BBC bias
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, November 4, 2006 05:17
VIEWED: 5882
PAGE 3 of 7
Quote:I made a joke, pointing at the absurdity of your statements based on nothing more than an article in the Daily
Ah, nothing better than a little misdirection from a liberal to know there is truth to something. Jesus Citz, I thought better of you. Who knew you would stoop so low, you little dog. What a wiley coyote you are becoming, so sneaky and hard to get a bead on... wow! Say hello to Ruse while you are down there.......
What is your problem here anyway? That the BBC isn't perfect? Because they're not as biased as nearly if not all of their competitors and more besides, yet you let that slide. Why is that? Is it okay to be biased as long as you're preaching racial hatred and daemonising non-republicans? Is that why we can bring the BBC to task but FOX is sacrosanct despite being worse? Are biases only okay as long as they're your biases?
I add that I could tell you the BBC is biased, all news sources are. FOX is the most biased news source I've seen, but you give it a free pass. FOX puts out the view that the sun shines out of the republicans collective orifices, and the Democrats eat babies, the BBC pretty much takes any politicians to task regardless of political allegiance. So they're pretty unbiased as news sources go, but like with all news sources you need balance and you need to look at different perspectives. I'm not down playing it, you're blowing it out of proportion. You're acting like all of a sudden the BBC is the most biased news source on the planet, when really they're one of the least.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"FOX is the most biased news source I've seen, but you give it a free pass"
Not true at all. No free pass from me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you accept it's the most biased news source? Then why such the slanted view of the BBC? Why make out the BBC to be the worst ever because they have some biases (that aren't as great as their competitors).
In fact I don't see much in the way of News bias for the BBC here at all, there's some for an entertainment program, but none as far as I can see for the news programming. So isn't it kind of dishonest to equate the two?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Here's the best link I could find. Still seems that they are admitting to bias. In this, they are admitting that they're like every other news outlet in the world. I stll enjoy the BBC website, I just know I have to accept that they have a viewpoint they're supporting.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371617-details/We+are+bia
sed%252C+admit+the+stars+of+BBC+News/article.do
"Keep the Shiny side up"
As does Fox news, any media source these days needs to be taken with a grain of salt...
or better yet, read many of them and form your own opinion. It would be rare to find two individuals with identical viewpoints on everything... the contrast makes life interesting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saying "the media has a left slanted bias" is not saying anything at all, just like saying "the church has a right slanted bias" Sure, the counter argument "the media does not have a left slanted bias" is sillier.
But this was all dealt with in an earlier thread where we concluded that the cause of slants is where people put their effort
Media: Left
Education: Left
Church: Right
Business: Right
etc.
Conservatives tend to take up faith and business and other pursuits which fit their interests. Liberals take up teaching or reporting and things which fit their interests. Presto bias-o. It's not a big conspiracy, it's self-fulfillment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Saying "the media has a left slanted bias" is not saying anything at all, just like saying "the church has a right slanted bias" Sure, the counter argument "the media does not have a left slanted bias" is sillier.
But this was all dealt with in an earlier thread where we concluded that the cause of slants is where people put their effort
Media: Left
Education: Left
Church: Right
Business: Right
etc.
Conservatives tend to take up faith and business and other pursuits which fit their interests. Liberals take up teaching or reporting and things which fit their interests. Presto bias-o. It's not a big conspiracy, it's self-fulfillment.
This is how I would rewrite your statements to be more accurate...
Saying "the media has a left slanted bias" based solely on one study that looked at the political leanings of reporters is not saying anything at all, just like saying "the church has a right slanted bias" based only on looking at religious leaders who spend a lot of time talking on camera. Sure, the counter argument "the media does not have a left slanted bias" is sillier partly because it goes against a hallmark golden calf of modern day American conservatism and also because of comments by people who work for the BBC.
Hmmm. That works better for me
. And while I'll give you a pass on your reference to this getting settled in an earlier thread (which I find hard to believe since we've rarely ever settled anything on RWED 
), I think your breakdown loses a lot. Just to give one example:Business runs the media. So by your logic that's right in charge of left. And the bosses win out. When you throw into the mix that there are for profit educational institutions and churches that are both left and right running educational institutions it further muddies the waters.
I think one of the only generalizations you can make is that a majority of the most powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations support the Republicans because they know they get more welfare that way. Oh, and that a majority of African American voters support the Democratic Party because they know where all the racists ended up after the sixties. And that the media which isn't actively working for a permanent Republican majority (which is most of talk radio, Fox, the publications of the Reverend Moon, the Wall Street Journal and now Disney and ABC among others) is so scared of being labelled as "liberal" that they will bend over backwards to pass along conservative talking points.
American conservatives have this whole "victim" schtick down cold. How you equate that with controlling all branches of the federal government and bankrolling a huge infrastructure from think tanks on up to media outlets is beyond me. But maybe that's because I'm not a conservative. I just see people who have been in absolute power a little too long corrupted absolutely.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As does Fox news, any media source these days needs to be taken with a grain of salt...
or better yet, read many of them and form your own opinion. It would be rare to find two individuals with identical viewpoints on everything... the contrast makes life interesting.
I find the least bias in local TV newscasts and the local newsradio here, which basically quotes the AP news feed. They are pretty careful to separate editorial content from straight news.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soup,
You've chosen the silly argument.
The US media supports G.W.Bush, who imho, is a commie, and that's the closest thing to conservative they've gotten outside the Rupert Murdoch empire, which is really the only major right-slanted. Sure there's CSM and a few finanical publications, some small press. But the MSM is a left slant, and it creeps through absolutely everything produced. Any random program is filled with liberal bias. Even the new Dr. Who has a fair amount of it, but fortunately it's willing to ask the tough questions. Some non-PC problems come up like "cybermen's rights." :)
Quote:
Business runs the media.
Not so much. The media *is* a business, and is largely funded by advertising, but the statement "the media is run by academia" is closer to the truth. If you look for example, Time/Warner, CBS, Viacom, are all run essentially out of Yale.
But Hollywood and Telewood are a vast network of guild-like societies unto themselves, with a very strong liberal bias. If you go through that population and do a poll you're going to find about 80% of them are liberals. I remember Emma Caufield said in an interview that working as a republican in this town was something like being the black guy at a klan rally - i don't think that was the exact analogy, but it was something pretty similar.
Not saying there's no muddy waters, but ultimately the rank and file are the ones creating the product, and they were driven their by their own proclivities.
I think one of the only generalizations you can make is that a majority of the most powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations support the Republicans because they know they get more welfare that way. Oh, and that a majority of African American voters support the Democratic Party because they know where all the racists ended up after the sixties. And that the media which isn't actively working for a permanent Republican majority (which is most of talk radio, Fox, the publications of the Reverend Moon, the Wall Street Journal and now Disney and ABC among others) is so scared of being labelled as "liberal" that they will bend over backwards to pass along conservative talking points.
Quote:
American conservatives have this whole "victim" schtick down cold.
And liberals don't? I mean really, be fair. The left does control hollywood and most of the media and just about all of academia, basically the major portion of all the information that everyone hears, and yet to read their political intra-liberal communications it's all "we're struggling to get the word out" sorry, but give me a break.
The problem, imho, with your position, is that you're calculating everything in dollar terms. This isn't how the world works. Those thinktanks didn't come into existance because someone had a bunch of dollars and said "hey, lets create a think tank." They came into being because a bunch of academics said "let become a think tank" and then they went around and cut deals with people until they found someone to fund them.
Quote:
I just see people who have been in absolute power a little too long corrupted absolutely.
Sure, don't you think I see that too? But it's not "the right." There's some cabal in power which has right wingers and lefties in it. But I really don't think you can look back at eight years of clinton and four years of carter against eight years of reagan and four years of bush sr. and see an imbalance. And sure, we have eight years of bush, and soon we'll have eight years of obama/hillary. Your side has been in power half the time, more than half from a congressional perspective.
Quote:
I think one of the only generalizations you can make is that a majority of the most powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations support the Republicans because they know they get more welfare that way.
I don't even think this is factually accurate. Democratic presidents give away tons of cash to their friends. Back in the days when republicans were fiscally responsible, democrats were getting fat. That's what really
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I see the same media, and think that they are terrified, even in the right press, of violating the cannon of liberal and "PC" that even the right is left. Sure, there are more conservatives now than there were, but it's still a liberal message machine.
Not trying to cross-contaminate from the Michael J. Fox thread, but
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610260008
Echoing Limbaugh, [ABC News political director Mark] Halperin greeted [CNN Headline News' Glenn] Beck to discuss Michael J. Fox by stating: "Glenn, first of all, megadittos. And I just need you to know, I'm not doing this segment on my meds, so watch out." "Megadittos" is a term used by Limbaugh's callers and fans to express strong support for Limbaugh and agreement with his views.
(+ vid of same)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Really Dreamtrove? Really?
First of all, sure a lot of shows tend to have a liberal angle. Liberals tend to be in hollywood, yada yada.
But watching a fiction show that deals with election fraud is not the same thing as watching the news, which is supposed to be our information outlet.
Pandering to at least half of their viewership by not totally lambasting gays, or not totally ripping pro-abortionists on their news programs, is hardly a measure of liberalness.
What you should be looking to when you try to tell me that our media is liberally biased is why it continued day after day to not touch the most damning stories out there of this president, and his Fascist policies. And no, he's not a Commie, he is a Fascist.
Why did it take over a month for any of the main-stream media to even touch the downing street memo, while we were screaming about it on the internet? And when they finally touched the story it was begrudgingly?
Why did the NY Times not break the damned story about the wiretapping during 2004 when it could have actually swayed the election?
Why did nobody save Olbermann even talk about the possibility of election fraud, while voter fraud was repeated as a concern over and over?
Why did only like 2 people cover the details of this last bill that the president signed giving him the right to torture whomever he wants and the right to suspend habeus corpus, in the guise of stopping terror? The news itself only talked aobut a compromise reached by him and moderates, which isn't even the truth...it was a cave to Bush. They did not go into detail about what this law actually meant, and don't tell me that isn't news-worty.
Why has nobody even talked about PNAC in the mainstream news? I absolutely agree that to do so as evidence of wrongdoing would be slanderous, but the talking heads on the right slander all day long. just look at what they've said about Murtha's service, Michael J Fox, Sheehan, Ritter,Kerry with the swift-boat ads, the 16 year old pages for christ sakes...
You should also consider these...
Why did ABC fund commercial free, a hugely expensive project of anti clinton propaganda?
Why did NBC just admit that it isn't airing an ad for "shut up and sing" because it is disparaging to President Bush?
tell me that there's a well oiled machine working on the left like that. It's pretty much bullshit man, and I doubt you could put together a comprehensive list to the contrary.
Again, yes, there are a lot of liberals in hollywood, but our News outlets are not run by liberals, and the news itself is not the major cash crop of the companies that own the news. Keeping neocons in office has been a windfall for giant companies. Don't tell me that their only interest is to make money by getting you to watch the news. The news is one big commercial these days to sell to the public a persepctive that will continue to bring them profits.
Seriously consider this...if liberals control the media and republicans pretty much get little representation in it,
then why do both sides tend to fight against their own best interests? Why do liberals want net neutrality? Why do many of us want the fairness doctrine back? Why do we want the big news companies to be regulated and their choke holds on the media loosened, if to do so would be against our interests?
Why on the other side of the fence, are Neocons so intent on deregulating the media further, when such an action would as you see the mainstream media run by liberals, give them even less voice? Why do they want to do away with net neutrality when the danger there is that the major companies with choke holds on the web could then make it hard for people to get to conservative web pages. They are 'liberal companies' after all...right? Why did Reagan let the Fairness Doctrine lapse if it was going to do his party so much harm? Why don't neocons who have all of the power right now, reinstate it?
..............................
Oh, and what had Bush done that you consider liberal? You
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME