon Club old boys?
On 1 Dec 2015 at 11:42pm John Smith wrote:
"The way we are going there will soon be no plurality of outlooks in the media , the press is dying and the BBC is buying up the internet." Paul, even you must know, in your heart of hearts, that this is arrant nonsense. The print media are dying not because of the BBC but because no-one buys newspapers any more. The BBC succeeds because it alone, funded as it is by the licence fee, can afford to disseminate the news it gathers without worrying about finding a way of paying for it. The Daily Mail has managed to monetise its grisly offering by serving up endless nonsense about reality stars most DM readers haven't even heard of - the Kardashians? Who? All the other print media (and their associated online presences) are making fabulous losses.
It's a bit like saying that trains go faster than a horse and carriage and therefore we must limit the number of trains. It's just silly blaming the power of the internet on the BBC.
On 2 Dec 2015 at 9:35am HeyHo wrote:
I'm sure you'd be so much happier if we had a version of Fox News.
We can't though - because of that matter of broadcaster impartiality, which we know Murdoch (and presumably much of the Conservative party) hates.
Meanwhile as I look over the newspaper front pages I am, indeed, thinking that there is a lack of plurality of viewpoints in the media.