News1 min ago
Tell Us Something We Didn't Already Know?
55 Answers
http://
At last it is official,
/// The BBC did not accurately reflect the public's growing concern about immigration because of a "deep liberal bias" ///
At last it is official,
/// The BBC did not accurately reflect the public's growing concern about immigration because of a "deep liberal bias" ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Well they would Jim.
The BBC should be scrapped or made into a subscription service. People should not be forced to pay to have right-on liberal views rammed down their throat.
Of course if the Guardian and Independent readership are anything to go by they wont have many punters and will soon be gone.
The BBC should be scrapped or made into a subscription service. People should not be forced to pay to have right-on liberal views rammed down their throat.
Of course if the Guardian and Independent readership are anything to go by they wont have many punters and will soon be gone.
So, it's reported in the Telegraph, a newspaper not known for its liberal bias, that a former ITV executive has found a couple of minor problems with the BBC's reporting ina report that the BBC commissioned.
"Stuart Prebble has concluded, overall, that our coverage of immigration is 'broad and impressive', that on the EU we offer 'a wide and comprehensive range of information and viewpoints' and that the BBC’s coverage of religion is 'comprehensive and impressive.' He also states that the overwhelming number of journalists within the BBC leave their personal politics at home.
Just what do you think they've done wrong? Oh, perhaps I can answer that myself. They don't agree with you. At least the BBC has to present all sides of an argument, unlike your newspapers of choice.
"Stuart Prebble has concluded, overall, that our coverage of immigration is 'broad and impressive', that on the EU we offer 'a wide and comprehensive range of information and viewpoints' and that the BBC’s coverage of religion is 'comprehensive and impressive.' He also states that the overwhelming number of journalists within the BBC leave their personal politics at home.
Just what do you think they've done wrong? Oh, perhaps I can answer that myself. They don't agree with you. At least the BBC has to present all sides of an argument, unlike your newspapers of choice.
Yes of course I like media content that confirms my world view. Who doesn't???
I am often pleased by the way that the BBC presents news. I am often irritated by the way Fox presents news.
I suspect that right-leaning people will be happy with media content from right-leaning sources too.
It's just the way of the world.
I am often pleased by the way that the BBC presents news. I am often irritated by the way Fox presents news.
I suspect that right-leaning people will be happy with media content from right-leaning sources too.
It's just the way of the world.
Just as an example I watched on the news today a report by a BBC bod on the government’s plan to get some dosh from foreign visitors to pay for their health treatment whilst in the UK.
You would have thought that the proposal meant that foreign visitors would be left dieing in the gutters should they require treatment whilst here. Phrases such as “they face having to pay” (said with the same inflection as “they face having their hands chopped off” might have been); “doctors have said they will be asked to act as border guards” were uttered by the grim faced reporter.
Then came some statistics:
“There was widespread belief that the problem (of “health tourism”) was not great. Although nobody has precise figures”.
“Some estimates put the cost as low as £1bn - a trifling amount when put in context of the overall health budget” (but slightly more than the cost of providing pensioners with free travel, which is in jeopardy as being “unsustainable”).
Nowhere was it mentioned that many people think it perfectly reasonable that foreign visitors should pay for their healthcare as they have to when travelling outside the EU (and frequently within it). Nowhere was it mentioned that very many other nations manage to ensure that their health services see that their hospitals and doctors are paid when treating foreign nationals without “turning doctors into border guards.
This is just one example of the liberals that run the BBC flexing their editorial muscle to denounce anything they see as right of centre. I never thought I’d say this but it is time for the BBC to be abolished so that the licence fee payers can be put out of their misery.
You would have thought that the proposal meant that foreign visitors would be left dieing in the gutters should they require treatment whilst here. Phrases such as “they face having to pay” (said with the same inflection as “they face having their hands chopped off” might have been); “doctors have said they will be asked to act as border guards” were uttered by the grim faced reporter.
Then came some statistics:
“There was widespread belief that the problem (of “health tourism”) was not great. Although nobody has precise figures”.
“Some estimates put the cost as low as £1bn - a trifling amount when put in context of the overall health budget” (but slightly more than the cost of providing pensioners with free travel, which is in jeopardy as being “unsustainable”).
Nowhere was it mentioned that many people think it perfectly reasonable that foreign visitors should pay for their healthcare as they have to when travelling outside the EU (and frequently within it). Nowhere was it mentioned that very many other nations manage to ensure that their health services see that their hospitals and doctors are paid when treating foreign nationals without “turning doctors into border guards.
This is just one example of the liberals that run the BBC flexing their editorial muscle to denounce anything they see as right of centre. I never thought I’d say this but it is time for the BBC to be abolished so that the licence fee payers can be put out of their misery.
/People should not be forced to pay to have right-on liberal views rammed down their throat./
Most people are very happy with the BBC so presumably in-tune with its degree of 'liberal' attitudes
Fringe weirdoes on the so-called 'Right' are well catered for with the likes of the Murdoch media empire
Indeed, right wing minorities can probably enjoy Fox 'News' even though it is a great example of 'no one went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public'
Most people are very happy with the BBC so presumably in-tune with its degree of 'liberal' attitudes
Fringe weirdoes on the so-called 'Right' are well catered for with the likes of the Murdoch media empire
Indeed, right wing minorities can probably enjoy Fox 'News' even though it is a great example of 'no one went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public'
-- answer removed --
NJ
You ma be guilty of projecting your own biases - it's only natural
/You would have thought that the proposal meant that foreign visitors would be left dieing in the gutters/
They said that did they? No of course not; you inferred it
Phrases such as “they face having to pay”
Well they do - that's a fact
(said with the same inflection as “they face having their hands chopped off” might have been);
Really. How did you measure that 'sameness'? Or was it just your interpretation again?
/“doctors have said they will be asked to act as border guards” /
I expect they have - UK medical facilities are renowned for not collecting fees due by foreigners - that is not the BBC's fault
/were uttered by the grim faced reporter./
NJ can you describe the specific differences in facial characteristics you are noting between 'grim faced' and 'serious'?
You ma be guilty of projecting your own biases - it's only natural
/You would have thought that the proposal meant that foreign visitors would be left dieing in the gutters/
They said that did they? No of course not; you inferred it
Phrases such as “they face having to pay”
Well they do - that's a fact
(said with the same inflection as “they face having their hands chopped off” might have been);
Really. How did you measure that 'sameness'? Or was it just your interpretation again?
/“doctors have said they will be asked to act as border guards” /
I expect they have - UK medical facilities are renowned for not collecting fees due by foreigners - that is not the BBC's fault
/were uttered by the grim faced reporter./
NJ can you describe the specific differences in facial characteristics you are noting between 'grim faced' and 'serious'?
-- answer removed --
The Daily Telegraph complaining about the BBC having a political bias !
A sentence with pots and kettles would seem to come to mind.
The BBC is the finest broadcasting company in the world. I will defend it against anyone, left or right wing. I would gladly pay my licence fee just for Humphries, Paxo, Attenborough and The Archers alone, let alone the rest.
A sentence with pots and kettles would seem to come to mind.
The BBC is the finest broadcasting company in the world. I will defend it against anyone, left or right wing. I would gladly pay my licence fee just for Humphries, Paxo, Attenborough and The Archers alone, let alone the rest.
The BBC may employ a large number of liberal thinkers (I don't know because I haven't seen a poll which confirms this), and as a public service organisation it absolutely should remain impartial in all matters. The fact that I personally see a liberal leaning in the parts of its output that I consume makes me happy.
If I leant to the right, I would be unhappy.
I submit that if the BBC leant to the right, those whose politics were more conservative (small 'c'), than liberal (small 'l') would be quite happy.
I may be wrong (but I doubt it).
If I leant to the right, I would be unhappy.
I submit that if the BBC leant to the right, those whose politics were more conservative (small 'c'), than liberal (small 'l') would be quite happy.
I may be wrong (but I doubt it).
