Culture Secretary Faces Criticism Over BBC Bias Claims

[Social Media]

 

The UK government has come under fire for its stance on the BBC, with Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer stating that the broadcaster has, "on occasion," shown bias. However, she was unable to provide specific examples during a recent interview with Sky News. Critics argue that the government is using the BBC as a "punching bag" in its broader cultural agenda.

 

Government Accusations and Lack of Examples:
Lucy Frazer's comments during the interview have sparked accusations that the government is deliberately undermining the BBC. While she acknowledged that the BBC has been biased "on occasions," Frazer failed to cite specific instances. Labour's shadow culture secretary, Thangam Debbonaire, criticized the government's approach, calling it part of a pattern of attacking a vital institution.

 

Perceptions vs. Reality:
Frazer emphasized the importance of public perception, stating that the BBC, as a publicly funded entity, should be attentive to how audiences perceive its impartiality. When questioned about the distinction between perception and reality, she maintained that perceptions matter, especially given the BBC's reliance on public funding.

 

Reforms and Ofcom Oversight:
The government has proposed reforms as part of the BBC mid-term review, intending to enhance oversight of the broadcaster's online services. Ofcom, the communications watchdog, would gain additional powers over the BBC's digital content, including its news website and YouTube channel. The proposed changes aim to ensure greater accountability and adherence to broadcast standards.

 

Labour's Response and BBC's Commitment:
Thangam Debbonaire criticized the government's approach, accusing it of undermining the BBC instead of supporting it. The proposed reforms have raised concerns about potential interference in the broadcaster's independence. In response, a BBC spokesperson reiterated the organization's commitment to impartiality and highlighted the measures already taken to strengthen its complaints procedures.

 

Impartiality Concerns and High-Profile Incidents:
The impartiality of the BBC has faced increased scrutiny, particularly in the aftermath of high-profile incidents. Instances involving public figures like Gary Lineker and former chairman Richard Sharp have fueled debates about the broadcaster's adherence to neutrality. The government's push for reforms raises questions about the future dynamics between the BBC and regulatory oversight.

 

Conclusion:
 As proposed reforms seek to extend Ofcom's oversight, concerns about potential interference in the BBC's independence persist. The ongoing debate underscores the challenges faced by public broadcasters in maintaining impartiality and public trust.

 

24.01.24

Source

 

[JonnyF]

Accusing the BBC of bias is a bit like accusing Epstein of being a sex pest. It's so obvious that claiming otherwise can only be described as gaslighting. 

 

They consistently have to apolgize for the bias. And each time, the bias is in the same direction (left wing, anti Israel etc.).

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/bbc-says-sorry-to-israel-after-reporting-it-targeted-medical-staff/

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Accusing the BBC of bias is a bit like accusing Epstein of being a sex pest. It's so obvious that claiming otherwise can only be described as gaslighting. 

 

They consistently have to apolgize for the bias. And each time, the bias is in the same direction (left wing, anti Israel etc.).

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/bbc-says-sorry-to-israel-after-reporting-it-targeted-medical-staff/

 

Appart from the culture secretary couldn’t give any examples at all of the bias she was gobbing about.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Accusing the BBC of bias is a bit like accusing Epstein of being a sex pest. It's so obvious that claiming otherwise can only be described as gaslighting. 

 

They consistently have to apolgize for the bias. And each time, the bias is in the same direction (left wing, anti Israel etc.).

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/bbc-says-sorry-to-israel-after-reporting-it-targeted-medical-staff/

 

 

Ms. Fraser accuses the BBC of bias, but is unable to cite any evidence to support her premise.

 

You cite an example where an individual journalist got it wrong - subsequently corrected - and claim that it means that the whole institution of the BBC whole is therefore biased.

 

Gaslighting? Maybe but not from the standpoint you infer.

[JonnyF]

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Appart from the culture secretary couldn’t give any examples at all of the bias she was gobbing about.

 

Couldn't? Or didn't? 

 

If I announce that water is wet I am not going to turn up soaked just to prove it to be the case.

 

Even when the BBC police themselves they upheld 25 cases of bias.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1777730/25-complaints-of-bias-upheld-by-BBC-in-five-years

 

Everyones knows it, even the BBC themselves. But keep up that gaslighting, it's all you have at this point.  

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Ms. Fraser accuses the BBC of bias, but is unable to cite any evidence to support her premise.

 

You cite an example where an individual journalist got it wrong - subsequently corrected - and claim that it means that the whole institution of the BBC whole is therefore biased.

 

Gaslighting? Maybe but not from the standpoint you infer.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1777730/25-complaints-of-bias-upheld-by-BBC-in-five-years

 

Is 25 enough?

[RayC]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Couldn't? Or didn't? 

 

If I announce that water is wet I am not going to turn up soaked just to prove it to be the case.

 

Even when the BBC police themselves they upheld 25 cases of bias.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1777730/25-complaints-of-bias-upheld-by-BBC-in-five-years

 

Everyones knows it, even the BBC themselves. But keep up that gaslighting, it's all you have at this point.  

 

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1777730/25-complaints-of-bias-upheld-by-BBC-in-five-years

 

Is 25 enough?

 

Who knows? Certainly a low number but it depends whether the individual complaints had any substance.

 

Of course, no one could accuse 'The Express' of having an anti-BBC bias!

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Who knows? Certainly a low number but it depends whether the individual complaints had any substance.

 

The complaints were upheld by the BBC themselves..

 

25 is a low number? If I called someone the N word 25 times would you consider that a low number? Or a pattern of behaviour?

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The complaints were upheld by the BBC themselves..

 

25 is a low number? If I called someone the N word 25 times would you consider that a low number? Or a pattern of behaviour?

Jonny reaches for the false equivalence and chooses the race card at the same time.

 

[JonnyF]

51 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Jonny reaches for the false equivalence and chooses the race card at the same time.

 

 

It's not false equivalence. If someone repeatedly does something it can be said to be a pattern of behaviour. Like you gaslighting. 

 

As for the race card, I chose that specifically because I was talking to RayC (he loves playing it so I chose something he could understand). 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

It's not false equivalence. If someone repeatedly does something it can be said to be a pattern of behaviour. Like you gaslighting. 

 

As for the race card, I chose that specifically because I was talking to RayC (he loves playing it so I chose something he could understand). 

So you are not denying you played the race card.

 

That right there is progress Jonny.

[retarius]

The BBC was started as a private company just after WW1. The channel was brought under government  ownership shortly thereafter and turned into a fully censored propaganda station very quickly. In the early 30's, for example, Oswald Mosely's speeches and commentary were several censored. During WW2 the World Service became unashamedly supportive of anti-Nazi propaganda (some might say, rightfully so). Today it functions as a state sponsored media outlet, reliable for football scores but biased in political matters and foreign affairs where it always takes an establishment view and presents that as the sole truth, omitting any news that runs counter to the narrative the government wants.

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you are not denying you played the race card.

 

That right there is progress Jonny.

 

Of course I did not play the race card. 

 

I was not trying to gain special treatment because of my race.

 

I was giving an example of unacceptable racist behaviour (in this case using the N word to describe black people). That is not even close to "playing the race card".

 

But you already knew that. 

 

 

  

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Of course I did not play the race card. 

And so soon after:

28 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

As for the race card, I chose that specifically because I was talking to RayC (he loves playing it so I chose something he could understand). 

Yep, you played the race card.

[JonnyF]

12 minutes ago, retarius said:

The BBC was started as a private company just after WW1. The channel was brought under government  ownership shortly thereafter and turned into a fully censored propaganda station very quickly. In the early 30's, for example, Oswald Mosely's speeches and commentary were several censored. During WW2 the World Service became unashamedly supportive of anti-Nazi propaganda (some might say, rightfully so). Today it functions as a state sponsored media outlet, reliable for football scores but biased in political matters and foreign affairs where it always takes an establishment view and presents that as the sole truth, omitting any news that runs counter to the narrative the government wants.

 

It doesn't follow the government narrative, at least it doesn't under a Tory government.

 

For example, it was blatantly anti-Brexit. 

 

Generally speaking it has a left wing, Woke, climate alarmist, pro EU agenda. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It doesn't follow the government narrative, at least it doesn't under a Tory government.

 

For example, it was blatantly anti-Brexit. 

 

Generally speaking it has a left wing, Woke, climate alarmist, pro EU agenda. 

Or so you tell us

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And so soon after:

Yep, you played the race card.

 

Where did I use my own race (Causcasian) to try to gain an advantage or to excuse my poor behaviour?

 

Oh that's right - I didn't. Therefore I didn't play the race card.

 

A white man condemning the use of the N word is not 'playing the race card'.

 

But you already knew that. Hence sinking to gaslighting again... Tsk tsk.

 

 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or so you tell us

 

Not only me Chomps.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/bbcs-bias-brexit-has-proven-beyond-doubt-move-tim-davie/

 

[Lapun]

From the above, it would appear that bias appears to be a matter of opinion. Here is a web site that specialises in examining media bias (although it might be biased as well)!

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

 

[mikeymike100]

Many news outlets are biased, like MSNBC, CNN, Fox etc, but the difference here is that the BBC relies mostly on License Fees from the UK public for its operation!

If a person watches live TV in the UK and has no license, it is a criminal offense. If a person doesn't pay a fine, they can be imprisoned.

 

The charter which the BBC operates under says it, the BBC, must be unbiased.

 

From the charter:

"The BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens."

 

The problem is that BBC in general  is now very biased and so are some its commentators/journalists. Maybe 25 -30 years ago it was a world renowned news organization that everyone could trust, and look up to but slowly and surely it has been getting worse/biased as time has passed.

 

Why the BBC needs to be paid for by the public, thru license fees,  in this day and age is beyond ant logic!

 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The complaints were upheld by the BBC themselves..

 

25 is a low number? If I called someone the N word 25 times would you consider that a low number? Or a pattern of behaviour?

 

So you quote an article which is critical of the (relatively) small number of complaints against the BBC which were upheld, and in the next instance you then criticise the BBC because you think that the number of complaints which were upheld were too many! 

 

Methinks that someone might have their own set of prejudices and bias.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

 

As for the race card, I chose that specifically because I was talking to RayC (he loves playing it so I chose something he could understand). 

 

That was very thoughtful of you, Jonny but completely unnecessary: I have no problem following simple arguments.

 

If by 'playing the race card' you mean pointing out what I perceive as racist comments, I've used it against two people: In hindsight, perhaps I have used it too sparingly, but I like to give people the benefit of doubt until the evidence becomes too weighty to ignore.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Where did I use my own race (Causcasian) to try to gain an advantage or to excuse my poor behaviour?

 

Oh that's right - I didn't. Therefore I didn't play the race card.

 

A white man condemning the use of the N word is not 'playing the race card'.

 

But you already knew that. Hence sinking to gaslighting again... Tsk tsk.

 

 

In a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with race, you reach for arguably the most racially offensive word and insert it into the discussion.

 

Forgive me for concluding that you are exactly what you show us you are.

[zyphodb]

 

The British Brainwashing Corperation, a fine upstanding instution, not...

[retarius]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

It doesn't follow the government narrative, at least it doesn't under a Tory government.

 

For example, it was blatantly anti-Brexit. 

 

Generally speaking it has a left wing, Woke, climate alarmist, pro EU agenda. 

For foreign affairs it foreign affairs the government narrative to the letter. It is enforced with Schedule D notices, to prevent any media outlet for presenting a counter.

The BBC is obliged by its charter to offer the counter narrative for domestic affairs and to give equal prominence to other views but whichever government complains loudly whenever it offers too much of a counter narrative. 

It seems that the government want to include more oversight into the internet footprint of the BBC....this sounds like even more censorship to me. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Not only me Chomps.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/bbcs-bias-brexit-has-proven-beyond-doubt-move-tim-davie/

 

 

Unlike you and many of your fellow right-wing, Brexiter supporters who seemingly dismiss anything appearing in newspapers such as The Guardian as biased, left-wing propaganda, I am prepared to believe the right-wing, Brexiter, Tory supporting 'Daily Telegraph' is capable of reporting objectively on a serious statistical report. Sadly, in this instance, this article is not objective - although tbf it is simply the author's opinion so there is no reason why it should be - and the survey appears to have little statistical validity.

 

According to the article, "News-watch put every speaker in every item into one of three categories:  either  "pro-EU/anti-Brexit"  or "anti-EU/pro-Brexit" or "neutral". And – in broad terms – what this scrupulous (🤦: my disbelief) investigation shows is that there was a pro-EU bias in roughly a 2:1 ratio". 

 

Presumably the author of this opinion piece believes that this is an example of what he claims is News-week employing "best practice social science" research techniques? Some of us would suggest otherwise.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

but I like to give people the benefit of doubt until the evidence becomes too weighty to ignore.

 

No you don't.

 

You're a serial race baiter. Never miss an opportunity to label someone a racist.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with race, you reach for arguably the most racially offensive word and insert it into the discussion.

 

Yes because if you consistently use that word it is reasonable to conclude you are a racist. Same as if the BBC admits to bais 25 times it is reasonable to conclude they are biased. The fact I used racism as an example is because I was talking to Race Baiter Ray. If I was talking to you I may have used gaslighting or labeling everyone who disagrees with you as right wing extremists instead. Horses for courses.

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Forgive me for concluding that you are exactly what you show us you are.

 

Yes I am honest. I am not consistently disingenuous like you are.  

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes because if you consistently use that word it is reasonable to conclude you are a racist. Same as if the BBC admits to bais 25 times it is reasonable to conclude they are biased. The fact I used racism as an example is because I was talking to Race Baiter Ray. If I was talking to you I may have used gaslighting or labeling everyone who disagrees with you as right wing extremists instead. Horses for courses.

 

 

Yes I am honest. I am not consistently disingenuous like you are.  

Here’s a fact, you reached for arguably the most racially offensive word and hit send.

[GroveHillWanderer]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

They consistently have to apolgize for the bias. And each time, the bias is in the same direction (left wing, anti Israel etc.)

Do you have any evidence that the bias is consistently in the same direction?

 

If so, please present it.

 

I have to say I haven't seen a consistent left wing bias on the BBC more recently, especially since it's had a succession of former Conservative Party Grandees in charge. Try watching Laura Kuenssberg's show for instance, and tell me what kind of bias you see there.

 

FWIW, Peter Oborne, former chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph while he had, about a decade earlier, criticised the BBC for left wing bias, joined in criticism of the company in 2019 that said there is a culture of client journalism which had flourished in the precedeing years due to a closeness between the BBC and the ruling Conservative Party, which had led to their bias in favour of the establishment.

 

In its election coverage, the BBC has let down the people who believe in it

 

 

Quote

The corporation, admired around the world, has been behaving in a way that favours the Tories.