Why is the BBC so biased

[Walter Travolta]

Right wing people often think the BBC is biased to the left. Left-wingers often find it biased to the right.

This tells us two things -

1 - The BBC presents a balanced view.

2 - Some people don't like hearing any point of view that contradicts their own.

I do not mind hearing both sides of a story ,unfortunately,the BBC these days only gives one side ,the left's

Actually the truth is that the BBC is far too right wing, not left wing! It gives far too much prominence to crackpot right wing theories, very little to the left wing. There is a weird myth put about by right wingers that somehow most of the mass media in the UK & US is left wing but if you look at reality you can see that in the vast majority of cases it is the right wing view that is mainly reported. Having said that, at least the BBC usually tries to show some of both sides and compared to the weirdo fantasists of Fox News (whose reporters always seem high on some sort of hallucinogenic drugs) the BBC tends to be masters of impartiality. But to be truly impartial the BBC does need to get rid of the predominance of righties who now infect the organisation.

Never have I read so much drivel in my life!!!

Recently in Rotherham, Yorkshire, England there has been uproar about muslim grooming gangs raping kids. Mainstream news reported it but never really investigated in depth. When some Union Jack wavers went on a march/rally one Saturday afternoon, all the beeb could report was the fact that these right wing idiots are only causing problems for local businesses who are losing money when these "right wing bigots" take to the streets!!

Shame they couldn't report on the reasons they were demonstrating, and shame they could not say the same about businesses losing money when muslims are demonstrating?? Same with any type of news story like this anywhere in the country

Your comment is an absolute joke. Seriously, I am bewildered by what you have typed.

[7by7]

^^^^^

The BBC reported on the Rotherham case, and all the others, in depth at the time; pulling no punches.

One example from 2011.

And there is one controversial factor that many of the experts in the field are often not happy to discuss freely. The race of the abusers.

The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.

I guess you don't live in the UK, as I do, or if you do you don't watch BBC news or current affairs programmes very often.

I will concede, though, that, unlike some so called 'news' outlets and certain members this forum, the BBC, rightly, did not use these horrendous crimes to label all Muslim men as potential, if not actual, paedophiles.

However, Mr Travolta, I do agree with you that arthurriding's post is absolute drivel; but then, so is yours!

Soi Biker had it right, all the way back on page one of this thread.

Since that post we have seen in this thread posts accusing the BBC of being PC lefties and others accusing them of being right wing Tory supporters!

Human nature; if you agree with a report or an opinion in a news outlet you'll say it's fair and balanced; if you disagree with it you'll say it's biased.

Edited November 23, 2015 by 7by7

[ravip]

I found this site by accident >>> http://biasedbbc.org/

Is all content therein false?

[i claudius]

I found this site by accident >>> http://biasedbbc.org/

Is all content therein false?

The usual biased simple ones on here will not like you telling it as it is .

Edited November 24, 2015 by i claudius

[SoiBiker]

That website is rather obviously biased.

[ravip]

That website is rather obviously biased.

You mean all content there in are false and inaccurate?

[SoiBiker]

That website is rather obviously biased.

You mean all content there in are false and inaccurate?

No. I mean it's cherry-picked and presented in such a way to fit and reinforce a pre-conceived agenda. Classic confirmation bias.

[7by7]

Indeed, it is obvious to anyone who actually regularly watches, listens to and reads BBC news and current affairs that the website has ignored the bulk of the BBC's output and concentrated only on things which fit their agenda.

Like the OP and others have in this topic.

[alex88]

All media is biased. in addition to that, the story regarding asylum seekers in detention being treated inhumanely is also believed by a lot of Australians.

[buddy]

The BBC is Pro-European Union because it accepts bribes from the EU in the tens of millions of pounds.

[SoiBiker]

The BBC is Pro-European Union because it accepts bribes from the EU in the tens of millions of pounds.

Or, to put in in context, less than 0.5% of the BBC's operating budget based on the 2013 figures. Hardly enough to influence their output.

[GinBoy2]

All media is biased. in addition to that, the story regarding asylum seekers in detention being treated inhumanely is also believed by a lot of Australians.

The problem is you are absolutely correct, All media is biased.

There was a time however, when some of us darn foreigners listened to the BBC World Service because it really was unbiased. In those days there wasn't a lot analysis or opinion, the news was reported and the listener was allowed to make up his own opinion.

As I have said earlier, the problem has been as the BBC has transitioned from it's previous role, to that of a run of the mill 24 hour news channel. To fill up 24 hours of 'news' you inevitably end up with. spin, conjecture, talking heads and the the descent into trivia.

The 'sin' if I had to sum it up, is that unlike the Fox News' of this world who have no shame in the fact that they are partisan and biased, the BBC still tries to profess that they are the unbiased and impartial source they always used to be.

That in my mind is a far more dangerous organization than an openly entertainment source such as Fox