BBC admits to left bias

[DaChew]

Someone needs to tell them that the left bias of the media is all a myth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

[RyanRoberts]

There's the buried report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbeeb15.xml) callinig out Auntie Beebs vicous anti Israeli bias too. One which for years they have denied. It's endemic, they were so convinced of their correctness and heard no dissenting opinion that they do not even consider it bias.

The Pilger interview on the today programme this week, discussing Bush's comparison of Iraq and the Tet offensive was a classic example of this. Even without the mutual 'Bush is teh stupid' japing. They didn't mention the fact that conservative analysts correctly blame the media for spinning the military success of the Tet offensive into a political failure. The Washington correspondent in fact said:


"Commentators here have been trying to work out why President Bush broke with previous practice and accepted a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam."


Which shows quite how narrow their circle of commentators is.

This is an interesting tool (http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/), it records stealth editing on the BBC news website and the censorship of comments in the have your say section.

[RandFan]

Someone needs to tell them that the left bias of the media is all a myth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
Oops...

[geni]

Someone needs to tell them that the left bias of the media is all a myth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Well considering you are linking to the daily mail you have provided fairly solid evidence that it is. Of course we have no idea what the orginal said after it's been through the mail's filters but lets see what can be teased out:


On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.


Room 101 is not meant to be for major political statements. Putting the Koran in room 101 would be a much much bigger political statement than any of the others (I doubt even the mail would complain about the others much).

The interview with bin larden is presented in an interesting way. It would hardly be the first bin larden interview to appear in the british press and hardly the first time the BBC have intercviewed terroists.

In the case of the BBC's 'diversity tsar' it would appear that on certian issues at least they are being ignored (although that might have something to do with the unofficial policy that any news program should have at least one man that was certianly around in the 90s)


BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals


I doubt it. It probably has more than avagre for various reasons although deliberate policy would not be needed to produce that result.


and people from ethnic minorities,


Does that include scotish?


deliberately promotes multiculturalism,


A side effect of trying to be neutral.


is anti-American, anti-countryside


That would be "represents the feelings of the majority of the british people".

[Ziggurat]

Room 101 is not meant to be for major political statements. Putting the Koran in room 101 would be a much much bigger political statement than any of the others (I doubt even the mail would complain about the others much).

Why would putting the Koran in the bin be a much bigger political statement than putting the bible in the bin?

Oh, that's right: offended Christians don't cut people's heads off or gun them down in the street.

In other words, it's not really about politics, it's about their personal courage, or lack thereof, in the face of violent threats.

[RyanRoberts]

Putting the Koran in room 101 would be a much much bigger political statement than any of the others

Precisely because subscribers to the liberal consensus chicken out of any ideological confrontation with members of a designated victim group. See the craven reaction by the likes of John Simpson to the cartoons for examples.

represents the feelings of the majority of the british people

I'll think you will find that the Mail, Sun and Daily Express are closer to the mainstream of UK political opinion than the BBC. They certainly shift the most papers. The level of anti Americanism in this country disgusts me (it's the modern comics perfectly acceptable substitute for Paki jokes), and the BBC is partially to blame for it.

[Skeptic]

BBC admits to leftist bias

BBC admits sun rises in east, night dark; film at 11.

[Darat]

Nice to see being a homosexual is still wrong in the eyes of the the Mail and I presume the people agreeing with its views in this thread.

[RyanRoberts]

You presume wrong Darat. The petty bigotry in the Mail annoys me almost as much as the BBC's knee jerk liberalism, though I do consider it far less dangerous in the current climate. The major difference is that I'm not obliged by criminal law to pay money to the Daily Mail group.

But yes, feel secure in your victory by accusing people of harbouring an unfashionable predjudice.

[Darat]

You presume wrong Darat. The petty bigotry in the Mail annoys me almost as much as the BBC's knee jerk liberalism, though I do consider it far less dangerous in the current climate. The major difference is that I'm not obliged by criminal law to pay money to the Daily Mail group.

But yes, feel secure in your victory by accusing people of harbouring an unfashionable predjudice.

"unfashionable prejudice" - That's right it's just a matter of fashion, so hey perhaps it will change again and I'll become a criminal again if as you say "I'll think you will find that the Mail, Sun and Daily Express are closer to the mainstream of UK political opinion than the BBC."

And an ETA for my own: I should add that I was of course very unfairly tarring people with my comment about "and I presume the people agreeing with its views in this thread." I would suggest that you perhaps read the Daily Mail article without your own bias against the BBC and realise that it is also promoting its own biases and says (to paraphrase) "the BBC has lots of 'ethnic' and homosexuals in it and they are not 'us' and what they do is bad"

[RyanRoberts]

so hey perhaps it will change again and I'll become a criminal again if as you say

Well, it could. Though the positive changes we have seen in attitudes towards homosexuals would be hard to reverse, and I dont think the Mail (http://www.rainbownetwork.com/News/detail.asp?iData=26566&iCat=29&iChannel=2&nChannel=News) is the retrograde force we should be most concerned about. I apologize for the tone of the reply.

realise that it is also promoting its own biases

Yes, of course it is. The original report in the evening standard was slightly more reasonable in its language. The fact that the mail spins that article as a problem with 'them ethnics and poofters' running things is both petty bigotry and misses the point. I also wouldn't expect anything else of an article in the daily mail, any more than I would expect a euro-sceptic, hawkish or atlanticist stance from the BBC.

The fact remains that the Beeb has seemingly confessed to something that has been blindingly obvious to many after years of denial.

[andyandy]

The fact remains that the Beeb has seemingly confessed to something that has been blindingly obvious to many after years of denial.

I don't think you can say "The BBC has confessed...." -

"some BBC employees are of the opinion that....." would appear to be more accurate.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

and it all comes down to postmodernist arguments as to whether "true" objectivity can exist........

with regards to news reporting i don't think it can, although generally the BBC does a decent job of trying.....spending time abroad watching CNN, FOX or NHK (Japan) makes you appreciate what we've got here.....

i do however think that there is an anti-American streak betrayed in some of the reporting which i find rather distasteful.....The reporting post-Katrina was truly derogatory....*so by no means is the Beeb perfect.



* after looking on the web, it appears i agree with Tony on this one.....:)

Tony Blair says he "didn't much care for" some BBC reports about Hurricane Katrina, after claims he was angry at the corporation's "anti-Americanism".
But the prime minister told the BBC's Sunday AM programme: "I'm not making any great criticism of the BBC - you carry on doing whatever you want."

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch said Mr Blair told him the BBC World Service coverage was "full of hate of America". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4280122.stm

[Mojo]

So when's the Mail going to admit to being biased? Or admit that it was wrong to suggest that Britain shouldn't accept Jewish refugees back in the 1930s?

[Ziggurat]

So when's the Mail going to admit to being biased? Or admit that it was wrong to suggest that Britain shouldn't accept Jewish refugees back in the 1930s?

Is there a problem with the Mail being biased? Not in and of itself, no. How about the BBC? Yes, that IS a problem in and of itself.

Why? Because the Mail doesn't force people to pay for it by government mandate, whether or not they are customers, but the BBC does. The BBC has an obligation not only to its viewership but to everyone who is forced to pay for them that non-state media simply does not.

[geni]

Why would putting the Koran in the bin be a much bigger political statement than putting the bible in the bin?

Oh, that's right: offended Christians don't cut people's heads off or gun them down in the street.

No the books places in the two religions are slightly different. For example I am not aware of anyone haveing an objection to a bible being placed halfway up in a pile of other books. The same is not true for the Koran.


Different religions treat their books differently. The Guru Granth Sahib is treated by the Sikhs with even more respect that the muslims treat the koran.

[chriswl]

I think its unfair to accuse the BBC of anti-Americanism. Mostly they are reporting on the actions of the US government, which is not the same as "America".

Bush is largely a figure of fun in Britain. And he is way too right wing to stand any chance of getting elected over here. Even the Daily Mail isn't what you would call a Bush supporter. No one over here will admit to being that. The BBC tends to reflect the sensibilities of the British people on this.

If Bush represents America then I'm rabidly anti-American. But he doesn't and I'm not.

[geni]

Precisely because subscribers to the liberal consensus chicken out of any ideological confrontation with members of a designated victim group. See the craven reaction by the likes of John Simpson to the cartoons for examples.

No the books places in the two religions are slightly different. For example I am not aware of anyone haveing an objection to a bible being placed halfway up in a pile of other books. The same is not true for the Koran.


Different religions treat their books differently. The Guru Granth Sahib is treated by the Sikhs with even more respect that the muslims treat the koran.



I'll think you will find that the Mail, Sun and Daily Express are closer to the mainstream of UK political opinion than the BBC. They certainly shift the most papers. The level of anti Americanism in this country disgusts me (it's the modern comics perfectly acceptable substitute for Paki jokes), and the BBC is partially to blame for it.

The two things listed are views held by rather a lot of the british people. the mail probably holds the first. The second? Well not many will admit holding it dirrectly but with most of the population of the UK living in urban areas it is to be expected that there will be some friction with the fox hunting subserdised people in the countryside.

[Ziggurat]

No the books places in the two religions are slightly different. For example I am not aware of anyone haveing an objection to a bible being placed halfway up in a pile of other books. The same is not true for the Koran.

Sorry, my mistake: so the real issue is we must reward the biggest complainers.

[geni]

Sorry, my mistake: so the real issue is we must reward the biggest complainers.

Not really. There isn't really any item in relation to the christian faith that has the same ah idol worship role (don't try saying that is saudi arabia). The Crucifix would probably come cloest and that wasn't considered (and even then considering the aproval by Sister Wendy Beckett of Piss Christ that is somewhat open to question as an equiverlence).

I supose secular equiverlents in the US would be the constitution or the flag

[Ziggurat]

Not really. There isn't really any item in relation to the christian faith that has the same ah idol worship role (don't try saying that is saudi arabia).

But how is this not then a case of muslims being given gentler treatment because they claim they're more sensitive to offense?

[geni]

But how is this not then a case of muslims being given gentler treatment because they claim they're more sensitive to offense?

Not so much sensertive as being offened by different things. Jews may accept that some people oppose kosha food but makeing certian coments about yellow stars is likely to ah get a reaction. Catholics may not be too concernded about the bible but say portraying Pope John-Paul II in hell would generaly be viewed as insensertive.

The CofE is a bit difficult because they are such a broad church.

[RyanRoberts]

John-Paul II in hell would generaly be viewed as insensertive

I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be 'insensitive' enough to be cut from a comedy program. Having your deeply held beliefs ridiculed is part of being a member of a western society - its what helps to make them equal members of a marketplace of ideas, rather than being awarded special reverence. So many things are off limits with Islam which contributes to feelings of separateness. We gleefully trash our own idols to keep their power in check, the special reverence for Islam gives its lunatic principles power.

[Ziggurat]

Not so much sensertive as being offened by different things. Jews may accept that some people oppose kosha food but makeing certian coments about yellow stars is likely to ah get a reaction. Catholics may not be too concernded about the bible but say portraying Pope John-Paul II in hell would generaly be viewed as insensertive.

That's bull. The "religion of peace" gets preferential treatment, and you know it. And the yellow stars has nothing to do with Judaism per se, but with how NON-jews have treated Jews, in rather recent times I might add. That comparison was cheap and pathetic, and was in no way equivalent to discussion about treatment of the Koran. And there IS nothing sacred in Christianity that is immune to criticism or ridicule - JPII probably does get portrayed as being in hell, Benedict has certainly been portrayed as being the devil by Islamists. But there is little about Islam which is NOT claimed to be above such criticism and ridicule. And the reason is quite simple: nobody walks around with posters saying "behead those who insult Christianity", and nobody would believe the threat if it was made. But people DO march with signs saying "behead those who insult Islam", and such death threats HAVE been carried out successfully in the heart of secular Europe. Bowing to that pressure is tawdry political correctness at best, and more often than not simple cowardice.

[geni]

That's bull. The "religion of peace" gets preferential treatment, and you know it.

Really? Ok lets have a look at say the sikhs. They have the hard hat thing and the whole kirpan thing that was an issues in canada fairly recently.


And the yellow stars has nothing to do with Judaism per se, but with how NON-jews have treated Jews, in rather recent times I might add. That comparison was cheap and pathetic, and was in no way equivalent to discussion about treatment of the Koran.

The yellow star is just another symbol.


And there IS nothing sacred in Christianity that is immune to criticism or ridicule - JPII probably does get portrayed as being in hell, Benedict has certainly been portrayed as being the devil by Islamists.


And if you try that in europe and have any profile or goverment links you will get protests from the vatican.

Or say putting Bobby Sands in room 101 would have an interesting effect.


But there is little about Islam which is NOT claimed to be above such criticism and ridicule.


Define "about islam"


And the reason is quite simple: nobody walks around with posters saying "behead those who insult Christianity", and nobody would believe the threat if it was made.

No because explosives are the weapon of choice for christian groups around here.


But people DO march with signs saying "behead those who insult Islam", and such death threats HAVE been carried out successfully in the heart of secular Europe.

Britian is not in the heart of europe.


Bowing to that pressure is tawdry political correctness at best, and more often than not simple cowardice.

The last people to blow up part of the BBC were christian.

[Ziggurat]

The yellow star is just another symbol.

But it is not THEIR symbol, and it is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of genocide.

And if you try that in europe and have any profile or goverment links you will get protests from the vatican.

Yes, and those protests can be safely ignored.

Define "about islam"

Anything about Muhammed, Allah, the Koran, Sharia law, any of the hadiths, any of Muhammed's followers, any of their religiously significant sites. Find me an Islamic equivalent of Piss Christ, for example.

No because explosives are the weapon of choice for christian groups around here.

I presume you mean the IRA. See below.

Britian is not in the heart of europe.

I wasn't refering to Britain in that particular instance. I was refering to Theo Van Gogh's assasination.

The last people to blow up part of the BBC were christian.

Which was incidental, really. How many times did the IRA actually cite doctrinal differences in order to defend their actions? I never recall it. They were a political organization which grew up along sectarian fault lines (and those sectarian differences were in turn largely the result of political differences), but it was never really the religious differences which drove that conflict for them. And they sure as hell never got motivated to carry out attacks because of offense to catholicism as a religion. Sinead O'Connor never had to worry about IRA hit men whacking her for tearing up a picture of the pope on SNL.

[geni]

But it is not THEIR symbol, and it is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of genocide.

Accorrding to the torah so are all versions of the star of david.


Yes, and those protests can be safely ignored.


So can most protests


Anything about Muhammed, Allah, the Koran, Sharia law, any of the hadiths, any of Muhammed's followers, any of their religiously significant sites.

Would destorying large parts of it count as critisism because that is what appears to be happening to larges parts of mecca at the moment.

Other than that it is rahter trick because humor is not exactly encouraged.


Find me an Islamic equivalent of Piss Christ, for example.


The satanic verses (Salman Rushdie is a muslim)


I presume you mean the IRA. See below.


Nah they appear to have given up violence now


I wasn't refering to Britain in that particular instance. I was refering to Theo Van Gogh's assasination.


That was outside britian things are different here. Even our muslim terrorists use explosives.


Which was incidental, really. How many times did the IRA actually cite doctrinal differences in order to defend their actions? I never recall it.

that would have left them in the aquard position of risking excomunication or haveing to explain their dissagreement with the pope.


Sinead O'Connor never had to worry about IRA hit men whacking her for tearing up a picture of the pope on SNL.

Well no the IRA would not have been stupid enough to compermise a major source of funding like that (I belive there is an internal split over the issue of abortion. How important is it to make sure people are fully born before blowing them up?)

On the other hand what is the normal reaction to flag burning in the US?

[Ziggurat]

The satanic verses (Salman Rushdie is a muslim)

OK, we'll take that as an equivalent. What happened to the artist who created Piss Christ? Nothing. What about Rushdie? He had to go into hiding, and still has to live a very careful life because of a rather large bounty on his head and a quite serious risk of assasination.

On the other hand what is the normal reaction to flag burning in the US?

The normal reaction? Disdain, and not much else. In fact, if the US flag gets burned in another country, there's even a significant portion of our population that takes it as a sign that WE did something wrong, rather than that someone else is unfairly dishonoring us.

[Darat]

...snip...

Or say putting Bobby Sands in room 101 would have an interesting effect.


...snip...

Or the Welsh.... ;)

I find this so called "Islam can't be touched" rather funny - I've been watching "Mock the Week" over the last few weeks and someone must have forgotten to tell that comedy show.

There is also another reason why there isn't that much humour if you like "against" Islam in the UK - it's pretty much irrelevant to most of the UK population -of which around 97% are not Islamic. Making "Islamic jokes" would exclude 97% of your audience who is not going to get the Islamic references (and I am excluding racism and bigotry dressed up as a joke in my use of the word joke).

[Didaktylos]

The Daily Mail gave approving coverage to Drosnin - 'nuff said.

[a_unique_person]

Those weak kneed lefty bleeding hearts. You'll never get "Fair and Balanced" Fox to admit to ****.

[stamenflicker]

I think its unfair to accuse the BBC of anti-Americanism. Mostly they are reporting on the actions of the US government, which is not the same as "America".

Bush is largely a figure of fun in Britain. And he is way too right wing to stand any chance of getting elected over here. Even the Daily Mail isn't what you would call a Bush supporter. No one over here will admit to being that. The BBC tends to reflect the sensibilities of the British people on this.

If Bush represents America then I'm rabidly anti-American. But he doesn't and I'm not.

Do you live in Venezuela?

Look Bush has some real issues. They are different from our last President's issues, but they are real. But I'll say this, if the world's pre-Iraq invasion attitudes and activities represent the globe, then I'm anti-non-American governments.

Vapid, 12-year long discourse in the face of intelligence, even bad intelligence, is unacceptable.

The refusal to reprimand Sadaam was just as much about oil as the decision to reprimand him. Something the Libs won't admit.

[Jocko]

Someone needs to tell them that the left bias of the media is all a myth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

They didn't "admit" it, they proudly declared it. As would the spawn of Turner, if they had any cojones whatsoever.

[gtc]

Those weak kneed lefty bleeding hearts. You'll never get "Fair and Balanced" Fox to admit to ****.

Darat brought up the issue of homosexuals.

How do you feel about the Age outing Alan Jones so publically on the weekend?

[a_unique_person]

Darat brought up the issue of homosexuals.

How do you feel about the Age outing Alan Jones so publically on the weekend?

I've already raised the issue in other thread I started. It wasn't The Age that outed him, it was the book "Jonestown". IIRC, the author of the book is himself gay.

[Darat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/index.html



For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism.

...snip...

To keep us all on our toes, a rich variety of formats was used during the day. I was on a "Hypothetical" – where a panel of people in charge is given a series of mounting “real life” crises and asked how they would handle each of them. It was fun, occasionally illuminating, and often very challenging.

There was for example a heated debate about the whether or not a Muslim newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf. Jon Snow was all in favour. BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb was vehemently against. I had deep reservations because I felt a scarf would be a distraction from the news but pointed out - in the interests of debate - that if we banned the headscarf, how would we justify that cross which I was sure I had once seen Fiona Bruce wearing. From this discussion emerged the wholly untrue newspaper story that the BBC had banned Fiona’s cross.

...snip...

The point of the Hypothetical is to generate discussion, debate and ideas. The situations aren’t real; the discussions aren’t binding and they certainly don’t define BBC policy.

...snip...

There was discussion of the BBC’s culture and some provocative points were made.

...snip...

I remembered an incident about 15 years ago when a freelance reporter working for me on a programme about bullying in Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution asked me if it was acceptable to broadcast what they had discovered: that most of the bullies in Feltham at that time were black and most of the victims were white. Not only was it acceptable, I told the reporter, if he had evidence of this he had a duty to report it. And so we did.

...snip...

[DaChew]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/index.html

It's interesting what she doesn't respond to. First though,

For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism.

Not a secret meeting? Great! Where and when will the transcripts published. It was web cast? Great! Where and when will the replays be posted?

Her links don't work. My link still takes you right to the story but hers don't. Interesting.

Here are some claims not addressed from the Daily Mail:

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

Did a veteran BBC executive say that or not? Of course, we'll know when the transcripts and the video of the webcast from this non-secret meeting are made available.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

Did nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agree they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.? Of course, we'll know when the transcripts and the video of the webcast from this non-secret meeting are made available.

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Did Justin Webb say that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports? And did Webb add that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'. ? Of course, we'll know when the transcripts and the video of the webcast from this non-secret meeting are made available.

[back2basics]

Right wing biased paper declared BBC admitted its liberal bias!

The "Liberal media" crowd just all over it! Because they want to believe it.

Only to find it wasn't actually true.

Then they shout conspiracy!

It's all just a war on Christmas or the Daily Mail if you ask me. The BBC are just trying to defame the good name of the Daily Mail by denying it.

Maybe the BBC is just representing the broad section of society that pay for it, and people who claim bias are looking at a slim section of it’s programming. No of course not that would be preposterous!

[DaChew]

Only to find it wasn't actually true.

Evidence?

Then they shout conspiracy!

Who shouted conspiracy? Specifically please. Provide a link.

Maybe the BBC is just representing the broad section of society that pay for it, and people who claim bias are looking at a slim section of it’s programming. No of course not that would be preposterous!

and maybe they are in fact biased and they did admit it? Possibly? There has been no denial of what was quoted.

[DreadNiK]

All you need to know about the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/healthy_living/complementary_medicine/

(oh yeah and they make some good TV)

[RyanRoberts]

Right wing biased paper declared BBC admitted its liberal bias!

The "Liberal media" crowd just all over it! Because they want to believe it.


Nick Cohen (http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=134), the famous arch conservative commented on it some time before the Mail. As it is, the mail (typicaly) screwed up a perfectly reasonable story.


You don’t have to believe it, you just have to convince yourself that serious people can hold it for good reasons. You will then notice something disconcerting about most BBC presenters. Although they subject opponents of, say, abortion to rigorous cross-examination, their lust for ferocious questioning deserts them when supporters of abortion come on air. Far from being tested, they treat upholders of the liberal consensus as purveyors of an incontestable truth.

...

The way out for the BBC is not to swing to the right - it is not an advance to replace soft interviews for Menzies Campbell with soft interviews for John Reid - but make a tactical withdrawal from the opinion business.

[back2basics]

Evidence?



Actually the burden of evidence is with you, and your extrodinary conspiratorial claims of bias. But as the link you responded to shows the Daily Mail article was just very inacurate.



Who shouted conspiracy? Specifically please. Provide a link.



Your post just above mine.


and maybe they are in fact biased and they did admit it? Possibly? There has been no denial of what was quoted.

Erm I think there actually was a denial, you even quoted from it! But i guess so much time passed you forgot?

Honestly shouldn't this be in the Conspiracy theory forum?

[back2basics]

Nick Cohen (http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=134), the famous arch conservative commented on it some time before the Mail. As it is, the mail (typicaly) screwed up a perfectly reasonable story.

So a conservative pundit also saw the video. DaChew will be acusing him of bias next. I can see it now...

Not a secret meeting? Great! Where and when will the transcripts published. It was web cast? Great! Where and when will the replays be posted?

Her links don't work. My link still takes you right to the story but hers don't. Interesting.

And this other guy conservative whats his name, he doesn't link to the video either and has no web links, no transcript.... in-ter-esting... clear bias.

[RyanRoberts]

So a conservative pundit also saw the video. DaChew will be acusing him of bias next. I can see it now...

I should have used a sarc tag, Cohen is a socialist Guardian columnist.

[back2basics]

I should have used a sarc tag, Cohen is a socialist Guardian columnist.

Well in that case everything he wrote should be taken through the prism of his clear socialist agenda (apart form the fact he saw the webcast). He is clearly with the terrorist and trying to kill Christmas ;)

[DaChew]

Actually the burden of evidence is with you, and your extrodinary conspiratorial claims of bias. But as the link you responded to shows the Daily Mail article was just very inacurate.[/quote}

And I have provided that evidence along with pointing out that the BBC response did not address the substance of what the Daily Mail reported.

[quote]Your post just above mine.

I absolutely did not claim any sort of conspiracy on anyone's part. That is a lie. If anything, I am taking the response of the BBC at it's word. I am assuming that the meeting was not secret (because a blogger at the BBC says so) and looking forward to when they publish the proceedings.

Erm I think there actually was a denial, you even quoted from it! But i guess so much time passed you forgot?

Please point out exactly which quote I posted the BBC specifically denies and where the BBC denies that quote. Cut and paste the quote for me so that I'll be sure to see it.

[back2basics]

[QUOTE=back2basics;2033447]Actually the burden of evidence is with you, and your extrodinary conspiratorial claims of bias. But as the link you responded to shows the Daily Mail article was just very inacurate.[/quote}

And I have provided that evidence along with pointing out that the BBC response did not address the substance of what the Daily Mail reported.



I absolutely did not claim any sort of conspiracy on anyone's part. That is a lie. If anything, I am taking the response of the BBC at it's word. I am assuming that the meeting was not secret (because a blogger at the BBC says so) and looking forward to when they publish the proceedings.



Please point out exactly which quote I posted the BBC specifically denies and where the BBC denies that quote. Cut and paste the quote for me so that I'll be sure to see it.

Why not just go and read your own post again?

Here is a hint; all the references to "non-secret meeting", "transcripts", "Interesting" the implications were clear that you thought they were lying and would until you saw transcipts. Thats pretty conspiratorial to me.

[Darat]

And I have provided that evidence along with pointing out that the BBC response did not address the substance of what the Daily Mail reported.


It was a blog of one person (albeit a BBC blog) I came across and no what you have pointed out is that she didn't respond to all the points in the article - that is not quite the same.



...snip...

I am assuming that the meeting was not secret (because a blogger at the BBC says so) and looking forward to when they publish the proceedings.

...snip...


Why does "not a secret meeting" mean that transcripts should be available to the public?

[brodski]

and looking forward to when they publish the proceedings.


So put in an FOI request.

[DaChew]

[QUOTE=DaChew;2033507]
Thats pretty conspiratorial to me.

And so you went ahead and built yourself a strawman. Interesting.

[DaChew]

It was a blog of one person (albeit a BBC blog) I came across and no what you have pointed out is that she didn't respond to all the points in the article - that is not quite the same.

I didn't say she didn't respond to all the points in the article. I said she didn't respond to the substance of the report by the Daily Mail. In my view the substance of the report are the quotes. If the quotes are false, If nobody said what the Mail claims they said, then it would be easy to verify that with transcripts. The BBC has yet to suggest the quotes were not made. All they've said is that the meeting was not secret. Fine, I take them at their word - show me.

Why does "not a secret meeting" mean that transcripts should be available to the public?

Why would the web cast not be made public? BBC employees are government employees. Should their discussions enjoy secret or top secret status? Why wouldn't their discussions be a matter of public record? Is it likely that there is no recording of the web cast? Could the BBC completely negate every claim the Mail makes by publishing the exact transcripts - of course they could. What's the point of even having the argument when you have absolute proof available to you. Unless the Mail was correct in the portrayal.

[DaChew]

So put in an FOI request.

Why would I need to do that? The meeting wasn't secret the blogger said so. Since the BBC is a government entity, all of the discussions will be a matter of public record right?

[back2basics]

[QUOTE=back2basics;2033652]

And so you went ahead and built yourself a strawman. Interesting.

Your use of "interesting" to suggest something suspect is also interesting.

So your evidence the BBC is biased?

[back2basics]

Why would I need to do that? The meeting wasn't secret the blogger said so. Since the BBC is a government entity, all of the discussions will be a matter of public record right?

It's not a government entity. If it were wouldn't it actually be parroting talking points from America? As Blair does? You are American, yes?

[DaChew]

[QUOTE=DaChew;2033768]

Your use of "interesting" to suggest something suspect is also interesting.

and another strawman. Very interesting.

So your evidence the BBC is biased?was laid out in the original Mail column. And I did not claim the BBC is biased. The Mail claimed that the BBC admitted they were biased. Please do try and pay attention.

[brodski]

Why would I need to do that? The meeting wasn't secret the blogger said so. Since the BBC is a government entity, all of the discussions will be a matter of public record right?

What public record? Is there a website for this public record, a building I can go to and find what I want (without asking)?
If you want this information, you are going to have to ask for it, that doesn't make it secret. It becomes secret if they refuse to give it to you.
If it were secret then an FOI request wouldn't get it for you.

[back2basics]

[QUOTE=back2basics;2033907]

and another strawman. Very interesting.

was laid out in the original Mail column. And I did not claim the BBC is biased. The Mail claimed that the BBC admitted they were biased. Please do try and pay attention.

Ok so let’s try this another way, where is the Mails proof that was said?

Look DaChew a quick view of you past threads shows you to be hyper-partisan. I don't get in to discussions with people like you on message boards, they are always unproductive.

You think the BBC is a government entity and its employee’s government workers, so you clearly know little about the BBC, but you hold strong opinion about it. You don't know much about the Mail judging by the way you believe their article without it backing it up with any evidence. Bias is impossible to prove or disprove, especially for an entity like the BBC that has hundred of producers working directly for it and produces thousands of hours of television. Some of its programming may have bias one way; some may have bias the other way. You (and the Mail) haven’t even laid out ground rules, are we just talking about BBC News (the web site), the World Service, the BBC as a whole? A particular News show on BBC (News night? News at 10?). I mean this is all pointless and you are being conspiratorial without offering a single piece of evidence apart from the mail article which also does not offer any evidence. It's hear say. Interesting.

[DaChew]

a building I can go to and find what I want (without asking)?
Yes, here in the U.S., at the federal level, it's called the Congressional record which contains the proceedings of the Congress which, I believe, is made part of the Library of Congress which is not one building but three. Here's the website for the Congressional record:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/legislative.html

Enjoy!

[brodski]

Yes, here in the U.S., at the federal level, it's called the Congressional record which contains the proceedings of the Congress which, I believe, is made part of the Library of Congress which is not one building but three. Here's the website for the Congressional record:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/legislative.html

Enjoy!
So I take it that any information which I can't find there, including minuets of departmental meetings or other activities of the machinery of government is "secret"?

Either way, that's not the way things are organized in the UK.

[DaChew]

[QUOTE=DaChew;2033923]

Ok so let’s try this another way, where is the Mails proof that was said?

They published quotes. Quotes which stand on their own. The people quoted either said what the Mail says they said, or they didn't. Have any of them denied they said what the Mail says they said? Why not?

Look DaChew a quick view of you past threads shows you to be hyper-partisan.

As opposed to just regular partisan? Empty rhetoric. And what is the point of labeling me?

I don't get in to discussions with people like you on message boards, they are always unproductive.

And yet, you persist. And what is the point of telling me that?

You think the BBC is a government entity and its employee’s government workers, so you clearly know little about the BBC,

They receive license fees right? From the government? Ultimately from citizens? Are those fees optional? What happens if a citizen refuses to pay their license fee?

but you hold strong opinion about it. You don't know much about the Mail judging by the way you believe their article without it backing it up with any evidence.

The evidence is the quotes - they are falsifyable - with transcripts.

Bias is impossible to prove or disprove,

The BBC could prove that the quotes in the Mail were not made by the people the Mail claims made them - with transcripts.

I mean this is all pointless and you are being conspiratorial without offering a single piece of evidence apart from the mail article which also does not offer any evidence.

Now you're accusing me of being conspiratorial? Now who belongs in the Conspiracy Forum?

[DaChew]

So I take it that any information which I can't find there, including minuets of departmental meetings or other activities of the machinery of government is "secret"?

No, you might just be a lousy researcher if you can't find it. How would I know? Point is - this was not mearly a departmental meeting with a few guys in a conference room. It was a supposedly open governmental forum which, yes, should have been recorded.

Either way, that's not the way things are organized in the UK.

Fair enough. Maybe they should be considering the BBC uses public funds and maybe they are - I don't really know. And I bet the conference was recorded. Any takers?

[Darat]

...snip.. It was a supposedly open governmental forum which, yes, should have been recorded.

...snip..

Er where did you get this "fact" from?

[back2basics]

[QUOTE=back2basics;2033969]

They published quotes. Quotes which stand on their own. The people quoted either said what the Mail says they said, or they didn't. Have any of them denied they said what the Mail says they said? Why not?



As opposed to just regular partisan? Empty rhetoric. And what is the point of labeling me?



And yet, you persist. And what is the point of telling me that?



They receive license fees right? From the government? Ultimately from citizens? Are those fees optional? What happens if a citizen refuses to pay their license fee?



The evidence is the quotes - they are falsifyable - with transcripts.



The BBC could prove that the quotes in the Mail were not made by the people the Mail claims made them - with transcripts.



Now you're accusing me of being conspiratorial? Now who belongs in the Conspiracy Forum?

You have some quotes but no evidence they were said, as the Mail gets sued (succesfully) on an almost weekly basis for misquoting people why on earth do you think they are acurate this time? "Evidence is the quotes" really we need go no further than that.

The BBC is paid for by the people, and if they don't pay and they get caught using the service they can be fined. Yes they are optional. The BBC must therfore represent ALL it's constituents. So yes there will be programs that show one mind set and others that show another.

but it is not a government organization which clearly your level of knowlege on this subject, and because you live in America how much BBC programing can you possibly see or are you just taking other peoples words for it or Daily Mail quotes?

And you keep asking for evidence but offer none, other than "the quotes". Well here is a quote from GW Bush "I am evil and really wanted to get in to Iraq so Kissinger could show his Vietnam doctorine was valid". Now disprove he said that. Because that exactly what you are asking people to do. You posted the article you must think it's valid, so prove it.

[brodski]

No, you might just be a lousy researcher if you can't find it. How would I know? Point is - this was not mearly a departmental meeting with a few guys in a conference room. It was a supposedly open governmental forum which, yes, should have been recorded.



Fair enough. Maybe they should be considering the BBC uses public funds and maybe they are - I don't really know. And I bet the conference was recorded. Any takers?

E-mail the BBC and ask them for a copy, if they have a record of the meeting, and if it is not "secret" then they will have to send you one under FOI, you may have to pay for administrative some costs, even if you don't pay, you'd still have your answer.

[DaChew]

Er where did you get this "fact" from?

From the blog you posted:
For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism. The seminar was part of a bigger project kicked off by Michael Grade earlier this year to re-examine the underlying principles of impartiality in the digital age when boundaries between conventional broadcasting and the new platforms will increasingly disappear.

Which part was closed? and if so, why?

[back2basics]

I think he was questioning the "open governmental forum" which is ahem exactly what he quoted.

...snip.. It was a supposedly open governmental forum which, yes, should have been recorded.

...snip..

[DaChew]

[QUOTE=DaChew;2034049]
You have some quotes but no evidence they were said,
Strawman. Not me, The Mail.

as the Mail gets sued (succesfully) on an almost weekly basis

And if they don't in this instance?

for misquoting people why on earth do you think they are acurate this time? "Evidence is the quotes" really we need go no further than that.

Has anybody denied they said what the Mail quoted? Why not? If they do, great! That would solve it wouldn't it? Especially after they presented the transcripts that showed that they never said it.

The BBC is paid for by the people, and if they don't pay and they get caught using the service they can be fined.

Sure sounds like an arm of government to me. Their money comes from government enforced license fees which they are obliged to pay even if they don't intend to watch the BBC on their own TV at all.

Yes they are optional. The BBC must therfore represent ALL it's constituents. So yes there will be programs that show one mind set and others that show another.

We agree. Except when it comes to the news. There, they are obliged to be objective and that's what this is about.

but it is not a government organization which clearly your level of knowlege on this subject, and because you live in America how much BBC programing can you possibly see or are you just taking other peoples words for it or Daily Mail quotes?

You building another straw man?

From the blog:
I am not surprised that some readers of the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and the Express are furious with the BBC. If I had paid my licence fee in good faith for an organisation which claims it is passionately committed to impartiality, only to discover – according to the Mail on Sunday – that the organisation itself has admitted it is biased, I would be pretty livid.

[DaChew]

E-mail the BBC and ask them for a copy, if they have a record of the meeting, and if it is not "secret" then they will have to send you one under FOI, you may have to pay for administrative some costs, even if you don't pay, you'd still have your answer.

Don't need to. The BBC will want to clear this all up for their viewers and license fee payers and what better way?

[Darat]

From the blog you posted:
For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism. The seminar was part of a bigger project kicked off by Michael Grade earlier this year to re-examine the underlying principles of impartiality in the digital age when boundaries between conventional broadcasting and the new platforms will increasingly disappear.

Which part was closed? and if so, why?

Sorry I can't see anywhere where she says it was a "open governmental forum ".

[Darat]

Don't need to. The BBC will want to clear this all up for their viewers and license fee payers and what better way?

Clear what up?

[back2basics]

[QUOTE=back2basics;2034123]
Strawman. Not me, The Mail.

You are not defending it? Ohhh thats right you are. You are not the one offering only the Mails quotes as evidence? Oh yes you actually are. Thats not a straw man.

Here is the definition for your reference.

http://www.answers.com/topic/straw-man



Has anybody denied they said what the Mail quoted? Why not? If they do, great! That would solve it wouldn't it? Especially after they presented the transcripts that showed that they never said it.


Why must there be a denial? Most people intelligent people in the UK take the Mail with a pinch of salt, I can imagine that an American who has never actually read the paper would not understand this. That is actually straw man. You are saying that unless somebody denies, it must be true. Which of course is not the case, but it is a dictionary definition of a straw man.



Sure sounds like an arm of government to me. Their money comes from government enforced license fees which they are obliged to pay even if they don't intend to watch the BBC on their own TV at all.


Erm no it’s not an arm of government even if it "sounds like it to you".


We agree. Except when it comes to the news. There, they are obliged to be objective and that's what this is about.


And where is your evidence they are not objective, other than the unsubstantiated quotes you keep hiding behind?


From the blog:
I am not surprised that some readers of the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and the Express are furious with the BBC. If I had paid my licence fee in good faith for an organisation which claims it is passionately committed to impartiality, only to discover – according to the Mail on Sunday – that the organisation itself has admitted it is biased, I would be pretty livid.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything.