Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[amorphos_ii]

The BBC IS biased, outdated and should be removed!

You would think that as the BBC is a socialist entity paid for by a forced subscription – which they refer to as ‘free’? That I would here be talking about a bias toward the left, but I am not. When labour got in power they all looked glum-faced as if the worst thing in the world had just occurred, then when Trump won the presidency, they couldn’t stop smiling. Mostly though, its the everyday convolutions in their behaviours that get me; they constantly let Tories and other capitalist puppets talk their inane drivel for as long as they want, or until my ears otherwise start bleeding. Then as soon as labour or liberals [and any lefties] start talking, they are not allowed to finish their first sentence before the newscasters/presenters rudely cut in.

the words they say may be apparently unbiased, but there is a lot more going on which the casual observer doesn’t see. Its they way they bark at people – so to say, with these pre-prepared answers, usually one liners, which outfox labour. This always disappoints me, as you would expect labour to have answers, but instead they are always sat there looking dumbfounded. You could say that, that, is unbiased, ...really! So all manner of biased and duplicitous individuals [capitalists etc] who are highly trained in politics and e.g. advertising, can work out these quick quips designed to outwit their adversaries on the left, are allowed to covertly add-in their propaganda and other argument, and this is what they call unbiased?

I say get rid of the BBC and don’t give their presenters jobs because they are incapable of doing their jobs properly. As an example of the contrast, the only time I have seen a presenter whom IS on unbiased when talking about labour, in on SKY news! The lady presenter spoke and was allowed to speak about what Kier Starmer has had to go through. She spoke of the recent loss of his brother, what a mess he inherited and how hostile people have been to him and his party. I think he is a proper decent chap and is doing the right things to make it better for ordinary people and indeed everyone.

Do I have to remind people that the Tories have told one of the biggest outright lies in our political history! They used brexit to remove us from the EU, I think so that the EU did not become richer that the USA. However, they did not stop immigration – the actual think everyone who voted for it actually wanted.

I think the solution is to keep the licence fee, but give us a basic sky subscription instead of the BBC! There are other providers, but the BBC helped pay for the startup costs of SKY, and seeing as the BBC don’t have any money of their own, that means we are the ones who paid said moneys toward SKY TV. Ergo it should be SKY TV who take over.

[Sy Borg]

It is unfair for a national broadcaster to favour one side of politics. The same issue exists in Australia with the ABC.

There was a time when national broadcasters were needed to help people in remote areas to stay in touch. Now that role has been taken by the internet. There is no rational or ethical case to maintain a national broadcaster beyond the absolute basics - broadcasting need-to-know information such as weather and traffic warnings. The BBC/ABC are redundant since The Guardian is already covering their angles.

With the variety of media voices available, the BBC and ABC's role is not to keep people connected but to inform people of the "correct" way to think. They feign objectivity, as if Marxism had not overrun much of academia, as if they were simply being "scientific". In truth, they are being academic in a blinkered way. The oppressor/oppressed model exists, but it's one dimension of multidimensional societies. The model the BBC espouses fails to appreciate - and celebrate - that some individuals are simply smarter, more talented, more reasoning, or simply better able to leverage power than others. Thus, hierarchies are inevitable.

However, the Beeb and Aunty focus on the oppressor/oppressed dynamic as if those who are rich and powerful had not earned it - as if anyone could do it, an should do it . Thus, about half of the population who don't think as they do are paying their taxes to be lectured at.

It's a shame. I used to love the ABC. Smart programs and no ads or hype. Alas, they drifted left and, worse, they become relentlessly preachy

[Fried Egg]

Do I have to remind people that the Tories have told one of the biggest outright lies in our political history! They used brexit to remove us from the EU, I think so that the EU did not become richer that the USA.

The EU was never on course for becoming richer than the USA, with or without the UK. Besides which, most Tory MP's at the time (and certainly the leadership) wanted to remain in the EU so your suspicion is baseless.

As for bias at the BBC generally, I think most people think they're biased and probably it varies from issue to issue, and certainly from your perspective as an observer. I've certainly read many articles that I think are clearly biased in one direction or the other, often if only in the way they frame the subject.

To be honest, trying to be neutral is probably an impossible task. It would probably be better if they clearly stated what their baseline beliefs were (both as an organisation and individual journalists) so we don't expect neutrality as it's an impossible goal.

[amorphos_ii]

Sy Borg 

good post. Though I disagree about the marxist thing, it was definitely true 20 – 30 years ago though. Maybe at first they tried to get away from that, but now it is totally Tory biased.

Either way, we should not be paying a TAX [licence fee] for any kind of prejudice service, nor a forced subscription et al.

Fried Egg 

well there has been mixed information on the matter, one year – I think it was 2019, wiki showed the EU China and the USA as nearly on an even footing. I wouldn’t trust a thing now though.

One can be neutral in at least the way situations are set-up. Clearly they have experts on the sidelines giving them answers which stump lefties, the media have been doing that for ages. Equally so, they could give speakers equal due – let stem speak for approximately the same amount of time, or at least not rudely cut in before they have finished a single sentence/reply to a question asked.

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg 

good post. Though I disagree about the marxist thing, it was definitely true 20 – 30 years ago though. Maybe at first they tried to get away from that, but now it is totally Tory biased.

Either way, we should not be paying a TAX [licence fee] for any kind of prejudice service, nor a forced subscription et al.

We will have to agree to disagree about the Marxist takeover of academic institutions and most of the news media, including Beeb. Its biases are revealed in the angles of their articles, and the things they choose not to say. Of course, the London financial Mafia leverages the Marxist angle to divide and rule, which works fine for the UniParty.

Two words say everything about the mainstream media's war on social media - Jimmy Savile.

[Fried Egg]

One can be neutral in at least the way situations are set-up. Clearly they have experts on the sidelines giving them answers which stump lefties, the media have been doing that for ages. Equally so, they could give speakers equal due – let stem speak for approximately the same amount of time, or at least not rudely cut in before they have finished a single sentence/reply to a question asked.

I can tell you that there have definitely been many recent examples of of people on the right getting this kind of treatment. I think the trouble is that we are naturally biased ourselves and overly sensitive to people who espouse things that we agree with getting short shrift when we unconsciously turn a blind eye to the same happing to people we disagree with.

[chewybrian]

If you google "media bias chart", you will see that the BBC is one of the most trustworthy and least biased sources available. It has held this position for many years. It does not skew left or right, and it tends to give facts over opinion at a rate higher than almost any other popular news source. If your opinion of the BBC is that they are too liberal or conservative, this likely reflects your own bias.

[chewybrian]

With the variety of media voices available, the BBC and ABC's role is not to keep people connected but to inform people of the "correct" way to think. They feign objectivity, as if Marxism had not overrun much of academia, as if they were simply being "scientific".

Sy,

I meant to quote you in my last post in this thread, and I was replying to what you said there (^).

[Sy Borg]

If you google "media bias chart", you will see that the BBC is one of the most trustworthy and least biased sources available. It has held this position for many years. It does not skew left or right, and it tends to give facts over opinion at a rate higher than almost any other popular news source. If your opinion of the BBC is that they are too liberal or conservative, this likely reflects your own bias.

The BBC provides almost as much accurate information as it suppresses.

When I do political bias tests, I am adjudged to be centre-left, which is the same as Beeb https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/. Yet I believe that the Beeb displays significant leftist bias, based on its choice of stories and choice of headlines. It's not enough to simply provide correct information if whole swathes of information and viewpoints are ignored.

The Beeb lost all credibility after being exposed protecting paedophile predator, Jimmy Savile for half a century. This was not an aberration, but a system of control of the release of facts that remained consistent in decades of decision-makers.

[chewybrian]

If you google "media bias chart", you will see that the BBC is one of the most trustworthy and least biased sources available. It has held this position for many years. It does not skew left or right, and it tends to give facts over opinion at a rate higher than almost any other popular news source. If your opinion of the BBC is that they are too liberal or conservative, this likely reflects your own bias.

The BBC provides almost as much accurate information as it suppresses.

When I do political bias tests, I am adjudged to be centre-left, which is the same as Beeb Yet I believe that the Beeb displays significant leftist bias, based on its choice of stories and choice of headlines. It's not enough to simply provide correct information if whole swathes of information and viewpoints are ignored.

The Beeb lost all credibility after being exposed protecting paedophile predator, Jimmy Savile for half a century. This was not an aberration, but a system of control of the release of facts that remained consistent in decades of decision-makers.

I referred to AdFontes, which is probably the first hit and the most widely recognized source for media bias. It shows the BBC to be as good a choice as you can make, and has continued to rate them similarly for the past several years (I actually refer to this source quite often when someone claims a media bias, which is ridiculously frequently here in the states).

Folks are taught to cry liberal bias here in the states when they don't like what a report says, rather than addressing the points of the report.

[Sy Borg]

If you google "media bias chart", you will see that the BBC is one of the most trustworthy and least biased sources available. It has held this position for many years. It does not skew left or right, and it tends to give facts over opinion at a rate higher than almost any other popular news source. If your opinion of the BBC is that they are too liberal or conservative, this likely reflects your own bias.

The BBC provides almost as much accurate information as it suppresses.

When I do political bias tests, I am adjudged to be centre-left, which is the same as Beeb Yet I believe that the Beeb displays significant leftist bias, based on its choice of stories and choice of headlines. It's not enough to simply provide correct information if whole swathes of information and viewpoints are ignored.

The Beeb lost all credibility after being exposed protecting paedophile predator, Jimmy Savile for half a century. This was not an aberration, but a system of control of the release of facts that remained consistent in decades of decision-makers.

I referred to AdFontes, which is probably the first hit and the most widely recognized source for media bias. It shows the BBC to be as good a choice as you can make, and has continued to rate them similarly for the past several years (I actually refer to this source quite often when someone claims a media bias, which is ridiculously frequently here in the states).

Folks are taught to cry liberal bias here in the states when they don't like what a report says, rather than addressing the points of the report.

People all over the world from both sides cry bias when they don't like a report. That's why some people engage in philosophy - to aim for a view that isn't shaped by organisations, and to be aware of the many manipulative techniques used to influence others.

Why do humans have big brains? To out-manoeuvre those with smaller brains. While this applies to other animals, it also applies to each other. We humans can be devilishly clever and cunning, and the methods used to brainwash (for want of a less dramatic word) can be sophisticated.

Only in recent times have I realised just how controlled my mind was by an academia that has been increasingly lurching left. My naive faith in scientific integrity (including BBC/ABC reports based on academic reports) meant that I was not sufficiently questioning many claims because it supported my tendency to believe in the noble savage mythos and to support generally underdogs, without taking into account the self-defeating behaviours of underdogs that lead to their status. That's what the Beeb and the Guardian do - they reflexively support deemed "underdogs" based on slanted academic reports.

I feel hoodwinked by academia and the mainstream media and I'm a tad resentful, but I have to accept that consuming media has always been a case of caveat emptor, and I let my guard down.

[Pattern-chaser]

The Beeb lost all credibility after being exposed protecting paedophile predator, Jimmy Savile for half a century. This was not an aberration, but a system of control of the release of facts that remained consistent in decades of decision-makers.

I do not, for a single moment, defend what was done here. But I would observe that the BBC seem to have done what other organisations have done — and they were also badly wrong in what they did! — to protect themselves from a public opinion backlash. So my comment is this: suppression is wrong, but the BBC is far from the only offender. Sadly.

[Sy Borg]

The Beeb lost all credibility after being exposed protecting paedophile predator, Jimmy Savile for half a century. This was not an aberration, but a system of control of the release of facts that remained consistent in decades of decision-makers.

I do not, for a single moment, defend what was done here. But I would observe that the BBC seem to have done what other organisations have done — and they were also badly wrong in what they did! — to protect themselves from a public opinion backlash. So my comment is this: suppression is wrong, but the BBC is far from the only offender. Sadly.

No, most organisations would not protect and, certainly not lionise, a known paedophilic predator for half a century. I have worked in organisations where lesser cover-ups were foiled by diligent managers. Not one manager - not in half a century at the BBC - dared speak up. That says something about the organisation's culture, that burying problematic issues was a practice they had developed to a fine art.

One can be confident about the news that the BBC reports, just as one can be confident that they routinely bury inconvenient facts.

The growth of the internet means that the BBC and other such bodies play no useful or unique role; media that will only report its own spin and bury inconvenient facts are everywhere. The BBC's limited function today does not justify the £3.66 billion spent on it annually by British taxpayers.

[Pattern-chaser]

The BBC's limited function today does not justify the £3.66 billion spent on it annually by British taxpayers.

Isn't that a judgement for "British taxpayers" to make?

[chewybrian]

The growth of the internet means that the BBC and other such bodies play no useful or unique role; media that will only report its own spin and bury inconvenient facts are everywhere.

This is similar to the argument Reagan made for killing the fairness doctrine in the US. As a result, there are few limits on blurring the line between news and opinion and propaganda, and there is no requirement to offer both sides to any argument. We got a generation of Rush Limbaugh and another generation of Fox news, leading to MAGA and Trump. As a result, we're quickly undoing the progress we made against racism, sexism and such and willingly conceding our rights in exchange for 'protection' from phantom boogie men.

Nothing less than the future arc of civilization is at stake, as we are marching toward a 1984 style existence and many of us are cheering for it all the way through. The reasons for trying to establish neutral and reasonably objective sources are as clear and pressing as they were then. The reasons certain people don't want objective truth to be told are also clear-they want to enable an oligarchy to take control, or they are useful idiots driven by hate.