National News The BBC

As has been said, when nearly everybody thinks you’re not impartial it’s generally a pretty good sign that you largely are. However, I’m not sure that being impartial is a good thing if it gets to the point that giving facts and evidence, and presenting the truth based on these things, is classed as having an opinion or agenda.

I remember James O’Brien (shield your eyes, Brexiteers!) saying that he stopped doing presenting gigs on the BBC after the lead up to the referendum. He headed up a ‘conversation’ between Andrea Leadsom and Pascal Lamy, the former director general of the WTO. Due to the BBC having to remain impartial he had to sporadically back up Leadsom when she told Lamy that the WTO didn’t work the way he said it did, so as not to be seen as being ‘on his side’. Despite the fact Lamy used to run the organisation they were arguing about. I guess that made him an expert, and we had enough of those long ago. Well, until what the experts say is what we want them to say, and then they’re allowed again.

That’s where perceived impartiality is dangerous - someone with absolutely no clue what they were on about had to be given equal billing with somebody who knows the subject matter inside out. The BBC is hamstrung and has been flipped on its head by a tribal world, one which deems facts to be opinions and evidence to be some sort of stitch up, which is partially its own doing because of situations like the above. Then throw in the fact that the government appoints the people who run it because it’s state funded and you’re left with an incredible mess, especially once the idea of government no longer respecting the boundaries of ‘fair play’ becomes commonplace. As soon as the attitude from No10 changes from, “We don’t touch that even if it’s telling people we’ve been naughty” and moves on to being one of, “We control it so let’s put it in its place”, it falls down pretty fast.

All that aside, I still find it more than a little ridiculous seeing certain sections of society angrily demanding its defunding. “We want 100% of media and all sources of information privately owned by billionaires! This is evil!” Mind you, given the amount of times Britain has been talked into slashing its own wrists in the last half a decade, it’s probably only a matter of time. I guess this is what happens when something essentially set up and run using the honour system meets the age of dishonesty. It becomes incompatible, and when something is incompatible it’s eventually demonised on its way to the gallows.

Not that I care. My only source of news is Korean Central Broadcasting. All truth, all the time.

Death to the west.
Well the chairman of the BBC is worth in the region of half a billion. His Director General earns some £400,000 per year.

So it's not really a case of billionaires vs "the people". The difference is the billionaires spend their own money on their papers and TV channels. With the BBC, multi millionaires spend our money to peddle their sub standard and bloated programming.
 
I think this all proves the BBC is doing fine, as right leaning people are claiming left bias and left leaning people are claiming right bias.
I suspect left-leaning people know in their heats of hearts the BBC is left-leaning but they don't want to admit so or it would perhaps open the door to the Beeb having to redress its balance. The only serious movements to defund the BBC come from the conservative right, that is very telling.

BBC News isn't terrible, it tries to be an actual news programme rather than dull identity politics "news" and left-wing activism on Channel 4, ITV news or Sky News, but the BBC's incessant anti-British pro-woke "comedies", wasteful spending on bullshit management positions and over-representing certain groups because they're so scared of woke people calling them racist is seriously annoying.

I stopped watching BBC content a couple of years ago and don't miss it. Have an Amazon fire stick anyway.
 
So it's not really a case of billionaires vs "the people". The difference is the billionaires spend their own money on their papers and TV channels. With the BBC, multi millionaires spend our money to peddle their sub standard and bloated programming.
I would rather pay a licence fee to still have some tiny semblance of a British media source that isn’t solely peddling stories and narratives to line its own pockets, to the absolute detriment of society. I would rather have even 1% still sitting somewhere near the middle and not making everything about picking a side than have the entire idea of knowledge and information be a plaything. When every single source of those things revolves around a handful of people sloshing cash around to see who can trick and manipulate the most people, it’s not a good position to be in. It matters who gets to ‘own’ information, because it affects every aspect of our lives. I don’t personally want the only things that anybody ever sees or hears, and therefore begins to think, to be privately owned by a group of people small enough to sit around a table. I don’t see how that’s ever going to be a good thing for the rest of us. I’m down with privatisation of the public transport networks, but I’m not so down with all notion of what is truth and what is reality being bought.

Now look what you’ve made me do. You’ve made me sound like a proper ‘far out dude’. I’ve had to break out Big Bong and everything, which is a bong modelled on Big Ben. It’s Monday afternoon. What are you playing at?

54BBBE60-F354-4704-A393-6A523ACACCF1.jpeg
 
I suspect left-leaning people know in their heats of hearts the BBC is left-leaning but they don't want to admit so or it would perhaps open the door to the Beeb having to redress its balance. The only serious movements to defund the BBC come from the conservative right, that is very telling.

BBC News isn't terrible, it tries to be an actual news programme rather than dull identity politics "news" and left-wing activism on Channel 4, ITV news or Sky News, but the BBC's incessant anti-British pro-woke "comedies", wasteful spending on bullshit management positions and over-representing certain groups because they're so scared of woke people calling them racist is seriously annoying.

I stopped watching BBC content a couple of years ago and don't miss it. Have an Amazon fire stick anyway.

The BBC is neither right leaning or left leaning.
 
I suspect left-leaning people know in their heats of hearts the BBC is left-leaning but they don't want to admit so or it would perhaps open the door to the Beeb having to redress its balance. The only serious movements to defund the BBC come from the conservative right, that is very telling.

BBC News isn't terrible, it tries to be an actual news programme rather than dull identity politics "news" and left-wing activism on Channel 4, ITV news or Sky News, but the BBC's incessant anti-British pro-woke "comedies", wasteful spending on bullshit management positions and over-representing certain groups because they're so scared of woke people calling them racist is seriously annoying.

I stopped watching BBC content a couple of years ago and don't miss it. Have an Amazon fire stick anyway.
The reason I started this thread was in an attempt to gather evidence that might show bias. I've put forward two example the I don't think demonstrated neutrality.

So you have said 'I suspect left-leaning people know in their heats of hearts the BBC is left-leaning' so.... provide some evidence. And while you are at it explain what you mean by 'woke' and why it's a bad thing.
 
So long as the government followed their own procurement guidelines on due diligences I don’t see that there is a problem here. Let’s hope that they have all of their documents insurances and legal obligations in place.
As the court cases are showing they clearly have created their own emergency rules to apparently allow all of this. Whether it is legal or not we shall find out - hopefully before the government pass their acts to prevent judicial oversight of government.

But the one thing that is clear is that there has been no due diligence when you get week old companies created by people people with no relevant experience getting contracts worth tens of millions in preference to experienced companies in the sector who would have come in cheaper but wouldn't make claims of delivery they couldn't back up (the new companies just made unverifiable claims).
 
Last edited:
As the court cases are showing they clearly have created their own emergency rules to apparently allow all of this. Whether it is legal or not we shall find out - hopefully before the government pass their acts to prevent judicial oversight of government.

But the one thing that is clear is that there has been no due diligence when you get week old companies created by people people with no relevant experience getting contracts worth tens of millions in preference to experienced companies in the sector who would have come in cheaper but wouldn't make claims of delivery they couldn't back up (the new companies just made unverifiable claims).
 
I also have a theory that having had a Tory government for 10 years, there is perception of left-wing bias at the BBC because they are constantly trying to hold a right wing party to account. As they should do being a publicly funded broadcaster.

I seem to remember the reverse during the Blair/Brown years. The left were convinced the BBC were out to get them.

Question are asked of the party in power. The opposition parties are questioned to try and reflect some balance, or to question their policies (or the lack of them) but ultimately they don’t make the decisions that affect us.

I was certainly no Corbynite but does anyone genuinely think he had an easy time from the media during his time in opposition?
 
As the court cases are showing they clearly have created their own emergency rules to apparently allow all of this. Whether it is legal or not we shall find out - hopefully before the government pass their acts to prevent judicial oversight of government.

But the one thing that is clear is that there has been no due diligence when you get week old companies created by people people with no relevant experience getting contracts worth tens of millions in preference to experienced companies in the sector who would have come in cheaper but wouldn't make claims of delivery they couldn't back up (the new companies just made unverifiable claims)

I was being flippant. My point absolutely is no one in government gives deals that large on companies that new....
 
You never got around to sending me your PayPal Ron
I’m still waiting for your researched articles on the lack of institutional racism in the UK. Oh sorry, all research is biased if it doesn’t reflect your views, silly me!

Funny how you think there is something more to it when people disagree with you. I think the word is ‘narcissist‘. I know, I know - 99% of the voices in your head tell you you‘re right.
 
I’m still waiting for your researched articles on the lack of institutional racism in the UK. Oh sorry, all research is biased if it doesn’t reflect your views, silly me!

Funny how you think there is something more to it when people disagree with you. I think the word is ‘narcissist‘. I know, I know - 99% of the voices in your head tell you you‘re right.
Researched articles on a lack of institutional racism?? Isn't that a bit like asking someone to produce researched articles on a lack of God? I.e. impossible, even if you and most others know it to be true?
 
The reason I started this thread was in an attempt to gather evidence that might show bias. I've put forward two example the I don't think demonstrated neutrality.

So you have said 'I suspect left-leaning people know in their heats of hearts the BBC is left-leaning' so.... provide some evidence. And while you are at it explain what you mean by 'woke' and why it's a bad thing.

I would leave the explanation of "woke" to this chap...... he thinks it`s wrong too.
As he says "people who do really good stuff have flaws"
 
I would leave the explanation of "woke" to this chap...... he thinks it`s wrong too.
As he says "people who do really good stuff have flaws"
I think use of the term "boomer" by teenagers is a good illustration of his point. Not understanding that life isn't good guys v bad guys.

If you ever use Reddit you'll see how poor and combative the debate has become.
 
Researched articles on a lack of institutional racism?? Isn't that a bit like asking someone to produce researched articles on a lack of God? I.e. impossible, even if you and most others know it to be true?
Not particularly well put, I grant you. WY stated that he thought there was little or no institutional racism in the UK. I linked to a number of articles where people from BAME backgrounds were asked about their work and life experience and begged to differ. WY decried these articles and sources on the basis they were all biased, probably without reading them.

I simply put forward an alternative view and in effect asked for a response - perhaps there are people with a BAME background who would say ‘actually, I haven’t witnessed or been subject to institutional racism’? I’d be interested to know - working for a company that is part of large media conglomerate, it’s been eye opening listening to a broad range of personal experiences in recent months.
 
I’m still waiting for your researched articles on the lack of institutional racism in the UK. Oh sorry, all research is biased if it doesn’t reflect your views, silly me!

Funny how you think there is something more to it when people disagree with you. I think the word is ‘narcissist‘. I know, I know - 99% of the voices in your head tell you you‘re right.
Ah Ron. You think if you can produce articles to support your opinion it automatically makes you rights. Newsflash: It doesn't.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/bbcs-bias-brexit-has-proven-beyond-doubt-move-tim-davie/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ountryfile-presenter-ellie-harrison-wpk0lc7gn https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1371675/BBC-bias-BBC-news-left-wing-latest-study-comedy https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-bbc-so-love-lefty-journalists- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...gigs-handed-brazenly-left-wing-comedians.html

It's interesting the only organised group seeking to defund the BBC is coming from the right Ron isn't it. It doesn't seem like the "right wing bias" of the BBC bothers left-wing people enough to stop paying their license fee en masse or start their own news channel.

Here are a couple of articles suggesting the BBC has a bias. This must make me right yes Ron? You're not allowed to call them biased.

I notice you didn't make any comment on the institutional racism from coca-cola, as racism directed at white people doesn't seem to bother you. If the UK is institutionally racist why are white working class people the worst performing ethnic group? If the UK is so institutionally racist why are white people excluded from applying for certain jobs? If the UK is so institutionally racist why do black people on FSM access higher education twice as much as white people on FSM? If the UK is so institutionally racist why are BAME people over-represented on TV?

We could both go on until the cows come home providing articles that support our arguments.. What is the point? What we choose to read and accept is dependent on our lived experiences, which you are oh so dismissive of. If you want to pretend you're living in some kind of oppressive institutionally racist right-wing country be my guest. I just don't accept it's true Ronald.

Neither white people, nor men have any kind of "privilege" in Britain in 2021, in fact I could provide you with plenty of evidence which suggests the opposite. Flinging articles that support out claims at each other is pretty pointless.
 
Back
Top Bottom