BBC bias

My comment was based on my current observations not on 30 year old papers.

What have you complained about?

You don't have to answer that, but it would be interesting to know.

To be honest, I've never felt strongly enough to complain about the BBC or any other channel.

I have occasionally complained to the BBC when something particularly annoyed me, using their online complaints process, and have never, ever, received a satisfactory resolution/apology/constructive comment. They just go through the motions of responding to emails, without any thought that we are the customer and certainly should not be patronised. I am thinking of changing my name to something that would infer that I might take offence if they do not take my complaint seriously and see what happens................

I agree [kittylester] with all you said

I agree. I have a confession. I don't often watch news/current affairs on the BBC anyway. I watch Marr, Newsnight and the news, if I happen to be around, so I actually don't have a view about bias, because I don't know. I do read the BBC online.

I agree with you that it's slow on 'Breaking News'. I think it's a foolish person who doesn't realise that any media has bias and an agenda. It's just as interesting to realise that this is what left/right wing, Russian, Jewish (or whatever) media think, because it says something about their viewpoint. I still think the BBC is less partial than some other media.

PS. I was reading somewhere or other that UKIP think that one of the problems they have in Stoke is that people haven't really heard of Nuttall, so they're probably going to get him out there as much as possible. I'm sure the opposition parties will come up with stuff about his past, but in the current climate, I'm not confident that people care.

Bias is hard to prove and will be in the eye of the beholder to be honest..

I do struggle with the whole concept that some hold that the BBC is a paragon of truth, honesty and unbiased news. It is not even the case it covers 'breaking news' as quickly as other media TV stations.

Why does it show Victoria Derbyshire on the BBC 24 hour news station for heavens sake. Sky / Aljazeera can trash it for 'breaking news' stories.

But that's his opinion. My link was to actual memos and minutes. I'm surprised Mosey could stay in the job, if he thought that bias was so bad.

I'm not sure what people actually want from the BBC apart from fluffy sitcoms and game shows. Whenever it reports on politics, it's going to run into trouble. Should it be totally neutral or make sure that left wing is balanced against right wing?

Sometimes I think it's what the BBC doesn't report which shows its bias.

Alima

Not an unbiased link but an opposite view.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3135408/DAMIAN-THOMPSON-Shock-Horror-BBC-boss-admits-s-biased.html

'Mosey, who also used to edit Radio 4's Today programme, confirms that Auntie leans so far Leftwards that she frequently topples over into propaganda.'

Not sure if the OP is concerned with left/right bias or more concerned with UKIP to be honest.

Is it not the case Paul Nuttell appeared before he declared his intention to stand in the Stoke Central by election?

I understand the point the OP is making , that Nuttall would have an advantage given the closeness of the by election date but what is the ruling on this, are there any 'purdah rules' for by elections?

Thank you for that link daphne, fascinating read.

Here's the link to the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, where you can read the original:

www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/1986cac1.asp

I'm not sure what you mean.

The papers are available for everybody to read in Cambridge. The Guardian is just reporting some extracts from the documents.

Could you find us an unbiased link please daphnedill?

I have often thought that it would be a good excercise to record,interviewers questions, people invited on and their politics etc etc. I am sure a picture could be built up. But it would be an enormous task.

Accusations of left-wing bias by the BBC have been going on for as long as I can remember.

Margaret Thatcher's personal papers are gradually being released once the 30 year rule runs out.

Papers have just been released which show that even she was forced to stop Norman Tebbit's obsession with the BBC:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/23/thatcher-norman-tebbit-criticism-of-bbc-us-bombing-libya

Whenever challenged on the question of bias, a spokesman for the BBC will say that as they are accused of bias to the left by some and bias to the right by others, it proves that they are completely unbiased.

I do not think that is a good enough answer. It seems to me that Nigel Farage was favoured because he was controversial, saying things which were provocative and sometimes outrageous and this made for a more lively programme. Politicians whose approach is more consensual are not so entertaining and entertainment has become more important than balance. Divisiveness has been encouraged.

Just my observations, Alima!

I agree with your post!

You are a brave lady kittylester, I salute you! Think the same but too scared to say. The "bias" always appeared to be in favour of Labour but now that is a non-starter because of Corbyn. Perhaps, if as some of you say, Nigel Farage receives more air time it is because he is like Marmite and gets a response. I have no links or quotes to back up what I say so if anyone asks they're flogging a dead horse.

I take issue with the statement that the BBC are pro Tory - in my view they are anti Tory. Which maybe implies that they are NOT biased.

I wonder if Farage's high profile in question time might be because he is the only one in UKIP who was articlate enough to put his (nasty) ideas across.

As for bias if all sides in our nation's political parties complain of bias they a probably getting it right.

The best source of sensible unbiased current affairs journalism is probably on the Today program on Radio 4 and Newsnight where the issues are actually discussed and people properly interviewed. These people usually do have some experience of their subject and are usually far better informed about the issues than Joe Public.

I have no sympathy whatsoever ever for all those politicans etc who are interviewed by the "Today" team. James Naughtie. John Humphrys. Justin Webb. Mishal Husain. Sarah Montague. Nick Robinson.
I am quite sure that their interviewees are themselves very well trained in how to fendoff questions they do not want to answer.

I find Any Questions Radio 4 and Question Time on TV irritating. (In general there is just a lot of hot air flying about.)

It's not mid-January, though. It's nearly the end. Next Thursday is 26th. I think that's pretty close to the by-election. Of course, if they were to invite all the by-election candidates from the major parties that would balance it out a bit...

He is not a candidate until the bye-election has been called, which it now has, and he has submitted his nomination papers, which, as far as I know, he has yet to do. Until then election rules do not apply. There is many a person who has declared themselves to be a candidate for a seat and then not stood.

The other main parties have yet to choose their candidates, meanwhile, there will have been plenty of politicians from these parties appearing on Question Time articulating the views and policies of their particular political persuasion

The election is not until 23 February, so I doubt his appearance on Question Time in mid-January will give him any advantage.

I will be interested to read the UKIP manifesto. I must have a look.

I would have no objection to the UKIP leader being on Question Time after the byelection in which he is a candidate but I do object to him appearing before then, as his opponents will not all have that chance.

But for every one attracted by seeing someone on tv, someone else will be put off.

Not sure whitewave a lot of people have become the victim of hate campaigns by being in the public eye for some reason.

There is a very grey area between over promotion and suppression of legitimately held public views and UKIP represents the views of possibly as many as 8 million people in this country (4 million who voted for them and probably as many again who are sympathetic to their opinions. 52% (over 17 million) of those voting in the referendum voted out. Turn out was high at over 72%

Any publicity is better than no publicity