"BBC has moved beyond bias, into pure propaganda"

[editor]

This a truly damning article and echoes what I've been feeling for a long time.It's shameful what's been happening at the Beeb.

The BBC Trust is responsible for granting licenses to all BBC outlets and stations, managing value for money on licence fee payments and ‘the direction of BBC editorial and creative output’. The Trust consists of 12 Trustees and is headed by Rona Fairhead – who also happens to be a current board member of HSBC bank.

Fairhead has entrenched ties to the Tory government. In fact, she and Osborne are old friends. Fairhead worked for the Conservative government as a cabinet office member, until being appointed by the previous Conservative culture secretary – Sajid Javid – as the new head of the BBC Trust. She is still business ambassador for David Cameron.

These conflicts of interest affect the reporting of News and Politics at the BBC in a very real way. In 2013, researchers at Cardiff University undertook a major content analysis of BBC coverage – funded in part by the BBC Trust. They studied the impartiality of BBC reporting across several areas, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, the EU, business and economics, and politics.

The findings revealed that:

• Whichever party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time.
• On BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespersons by more than five to one (11 vs 2) in 2007 and by 19 to one in 2012.
• When it comes to the Financial Crisis, BBC coverage was almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.

On top of this, BBC reporting of Israel-Palestine has been woefully partisan – and in 2013, we found out one reason why.

The sorry facts which show the BBC has moved beyond bias, into pure propaganda | The Canary

 

[DotCommunist]

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

 

[killer b]

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

 

[Sirena]

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

And the ludicrous protestations from interested parties that the BBC are too left-wing.....

 

[editor]

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

That's as maybe but is there any chance of you commenting on the contents of this specific article?

 

[killer b]

You might be interested in their business model - applying a hypercapitalist pay-per-click model doesn't encourage good balanced journalism IMO.

 

[editor]

You might be interested in their business model - applying a hypercapitalist pay-per-click model doesn't encourage good balanced journalism IMO.

Yes, yes, I've got the fact that you don't like them, but instead of this ad hominen-fest, what of the article about the BBC and the independent research contained therein?

 

[killer b]

That's as maybe but is there any chance of you commenting on the contents of this specific article?

I won't give them the traffic. All the info you've quoted has been discussed loads on here though.

 

[editor]

I won't give them the traffic. All the info you've quoted has been discussed loads on here though.

Why don't you start a separate thread about them and their business model?

 

[YouSir]

You might be interested in their business model - applying a hypercapitalist pay-per-click model doesn't encourage good balanced journalism IMO.

Start a different thread, doesn't matter to this subject. Especially as they're citing others data to make the point.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Start a different thread, doesn't matter to this subject. Especially as they're citing others data to make the point.

And here's some other's data which also makes the point:

You missed the quality, impartial bbc journalism last night from the man who declared Corbyn must resign 2 weeks after he became leader (Jon Pienarr):
Looks rather stupid now...

A bad night, and a worse morning ahead for the Labour Party.

Losses unlike any suffered by a main opposition party between elections for three decades. But - of course - that may all turn out to be a naively rosy expectation when the results are finally in.

The votes have yet to be counted, after all, and it's possible the Labour Party may end up wishing the outcome was merely painful and no worse.

It could just conceivably turn out to be catastrophic.

If this all sounds a little apocalyptic, forgive me.

Hair-rending and teeth gnashing

Doom-laden adjectives are the stock in trade of political punditry at election time, especially when the occasion lends itself to a little hair-rending and teeth-gnashing.

And there is already a not-especially-orderly queue of Jeremy Corbyn's critics in the Labour Party, waiting to blame poor results for their party on his leadership, and clearing their throats to strike up the chorus of voices wanting him to go.

In so far as an objective analysis exists, what would a bad night for Labour look like?

No main opposition party has suffered net losses of council seats for 30 years.

The English local council seats up for grabs were won at the height of Labour's popularity under Ed Miliband - though that's not saying a great deal. Now, losses look inevitable, and a pantheon of psephologists predict 150, 190, more?

 

[SpookyFrank]

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

Ordinarily I'd agree but the article in the OP does seem to have involved some actual research for once.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Who appoints the BBC trust exactly? And are they all corporate management types or is there anyone in there who has done an actual job of work at some point in their life?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

There's a ditty about Auntie and a canary.

 

[editor]

Ordinarily I'd agree but the article in the OP does seem to have involved some actual research for once.

Which is why I thought it was worthy of a thread. There's some good research in the article.

 

[elbows]

For anyone that doesn't want to give that website hits, the main research they are drawing on in the article was covered in the new statesman in august 2013. The Canary article actually links to it:

Hard Evidence: How biased is the BBC?

 

[killer b]

For anyone that doesn't want to give that website hits, the main research they are drawing on in the article was covered in the new statesman in august 2013. The Canary article actually links to it:

Hard Evidence: How biased is the BBC?

Quite, it isn't original research - it's opportunistic churnalism.

I think it's fair enough to raise the topic of a source being a bit dodgy in a thread that links to the dodgy source rather than starting a separate one btw.

 

[editor]

Quite, it isn't original research - it's opportunistic churnalism.

I think it's fair enough to raise the topic of a source being a bit dodgy in a thread that links to the dodgy source rather than starting a separate one btw.

Obsessed. Have you started that thread yet? Please do.

 

[killer b]

I think it's fair enough to raise the topic of a source being a bit dodgy in a thread that links to the dodgy source rather than starting a separate one btw.

.

 

[trabuquera]

Also, whatever you think of it, Cardiff U research undertaken in 2013 (and looking at coverage broadcast before that) doesn't have much to do with Rhona Fairhead's influence on the BBC as she was appointed in 2014.

 

[treelover]

Who appoints the BBC trust exactly? And are they all corporate management types or is there anyone in there who has done an actual job of work at some point in their life?

James Purnell Former Works and Pensions Secretary, now head of digital strategy on 300,000 pounds and tipped for new top job when the BBC re-organises

many sick and disabled people think he should actually be in a court.

 

[Mr.Dogg]

Ha ha, they even have Zac Goldsmith on over 50% of the vote on their header!:

Home - BBC News

 

[elbows]

Ha ha, they even have Zac Goldsmith on over 50% of the vote on their header!:

Home - BBC News

To be fair thats because the actual final results have now started coming in and so far its just one tory area that data has come from.

 

[editor]

Ha ha, they even have Zac Goldsmith on over 50% of the vote on their header!:

Home - BBC News

Where the hell are they getting this from?

 

[editor]

Here's what the Guardian is reporting:



UK election results tracker 2016

 

[elbows]

Its because the BBC data is now from the final results, which as of that moment were only from one area: Bexley & Bromley

 

[editor]

Its because the BBC data is now from the final results, which as of that moment were only from one area: Bexley & Bromley

Without that info clearly displayed it's wildly misleading, no?

 

[DrRingDing]

They are just a bunch of snotty nosed tories that really need booting into the long grass.

 

[DrRingDing]

Without that info clearly displayed it's wildly misleading, no?

What one may call propaganda.

 

[elbows]

Well certainly I only went looking for the explanation because it was so WTF? when I saw it