Yes, we are biased admits BBC

Post Reply New Topic

And across the world...yeh. If they'd claimed they were representing Kempston....

They have a lot of good documentaries though.

It's impossible to not be biased. Even if your against bias, thats bias. So you can never escape, mwahahaha!

It is unethical for a State broadcaster like the BBC to be biased in these ways. They get paid £150m from TV licences a year so we are paying for them to promote their biased views that many dont agree with and if we refuse we can be fined and in the worst cases jailed for not paying.

I do like BBC wildlife documentaries so maybe they should only be making them.

Next thing you're gonna tell me is the New York Times has a leftist bias.

All news people have some degree of bias, some more than others. It all comes form the fact that the media has control over what the public hears, sometimes they will omit one side of a controversial issue, whether intentionally or not. The problem is that they are at liberty to do so intentionally to a degree... nasty little First Amendment fine print...

Roxas, the trouble is we're talking about the British Broadcast Channel. We don't have the constuition, much less the amendments inherent in it.

sorry, but that's how it is in America, and i don't see the UK being much different...

All I'm saying is that while it might seem the same in the UK, you can't claim they can do it 'because of amendment n' because if they wanted to, they could violate most amendments since they don't apply. 'refused to plead', that'd violate your fourth amendment but we don't have that so there'd be more uproar aimed at person refusing to plead and you can't say 'So what? Amendment 4 lets them'. No amendments.

There are a lot that are less biased than the Mail. They are a lurid tabloid that unfortunately has a reputation for being a "serious" newspaper when they should be taken about as seriously as the Sunday Sport. They're in the business of fear and railing about how these horrible illegal immigrants / terrorists / gypsies / homosexuals are going to destroy Middle England, and have very little respect for the facts when there's some decent scaremongering to be had.

For example, I was working for the people administrating the new alcohol licensing act, a couple of years ago. Their coverage on it was pure yellow journalism. Part of it was heart-rending personal stories ("My wonderful husband and loving father got killed by a bunch of drunken yobs!") with zero relevance to the issue, and part was wildly exaggerated claims of what the act would allow, and part was crazed speculation on the anarchy that the changes to the act would lead to (which never materialised).

Reading between the lines of the article, a lot of yellow journalism tricks can be spotted. Avoiding direct quotations because they won't sound as shocking as saying somebody was "anti-Christian". Homophobia masked as concerns over "over-representation by gays and ethnic minorities". Claims that offence will be caused--but avoiding specifying who will be offended. A pointless shout out to "the countryside". The use of biased descriptors such as "admitted" and "guilty".

At least Fox News is "fair and balanced" (sarcasm)