"BBC has moved beyond bias, into pure propaganda"

[DrRingDing]

It's an extreme spin. No subtlety, no skill, just total piss take, cos they can.

 

[elbows]

Can we start a petition to have them renamed the British Narrowcasting Corporation?

 

[nino_savatte]

its been like this for ever, its just getting more brazen. Their role in misreportage from orgeaves from hillsboro. The ludicrous 'balance' they claim.

Not forgetting the 10 year old footage of Palestinians they used in 2001 to give the impression they were celebrating 9-11.

 

[nino_savatte]

The Canary is in no position to be criticising bias, for all it's claims of 'balance'. Breathless clickbait wankers.

TBF though, no one can point to a single news source that isn't biased.

As Hunter S Thompson once said

“So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”

 

[killer b]

Their partiality is the least hateful thing about them tbh.

 

[nino_savatte]

Whose partiality? The Canary's? I don't happen to think The Canary is particularly well-written and the quality of some of their research leaves a lot to be desired.

Although, it is bias that's the topic of discussion on this thread. No?

 

[Vintage Paw]

The BBC is always beholden to whomever holds the reigns of power at any given time. Particularly so now, considering the threats coming from the Tories. It's long been known Tories hate the BBC anyway, so they suck up as much as possible. With the unbelievable amounts of slashing and burning going on under this government, it's really no surprise they're doubling down on that sucking up. They've had threats of cuts, actual cuts, and all sorts. They cover their own backs.

No surprise, but of course it makes it no more appetising to witness.

 

[killer b]

The BBC is always beholden to whomever holds the reigns of power at any given time.

not completely true - they gave a great deal more weight to the tories in opposition than they have done to labour in opposition.

 

[Dogsauce]

They're not 'beholden to tories', most of them actually are tories. Look at where they're from, who they're connected to. They believe this stuff, it's not that they're kowtowing to power.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

But they're still supposed to be impartial. Not a propaganda machine for their own views.

 

[Vintage Paw]

They believe it because they employ people who believe it. But is it chicken or egg? They'll never rock the boat too much, and we're in somewhat unprecedented times regarding the amount the government are trying to undermine them (and every other institution), so it stands to reason they'll bring on board people who will send out the right message.

 

[butchersapron]

Who are they?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Here's what the Guardian is reporting:

View attachment 86592

But why does Goldsmith have two small pink oven gloves on his face?

 

[laptop]

But why does Goldsmith have two small pink oven gloves on his face?

Are they caused by lager?

 

[J Ed]

But why does Goldsmith have two small pink oven gloves on his face?

Dogwhistle politics

 

[SpookyFrank]

BBC news headline at the moment is: 'Sadiq Khan is probably going to be mayor of London, but don't forget that Labour did badly in Scotland which we keep going on about despite it having roughly half London's population.'

e2a: I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly:



...the article also points out in its first line that Khan will be London's first Muslim mayor. Because it's vital to always mention someone's religion before anything else

 

[rhod]

Radio 4's election coverage was woefully biased during the night.

One of the 'pundits' (didn't catch her name) was obsessed with encouraging (winning) Labour council leaders into saying that Corbyn was a problem. The few that I heard batted her back quite well. Her 'me-too' partner wasn't much better. I felt a bit sorry for Jim Naughtie.

She should move up the BBC News ladder quite easily when Kuenssberg bags the much-coveted No.10 spin doctor job.

 

[J Ed]

BBC news headline at the moment is: 'Sadiq Khan is probably going to be mayor of London, but don't forget that Labour did badly in Scotland which we keep going on about despite it having roughly half London's population.'

e2a: I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly:

View attachment 86599

In other news Labour, the Party of Corbyn he who must be purged at all costs as he is all that is wrong with the world, did really badly in Scotland today

 

[butchersapron]

So why is this happening?

 

[J Ed]

So why is this happening?

I think it's to try and desperately ensure that the narrative is as negative as possible despite the results actually being fairly reasonable. What do you think?

 

[SpookyFrank]

In other news Labour, the Party of Corbyn he who must be purged at all costs as he is all that is wrong with the world, did really badly in Scotland today

I'm surprised he found time to do badly in Scotland what with all the jew-hating and Stalinism he has to get done.

 

[butchersapron]

I think it's to try and desperately ensure that the narrative is as negative as possible despite the results actually being fairly reasonable. What do you think?

But why?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Because the BBC is packed to the gunwales with tories?

 

[elbows]

The delicate balance of BBC politics has been upset because Sir Terry Wogan is no longer around to make shit jokes about the BBC canteen.

And Bruce Forsyth is now too old to drink at our expense on-board some shit boat full of opinion guiders broadcasting live on the beeb beeb ceeb.

 

[butchersapron]

Because the BBC is packed to the gunwales with tories?

It's good to go if not full of tories? No other problems? A personnel prob?

 

[SpookyFrank]

It's good to go if not full of tories? No other problems,

Well since you ask, I don't like Mel or Sue.

 

[elbows]

A narrow cast of the usual classes and interests. If the propaganda comes across as all the more blatant now its because a generation or two of BBC talking heads were formed during the time of the so-called 'post-war consensus' and they lingered on past the destruction of that political prism. They are long gone now. So many other reasons as well, including a couple of Corbyn policies being of some concern to the state, and hence also the state broadcaster.

Crushers of hope? Yes, thats definitely one of their functions.

 

[maomao]

The BBC is always beholden to whomever holds the reigns of power at any given time. Particularly so now, considering the threats coming from the Tories. It's long been known Tories hate the BBC anyway, so they suck up as much as possible. With the unbelievable amounts of slashing and burning going on under this government, it's really no surprise they're doubling down on that sucking up. They've had threats of cuts, actual cuts, and all sorts. They cover their own backs.

No surprise, but of course it makes it no more appetising to witness.

They joined in with gusto on the media wide attack on Gordon Brown despite the fact that it was not a certainty that the Tories would win the next election. Their main political correspondents are known Tories. BBC impartiality is a fucking joke. The frequent Tory complaints about left wing bias are just a) threats to make sure they stay completely in line and b) a way of pushing them even further to the right.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

But why?

I think it's down to a very serious misapprehension on the part of the BBC (although by no means limited to them). The misapprehension is that Corbyn, with his social democratic politics, is an unacceptable threat to the current consensus. Which in itself is daft, but which more importantly has lead them to construct and reinforce a narrative which is increasingly and at time jarringly at odds, with the day to day experience of many many people. The stories they are telling don't ring true.

All of which may well come to bite them on the arse when they need popular support to protect them from this government.

The paradox is that by doing what they're doing, the BBC is potentially damaging the very status quo which it's working to preserve. Why believe anybody, why trust any voice as authoritative if Auntie isn't to be trusted?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[chilango]

I suspect there's an element of "bubble". So isolated from everyday life they've no ideas beyond those circulating within this bubble.