EU corruption "equivalent to the bloc's annual budget"

[KentPhilip]

So basically we have an article about a report on corruption in EU countries and that's described as "biased" because it isn't actually about the EU?

How about this article about the football? That's not about the EU, is it "biased" too?

BBC Sport - Manchester City 0-1 Chelsea

TBH the only baised viewpoint I see here is the anti-EU lobby looking for any excuse to spout off.

Don't agree with that. The article clearly implies and promotes the idea that the EU should have its powers increased to resolve the "problem".

First it describes what it sees as the "problem":

Bribery widespread .. National governments, rather than EU institutions, are chiefly responsible for fighting corruption in the EU.

and then promotes an implied solution.

"The political commitment to really root out corruption seems to be missing," she complained.

The EU has an anti-fraud agency, Olaf, which focuses on fraud and corruption affecting the EU budget, but it has limited resources. In 2011 its budget was just 23.5m euros.

So the suggestion is that the funding for the "Olaf" quango within the EU be increased. That's bias.

[doodab]

Don't agree with that. The article clearly implies and promotes the idea that the EU should have its powers increased to resolve the "problem".

First it describes what it sees as the "problem":

and then promotes an implied solution.

No it doesn't. It reports on what was in the report. If it reported something other than what the report said then it would be a distortion of the truth. Can you really not tell the difference between a quoted source and an opinion piece?

So the suggestion is that the funding for the "Olaf" quango within the EU be increased. That's bias.

So the EU bod responsible for the report makes a suggestion and you're holding the BBC responsible for it. No doubt they are responsible for all the water sloshing around in Somerset as well, I mean they reported on that didn't they!

I hate to say it but

[KentPhilip]

So why don't they get a UKIP person onto the article to put across his opinion as to why what the EU are saying is rubbish?
That would be balanced journalism - put one side of the story, and balance it with an opposing view. Otherwise it just becomes a political campaign message.

[doodab]

So why don't they get a UKIP person onto the article to put across his opinion as to why what the EU are saying is rubbish?
That would be balanced journalism - put one side of the story, and balance it with an opposing view. Otherwise it just becomes a political campaign message.

They have plenty of articles reporting on what UKIP have to say. Do they all include a quote from an EU commissioner? Of course not, because simply giving equal weight to one opposing view isn't "balanced" at all. You would need to canvas quotes from every political party in the spectrum. Or failing that just report on what each of them has to say individually, which is what they actually do.

You also seem to be suggesting that a UKIP person would be dismissing the report as rubbish, i.e. saying that there isn't rampant corruption in some EU countries. That, it would appear, is actually bollocks, so it's unlikely that a UKIP person would stand up and dismiss the report out of hand as it would make them look like idiots. Not that that normally stops them.

The simple fact is you run around screaming "bias" everytime you read something you disagree with but your own view is so blinkered that you can't even see what you are actually looking at. You really are a class A plonker.

[vetran]

POT meet KETTLE.

[KentPhilip]

They have plenty of articles reporting on what UKIP have to say.

Yes they do. But for those they DO put the opposing view. "But Labour says blah blah blah"
Can you link to one that is a simple un-challenged UKIP opinion on the BBC?

because simply giving equal weight to one opposing view isn't "balanced" at all.

The trouble is UKIP are the only mainstream opposing view on this subject, so I don't see an alternative.

You also seem to be suggesting that a UKIP person would be dismissing the report as rubbish, i.e. saying that there isn't rampant corruption in some EU countries.

The UKIP spokesman would say that while there is corruption in the european countries, there would be a whole lot more if the EU had more powers. And that the best approach is to eliminate the EU as being anything other than a facilitator of trade.

The simple fact is you run around screaming "bias" everytime you read something you disagree with but your own view is so blinkered that you can't even see what you are actually looking at.

There are other publications that I believe are biased in favour of views that I largely agree with, such as the Telegraph and The Sun with their right-wing bias. The problem with the BBC is that they are a state-funded broadcaster and have no business being biased (indeed it is in their charter that they must not be), so I and others have every right to complain when they are.

You really are a class A plonker.

Well, probably

[darmstadt]

You really are a class A plonker.

If he was class A then he'd be banned :-)

[Mich the Tester]

The UKIP spokesman would say ... the best approach is to eliminate the EU as being anything other than a facilitator of trade.

OK, I can live with that as it's pretty much the route I'd like to see the EU going; now the question is how to achieve that?

[KentPhilip]

If he was class A then he'd be banned :-)

Everyone seems to be being banned, except me. I'm starting to feel left out

[doodab]

The trouble is UKIP are the only mainstream opposing view on this subject, so I don't see an alternative.

No they aren't. There are anti europe lobbies in most European countries. There are Tory Eurosceptics, who are arguably a lot more mainstream. And once again, just because a view is opposing that doesn't mean including it makes for a balanced article, in fact if it's a minority view giving it equal weight leads to a very unbalanced article.

The UKIP spokesman would say that while there is corruption in the european countries, there would be a whole lot more if the EU had more powers. And that the best approach is to eliminate the EU as being anything other than a facilitator of trade.

So how come the least corruption is found in those countries which have been in the EU the longest and the most in the new member states?

There are other publications that I believe are biased in favour of views that I largely agree with, such as the Telegraph and The Sun with their right-wing bias. The problem with the BBC is that they are a state-funded broadcaster and have no business being biased (indeed it is in their charter that they must not be), so I and others have every right to complain when they are.

The problem is you believe they are biased because you are incapable of recognising a lack of bias when you see it.

Here, BTW, is a UKIP article with no opinions from other parties, just a simple, unbiased, statement of fact.

BBC News - Ex-Conservative councillor David Parsons joins UKIP

And here is another

BBC News - Nigel Farage wants no more 'UKIP Walter Mittys'

And another

BBC News - Farage: Women must sacrifice family life to succeed in City

In fact, I can't find one with an alternative opinion in, which leads me to conclude you need some help to reestablish contact with reality...