BBC accused of political bias...

First topic message reminder :

...on the right, not the left

The BBC has been accused of yielding to political pressure since the last election and allowing a right-wing bias to emerge in its journalism.

The serious criticism by a distinguished media professor suggests that the BBC has compromised its impartiality by depending too heavily on sources from business, the media, law and order and politics.

By contrast, ITV and Channel 4 make much greater use of sources from academia, medicine, science and non-governmental organisations.

Professor Justin Lewis, Dean of Research at Cardiff University and an experienced analyst of the BBC’s output, suggested that the BBC Trust had “played down” the findings, which were presented to the governing body last year.

In an essay to be published next month, Professor Lewis states: “The available evidence on the BBC centre of gravity does not suggest a leftist tilt. On the contrary, its dependence on certain dominant institutions notably in the business world and the national print media – would appear to push it the other way.”

He concludes: “The most plausible hypothesis is that the BBC has, under pressure, been pushed to the right.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-accused-ofpolitical-bias--on-the-right-not-the-left-9129639.html

I knew it., just bloody well knew it and now it has been proved by an academic study to be the case. Licence payers deserve better than that.

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I haven't done that.  I can see and hear and make my own opinion up thanks very much.

I don't need to follow left or right wing nutjobs.

You certainly haven't Andy. And if you believe that every single person who has worked at the BBC for the past 30 years has confirmed that the BBC has a left wing bias then that's your opinion and you are quite within your rights to make it known.

Great stuff eh?

Thank you Iron, you have come to a sensible decision.

I would like to add that my mind is always open and if you can find a number of ex BBC workers who say it is right wing, I'm here to listen.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I haven't done that.  I can see and hear and make my own opinion up thanks very much.

I don't need to follow left or right wing nutjobs.

You certainly haven't Andy. And if you believe that every single person who has worked at the BBC for the past 30 years has confirmed that the BBC has a left wing bias then that's your opinion and you are quite within your rights to make it known.

Great stuff eh?

Thank you Iron, you have come to a sensible decision.

I would like to add that my mind is always open and if you can find a number of ex BBC workers who say it is right wing, I'm here to listen.

We're discussing a shift to a right wing slant since 2010 so ex workers may not be the best people to make a judgement on that period.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

If you are referring to my comment on Beekeeper's childish and unproductive contribution to the discussion, then I would suggest that I pitched my view accordingly. I would have thought that would have been obvious even to the most limited intelligence.

I see that you prefer to concentrate your mind on that particular minor aside rather than on my two main posts in which, while happily acknowledging Lewis's pre-eminence in his academic field, I take issue with some aspects of his findings.

Are you suggesting that I am not qualified to do so? Or that I have no right to do so?

As someone who had a long professional career in the media, both print and broadcasting, and has also been an interviewer, interviewee and presenter, mainly in the field of local and regional media, and has taught the craft of journalism at university level as a visiting tutor, I would say that I am adequately qualified to comment on his report and even to offer a critique.

And, indeed, to do so without having to Google up and plagiarise the work of other people in order to justify what I post.

No Fred, I was referring to your response to the post written by Phoenix in which your only contribution in that post to this debate was to describe some of the contributors as nothing more than knuckle-dragging Neanderthals from the outback.

That’s your choice but if you want to lower yourself to the same level as those that you obviously describe in that way then that clearly illustrates the point I made in that it hardly qualifies as an intelligent response.

Your background in media, both print and broadcasting is not in question here but that does not in any way qualify you to dispute the findings of this report without coming up with some hard evidence to disprove the findings.

Your opinions are fine but the findings of the report have not yet been proved to be wrong.

Yes it most certainly does qualify me both to comment on the report and to question various aspects of Justin Lewis's conclusions, as reported, based on my knowledge and experience in the media industry and as an informed viewer and listener particularly where BBC news and current affairs are concerned.

I am also perfectly well qualified to discuss the crucial matter of the structure and conduct of radio and TV interviews where there is clear evidence of party political partisanship.

Do you think that after both practising and teaching the subject for a number of years I am unable to analyse an interview and to determine whether an interviewee is being treated impartially or not?

Whether the intro to the piece is pitched in such a way as to established a certain partisan point of view, from the outset, in the mind of a viewer and/or listener?

Whether an interviewee is allowed to make his point fully or whether he in interrupted repeatedly so that (a) he is put off his stride and led into a different subject matter almost without noticing and will inevitably make an unplanned and possibly stupid comment or (b) is simply deliberately prevented from making the point that he wishes to make and on which he will probably have been briefed?

Whether the manner in which an individual news item or current affairs package is actually introduced on air has been structured in such a way as to give advantage to one political point of view over another? I previously outlined exactly how this is routinely done in the selection of intros; clearly you did not read it.

Whether a participating studio audience has not been carefully selected to give precedence to a particular political party? And don't tell me that it does not happen; it most certainly does, and I was once asked by an Any Questions researcher to suggest six farmers to take part in a programme on the EU CAP - but definitely not to include "....rich Tory barley barons." Ironically, "barley barons" were the farming group most affected by the proposed changes.

Lewis does not even address the question of strong tradition of trade unionism in the broadcast media and the known Labour affiliations and sponsorship of both management and staff, and in particular in the BBC, and it's effect on the treatment of some news issues.

Even Mark Thompson said that BBC staff "...simply could not understand Margaret Thatcher" and I know from my experience in visiting local and regional BBC stations (an important part of my former job) that most of them hated her - and made no secret of it.

I wonder how many BBC staff notice boards he has ever read? Many of them contain an abundance of Left wing and sometimes far-Left material...something to which I can attest because I have seen it.

I wonder whether Lewis, a foremost academic and one of the best in his field, has actually worked at the sharp end of journalism? I don't know about him, but I spent a working lifetime there.

I'm not sure what you do/did for a living, but if you do not feel equally qualified to talk authoritatively about your trade then I would say that you should question your original choice of career.

And finally, what is this utter obsession over scouring the internet to search for previously-written material to validate the opinions of individual forum members, particularly if their opinions are not strictly in line with your own?

Personally, I have no need, when discussing this subject in particular, to go Googling around to find something, somewhere that some "academic" may have written and which actually agrees with what I myself have said. Indeed, I could point you in the direction of one or two examples which actually name me, were I stupid enough to do so.

This is a discussion group for the expression of personally-held opinions and comment on issues of the day, not a bloody court of law where a mass of written evidence has  to be produced in order to legitimise what a poster thinks.

And though you may have attained the exalted rank of moderator, you're not Judge Deed.

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Thank you Iron, you have come to a sensible decision.

I would like to add that my mind is always open and if you can find a number of ex BBC workers who say it is right wing, I'm here to listen.

We're discussing a shift to a right wing slant since 2010 so ex workers may not be the best people to make a judgement on that period.

Do you think that "ex workers" don't watch news and current affairs programmes on which they were once employed and are therefore not qualified to reach an informed conclusion?

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

If you are referring to me you clearly have not taken the trouble to read my two main posts properly.

Why should I, or indeed anyone else in this forum, have of necessity to "come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source..." as you so loftily put it?

Presumably you regard yourself and your allies as the only ones in here who have the ability to make up their own minds and to comment intelligently on the subjects which you choose and which are inevitably pitched towards support for and promotion of Left wing thinking.

But then, you obviously regard those of us who do not feel inclined to praise and glorify whatever you post simply as "the herd" who are capable only of contributing "tantrums."

In a more enlightened environment that might reasonably be regarded as self-centred arrogance.

I am referring to those that have chosen to try and discredit the findings of this study based on the source of the report rather than on the report itself.

I don't expect you or anyone else to praise and glorify anything but if you believe that I do then the arrogance rests firmly in your lap.

Would you point out where I have "tried to discredit" Lewis's report based on the personality of the author?

Had I wished to "discredit" it, I would have responded by saying something like "bullshit" which appears to represent the considered opinion of certain Left wing posters.

I made perfectly obvious my admiration for him as an academic but I have questioned some of what he said.

Your pejorative use of "the herd" and "tantrums" makes it perfectly obvious where any arrogance lies.

nice one fred !!

nicko wrote:nice one fred  !!

The fact is, Nicko, that IB initiated this thread with the obvious intention, as he himself admits, of provoking "the herd" of nasty Right wingers into launching into a series of uninformed "tantrums" which he and his Left wing colleagues could then exploit for their own political ends.

I suggest that my responses to the subject matter were balanced, structured and written against the background of considerable professional knowledge and experience...and he does not appear to like that.

I am sure that Professor Justin Lewis himself would have been more than happy to debate the matter with me on a civilised and professional basis. Having long (far longer ago than IB's bit of political serendipity) known of Lewis and a his excellent track record as both an expert on the media and as a teacher, I feel that I can say that with some confidence.

Lewis is also known as a keen exponent of Press regulation and is firmly in the camp of those MPs, mainly on the Left, who are desperate to bring journalists to heel to prevent them reporting on such topics as parliamentary expenses, and the so-called "celebrities" like Hugh Grant who employ publicists like the Max Cliffords of this world to ensure that they are never off TV screens or out of the pages of newspapers...but only on their own terms.

Naturally, these terms include ensuring that their own misdeeds and peccadillos are supressed on pain of heavy fines and imprisonment on those journalists and broadcasters who have the temerity to expose them.

Perhaps my modest contribution to the debate has robbed the moralising, holier-than-thou Left wing pundits in the forum of at least some of their opportunities for demonstrating their self-appointed and frequently self-proclaimed elitist status.

nicko wrote:nice one fred  !!

Hi Nicko,

M'lud has a long history of hatred for the working man, decency and the BBC, in another place his antics of apoplectic rage against the BBC are so numerous that they can be warranted as legendary, he's had to mellow a tad on here simply because cocksucking cretins such as yourself are few and far between.

I guess he's simply confused by the BBCs sudden shift to the right, he'll revert back to type, do not fret chap,,,his normal transmission of BNP hype will resume shortly.

Lookout for the "I'm not a fan of "dave", but,,,,routine!

scrat wrote:

nicko wrote:nice one fred  !!

Hi Nicko,

M'lud has a long history of hatred for the working man, decency and the BBC, in another place his antics of apoplectic rage against the BBC are so numerous that they can be warranted as legendary, he's had to mellow a tad on here simply because cocksucking cretins such as yourself are few and far between.

I guess he's simply confused by the BBCs sudden shift to the right, he'll revert back to type, do not fret chap,,,his normal transmission of BNP hype will resume shortly.

Lookout for the "I'm not a fan of "dave", but,,,,routine!

...But, Nicko, don't ask him to post any examples of my "hatred for the working man", "apoplectic rage against the BBC" and my "transmission of BNP hype" though, because otherwise he'll be begging IB to Google late into the night in a desperate (and abortive) attempt to find any.

I think Scrat's use of the words "cocksucking cretins" is obviously his way of currying both the favour and endorsement of those renowned intellectuals and paragons of polite language Catman and Beekeeper. We should wish him well in his quest.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

scrat wrote:
Hi Nicko,

M'lud has a long history of hatred for the working man, decency and the BBC, in another place his antics of apoplectic rage against the BBC are so numerous that they can be warranted as legendary, he's had to mellow a tad on here simply because cocksucking cretins such as yourself are few and far between.

I guess he's simply confused by the BBCs sudden shift to the right, he'll revert back to type, do not fret chap,,,his normal transmission of BNP hype will resume shortly.

Lookout for the "I'm not a fan of "dave", but,,,,routine!

...But, Nicko, don't ask him to post any examples of my "hatred for the working man", "apoplectic rage against the BBC" and my "transmission of BNP hype" though, because  otherwise he'll be begging IB to Google late into the night in a desperate (and abortive) attempt to find any.

I think Scrat's use of the words "cocksucking cretins" is obviously his way of currying both the favour and endorsement of those renowned intellectuals and paragons of polite language Catman and Beekeeper. We should wish him well in his quest.

lol

The left bias of the BBC is well known and documented, and has been going on for years.

No outrage from the lefties about it.


But one laughable claim that it is suddenly RW and they come out in condemnation of this alleged bias.


I for one will condemn the BBC for any bias, because it is supposed to be bound by its charter to be completely independent.


Although it is clear to me that the BBC is as left biased now as it has been for years.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

If you are referring to my comment on Beekeeper's childish and unproductive contribution to the discussion, then I would suggest that I pitched my view accordingly. I would have thought that would have been obvious even to the most limited intelligence.

I see that you prefer to concentrate your mind on that particular minor aside rather than on my two main posts in which, while happily acknowledging Lewis's pre-eminence in his academic field, I take issue with some aspects of his findings.

Are you suggesting that I am not qualified to do so? Or that I have no right to do so?

As someone who had a long professional career in the media, both print and broadcasting, and has also been an interviewer, interviewee and presenter, mainly in the field of local and regional media, and has taught the craft of journalism at university level as a visiting tutor, I would say that I am adequately qualified to comment on his report and even to offer a critique.

And, indeed, to do so without having to Google up and plagiarise the work of other people in order to justify what I post.

No Fred, I was referring to your response to the post written by Phoenix in which your only contribution in that post to this debate was to describe some of the contributors as nothing more than knuckle-dragging Neanderthals from the outback.

That’s your choice but if you want to lower yourself to the same level as those that you obviously describe in that way then that clearly illustrates the point I made in that it hardly qualifies as an intelligent response.

Your background in media, both print and broadcasting is not in question here but that does not in any way qualify you to dispute the findings of this report without coming up with some hard evidence to disprove the findings.

Your opinions are fine but the findings of the report have not yet been proved to be wrong.

Yes it most certainly does qualify me both to comment on the report and to question various aspects of Justin Lewis's conclusions, as reported, based on my knowledge and experience in the media industry and as an informed viewer and listener particularly where BBC news and current affairs are concerned.

I am also perfectly well qualified to discuss the crucial matter of the structure and conduct of radio and TV interviews where there is clear evidence of party political partisanship.

Do you think that after both practising and teaching the subject for a number of years I am unable to analyse an interview and to determine whether an interviewee is being treated impartially or not?

Whether the intro to the piece is pitched in such a way as to established a certain partisan point of view, from the outset, in the mind of a viewer and/or listener?

Whether an interviewee is allowed to make his point fully or whether he in interrupted repeatedly so that (a) he is put off his stride and led into a different subject matter almost without noticing and will inevitably make an unplanned and possibly stupid comment or (b) is simply deliberately prevented from making the point that he wishes to make and on which he will probably have been briefed?

Whether the manner in which an individual news item or current affairs package is actually introduced on air has been structured in such a way as to give advantage to one political point of view over another? I previously outlined exactly how this is routinely done in the selection of intros; clearly you did not read it.

Whether a participating studio audience has not been carefully selected to give precedence to a particular political party? And don't tell me that it does not happen; it most certainly does, and I was once asked by an Any Questions researcher to suggest six farmers to take part in a programme on the EU CAP - but definitely not to include "....rich Tory barley barons." Ironically, "barley barons" were the farming group most affected by the proposed changes.

Lewis does not even address the question of strong tradition of trade unionism in the broadcast media and the known Labour affiliations and sponsorship of both management and staff, and in particular in the BBC, and it's effect on the treatment of some news issues.

Even Mark Thompson said that BBC staff "...simply could not understand Margaret Thatcher" and I know from my experience in visiting local and regional BBC stations (an important part of my former job) that most of them hated her - and made no secret of it.

I wonder how many BBC staff notice boards he has ever read? Many of them contain an abundance of Left wing and sometimes far-Left material...something to which I can attest because I have seen it.

I wonder whether Lewis, a foremost academic and one of the best in his field, has actually worked at the sharp end of journalism? I don't know about him, but I spent a working lifetime there.

I'm not sure what you do/did for a living, but if you do not feel equally qualified to talk authoritatively about your trade then I would say that you should question your original choice of career.

And finally, what is this utter obsession over scouring the internet to search for previously-written material to validate the opinions of individual forum members, particularly if their opinions are not strictly in line with your own?

Personally, I have no need, when discussing this subject in particular, to go Googling around to find something, somewhere that some "academic" may have written and which actually agrees with what I myself have said. Indeed, I could point you in the direction of one or two examples which actually name me, were I stupid enough to do so.

This is a discussion group for the expression of personally-held opinions and comment on issues of the day, not a bloody court of law where a mass of written evidence has  to be produced in order to legitimise what a poster thinks.

And though you may have attained the exalted rank of moderator, you're not Judge Deed.

I never suggested for a moment that you were not qualified to comment on the report or on Justin Lewis's conclusions. In fact I did say that your qualifications were not in question. However, what you say in all that you have written here does not in any way prove that since 2010 that there is now a right wing bias in the BBC is wrong so as far as I am concerned the findings of the report are accurate.

And where do you get the impression that I have an utter obsession with scouring the internet to search for previously-written material to validate my opinions? Is reading newspaper publications and bringing articles here to a forum dedicated in the main to discussing ‘news’ something you object to? And if I want to use the internet to conduct research into something that is of interest to me then please don’t be so arrogant to suggest that it is an obsession when in fact it is a valid tool used by many people from all walks of life including journalists.

And my status here as a moderator has absolutely nothing to do with anything I’ve written here and it does not in any way interfere with my views or my opinions so I have absolutely no idea why you felt the need to even mention it.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Thank you Iron, you have come to a sensible decision.

I would like to add that my mind is always open and if you can find a number of ex BBC workers who say it is right wing, I'm here to listen.

We're discussing a shift to a right wing slant since 2010 so ex workers may not be the best people to make a judgement on that period.

Do you think that "ex workers" don't watch news and current affairs programmes on which they were once employed and are therefore not qualified to reach an informed conclusion?

I'm sure they do and I'm sure they are qualified to reach an informed conclusion but so am I because I watch the BBC and listen to it as well.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

If you are referring to me you clearly have not taken the trouble to read my two main posts properly.

Why should I, or indeed anyone else in this forum, have of necessity to "come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source..." as you so loftily put it?

Presumably you regard yourself and your allies as the only ones in here who have the ability to make up their own minds and to comment intelligently on the subjects which you choose and which are inevitably pitched towards support for and promotion of Left wing thinking.

But then, you obviously regard those of us who do not feel inclined to praise and glorify whatever you post simply as "the herd" who are capable only of contributing "tantrums."

In a more enlightened environment that might reasonably be regarded as self-centred arrogance.

I am referring to those that have chosen to try and discredit the findings of this study based on the source of the report rather than on the report itself.

I don't expect you or anyone else to praise and glorify anything but if you believe that I do then the arrogance rests firmly in your lap.

Would you point out where I have "tried to discredit" Lewis's report based on the personality of the author?

Had I wished to "discredit" it, I would have responded by saying something like "bullshit" which appears to represent the considered opinion of certain Left wing posters.

I made perfectly obvious my admiration for him as an academic but I have questioned some of what he said.

Your pejorative use of "the herd" and "tantrums" makes it perfectly obvious where any arrogance lies.

Where would you like me to start on where you "tried to discredit" Lewis's report based on the personality of the author? How about this....

Lewis is, indeed, well known in media circles as being Left-leaning. He is, however, undoubtedly extremely capable, an internationally-acknowledged expert on the subject and a first rate teacher (as I know from one of his former students).

Having said that, he is without a doubt a man of the political Left and an exponent of Press regulation and the legally-enforced, if necessary, promotion of "equality and diversity" in the coverage of news and current affairs; in other words sanctions (he calls them "inventive incentives") in the form of a newspaper not being fined out of existence or an editor not being jailed for defying the establishment.

Lewis does not even address the question of strong tradition of trade unionism in the broadcast media and the known Labour affiliations and sponsorship of both management and staff, and in particular in the BBC, and it's effect on the treatment of some news issues.

I wonder whether Lewis, a foremost academic and one of the best in his field, has actually worked at the sharp end of journalism? I don't know about him, but I spent a working lifetime there.

All you have done there is to try and discredit not only the report but also the man himself by suggesting that he would allow his political views to influence the team and the staff that compiled the research that came up with their findings and furthermore you are questioning the independence of the organisation that he represents.

And the use of use of "the herd" and "tantrums" is not really in the same league as your comment knuckle-dragging Neanderthals is it? There's the arrogance again.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

nicko wrote:nice one fred  !!

The fact is, Nicko, that IB initiated this thread with the obvious intention, as he himself admits, of provoking "the herd" of nasty Right wingers into launching into a series of uninformed "tantrums" which he and his Left wing colleagues could then exploit for their own political ends.

I suggest that my responses to the subject matter were balanced, structured and written against the background of considerable professional knowledge and experience...and he does not appear to like that.

I am sure that Professor Justin Lewis himself would have been more than happy to debate the matter with me on a civilised and professional basis. Having long (far longer ago than IB's bit of political serendipity) known of Lewis and a his excellent track record as both an expert on the media and as a teacher, I feel that I can say that with some confidence.

Lewis is also known as a keen exponent of Press regulation and is firmly in the camp of those MPs, mainly on the Left, who are desperate to bring journalists to heel to prevent them reporting on such topics as parliamentary expenses, and the so-called "celebrities" like Hugh Grant who employ publicists like the Max Cliffords of this world to ensure that they are never off TV screens or out of the pages of newspapers...but only on their own terms.

Naturally, these terms include ensuring that their own misdeeds and peccadillos are supressed on pain of heavy fines and imprisonment on those journalists and broadcasters who have the temerity to expose them.

Perhaps my modest contribution to the debate has robbed the moralising, holier-than-thou Left wing pundits in the forum of at least some of their opportunities for demonstrating their self-appointed and frequently self-proclaimed elitist status.

The fact is, Nicko, that IB initiated this thread with the obvious intention, as he himself admits, of provoking "the herd"

Now you're just making things up because I never said that.

And I'm sure that Lewis would love to have discussed this with you where you would have got the chance to tell him directly in a civilized way that his political views influenced the research and the conclusions that the team came to and that the report was pretty much worthless and not worth the paper it was written on.

I guess you really would be arrogant enough to do that whilst at the same time dishing out back-handed compliments to him.

I think you're confused Fred.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

No Fred, I was referring to your response to the post written by Phoenix in which your only contribution in that post to this debate was to describe some of the contributors as nothing more than knuckle-dragging Neanderthals from the outback.

That’s your choice but if you want to lower yourself to the same level as those that you obviously describe in that way then that clearly illustrates the point I made in that it hardly qualifies as an intelligent response.

Your background in media, both print and broadcasting is not in question here but that does not in any way qualify you to dispute the findings of this report without coming up with some hard evidence to disprove the findings.

Your opinions are fine but the findings of the report have not yet been proved to be wrong.

Yes it most certainly does qualify me both to comment on the report and to question various aspects of Justin Lewis's conclusions, as reported, based on my knowledge and experience in the media industry and as an informed viewer and listener particularly where BBC news and current affairs are concerned.

I am also perfectly well qualified to discuss the crucial matter of the structure and conduct of radio and TV interviews where there is clear evidence of party political partisanship.

Do you think that after both practising and teaching the subject for a number of years I am unable to analyse an interview and to determine whether an interviewee is being treated impartially or not?

Whether the intro to the piece is pitched in such a way as to established a certain partisan point of view, from the outset, in the mind of a viewer and/or listener?

Whether an interviewee is allowed to make his point fully or whether he in interrupted repeatedly so that (a) he is put off his stride and led into a different subject matter almost without noticing and will inevitably make an unplanned and possibly stupid comment or (b) is simply deliberately prevented from making the point that he wishes to make and on which he will probably have been briefed?

Whether the manner in which an individual news item or current affairs package is actually introduced on air has been structured in such a way as to give advantage to one political point of view over another? I previously outlined exactly how this is routinely done in the selection of intros; clearly you did not read it.

Whether a participating studio audience has not been carefully selected to give precedence to a particular political party? And don't tell me that it does not happen; it most certainly does, and I was once asked by an Any Questions researcher to suggest six farmers to take part in a programme on the EU CAP - but definitely not to include "....rich Tory barley barons." Ironically, "barley barons" were the farming group most affected by the proposed changes.

Lewis does not even address the question of strong tradition of trade unionism in the broadcast media and the known Labour affiliations and sponsorship of both management and staff, and in particular in the BBC, and it's effect on the treatment of some news issues.

Even Mark Thompson said that BBC staff "...simply could not understand Margaret Thatcher" and I know from my experience in visiting local and regional BBC stations (an important part of my former job) that most of them hated her - and made no secret of it.

I wonder how many BBC staff notice boards he has ever read? Many of them contain an abundance of Left wing and sometimes far-Left material...something to which I can attest because I have seen it.

I wonder whether Lewis, a foremost academic and one of the best in his field, has actually worked at the sharp end of journalism? I don't know about him, but I spent a working lifetime there.

I'm not sure what you do/did for a living, but if you do not feel equally qualified to talk authoritatively about your trade then I would say that you should question your original choice of career.

And finally, what is this utter obsession over scouring the internet to search for previously-written material to validate the opinions of individual forum members, particularly if their opinions are not strictly in line with your own?

Personally, I have no need, when discussing this subject in particular, to go Googling around to find something, somewhere that some "academic" may have written and which actually agrees with what I myself have said. Indeed, I could point you in the direction of one or two examples which actually name me, were I stupid enough to do so.

This is a discussion group for the expression of personally-held opinions and comment on issues of the day, not a bloody court of law where a mass of written evidence has  to be produced in order to legitimise what a poster thinks.

And though you may have attained the exalted rank of moderator, you're not Judge Deed.

This is the best post I have seen on a thread, period.

Phoenix wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Yes it most certainly does qualify me both to comment on the report and to question various aspects of Justin Lewis's conclusions, as reported, based on my knowledge and experience in the media industry and as an informed viewer and listener particularly where BBC news and current affairs are concerned.

I am also perfectly well qualified to discuss the crucial matter of the structure and conduct of radio and TV interviews where there is clear evidence of party political partisanship.

Do you think that after both practising and teaching the subject for a number of years I am unable to analyse an interview and to determine whether an interviewee is being treated impartially or not?

Whether the intro to the piece is pitched in such a way as to established a certain partisan point of view, from the outset, in the mind of a viewer and/or listener?

Whether an interviewee is allowed to make his point fully or whether he in interrupted repeatedly so that (a) he is put off his stride and led into a different subject matter almost without noticing and will inevitably make an unplanned and possibly stupid comment or (b) is simply deliberately prevented from making the point that he wishes to make and on which he will probably have been briefed?

Whether the manner in which an individual news item or current affairs package is actually introduced on air has been structured in such a way as to give advantage to one political point of view over another? I previously outlined exactly how this is routinely done in the selection of intros; clearly you did not read it.

Whether a participating studio audience has not been carefully selected to give precedence to a particular political party? And don't tell me that it does not happen; it most certainly does, and I was once asked by an Any Questions researcher to suggest six farmers to take part in a programme on the EU CAP - but definitely not to include "....rich Tory barley barons." Ironically, "barley barons" were the farming group most affected by the proposed changes.

Lewis does not even address the question of strong tradition of trade unionism in the broadcast media and the known Labour affiliations and sponsorship of both management and staff, and in particular in the BBC, and it's effect on the treatment of some news issues.

Even Mark Thompson said that BBC staff "...simply could not understand Margaret Thatcher" and I know from my experience in visiting local and regional BBC stations (an important part of my former job) that most of them hated her - and made no secret of it.

I wonder how many BBC staff notice boards he has ever read? Many of them contain an abundance of Left wing and sometimes far-Left material...something to which I can attest because I have seen it.

I wonder whether Lewis, a foremost academic and one of the best in his field, has actually worked at the sharp end of journalism? I don't know about him, but I spent a working lifetime there.

I'm not sure what you do/did for a living, but if you do not feel equally qualified to talk authoritatively about your trade then I would say that you should question your original choice of career.

And finally, what is this utter obsession over scouring the internet to search for previously-written material to validate the opinions of individual forum members, particularly if their opinions are not strictly in line with your own?

Personally, I have no need, when discussing this subject in particular, to go Googling around to find something, somewhere that some "academic" may have written and which actually agrees with what I myself have said. Indeed, I could point you in the direction of one or two examples which actually name me, were I stupid enough to do so.

This is a discussion group for the expression of personally-held opinions and comment on issues of the day, not a bloody court of law where a mass of written evidence has  to be produced in order to legitimise what a poster thinks.

And though you may have attained the exalted rank of moderator, you're not Judge Deed.

This is the best post I have seen on a thread, period.

...And you say that you are LW.

Fuck off Drinky, you warped fucking dickhead!

I say I am capable of thinking and am left wing. You are one and not the other, Do you know why you are left wing I actually know why I am.
Does being left wing disable your ability to enjoy well constructed cogent and compelling argument no except it appears so in your case. You are a hideous troll.

Phoenix wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

No Fred, I was referring to your response to the post written by Phoenix in which your only contribution in that post to this debate was to describe some of the contributors as nothing more than knuckle-dragging Neanderthals from the outback.

That’s your choice but if you want to lower yourself to the same level as those that you obviously describe in that way then that clearly illustrates the point I made in that it hardly qualifies as an intelligent response.

Your background in media, both print and broadcasting is not in question here but that does not in any way qualify you to dispute the findings of this report without coming up with some hard evidence to disprove the findings.

Your opinions are fine but the findings of the report have not yet been proved to be wrong.

Yes it most certainly does qualify me both to comment on the report and to question various aspects of Justin Lewis's conclusions, as reported, based on my knowledge and experience in the media industry and as an informed viewer and listener particularly where BBC news and current affairs are concerned.

I am also perfectly well qualified to discuss the crucial matter of the structure and conduct of radio and TV interviews where there is clear evidence of party political partisanship.

Do you think that after both practising and teaching the subject for a number of years I am unable to analyse an interview and to determine whether an interviewee is being treated impartially or not?

Whether the intro to the piece is pitched in such a way as to established a certain partisan point of view, from the outset, in the mind of a viewer and/or listener?

Whether an interviewee is allowed to make his point fully or whether he in interrupted repeatedly so that (a) he is put off his stride and led into a different subject matter almost without noticing and will inevitably make an unplanned and possibly stupid comment or (b) is simply deliberately prevented from making the point that he wishes to make and on which he will probably have been briefed?

Whether the manner in which an individual news item or current affairs package is actually introduced on air has been structured in such a way as to give advantage to one political point of view over another? I previously outlined exactly how this is routinely done in the selection of intros; clearly you did not read it.

Whether a participating studio audience has not been carefully selected to give precedence to a particular political party? And don't tell me that it does not happen; it most certainly does, and I was once asked by an Any Questions researcher to suggest six farmers to take part in a programme on the EU CAP - but definitely not to include "....rich Tory barley barons." Ironically, "barley barons" were the farming group most affected by the proposed changes.

Lewis does not even address the question of strong tradition of trade unionism in the broadcast media and the known Labour affiliations and sponsorship of both management and staff, and in particular in the BBC, and it's effect on the treatment of some news issues.

Even Mark Thompson said that BBC staff "...simply could not understand Margaret Thatcher" and I know from my experience in visiting local and regional BBC stations (an important part of my former job) that most of them hated her - and made no secret of it.

I wonder how many BBC staff notice boards he has ever read? Many of them contain an abundance of Left wing and sometimes far-Left material...something to which I can attest because I have seen it.

I wonder whether Lewis, a foremost academic and one of the best in his field, has actually worked at the sharp end of journalism? I don't know about him, but I spent a working lifetime there.

I'm not sure what you do/did for a living, but if you do not feel equally qualified to talk authoritatively about your trade then I would say that you should question your original choice of career.

And finally, what is this utter obsession over scouring the internet to search for previously-written material to validate the opinions of individual forum members, particularly if their opinions are not strictly in line with your own?

Personally, I have no need, when discussing this subject in particular, to go Googling around to find something, somewhere that some "academic" may have written and which actually agrees with what I myself have said. Indeed, I could point you in the direction of one or two examples which actually name me, were I stupid enough to do so.

This is a discussion group for the expression of personally-held opinions and comment on issues of the day, not a bloody court of law where a mass of written evidence has  to be produced in order to legitimise what a poster thinks.

And though you may have attained the exalted rank of moderator, you're not Judge Deed.

This is the best post I have seen on a thread, period.

It’s pretty much just a short bio of Fed’s life as a journalist and a tidal wave of words describing his perception of what he believes life was like at the BBC years ago. I’ve read most of that type of stuff from Fred before and usually it’s peppered with a bit of name dropping of people like Edwina Currie and John Major but I’m afraid that recalling life as he saw it back then really adds nothing to counter the accusation that the BBC has a right wing slant about it now.

He’s certainly not a happy chappy that this accusation has been brought here for discussion and he’s ended up spending as much time telling us about himself rather than the subject in hand. To be fair though he’s also spending a fair bit of time discussing me as well in how I conduct myself on this forum even having the cheek to mention my status here as a moderator.

Fred just needs to accept that life has changed since he was employed as a journalist and move on from the past by getting up to speed on how life at the BBC may be now.

I would say this is one of those threads which has "backfired" lol

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Do you think that "ex workers" don't watch news and current affairs programmes on which they were once employed and are therefore not qualified to reach an informed conclusion?

I'm sure they do and I'm sure they are qualified to reach an informed conclusion but so am I because I watch the BBC and listen to it as well.

BBC and other broadcasting staff, even after they have long retired, have an expert background in news selection, the construction of news and current affairs packages, interviewing techniques, technical and presentation skills and of being fully able to write and report news while identifying examples PR hype, political spin, deception, disingenuousness and downright lies.

And after all that, their job is to make the news interesting, informative, understandable and entertaining to listeners and viewers.

You reach your conclusions from the point of view of a listener or viewer. That makes your informed opinion no less valid than theirs; the difference is that they do so as experts in that particular field.

stop picking on the BBC , their corruption is far superior to any other media.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The fact is, Nicko, that IB initiated this thread with the obvious intention, as he himself admits, of provoking "the herd" of nasty Right wingers into launching into a series of uninformed "tantrums" which he and his Left wing colleagues could then exploit for their own political ends.

I suggest that my responses to the subject matter were balanced, structured and written against the background of considerable professional knowledge and experience...and he does not appear to like that.

I am sure that Professor Justin Lewis himself would have been more than happy to debate the matter with me on a civilised and professional basis. Having long (far longer ago than IB's bit of political serendipity) known of Lewis and a his excellent track record as both an expert on the media and as a teacher, I feel that I can say that with some confidence.

Lewis is also known as a keen exponent of Press regulation and is firmly in the camp of those MPs, mainly on the Left, who are desperate to bring journalists to heel to prevent them reporting on such topics as parliamentary expenses, and the so-called "celebrities" like Hugh Grant who employ publicists like the Max Cliffords of this world to ensure that they are never off TV screens or out of the pages of newspapers...but only on their own terms.

Naturally, these terms include ensuring that their own misdeeds and peccadillos are supressed on pain of heavy fines and imprisonment on those journalists and broadcasters who have the temerity to expose them.

Perhaps my modest contribution to the debate has robbed the moralising, holier-than-thou Left wing pundits in the forum of at least some of their opportunities for demonstrating their self-appointed and frequently self-proclaimed elitist status.

The fact is, Nicko, that IB initiated this thread with the obvious intention, as he himself admits, of provoking "the herd"

Now you're just making things up because I never said that.

And I'm sure that Lewis would love to have discussed this with you where you would have got the chance to tell him directly in a civilized way that his political views influenced the research and the conclusions that the team came to and that the report was pretty much worthless and not worth the paper it was written on.

I guess you really would be arrogant enough to do that whilst at the same time dishing out back-handed compliments to him.

I think you're confused Fred.

You "didn't say that," didn't you?

Irn Bru wrote: I thought this thread would startle the herd and a few little tantrums along the way and I was right.

It would appear that you yourself are not only confused; you are suffering, shall we say, from a very selective lapse of memory.

Yes, I would have enjoyed discussing the report with Justin Lewis - but I most certainly would not have been telling him "...directly in a civilized way that his political views influenced the research and the conclusions that the team came to and that the report was pretty much worthless and not worth the paper it was written on." Because that is not what I said, and nothing like it.

I would question him on aspects of the report, based on what I know.

I would have questioned him on his stance on the findings of the Leveson inquiry, on which he is an expert and an exponent of greater Press regulation; in other words political and judicial control over the news media. I regard that as an assault on the freedom of the Press and a threat to freedom of speech. He clearly doesn't.

I would have questioned him on why he did not even mention the matter of the influence on news selection, gathering and presentation of strong and generally Left-leaning trade union membership of rank and file staff members. It is, in my opinion, relevant. Or do you regard the NUJ and BECTU as examples of "right wing scum" as some of your allies here appear to regard anyone having the temerity not to agree with their politics?

I would agree with him (and indeed said so earlier in this thread) that the BBC now appear to lean more towards business, the law and centre/right politics(which is implicit in his report? than pre-2010...because as I tried to explain - had you taken the trouble to read my post properly instead of boasting to your Left wing colleagues about how you had expected "the herd" to throw "tantrums" - business and the law in particular have featured even more prominently in the news since 2012 and the political impetus and principal source of associated news is now from the Coalition and not from the Labour Party.

The fact is that your attempt to promote "tantrums" from "the herd" has backfired on you - badly.

You are left with little more than making weak attempts to discredit what even my worst enemy, I suspect, would accept as a reasonably balanced and structured response by seizing on one aside, made in reply to a ridiculous and typically unproductive comment by one of your allies; huffing and puffing about my "cheeky" reference to your status as a moderator and -something that I would not have expected of you - virtually calling me a liar over your post in which you referred to some of us as "the herd" and dismissed our replies to your OP as "tantrums."

Puriel wrote:


stop picking on the BBC , their corruption is far superior to any other media.

LOLZ they’re amateurs compared to Darklord Rupert and his News Corps Minions

veya_victaous wrote:

Puriel wrote:


stop picking on the BBC , their corruption is far superior to any other media.

LOLZ they’re amateurs compared to Darklord Rupert and his News Corps Minions            

The difference is, Veya, that Darklord Rupert (poor old soul; you should be charitable towards the elderly - and that includes me!) and his media empire are in the private sector and can only continue in being if people continue to buy their products. And, obviously, people do so.

The big - and I do mean big - difference is that the BBC is "public sector" and is funded by taxpayers principally through the mandatory licence fee. Fail to pay it, at around £150 a year, and a heavy fine or even jail can result.

It is also the acknowledged international voice of the UK and it's World Service is, I believe, financed mainly by our Foreign Office.

For these reasons alone it is supposed to maintain the highest possible standards, not only of broadcasting and publishing, but also of behaviour, and to be strictly impartial in its treatment and news and current affairs coverage of political parties and their activities.

My contention is that the BBC regularly fails to maintain that impartiality, and in doing so breaches the terms of the Royal Charter and the Reithian principles on which it is required to operate.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The fact is, Nicko, that IB initiated this thread with the obvious intention, as he himself admits, of provoking "the herd" of nasty Right wingers into launching into a series of uninformed "tantrums" which he and his Left wing colleagues could then exploit for their own political ends.

I suggest that my responses to the subject matter were balanced, structured and written against the background of considerable professional knowledge and experience...and he does not appear to like that.

I am sure that Professor Justin Lewis himself would have been more than happy to debate the matter with me on a civilised and professional basis. Having long (far longer ago than IB's bit of political serendipity) known of Lewis and a his excellent track record as both an expert on the media and as a teacher, I feel that I can say that with some confidence.

Lewis is also known as a keen exponent of Press regulation and is firmly in the camp of those MPs, mainly on the Left, who are desperate to bring journalists to heel to prevent them reporting on such topics as parliamentary expenses, and the so-called "celebrities" like Hugh Grant who employ publicists like the Max Cliffords of this world to ensure that they are never off TV screens or out of the pages of newspapers...but only on their own terms.

Naturally, these terms include ensuring that their own misdeeds and peccadillos are supressed on pain of heavy fines and imprisonment on those journalists and broadcasters who have the temerity to expose them.

Perhaps my modest contribution to the debate has robbed the moralising, holier-than-thou Left wing pundits in the forum of at least some of their opportunities for demonstrating their self-appointed and frequently self-proclaimed elitist status.

The fact is, Nicko, that IB initiated this thread with the obvious intention, as he himself admits, of provoking "the herd"

Now you're just making things up because I never said that.

And I'm sure that Lewis would love to have discussed this with you where you would have got the chance to tell him directly in a civilized way that his political views influenced the research and the conclusions that the team came to and that the report was pretty much worthless and not worth the paper it was written on.

I guess you really would be arrogant enough to do that whilst at the same time dishing out back-handed compliments to him.

I think you're confused Fred.

You "didn't say that," didn't you?

Irn Bru wrote: I thought this thread would startle the herd and a few little tantrums along the way and I was right.

It would appear that you yourself are not only confused; you are suffering, shall we say, from a very selective lapse of memory.

Yes, I would have enjoyed discussing the report with Justin Lewis - but I most certainly would not have been telling him "...directly in a civilized way that his political views influenced the research and the conclusions that the team came to and that the report was pretty much worthless and not worth the paper it was written on." Because that is not what I said, and nothing like it.

I would question him on aspects of the report, based on what I know.

I would have questioned him on his stance on the findings of the Leveson inquiry, on which he is an expert and an exponent of greater Press regulation; in other words political and judicial control over the news media. I regard that as an assault on the freedom of the Press and a threat to freedom of speech. He clearly doesn't.

I would have questioned him on why he did not even mention the matter of the influence on news selection, gathering and presentation of strong and generally Left-leaning trade union membership of rank and file staff members. It is, in my opinion, relevant. Or do you regard the NUJ and BECTU as examples of "right wing scum" as some of your allies here appear to regard anyone having the temerity not to agree with their politics?

I would agree with him (and indeed said so earlier in this thread) that the BBC now appear to lean more towards business, the law and centre/right politics(which is implicit in his report? than pre-2010...because as I tried to explain - had you taken the trouble to read my post properly instead of boasting to your Left wing colleagues about how you had expected "the herd" to throw "tantrums" - business and the law in particular have featured even more prominently in the news since 2012 and the political impetus and principal source of associated news is now from the Coalition and not from the Labour Party.

The fact is that your attempt to promote "tantrums" from "the herd" has backfired on you - badly.

You are left with little more than making weak attempts to discredit what even my worst enemy, I suspect, would accept as a reasonably balanced and structured response by seizing on one aside, made in reply to a ridiculous and typically unproductive comment by one of your allies; huffing and puffing about my "cheeky"  reference to your status as a moderator and -something that I would not have expected of you - virtually calling me a liar over your post in which you referred to some of us as "the herd" and dismissed our replies to your OP as "tantrums."

I never even suggested that you were a liar and if you look back over the thread you will see that I never admitted that I started this thread to provoke tantrums from the 'herd'. If that had been my intention then I would have put that comment in right at the very start but I didn't - that was put in around post 3 from me and only after posts suggesting that the author was biased and you suggesting that
certain far Left posters in this forum clearly want and expect a fawning and unquestioning endorsement from their peers on even their most fatuous of comments. That's what prompted my comment because the responses I saw were just typical in that the report was biased and that certain Left posters on this couldn't be taken seriously so I suppose you must have meant me.

Nothing has backfired Fred. That's how it is and as yet the report that says the BBC is now biased to the Right has not yet been proved wrong.

If and its a big if the BBC has moved slightly to the right it will still be very left wing. It spends £3.6 billion of money we are forced to give it. There are so many ex employees who have blown the whistle on the bias that it is laughable you should present this as some proof of a major shift. The BBC has broken its cardinal rule of being unbiased for years. If it was literally biased in favour of the Tories for 30 years hence it might get back to balance over all.

Its still very left wing now as far as most are concerned except hard lefties like yourself.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

LOLZ they’re amateurs compared to Darklord Rupert and his News Corps Minions

The difference is, Veya, that Darklord Rupert (poor old soul; you should be charitable towards the elderly - and that includes me!) and his media empire are in the private sector and can only continue in being if people continue to buy their products. And, obviously, people do so.

The big - and I do mean big - difference is that the BBC is "public sector" and is funded by taxpayers principally through the mandatory licence fee. Fail to pay it, at around £150 a year, and a heavy fine or even jail can result.

It is also the acknowledged international voice of the UK and it's World Service is, I believe, financed mainly by our Foreign Office.

For these reasons alone it is supposed to maintain the highest possible standards, not only of broadcasting and publishing, but also of behaviour, and to be strictly impartial in its treatment and news and current affairs coverage of political parties and their activities.

My contention is that the BBC regularly fails to maintain that impartiality, and in doing so breaches the terms of the Royal Charter and the Reithian principles on which it is required to operate.

The Darklord just had his minion Abbott give him $900,000,000 Of Australian Taxpayer money. The ABC (Aussie BBC) doesn't get that much from the taxpayer, why is this Private organisation Ran by the Great Greedy One, the master of Eternal ignorance been given almost 1 billion dollars out of Taxpayers money. Abbott is accusing the ABC on bias because it doesn't just repeat the teachings of the Corruptor of Systems and his Dark Army of Misinformants from shadowed halls of the Newcorp offices located on the 7th tier of Hell