BBC bias explained

https://youtu.be/aucDmK5E4bU

Biased by truth? I'll stick with the news media.

Notice that Aitken speaks of agenda and untruths, and not facts. There is a difference between interpretation and fact.

If a child runs up to mummy and says, "Mummy, my sister Katy fell off the swing"...factually speaking, the child is saying that gravity exerted force on sister's body, and it impacted with the ground. But, the real concern to both mummy and child is that sister Katy might be hurt. That's the difference between fact and agenda. The agenda is concern for Katy's well-being.

Broaden the picture to politics—say, the Brexit issue—and we find there are perhaps two (or more) legitimate agendas. The factual concern is for how the collective votes came out regarding Brexit. But it has two different meanings, pro and con. This dialectic leads back to two different agendas.

Agendas are purposes, derived from interpretations, or meanings we give to facts. Katy fell off the swing, but the meaning to us is, is Katy hurt? There is no "right" agenda, because meaning derives from opinion or point of view. Everyone is free to have different opinions, and there is no absolute point of view.

So, Aitken is posing a false premise...to wit, that there is an absolute correct agenda, and the BBC is not following it. You can see the flaw in his conclusion, right from the beginning in his premise.

I think Tommy is saying that the BBC has an agenda. I could be wrong. I’m sure he’ll explain what he means.

eddie wrote:I think Tommy is saying that the BBC has an agenda. I could be wrong. I’m sure he’ll explain what he means.

My response is, everyone has an agenda.  An agenda is essentially a purpose.  Could you imagine a world in which you had the facts, but no purpose?  You would be like a tree, or perhaps a rock.  Agenda is inevitably human, and it is composed of mere opinion.  There is never an absolute agenda, because one’s agenda is tied to one's point of view.

The news media is a voice within the community.  Normally, the news media uses the agenda most common to the community as a whole.  It's not right vs. wrong, but simply the most common.  It's all wrapped up in branding, sales and appealing to the widest group (community) of people.

Persons who want to change the community agenda generally criticize the media because--reverse engineering—the media reports on changes, and reflects what is commonly held about change.  They want to alter the direction of the message, tied as it is to the community agenda.

That is why you will always only see this criticism from the right.  Conservatives like Aitken want to apply a counter-force to what is said and heard in the media, because they think they will reassert the former message, and thus alter the community agenda.  The right represents the past (ie, conservatism=to conserve), to which the counter-force is trying to return, while the media reports on the upcoming.  The left is advocating progressivism, so their choice is simply right or wrong paths, but never a return to the past.  The right sees reporting on change, and opinion on change, as an heretical discussion.

So, community agenda is, like the flow of water, subject to forces affecting opinion in general.  A thought in counter-force is merely trying to affect the direction of the water…or, to return to the point, affect the direction of opinion.  There is no absolute direction of water, and there is no absolute direction of opinion.

Quill said:

The news media is a voice within the community. Normally, the news media uses the agenda most common to the community as a whole. It's not right vs. wrong, but simply the most common. It's all wrapped up in branding, sales and appealing to the widest group (community) of people.

Well, to be fair, you could say that about all news...even “Trump” news...right?

eddie wrote:Quill said:

The news media is a voice within the community.  Normally, the news media uses the agenda most common to the community as a whole.  It's not right vs. wrong, but simply the most common.  It's all wrapped up in branding, sales and appealing to the widest group (community) of people.

Well, to be fair, you could say that about all news...even “Trump” news...right?

I am saying that about all news. Remember days gone past? The media was the enemy of Richard Nixon, George Bush, and now Trump. Always from the right. Always critical of what they were reporting upon.

If you say so.

eddie wrote:If you say so.

Well, it's particularly exacerbating with Trump because there is so much low-hanging fruit on his tree.  Trump so openly lies, that it's a journalist's dream.  It's so absurd, that there is comedy, drama and fantasy in every utterance.

Other conservatives have been more circumspect than Trump.  And, Trump has very little self-awareness, and absolutely no impulse control.  He couldn't help it even if he did notice.  

So, while there is always antagonism between the media and the right, there's extra weight with Trump's remarks.

eddie wrote:I think Tommy is saying that the BBC has an agenda. I could be wrong. I’m sure he’ll explain what he means.

The thread title is clear... the video is completely self explanatory...

eddie wrote:I think Tommy is saying that the BBC has an agenda. I could be wrong. I’m sure he’ll explain what he means.

Unfortunately for Tommy and his deluded fellow fascists, neo-nazis and social reprobates,  the BBC's agenda(s), broadly speaking, are determined by the British government --  like it or loath it...

As they appoint its directors, and pay the bills..

Those far-right loons that Tommy takes his leads from, though, would have us believe that the Beeb is taking orders from Moscow, via some faceless cabal of commies, union leaders, feminazis and wicked 'green' activists.

'Wolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:I think Tommy is saying that the BBC has an agenda. I could be wrong. I’m sure he’ll explain what he means.

Unfortunately for Tommy and his deluded fellow fascists, neo-nazis and social reprobates,  the BBC's agenda(s), broadly speaking, are determined by the British government --  like it or loath it...

As they appoint its directors, and pay the bills..

Those far-right loons that Tommy takes his leads from, though, would have us believe that the Beeb is taking orders from Moscow, via some faceless cabal of commies, union leaders, feminazis and wicked 'green' activists.

The government does not directly appoint the BBC's directors. The organisation is now run by the BBC Board (previously known as Governors and BBC Trust) and the chairman and four non-executive members representing the four nations of the UK, all of which except England have their own parliaments, are appointed by a body known as The Queen-in-Council - effectively HM Privy Council.

The relevant government minister has an advisory role, but the Privy Council is NOT the government - in fact Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott are both members.

The other executive and non-executive members are appointed by the Board itself through its nominations committee.

Because the BBC's role is governed by the terms of its Royal Charter and it is Great Britain's de facto public broadcaster and technically the voice of the nation in times of national emergency such as war or civil insurrection, it comes under the ultimate control of the Department for  Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

Nor does the government "pay its bills".....three quarters of of the Beeb's income come from the licence fee paid by viewers....including fascists, neo-nazis, social reprobates, faceless cabals of commies, feminazis, union leaders, wicked green activists and all the other idiotic Dave Spart-speak adjectives that Wolfie manages to cram into his histrionic rambling.

And the BBC is supposed to be duty bound to be impartial...!

Fred M. wrote:Nor does the government "pay its bills".....three quarters of of the Beeb's income come from the licence fee paid by viewers....including fascists, neo-nazis, social reprobates, faceless cabals of commies, feminazis, union leaders, wicked green activists and all the other idiotic Dave Spart-speak adjectives that Wolfie manages to cram into his histrionic rambling.

WOW!  What is going on over there?  You seem to have a bad lot as your citizens.

Oh well, as I said earlier, the BBC is fair and balanced (such a great phrase, innit) in its reporting.  What is brewing on the editorial page, is just editorials.  All is well.

It's not fair or balanced

Tommy Monk wrote:

It's not fair or balanced

As I said above, nothing is. When it comes to opinion, there is no right way or wrong way. As long as the facts a faithfully represented, then how you feel about them, and incorporate them into "your agenda", is a matter of personal choice.

The BBC does not report all facts faithfully, they sometimes "twist" the facts to support their own agenda !

You have to be more specific. When I think of "twist" I think of things left out, or little lies, or other distortions.

You can't twist facts. If you look, they are fast and immovable. You twist the interpretation of facts, by one or all of the above.

What Aitken does is confuse facts with "agendas"...or, in other words, with opinions or interpretation of facts.

Aitkin is pretty clear in his explanation of what goes on at the BBC...

+1

Tommy Monk wrote:Caitlin is pretty clear in his explanation of what goes on at the BBC...

As far as he goes. But there are still some people who think the earth is flat. There's no helping them.

Those who think stupid things like the earth being flat, are the type who think the BBC isnt left wing biased...

+1

Tommy Monk wrote:Those who think stupid things like the earth being flat, are the type who think the BBC isnt left wing biased...

Tommy, you are just flinging shit against a wall. Try making a rational point. Aitken has at least dealt in ideas. He's wrong, in that he confuses facts with agendas. But the level of the argument is way above the order of I'm rubber and you're glue...

Have you ever watched the BBC's Question time ? The Panel was ALWAYS composed of five who wanted to stay and ONE who wanted to leave. The Audience was ALWAYS full of left wing remainers , it was obviously a remainers bias !

Have you watched Fox's political shows.  TV has come to the point where there is a distinction between straight news, and opinion shows.

You can't take an opinion show, and criticize it from straight news standards.  They are apples-and-oranges.

Quill... you keep failing to recognise that the BBC is taxpayer funded and is bound by its charter to be totally unbiased in its broadcasting... which it is clearly not..

+1

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... you keep failing to recognise that the BBC is taxpayer funded and is bound by its charter to be totally unbiased in its broadcasting... which it is clearly not..

Broadcasting facts, yes. Opinions, no. Unbiased means equal access, not censored opinions.

Quill... you still don't get it...


The BBC biased in both the selection of facts it chooses to promote, as well as the bias in selection of opinions that it chooses to promote...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... you still don't get it...


The BBC biased in both the selection of facts it chooses to promote, as well as the bias in selection of opinions that it chooses to promote...!

Everybody is entitled to an opinion...and there are literally millions of them. So, they cannot be shut out. As long as equal time is given to all sides, the requirement is fulfilled.

You seem to return to censorship as a means of equalizing. You want to change the content. You keep talking about "selection of opinions" and "promot[ion]" of opinion. I mean, if you don't like what the BBC offers, what is your remedy? You want to shut 'em out.

You can make a case for distribution of frequency of opinions, but I haven't heard it yet.

If Tommy is still so upset at the very idea of having an even-handed national broadcaster out there...

Wanting instead a hard-right-wing "news" service dedicated to only promoting his own fascist, racist and neo-nazi opinions and agendas..

He always has the privately-owned and corporate-backed Fox News and Sky TV networks to fall back on.

Much easier than whining away on threads like this, that will have zero chance of changing anyone else's minds on this matter..

We dont have fox news here... and besides that, it is not taxpayer funded and bound by a charter to be unbiased... so incomparable...!


And quill... you are still waffling bollocks!

Tommy Monk wrote:

We dont have fox news here... and besides that, it is not taxpayer funded and bound by a charter to be unbiased... so incomparable...!


And quill... you are still waffling bollocks!

If you don't have anything substantive to add, we'll accept my viewpoint. Aitken has made his point, but I think he has confused facts with agendas. When we speak of the obligation of the media, we mean to get facts correct. Opinions, or agendas, are off-limits of the law because everybody is entitled to an opinion.

And I might add, opinions are linked to votes...the more, the winner. If the BBC is moving to the left, that generally means that the electorate has already gone there. It's a business, after all, and the customer is always right.

Quill... you haven't posted anything of relevance this whole thread!!!


Do you ever even watch any BBC tv...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... you haven't posted anything of relevance this whole thread!!!

Why yes. I've posted a full rebuttal of Robin Aitken's entire argument. You will recall, he's the individual whose thesis was what anchored this thread?

What have you been lately?

Tommy Monk wrote:Do you ever even watch any BBC tv...!!!???

Yes, BBC has several channels here in San Francisco. They are xlnt and most informative.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Do you ever even watch any BBC tv...!!!???

Yes, BBC has several channels here in San Francisco.  They are xlnt and most informative.

You don't half talk some shite... the BBC doesn't even have "several" channels here in Britain...!!!

But of course you would know that given how you own a castle in Scotland and the amount of time you claim you spend over here in the UK...!!!

The BBC has 7 channels available in the UK.
BBC1
BBC2
BBC4
BBC Alba.
BBC News
BBC Parliament
CBBC
My maths isn't great, but 7 probably qualifies as 'several.

Yeah!?


I've lived in uk all my life and I've never heard of bbc Alba for a start...!!!


Although I'm sure quill would find cbbc to be the height of information at his mental age level...

650,000 watch Alba. According to go the BBC and Wiki. A not insignificant number.
That you live in Britain, I assume, and have never heard of BBC Alba suggests you at not too worldly wise.

Brutus wrote:The BBC has 7 channels available in the UK.
BBC1
BBC2
BBC4
BBC Alba.
BBC News
BBC Parliament
CBBC
My maths isn't great, but 7 probably qualifies as 'several.

And you’d be right.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, BBC has several channels here in San Francisco.  They are xlnt and most informative.

You don't half talk some shite... the BBC doesn't even have "several" channels here in Britain...!!!

You seem possessed with attacking the messenger, and not the message.  This thread actually started with a rational discussion about the difference between fact and value in media production.  Robin Aitken proposed that the BBC crossed the line from fact to agenda, which I take to mean opinion.  Thomas, for the life of me, you seem to want to avoid that discussion.  Meh...guess it's a little deep for you.

And "my castle" is a hyperbolic joke that I started years ago.  I feel affection for it, symbolically, because our Clan Chief is a friend of mine.  You've known this all along, but you would rather participate in the kind of forum unpleasantry that is being discussed right now on another thread.

BBC Alba does not exist here where I live in uk on regular freeview tv channels... and cbbc is a children's channel, whereby any form of children's news programs are also heavily biased...!

BBC 4 does not show any news.


BBC 1 and bbc news is also much the same as far as news programs are concerned.

And quill... maybe you need to watch the op video properly... cos you are wrong with your whole interpretation of what was said...

Tommy Monk wrote:BBC Alba does not exist here where I live in uk on regular freeview tv channels... and cbbc is a children's channel, whereby any form of children's news programs are also heavily biased...!

BBC 4 does not show any news.


BBC 1 and bbc news is also much the same as far as news programs are concerned.

You are changing your story, hotshot. Your original contention was...

Tommy Monk wrote:the BBC doesn't even have "several" channels here in Britain...!!!

Are you really going to try to include cbbc as being factual and informative?


We are talking about bbc news media reporting...


Maybe you can name all the bbc channels you claim you have in USA, and explain what factual and informative stuff is shown on them...!?

Cartoon Channel ?

I see quill has 'done an Andy' and run away...

As a newbie who responded to Ben and Eddies appeal for new recruits, am I alone in finding it a bit contradictory some posters like the last one gloating over other posters who appear to have gone?
Perhaps that is as good a reason as any why forums are becoming increasingly barren.