Author Archives: David Vance

Biased BBC writer Daniel Pycock notes…

“The BBC reluctantly gives good coverage on UKIP, but cannot help itself…

I recently spotted a few things in a recent article about Nigel Farage saying the UK should take in refugees from the Syrian Civil War (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25539843).

The first is that the BBC’s ‘political apparatchik’ correspondent said “Mr. Farage’s call was likely to surprise many”. If you look at UKIPs manifesto, or website, they say “UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations”. So not a surprise to anyone who had read UKIP’s policy in this area…

If one had only read about UKIP from the BBC, however, one might think that UKIP: are the equivalent to the Fascistic Golden Dawn in Greece*, did not field a candidate in the Norwich North By-Election** or the London Mayoral Elections*** and – especially in party conference season**** – are essentially “a weird party led by a joke figure, a party that a lot of people think is racist and sexist”, as implied by 60% of John Humphrys’ interview with Nigel Farage on Radio 4’s today programme. This is not to mention the stacked audiences with whom Mr. Farage or PPCs such as Diane James have to debate on Question Time.

If UKIP sticking with a policy is a “surprise” as Arif Ansari (the BBC political correspondent) suggests, I wonder why that would be the case. cough BBC cough.

*See: http://biasedbbc.tv/blog/2013/03/02/ukip-nazis/

** See: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100004661/anti-ukip-and-pro-green-the-bbc-at-its-most-blatantly-biased/

*** See: http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1125/bbc_green_with_envy_over_ukip_s_rise

**** See: http://singletonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/09/the-bbc-does-the-dirty-on-ukip.html

—————————————

P.S. Notice how the BBC slides the Labour Party’s policy of accepting 400-500 refugees in, despite the piece being about a UKIP policy? They must really know Labour policy inside-out since I can only find reference to it in The Independent*.

 * See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-room-at-the-inn-britain-says-no-to-syrias-refugees-9025265.html

Right folks, the clock is ticking down as another year of BBC bias draws to a close. Here is the final OPEN thread of the year for you to fill up…over to you!

Biased BBC contributor Daniel Pycock writes…

“Just because the BBC has to report the CEBR; doesn’t mean they like it… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25519110

You can almost sense the desperation and despair dripping from this BBC News page – as the BBC had to report that a respected think-tank is of the opinion that the UK, scheduled to become Europe’s ‘Largest’ Economy on current politico-economic trajectories, would be better off out of the European Union.

Or at least that’s what one would assume. Even in reporting this, however, the BBC cannot help emphasising some things over others. The first sentences in the article – and clauses in summarising sentences – regard the “UK’s population growth”. The CEBR report (which I urge everyone to read: http://www.cebr.com/reports/cebr-world-economic-league-table/), however, cites population growth as one of many factors, and not even as the most important. (The most important factor cited are supply-side policies that support long-term growth, such as low taxes and the freedom to trade outside of Europe).

The over-emphasis on demographic dynamics aside (which of course means calling for a more relaxed immigration policy); the BBC cannot bring itself to admit what the results of a paper such as this mean. It means that the UK should consider leaving the European Union, and that the UK should lower tax-rates across the board – things that the BBC would never publish articles in favour of.

(See, for instance, this embarrassing piece in favour of the Euro from 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18672568)

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the intellectual knots the BBC willingly ties itself in to.”

Right, that’s Christmas boxed off for another year so normal service has been resumed! Here’s a new Open Thread for your attention and the floor is yours!

Biased BBC contributor Daniel Pycock writes…

“I don’t know if any of you have come across the BBC Echo Chambers blog. I certainly hadn’t until this week. The column itself is unremarkable, though one or two things there are worth reading. The complaint I have, however, is on this week’s post as regards the criticism of ’60 Minutes’ (which like Newsnight has faced a serious reputation crisis of late).

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25500751

A perfectly reasonable argument to start off with, as to why this news programme faced a reputation crisis, yielded to the following throwaway comment: “it’s hard not to detect a certain amount of glee from conservatives[sic] on this topic as they’ve long viewed 60 Minutes as having a left-leaning bias (of course, they feel that way about most of the mainstream media, but that’s beside the point)”.

There is, of course, no evidence for either assertion. The conservatives who allegedly see 60 minutes as left-leaning and biased remain unnamed and, if the bold turned around to say anything other than ‘conservatives’, it would probably provoke howls of derision from the wronged party.

In my experience, Conservatives feel neither schadenfreude for a fallen reputation, nor victimisation from an allegedly unrepresentative mainstream media. In the UK, Conservatives read The Spectator, The Daily Telegraph, and The Times (which is probably the most establishment, mainstream news-outlet – loss-making notwithstanding), and might even watch BBC news programmes where Jeremy Paxman or Andrew Neil make politicians squirm under the weight of their own hypocrisy. In the US Conservatives have the National Review and The Wall Street Journal, among others.

It is unfair to claim Conservatives feel a victimisation they neither suffer nor recognise. It implies as used above that Conservatives hold an illogical position (because they disagree with a majority of “mainstream” media outlets), and that Conservatives thus criticise mainstream media outlets (such as the BBC) because of a psychology of victimisation and on disagreeing with the outcome of objective and impartial, evidence-based debates. This is not true.

The criticisms levelled at the BBC by blogs such as this and others, are based on fact where a state-broadcaster is abusing its position by, for example, presenting one-sided arguments without reply, or asymmetrically criticising positions, or not/asymmetrically citing their sources. The BBC, as a state-broadcaster, has stated objectives by which it should be judged. If it falls short of these, it should be pointed-out without a counter-accusation that critics hold illogical beliefs, and are thus beyond the pale of consideration.”

May I take this opportunity to wish ALL at Biased BBC a very Happy Christmas. Thank you for sticking with the site in 2013 and most of all for your fantastic contributions to the issue at hand – BBC bias. It has been my pleasure to help provide this forum for you and so I hope you all have a great Christmas and trust the BBC does not ruin it for you! 🙂

Biased BBC reader Derek provides us the 12 rules of the BBC!

1. The BBC is an institution that must always be part of the public sector & funded by the licence fee,
2. Any criticism of the BBC is simply the result of politicians attempting improper influence,
3. High public expenditure is good: the public sector is preferable to the private sector, which by seeking the profit motive, is inherently evil,
4. Margaret Thatcher was an evil woman whose policies ruined Britain: BBC spokesmen should, wherever possible, use the word “Thatcherite” disparagingly and contemptuously,
5. The Murdoch empire is inherently evil and must be shown to be such at every opportunity, The Guardian, Observer and Independent are fine newspapers, whereas the others are beyond the pale.
6. Left wing comedians such as Jeremy Hardy, Mark Steele, David Mitchell and Jo Brand are to be hired as much as possible by the BBC: the more obscene and offensive their output, the better the BBC likes it,
7. Christians who openly wear a cross are suspect (Israelis are similarly suspect) whereas Muslims must always be granted craven levels of deference,
8. High levels of immigration are good, and anyone seeking to limit uncontrolled mass immigration is racist,
9. The EU is ” A GOOD THING” and people opposing it should have their views ridiculed and disparaged,
10. Global warming due to man’s activities is a fact: it cannot be disputed,
11. Public and Grammar schools are inherently bad whereas comprehensive schools are inherently good. Failing comprehensive schools do so because of lack of funding, political interference or being located in areas of deprivation: however their failings can never be blamed on the teaching profession,
12. The state must always protect all people from any harm or misfortune irrespective of cost to the taxpayer, or their behaviour.

Biased BBC contributor Daniel Pycock writes……

“The BBC were only too delighted to report the comments of Sir Michael Wilshaw (Head of Ofsted), who told The Observer: “Grammar schools are stuffed full of middle class kids. A tiny percentage of pupils are on Free School Meals (3%). That is a nonsense … Anyone who thinks Grammar Schools are going to increase social mobility needs to look at those figures. I don’t think they work”.

Firstly, where else but the Guardian Media Group would the BBC take its line from on education? – and Secondly, why is this opinion being reported without reply? The BBC allows an assumption that Free School Meals are an appropriate measurement of working class pupils, whilst then concluding (based on said assumption) that Grammar Schools would not increase social mobility (they evidently did, and still do where they are readily available)*

To my knowledge, grammar schools have not been proposed by the Conservatives or Labour (indeed only UKIP promise them), and they have, at best, been the subject of a columnist bitch-fight between Peter Hitchens (Mail on Sunday) and Owen Jones (The Independent). I am thus intrigued as to why this unprovoked attack on schools – that will neither be built nor supported by a prominent political party – should merit a prominent position in the headline reviews – and top-10 headline positions on the BBC News ‘England’ and ‘Politics’ pages.

*BBC Headlines: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-25386217

The BBC’s anti-grammar bias, combined with its anti-free schools bias (as exposed by Toby Young at The Telegraph), means that its editorial position resembles the Churchillian quip about democracy: that “comprehensive schooling is the worst form of education except for all the others that have been tried”. The problem with this argument, however, is that it is not true – and it certainly is not close to being “balanced” or “impartial”

*You are, for instance, 33% more likely to attend a university from a working class background in selective Northern Ireland (39.1%) than in Comprehensive Scotland or Wales (26.6% and 29.1%).

Things you may want to reference, in order:

BBC Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25386784

Observer Article: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/ofsted-chief-war-grammar-schools

Peter Hitchens’ Blog: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/12/owen-jones-doesnt-want-helathcare-distributed-on-the-basis-of-wealth-and-cunning-why-then-does-he-de.html

Owen Jones’ Blog: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/anachronistic-and-iniquitous-grammar-schools-area-blot-on-the-british-education-system-9013626.html

Toby Young’s Exposés: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100250088/the-bbcs-anti-free-schools-bias-is-becoming-laughable/ and http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100128060/bbc-news-online-publishes-grossly-misleading-anti-free-schools-article/

Hi everyone and welcome to the new Open Thread for this festive week. Over you to you…tell us about the bias!