A Biased BBC reader advises me;
Have a look at this review of over 2,700 links (only a portion of thousands more links, but adecent chunk) It is a snapshot of outward bound links to National Dailes taken on 31st May 2011 around 9:15pm. The Guardian is way out infront. It’s either disproportionate advertising which I believe is against the rulesor is bias towards one newspaper, or both.
Now that is worth a complaint. It’s hard evidence.
Would love to see the local newsagent’s order book from the nearby BBC office/studio. I can imagine it showing at least two copies of The Guardian for every office in the building, a few for the reception areas, one for the area around each coffee machine and one for each bog for them to use whilst snorting.
This would be balanced by a single copy of the Daily Mail for the entire building, which is probably the copy that gets unceremoniously dumped behind the Breakfast sofa around 6:15 each morning.
Llew,
Remove the BBC subscriptions to “The Guardian”, paid for with our money, and I wonder how many copies are sold ?
Following Peter Sissons book serialisation I submitted an FOI request to the BBC on the number of papers they buy and, you guessed it, The Garudian was 20% (roundly) ahead of any other title!
Gerald,
I am surprised it was that low ! But we only have the BBC’s word for it.
Figures quoted for purchases delivered to BBC offices within the M25 Mondays to Fridays April 2010 to Feb 2011 were:
Guardian 59,829, Times 51.384, DT 48,968, Mail 45,553, Indepeent 43,709, Sun 42,905, Mirror, 35,756, FT 33,721, Express 24,923, Star13,881
So the BBC (just those inside the M25) are responsible for 4% of the Guardian’s ENTIRE daily circulation… :-E (59800 = about 12000 daily, from total 270,000 daily)
I think you have misinterpreted. The figures are for 10 months purchases (around 220 days)
:-[ yep, sorry about that! D’oh.
Gerald,
Good grief, and we pay for all that !
Isnt it dishonest not to mention The Daily Telegraph?
The Daily Telegraph – 7
‘Isnt it dishonest not to mention The Daily Telegraph?’
Well, it does seem to be less than impartial when it comes to representative quoting of coverage or invitations to spokespersons across the BBC. Especially on ABC ratings.
Is that what you meant?
One looks forward to such thorough and robust challenges of the BBC on much more serious or prevalent matters of omission suiting an in-thoery objective broadcaster, copied to here when published across their blog estate.
If your intention was to make a point, if not the one perhaps intended… kudos.
Opportunistic sniping of often poorly cherry-picked non-targets outside the conflict zone, and then hitting the bunker without dealing with the response can expose weaknesses, quickly.
Why outside the conflict zone? Its the subject of a main post on Biased BBC.
The report it links to cherry-picks some links from just one day, and misses out the high-circulation The Daily Telegraph-for some reason.
Wouldnt it be better to admit the report is dodgy and move on? Why attack the messenger for pointing this out?
And no hitting the bunker BTW.
I am sorry if you feel disagreeing with your motives and methodology, by highlighting cherry-picking tendencies when purporting to be discomfited by cherry picking, is deemed ‘attacking’. I now hope that there is not a quango I might have fallen foul of in so doing, as the default at such junctures seems to be invoke an ‘ism.
This site highlights ‘bias’. It can, and does, tend to err on areas where that extreme is best exemplified. Big whoop. Its motivations are obvious and it is, also, free. The facts used are also often cited clearly and open to interrogation.
The BBC, in comparison, charges money to often ‘report’ ‘views’ that can be very hard to substantiate, and certainly is often more than keen to play up what suits whilst playing down or downright erasing what doesn’t. Until called out on it. Often, here.
You are miffed that the Telegraph position wasn’t highlighted in comparison. Why the heck, for the sake of the actual point being made, should its relative position be so highlighted at this juncture? It was easily accessed for any so minded to delve into the detail. Its omission (for whatever reason) was a mistake in my view, but hardly critical. Would you not… ‘admit’ that its inclusion was more likely to highlight the equally odd discrepancy even at the so-called ‘quality’ end of the paper market? As to the ‘one day’, as a new poster but possible long-term reader, Craig’s efforts alone would show that this may not be the best line to pursue.
Yet you continue to ignore the massive elephant in the room to try and obsess over a small weasel elsewhere. Another wrong being deemed a top way to try and ignore the greater one still loud and less than proudly acting as a beacon.
In that spirit, please explain the ubiquity of, say, Mehdi Hassan or Penny Red of the New Statesman as ‘spokespersons’ of frequent record across the BBC output, given this publication’s relative ABC position in reflecting the UK public view.
Give me your answer, do.
“You are miffed that the Telegraph position wasn’t highlighted in comparison. Why the heck, for the sake of the actual point being made, should its relative position be so highlighted at this juncture? It was easily accessed for any so minded to delve into the detail.”
Why the heck? Because the BBC reader wrote “The Guardian is way out in front”, when it wasnt. It was only way out in front because whoever made that review didnt mention the Telegraph. The relative position of The Guardian was the point of the post. Surprised you missed that.
Is Mehdi Hassan of The New Statesman on more than Frazer Nelson of The Spectator?Do you know that or is it a gut feeling you have?
The relative position of the Guardian on the BBC is the actual point.
The Guardian IS still way out in front. Even more so factoring in its relative ABCs vs. the (missing) Telegraph. You seem blind to the actual %ages that your own clarification has raised.
i can see why you keep trying to obscure that.
Plus not answering any more pertinent questions by so daintily stamping your foot and making more demands.
I haven’t clue about Mr. Nelson (who I recall seeing rarely), but as I asked first, you stump up on Mr. Hassan (who I recall seeing a lot).
Pretty please.
And simply firing off more questions will be be the end of the exchange, as I am starting to suspect your motivations are more in the cause of heat than light.
Daisy,
Your point about Fraser Nelson is like saying BBC presenters are not left-wing because Andrew Neil occasionally appears.
It is a trick always used by defenders of the BBC on this website and always exposed as such.
Daisy
I think that perhaps you ‘diving in’ with the “Isnt it dishonest not to mention The Daily Telegraph”remark. You could have said “you are mistaken” or “you have missed the Telegraph” or any number of less polemic responses.
That said, I am sure that it didn’t escape your notice that even WITH the Telegraph it makes Guardian 11: seven other papers added together: 11… *DONT_KNOW*
Now we can agree this doesn’t realy mean much for the reasons Scott has mentioned but don’t worry: as has been added in various replies and links the BBC and the Guardian really are two cheeks of the same arse (credit Anonymous Mind)…so, we know
Could someone explain to a technological ignoramus like me how this is compiled? Such as the basis for the sample. How the figures for each paper are arrived at. How does one even begin to analyse 2,762 links? At the moment it’s Greek to me.
Dont know how they got the list, but the totals are found by pressing Control and F and typing in the newpapers name and then counting the number of times you click Next- 11 times for The Guardian and 7 times for The Daily Telegraph
What is the circulation of the Guardian compared with the
Telegraph ?
Its smaller Grant. Changing the subject back though š , are you going to stick up for this Dodgy Dossier?
It’s less than the number of people who went on the Countryside March.
And shouldn’t the headline for this post be ‘Guardianistas of the world untie!’?
‘Changing the subject back’
Considering the topic of the blog by one of its authors is the odd predominance of The Guardian, instead of acting like a BBC compliance manager, might the same be politely asked of you first?
Please show in rebuttal how the Guardian, and/or other publications that share its views, is a fair representation of BBC coverage of opinion in the full UK media estate.
And without citing other areas that you may find required distractions on demand, but may not be so concerning to others.
I can only speak for myself in finding this expectation to dance only to your mandated tune a smidge presumptuous, of course, but it’s no more your playing field than mine. I’m just a guest.
Address the topic first, and then the rest can come along if germane.
Otherwise it could seem as if the only intention is to attack the host messenger and nothing else.
This post was not by the host messenger, it was by a Biased BBC reader.The host messenger was just carrying the message for him or her. Anyhow it was the person who did the dodgy report I was challenging. Surprised you didnt spot that.
Do you also comment on BBC blogs? Do you ever disagree with them or point out what they get wrong, even though you are a guest of theirs, or do you always agree with them? If you comment on the blog by Richard Black or Nick Robinson and say he’s wrong.are you an ungrateful guest, or isnt that part of what blogs are about? And if you do can you really scold me for doing the same? Shouldnt blogs have people who disagree politely with them? Should there be panic everytime someone dose so?
The BBC isnt perfect, it gets things wrong, Biased BBC is right to watch them, but some other people will disagree with you from time to time and will point things out when you get them wrong. Isnt that a good thing?
Yes The Guardian has a small readership, maybe the BBC quotes them too much and The Daily Mail too little but the point of this post is to link to a review that is supposed to be proof of that. Thats the point of the post as much as the claim of bias itself, so when that is wrong it needs pointing out, doesnt it? Were YOU going to point it out?
As for changing the subject, my little joke was because Grant was relpying to me but didnt answer my point. He was mayberight to ask the question, but it wasnt an answer to me.
People can go on the Beeboid blogs and complain all they like because we pay for the Beeboid Corporation. That gives them a right and also makes them very irate about various things, such as bias.
People can come on here and complain or disagree, as far as I know, but the blog is not owned by the public. It’s not owned by me either, so this is just my personal opinion. The owners can run it as they please.
TYPO: meant to type …they pay for the Beeboid Corporation…
Daisy,
You can’t compare BBC blogs which are heavily “moderated”, i.e. censored, with this blog which is not.
I had a vast point by point reply going that soon exceeded the 5000 char limit. I do like to debate.
But I’ll keep it as a daft. This segment probably serves as well:
‘even though you are a guest of theirs,’
Actually, don’t know about you, but I am a customer of theirs, as are all licence fee ‘payers’. While that ‘guest’ notion might seem attractive within the bubble, once my money was taken, it really doesn’t apply. In any case, most media are quite chilled on responses; it’s part of the deal. Though the BBC does get a bit keen on the broadest definitions of ‘off topic’ a wee bit too often, when it suits.
This blog was/is about the Guardian being over-represented on the BBC out of all proportion to its significance to the UK news media buying public.
You decided to try and exploit a missing stat on one paper.
What. About. The. Rest?
Actually, at 5k+ it was daft, but I think I’ll pre-empt any tinkers and acknowledge a typo… ‘A typo!!!!! No one expects a typo! That means you’re uneducated and cannot possibly comment in the presence of we Eloi!!!!’ [etc]
Daisy,
Do you support the BBC in its obvious favouritism towards the Guardian or do you believe the BBCs use of the Guardian as source material for stories, reports and opinions is just coincidence?
We know the BBC dateline London question time for example uses more Guardian hacks as guests, we know the BBC links to the Guardian more often than other sites with a higher readership. We know that the BBC spends more on advertising than other newspapers with a far bigger circulation and I would guess that the BBC buys many atual copies of the Guardian for its own internal use.
The evidence is clear/many experts are saying/the science is telling us/many critics are claiming š . More research is needed?
Daisy,
If you followed this website, the BBC’s prediliction for the Guardian has been demonstrated over and over again. It is totally beyond debate.
Daisy, thank you for the partial explanation. You learn something every day – I never knew about Ctrl + F!
I would agree that the Telegraph should have been mentioned, but Grant’s point still stands: at a fraction of the circulation, the Guardian links exceed Telegraph links by over 35%, based on this list. Without knowing how the sample is selected, it proves nothing but is nonetheless very interesting and deserves further research.
Despite the incestuous relationship between the BBC and its fellow travellers in the broadsheets…despite the pillow talk in other journalists beds…I am getting “intensely relaxed” about their inbred shallow musings steeping us all daily.
Whatever topic they grumble at-and send their kids out to protest for them-they are intellectually stuffed and we all know it.
It is they that made libraries into options-they that wanted Abramovich etc to keep his stash here-they that created tuition fees and a market in GPs,Dentists that we`ve not recovered from.
They just need constantly to have their faces rubbed in the mess that 13 years squatting left for the rest of us to contend with…and ther`ll not be a new idea from them-ever!
Just look at a Wilders or a Proser, Sacks or Hitchens(P)…and compare to Huhne, Meyer, Williams or Hari…and you`ll see that they are finished.
One Douglas Murray is worth 10,000 Toynbees and Alibhiah Browns…and their tawdry 24/7 shop window display of every liberal pose is on a tired old loop. As see through as the worn acetate!
Just -to use their phrase as rewritten-tune in, take the opposite as the truth, turn off and let`s get busy with the future we`ll be wanting for outselves and families.
That lot?-to be put out for Brussels in a fetching matching sets of pastel/rainbow chipped eco bins. Compostable and free of e-Coli(Prescott doesn`t have that guarantee though).
cj,
The Left don’t give a damn so long as they continue to line their own pockets. Shabby hypocrites, the whole lot of them.
I can’t be as relaxed as you, cj. Too many people drink in these shallow musings subconsciously and form their unquestioning view of the world based on them.
Possibly Roland.
I think of Iain Duncan Smith doing his “quiet man turning up the volume” bit.
When the message is SO unsubtle and leaden ,I just feel their desperation is no longer “quiet” bur shrill and hysterical!
Most people are getting used to their tactics-and because no-one reads the Guardian, the BBC have to prop it up!
Just sense there is no thinking on the left anymore-so it`s just the death rattle of the liberal elite…will take time though, I grant you!
Interesting. After listening to this morning’s Toady propaganda broadcast, it struck me just how many times they mentioned The Guardian. And now you post this. I am not imagining it, then.
During a Today paper review a couple of weeks ago Evan Davis read out the third story from the Guardian in the space of less than two minutes. Justin Webb interrupted to joke (something along the lines of), “The Guardian again. You know people are going to talk!”
I took that as evidence they know we are watching them!
Natsman, in that paper review (the main one at 7.40am) John Humphrys seemed at one point to have developed a weird form of Tourette’s Syndrome and kept saying ‘Guardian’ over and over again. In that one review, there were 6 name-checks for the Grauniad, one for the Mail, one for the Mirror, one for the Times and one for the Telegraph.
This came up on another thread. As there, I’d advise taking the analysis of the report created with a large pinch of salt. A lot of the links from the BBC news site are routed via a third-party news aggregator called Moreover, which shows up 186 times in the collected statistics. However, in each of those 186 occasions Moreover is not the final destination – if the user had clicked on any of those links, they would end up on a news website. Without analysing the final destination of those 186 links, you’re not going to get a true picture.
Also, as Daisy mentioned, the Telegraph is linked to directly 7 times, yet that stat was missing from the cursory summary. Furthermore, as the summary notes state, they only list the “first 2762 links” with several thousand more uncatalogued.
All in all, it doesn’t seem like it’s a particularly robust or thorough piece of research.
Scottie,
If we want robust, thorough, research, we should go to the BBC š
Well you shouldn’t come to Biased BBC, it seems…
Well here we all know the bias…how many recent reports have stated that many BBC news ideas/reports are from the pages of the Guardian…we all know most of their advertising is done there, they have admitted these things: the Guardian, a paper with under 3% of the UK circulation…
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=46681&c=1
Span,
Of course, it shouldn’t surprise us that two Left-wing propaganda machines like the BBC and the Guardian get into bed with each other. I just resent paying for it !
It seems we have a BBC/Guardian axis denier in our midst =-O ?
Just in time? or a case of BBC jitters?
The BBC is very sensitive about certain relationships it has with certain groups, very conscious of the obvious close almost symbiotic and incestuous relationship with a media company with a small and shrinking readership.
The clue to the BBCs discomfort is the timely arrival of the BBCs very own ‘big beast’ in the form of Scott, BBC champion always ready to support the BBC and smite its fiendish right wing enemies into the dust š . If a BBC top gun arrives on scene to offer a denial I just know the BBC has something to hide, never believe anything until it is officially denied? Our resident beeboid heavyweight has just denied it so it must be true.
Scottie,
This website doesn’t pretend to be unbiased and is not funded by a compulsory tax. Do you see the difference ?
If B-BBC had access to billions of pounds in funding we could come up with mountains of research.
Scott m
FUCK OFF INTO THE NIGHT YOU CUNT
Well done, ltwf1964. You’ve just demonstrated why you have no place in an adult debate.
And people on Biased BBC wonder why I don’t place certain commenters in very high regard…
A perfect, polite, reasoned comment.
Which has my full support.
Actually, while not being an advocate of censorship, as that comment seemed as much designed to discredit the site as being beyond the pale in content and intent, there are clear grounds for its removal: for reasons of … gratuitous insult
However some may be of the view that being judged on one’s words or argument is the best resort. Recognising its constraints as a public body on some extremes, I’d wish the BBc were more inclined that way in matters of debate.
Scott: What are you on about? You come on here and go on the attack every time you appear, insulting people who have never insulted you.
We already know you have no regard for people here, regardless of how they post.
no need to hold back…
I’m staring at the sky looking for porcine aviators. I agree with Scott and wrote something similar earlier in this thread.
Scotty:
Have any hot looking Islamists caught your eye lately, of which you wish to divulge to us kaffirs on this thread?
March 2011March 2010% changeFebruary 2011March 2011 (without bulks)October 2010 – March 2011% change on last yearThe Sun 2,817,857 3,005,308 -6.24 2,818,344 2,817,857 2,854,824 -4.03 Daily Mirror 1,155,895 1,247,013 -7.31 1,177,220 1,155,895 1,173,830 -5.89 Daily Star 699,216 827,005 -15.45 718,478 699,216 734,783 -9.32 Daily Record 312,655 333,359 -6.21 312,461 310,694 308,024 -5.91 Daily Mail 2,039,731 2,082,352 -2.05 2,070,625 1,919,526 2,081,381 -1.86 Daily Express 620,616 668,273 -7.13 623,603 620,616 630,806 -7.11 Daily Telegraph 626,416 686,679 -8.78 628,338 626,416 639,817 -10.17 The Times 446,109 502,436 -11.21 445,962 446,109 456,683 -13.49 Financial Times 381,658 401,286 -4.89 378,707 345,486 389,245 -2.56 The Guardian 261,116 283,063 -7.75 262,612 261,116 268,461 -9.72 The Independent 181,934 184,137 -1.20 182,513 113,107 180,696 -2.65 i 171,415 n/a n/a 175,714 171,415 n/a n/a
Just look at the puny Grauniad and Independent, favourites of the Beeboid, compared with the two- and one-millioners at the top. The Telegraph has nearly two and a half times the circulation of Grauniad. The Times has substantially more as well.
Sorry, it hasn’t appeared in its original tabular format.
So here is a link to the table:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2011/apr/15/abcs-national-newspapers
Confirming my earlier comment (Press Gazette newspaper circulation figures) LESS than 3% of national circulation but used by the bBC substantially more than any other paper.
Bought a Daily Mail yesterday.
Found that it repels chuggers and charity types in general wonderfully-and all the do gooding liberals could be discerned by that faintly-curled lip that they pick up at their countelss “workshops”.
Will see if the Telegraph does the same-and will make my raw data up to suit my aganda just as the IPCC showed me to.
If people want confirmation of this new use of the Daily Mail-would trust any Biased BBCer over the ONS.
Let`s ask Professor Craig/Grant or anyone who wants a job for life at Wessex Unis water cooler faculty.
My bid to create employment for the day!
You should also buy a Union Jack waistcoat, cj. It seems to guarantee an unimpeded path down Camden High Street. If challenged i just say I’m a member of The Who.
“Who? Who this Who?” they ask, puzzled, before scrambling to get away. š
Another trick with chuggers is to walk straight at them reading a copy of Racing & Football Outlook, held upside down, all the while leering like a madman. Somehow, in these ‘interesting times’, I find it very easy. I’m not an ungenerous man, but being accosted every 10 yards on the way home is like that epic journey back to Coney Island in The Warriors. One gang of muggers after another. Anyway, I digress.
I make a point of saying to chuggers – ALL of them if they are a group outside the station – “I thnik(your charity) is a total parasitic fraud. It is based on political claptrap and I hope it soon loses its status as a charity. Oh – and why can’t you look for a proper job ?”
John Anderson, that’s precisely what I said to Julia Middleton, of Common Purpose notoriety, as we danced last night away at Stringfellows.
š š
I find a burqa does the trick.
I use the same method I use with “bumsters” in W. Africa. I approach them first and ask them if they can lend me some money.
Or, with chuggers, tell them you will make a donation if they tell you how much the charity’s CEO is paid.
Read a fine bit in the aforesaid daily Mail yesterday about Bob Marshall Andrews sabotaging some lazy set up to get him mocked.
Jack Dee had a John Lewis list catalogue, but Bob sawe it and took it away.
Cue joke falling falt,no prop and Bob turning it on Dee-who bleated that “I only read this stuff guv`nor” or suchlike!
Bob doesn`t think that this bit of the programme was aired…presumably it actaully WAS funny!
They don`t like it up `em in W11 do they?…
Too many teachers off I noted yesteday. The mail seems to upset them…so bring one to parents evenings and get out early.
My kids are certainly getting them to wrap their paninis in from now on!
Oops-typos!
Line 4-saw, not sawe!
Line 6-flat,not falt!
Line 9-actually,not actually
Line 11-Mail should of course have had a capital letter.
No teacher would have noted these-but dear Scott would.
Let it stand as my affectionate tribute to the Gordian!
You want more robust evidence of BBC bias? Try this. (Apologies, I haven’t had time to tidy up the original stats into a more readable format yet, however every single example is already stored on churnalism.com).
I continue promoting churnalism.com because, as my blog entry above shows, if we crowdsourced it we could easily corner the BBC (and others) with hard statistical evidence.
Hope Scot replies, he is such a stickler for facts š
David V,
Lefties tend to fade away when the going gets tough and spring up another time, often sporting a new moniker.
Very impressive Katabasis.
Fine scholarship here sir!
Why the hell do we pay “media experts like Kevin Howlett/Roy Greenslade and theu usual media analysts when yourself/Craig amongst others actually have a point and get to it.Because they can`t live with the conclusions-the data, the proof of their inherent toadying when it gets ticklish for them.
Your facts speak for themselves-as did Craigs wordcloud stuff/interruption quotients etc.
I sense an OU type radio for the outback…remember Skippy? Media studies degrees and statistical analysis-as opposed to the Beebs windsocks paid to just back the BBC!
I think the Hay-on Wye festival is on. Otherwise known as the annual gathering of the guardanistas and the living dead. Does the BBC cover it in depth?Do they go? it is their sort of thing.
I like to imagine them all forming working parties to build another few more wretched windmills on the mid Wales hills but the open land probably unsettles them and Welsh sheep can somtimes look very scary to a London Guardianista.
I really am not surprised by the Guardian/BBC links. They all fly in and out of the same hive and share the same queens.
Beeboids are certainly present at Haywire, dave s. Big Jim Naughtie, Grand-Master of the ‘Berkshire Hunt’ is a great favourite. A week or so before the event his followers mass around the White City, in readiness to convey their hero overland on the ‘Great March’ to the Welsh hills, in a gilded sedan chair of reinforced carbon steel, ‘Free Gaza’, & EU banners rippling in the wind, a grim Taliban platoon in close attendance.
To be fair, there are some excellent speakers, occasionally. It’s just the thought of Yasmin Alibhai-Ingrate-Brown trying to flog me a mimsy little cookery book that puts me off. And the massed ranks of ‘entitlement’.
What a caravan then…Hay to Glastonbury via an oil rig site that seemed not to have considered wind/wave power.
Then onto a wind farm in Wales-Machynlleth-a minutes silence at Bruce Chatwins old place-then back for drinks in Bayswater.
There`s a real liberal heritage tour forming here…presumably both ends of the BBCs pantomine horse that is the Dimbleby boys are sharing the petrol money. It`s what daddy would have wanted once he`d known they weren`t cut out for anything unpleasant or difficult!
Newport-Wrexham-it`s all one BBC slumber party for wet liberals determined to wring their consciences out over us.
I fear they would all get lost and end up in Skegness.
I compiled the report. I completely forgot to search for the Telegraph so my hands are up in the air waiving for forgiveness. That said The Guardian is still way out in front.
I used this web site http://tiny.cc/cgkm3 to harvest the links and, as suggested did a simple text search for the nationals, forgetting the telegraph in the process.
I would love to know what reason/excuse the BBC can come up with for excessive promotion of the Guardian.
Appreciate the clarification and honesty.
I merely note that such a thing has rarely, if ever, appears on a BBC story, even one with posting capability that has seen many calling them to account.
At best, after a few days, it gets quietly stealth edited.
Which reminds me, Ms. Boaden owes me a reply after several months on why dropping an inaccurate piece of partisan reporting from a story that was high profile on the day but proven wrong later, doesn’t fall under such a category, but is dismissed in defence as ‘responding to an evolving story’.
If you were to try a different approach to the lady Helen:
O Helen fair, beyond compare!
I’ll make a garland of thy hair,
Shall bind my heart for evermair
Until the day I die.
The way to melt a lady’s heart is via passionate declaration.
None could resist such heartfelt lines.
You shall surely have your reply with Helen’s love and kisses.
Millie,
I am beginning to doubt your sanity !!
I have long doubted the same thing, myself. š However, on this occasion, I fear you are greatly mistaken: the proposal is entirely rational and more likely to succeed than a common-or-garden e-mail fired off with a million others to some bored clerk in the complaints department. It is well known that Helen is a woman of passionate engagement who signs her managerial missives to her staff with love and kisses. What could be more likely to appeal to such a woman than a profession of eternal devotion from a licence-fee payer and viewer?
Millie,
You must be an incurable romantic to be courting a Beeboid in this way, but I wish you luck !
Yes, Grant, I was brought up on romantic poems, ballads and songs (many of them Scottish). Maybe it’s showing, though in this case it’s not for me myself, you understand. It is My site who has some need of a response from fair Helen and who often addresses his comments towards her in a manner that is, if not exactly passionate, at least sufficient to suggest to me the possibility of taking the romantic approach a little further! š
Kendall Massey,
Well I tried out the site <http://tiny.cc/cgkm3> this evening, although it says it only handles up to 1000 pages? I got the following results:
express: 2
independent: 3
daily mail: 9
mirror: 6
guardian: 16
sun: 11
telegraph: 14
daily star: 5
the times: 5
Different day, different results – which unfortunately don’t fit the narrative you’re pushing.
Is there a single day when the Guardian gets a minority of links.
Face it, Dez. Swallow it. The Guardian is the newspaper of choice at the BBC. It is linked to more often than other papers, it always turns up in “What the Papers Say” on the agenda-setting Today programme, its correspondents get an inordinate amount of airtime.
The Manchester Gurdian used to be a great, world-class newspaper.
Today’s Guardian is predictable PC tract, mostly poor quality writing, and for the past few years bordering on the anti-Semitic.
3% of the national readersip of UK papers – incxluding all the people who want to see the Media Guardian. So lets say 2%
On that basis, the Today programme should lead with the Guardian view about once every 2 months.
Dez – you are a liar if you deny that the Guardian is not wholly over-repesented by BBC programmes and at the website.
WHOLLY OVER-REPRESENTED. Care to deny it, Dez ?
If not – piss off you clown.
Dez,
Nice to see that you are finally admitting the BBC favours the Guardian, based on your own figures.
May I suggest that you are flogging a dead horse on this one ?
Hard to imagine how you deal with a mindset that quotes own research showing the Guardian still tops the list as somehow representing a triumph in vindication of BBC impartiality on the basis that it is some days not as dire as usual. Especially bearing in mind the relative representation of the public (on purchase preferences) in the respective publications, which one is sure a stats whizz can suggest an adjustment for.
With the Telegraph now rightly included, any thoughts from Daisy would be appreciated.
However it seems making points and demanding answers seems to be the sole contributions on this topic as usually one finds a disinclination to answer any questions posed in return.
I have no problem with holding inaccuracy or excess to account, but not if it is uni-directional, broadcast only or gets shut down (if, here, by contrary posters bailing when things get challenging on what they have chosen to initiate). The BBC does that more than enough.
And while counter views do keep things perky, at this calibre they simply come across as deceased horses in riqour being used to dig ever deeper holes.
Dez shows that the results from the first review arent as clear. The Guardian is not way out in front, just a little bit in front. You are right that The Guardian is small circulation unlike The Daily Telegraph and this means that the BBC is wrong to quote The Guardian as much as it does, so there is a problem and Biased BBC is right to point it out. But its not as big a problem as was being made out.
Daisy, good to be back debating reasonably again.
I fear i have to continue to disagree that there is no clarity, though accept one result is hardly a good sample.
However, you must surely concede that the Guardian seems to be ‘in front’ (degrees of distance being in ‘little bit pregnant’ territory. And not being a stats whizz, taking 11 over 7, and factoring in a 2+ readership multiplier that still seems to make the 30 odd % imbalance more than a ‘little’) a rather excessive amount?
Plus it’s gone on for a long time and seems to have no prospect of being addressed.
So when the BBC uses proxy 1 degree of separation spokespersons to push corporate agenda as they are getting nailed on that anyway, I’d have to say that is a pretty big problem when it involves a £4Bpa national broadcast entity that reaches every home.
If I had some squared paper handy, I’d plot it on a simple graph and you’d see that it is indeed clear.
Dez’s results show 25 links to left-leaning newspaper sites and 46 links to right-leaning newspaper sites…
Also, the original links in the actual story had 3 links to the Guardian’s football site and one to its daily cricket e-mail. I’m not entirely sure what this says about political bias.
I am annoyed I missed the Telegraph as the original problem of disproportionate links to The Guardian has been diverted from. The original problem remains though as has been shown in the second study that was carried out by Dez.
I think the BBC has a (potentially serious) case to answer and I think this calls for an official complaint. I’ve got a feeling this one won’t fit into a standard copy/paste response.
What is the system at B-BBC? Should I complain individually or is there one point of contact at B-BBC where complaints are channelled through? I don’t wanna tread on toes or duplicate effort…
Kendall Massey, sorry for jumping to conclusions about why yo missed out The Daily Telegraph. Span ows was right, I dived in.
The biggest sample of BBC pro-Guardian bias I know of has been carried out by Craig, who posts here. His evidence is overwhelming.
Maybe you could comment if you read this , Craig ?
No problem.
Dunno how many B-BBC-ites noticed Greg Philo fantasising about BBC journalists beiong in a state of trepidation becuase the Israelis are putting pressure on them:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/31/israel-pr-victory-images-war?commentpage=all
Guy is or was a professor of media studies or some such crap at a Glasgow University. Just reinforces my long-held belief that being a professor is no guarantee of intelligence and when people say Higher education broadens the mind they forget you have to have a mind to begin with for that to happen.
Anyway, I commented on the article soon after it appeared and that was just as well because they closed it to comments after 7 hours. The guy appears to actually believe the crap he writes:
The propaganda battle over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a new level of intensity. In 2004 the Glasgow University Media Group published a major study on TV coverage of the Second Intifada and its impact on public understanding. We analysed about 200 programmes and questioned more than 800 people. Our conclusion: reporting was dominated by Israeli accounts. Since then we have been contacted by many journalists, especially from the BBC, and told of the intense pressures they are under that limit criticism of Israel. They asked us to raise the issue in public because they can’t. They speak of “waiting in fear for the phone call from the Israelis” (meaning the embassy or higher), of the BBC’s Jerusalem bureau having been “leant on by the Americans”, of being “guilty of self-censorship” and of “urgently needing an external arbiter”. Yet the public response of the BBC is to avoid reporting our latest findings. Those in control have the power to say what is not going to be the news.
So the Beeboids claim to be under “intense pressure” to limit criticism? I suspect somebody is confusing “criticize” with “demonize”. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there were occasional scoldings from Israel or the US about BBC reports which undermine Israel’s right to exist, re-write history, or portray Hezbollah as freedom fighters, and Israel as the true problem in the region.
Jerusalem Beeboid: “We’ve just done a report about Islam’s third-holiest site, and are expecting yet another call from that damn Mark Regev’s office whinging about how it’s really a Jewish site or some such nonsense.”
‘they closed it to comments after 7 hours’
Not quite sure what is thought be those doing the closing gets achieved by this move.
If it’s because they like the initial selection but start seeing things go off the rails, the closing tells a more potent tale than anything subsequent ever could.
Tory budget cuts means that they can’t pay enough moderators to keep all these comments secitons open for too long.
So let’s see: the “study” was done in 2004 and since then they have apparently been contacted by many journalists, especially from the BBC, and told of the intense pressures they are under that limit criticism of Israel.
If true, that would depend on his definition of “many.” Seven would make it one a year with perhaps four from the BBC. Hardly a flood. But I have no doubt it’s bullshit, just something he made up to suit his argument.
Yet the public response of the BBC is to avoid reporting our latest findings.
He seems to really wonder why this is the case. He’s not only a leftie propagandist but an idiot as well.
TooTrue,
No names, no pack drill. Can’t have Mossad assassinating journalists , can we ? But how brave of them to stand up to Israeli “pressure”.
Here’s Honest Reporting’s take on Philo:
http://honestreporting.com/reports-of-israeli-pr-victory-greatly-exaggerated/
If I asked readers of this site to name the “social affairs correspondent” of any of the national dailies I would give short odds on the first name coming to mind being a certain ex BBC employee now with the …….. Guardian. She’s on so often I wonder if she is on a retainer from her former employers.
Perhaps an FOI request to list those selected to present “What the papers say” at 10.45 on Sundays on Radio 4 might be of interest.
I thought that Peter Sissons book made it pretty clear the malign influence of The Guardian in BBC News and Current Affairs!
Gerald,
But Sissons is an embittered old man with a failing memory who never made these complaints when he was at the BBC š .
Gerald, there’s an What the Papers Say archive from which this list of presenters is compiled:
16/5/10 Kevin Maguire, Daily Mirror
23/5/10 Sarah Sands, London Evening Standard
30/5/10 Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail
6/5/10 Michael White, Guardian
13/5/10 John Kampfner, ex-New Statesman
20/6/10 George Parker, FT
27/6/10 David Aaronovitch, Times
4/7/10 Anne McElvoy, London Evening Standard
11/7/10 Gary Younge, Guardian
18/7/10 Andrew Grice, Independent
25/7/10 Dennis Sewell, Spectator
1/8/10 Zoe Williams, Guardian
8/8/10 Andrew Pierce. Daily Mail
15/8/10 John Harris, Guardian
22/8/10 Sarah Sands, London Evening Standard
29/8/10 Mehdi Hasan, New Statesman
5/9/10 Hugo Rifkind, Times
12/9/10 John Kampfner, ex-New Statesman
19/9/10 Kevin Maguire, Daily Mirror
26/9/10 Iain Martin, Wall Street Journal
3/10/10 James Forsyth, Spectator
10/10/10 David Aaronovitch, Times
17/10/10 Rachel Johnson, The Lady
24/10/10 George Parker, FT
31/10/10 Jan Moir, Daily Mail
7/11/10 Gary Younge, Guardian
14/11/10 Dennis Sewell, Spectator
21/11/10 Steve Richards, Independent
28/11/10 Nick Watt, Guardian
5/12/10 Sam Leith, Guardian
12/12/10 Anne McElvoy, London Evening Standard
19/12/10 Kevin Maguire, Daily Mirror
2/1/11 Kevin Maguire, Daily Mirror
9/1/11 John Kampfner, ex-New Statesman
16/1/11 Iain Martin, Wall Street Journal
23/1/11 Hugo Rifkind, Times
30/1/11 Zoe Williams, Guardian
6/2/11 Mehdi Hasan, New Statesman
13/2/11 Sarfraz Manzoor, Guardian
20/2/11 Steve Richards, Independent
27/2/11 Sarah Sands, London Evening Standard
6/3/11 David Aaronovitch, Times
13/3/11 Dennis Sewell, Spectator
20/3/11 Jan Moir, Daily Mail
27/3/11 George Parker, FT
3/4/11 Anne McElvoy, London Evening Standard
10/4/11 Andrew Porter, FT
17/4/11 Hugo Rifkind, Times
24/4/11 Andrew Grice, Independent
1/5/11 Kevin Maguire, Daily Mirror
8/5/11 Alan Cochrane, Daily Telegraph
15/5/11 Iain Dale, Total Politics
22/5/11 John Kampfner, ex-New Statesman
29/5/11 John Harris, Guardian
The papers who received the BBC’s invitation, in descending order, are:
1 Guardian – 10
2= London Evening Standard – 6
2= Daily Mirror – 6
2= Times – 6
3= FT – 4
3= Daily Mail – 4
3= Independent – 4
3= ex-New Statesman (freelance) – 4
3= Spectator – 4
4= New Statesman – 2
4= Wall Street Journal – 2
5= Daily Telegraph – 1
5= The Lady – 1
5= Total Politics – 1
So the Guardian tops another BBC poll. The Telegraph lags behind (at the bottom). The high-circulation Daily Mail shares the same number of appearances with the tiny-circulation Independent. No invites went out to anyone at the Sun, the Star or the Express.
The bias may not be overwhelming but it’s pretty strong nonetheless.
Certainly more than a snapshot, covering as it does the last year.
Worth a comment from those keen to maintain the debate on the main point of the thread, surely?
One just hopes the ‘words of another individual poster elsewhere’ will not be invoked as excuse to bail from this argument, as has been used before.
It looks to me like they have many more presenters from right-wing papers than from left-wing papers.
“No invites went out to anyone at the Sun, the Star or the Express. ”
How do you know? Perhaps they don’t want their journos presenting the show?
Yes, the evidence for this programme (as I said earlier) isn’t overwhelming.
I think I see your line of reasoning Alfonso. I don’t want to put words into your mouth but I suspect you’re arguing (he says, thinking aloud on a keyboard!) that the Guardian gets the most because it (and the Indie) are left-wing newspapers and there are far fewer of them than there are right-wing papers, so the producers of What the Papers Say have to give a seemingly disproportionate number of appearances to the Guardian because there are so many right-wing papers and so few left-wing papers to choose from.
That depends though on what you consider to be right-wing papers and we’re probably going to strongly disagree there! I would put the Times and the FT as centrist, not right-wing (as they supported Labour at general elections for many years, only switching to the Conservatives in 2010). Would you put them as right-wing?
It also depends on whether the individual presenter (eg. David Aaronovitch) appearing for each paper is left-wing or right-wing (or centrist).
Also, there’s the all-important circulation figures. The Guardian (like the Independent) is at the bottom end of the list, so why does it appear at the top of so many of our lists of BBC coverage?
As for your invitation point, please see my response below.
Re-reading your Dez-related response, you clearly would put them as right-wing papers. Are you quite certain of that Alfonso?
Cassie mentioned Gavin Esler’s News Channel programme Dateline London earlier. The pro-Guardian (and Independent) bias is overwhelming there.
Daisy – as you seem to be edging in our direction! – see what you make of this list of the journalists from the British press invited onto that programme over two long periods. (Sorry for the gap last year. I lost the will to watch the programme for a while!)
20.6.09 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
27.6.09 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
4.7.09 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
11.7.09 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
18.7.09 Ned Temko, Observer
15.8.09 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
22.8.09 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
29.8.09 Bruce Anderson, Independent
5.9.09 Ned Temko, Observer
12.9.09 Michael White, Guardian
19.9.09 Michael Gove, Times
26.9.09 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
3.10.09 no one
10.10.09 Johann Hari, Independent
17.10.09 Steve Richards, Independent
24.10.09 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
31.10.09 no one
7.11.09 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
14.11.09 Adam Raphael, Transport Times (former Observer editor)
21.11.09 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
28.11.09 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
5.12.09 no one
12.12.09 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
19.12.09 David Aaronovitch, Times
26.12.09 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
2.1.10 Peter Oborne, Daily Mail
9.1.10 Michael White, Guardian
16.1.10 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
23.1.10 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
30.1.10 David Aaronovitch, Times
6.2.10 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
13.2.10 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
20.2.10 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
27.2.10 Ned Temko, Observer
6.3.10 no one
13.3.10 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
20.3.10 Adam Raphael, Transport Times
27.3.10 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
3.4.10 Johann Hari, Independent
10.4.10 Steve Richards, Independent
17.4.10 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
24.4.10 Michael White, Guardian
1.5.10 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
8.5.10 no one
15.5.10 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
22.5.10 Bruce Anderson, Independent
29.5.10 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
16.10.10 David Aaronovitch, Times
23.10.10 Michael White, Guardian
30.10.10 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
6.11.10 no one
13.11.10 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
20.11.10 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
27.11.10 Will Hutton, Observer
4.12.10 Simon Jenkins, Guardian
11.12.10 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
18.12.10 Steve Richards, Independent
25.12.10 Tim Montgomerie, ConservativeHome (press?)
1.1.11 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
8.1.11 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
15.1.11 Adam Raphael, Transport Times
22.1.11 Ned Temko, Observer
29.1.11 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
5.2.11 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
12.2.11 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
19.2.11 David Aaronovitch, Times
26.2.11 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
5.3.11 Johann Hari, Independent
12.3.11 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
19.3.11 Ned Temko, Observer
26.3.11 Michael White, Guardian
2.4.11 no one
9.4.11 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
16.4.11 Simon Jenkins, Guardian
23.4.11 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
30.4.11 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
7.5.11 Ned Temko, Observer
14.5.11 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
21.5.11 Michael White, Guardian
28.5.11 Adam Raphael, Transport Times
The total appearances for each paper work out as:
Guardian/Observer – 30
Independent – 17
Sunday Telegraph – 10
Daily Mail – 6
Times – 5
(Transport Times – 3)
(ConservativeHome – 1)
Between them the two lowest circulation papers – the Independent and Guardian/Observer – have received 47 invitations to appear on that programme. The others (excluding the magazine and the website) have only 21 between them.
Absolutely indefensible bias, surely?
It’s unarguable. Dezzie and Daisy will therefore not even try. It’s the patented BBC method: If we pretend that we haven’t seen it; we can pretend that it didn’t happen – therefore it can’t be true. Therefore the BBC is not biased.
I think you’re being a bit unfair to Daisy there.
Thankyou.
Craig
Finally, this is something that might have a bit of meat to it. However, there’s a difference beween invitations and appearances. It’s possible that the Graun/Obs are simply more willing/able to have journalists on the show, and that other papers/journalists are turning down invites. I’m not saying this is the case, but it is a possiblility.
Also, given that the other figues quoted here show a large bias towards guests from right of centre papers, I’m not sure we need to read too much into this anyway.
It is a possibility but it’s a bit/a lot of a stretch Alfonso, particularly as it’s gone on for a couple of years now.
The programme appears on the News Channel and so will reach a signficant number of viewers. Can you really see so many journalists at papers other than the Guardian and the Independent turning down the offer to appear on TV?
Craig, this looks bad for this one programme and I amdit there is obviously a bit of bias toward The Guardian at the BBC but arent The Times and The F.T. more right-wing than left-wing? I understand the circulation point but the BBC is just trying to balance things out, isnt it, as Alfonso Paulista says? I am really not sure I know the answer to that but its a possibility.
Craig,
I get the feeling some people are clutching at straws here !
Alfonso,
Why would a right-wing journalist turn down a paid appearance on a left-wing broadcaster like the BBC ? It makes no sense ideologically nor financially.
Brilliant Craig!
You`ve got a PhD here should you want it.
Really am sick of the same old faces and names cropping up,as if they`ve got anything new to say.
Reckon there`s a sweepstake here…
1. B.H( the beebs idea to force us all to the nearest mosque on a Sunday)…tomorrows paper reviewers will be a soft tory, an arts luvvie and some ex-broadcaster with a book out who was booked at Hay.
They will review the Obsever for 35 % of the time, the Indie for 15, the Times gets 10. The Mail will get a sneery hatchet job for 15%-but goes up to 20 if its an excuse to be prurient,but dish the goss in bigger words( as in Giggs). Rest will be even less relevant!
All bets are off if the inevitable Beeb from down the corridor gets her papers ironed first thoug,if that`s O.K!
Alan Duncan, Jude Kelly and Yasmim Alibhiah Brown are the archetypal cartoons that come to mind…names irrelevant,but their voguing are templates of Beeb virtue…women,Muslim,new Labor…what`s not to book?
Thanks CJ. (I’ll have to rent a mortarboard though!)
Quite right about the soft Tories on ‘B.H.’ (aka B.S.). They might invite Conservative MP Andrew Gimson and his Labour-supporting wife back for a third time. The first time they were on Mr Gimson made silly jokes and conceded political points to his wife. She, on the other hand, made lots of deadly serious attacks on David Cameron and his government. No wonder the programme had them both back to review the papers just a few weeks later!
Careful, Craig. cj has referred to me as a Professor in the past. That should bring you down to earth. Mind you it would be an accolade to be the first Professor in sunny Morecambe !
Grant, we do have a Professorship of Cultural Studies here in Morecambe, though the range of PhD courses offered has been criticised for being a bit restricted (by the University of Blackpool):
Post-Colonialism and the Morecambe & Wise Show
Gender and Identity in the Works of Thora Hird
There’s also an Art and Sculpture course here, though those bitter Blackpool folk (again) have moaned that an entire course based on studying a statue of Eric Morecambe is a scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money. I don’t agree.
Find myself noting that the BBC leaves its calling cards all over the soft furnishings these days.
I have got the measure of their usual stages and forums to give us their usual agenda, but when Thach was around the Beeb used their dramas and plays to create some kind of alternative message-arts were meant to confront the system man!
So it is now that every damn play that they put out seems to be carrying on the news agenda only it`s bean bags in arts centres rather than sofas in the studio.
Todays Afternoon Play ought to have at least been honest-I switched off after half of it, due to its continuing shafting of the notion of Free Schools and what kind of sharp elbowed elitists might want to create one .
Really am sick of Pyongyang or their wailing wall of guilt ridden cliches seeping out from ther current affairs and into their plays-or indeed anything as long as they can set it near Television Centre, and not actually have to do any reasearch.
Luckily their marketing and sales propaganda workshops stopped with Tom Peters/Marks and Spencers in the 80s! If they ever put the work into how to really create a narrative for us all to but into-they`d be a danger!
The only lot the BBC want us to believe in are the venal liars,phoneys and losers like themselves-and ,In`shalla: they`ll be unforgiven for the last thirteen years and more for ages to come.
This is their alternative…that we`ll all get to end up like Annie Nightingales lauding Cool Britannia or something equally delusional!
One hippie commune that smells of old dope and cant for sale or hire…a bouncy castle for their own dead cats…and that is what Salford will be as well!
Good to see some civilised exchanges still, but apart from a few grudging concessions (that make me rather wonder if the BBC in its pursuit of a story will be quite so prone to ‘move on’ when subjects start muttering ‘I’m not sure…’ ‘Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…’ in trying to call a halt ), an awful lot of questions back seem either met by yet more demands or silence.
But one is pretty sure the forces are being marshalled for the next dip and run. And if mistakes are made, good on ’em. But if reasoned counters are avoided, I am afraid already tattered credibility as reasoned commenters is shot as far as i am concerned.