BBC bias

[DeeTillEhDeh]

As I'd hope most sensible British institutions were!
Don't see it though. 

You think that having 4 seperate articles as the 4 main headlines, effectively repeating the same thing, is acceptable?

It's classic divide and rule tactics.

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

You think that having 4 seperate articles as the 4 main headlines, effectively repeating the same thing, is acceptable?

It's classic divide and rule tactics.

To be fair they're just linking old articles that are related to the current story, it's standard practice.

[John Lambies Doos]

To be fair they're just linking old articles that are related to the current story, it's standard practice.

It is in fairness, they do that all the time. Don't like the BBC but don't think they are biased on this occasion, it's a pretty big story tbf.

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

25 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

To be fair they're just linking old articles that are related to the current story, it's standard practice.

It is in fairness, they do that all the time. Don't like the BBC but don't think they are biased on this occasion, it's a pretty big story tbf.

People are certainly trying to make it one, a weird mix of Unionists and disgruntled Salmond, Cherry and Wings fanboys. I personally don't think it matters at all whether she first heard about the allegations 3 days before she remembered. And the rest of it seems to be whatsapp gossip about it, as you'd get in any organization when juicy rumours start flying.

Edited January 23, 2021 by welshbairn

[DeeTillEhDeh]

To be fair they're just linking old articles that are related to the current story, it's standard practice.

If they show previous articles it is more often within the article page itself not the front page.

[John Lambies Doos]

If they show previous articles it is more often within the article page itself not the front page.

That's also true - fair point

[Ira Gaines]

15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

56 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

To be fair they're just linking old articles that are related to the current story, it's standard practice.

If they show previous articles it is more often within the article page itself not the front page.

Nah. They often have links to related articles on the front page.

[madwullie]

On 21/01/2021 at 12:34, MixuFruit said:

Once someone pointed out the annoying habit of In Our Time people talking about historic events in the present tense I couldn't listen to it again.

A billion times this.

It's called the historic present I think. Completely does my fucking head in

And Mary Queen of Scots goes to Linthlithgow Palace 

Edit: almost all historical documentaries etc do this, but the Wikipedia page doesn't mention that at all - surprising, as I'd say that's the most common use of it - it's certainly the only context I come across it anyway 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present

 

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by madwullie

[NotThePars]

Need to go and listen to Mike Duncan's Revolutions and see if this commits this sin.

ETA: he does not

Edited January 23, 2021 by NotThePars

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

BBC has now slipped below Channel 5 to become the least trusted news service in Britain.  Bearing in mind they are the only one legally obliged to be impartial that is quite an indictment. We can't all be wrong.

[SANTAN]

10 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

BBC has now slipped below Channel 5 to become the least trusted news service in Britain.  Bearing in mind they are the only one legally obliged to be impartial that is quite an indictment. We can't all be wrong.

It would also be impossible for everyone to be right.

[madwullie]

2 hours ago, Stormzy said:

It would also be impossible for everyone to be right.

I used to think this - that those on the left think it's biased, and those on the right think it's biased, so that might indicate that it isn't. 

But their coverage of Scottish independence has been shocking, many many examples more than those given up the thread... and as you yourself said, as a British institution you'd expect them to be like that. So that doesn't really help change my opinion. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by madwullie

[pandarilla]

I used to think this - that those on the left think it's biased, and those on the right think it's biased, so that might indicate that it isn't. 
But their coverage of Scottish independence has been shocking, many many examples more than those given up the thread... and as you yourself said, as a British institution you'd expect them to be like that. So that doesn't really help change my opinion. 

It was their coverage of the referendum that made up my mind, too.

Blowing certain stories up, and burying others.

[SANTAN]

59 minutes ago, madwullie said:

I used to think this - that those on the left think it's biased, and those on the right think it's biased, so that might indicate that it isn't. 

But their coverage of Scottish independence has been shocking, many many examples more than those given up the thread... and as you yourself said, as a British institution you'd expect them to be like that. So that doesn't really help change my opinion. 

Of course there will be individual instances but I struggle to see it as some concerted effort as opposed to isolated instances. 

You would surely agree that with any news outlet some people will feel irked by certain topics that they're personally invested in? That's not to say biases don't exist and can be rightly called out. I think this thread probably will have some intriguing posts but I can't help but think about the boy who cried wolf with a lot of posts. 

[SANTAN]

1 hour ago, madwullie said:

I used to think this - that those on the left think it's biased, and those on the right think it's biased, so that might indicate that it isn't. 

But their coverage of Scottish independence has been shocking, many many examples more than those given up the thread... and as you yourself said, as a British institution you'd expect them to be like that. So that doesn't really help change my opinion. 

Double post. 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Stormzy

[NotThePars]

7 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Of course there will be individual instances but I struggle to see it as some concerted effort as opposed to isolated instances. 

Were you not the one who recently highlighted the Chomsky retort to Marr? I've posted excerpts from Tom Mill's book on the BBC which highlights among other things a hiring policy that was vetted by the security services. It's not a leap from there to suggest that undesirables are weeded out which skewers the coverage. 

 

9 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

think this thread probably will have some intriguing posts but I can't help but think about the boy who cried wolf with a lot of posts.

Don't disagree with this tbh lol

[Ned Nederlander]

54 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

It was their coverage of the referendum that made up my mind, too.

Blowing certain stories up, and burying others.

The Salmond/Robinson exchange sticks out for me.

I listened to it live on the radio when I was in the car - at the time I was intending to vote No and remember thinking it was a doozy of a question but I was really impressed with Salmond's answer, he broke the question down, ripped it to shreds really.

Even as a Yoon I was gobsmacked by how it was reported on the news, it fucking angered me tbh.

I put a weekend with some good friends down as the clincher for me with regards to Scotland running itself but it was sh't like that that had me on my way.

[madwullie]

1 hour ago, Stormzy said:

Of course there will be individual instances but I struggle to see it as some concerted effort as opposed to isolated instances. 

You would surely agree that with any news outlet some people will feel irked by certain topics that they're personally invested in? That's not to say biases don't exist and can be rightly called out. I think this thread probably will have some intriguing posts but I can't help but think about the boy who cried wolf with a lot of posts. 

Happy to be shown instances of them being biased towards independence. In the absence of those, and given the many many examples of bias the other way, I'll continue to consider it institutional rather than a few mavericks. 

[John Lambies Doos]

It was their coverage of the referendum that made up my mind, too.

Blowing certain stories up, and burying others.

Yeh mentioned that earlier not only did they bury positive stories they also burried retractions to negative stories when pulled up on them. RBS being a prime example.. Main news plastered everywhere then when the RBS top dog came out and said nothing will be moved apart from a plaque, you actually had to actively seek for the retraction.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

20 minutes ago, Ned Nederlander said:

The Salmond/Robinson exchange sticks out for me.

I listened to it live on the radio when I was in the car - at the time I was intending to vote No and remember thinking it was a doozy of a question but I was really impressed with Salmond's answer, he broke the question down, ripped it to shreds really.

Even as a Yoon I was gobsmacked by how it was reported on the news, it fucking angered me tbh.

I put a weekend with some good friends down as the clincher for me with regards to Scotland running itself but it was sh't like that that had me on my way.

You know what angers me about that, well the event does too, but several times since then whilst appealing on panel shows Robinson has said in an incredibly smarmy tone that 'Salmond objected to being robustly questioned', absolute fucking shite, Salmond and the people of Scotland objected to bare faced fucking lies being told is what happened.  Would love someone to pull him up about that. They've created a false narrative around it.