So, how do you account for the BBC's usual policy of treating all candidates in all elections equally? How can it be perceived that a special programme focusing on one candidate but having no programmes about the other leaders? The BBC's impartiality rules insist on treating all candidates at all elections equally - i.e. by giving them equal airtime. I realise you will disagree with me, but it is true that impartiality rules have been tossed aside for this election in this instance.
It is the same scenario as when Panorama made a programme about Nigel Farage. The circumstances are the same.
Even though both have been in politics a long time, certain events (Farage- Euro elections, Corbyn Labour leadership contest) pushed relatively unknown politicians, to the wider public, into the limelight.
The other candidates in the Labour leadership bid have been in the political limelight for many years. They have featured on countless political programming. Their views have been questioned and challenged day in day out by different broadcasters and news sources. Any cock ups, dodgy statements, past misdemeanour's will have been covered if and when they arose.
But that's the beauty of sitting with one leg either side of the bias fence. It's pick 'n' mix to suit the moment.
The Farage Panaroma was lefty BBC (they would never do this to Labour blah blah blah) Yet when similar circumstances arise and they do make one about a labour candidate it's still bias. Of course there has to be a reason... any reason.. must find bias in it even if it contradicts previous claims of bias. Oh..how about the BBC dont want Corbyn to win... yes that will do.:D
Strange considering on the Broadcasting fourm us BBC luvvies are constantly being told the BBC is a leftie love-in biased socialist blah blah blah. One could have been fooled into thinking the BBC would certainly have made a 2 hour special with Corbyn sat on a throne dressed as the virgin Mary feeding the poor children of the world from his loving man tit whilst Yentob washes his holiness' feet.
Yet they didn't. Must be a reason..must be bias eh?
We accept that newspapers are allowed to be partisan. Clearly most of the newspapers are right of centre but the Mirror, the Independent and the Guardian all favour Labour and there is nothing to stop anyone who can raise the finance from starting their own newspaper particularly if the demand exists.
The BBC is in a very privileged position. In effect it is financed by a tax on everyone who owns a TV and as such that places an obligation on the BBC to be politically impartial and to represent the views of all of the population.
Which, in general, it does; and does it so well it is more trusted than any other media outlet by a huge margin.
The BBC clearly has its own political stance...
Erm.. no. The BBC is an organisation made up of many people. It cannot have a "stance" on anything. The people that work for it may well also have their own "stance" on things but they are not allowed to let in interfere with their work as the BBC has to remain impartial on all things.
I watched the Panorama programme as people would expect.
To summarize, it was trying to examine why Corbyn is popular amongst some. History was used as context as well as present thinking. A similar programme could have been made about the Greens, UKIP or the SNP. Perhaps they will be.
My thoughts: that the programme was generally negative towards Labour, especially the 'inside the helicopter' segment, that voices both for and against Corbyn were aired equally...the anti voices being represented by Charles, Tristram and the former Labour Home Secretary (who's name currently escapes me) and that Labour was a split/divided party.
Now, the programme was fair and balanced re: Corbyn but certainly not a pro-Labour piece...if anything, it was playing into Tory hands, in my view.
It was a typical BBC high-concept documentary: think of a title (Jeremy Corbyn: Labour's Earthquake) and then build a programme to fit it. So we get the aerial shot of the countryside, the talking heads warning of the imminent disaster, the payoff about this one being off the Richter Scale and so on.
I wouldn't say it was biased, more that it fitted the BBC's remit of providing balanced coverage of current affairs by showing several sides of the story, both positive and negative. Where it fell down was in resorting to YouTube clips to illustrate Corbyn's alleged alliance with terrorists. You might expect that kind of "proof" on an amateur web site (or on Digital Spy!) but not in a BBC production.
But the documentary did explain why some people support Corbyn, and why some oppose him, so that's pretty much the definition of unbiased reporting.
It was a typical BBC high-concept documentary: think of a title (Jeremy Corbyn: Labour's Earthquake) and then build a programme to fit it.
Seriously? What a load of cobblers. (The fact that you think they'd think of a title first, I mean.)
I wouldn't say it was biased, more that it fitted the BBC's remit of providing balanced coverage of current affairs by showing several sides of the story, both positive and negative. Where it fell down was in resorting to YouTube clips to illustrate Corbyn's alleged alliance with terrorists. You might expect that kind of "proof" on an amateur web site (or on Digital Spy!) but not in a BBC production.
I'm sure they will have been researched, verified and used with permission.
But the documentary did explain why some people support Corbyn, and why some oppose him, so that's pretty much the definition of unbiased reporting.
So, how do you account for the BBC's usual policy of treating all candidates in all elections equally? How can it be perceived that a special programme focusing on one candidate but having no programmes about the other leaders? The BBC's impartiality rules insist on treating all candidates at all elections equally - i.e. by giving them equal airtime. I realise you will disagree with me, but it is true that impartiality rules have been tossed aside for this election in this instance.
This isn't a general election, local election, Euro election or even a bi-election. The rules about impartiality don't apply to the Labour leadership election. Of course the BBC's own guidelines about fairness etc apply - but they're not legally obliged to do anything.
Seriously? What a load of cobblers. (The fact that you think they'd think of a title first, I mean.)
I don't think it's cobblers at all. The whole programme was structured to lead to the conclusion that Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be so great an earthquake that it would be off the Richter scale. That's a very "BBC" way to tell a story: break it down to one simple concept and then use that concept to drive the narrative.
Erm.. no. The BBC is an organisation made up of many people. It cannot have a "stance" on anything. The people that work for it may well also have their own "stance" on things but they are not allowed to let in interfere with their work as the BBC has to remain impartial on all things.
It must be kind of nice to be this naive. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Mr Kawczynski does not answer any questions put to him and simply goes on and on about supposed BBC bias. Unfortunately for him, ever point he tries to make is quickly shot down by use of facts by Mr O'Brien.
I think I might have to watch it again now; for the third time today
Mr Kawczynski does not answer any questions put to him and simply goes on and on about supposed BBC bias. Unfortunately for him, ever point he tries to make is quickly shot down by use of facts by Mr O'Brien.
I think I might have to watch it again now; for the third time today
If it wasn't such a serious subject it would be very funny.
Mr Kawczynski does not answer any questions put to him and simply goes on and on about supposed BBC bias. Unfortunately for him, ever point he tries to make is quickly shot down by use of facts by Mr O'Brien.
I think I might have to watch it again now; for the third time today
The Saudi lapdog Kawczynski is thinking of taking the BBC to court.
He was utterly pathetic on Newsnight, how somebody as stupid as that gets onto the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is baffling. Oh dammit, I forgot - he is a Tory.
I don't think it's cobblers at all. The whole programme was structured to lead to the conclusion that Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be so great an earthquake that it would be off the Richter scale. That's a very "BBC" way to tell a story: break it down to one simple concept and then use that concept to drive the narrative.
..and The Morning Star I believe has printed for the first time ever a Sunday edition on the back of Corbyn becoming Labour Leader, every newspaper has the story on the their front pages and throughout. The shockwaves within the Labour party has resulted in a string of resignations from their Shadow cabinet.
Which, in general, it does; and does it so well it is more trusted than any other media outlet by a huge margin.
Erm.. no. The BBC is an organisation made up of many people. It cannot have a "stance" on anything. The people that work for it may well also have their own "stance" on things but they are not allowed to let in interfere with their work as the BBC has to remain impartial on all things.
Not quite correct. The BBC made a policy statement some years ago that it was against apartheid and would not be giving publicity to those who supported it (in South Africa of course).
Not quite correct. The BBC made a policy statement some years ago that it was against apartheid and would not be giving publicity to those who supported it (in South Africa of course).
South Africa was a pariah state, black listed and boycotted by virtually every international body in the world. Would you support the bbc giving them a platform?
Not really comparable to Labour electing a new leader.
Corbyn won't make any significant difference to tory lite aka labour, it will still be left wing and socialist (bleeding hearts) on things that a lot of the population of the uk are against (open boarders) They are so out of touch ,all of them , either that or they are very dumb
Corbyn won't make any significant difference to tory lite aka labour, it will still be left wing and socialist (bleeding hearts) on things that a lot of the population of the uk are against (open boarders) They are so out of touch ,all of them , either that or they are very dumb
Ian Katz is responsible for the content of Newsnight, he was at the guardian "newspaper" for many years prior to that. James O'Brien is the worst kind of smug and slippery champagne socialist. I would suggest that these individuals dserve each other. If only the BBC weren't picking my pocket via the vile licence fee to push a patently biased news agenda.
Ian Katz is responsible for the content of Newsnight, he was at the guardian "newspaper" for many years prior to that. James O'Brien is the worst kind of smug and slippery champagne socialist. I would suggest that these individuals dserve each other. If only the BBC weren't picking my pocket via the vile licence fee to push a patently biased news agenda.
In the interest of balance, Andrew Neil used to work for which media baron?
The BBC is balanced and not biased. You will hear views you agree with and views that you disagree with. The only bias I see is that which is written within your post! The irony!
There is no doubt that the guardanistas and BBC types share a common world view. You wouldn't last five minutes in the news/current affairs section of the BBC if you didn't subscribe to the group think of that organisation, certainly not on the editorial side of things. One or two token presenters who aren't of the left cut no ice with me.
There is no doubt that the guardanistas and BBC types share a common world view.
You may be right, or not. I have no idea.
The people making the programmes are welcome to whatever views they wish to hold. But that is completely irrelevant as they are to remain impartial in their output for the BBC.
There is no doubt that the guardanistas and BBC types share a common world view. You wouldn't last five minutes in the news/current affairs section of the BBC if you didn't subscribe to the group think of that organisation, certainly not on the editorial side of things. One or two token presenters who aren't of the left cut no ice with me.
What is seen on screen, online and heard on the air waves bears no resemblance to your take here. Your beef is the fact that the BBC is balanced. If the BBC was biased...biased towards 'the right', I dare say we would hear little from you! Am I right?
There is no doubt that the guardanistas and BBC types share a common world view. You wouldn't last five minutes in the news/current affairs section of the BBC if you didn't subscribe to the group think of that organisation, certainly not on the editorial side of things. One or two token presenters who aren't of the left cut no ice with me.
There is no such thing as "BBC types". The private politics of BBC employees cover the full spectrum. If you have "no doubt" it is because of your own bias.
Comments
It is the same scenario as when Panorama made a programme about Nigel Farage. The circumstances are the same.
Even though both have been in politics a long time, certain events (Farage- Euro elections, Corbyn Labour leadership contest) pushed relatively unknown politicians, to the wider public, into the limelight.
The other candidates in the Labour leadership bid have been in the political limelight for many years. They have featured on countless political programming. Their views have been questioned and challenged day in day out by different broadcasters and news sources. Any cock ups, dodgy statements, past misdemeanour's will have been covered if and when they arose.
But that's the beauty of sitting with one leg either side of the bias fence. It's pick 'n' mix to suit the moment.
The Farage Panaroma was lefty BBC (they would never do this to Labour blah blah blah) Yet when similar circumstances arise and they do make one about a labour candidate it's still bias. Of course there has to be a reason... any reason.. must find bias in it even if it contradicts previous claims of bias. Oh..how about the BBC dont want Corbyn to win... yes that will do.:D
Strange considering on the Broadcasting fourm us BBC luvvies are constantly being told the BBC is a leftie love-in biased socialist blah blah blah. One could have been fooled into thinking the BBC would certainly have made a 2 hour special with Corbyn sat on a throne dressed as the virgin Mary feeding the poor children of the world from his loving man tit whilst Yentob washes his holiness' feet.
Yet they didn't. Must be a reason..must be bias eh?
Erm.. no. The BBC is an organisation made up of many people. It cannot have a "stance" on anything. The people that work for it may well also have their own "stance" on things but they are not allowed to let in interfere with their work as the BBC has to remain impartial on all things.
I wouldn't say it was biased, more that it fitted the BBC's remit of providing balanced coverage of current affairs by showing several sides of the story, both positive and negative. Where it fell down was in resorting to YouTube clips to illustrate Corbyn's alleged alliance with terrorists. You might expect that kind of "proof" on an amateur web site (or on Digital Spy!) but not in a BBC production.
But the documentary did explain why some people support Corbyn, and why some oppose him, so that's pretty much the definition of unbiased reporting.
I'm sure they will have been researched, verified and used with permission.
Yep.
This isn't a general election, local election, Euro election or even a bi-election. The rules about impartiality don't apply to the Labour leadership election. Of course the BBC's own guidelines about fairness etc apply - but they're not legally obliged to do anything.
I don't think it's cobblers at all. The whole programme was structured to lead to the conclusion that Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be so great an earthquake that it would be off the Richter scale. That's a very "BBC" way to tell a story: break it down to one simple concept and then use that concept to drive the narrative.
It must be kind of nice to be this naive. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
It's the "BBC can do no wrong" stance (even when it does) - in my opinion of course
Think of it in those terms, then it all makes sense.
Except, of course that no-one has ever said any such thing on this forum.
"James O'Brien grills Daniel Kawczynski MP on Saudi arms sales - Newsnight"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi5z4M5dm4o
Mr Kawczynski does not answer any questions put to him and simply goes on and on about supposed BBC bias. Unfortunately for him, ever point he tries to make is quickly shot down by use of facts by Mr O'Brien.
I think I might have to watch it again now; for the third time today
If it wasn't such a serious subject it would be very funny.
The Saudi lapdog Kawczynski is thinking of taking the BBC to court.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/daniel-kawczynski-tory-mp-considers-legal-action-after-patronising-bbc-newsnight-interview-10498328.html
He was utterly pathetic on Newsnight, how somebody as stupid as that gets onto the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is baffling. Oh dammit, I forgot - he is a Tory.
..and The Morning Star I believe has printed for the first time ever a Sunday edition on the back of Corbyn becoming Labour Leader, every newspaper has the story on the their front pages and throughout. The shockwaves within the Labour party has resulted in a string of resignations from their Shadow cabinet.
Not quite correct. The BBC made a policy statement some years ago that it was against apartheid and would not be giving publicity to those who supported it (in South Africa of course).
South Africa was a pariah state, black listed and boycotted by virtually every international body in the world. Would you support the bbc giving them a platform?
Not really comparable to Labour electing a new leader.
I think you are in the wrong forum. Try politics.
In the interest of balance, Andrew Neil used to work for which media baron?
The BBC is balanced and not biased. You will hear views you agree with and views that you disagree with. The only bias I see is that which is written within your post! The irony!
The people making the programmes are welcome to whatever views they wish to hold. But that is completely irrelevant as they are to remain impartial in their output for the BBC.
What is seen on screen, online and heard on the air waves bears no resemblance to your take here. Your beef is the fact that the BBC is balanced. If the BBC was biased...biased towards 'the right', I dare say we would hear little from you! Am I right?
There is no such thing as "BBC types". The private politics of BBC employees cover the full spectrum. If you have "no doubt" it is because of your own bias.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2104721