More alleged BBC BIAS

[Phil Perry]

I post this for any expats and other interested parties to read and make their own conclusions. The post comes from a site which attacks the Bias shown daily by the National impartial Broadcaster.

 

If you are not following UK news, then it will not make a whole load of sense.

 

Just why is there so much bull$hit…er…meaningless speech on the BBC these days?

 

 

 

bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05fzz5j

 

 

[ATTACH]48976._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[spacesailor]

You mean

 

Murdoch's and other media owner's are not biased.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Phil Perry]

You meanMurdoch's and other media owner's are not biased.

 

spacesailor

Oh they are ! In different directions maybe, but of that there is no doubt. However, some folks think that a 'National' broadcaster, ought to be as impartial as reasonable possible ?. . .

 

 

[Marty_d]

There's always going to be accusations of impartiality against national broadcasters. (And yes Phil I take your point that in this case the bloke admitted to it.)

 

However it depends on where you stand on any particular issue. For example, should broadcasters give equal time to opponents on an issue, even if (say) 97% of experts say one thing and only 3% say different?

 

 

[spacesailor]

Like the "SSM"

 

Almost all tv presentations are pushing the YES cause,

 

Never a nay, even the governments how to put a tick is all-ways showing it in the YES box, ( unless I only catch that particular one).

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Phil Perry]

There's always going to be accusations of impartiality against national broadcasters. (And yes Phil I take your point that in this case the bloke admitted to it.)

However it depends on where you stand on any particular issue. For example, should broadcasters give equal time to opponents on an issue, even if (say) 97% of experts say one thing and only 3% say different?

The BBC are 'called out' for bias very regularly Marty. When there are sufficient objections to their 'impartial' complaints website, whether it be for Failing to report an event, where most other organs had done, or 'Skewing' the news by playing down it's significance, or turning it into editorial opinion, rather than what actually happened, then they nearly always post a retraction.

 

Fair enough you might say. Really ? If the 'Blooper' occurred on their mainstream website or TV news, NO retraction / correction will ever appear there,. . no, what they do is place a very curt, brief statement on the subject on a regional backwater site, like BBC North East, or BBC Wales, well down the pages, tucked in amongst lots of local / regional minor news where those interested would probably never see it. You know the old story . . 'A Lie / distortion / so-called Mistake is off around the world before the Truth has got it's pants on'. . . .This is how they work and have done for a couple or three decades, certainly since I have been closely watching events and paying attention.

 

As to your 'Loaded' question,. . .the Subjective answer would probably be . . .Listen to the 97% of Experts and ignore the rest, - OR, make sure you talk over them so no one hears what they have to say because it must be BS.

 

The Objective answer should really be. . . . '97% of WHICH 'Experts ? ? ?' As you point out, it rather depends upon where a person stands on whatever issue is being discussed ( Subjective )

 

I tend to prefer the Objective approach. Not being a sheep, although I am partial to a bit of roast Lamb.

 

Here is a small case in point from a short time ago, this is a BBC graphic of the Exit Poll from the German general election.

 

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH]48982._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

Now, if you were tabulating the votes received,. . .would you, as most normal people would, place the votes expected in descending numerical values ? ? ?

 

When I first glanced at this, I passed it by and thought that the Afd party had come last. When I saw it again, AND ACTUALLY read it. . . No, the BBC placed the party with the THIRD largest expected vote at the Bottom of the list. More editorial Psyops. ?. . Is.the Afd a RIGHT WING party ? if it is then this is rather childish. . .

 

I don't take any interest in German politics and have no axe to grind on what Afd stands for. Perhaps with your contacts in that country you could educate me, but the fact remains, that the BBC evidently don't like them 'Opinion' posted as news again. . . not simply actual 'reporting' . . .this is a constant drip drip drip so beloved of the BBC. which is why they attract so much ire from 'Normal' people..

 

[Marty_d]

Now, if you were tabulating the votes received,. . .would you, as most normal people would, place the votes expected in descending numerical values ? ? ?

 

When I first glanced at this, I passed it by and thought that the Afd party had come last. When I saw it again, AND ACTUALLY read it. . . No, the BBC placed the party with the THIRD largest expected vote at the Bottom of the list. More editorial Psyops. ?. . Is.the Afd a RIGHT WING party ? if it is then this is rather childish. . .

AfD is a rabid right-wing party, and FDP seems to be a low-tax small-government offshoot of the CDU, so it may appear that the BBC has listed them last for that reason.

 

However it's also true that the top 4 were "major" parties in Germany with seats in the Bundestag, whereas the last two (until now) were minor parties - so the more likely explanation is that CURRENT seat-holding parties were listed first and minor parties second.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

AfD is a rabid right-wing party, and FDP seems to be a low-tax small-government offshoot of the CDU, so it may appear that the BBC has listed them last for that reason.However it's also true that the top 4 were "major" parties in Germany with seats in the Bundestag, whereas the last two (until now) were minor parties - so the more likely explanation is that CURRENT seat-holding parties were listed first and minor parties second.

Thank you for that Marty. I guessed you may have heard of these afd people, I hadn't . . apparently they had never had any governmental seats at all in the past.. . .I gather that they are a recent construct, formed by those who are against Mrs Merkel's immigration policy.

 

I read some stuff about them this morning. They are being called 'Hard Right Nazis' ? I thought that the Nazis were 'National Socialists' ie hard left ? What a mixed up game worldwide politicking and it's associated reportage is.

 

I've seen some German generated graphics today, which use the same tabulation methodology as the Beeb did. Odd way of presenting stats and poll totals still I reckon, having studied statistics in some depth at High school. I was not the only person to notice this half randomized tabulation. Quite a few commented on this. It lacks logical presentation clarity and in doing so, triggers questions.

 

In any event, Mrs. Merkel shouldn't be unduly perturbed I think. . .she will still be the German Leader. I'm told by German friends that most young people don't remember her NOT being Chancellor. Part of the natural furniture so to speak.