One of the worst and most ridiculous arguments goes like this: “the right say the BBC is too left wing, but the left say the BBC has a right wing bias, so it’s probably quite balanced in reality”. You’ve heard variations of this argument no doubt.
The BBC has many presenters, journalists, employees. Not all of them have the exact same opinion. Andrew Neil is clearly more right wing than Emily Maitlis for example. Laura Kuenssberg is clearly more right wing than a lot of Corbyn supporters would like.
Everyone is biased. Everyone has opinions and preconceptions, and anyway what would true neutrality even look like? Centrism is not unbiased, and even supporting democracy or economic growth are not unbiased. Everyone at the BBC is biased and they simply cannot help it.
BBC output can therefore be biased in different ways at different times, both right wing and left wing (whether this is all “balanced” or not is a different matter). Likewise, the Guardian publish some more right wing articles from time to time, despite their obvious left wing stance. The difference between the Guardian and the BBC is that the Guardian are openly left wing and don’t try to present themselves as some sort of neutral source of “facts” as opposed to “opinions”, like the BBC do. Another difference is that my bin isn’t full of nasty letters the Guardian sent to me because I didn’t pay for their newspaper license.
OT but during the morning Twitter surf in bed I noticed a Guardian piece claiming singer/DJ Aled Jones was ‘off air’, it appears due to yet another ‘accusation’.
Which is odd, as I am listening to him now. Though the radio goes off soon before Gobby News turns up.
Could it be that the Guardian only ‘reports’ the BBC version of ‘the news’, and vice versa?
Other sources are available. Apparently.
Meanwhile, BBC bias here in the UK is ‘balanced’ by BBC bias in the USA.
https://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/you-tell-her-rabbie.html
Apparently.
If only the BBC were to give news reports without opinion or comment. then I could begin to believe that it was impartial. Until then, the BBC is, in my eyes, biased.
It’s a stupid argument anyway. Yes, some people think the BBC is too right-wing, but the same people also think Jeremy Corbyn is too right-wing. Meanwhile, it is objectively true that the BBC gave banner coverage to claims that Brexiteers had killed a Polish guy in Harlow despite there being no evidence whatsoever that they were involved.
A quick – well not so quick analysis of Andrew Marr political and media guests over last 12 months. I did this because I saw John McDonnell on again and seem to see him all the time…
Leading MP guests
John McDonnell 8 times
Emily Thornbury 6 times
Jeremy C 6 time
David Davis 5
Philip Hammond 5
71% Remainer (129) 29%(52) Brexiteers (all publicly known views)
Top newspaper Guardian 14, D mail 4 Sun 4
Top TV media guest BBC 10….
Detect any bias here?
VX, I don’t think it was a bad or ridiculous argument seven years ago, fifteen years ago thirty years ago or more. It has become one in the light of overwhelming bias from the BBC that is demonstrated mathematically, let alone by opinion, since just before the 2010 General Election.
Then you state that everyone is biased. Now THAT is a bad and ridiculous argument. How can you know that?
There are some people who may have a variety of biases but can set them aside, even when in their favour. Or who will recognise truth in a counter point of view.
The BBC absolutely loves rubbing shoulders with the rich, promotes consumerism, private property, expensive holidays, globalisation, expensive exclusive products, considers house price inflation a positive and house price drop an Armageddon that has to be avoided … all this is driven by self-interest and the things they personally aspire to. Many consider themselves to be part of the nouveau riche – or aspire to be rich and wealthy – consider their salaries, freeby holidays, expenses, lack of accountability …
… But what they demand from others, of British society, of politics is all social justice warriorship (which means left wing).
I wonder how the BBC would define right and left wing and the various shades?
Fallacy of false equivalence
You might as well Paedo Weekly Magazine gets some complaints it’s material is too soft, as well as complaints from the police. So on balance it’s got it about right.
Bias has both degree and volume.
A complaint of racist language from 10 lefties doesn’t balance 1 complaint about fake news that actually damages lives.
Vague generalisations instead of pecise numbers is unscientific and a sign of science
Example : That BBC line on left/rights complaints.
Another : The way people shout “climate denier” , without specifying what the accused is denying.
The whole left vs right thing is an over simplification it’s self.
See how English Nationalists are labelled ‘right wing’
Whilst Scots/Irish nationalists aren’t
Many other things don’t fit either..
Typo
: ‘sign of BAD science’
Change the funding model and no-one would give a toss. People would just accept it for what they perceive it to be, and would make a decision accordingly.
The fact that we are compelled to pay forces us to make a value judgement.