Then perhaps the likes of the Telegraph et al could be missing out on some prime business from the Beeb by not having a media job section.
If they started one, offering competitive rates for advertising BBC jobs, do you think the corporation would switch over to them? Mind you if they did they might get candidates that vote tory (horror of horror's)...this is the 'Torygraph' we're talking about after all.
No, keep with the left wing Guardian, then at least all prospective job candidates will be guaranteed 'politically neutral' .
They probably don't bother for the same reason the Guardian don't chase education ads. You need critical mass so that people who wouldn't normally read the paper will still buy it on the day the jobs are advertised. If the Beeb started using the Telegraph then only Telegraph readers would get to see the jobs as other paper's readers interested in media would still buy The Guardian on media section day.
It is very easy to highlight isolated examples of perceived left-wing bias. No doubt the left could show some 'right-wing BBC bias'. Truth is there is probably some of both. Programmes are made by people and they have political views - left, right or centre.
I can only "highlight isolated examples of perceived left-wing bias" because I don't watch the BBC 24/7!
You asked for examples and I gave them, according to what I have seen.
Still, you ask an interesting question that deserves further attention: Can you provide any examples of right wing BBC bias?
Afterall you seem rather confident that it exists. I'm not saying it doesn't of course.:D
I do suspect that a lot of BBC employee's are lefty liberal types but for a very few exceptions I haven't really noticed this in it's broadcasting. The one place I have noticed this is Dateline London which you might as well rename as leftline london. Other than that I don't particularly have any complaints. The BBC made Labours life miserable in power I don't imagine it will do any less for the coalition.
If the BBC is as you say, then why do they advertise most of their jobs in the Guardian? You'd have thought that a "slightly right wing" organisation would use the likes of the Telegraph instead, no?
I hate to bring facts into this, but the BBC don't advertise "most" of their jobs in the Guardian. They advertise most of their jobs online. Maybe a tenth of a percent of their jobs gets advertised in the Guardian? And those jobs would be advertised elsewhere too, such as Broadcast magazine and online recuitment places.
In fact as I don't read the Telegraph, could anyone who does, confirm that Auntie doesn't advertise in there? If they do then I suspect the Guardian gets most of the business as they need the money!!!
In fact, ten years ago when the Telegraph still had a media jobs section the BBC did advertise all of the jobs that went in the Guardian there too, but the Telegraph shut that section down.
the coalition government has not done anything labour would not have done if it had won the election.. the left wing bias versus right wing bias argument is as old as the hills.. the bbc is pro-establishment and always will be..
Well from their coverage you'd never know that and it seems to be very much more for the last establishment than the current one.
One does get the vague impression that the BBC and its employees see themselves as untouchable, apparently having a "god" given right to exist come what may.
There is also the impression that some jobs are almost "inherited" by the likes of the Dimblebys and the Snows of this world, and a few other BBC employees who follow in their parents footsteps being employed by the BBC. Rather like going down the pit in days gone by.
Time to up their game and ditch the ITV1 type output, cut the number of channels, and return to producing high quality intelligent content that will educate and entertain and also challenge the viewer. Leave the Strictly Come Dancing and various mindless game shows etc. to ITV where getting large numbers of morons is exactly what they aim for to sell airtime.
One does get the vague impression that the BBC and its employees see themselves as untouchable, apparently having a "god" given right to exist come what may.
I think that's a slightly unfair criticism. I think that most, if not all, institutions tend to assume their own existence.
There is also the impression that some jobs are almost "inherited" by the likes of the Dimblebys and the Snows of this world, and a few other BBC employees who follow in their parents footsteps being employed by the BBC. Rather like going down the pit in days gone by.
Time to up their game and ditch the ITV1 type output, cut the number of channels, and return to producing high quality intelligent content that will educate and entertain and also challenge the viewer. Leave the Strictly Come Dancing and various mindless game shows etc. to ITV where getting large numbers of morons is exactly what they aim for to sell airtime.
However, the flip-side of that argument is that if the BBC purely concerned itself with high-brow or worthy content, it would alienate that large number of viewers to whom it no longer catered - and, subsequently, would no longer have the kind of reach that justified a general levy.
The BBC's own reports claimed it had a liberal left bias.
Staff including Jeremy Paxman have claimed they have this bias.
Oh and
BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past.
The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.
That report criticised the BBC for coming late to several important stories including euroscepticism and immigration, which it described as 'off limits in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone'.
Everyone is waking up to the bias now by the BBC. The BBC spend £250,000 of tax payers' money in the courts in order to block the release of their own report about the middle east coverage. It is widely believe that Malcolm Balen's report concluded the BBC was anti-Israel in its reporting.
No wonder the BBC wanted it suppressed and went to court.
One does get the vague impression that the BBC and its employees see themselves as untouchable, apparently having a "god" given right to exist come what may.
There is also the impression that some jobs are almost "inherited" by the likes of the Dimblebys and the Snows of this world, and a few other BBC employees who follow in their parents footsteps being employed by the BBC. Rather like going down the pit in days gone by.
Time to up their game and ditch the ITV1 type output, cut the number of channels, and return to producing high quality intelligent content that will educate and entertain and also challenge the viewer. Leave the Strictly Come Dancing and various mindless game shows etc. to ITV where getting large numbers of morons is exactly what they aim for to sell airtime.
The BBC has to broadcast some programmes with mass appeal, otherwise there would be even louder calls for the licence method of funding it to end. Imagine a network whose progs regularly had only 500,000 viewers funded by a compulsory licence.
For all of its faults, the BBC offers very good value for money. There are not many people who can honestly say they never listen to BBC radio, TV or read the website. The average Sky viewer now pays in excess of £500pa and they have ads to tolerate as well. Much of Sky's output is not made in the UK, apart from sport, news and repeats of BBC/ITV progs.
As for nepotism, there is a little but the Snows started at ITN and Jon Snow still works there for C4 - he has never worked for the BBC. Most of us have probably seen some degree of nepotism where we work, eg the boss's daughter or son being taken on, although they are useless or don't have the qualifications. The Beeb has strict selection procedures for its staff. I know that at one time couples were not allowed to work under the same roof.
Some branches of the media tend have a progressive/left-wing bias - e.g. in culture. But if you look at political reporting there are an awful lot of Tory boys around. Most of Sky news, the ITN and BBC political correspondents. Andrew Neil is a dog that will piss on anyone's leg, but his instincts are clearly right-wing. I don't want political broadcasting to be anymore right-wing than it is already.
One does get the vague impression that the BBC and its employees see themselves as untouchable, apparently having a "god" given right to exist come what may.
There is also the impression that some jobs are almost "inherited" by the likes of the Dimblebys and the Snows of this world, and a few other BBC employees who follow in their parents footsteps being employed by the BBC. Rather like going down the pit in days gone by.
Time to up their game and ditch the ITV1 type output, cut the number of channels, and return to producing high quality intelligent content that will educate and entertain and also challenge the viewer. Leave the Strictly Come Dancing and various mindless game shows etc. to ITV where getting large numbers of morons is exactly what they aim for to sell airtime.
Nail on head.
Although I would like to see the license fee scrapped and for the BBC to compete like everyone else.
return to producing high quality intelligent content that will educate and entertain and also challenge the viewer. Leave the Strictly Come Dancing and various mindless game shows etc. to ITV
"Return"? When was this era when the BBC didn't produce populist entertainment shows? I don't see how Brucie presenting Strictly Come Dancing is any less highbrow than him presenting the Generation Game 35 years ago...
It is not beholden to private individuals with their own agendas - the BBC has a long and noble quality of providing quality radio and television.
More power to it's elbow.
It competes head on with commercial channels as the dominant UK tv and radio broadcaster.
I agree it is not beholden to anyone least of all the people who it forcibly collects the TVL from. It has and does produce some quality radio and television but so do commercial stations.
I think that's a slightly unfair criticism. I think that most, if not all, institutions tend to assume their own existence.
Trouble with institutions is they become arrogant and unresponsive. I've yet to hear a BBC producer admit they were wrong in any way when viewers have criticised them. Makes having Points of View type programmes pointless.
However, the flip-side of that argument is that if the BBC purely concerned itself with high-brow or worthy content, it would alienate that large number of viewers to whom it no longer catered - and, subsequently, would no longer have the kind of reach that justified a general levy.
On the contrary "high-brow programmes in years gone by have been a huge success ; The ascent of man, America, Civilisation for example all terrific programmes.
And the BBC has produced first class drama too over the years.
"Return"? When was this era when the BBC didn't produce populist entertainment shows? I don't see how Brucie presenting Strictly Come Dancing is any less highbrow than him presenting the Generation Game 35 years ago...
The volume of populist programming is increasing and if that trend continues the question must be asked why? That content is easily satisfied by the commercial stations who are obliged to appeal to a mass audience in order to sell airtime and survive.
The point of the BBC is that it can do something better that smaller (although still large) audiences can watch as it does not need to sell itself in the same way as ITV.
I don't recall saying the BBC never produced populist programmes by the way.
Since they came to power, not once among all the stories of cuts, fee increases, impact on the poor, unemployment, broken election promises, coalition murmurings, resignations, riots, Labour party rebuttals etc. etc. etc. - not once - have we heard them talking about the other side of the story.
This is happening because the country has a debt problem so vast that all three parties put debt reduction at their head of their agenda. However, as far as the BBC is concerned it might as well not exist. Have they ever bothered to report on the progress being made against helping the UK out of the problem? Of course not.
Comments
They probably don't bother for the same reason the Guardian don't chase education ads. You need critical mass so that people who wouldn't normally read the paper will still buy it on the day the jobs are advertised. If the Beeb started using the Telegraph then only Telegraph readers would get to see the jobs as other paper's readers interested in media would still buy The Guardian on media section day.
Oh noes Iz made spelling miztakes!!!!!!
I can only "highlight isolated examples of perceived left-wing bias" because I don't watch the BBC 24/7!
You asked for examples and I gave them, according to what I have seen.
Still, you ask an interesting question that deserves further attention: Can you provide any examples of right wing BBC bias?
Afterall you seem rather confident that it exists. I'm not saying it doesn't of course.:D
An exception?
In an interview with Ed Balls prior to the 2005 election, James Naughtie said:
"“If WE win the election, does Gordon Brown remain Chancellor?”
Even Rupert Murdoch advertises his vacancies in the Guardian! It's where you advertise media jobs.
I hate to bring facts into this, but the BBC don't advertise "most" of their jobs in the Guardian. They advertise most of their jobs online. Maybe a tenth of a percent of their jobs gets advertised in the Guardian? And those jobs would be advertised elsewhere too, such as Broadcast magazine and online recuitment places.
In fact, ten years ago when the Telegraph still had a media jobs section the BBC did advertise all of the jobs that went in the Guardian there too, but the Telegraph shut that section down.
Phazer
Well from their coverage you'd never know that and it seems to be very much more for the last establishment than the current one.
There is also the impression that some jobs are almost "inherited" by the likes of the Dimblebys and the Snows of this world, and a few other BBC employees who follow in their parents footsteps being employed by the BBC. Rather like going down the pit in days gone by.
Time to up their game and ditch the ITV1 type output, cut the number of channels, and return to producing high quality intelligent content that will educate and entertain and also challenge the viewer. Leave the Strictly Come Dancing and various mindless game shows etc. to ITV where getting large numbers of morons is exactly what they aim for to sell airtime.
I think that's a slightly unfair criticism. I think that most, if not all, institutions tend to assume their own existence.
However, the flip-side of that argument is that if the BBC purely concerned itself with high-brow or worthy content, it would alienate that large number of viewers to whom it no longer catered - and, subsequently, would no longer have the kind of reach that justified a general levy.
The BBC's own reports claimed it had a liberal left bias.
Staff including Jeremy Paxman have claimed they have this bias.
Oh and
Everyone is waking up to the bias now by the BBC. The BBC spend £250,000 of tax payers' money in the courts in order to block the release of their own report about the middle east coverage. It is widely believe that Malcolm Balen's report concluded the BBC was anti-Israel in its reporting.
No wonder the BBC wanted it suppressed and went to court.
The BBC has to broadcast some programmes with mass appeal, otherwise there would be even louder calls for the licence method of funding it to end. Imagine a network whose progs regularly had only 500,000 viewers funded by a compulsory licence.
For all of its faults, the BBC offers very good value for money. There are not many people who can honestly say they never listen to BBC radio, TV or read the website. The average Sky viewer now pays in excess of £500pa and they have ads to tolerate as well. Much of Sky's output is not made in the UK, apart from sport, news and repeats of BBC/ITV progs.
As for nepotism, there is a little but the Snows started at ITN and Jon Snow still works there for C4 - he has never worked for the BBC. Most of us have probably seen some degree of nepotism where we work, eg the boss's daughter or son being taken on, although they are useless or don't have the qualifications. The Beeb has strict selection procedures for its staff. I know that at one time couples were not allowed to work under the same roof.
Nail on head.
Although I would like to see the license fee scrapped and for the BBC to compete like everyone else.
"Return"? When was this era when the BBC didn't produce populist entertainment shows? I don't see how Brucie presenting Strictly Come Dancing is any less highbrow than him presenting the Generation Game 35 years ago...
Compete? You mean become a commercial channel financed by Big Business?
Heaven forbid.
What's the difference, it is in all but name a commercial channel financed by a tax.
How is it commercial?
It is not beholden to private individuals with their own agendas - the BBC has a long and noble quality of providing quality radio and television.
More power to it's elbow.
It competes head on with commercial channels as the dominant UK tv and radio broadcaster.
I agree it is not beholden to anyone least of all the people who it forcibly collects the TVL from. It has and does produce some quality radio and television but so do commercial stations.
On the contrary "high-brow programmes in years gone by have been a huge success ; The ascent of man, America, Civilisation for example all terrific programmes.
And the BBC has produced first class drama too over the years.
The BBC is the left wing's most formidable weapon. If they lose that, it's curtains.
The volume of populist programming is increasing and if that trend continues the question must be asked why? That content is easily satisfied by the commercial stations who are obliged to appeal to a mass audience in order to sell airtime and survive.
The point of the BBC is that it can do something better that smaller (although still large) audiences can watch as it does not need to sell itself in the same way as ITV.
I don't recall saying the BBC never produced populist programmes by the way.
What rot! You have been reading the Daily Mail.
Since they came to power, not once among all the stories of cuts, fee increases, impact on the poor, unemployment, broken election promises, coalition murmurings, resignations, riots, Labour party rebuttals etc. etc. etc. - not once - have we heard them talking about the other side of the story.
This is happening because the country has a debt problem so vast that all three parties put debt reduction at their head of their agenda. However, as far as the BBC is concerned it might as well not exist. Have they ever bothered to report on the progress being made against helping the UK out of the problem? Of course not.
BBC bias? Your betcha. Shocking, really.