If you are like Lawrence, the bloke who ventures to utter a valid criticism at BBC news coverage, be warned. The drones in the ‘editing’ cubicles are just waiting to ‘balance’ it for you. They’ve got their Jack Thomases at the ready.
The media give undue prominence to such actions. And because of that the militants and terrorists take the actions to exploit the media coverage. Would they be doing it if there were no cameras and coverage? I thought the BBC’s recent documentary and surveys at the time of the 1st anniversary of the war showed that the majority of Iraqi’s wanted no part in such militant action. So why does the BBC then give so much coverage. Come on BBC, focus on the positives instead of the negatives for a change.
Lawrence, UKTo Lawrence, UK : You are asking for the BBC to focus on the positives rather than the negatives. I would rather the BBC focused on the truth, something that I believe they have been doing. I’m sure most Americans would describe their media as ‘positive’ but i’d describe it as biased and misleading.
Jack Thomas, Bangkok, Thailand
“I understand that if I was out a Thatcherite I would feel out of step with the general public…”
Except I don’t. The “general public” appears to be more “right-wing” than the BBC & the Labour party, whether they are Thatcherite or not. Note that in order to make themselves electable, Labour had to move their rhetoric into the same part of the political spectrum as the left wing of the Tories. The BBC now finds itself to the left of the Labour party, sharing assumptions with the Liberal Democrats.
But even if you’re right, how can you be sure the BBC is reflecting opinions of the general public, or manipulating them with propaganda?
Is anyone anti-Beeb going to deal with the ICM survey…?
There seem to be a few possible responses:
1) The British people are brainwashed sheep, and don’t understand they’re being fed nonsense propaganda.
2) ICM are liars.
3) The BBC’s bias is towards the centre and and the mainstream, and against extreme right or extreme left views; this is just as bad as if its bias were to the left or to the right.
3 is probably the most convincing, but seems to be rather different from the general belief on this site.
So 61% detect no political bias? Mmm…
For an outlet that prides itself on its objectivity this should a little bit worrying. Nearly 40% do detect it. Now factor in margins of error and it could be closing in on nearly a half.
Surely the point is this: The news should be so neutral that all we get are facts; no sneering, no condescension: in other words no possibility of bias.
Hurrah! only two fifths of our viewers think we are biased.
The tragedy is that this is deemed acceptable.
Wouldn’t have happened in the great days of Richard Baker, Kenneth Kendall et al. Now they WERE journalists.
Greenham common. Ha, Ha, Ha…says it all.
” Fiona, what do you think of Americans?”
” I like those who aren’t involved in Imperialism and the subjugation of innocent peoples ”
“Ok, please present the news in an unbiased manner…oh okay we’ll allow you a couple of sneers, but no more”
Privatise it now. See how many sign up for Carol Smillie and John Humphreys.
Rich – “Personally I’m amazed that only 59% think it’s good value for money at £100 odd quid a year (I appreciate the arguments against the compulsion element). This compared to Sky’s rates for a few footy matches and vast quantities of unwatchable degrading crap???”
Why do you BBC supporters always compare the £121pa licence fee with Sky? (cos you feel compelled to bring Murdoch into it?)
The true comparison is with ITV/Channels 4/5 which I receive at no (marginal)cost. I find it hard to find significant difference between the output of the terrestial channels. All show a lot of rubbish, all show some gems.
Because of the lack of differentiation in their output I cannot accept Insider’s assertion that we are compelled to pay £121pa for PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING. What is so vital about gardens, houses, holidays & lottery draws? What is so different about the BBC schedules compared with the other channels?
Tommy
People like John B comment on this site to receive answers to relevant queries, surely if the bias inherent in the BBC were so obvious it would be easy to disregard his claims as crackpot theories, however, you prefer to howl at the moon like some demented mongrel. I have my own hypothesis you are:
Still drunk from the night before.
Have no basis for you idea’s other the rambling of Richard Littlejohn.
A Tory (you might remember them from a while back).
A Loony.
You could be any combination of the three.
Greenham Common again you mutts are obsessed wake up it was decades ago, what next the suffragettes!
Why is your band of addled cranks so obsessed by America clearly it is a fine nation with a great tradition, however I am British and quite happy to remain so. If you have such an affinity with the United States why not try immigrating, though I imagine they have enough whacko’s and conspiracy screwballs without having to ship them in from the UK.
Mr Tea, thinking about your comments a little bit more, you seem to accept that the BBC operates from a “centerist” political bias, and to happily accept the inevitable result that “extremists” will feel themselves to be out of step.
Does it not concern you that the BBC itself defines what is centerist & what is extreme? This obviously gives them immense power to direct any national political debate towards a pre-defined “centerist” conclusion.
This is quite different from claiming that the BBC is “independant” and unbiased.
I used to believe that people who think ‘your’ = ‘you are’, that ‘it’s’ = ‘belongs to it’, that sentences can be separated with a comma, and that a question can be ended with an exclamation mark, are unable to express their thoughts clearly. Aided by Mr Tea’s effusions, I’m now moving rapidly towards the proposition that they are unable, because unequipped, to formulate clear thoughts at all.
No punctuation for this hombre just a string of enlightened thought like a clear mountain spring!
If strings can be springs that is…..?!*
Mr Tea,
Firstly, ideas does not need the apostrophe between the a and s.
Secondly, how about addressing one single point I raised.
Thirdly, where did I mention America?
I say this as a Mirror reading, British Labour voter.
You see this is why I think the BBC might be in trouble:
I was perfectly happy with its soft-left agenda because it suited me – it is only in the last year or so that I have come to the conclusion that it is in fact dangerous for our democracy. There can be no doubt that the people in charge have tumbled out of university with a set of certainties that thay refuse to challenge i.e
Israel bad, Palestinians good
America bad, Europe good
State intervention good, private sector bad.
What they assume as a neutral position is in fact soft-left. As such anything to the right is posited as more extreme than it is.
“Greenham Common Women, Leftie Soap Dodgers? I’m sorry Andrew but what decade are we in, I mean the right wing media has always used hackneyed stereotypes but these ones are well past there sell by date.”
That’s a bit rich Mr. Tea – my post commented on a BBC program on March 3rd this year, in which Fiona Bruce fondly reminisced about her time protesting at Greenham Common (“and to my eternal shame I decided not to be arrested” etc.).
For those that don’t remember what the Greenham protests were like it is perfectly reasonable to characterise the nature of the protests (“leftie soap-dodgers” about sums it up, if we omit the ‘lesbian no men allowed in the camp’ aspect of it) so that the significance of Fiona Bruce’s participation (and arguably her naivete) is clear to all.
Since when does (recent) history cease to be of relevance to the here and now Mr. Tea? Or would you prefer us all to forget the past and live in ignorance of history?
s has been said before, asking the BBC (or Mr Tea) if it is biased is like asking a fish if it is wet. They simply don’t recognise the word, it is their natural condition.
Don said: “The true comparison is with ITV/Channels 4/5 which I receive at no (marginal) cost.”
Marginal huh? Television advertsing in the UK cost companies £4,374,000,000 in 2003 according to figures here: http://www.creativematch.co.uk/viewnews.cfm?newsref=102303
That’s more than twice as much as the BBC gets. The majority goes to ITV/C4/C5.
Where does this money come from – you, me and everyone else going out buying stuff. Just think – if we banned advertising on TV, every household would be almost £300 per year better off.
At least with the licence fee I know how much I pay and where the money goes. With advertising it’s hidden in our weekly shopping bill, and I get no choice whether to pay the extra or not.
Some here say the licence fee is “extorted” from people, but at the end of the day we still have a choice we want to have a TV or not.
But I don’t have a choice over whether I want to eat or not.
“Marginal huh? TV advertsing in the UK cost companies £4,374,000,000”
Marginal in the economic sense – it costs nothing extra to watch ITV – it’s paid for by advertisers.
“if we banned advertising on TV, every household would be almost £300 per year better off.”
Wrong – advertising lubricates the economy – if companies couldn’t choose to advertise there’d be no competition, higher prices, less choice, less availability.
“With advertising it’s hidden in our weekly shopping bill, and I get no choice whether to pay the extra or not.”
Wrong – you don’t have to buy advertised products – you could shop at local shops and markets.
“Some say the licence fee is “extorted” from people… we still have a choice [if] we want to have a TV or not.”
That’s the point – why pay for one product we might not want in order to receive another?
It’s like having to pay for the Daily Mail before you’re allowed to buy the Guardian (or even r
cont.
It’s like having to pay for the Daily Mail before you’re allowed to buy the Guardian (or even read a ‘free’ newspaper)!
Andrew: What planet are you on?
“it costs nothing extra to watch ITV – it’s paid for by advertisers.”
And where do they get their money?
From you and me. Otherwise how would the economy be “lubricated” without people spending money on products.
When was the last time you saw a shop which stocked non-advertised products. Hmm, I think for me it was about 1972.
Everybody pays for products we don’t want. I have to pay for the NHS even though I don’t use it. Likewise I prefer to pay for the BBC so I know there are some channels where I don’t have to sit through crappy ads on EVERY programme, and occasionally, the BBC does make programmes I want to watch or listen to. Without ads.
As for the newspapers allusion, well that’s meaningless because not only do you have to buy the paper (or pay an up-front licence fee to take it out of the shop), but it’s full of advertising as well. You argument says it should be one or the other, which it ain’t.
annelise “I prefer to pay for the BBC”
And I am quite happy that you could choose to do so. But why do you want to force me also to pay – so you can get it cheaper, I suppose.
Shame their are so few Communist countries left where you could “luxuriate” in an absense of choice & advertising.
Don – as has been pointed out ad nauseum – no-one is forcing you to pay. Just take the aerial plug out of your TV and stop paying – your choice.
Why do you want to force me to have to put with advertising on EVERY channel I watch. Shame there are so few Communist countries left where you could “luxuriate” in knowing all your subjects were happily brainwashed.
So if we want to watch any TV other than the BBC, we can’t.
Or if we do, we get fined.
And that is the intellectual level of argument by people like annelise.
That sounds a bit like fascism.
Oh Annelise!
1) It’s perfectly possible to live a very reasonable life without buying anything that is advertised – thus you can enjoy ITV etc. for free. Of course, you might choose to buy products that are advertised – but you don’t have to – it’s your choice. You could even video everything and skip the ads if you were that desperate!
2) You claim you pay for the NHS, but that you don’t use it. Is that really true? Never seen an NHS GP? Never been ill in your life, nor expect to be ill ever? Or do you have private insurance or sufficient means to pay for private healthcare every time you need it? I doubt it.
3) You can get newspapers without advertising – e.g. Which? magazine – it’s paid for entirely by subscription, and thus costs more because it’s not subsidised by advertisers. Similarly, crap like the Morning Star and Socialist Worker don’t carry adverts (if we leave out fellow traveller leftie adverts). Similarly, you can subscribe to ad-free newspapers on the web, or pay less and see some ads.
4) You don’t have to look at ads in newspapers – your argument against my allusion with newspaper sales is itself bogus – the point is that you are free to buy (or not buy) *any* newspaper you like (with or without adverts – and feel free to start your own newspaper if you thinks there’s a market for an ad-free paper!). In the world of the BBC you *have* to pay for their newspaper (call it Guardian Telenews) before you’re allowed to buy any other newspaper, even if you have no use or interest in Guardian Telenews.
5) Good advertising is interesting and informative – entertaining even. It’s also a chance to nip to the bog or put the kettle on. (But it would be nice to have an F-Off button to give negative feedback for especially tedious/repetitive adverts 🙂
6) The BBC is crammed full of adverts already – almost every program break has two lengthy ads for other BBC services, plus all those silly ‘red-branded’ trailers etc. etc. Sure, they don’t break into programmes, but the BBC is so graspingly commercial they would if they thought they could get away with it. Why not let people pay to advertise in these slots? The service would be the same for us, but it would be cheaper becuase of it (and we’d see a greater variety of ads!).
7) Businesses aren’t forced to advertise – they do it because it informs customers about their products – this helps them to sell more and to compete, gives us more information, more choice, freedom to compare, lower prices etc. Advertising is good. It’s free speech. It needs to be regulated, but in essence it’s a good thing. Those that want ad-free TV should pay for that privilege themselves.
8) I like a great deal of BBC output. It’s pretty good value for £121 a year – but the point is, when it’s compulsory there is no need for the BBC to listen to its viewers (i.e. us, British viewers, their customers), so they don’t. And thus we must take whatever news output they think they can get away with. It is this pretense of impartiality that is so grating – it is wrong to be forced to pay for BBC News (produced by Guardian readers for the benefit of Guardian readers) when it is so patently prejudiced in its world view.
annelise – “Why do you want to force me to have to put with advertising on EVERY channel I watch.”
I am not forcing you to do anything. You BBC loyalists can have an advertising free BBC by voluntary subscription. As you are so sure that everyone loves the BBC, it needn’t cost you any more than the present fee.
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew.
1) No it’s not. Try it some time, it’s better than the Atkins.
2) Health Insurance – yup – loads – if I’m ill, it’s my choice.
3) This is total rubbish – Which..? is not a newspaper (neither are the others you speak off) – you seem to have lost the plot here somewhat.
4) You have to pay for lots of things in life just to have a choice. Why do I pay to subsidise railways when I drive everywhere?
5) Yes, advertising can be fun and entertaining, so can the BBC, and your final point here speaks volumes.
6) Trailer does not equal advert, this is a specious argument often trotted out by the desperate. If trailer did equal advert, there would be none on ITV, cos they wouldn’t waste the airtime.
7) So there are businesses that don’t want to compete? Rubbish. As for paying for ad-free TV – I do, and so should you because it’s quite obvious that advertising rots the brain.
Don: who says I’m a BBC loyalist? Maybe I’m just anti-advertising, because I’d prefer to know how much I’m paying for the crap that passes for TV on ITV, five and Sky. But the firms involved won’t give exact details (unlike the licence fee, which tells me exactly how much I’m paying), because like almost everything to do with advertising, it’s basically crooked.
annelise
You display your ignorance too clearly.
The sums received from advertising by ITV, Channel 4 and Sky are recorded year by year in their annual accounts. And there are plenty of sources to show the advertising spend by major consumer brands. Advertising is a fact of life in every Western economy, however much you bleat.
But you surely realise that Sky is primarily supported by VOLUNTARY fees. This is one reason why Sky News is run for a fraction of the cost of equivalent BBC services – economy matters. And probably why Sky does not dare to run endless leftie bias.
If people don’t wan’t Sky, they don’t buy it. If people don’t want any more BBC indoctrination, they should have the freedom to refuse it.
1) Wrong – you might not be able to with your lifestyle, but it’s certainly possible to live without advertised products.
2) UK health insurance relies on the NHS – e.g. you need a GP referral to make a claim, it doesn’t cover you for accident/casualty admissions etc. Face it – you are most unlikely to be able to avoid the using the NHS at some point in your life.
3) Wrong again – newspapers aren’t compelled to take advertising. They do it to keep costs down (and to inform their readers too – the first newspapers were almost all advertising, as are current free sheets!). Your point is bogus. The issue is freedom – you are free to buy any newspaper you like (with or without adverts) without having to buy some other newspaper first.
4) Good point – a massive lefty-lobby seems to think we should spend billions making train travel impossibly safe – even though spending the same money on road safety would save many, many more lives.
6) Trailers are adverts – especially if they’re for Radio Times/BBC History/Gardening etc. magazines, all of which compete with commercial products.
7) No, businesses can choose how they compete – via price/advertising/service/etc. It’s their choice how to do it most efficiently. If you want ad-free TV you should pay for it – not expect everyone else to subsidise you.
The bottom line is – if you want Guardianista-BBC style news, with or without adverts, you should pay for it without being subsidised by everyone else.
If the BBC is as good and as essential as you say it is then make it an optional service – surely everyone will be willing to subscribe voluntarily!
Anon: Me ignorant – pot, meet kettle. Yes, it’s in the documents, hidden, opaque, small print – not exactly consumer friendly is it? Try asking the man in the street, and they wouldn’t be able to answer. As for Sky, well, if you believe what THEY say about how much Sky News costs, you believe anything. As for bias, your naiveity is so touching.
Andrew
1) So you say
2) Not true, you can get GPs privately if you know where to look
3) Your answer is meaningless
4) Thank you
6) Point taken, I was thinking of programme trails.
7) I do pay for ad-free TV.
I never said the BBC was good or essential, but choice is.
annelise
The man in the street is not concerned about the niceties of advertising costs. You are the one who is obsessed about them.
As for the costs of Sky news versus BBC news, I happen to speak from inside knowledge – not from figures in Sky reports. I have been involved with satellite TV since the mid-1980s, including the original financial planning for the various services. All the BBC has done is splurge OUR money on satellite channels, just like the endless website spending – while attracting virtually nil audience.
You, on the other hand, speak from prejudice rather than facts. As usual.