Did you read that the BBC has been accused of yielding to political pressure since the last election and allowing a right-wing bias to emerge in its journalism? Now WHO would say something like that? Yes, that’s right – an academic!
The serious criticism by a distinguished media professor suggests that the BBC has compromised its impartiality by depending too heavily on sources from business, the media, law and order and politics. By contrast, ITV and Channel 4 make much greater use of sources from academia, medicine, science and non-governmental organisations. Professor Justin Lewis, Dean of Research at Cardiff University and an experienced analyst of the BBC’s output, suggested that the BBC Trust had “played down” the findings, which were presented to the governing body last year. In an essay to be published next month, Professor Lewis states: “The available evidence on the BBC centre of gravity does not suggest a leftist tilt. On the contrary, its dependence on certain dominant institutions notably in the business world and the national print media – would appear to push it the other way.”
Makes you wonder how far to the left Professor Lewis tilts?
I can’t help thinking that the BBC paid this chap to produce this barmy finding. No sane person would ever publish such tripe unless they were being well paid to do so.
You’re not wrong to think that.
Part of the funding for it did indeed come directly from the BBC Trust.
http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/08/hard-evidence-how-biased-bbc
Don’t believe everything you read in the press.
What does one expect from an academic in the UK, especially one who is selling a book? He needs a few emails sending from the people on here with real evidence:
JomecHoS@cardiff.ac.uk
Advised not to do that, left-wing goons in academia usually respond by phoning and emailing journalists, persuading them to censor this and censor that.
Mensa members learnt about that after Professor Steve Jones said that he would take our points into account when writing his report to the BBC.
The advised strategy is now to only send emails to people who are known to want to destroy the BBC charter, such as Members of Parliament, etc.
Like Jones, Lewis must be just another taxpayer funded propagandist, paid to bluewash BBC pink, because its starting to look a bit too red.
Would that be the Professor Justin Lewis who made a written contribution to the Leveson Inquiry and in which it is stated: “He has led a number of research projects for the BBC, the BBC Trust, Channel 4, the ESRC, the Office of Science and Innovation and Rowntree” (see http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Ian-Hargreaves1.pdf)?
Oh, then clearly a fine example of the intellectual rigour and lack of bias routinely found in our universities.
Maybe he’ll pull a Pollard when integrity kicks in (or the chekky looks like bouncing) and suddenly ‘remember’ a few things that had passed him by when walking the BBC corridors and catching those astounding uncuriosity and temporary Alzheimer’s afflictions pervading the top floors.
So presumedly he thinks the BBC should be closed down or privatized to prevent its right wing agenda distorting the democratic process any more?
Thought not.
It is very easy to drive a horse and cart through these findings. How about slicing and dicing the data collected to accommodate the following, maybe?
1. Positive, negative and neutral mentions
2. Allowance for topical subjects of the day, which may not be the same for both periods covered
3. Allowance to reflect who was in power at the time of data collection period
3. Split news, analysis, drama, and comedy output
4. Compare and report 1 against 3, for all segments
The findings of this report seem too binary, and merely reflect the lack of business nous of these academics- there are companies around, with the technology available to do this analysis very quickly. Some of the more pro-active companies in the private sector employ these companies to report such findings on a daily/ weekly and monthly basis.
Should also have said that the BBC love to report this kind of tosh, as a way of demonstrating that, in their words, they get it about right.
Oh noes, right wing bias? The BBC must respond by veering to the left (these papers seem to come out every year or so. It does seem to be an excuse for the BBC to hit the “turn left” button in the editorial rooms.)
Using the Cardiff methodology if every BBC news and current affairs programme consisted of interviews with bankers called upon to defend bonuses, energy company bosses defending high prices and ministers defending welfare reform then that would be seen as 100% ‘right-wing’ bias.
The ‘top and tailing’ of the stories by “but Labour says” and the fact that the stories are set up as negative and not neutral or, heaven forbid, positive business or political briefs just doesn’t figure.
There is some interesting reading re Justin Lewis on the “Is the BBC Biased?” blog today.
Illustrates where he is coming from.
But of course this sort of report by Lewis is used by the lefties to counter the view that the BBC is biased toward left wing progressive attitudes.
This being the level of research we`re getting for all that money, we need to be pretty scared rally.
This muppet tells us the “Conservatives get more mentions than Labour”…but as nofanopapolitiians says above-l`il Justin Lewis of Cardiff doesn`t say whether they`re abusive ones or not…we all know that they will be.
And-as ever follow the money…if the BBC Trust are paying, what on earth do we expect to find re bias?
Funny too that they “researched” Israel, religion and the EU”.
We therefore all know the topics to screw them over with…
Does no one else see any irony in David Vance asserting that these findings must be wrong without any attempt at refuting them simply because the academic is of the left? Even though he provides no evidence for that assertion? And he argues the BBC is left biased, without any academic study, but assertion, and given he is admittedly of the right?
My, precious indeed.
May be to gain traction this plea could have been better posted before the complementing facts in support of the claimed (three times, on a ‘repeat often enough’ basis?) assertions all stacked up?
Sorry Yoda, that’s lost on me I’m afraid.
That should probably read ‘Yoda, sorry, lost on me that is’.
I am unsurprised that you are again suffering from lack of comprehension in your latest incarnation.
Think of a forum post in terms of a BBC ‘breaking news’ editorial or tweet.
The difference of course is, as the story evolves, the BBC variety too often can ‘lose’ the assertions or mod out any counters or clarifications. Or, of course, close the whole thing down.
Meanwhile a forum post can be the foundation for an interesting evolutionary discussion tree, with each branch, rotten or healthy, left up to test the strength of the trunk and roots.
So here, to the author’s core doubts on objectivity to give credence to their research that so swayed the Indy’s editors without any doubts, posters have offered a great deal of feedback, substantiated, in support of the original notion the good Prof. may not be objective, and his methodology suspect.
Which seems to have passed you, too, by.
As you add nothing but trying to raise a hardly convincing distraction on the author and their motivations, free of any evidence.
Wishing you well as you wander lost in the woods of what is actually ironic and where you have placed yourself.
My criticism in case you missed it was of the author of the OP. But you carry on defending the indefensible, and fighting the good fight.
The OP asserts nothing, in case you missed it.
Let me remind you then:
‘Makes you wonder how far to the left Professor Lewis tilts?’
And that’s it. I suggest that’s a piss poor effort. And extremely hypocritical.
*Yawn* It doesn’t matter how many times you try it, son. You’re never going to fool us into thinking you’re a new user. If you’re too lazy to contribute anything instead of resorting to childish name-calling then just piss off, we’re not interested. At least Albaman backs himself up with sources even if they are almost all straw man examples.
What a right b*stard that Alabaman is. Imagine anyone demeaning this blog by making an argument backed by fact!
Another new pseudonym? How many more times do you have to be told we’re not falling for it before you give up?
Besides which, you’ve proven yet again to be completely incapable of reading. I actually PRAISED Albaman for at least backing himself up with sources, even though they’re usually straw man sources that are contradicted by swathes of other ones, and even though he comes here to play devil’s advocate. But, unlike you, he does at least go to the effort of finding something instead of posting banal, repetitive nonsense under dozens of different screennames.
Then again, given that you’re trolling on here out of blind obedience to the BBC, I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise that your literacy is substandard at best. Idiot.
You did have to call up the spirit of Alabaman (dark looks over the evening debrief shandy for that one, F6), didn’t you, F3?
Like Candyman, that third and… bingo, he’s unleashed all over the entire blog.
One might wonder when he asks himself what any of what he’s on about currently is anything to do with BBC bias, mind.
In areas of precedent, Mr. H, if anyone ‘wondering’ how anyone else does anything exercises you so, the exchanges you must have with the BBC on most of their Editors’ ‘analysis’ or house satirists’ staples will be revealing.
But your suggestion has been noted, and been made available on the BBBC log right away (no BBC ‘our little secrets’ here).
Leaving aside all the ‘your paid by the BBC to post on this Blog because we’re so important’ nonsense, you fail to address the point. As is so often the case.
“But you carry on… fighting the good fight”
—
Okey-dokey.
Hey, this BBC-pioneered editing-to-suit-narrative technique can have its uses!
When somebody hits me over the head with a hammer I do not need an academic study to confirm that I find it painful.
There’s an all-pervading stink of Common Purpose about the whole thing.
His leftist activism tells you all you need to know.
Another BBC proxy.
The centre and centre-right realise the BBC is biased towards the left, despite having a few token ‘right wing’ commentators on there who are more often than not used more as a means to laugh at how eccentric and silly they come across sometimes (e.g. Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson, Boris Johnson) and not for any impartial or reasonable balance. They’d also like us to believe Nick Robinson is right-wing, which is laughable. The saddest part is that many of the left-slanted comedians they have don’t try to be funny or have become so set on pushing their beliefs onto their audience that humour has become a secondary objective to them (e.g. Charlie Brooker, who was once quite funny but whose latest series was so poor I genuinely counted the number of laughs on one hand, and most of them were from Philomena Cunk). But of course, those on the left hate the fact that the BBC isn’t left enough for their tastes and thus must be ‘right-wing’ even though the evidence doesn’t support this in any statistical or sensible way.