ChatterBank2 mins ago
Bbc Bias
If the BBC is so biased, why do so many rank it as the first source of news they trust the most?
In a recent Ipsos poll, it gets the highest ranking for accuracy (57 per cent) and for impartiality (50 per cent).
https:/
In a recent Ipsos poll, it gets the highest ranking for accuracy (57 per cent) and for impartiality (50 per cent).
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//I still do not know what the dozens of people sitting in the cavern behind the TV newsreaders do. They do little between 8am and 10pm because, bar an truly exceptional event occurring, the news at eight in the morning is the same as at 10pm.//
Why Judge, surely they are "busy" making news in their own image.
//"Zimbabwe State News "
Togo....you are so funny !//
Haha made me titter when I conjured it up too. :))
But even you know that for any gag or skit to work, it needs a pointed truth in there.
Why Judge, surely they are "busy" making news in their own image.
//"Zimbabwe State News "
Togo....you are so funny !//
Haha made me titter when I conjured it up too. :))
But even you know that for any gag or skit to work, it needs a pointed truth in there.
// I still do not know what the dozens of people sitting in the cavern behind the TV newsreaders do. //
important research NJ...
http://
important research NJ...
http://
The BBC's problem is probably better-stated not as being biased one way or the other, but as "obsessively impartial". Which would be fair enough, except it's impartial on matters that don't deserve partiality (ie, paints everything as 50/50 even when it's not), or just comes across as biased against pretty much whoever it's interviewing at the time.
But as ludwig says, left-wingers complain about right-wing BBC bias, and vice versa -- and they're both right.
But as ludwig says, left-wingers complain about right-wing BBC bias, and vice versa -- and they're both right.
mikey4444
/// I don't believe that the BBC is biased at all. ///
Is that why you choose it as your news source?
/// People who do think that, are almost all right-wingers, as they expect all media groups to be critical of left wingers but never of them. ///
I think you are getting mixed up with the left-wing press, there isn't a paper more right-wing than the Daily Mail and you should see how critical they are towards all parties.
/// I don't believe that the BBC is biased at all. ///
Is that why you choose it as your news source?
/// People who do think that, are almost all right-wingers, as they expect all media groups to be critical of left wingers but never of them. ///
I think you are getting mixed up with the left-wing press, there isn't a paper more right-wing than the Daily Mail and you should see how critical they are towards all parties.
"That Ipsos poll suggests that 50% of people think the BBC is impartial, which means that 50% think it’s biased..."
I think you're misreading this particular figure. The 50% stat comes from a question:
"Of all the news sources (TV broadcaster, radio, newspaper, magazine or website), which ONE source are you most likely to turn to if you want impartial news coverage?"
To which 50% of people picked the BBC, and the next highest option was the ITV at 11%. But that doesn't mean that the other 50% thought the BBC was necessarily the least impartial -- just not the *most* impartial. (In that same question, almost all newspapers scored only 1% or 2% support for impartiality.)
On the question where bias in news outlets was considered individually rather than as a competition, the BBC still came out on top, with an average impartiality rating of 6.4 out of 10. I can't say I really know what this number means on its own -- how can any one person meaningfully give impartiality a score? -- but taken as an average the BBC still is judged by those polled to be one of the most reliable and unbiased news outlets out there, way ahead of others such as the Mail, Guardian, Sun etc.
http://
I think you're misreading this particular figure. The 50% stat comes from a question:
"Of all the news sources (TV broadcaster, radio, newspaper, magazine or website), which ONE source are you most likely to turn to if you want impartial news coverage?"
To which 50% of people picked the BBC, and the next highest option was the ITV at 11%. But that doesn't mean that the other 50% thought the BBC was necessarily the least impartial -- just not the *most* impartial. (In that same question, almost all newspapers scored only 1% or 2% support for impartiality.)
On the question where bias in news outlets was considered individually rather than as a competition, the BBC still came out on top, with an average impartiality rating of 6.4 out of 10. I can't say I really know what this number means on its own -- how can any one person meaningfully give impartiality a score? -- but taken as an average the BBC still is judged by those polled to be one of the most reliable and unbiased news outlets out there, way ahead of others such as the Mail, Guardian, Sun etc.
http://
I always think of the BBC’s treatment Baroness Thatcher’s death whenever I read complaints about bias.
At the time, the BBC received 268 complaints that its coverage was biased in favour of Thatcher, and 227 who said it was biased against her.
A further 271 people complained that the BBC had devoted too much airtime to the former Tory leader's death.
That’s a pretty good balance.
At the time, the BBC received 268 complaints that its coverage was biased in favour of Thatcher, and 227 who said it was biased against her.
A further 271 people complained that the BBC had devoted too much airtime to the former Tory leader's death.
That’s a pretty good balance.
Were those "figures" the Beep Beep See's own sp? I would take them with a pinch of salt if so. Ofcom recently reported that over a 2 week period 8,300 complaints were received about the Beep Beep output, and just 12 were investigated by the Biased Broadcasting Cabal. Just 1 was fully upheld. Marvellous statistics.
"Overnight, news teams collate international news stories."
What like the the members of these teams, you mean:
https:/
Anyway, I'm not talking about what they do overnight. I usually watch the BBC news at about 8am and then again either at 6pm or 10pm. The bulletins are virtually identical. Nothing happens in the UK (or indeed the rest of the world) between those two times. The local news is a joke. It consists of virtually no news at all but is simply a collection of magazine type articles that could have been compiled any time in the previous month or two. Much of the half hour consists of "tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em and then tell 'em what you've just told 'em" with the same "headlines" (such as they are) repeated over and over again. And woe betide if the leading national story has a local slant. The national story is repeated virtually verbatim followed by an interview with somebody's cousin's neighbour "who knew the chap involved when he was a boy".
Whatever research is carried out by the armies of scribes in the cavern, the results are not conveyed to the paying audience. I get more up to date information from the newspaper the following day.
What like the the members of these teams, you mean:
https:/
Anyway, I'm not talking about what they do overnight. I usually watch the BBC news at about 8am and then again either at 6pm or 10pm. The bulletins are virtually identical. Nothing happens in the UK (or indeed the rest of the world) between those two times. The local news is a joke. It consists of virtually no news at all but is simply a collection of magazine type articles that could have been compiled any time in the previous month or two. Much of the half hour consists of "tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em and then tell 'em what you've just told 'em" with the same "headlines" (such as they are) repeated over and over again. And woe betide if the leading national story has a local slant. The national story is repeated virtually verbatim followed by an interview with somebody's cousin's neighbour "who knew the chap involved when he was a boy".
Whatever research is carried out by the armies of scribes in the cavern, the results are not conveyed to the paying audience. I get more up to date information from the newspaper the following day.
This isn't just about political bias, is it? I have noticed more and more- mostly from mikey's own links, how often their reports go towards sensationalism instead of facts and that you have to read as much what they don't say, as much as what they do. They can be very misleading and let people run with their own prejudices just from a headline.
Having said that, there won't be any news media anywhere that is unbiased.
Having said that, there won't be any news media anywhere that is unbiased.
It's very hard, I think, for media these days to resist the general movement towards "clickbait" -- ie, oversensationalised headlines that encourage people to read on, or headlines that don't even say what the story is about, for example: "This woman opened the fridge and you won't BELIEVE what she found!" (Answer: slightly off milk)
I'm surprised that the BBC goes in for it because honestly I'm not sure why they need so much traffic if there's no reliance on adverts, but at any rate that's what's going on. It's a drift that means that often actual news is buried behind totally overdramatic rubbish. But, to be sure, they aren't the worst at it. In the UK, that would probably be the Express for example, which tends to CAPITALISE words for NO REASON just to ANNOY the reader.
I'm surprised that the BBC goes in for it because honestly I'm not sure why they need so much traffic if there's no reliance on adverts, but at any rate that's what's going on. It's a drift that means that often actual news is buried behind totally overdramatic rubbish. But, to be sure, they aren't the worst at it. In the UK, that would probably be the Express for example, which tends to CAPITALISE words for NO REASON just to ANNOY the reader.
I’m sure the reason many people who think the BBC are biased fall largely in 3 camps:
Those who are used to the right wing tabloid press, beside which anything more balanced is going to seem strange.
Those with deep political convictions to the left or right who see everything in shades only of red or blue. For them anything that doesn’t echo in their chamber is going to be ‘biased’ the other way.
Then of course there’ll be those who never watch it, but get their world view from less scrupulous broadcasting outfits who like to sow confusion in the minds of their gullible viewers.
When I see the term MSM I get very suspicious. We seem to love being assailed by alternative reality :-)
Those who are used to the right wing tabloid press, beside which anything more balanced is going to seem strange.
Those with deep political convictions to the left or right who see everything in shades only of red or blue. For them anything that doesn’t echo in their chamber is going to be ‘biased’ the other way.
Then of course there’ll be those who never watch it, but get their world view from less scrupulous broadcasting outfits who like to sow confusion in the minds of their gullible viewers.
When I see the term MSM I get very suspicious. We seem to love being assailed by alternative reality :-)
