Yes we are biased.

[TteFAboB]

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly-funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. "It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."
"Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ves/article.do

Finally, some truth telling. And more for removing the illusory "impartial" or "neutral" mask. Don't know why people are so obsessed with "neutral" journalism. I don't want that, I don't want to see somebody debating the benefits of Sharia to avoid appearing unbalanced against it. The benefits of Sharia are to be enjoyed in Iran, not Britain.

Now, my question. Where is the BBC nemesis? Is there a channel in Britain without this "cultural liberal bias"?

[The Avon Lady]

[XabbaRus]

Ah please give it a rest.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Ah please give it a rest.

[XabbaRus]

Hmmm again quotes out of context. I guess Fox news is the opposite then.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Hmmm again quotes out of context.

Where? :hmm:

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I guess Fox news is the opposite then.

Nope. Fox News is no "opposite" to any News channel out there. As all of them, they take complex issues and simplify them to allow the uninterested viewer to have an opinion based on limited knowledge.

Zapping through both channels right now I have noticed one difference though, not an "opposite", but a difference nonetheless: FNews has invited a Democrat and a Republican politician to discuss border security, it's the "impartial", "neutral", "fair and balanced" thing. BBC International has just aired a report about the Australian Islamic Cleric who compared women to meat and men to uncontrolled cats. BBC-I has interviewed a supporter of the cleric and a moderate Muslim. The difference is that FN's actually puts opposing points of view on screen.

[Godalmighty83]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Ah please give it a rest.

what? you expect the same old miseries on here to stop droaning on and on all the bloody time about the same old things???

silly you.

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Agreed.

[TteFAboB]

Sailor Steve is correct, good catch Steve. Safe-Keeper you haven't understood what I've tried to say, obviously I've failed to summarize properly.

"debating the benefits of Sharia to avoid appearing unbalanced against it." Example: invite the Australian High Cleric to take the pro-Sharia side in a debate, if he believes he is allowed to outright lie then there will be no debate, only misinformation, he can also limit himself to damage-control and in either case there will be no learning and no informing and afterall no debate. No objective opinion can be formed upon this.

Then there's the artificial neutrality, for every bad report about this you must have one good report about that. For every negative there must be a positive regardless of any objective reality. In equalizing the unequal by force, the worst is benefitted, the lie.

That's it, the rest is rhetorical air. "Then don't watch it", I watch whatever the hell I want, care or bother to, and you have nothing to do with it wether it frightens you or displeases you, it is also required to do so to form objective opinions on tv channels. "They can't report because you don't like it", of course they can, I don't have to approve of anything pal, I leave that to dictatorships and despots.

"The media is there to inform you. Its reason for existance is to tell you what happens, why it happens, and how it happens. Otherwise they're just propaganda senders, like a certain foxy channel in the US." Otherwise? Seems like I'm not the one who likes being told what happens, why it happens and how it happens. Think you got the whole objectivity thing inverted there. I wouldn't put nearly as much trust in the media as you seem to do, especially not if I'm concerned about propaganda.

I'd end it here while it's fun but it seems you have edited the last paragraph to add personal insults, so:

Yeah, that'll work. Six little words and they'll stop mud-slinging those who don't agree with them. Sigh, if only it was so easy.

Oh, and yes, that is why you bash BBC: Because its politics do not word-for-word match those of you. If it was solely about them being biased, you'd apply the same scorn to right-winged outlets such as FOX "News". The fact that you single BBC out for attack speaks novels about your true intentions

So that's your true intention right there, "If only it was so easy", you want to silence those who displease or disagree with you. You accuse me of mud-slinging, do a reality check first. You say I'm bashing the BBC, what part of internal executive confessions you didn't get? It seems like you bash me and accuse me of mud-slinging because I don't agree word-for-word with you, or better, you don't agree word-for-word with me. Why do you ignore the part where I've inserted Fox News allong with ALL other channels right at the beginning, an absolute broad category, even more encompassing than your generic "the media"? Plus the fact that I've only mentioned Fox News to dequalify Xabby's sarcastic comment that it was an opposite to the BBC, this had nothing to do with Fox News from the beginning nor with media in general. It is specific to the objective fact that somebody leaked a document where BBC officials confess their bias and that's their word not mine.

You entire post is based on a false assumption, on a lie, a fiction, a wrong conclusion and it only stands as long as it is kept inside its own bubble of fantasy. Sorry to ruin the party but I'm popping your balloon, quoting myself:

Nope. Fox News is no "opposite" to any News channel out there. As ALL of them(...)

So everything you wrote no longer stands. I do not single-out the BBC or disagree when something's not word-for-word etc. Now it's my turn: I believe you are just projecting all this stuff into me and all your critics fit perfectly right back at you.

[Bort]

Liberal idiots

How mature. I hope nobody ever prejudges you because of your political leanings!
As far as this topic goes, I have already weighed in with a previous post:

I'm absolutely sick and tired of this left wing media BS. Every time somebody brings up a bit of bad news that doesn't aid the Republican cause, its those damn commie reporters and I can't stand it. Republicans have no idea how easy the media has been on them, there was hardly any questioning of the tactics that they used in Afghanistan or the reason for war in Iraq and believe me, just a little bit of digging on either of those subjects would have found a giant cesspool of poor planning and a complete and total lack of reason or benefit for a war. The media, including those reporters that are assaulted day in and day out for being slanted against Bush spent a heckuva lot more time analyzing Bill Clinton's genitals than they ever did examining the "threat" Iraq posed to the US. And before you say that I'm just another leftie that gets his news from the major networks, for the most part I don't. The newspaper I read daily is the Chicago Tribune, a famously conservative source, the news magazine I read is the Economist which isn't really meant for the hemp wearing potheads amongst us, and the news I watch on TV is BBC World, which covers stories that our own crud news won't touch with a ten foot pole. Bill Clinton was right to lash out at Fox news and he would have been just as justified lashing out at any other US reporter- save Jon Stewart- from any other US network because they are idiots who have no interest whatsoever in the facts and only care about making a splash.

Bottom line, I watch BBC news because they report things our news won't, and generally don't spin it (unlike the cable news shows) they just report, you get to think what you want to think, there is no British Bill O'Reilly.

[tycho102]

All media is biased in their choice of "news" to report.

So if Fox News attempts to just report the "good" news coming out of Iraq, instead of the "bad" news, they're neocons. Which is kind of stupid because that infers they were something other than conservatives before, or that there has been some kind of change in the definition of conservatism. And if the BBC just reports news critical of any policies with which they do not agree, then that's not exactly unbiased.

All of this "reporting" is done under the auspices of the nation in question. In Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, United States, Australia, Japan, South Korea, this means that the reporter doesn't get murdered and his house burned to the ground.

In Burma. In India. In Pakistan. In Indeonesia. In Sudan. In Nigeria. In Libya. In Saudia Arabia. In Oman. In Chechnya. In Afghanistan. The issue of "journalistic freedom" operates under a different set of rules. You're free to report whatever you want, just so long as it's not critical of my dictatorship, or I'll kill you and your whole god damn family and burn your house to the ground and go in there in the middle of the night and urinate on your ashes. If they don't outright murder the "journalist", they'll expel the company from the nation. And then it will be MSNBC that "plays ball" with the dictator, and gets all the breaking exclusives from that country. Or it'll be CNN. Or BBC. Or AFP.

There is a strategic benefit to watching BBC, and you can thank god for it. You know what kind of taqiyya the enemy is focused on using against you.

Sun Tzu said it best. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

[TteFAboB]

Amen tycho.

UPDATE: Apparently there are more internal reports begging to be leaked:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...319064,00.html

Well this just brings me back to the first post on this thread with the thumbs up. BBC could be the first to stop pretending and admit this kind of stuff. Others would have to follow suit or continue to play their act.

[joea]

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by joea

I'm with you there mate.