BBC bias

[strichener]

2 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

3 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Yes, you are probably correct.
When I’m in America, and when people ask where I’m from, I initially say Scottish, so that they can relate to the accent, and also that they have a geographical idea of where in the UK I’m from. 
From their  point of view, they don’t realise that there are 4 nations making up the UK but see  Scotland as a region like Yorkshire , Cornwall, etc.
Similarly, when I speak to Americans in the Uk, and I ask them where they’re from, they’ll say Florida, Michigan, whatever.

I would disagree with that tbh. Most American people I speak to think Scotland is its own independent country. In fact some can't even place where it is, nevermind in UK

If we are using American's grasp of geography then we aren't setting the bar very high.  Would be better discussing it with the Penguins at Edinburgh zoo tbh.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

How many isolated incidents qualify as institutional bias? 

18723613 since its Inception or ;

60935 in any single year or;

0 in any referendum year ;

How many have you counted so far?

Edited January 24, 2021 by strichener

[NotThePars]

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

18723613 since its Inception or ;

60935 in any single year or;

0 in any referendum year ;

How many have you counted so far?

The last two pages have been about an example from the month of the referendum 

[NotThePars]

2 hours ago, Stormzy said:

I can't imagine that one person would have changed their opinion on Scottish Independence because Salmond aparantly refused to answer why he should be trusted but I can see why this would annoy people that trusted Salmond (that went well) 

I can't see this as being part of a wider institutional bias and I think it's an incredibly tenuous stretch to suggest this is, unless Robinson has previous for doing this when referencing Salmond or Indy which I'm unaware of. 

The guardian article I posted before makes a point that's omitted from this thread and that's the obvious idea that pro Indy folk (some of them) will naturally have a bias against such a large British institution. They really need to come with something good to get the benefit of the doubt. As it stands I'd imagine there's more chance of posters in here being bias against the BBC than there is chance of the BBC being actively bias against Indy.

If you want to read a (good imo) book on the BBC then I can only recommend Tom Mills's book on it. I have an ebook that's DRM free if you actually wanted to read or skip through specific chapters. That's where I got the info on the security service vetting lefties for example.

[SANTAN]

54 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I did address your point. In my opinion, the video is "batshit Old Firm paranoia"

Let's get back to the subject of the thread though - the institutional bias of the BBC against the SNP and SNP politicians. So far, we've had lies by Nick Robinson, selective editing of Holyrood TV footage & made-up BBC polls. Are they all innocent mistakes?

 

What makes it batshit paranoia when compared to your video with the same editing issue? 

Do you believe there is bias against Rangers, noting that video for reference and if not please explain how you could possibly think that when shown such "evidence". 

[SANTAN]

6 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

If you want to read a (good imo) book on the BBC then I can only recommend Tom Mills's book on it. I have an ebook that's DRM free if you actually wanted to read or skip through specific chapters. That's where I got the info on the security service vetting lefties for example.

I'll give it a look. Cheers. 

[lichtgilphead]

56 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

What makes it batshit paranoia

All the quotes below are taken from the Rangers Media forum discussing the event (caution - contains offensive terminology)

Spoiler

 

"There is no negotiating with these animals, they have made their stance clear. Anti-Rangers from top to bottom i am afraid, riddled with vhermin"

"the head of the bbc  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thompson Jobs for the bhoys it seems, from the top down it certainly is!"

"this is were your bbc complaints go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten Patten is a Roman Catholic and oversaw Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain in September 2010"

"The BBC run by Catholics, for Catholics."

"the head of the bbc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thompson one does not have to read past the first paragraph. educated by the fuckin Jesuits - case closed!"

"if you cant see a long standing anti-Rangers agenda from BBC then you are either a ***** or blind."

"they're riddled with ****"

"you could not hear the typewriters at BBC Scotland for the chatter of Rosary Beads."

 

There's also a whole lot of stuff praising Craig Whyte & the new regime for taking this action. That's aged well, hasn't it.

If I recall correctly, McCoist's complaint was resolved within 3 days and he received a full apology. Ten years later, the BBC have still never acknowledged their edit or made any sort of apology to Salmond, Swinney or the SNP

[SANTAN]

25 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

All the quotes below are taken from the Rangers Media forum discussing the event (caution - contains offensive terminology)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

"There is no negotiating with these animals, they have made their stance clear. Anti-Rangers from top to bottom i am afraid, riddled with vhermin"

"the head of the bbc  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thompson Jobs for the bhoys it seems, from the top down it certainly is!"

"this is were your bbc complaints go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten Patten is a Roman Catholic and oversaw Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain in September 2010"

"The BBC run by Catholics, for Catholics."

"the head of the bbc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thompson one does not have to read past the first paragraph. educated by the fuckin Jesuits - case closed!"

"if you cant see a long standing anti-Rangers agenda from BBC then you are either a ***** or blind."

"they're riddled with ****"

"you could not hear the typewriters at BBC Scotland for the chatter of Rosary Beads."

 

There's also a whole lot of stuff praising Craig Whyte & the new regime for taking this action. That's aged well, hasn't it.

If I recall correctly, McCoist's complaint was resolved within 3 days and he received a full apology. Ten years later, the BBC have still never acknowledged their edit or made any sort of apology to Salmond, Swinney or the SNP

Just say you've missed the point and move on at this stage..

 You've literally chopped off the other half of my question. 

Perhaps the BBC will take you on!

Jesus Christ 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Stormzy

[lichtgilphead]

24 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Perhaps the BBC will take you on!

I detest both halves of the Old Firm & support Scottish Independence. There's no chance of me getting a job at the BBC (even if I wanted one)

I've got a face for the radio anyway.

So, now I've responded to your inane question, do you plan on addressing mine - are the lies by Nick Robinson, the selective editing of Holyrood TV footage & the made-up BBC polls just innocent mistakes?

[speckled tangerine]

24 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

 

So, now I've responded to your inane question, do you plan on addressing mine - are the lies by Nick Robinson, the selective editing of Holyrood TV footage & the made-up BBC polls just innocent mistakes?

"He didn't answer"

[SANTAN]

33 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I detest both halves of the Old Firm & support Scottish Independence. There's no chance of me getting a job at the BBC (even if I wanted one)

I've got a face for the radio anyway.

So, now I've responded to your inane question, do you plan on addressing mine - are the lies by Nick Robinson, the selective editing of Holyrood TV footage & the made-up BBC polls just innocent mistakes?

You literally didnt answer my question. As stated you chopped half of it off to make your point seem better. 

How inane of you. 

[Ira Gaines]

Pretty surprised to see someone who openly admitted being a troll going for this shit.

[sophia]

For anyone really looking for examples of bbc bias, this thread presently extends to 154 pages and one would have thought that there would be more than a few examples of such therein.

 

[SANTAN]

6 minutes ago, Andre Drazen said:

Pretty surprised to see someone who openly admitted being a troll going for this shit.

Ahah the wording is so mad, I'm pretty sure I said I enjoying trolling on here at times but it's fairly obvious when I'm not doing so. I think it would be very unfair to say because someone has once "admitted to being a troll" that they can't also have reasonable discussion (as I do frequently with a lot of posters)

I'm sure you yourself have enjoyed an online troll at some point. 

[madwullie]

Essentially we could point out 100 incidents and they'd all be shrugged off or explained away. This is a pointless exercise. 

I would be happy to see any evidence of incidents leaning the other way - must happen if these are all just innocent mistakes with obvious explanations or presenters gone rogue

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Don't bother. Sensible posts aren't tolerated here by some of the more deranged posters. You either join the cult or get a constant barrage of unhinged Nationalists talking birthday caird delusional pish at you. 
 

Having viewed far, far too many of your contributions on here I'd say your proximity to 'sensible posts' are as near as my first shite.

[SANTAN]

13 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

9 hours ago, Stormzy said:

Don't bother. Sensible posts aren't tolerated here by some of the more deranged posters. You either join the cult or get a constant barrage of unhinged Nationalists talking birthday caird delusional pish at you. 
 

Having viewed far, far too many of your contributions on here I'd say your proximity to 'sensible posts' are as near as my first shite.

Nice to meet you too. 

[SANTAN]

15 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Essentially we could point out 100 incidents and they'd all be shrugged off or explained away. This is a pointless exercise. 

I would be happy to see any evidence of incidents leaning the other way - must happen if these are all just innocent mistakes with obvious explanations or presenters gone rogue

Exactly, you could and rightly so...

It's funny because I've said like 3 times now what would constitute as a structural bias but instead people keep responding with vague singular incidents. Can you show me anything editorial that may suggest this is the case rather than journalists being inept? Two other posters have pointed towards hiring policy and towards the mission statement of the BBC and their duty to uphold "British values" etc and they were both pertinent points that I positively engaged with. The other stuff is not.

Also the idea I need to show examples of something I dont believe is particularly confusing. I don't need to post any examples of the BBC being biased towards SI because I don't believe they are, nor do I believe they are particularly bias against SI. Until I see something that anyone outwith this forum would entertain then I'm content in my stance.

[madwullie]

How many vague singular incidents do there need to be before they are more than singular incidents. 

If people are pointing out bias from one side, and you're unable to point out bias from the other side, maybe that means the bias only leans one way? 

[SANTAN]

37 minutes ago, madwullie said:

How many vague singular incidents do there need to be before they are more than singular incidents. 

If people are pointing out bias from one side, and you're unable to point out bias from the other side, maybe that means the bias only leans one way? 

Not at all, it means I have no interest in lowering myself to this singular incident level stuff. A lot of this can be easily explained to people that haven't already made up their minds, just like conspiracy theories.

If I cared enougy I'm sure I could find some BBC articles that would lead to nutters believing the BBC is pro Indy.

If you follow this line of thought you would surely think that the BBC is biased against Rangers going by all the singular incidents there have previously been no?

I think a fair summation of my opinion would be to say that the BBC is not immune to poor journalism and potential biased reporting by unobjective individuals but it would be unfair to say that this was some concerted effort to undermine Scottish Independence or... Tories/Labour/Rangers/Celtic/Man U/Liverpool/Leavers/Remainers/Ronaldo/Messi/Pepsi/Coke and overall in comparison to the world wide MSM that the BBC does an alright job at remaining neutral to the best of their ability.