|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Jan 19, 2022 21:09:13 GMT
Don’t watch much of it but the odd time I’ve dipped it’s been reasonable. No worse than than Sky
|
|
|
Post by thebasfordhedgehog on Jan 19, 2022 21:44:27 GMT
I feel sad for people who don’t like Daniel O’Donnell, Seamus Moore, Strictly Come Dancing and The Masked Singer. God bless them all 🙏🏻 Thanks, much appreciated. 👍 My pleasure 😄
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 19, 2022 22:08:00 GMT
Don’t watch much of it but the odd time I’ve dipped it’s been reasonable. No worse than than Sky People that moan about it have never watched it. Simple. It’s the best “news” channel going. That’s if you’re looking for “news” rather than what Adele is having for breakfast.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 19, 2022 22:58:57 GMT
How are the cropped fringe "we love Nagz Munchetty and wearing masks" brigade today?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 19, 2022 23:01:03 GMT
How are the cropped fringe "we love Nagz Munchetty and wearing masks" brigade today? Given they're living in your head, it's probably easiest if you ask them directly and then let us all know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 19, 2022 23:06:17 GMT
How are the cropped fringe "we love Nagz Munchetty and wearing masks" brigade today? Given they're living in your head, it's probably easiest if you ask them directly and then let us all know the answer. Is there anything more enjoyable than winding up an eccentric wokie?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 19, 2022 23:16:00 GMT
Given they're living in your head, it's probably easiest if you ask them directly and then let us all know the answer. Is there anything more enjoyable than winding up an eccentric wokie? Clearly not for you. I think most other people have got more enjoyable things to do.
|
|
|
Post by fortressbritannia on Jan 20, 2022 12:43:58 GMT
Like all news channels GB news is just as bad as the rest of them.
I turned it on once for 5 mins and the entire 5 minutes was some bloke called Patrick Christie (or something similar) reeling off some monologue. That's not news that's twitter on the TV. I turned off and never watched again.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 20, 2022 12:46:17 GMT
Like all news channels GB news is just as bad as the rest of them. I turned it on once for 5 mins and the entire 5 minutes was some bloke called Patrick Christie (or something similar) reeling off some monologue. That's not news that's twitter on the TV. I turned off and never watched again. Patrick Christie is a decent commentator. GB News was created to give a view on the news, not deliver the news. The BBC is there to deliver the news, not give a view on it. The latter has failed, not the former.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 20, 2022 21:22:56 GMT
Like all news channels GB news is just as bad as the rest of them. I turned it on once for 5 mins and the entire 5 minutes was some bloke called Patrick Christie (or something similar) reeling off some monologue. That's not news that's twitter on the TV. I turned off and never watched again. Patrick Christie is a decent commentator. GB News was created to give a view on the news, not deliver the news. The BBC is there to deliver the news, not give a view on it. The latter has failed, not the former. I think you're confusing debate with news delivery. Both GB News and BBC fail in the debate department because to have a balanced and informed discussion, you need to ensure all arguments are represented fairly. In the case of GB News, every debate I've seen (granted, very few) has been an echo chamber; two people who agree on a specific side of the argument and there has been no representation for the opposing argument. In the case of BBC News, most debates tend to be skewed and one side disproportionately represented, sometimes even the presenter allowing their personal view to pollute the discussion. Both fail for different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 20, 2022 21:34:16 GMT
Patrick Christie is a decent commentator. GB News was created to give a view on the news, not deliver the news. The BBC is there to deliver the news, not give a view on it. The latter has failed, not the former. I think you're confusing debate with news delivery. Both GB News and BBC fail in the debate department because to have a balanced and informed discussion, you need to ensure all arguments are represented fairly. In the case of GB News, every debate I've seen (granted, very few) has been an echo chamber; two people who agree on a specific side of the argument and there has been no representation for the opposing argument. In the case of BBC News, most debates tend to be skewed and one side disproportionately represented, sometimes even the presenter allowing their personal view to pollute the discussion. Both fail for different reasons. But GB News has been created to give an opinion, that's the whole point. It's not there to simply deliver news. It's a programme of opinionated presenters and commentators created to offer viewers an alternative to the opinions of those like the BBC who are NOT there (and paid for by the taxpayer) to give opinions. GB News as far as I can see doesn't pretend to be anything its not. I also think that's an unfair reflection - the panel often have hugely differing views and it always makes for good debate. I don't think it's failing either. The first few months were riddled with technical issues, they made no secret of that - but it's growing on the public and I suspect viewing figures are steadily on the rise. Maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 20, 2022 21:39:36 GMT
I think you're confusing debate with news delivery. Both GB News and BBC fail in the debate department because to have a balanced and informed discussion, you need to ensure all arguments are represented fairly. In the case of GB News, every debate I've seen (granted, very few) has been an echo chamber; two people who agree on a specific side of the argument and there has been no representation for the opposing argument. In the case of BBC News, most debates tend to be skewed and one side disproportionately represented, sometimes even the presenter allowing their personal view to pollute the discussion. Both fail for different reasons. But GB News has been created to give an opinion, that's the whole point. It's not there to simply deliver news. It's a programme of opinionated presenters and commentators created to offer viewers an alternative to the opinions of those like the BBC who are NOT there (and paid for by the taxpayer) to give opinions. GB News as far as I can see doesn't pretend to be anything its not. I also think that's an unfair reflection - the panel often have hugely differing views and it always makes for good debate. I don't think it's failing either. The first few months were riddled with technical issues, they made no secret of that - but it's growing on the public and I suspect viewing figures are steadily on the rise. Maybe I'm wrong. So it's not a news channel, it's an opinion delivery mechanism? I suppose it's a UK Fox News.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 20, 2022 21:43:11 GMT
But GB News has been created to give an opinion, that's the whole point. It's not there to simply deliver news. It's a programme of opinionated presenters and commentators created to offer viewers an alternative to the opinions of those like the BBC who are NOT there (and paid for by the taxpayer) to give opinions. GB News as far as I can see doesn't pretend to be anything its not. I also think that's an unfair reflection - the panel often have hugely differing views and it always makes for good debate. I don't think it's failing either. The first few months were riddled with technical issues, they made no secret of that - but it's growing on the public and I suspect viewing figures are steadily on the rise. Maybe I'm wrong. So it's not a news channel, it's an opinion delivery mechanism? I suppose it's a UK Fox News. Exactly that, which was needed to add balance. In much the same way Sky News is now CNN (unsurprising given their owners). Sky News openly cheering on Biden's election win in 2019 was a bizarre and disturbing sight for a channel that professes to be neutral on such matters. But that's fine. What's not fine is the fact that our main national channel in the BBC, that we all pay for, is giving an opinion over stating facts.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 20, 2022 22:04:19 GMT
Another great episode of Talking Pints with Big Nige tonight. Folk talking sense on a news channel for a change.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 20, 2022 22:08:04 GMT
So it's not a news channel, it's an opinion delivery mechanism? I suppose it's a UK Fox News. Exactly that, which was needed to add balance. In much the same way Sky News is now CNN (unsurprising given their owners). Sky News openly cheering on Biden's election win in 2019 was a bizarre and disturbing sight for a channel that professes to be neutral on such matters. But that's fine. What's not fine is the fact that our main national channel in the BBC, that we all pay for, is giving an opinion over stating facts. news.sky.com/video/the-moment-joe-biden-won-the-presidency-12126618This is the only video I could find. I don't find that to be overly celebratory at all. It's a little dramatic and overblown but it appears to be an entirely factual delivery of the news to me. Interestingly, Media Bias Fact Check rate Sky News as having almost no bias whatsoever. They rate the 'impartial BBC' as leaning left. mediabiasfactcheck.com/sky-news
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Jan 20, 2022 22:15:07 GMT
Another great episode of Talking Pints with Big Nige tonight. Folk talking sense on a news channel for a change. Watching Portillo. Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 20, 2022 22:32:18 GMT
Another great episode of Talking Pints with Big Nige tonight. Folk talking sense on a news channel for a change. Watching Portillo. Very interesting. That’s a good one chuffed👍🏻
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Jan 20, 2022 22:35:19 GMT
Watching Portillo. Very interesting. That’s a good one chuffed👍🏻 Explaining the redacted letters, making sense as usual.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 20, 2022 22:37:48 GMT
Exactly that, which was needed to add balance. In much the same way Sky News is now CNN (unsurprising given their owners). Sky News openly cheering on Biden's election win in 2019 was a bizarre and disturbing sight for a channel that professes to be neutral on such matters. But that's fine. What's not fine is the fact that our main national channel in the BBC, that we all pay for, is giving an opinion over stating facts. news.sky.com/video/the-moment-joe-biden-won-the-presidency-12126618This is the only video I could find. I don't find that to be overly celebratory at all. It's a little dramatic and overblown but it appears to be an entirely factual delivery of the news to me. Interestingly, Media Bias Fact Check rate Sky News as having almost no bias whatsoever. They rate the 'impartial BBC' as leaning left. mediabiasfactcheck.com/sky-newsI mean they were literally cheering him on for a solid 18 months in the run up to the election. To the point that they actually created an anti Trump documentary series. If you watch the footage of the week before the election and of course, election night, I can assure they were anything but neutral. But like I say, that's fine... People aren't forced to pay for Sky News.
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Jan 20, 2022 22:40:42 GMT
Another great episode of Talking Pints with Big Nige tonight. Folk talking sense on a news channel for a change. This crush on Nige is cute, but the people have rejected his poison over and over again. 7 times now I think..
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 20, 2022 22:42:17 GMT
I mean they were literally cheering him on for a solid 18 months in the run up to the election. To the point that they actually created an anti Trump documentary series. If you watch the footage of the week before the election and of course, election night, I can assure they were anything but neutral. But like I say, that's fine... People aren't forced to pay for Sky News. Feel free to link the anti Trump documentary. What id say is, Donald Trump walked a very fine line between 'somewhat scientific' and utter bollocks/pseudoscience. If you actually believe his pseudoscience then a series debunking his utter horse shit would simply come across as anti Trump.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 20, 2022 23:01:18 GMT
I mean they were literally cheering him on for a solid 18 months in the run up to the election. To the point that they actually created an anti Trump documentary series. If you watch the footage of the week before the election and of course, election night, I can assure they were anything but neutral. But like I say, that's fine... People aren't forced to pay for Sky News. Feel free to link the anti Trump documentary. What id say is, Donald Trump walked a very fine line between 'somewhat scientific' and utter bollocks/pseudoscience. If you actually believe his pseudoscience then a series debunking his utter horse shit would simply come across as anti Trump. I can't remember what it was called but it was so biased and features some pretty similar characters to the below video which I found from a quick search. Sky spend most their time interviewing militant red necks (literally dressed in military uniform) who are completely unrepresentative of the vast majority of Trump voters and appear to make numerous subtle digs at Trump and his supporters. I didn't see too many clips of Biden's Antifa/BLM supporters completely trashing small shops and businesses of innocent (in many cases, black) communities, Biden's howlers, or reminders of the bloodshed of Obama's regime. Besides, why would Sky News not be biased? Isn't it literally owned by the owners of CNN?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 20, 2022 23:16:35 GMT
Feel free to link the anti Trump documentary. What id say is, Donald Trump walked a very fine line between 'somewhat scientific' and utter bollocks/pseudoscience. If you actually believe his pseudoscience then a series debunking his utter horse shit would simply come across as anti Trump. I can't remember what it was called but it was so biased and features some pretty similar characters to the below video which I found from a quick search. Sky spend most their time interviewing militant red necks (literally dressed in military uniform) who are completely unrepresentative of the vast majority of Trump voters and appear to make numerous subtle digs at Trump and his supporters. I didn't see too many clips of Biden's Antifa/BLM supporters completely trashing small shops and businesses of innocent (in many cases, black) communities, Biden's howlers, or reminders of the bloodshed of Obama's regime. Besides, why would Sky News not be biased? Isn't it literally owned by the owners of CNN? Think it's owned by NBC. The main reason for any bias is increased views. You have to ask yourself, as a TV news channel, does being heavily biased against Trump in the UK actually improve ratings?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 20, 2022 23:33:12 GMT
I can't remember what it was called but it was so biased and features some pretty similar characters to the below video which I found from a quick search. Sky spend most their time interviewing militant red necks (literally dressed in military uniform) who are completely unrepresentative of the vast majority of Trump voters and appear to make numerous subtle digs at Trump and his supporters. I didn't see too many clips of Biden's Antifa/BLM supporters completely trashing small shops and businesses of innocent (in many cases, black) communities, Biden's howlers, or reminders of the bloodshed of Obama's regime. Besides, why would Sky News not be biased? Isn't it literally owned by the owners of CNN? Think it's owned by NBC. The main reason for any bias is increased views. You have to ask yourself, as a TV news channel, does being heavily biased against Trump in the UK actually improve ratings? Yep Comcast. I don't know if it's just down to views. I think agenda of the people within an organisation have a big role to play. Ie if senior execs are big Democrats and the station is being chucked cash by the Democrats than that probably overrules the idea of simply getting more viewers.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 21, 2022 7:27:59 GMT
Think it's owned by NBC. The main reason for any bias is increased views. You have to ask yourself, as a TV news channel, does being heavily biased against Trump in the UK actually improve ratings? Yep Comcast. I don't know if it's just down to views. I think agenda of the people within an organisation have a big role to play. Ie if senior execs are big Democrats and the station is being chucked cash by the Democrats than that probably overrules the idea of simply getting more viewers. It depends on the business model. If you are targeting a “conservative” audience you’ll be biased in one direction, if your market is “liberal” your bias will be different. This is most evident in the US. In this country, for the most part, our TV doesn’t work as a “normal” business in that the BBC is funded by taxation while ITV has the benefit of years of monopoly advertising revenue behind it to establish its brand and with C4 gets the benefits of being a PSB with the considerable “discoverability” benefits that brings. In other words, they don’t really need to keep an audience particularly happy to survive. So, in the UK bias comes from within media organisations which creates, let’s be generous, an unconscious liberal bias reflecting where these organisations are concentrated meaning affluent London for the most part and the concerns of its denizens occupying its leafy (lefty) districts. Edit… GB News doesn’t have that luxury, they have to be concerned about their audience. Without a happy one they are dead. Same goes for Sky.
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Jan 21, 2022 11:05:26 GMT
Exactly that, which was needed to add balance. In much the same way Sky News is now CNN (unsurprising given their owners). Sky News openly cheering on Biden's election win in 2019 was a bizarre and disturbing sight for a channel that professes to be neutral on such matters. But that's fine. What's not fine is the fact that our main national channel in the BBC, that we all pay for, is giving an opinion over stating facts. news.sky.com/video/the-moment-joe-biden-won-the-presidency-12126618This is the only video I could find. I don't find that to be overly celebratory at all. It's a little dramatic and overblown but it appears to be an entirely factual delivery of the news to me. Interestingly, Media Bias Fact Check rate Sky News as having almost no bias whatsoever. They rate the 'impartial BBC' as leaning left. mediabiasfactcheck.com/sky-newsMBFC rate the BBC as having a slight liberal bias, putting them about 5% further along the scale than Sky News. They also rate CNN as being strongly left-wing and The Economist as neutral! Perhaps it’s the American perspective. There’s plenty we could criticise the BBC for, but being left-wing isn’t really one of them, at least not when it comes to news. It’s a narrative that’s being spun to undermine the corporation by those on the right who don’t believe in public service broadcasting. It’s true to say that, in general, ‘creatives’ tend to be left-leaning, and this is reflected in some of the Beeb’s dramas and especially their comedy output (The number of right-leaning British comedians and comedy writers I can think of can be counted on one hand). However, this is true of most content on every platform; it’s not unique to the BBC and it shouldn’t be conflated with their news coverage. The debate over this has become increasingly noisy over the last 10 years or so, and there’ve been studies that have concluded that in fact the opposite is true. During the first half of the last decade, far from being a lefty propaganda machine, BBC News was a very compliant mouthpiece that didn’t do anywhere near enough to challenge the Government’s agenda. Throughout the Corbyn years, they gleefully joined-in with the media pile-on. Now, whenever a BBC presenter dares to take down the government over one of its myriad examples of incompetence and corruption, people scream about bias and claim they’re pushing an opinion. When Laura Kuehnssberg lazily retweets something from CCHQ without contesting it, those on the left are similarly outraged. These competing claims of left and right-wing bias might suggest that a balance is being struck. In fact, in their efforts to be impartial and balanced, they often end up giving credibility to some ludicrous positions. This would be my strongest criticism of their coverage of news and current affairs. When you look at senior BBC staff in the last couple of years, it’s hardly been a hotbed of Trots, has it? Robbie Gibb, Tim Davie, James Landale, Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson… Maybe some people have lurched so far to the right that they now regard anyone to the left of Farage as a Marxist.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 21, 2022 11:42:12 GMT
MBFC rate the BBC as having a slight liberal bias, putting them about 5% further along the scale than Sky News. They also rate CNN as being strongly left-wing and The Economist as neutral! Perhaps it’s the American perspective. There’s plenty we could criticise the BBC for, but being left-wing isn’t really one of them, at least not when it comes to news. It’s a narrative that’s being spun to undermine the corporation by those on the right who don’t believe in public service broadcasting. It’s true to say that, in general, ‘creatives’ tend to be left-leaning, and this is reflected in some of the Beeb’s dramas and especially their comedy output (The number of right-leaning British comedians and comedy writers I can think of can be counted on one hand). However, this is true of most content on every platform; it’s not unique to the BBC and it shouldn’t be conflated with their news coverage. The debate over this has become increasingly noisy over the last 10 years or so, and there’ve been studies that have concluded that in fact the opposite is true. During the first half of the last decade, far from being a lefty propaganda machine, BBC News was a very compliant mouthpiece that didn’t do anywhere near enough to challenge the Government’s agenda. Throughout the Corbyn years, they gleefully joined-in with the media pile-on. Now, whenever a BBC presenter dares to take down the government over one of its myriad examples of incompetence and corruption, people scream about bias and claim they’re pushing an opinion. When Laura Kuehnssberg lazily retweets something from CCHQ without contesting it, those on the left are similarly outraged. These competing claims of left and right-wing bias might suggest that a balance is being struck. In fact, in their efforts to be impartial and balanced, they often end up giving credibility to some ludicrous positions. This would be my strongest criticism of their coverage of news and current affairs. When you look at senior BBC staff in the last couple of years, it’s hardly been a hotbed of Trots, has it? Robbie Gibb, Tim Davie, James Landale, Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson… Maybe some people have lurched so far to the right that they now regard anyone to the left of Farage as a Marxist. I would actually say their news coverage is usually balanced enough. I didn't find their coverage of Trump during the election to be overly negative, purely factual. A great example of ideological left wing bias from the BBC is something I watched the other day while recovering from surgery in a hotel room: HARDtalk with Stephen Sackur and he was interviewing Kathleen Stock, a highly acclaimed academic but ultimately someone who is now considered 'transphobic'. While Kathleen Stock gave a superb account of herself, it was clear that Sackurs line of questioning was fundamentally motivated by the ideological stance held by the BBC, which is very much aligned with Stonewall. She calmly and very rationally gave answers that were in favour protecting the rights of women which are being eroded in a daily basis to satisfy trans-lobbyists. Sackur repeatedly insinuated that she was 'transphobic', offensive and even went as far as suggesting her own sexuality (a lesbian) was the motivating factor and asked whether her childhood might have been different had she been allowed prepubescent gender reassignment surgery. I found the line of questioning utterly reprehensible, although there's something ironic about a man from the BBC telling a woman he should be allowed to take his hairy bollocks in her changing room. Stocks position is fundamentally seen as a right wing stance. Nothing to do with everything to the right of Marxism or bollocks like that mate. Feel free to watch it on iPlayer and make up your own mind.
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Jan 21, 2022 12:55:35 GMT
MBFC rate the BBC as having a slight liberal bias, putting them about 5% further along the scale than Sky News. They also rate CNN as being strongly left-wing and The Economist as neutral! Perhaps it’s the American perspective. There’s plenty we could criticise the BBC for, but being left-wing isn’t really one of them, at least not when it comes to news. It’s a narrative that’s being spun to undermine the corporation by those on the right who don’t believe in public service broadcasting. It’s true to say that, in general, ‘creatives’ tend to be left-leaning, and this is reflected in some of the Beeb’s dramas and especially their comedy output (The number of right-leaning British comedians and comedy writers I can think of can be counted on one hand). However, this is true of most content on every platform; it’s not unique to the BBC and it shouldn’t be conflated with their news coverage. The debate over this has become increasingly noisy over the last 10 years or so, and there’ve been studies that have concluded that in fact the opposite is true. During the first half of the last decade, far from being a lefty propaganda machine, BBC News was a very compliant mouthpiece that didn’t do anywhere near enough to challenge the Government’s agenda. Throughout the Corbyn years, they gleefully joined-in with the media pile-on. Now, whenever a BBC presenter dares to take down the government over one of its myriad examples of incompetence and corruption, people scream about bias and claim they’re pushing an opinion. When Laura Kuehnssberg lazily retweets something from CCHQ without contesting it, those on the left are similarly outraged. These competing claims of left and right-wing bias might suggest that a balance is being struck. In fact, in their efforts to be impartial and balanced, they often end up giving credibility to some ludicrous positions. This would be my strongest criticism of their coverage of news and current affairs. When you look at senior BBC staff in the last couple of years, it’s hardly been a hotbed of Trots, has it? Robbie Gibb, Tim Davie, James Landale, Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson… Maybe some people have lurched so far to the right that they now regard anyone to the left of Farage as a Marxist. I would actually say their news coverage is usually balanced enough. I didn't find their coverage of Trump during the election to be overly negative, purely factual. A great example of ideological left wing bias from the BBC is something I watched the other day while recovering from surgery in a hotel room: HARDtalk with Stephen Sackur and he was interviewing Kathleen Stock, a highly acclaimed academic but ultimately someone who is now considered 'transphobic'. While Kathleen Stock gave a superb account of herself, it was clear that Sackurs line of questioning was fundamentally motivated by the ideological stance held by the BBC, which is very much aligned with Stonewall. She calmly and very rationally gave answers that were in favour protecting the rights of women which are being eroded in a daily basis to satisfy trans-lobbyists. Sackur repeatedly insinuated that she was 'transphobic', offensive and even went as far as suggesting her own sexuality (a lesbian) was the motivating factor and asked whether her childhood might have been different had she been allowed prepubescent gender reassignment surgery. I found the line of questioning utterly reprehensible, although there's something ironic about a man from the BBC telling a woman he should be allowed to take his hairy bollocks in her changing room. Stocks position is fundamentally seen as a right wing stance. Nothing to do with everything to the right of Marxism or bollocks like that mate. Feel free to watch it on iPlayer and make up your own mind. I’ve not seen it, but I will have a look. The thing is, I’ve seen any number of dreadful interviews like the one you describe. Some can be seen to be favouring a right-wing point of view, others seem left-biased. I don’t think it follows that the broadcaster is institutionally predisposed to that point of view. Some presenters / journalists really ‘go after’ their guest, wherever on the political spectrum they are. Andrew Neil is a good example, and most of the time his own political allegiances are not on show. I’ve seen him attack Tories every bit as aggressively as he batters the other side. Sometimes though, he comes across as a bully and if you were to take pieces of his work in isolation, it would be very easy to make a case for him being biased. I’m not suggesting that the presenter in question isn’t biased or given to unprofessional behaviour. You see it on all the mainstream news channels in this country, but for some reason it usually gets highlighted only when it appears to support the notion of BBC bias.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 21, 2022 13:49:12 GMT
I would actually say their news coverage is usually balanced enough. I didn't find their coverage of Trump during the election to be overly negative, purely factual. A great example of ideological left wing bias from the BBC is something I watched the other day while recovering from surgery in a hotel room: HARDtalk with Stephen Sackur and he was interviewing Kathleen Stock, a highly acclaimed academic but ultimately someone who is now considered 'transphobic'. While Kathleen Stock gave a superb account of herself, it was clear that Sackurs line of questioning was fundamentally motivated by the ideological stance held by the BBC, which is very much aligned with Stonewall. She calmly and very rationally gave answers that were in favour protecting the rights of women which are being eroded in a daily basis to satisfy trans-lobbyists. Sackur repeatedly insinuated that she was 'transphobic', offensive and even went as far as suggesting her own sexuality (a lesbian) was the motivating factor and asked whether her childhood might have been different had she been allowed prepubescent gender reassignment surgery. I found the line of questioning utterly reprehensible, although there's something ironic about a man from the BBC telling a woman he should be allowed to take his hairy bollocks in her changing room. Stocks position is fundamentally seen as a right wing stance. Nothing to do with everything to the right of Marxism or bollocks like that mate. Feel free to watch it on iPlayer and make up your own mind. I’ve not seen it, but I will have a look. The thing is, I’ve seen any number of dreadful interviews like the one you describe. Some can be seen to be favouring a right-wing point of view, others seem left-biased. I don’t think it follows that the broadcaster is institutionally predisposed to that point of view. Some presenters / journalists really ‘go after’ their guest, wherever on the political spectrum they are. Andrew Neil is a good example, and most of the time his own political allegiances are not on show. I’ve seen him attack Tories every bit as aggressively as he batters the other side. Sometimes though, he comes across as a bully and if you were to take pieces of his work in isolation, it would be very easy to make a case for him being biased. I’m not suggesting that the presenter in question isn’t biased or given to unprofessional behaviour. You see it on all the mainstream news channels in this country, but for some reason it usually gets highlighted only when it appears to support the notion of BBC bias. Spot on. I suspect the latter is because that point is repeatedly drummed home by the right-wing press who, understandably, don't like any criticism of their preferred party and because, as a broadcaster funded by the public through the licence fee, it is an easy and damaging criticism to fling at it. Andrew Neil was a big loss to the BBC, although I agree that his interview style could be seen as hectoring or even bullying as you say. Not surprising that the Bluffer in Downing St ran away from a pre-election interview with him. Actually one of the more sensible things he's ever done! The other aspect to accusations of bias is the political stance of the viewer. If you are generally right-wing you are much more likely to see any BBC interview or programme as inherently left-wing biased, and vice versa. The classic example being Brexit, which was routinely used to demonstrate anti-Brexit bias by the BBC from the right and leavers, whereas every independent assessment has not found that at all. Indeed, on his appointment as Chairman of the BBC, ex banker, Tory donor and leave voter Richard Sharp said he found no bias in their coverage at all.
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Jan 22, 2022 18:39:32 GMT
I’ve not seen it, but I will have a look. The thing is, I’ve seen any number of dreadful interviews like the one you describe. Some can be seen to be favouring a right-wing point of view, others seem left-biased. I don’t think it follows that the broadcaster is institutionally predisposed to that point of view. Some presenters / journalists really ‘go after’ their guest, wherever on the political spectrum they are. Andrew Neil is a good example, and most of the time his own political allegiances are not on show. I’ve seen him attack Tories every bit as aggressively as he batters the other side. Sometimes though, he comes across as a bully and if you were to take pieces of his work in isolation, it would be very easy to make a case for him being biased. I’m not suggesting that the presenter in question isn’t biased or given to unprofessional behaviour. You see it on all the mainstream news channels in this country, but for some reason it usually gets highlighted only when it appears to support the notion of BBC bias. Spot on. I suspect the latter is because that point is repeatedly drummed home by the right-wing press who, understandably, don't like any criticism of their preferred party and because, as a broadcaster funded by the public through the licence fee, it is an easy and damaging criticism to fling at it. Andrew Neil was a big loss to the BBC, although I agree that his interview style could be seen as hectoring or even bullying as you say. Not surprising that the Bluffer in Downing St ran away from a pre-election interview with him. Actually one of the more sensible things he's ever done! The other aspect to accusations of bias is the political stance of the viewer. If you are generally right-wing you are much more likely to see any BBC interview or programme as inherently left-wing biased, and vice versa. The classic example being Brexit, which was routinely used to demonstrate anti-Brexit bias by the BBC from the right and leavers, whereas every independent assessment has not found that at all. Indeed, on his appointment as Chairman of the BBC, ex banker, Tory donor and leave voter Richard Sharp said he found no bias in their coverage at all. For an anti-brexit organisation, it's odd that the BBC and Question time had Farage on so many times giving all the xenophobes an erection.
|
|