BBC bias

[D Angelo Barksdale]

20 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Does anyone in here believe that BBC Scotland are biased against Rangers? 

@bennett

One for you pal.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Does anyone in here believe that BBC Scotland are biased against Rangers? 

In what sense? They receive infinitely more coverage and match reporting than almost any other club bar one.

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

@bennett

One for you pal.

Go on HTD give us your brief take, do you think the BBC are biased against Rangers and do you think the BBC are biased against Scottish Independence? 

Don't hide behind my favourite poster on this forum. 

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

25 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Does anyone in here believe that BBC Scotland are biased against Rangers? 

In what sense? They receive infinitely more coverage and match reporting than almost any other club bar one.

Negative publicity, false reporting. 

I don't believe that the BBC are biased against Indy or Rangers but by some peoples standards on the BBC being against Indy by their reasoning the BBC are also biased against Rangers. Just intrigued if anyone thinks this is the case and if not why not. 

Here's a video Rangers fans would use showing blatant misrepresentation, I find this one crazy but not part of a wider conspiracy 

 

[dirty dingus]

25 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Does anyone in here believe that BBC Scotland are biased against Rangers? 

They don't give them enough coverage and failed to cover this story in their "What the papers say" review.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

Stormzy throws in a strawman and everyone begins to follow it down the road. 

 

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Stormzy throws in a strawman and everyone begins to follow it down the road. 

 

Still awaiting you explaining how I'm a fantasist? 

[dirty dingus]

1 minute ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Stormzy throws in a strawman and everyone begins to follow it down the road. 

 

 I posted the wee heads gone as I also noticed his whataboutery.

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

 I posted the wee heads gone as I also noticed his whataboutery.

Whataboutery would be applicable if I was countering something, not if I'm merely asking a question. 

[dirty dingus]

6 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Whataboutery would be applicable if I was countering something, not if I'm merely asking a question. 

I know loads of Rangers fans think they are part of a political movement but this is about BBC bias in politics on the politics forum. If you think the BBC are bias against a football club go start a thread on the football forum bit.

[SANTAN]

Just now, dirty dingus said:

I know loads of Rangers fans think they are part of a political movement but this is about BBC bias in politics on the politics forum. If you think the BBC are bias against a football club go start a thread on the football forum bit.

I think other people are free to discuss what they want, I'm not particularly fussed enough to start a whole new thread when it's intriguing to me if anyone believes they are biased towards both things or if as I'm presuming you don't believe they are biased towards Rangers but could be towards Independence? 

[dirty dingus]

3 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I think other people are free to discuss what they want, I'm not particularly fussed enough to start a whole new thread when it's intriguing to me if anyone believes they are biased towards both things or if as I'm presuming you don't believe they are biased towards Rangers but could be towards Independence? 

No I don't believe they are bias against Rangers as during the whole Liquidation/Death of old Rangers the BBC continually gave a false narrative that Rangers got demoted to the seaside leagues when infact it was a new club that had been accepted in to the Scottish football fold. They also persist with the lie that the current football club named Rangers are not a new entity when anyone with half a brain knows this to be the case. Yes the bbc are bias against Indy here is a video for you to gnash your teeth to.

 

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

No I don't believe they are bias against Rangers as during the whole Liquidation/Death of old Rangers the BBC continually gave a false narrative that Rangers got demoted to the seaside leagues when infact it was a new club that had been accepted in to the Scottish football fold. They also persist with the lie that the current football club named Rangers are not a new entity when anyone with half a brain knows this to be the case. Yes the bbc are bias against Indy here is a video for you to gnash your teeth to.

 

Cheers. 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

54 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Go on HTD give us your brief take, do you think the BBC are biased against Rangers and do you think the BBC are biased against Scottish Independence? 

Don't hide behind my favourite poster on this forum. 

I don't think comparing Rangers to the SNP/Indy is particularly helpful given one is a football team and the other a political party/movement.

Easier to compare the SNP and Tories, or Rangers and Celtic no ?

[SANTAN]

31 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

I don't think comparing Rangers to the SNP/Indy is particularly helpful given one is a football team and the other a political party/movement.

Easier to compare the SNP and Tories, or Rangers and Celtic no ?

Aye I know it's not helpful to people that believe in such biases, that's exactly the reason why I'm asking it.

I don't believe that the BBC as an institution is biased to any of these things, I just want to know from people that believe it is towards the SNP/Indy if they think the same with Rangers as there are similar examples used as part of the evidence to prove this bias. 

It seems strange to me that people that are adamant the BBC is bias towards one thing seem very closed to the idea that it could be biased towards this other thing and seem to think it's ridiculous. 

[paolo2143]

12 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Aye I know it's not helpful to people that believe in such biases, that's exactly the reason why I'm asking it.

I don't believe that the BBC as an institution is biased to any of these things, I just want to know from people that believe it is towards the SNP/Indy if they think the same with Rangers as there are similar examples used as part of the evidence to prove this bias. 

It seems strange to me that people that are adamant the BBC is bias towards one thing seem very closed to the idea that it could be biased towards this other thing and seem to think it's ridiculous. 

I think it is a question worth asking. I am not sure i have picked up on a particularly strong bias either way regarding Rangers.

With BBC bias against Scottish Independence it is always much more noticeable when an election that may impact the Union approaches.

This was the case in 2104 and it is clearly been the case over last few months as the media realise the Union is in jeopardy.

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, paolo2143 said:

I think it is a question worth asking. I am not sure i have picked up on a particularly strong bias either way regarding Rangers.

With BBC bias against Scottish Independence it is always much more noticeable when an election that may impact the Union approaches.

This was the case in 2104 and it is clearly been the case over last few months as the media realise the Union is in jeopardy.

Talk about a neverendum eh? 

Appreciate the answer. 

 

[Gordon EF]

When it comes to the BBC, I tend not to think it's institutionally biased in the same way that a newspaper would be. They probably don't have meetings where they decide what they're for and what they're against. If bias exists, it creeps in because the profile of people who work at and make decisions at the BBC is significantly biased towards one thing or position compared to the population at large.

I haven't seen anything that makes me think the BBC is biased against Rangers. I'd imagine the vast majority of folk at the BBC couldn't give a shit about them one way or the other.

When it comes to politics and especially emotive issues like independence or Brexit, people find it extremely difficult to take an objective view around bias. BBC journalist gives my side a hard time - BIASED! BBC journalist gives the other side a hard time - entirely justified because they're clearly arse holes.

Personally, I think the BBC has a slight tendency to be a bit pro-establishment and whilst most of what they do is probably reasonably fair on the face of it, where it tends to come though is the prominence they give certain stories compared to others. It seems pretty difficult not to reach the conclusion that they've whipped themselves up into a frenzy over the Sturgeon/Salmond stuff but have more or less just forgotten about Matt Hancock / contract corruption / acting illegally. It's pretty difficult not to conclude that's down to some degree of bias.

[Dawson Park Boy]

7 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

When it comes to the BBC, I tend not to think it's institutionally biased in the same way that a newspaper would be. They probably don't have meetings where they decide what they're for and what they're against. If bias exists, it creeps in because the profile of people who work at and make decisions at the BBC is significantly biased towards one thing or position compared to the population at large.

I haven't seen anything that makes me think the BBC is biased against Rangers. I'd imagine the vast majority of folk at the BBC couldn't give a shit about them one way or the other.

When it comes to politics and especially emotive issues like independence or Brexit, people find it extremely difficult to take an objective view around bias. BBC journalist gives my side a hard time - BIASED! BBC journalist gives the other side a hard time - entirely justified because they're clearly arse holes.

Personally, I think the BBC has a slight tendency to be a bit pro-establishment and whilst most of what they do is probably reasonably fair on the face of it, where it tends to come though is the prominence they give certain stories compared to others. It seems pretty difficult not to reach the conclusion that they've whipped themselves up into a frenzy over the Sturgeon/Salmond stuff but have more or less just forgotten about Matt Hancock / contract corruption / acting illegally. It's pretty difficult not to conclude that's down to some degree of bias.

Again, probably agree, until your last sentence.

I think context does matter and, in the case of Hancock, I may be wrong but I thought the NAO were happy with the contracts but that his department were a few weeks late in putting the details into the public domain. If that is the case, then it’s a very minor matter, but tell me if I’m wrong. I presume that’s what Piers Morgan was pounding him on a few days ago. Certainly seemed piffling to me especially as it happened right at the start of the pandemic.

[Ludo*1]