Reply to: BBC bias

[doodab]

Is there another UK media organisation that is funded by taxpayers, and with a charter to provide unbiased reporting?

Actually the communications act 2003 requires 'the preservation of due impartiality' from all licensed broadcasters regardless of how they are funded.

[Doggy Styles]

Ok so the charter bit is news

Even if it were not chartered, people should not have to pay (through their taxes) for biased broadcasts and publications that go against their own beliefs.

[Ignis Fatuus]

What you need to do is open 2 browser windows, one with the Guardian and one with the Daily Mail. Read a story from one and then the other and switch between and they balance each other out...

Before the internet (yes ....) I sometimes bought the Telegraph and the Guardian. It was amusing: "police chief accused of incompetence"; "police chief rebuts accusation of incompetence".

It is more than amusing: it should be part of education.

[suityou01]

Is there another UK media organisation that is funded by taxpayers, and with a charter to provide unbiased reporting?

Ok so the charter bit is news

[Doggy Styles]

How do we know the depths of depravity of this organisation? After the Saville debacle I'd put nothing past them. Who knows what bungs and bribes they may be taking from various political sources?

And is this limited to just the BBC?

Is there another UK media organisation that is funded by taxpayers, and with a charter to provide unbiased reporting?

[suityou01]

On BBC news last night Bob (arf arf ) Thompson stated that the nightmare scenario with regards to resolving the Cyprus problem would be for them having to leave the Euro and that patch up solutions were clearly therefore offered the best solutions. To who I wonder?

How do we know the depths of depravity of this organisation? After the Saville debacle I'd put nothing past them. Who knows what bungs and bribes they may be taking from various political sources?

And is this limited to just the BBC?

[darmstadt]

Interesting, because I gave up on the Guardian. There's a constant white noise of left wing bias in the background which irritated me to the point when I had to stop buying it.

What you need to do is open 2 browser windows, one with the Guardian and one with the Daily Mail. Read a story from one and then the other and switch between and they balance each other out...

[doodab]

I find the best way to avoid bias in the media is to get your information from multiple sources, and where possible look at stats and science papers directly rather than letting a journo do it for me.

As for the BBC, news and current affairs represent a fraction of their output. Their comedy back catalogue, documentaries and wildlife programs are worth the license fee on their own. Radio 4 is pretty good as well.

[Ignis Fatuus]

I think possibly yes. But that is just an opinion. I concede that the Jimmy Savile case is not proof of it; it is circumstantial evidence only.
The trouble with the BBC is that there is a LOT of circumstantial evidence.

The BBC has something like 4 national TV networks, 8 national radio networks, and a 2-million page website. Anything about the BBC, there is a LOT of.

Well I already have your address. But I don't plan to visit you; I confine my life to stalking people in the "nice" neighbourhoods

You are assuming that I live in a "neighbourhood".

[Platypus]

Interesting, because I gave up on the Guardian. There's a constant white noise of left wing bias in the background which irritated me to the point when I had to stop buying it.

[xoggoth]

I don't find that the BBC, Guardian or Independent are that biased, they don't shrink from publishing some unacceptable truths.

[EternalOptimist]

Impartiality has limits.

AFAIK they are also biased in favour of the theory of gravitation, and I'm OK with that too. It's not a bias, it's a fact.

Now you are being ridiculous. Did the BBC hold a seminar that agreed to deny air time to anyone who disagreed with gravitation ?

[KentPhilip]

Do you seriously think the reason they didn't do anything about Savile was because he was only targeting white girls?

I think possibly yes. But that is just an opinion. I concede that the Jimmy Savile case is not proof of it; it is circumstantial evidence only.
The trouble with the BBC is that there is a LOT of circumstantial evidence.

Wow. You're beginning to sound like one of those obsessive people who I'm glad don't have my contact details

Well I already have your address. But I don't plan to visit you; I confine my life to stalking people in the "nice" neighbourhoods

[Ignis Fatuus]

I don't think it is a laughing matter. The BBC by allowing Jimmy Savile to carry on assaulting white schoolgirls is showing that it is anti the white British community. Because isn't child protection a major part of the responsibility of a caring administration of a community? Especially so the official national broadcaster of that community.

Do you seriously think the reason they didn't do anything about Savile was because he was only targeting white girls?

I wouldn't put it past them

Wow. You're beginning to sound like one of those obsessive people who I'm glad don't have my contact details

[Bunk]

I wouldn't put it past them. If Dr David Bellamy got thrown out of the BBC because he disagreed with climate change I can well imagine Jimmy Savile suffering the same fate if he started nobbling pakistani schoolgirls.

The point I'm trying to make is that the colour of their skin* is such a minor consideration compared to the the seriousness of his (alleged) crimes that I don't think it has any significance. There were probably many reasons he got away with it, embarrassment for the Beeb, money (compensation and the price of losing one of their big stars), others being involved in it too and being scared of getting dragged down, starstruck staff turning a blind eye etc, but I just can't believe that anyone thought "You know what, they're only white girls so I won't say anything".

* I was going to say it pales into insignificance but I thought better of it