Shock! Horror!

[Vladimir]

Who would of thunk it?


We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
This is just for fun, no malice. Enjoy.

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

[Scurvy]

i love the dailymail pitch "We are biased, admits stars of the daily mail"

however its actually quite an interesting article, and good fun to read (look at the comments) :2thumbsup:

[Don Corleone]

:deal2:

And the odds are open on how long it takes for somebody to post an outright dismissal of the Daily Mail. Don't you know, Vladimir, that if a story doesn't come from a Lefty approved source, such as the Beeb itself, then it can be dismissed categorically, regardless of how much evidence it cites? FoxNews and the Daily Mail are both owned by Rupert Murdoch, so therefore they are automatically disqualified. Try again...:oops: [/sarcasm off]

Interesting read. Would like to see what the BBC executive interview transcript really said, in it's entirety.

[Vladimir]

The comments were interesting. Mostly because I'm kind of a linguistic nerd. I know Daily Mail has a bit of a "reputation" but I do so enjoy it. :2thumbsup:

[Don Corleone]

Uhm, not that I don't enjoy poking at sacred lefty cows, but the article is using the term 'liberal' in the American sense, not the European sense, which strikes me as odd. To a Brit, Liberal means free market entrepreneurship, not left-wing. I'm not certain what the British/European term would be that equates to our use of the term liberal, but it's being misused in this article. As the article was written in a British newspaper, this strikes me as odd.

[Kralizec]

Some of the comments were funny, and downright sad :clown:

BBC's old image of neutrality isn't really deserved, but I'd still put more trust in BBC then in CNN or (gasp) Fox.

EDIT: I noticed that too DC. I also thought it was strange that so many comments came from Americans. When there's meat to pick, the vultures are never far away I guess :inquisitive:

[Don Corleone]

CNN actually tends to favor the Democrats and the Left. CNN World is downright pandering to Europeans... they piss me off because they won't broadcast baseball or football results when I'm overseas, just soccer results (and, get this, cricket!)

[Kralizec]

CNN actually tends to favor the Democrats and the Left. CNN World is downright pandering to Europeans... they piss me off because they won't broadcast baseball or football results when I'm overseas, just soccer results (and, get this, cricket!)

So?

I don't like any media that has a strong bias in any direction, though I accept that if you aren't willing to accept some bias you're left with practically nothing. That said I don't like CNN.

There, I said it. Happy now?

[BigTex]

Now I always assumed that everyone knew the BBC was yellow journalism in it's finest. I've always wondered why they would deny it, it was becoming more and more obvious. Will they continue to mention their anti-American bias whenever they report on major news stories concerning the USA?:shame:
_________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

[Banquo's Ghost]

Uhm, not that I don't enjoy poking at sacred lefty cows, but the article is using the term 'liberal' in the American sense, not the European sense, which strikes me as odd. To a Brit, Liberal means free market entrepreneurship, not left-wing. I'm not certain what the British/European term would be that equates to our use of the term liberal, but it's being misused in this article. As the article was written in a British newspaper, this strikes me as odd.

In many things, the UK takes its lead from the US and this includes language. So many TV programmes are US centric, it's inevitable. Reporting from the US often requires the 'translation' of political terms. Therefore 'liberal' is increasingly taking on the US meaning - especially since the Liberal Democrat party is the only one left with 'leftist' or 'socialist' style policies.

Many popular newspapers are keen to simplify political debate into black/white, left/right polarities and the 'liberal' tag is a good one to achieve this.

[Vladimir]

Many popular newspapers are keen to simplify political debate into black/white, left/right polarities and the 'liberal' tag is a good one to achieve this.

Ooo, is that a subtle slight towards conservatives? :laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

So?

I don't like any media that has a strong bias in any direction, though I accept that if you aren't willing to accept some bias you're left with practically nothing. That said I don't like CNN.

There, I said it. Happy now?

I agree with you. It's not just bias itself, it's self-acknowledgement of bias and efforts made to restrain it.

The Wall Street Journal has a pro-business, fiscally conservative (small C) bias that I think just about anybody, themselves included, would be forced to admit to. That being said, they do a good job, IMHO, of presenting alternate views and digesting stories that are more 'socialist' oriented (for lack of a better term) such as universal health care. You know going into it they don't support universal health care, but they don't do a hack job on it to score points. Ditto, in reverse, for the Washington Post.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ooo, is that a subtle slight towards conservatives? :laugh4:

Not that I was aware of. I just didn't think to list all the simplified terms like conservative, fascist, communist etc that people use to demonise their opponents in tabloids.

Honestly Vlad, when I want to slight conservatives I try to use blunter instruments because they're so paranoid and dull of intellect.

:wink3:

[Dâriûsh]

~:shock: Ghastly! Next thing they’ll claim that Aljazeera is biased.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The Daily Mail is biased against good sense. I don't know what that thing is, but it sure as hell isn't a newspaper. Or journalism. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Mail isn't even printed, it's copied out by cackling demonic elves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A bit harsh, methinks BKS.

Anyways, is anyone really surprised?

Thought not.

Crazed Rabbit

[IRONxMortlock]

A bit harsh, methinks BKS.

Not at all, the Daily Mail is absolute trash. Infotainment for the unthinking plebs IMO.

Rj from Portsmouth sums it up well.

Well if you listen to the tone of the news this isn't news at all.
- Rj, Portsmouth

I'm not a fan of the BBC either since it really doesn't provide much of an alternative to other main stream news sources. I do enjoy the show "hardtalk" though and many of the documentaries are excellent.

John Pilger presents a much better argument about bias in the BBC.

[Major Robert Dump]

I never heard of teh bbs, is that like a news group or somthing?

[Sir Moody]

My grandmother reads the daily mail (and so I get "treated" to their top stories) and if you believed them we would all be unemployed due too imigrants taking our jobs, dead from sars or global warming or [insert current media scare mungering here]

basically the Daily Mail makes its money by taking the latest scare mungering story and blowing it out of proportion to scare its lowest dominiation readers - its total trash even the british conservitives avoid it

[Mikeus Caesar]

The Daily Mail is biased against good sense. I don't know what that thing is, but it sure as hell isn't a newspaper. Or journalism. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Mail isn't even printed, it's copied out by cackling demonic elves.

ZING!

[Scurvy]

the simple fact is all news services are biased -its impossible not to be - both the daily mail and bbc are no exeption to this :2thumbsup:

[King Henry V]

No one buys newspapers to give them a real view of the world,, which is why no newspaper has a neutral stance. People buy newspapers so that their view of the world is confirmed to them in black and white.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which is why I buy the Torygraph. However, when a newspaper presents actual facts, even the Mail, it is usually true.

Remember the "4/5 immigrants don't contribute"story?

Well they admitted that there was still a net condribution and that the population demographic of immigrants was broadly similar to those already living in the UK.

It was just the way they said it.

[macsen rufus]

Sorry, gotta put on my irritating pedant hat, here: :whip:


However, when a newspaper presents actual facts, even the Mail, it is usually true

.... if they are "actual facts" then they're true, period. But I must admit if the Mail printed "1+1=2" I'd be looking for the catch somewhere.....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This is weird. How do you Americans who posted here watch BBC?

[yesdachi]

This is weird. How do you Americans who posted here watch BBC?
I don’t watch it very often but it is on all day on cable and I would imagine satellite but I only have cable. :bow:

[Scurvy]

.... if they are "actual facts" then they're true, period. But I must admit if the Mail printed "1+1=2" I'd be looking for the catch somewhere.....

ditto --> anyone can make a fact, its about proving it (this isnt necessarily towards the 4/5 immigrants thing, just in general)

I only read the paper for the sports news anyway --> however i agree that people tend to buy a paper that confirms their views rather than contradicts them --> as a result papers are almost forced to take a political stance to attract readers

[Vladimir]

Sorry, gotta put on my irritating pedant hat, here: :whip:



.... if they are "actual facts" then they're true, period. But I must admit if the Mail printed "1+1=2" I'd be looking for the catch somewhere.....


This is weird. How do you Americans who posted here watch BBC?

Television, internet? :inquisitive:

Are these two posts related?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Television, internet? :inquisitive:

Are these two posts related?

Just seems weird. I don't even watch regular news so I'm surprised people have watched enough foreign news to know about it.

[BigTex]

This is weird. How do you Americans who posted here watch BBC?

It's on cable, both normal bbc, and bbc America. I watch it on occasion if i want to get pissed off. But most of the shows no, on rarity I'll watch the stand up, but never more then 5 minutes. The jokes get old, little varity and they always center around USA bashing.
_________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

[Prince of the Poodles]

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals

The horror.. :no:

Why does this even matter.. are gays only allowed one political position?

[monkian]

Homosexuals in the media :dizzy2:

No. Way ! ~:rolleyes:

[Pannonian]

In many things, the UK takes its lead from the US and this includes language. So many TV programmes are US centric, it's inevitable. Reporting from the US often requires the 'translation' of political terms. Therefore 'liberal' is increasingly taking on the US meaning - especially since the Liberal Democrat party is the only one left with 'leftist' or 'socialist' style policies.

Many popular newspapers are keen to simplify political debate into black/white, left/right polarities and the 'liberal' tag is a good one to achieve this.
Old school socialism is out of vogue now, and what remains is the kind of liberalism that is actually thel English mainstream (think One Nation Conservatism, or the tussles between Disraeli and Gladstone for middle class and working class votes). Greenism has also entered the political mainstream with the now overwhelming acceptance of the existence of global warming.

There is an agreement across all sections of the mainstream on what government responsibilities should be. The only argument is whether or not people trust the government to get it right. Labour has been seen to muck things up regularly, but they have also been known to put their efforts in the right direction. Blair and Brown have been trying to reduce the former and increase the latter. The Conservatives have a healthy scepticism about the ability of government, but they have also been known to cut back in areas which the British people regard as sacrosanct. Cameron has been trying to move the Tories to recognise the latter while retaining the essence of the former.

The basic choice is whether one believes Labour will eventually get it right one day, or whether the Tories will refrain from cutting down essential social infrastructure that benefits their opponents' electorate. Neither is particularly believable, hence the increasing apathy of (non-)voters. The third party, the Liberal Democrats, believes an infusion of government money solves all ills, an attitude even the Labour left regards as outdated. Certainly voters aren't willing to entrust any government with yet more tax money in the belief they will do something useful with it. Hence Blair and Brown's continued campaigns to inundate the civil services with bureaucracy to check that the money they are allocated is spent wisely, even as the voters who wouldn't have it any other way criticise the government for increasing red tape. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - such is politics.