Pro-establishment, military obsessed, arch-royalist and has a habit of picking and choosing which despotic dictators are good and bad.

It's essentially a willing propaganda tool for those and such as those.

Ah, by anyone with a functioning brain. I see now.

BBC is viewed internationally as a mouthpiece of liberal left. It was and still is to a lesser extent seen as a world class organisation in pursuing this. What it isn't is this impartial broadcaster that it's supporters claim. It's stance in issues pervades all its output. Even EE!

There is an argument, and a convincing one, that shows like EastEnders should not be funded by the licence fee. I see absolutely no problem with the BBC moving towards a subscription-based service.

I'm not sure what you mean by the liberal left, because they're two different things.

The press has an absolutely essential role to play in a liberal democracy, which involves asking tough questions of anyone in power (including the opposition), whatever their party or role (business, church, etc). Asking questions, informing, but not offering solutions. It also has an obligation to show multiple viewpoints and lifestyles. That's the liberal part. If it doesn't do that, then democracy is in deep trouble.

Some people seem to think that makes it "left". It doesn't. It just makes it liberal and part of a functioning democracy. Which I would have thought was a good thing.

It's love of Royalty is done through gritted teeth. There is no love lost between monarchy and BBC. Mandela on the other hand was worshipped like a demi god. The coverage on his death was so OTT. Talking to themselves springs to mind. Never mind the poor folks dealing with a once in a generation flood on East Coast a left wing idol has died. It's stuff like this that is driving a wedge between BBC and its audience especially outside of London.

The BBC undoubtedly has a liberal, metropolitan, London-centric bias. Their coverage of the recent General Election, particularly on the BBC website, was blatantly pro-Labour on several occasions.

Just look at two such examples:

http://order-order.com/2015/04/21/bb...aLIOoOveTUBquA

http://order-order.com/2015/04/27/bi...UPqGZKplr_ugNQ

And I agree that their coverage of Mandela's death was ridiculous.

Mandela was a left wing idol? Cameron described him as 'a towering figure in our time; a legend in life and now in death, a true global hero.' So just a hero of people championing liberty really.

Did the floods on the east coast not get covered? Because I remember them getting quite a lot of coverage.

Not exactly unbiassed sources there.

So any coverage of Labour is basically biassed now is it? Jeez, I give up. Democracy is basically dead. For democracy to survive, we have to be able to talk to each other in a reasonable manner, and accept multiple viewpoints. Not seeing a lot of that here.

RIP democracy.

Guido isn't an unbiased source, but the BBC's biased election coverage didn't go unnoticed by plenty of other sources too. It wasn't just coverage of Labour, it was Labour policies dominating the entire election page for days.

But they were the main opposition! I would expect people to be given a chance to scrutinize what they were up to, or how would people know how to vote? To be honest, my feelings were that there was massive overkill on UKIP on the BBC (I understand why, but it seemed disproportionate to me). I guess we all see things from our own perspectives.

Compared to the Murdoch press, the BBC is a model of even-handedness, but no one who listens to the Today programme could possibly think the BBC is leftist.

And the Tories have ended up with a majority anyway. So it's done, now.

BiB 1: The BBC has a duty to give equal coverage to all main parties, not to favour the Opposition.

BiB 2: The Murdoch press isn't funded by the taxpayer and has no obligation to be unbiased.

If anyone was getting disproportionate coverage by the BEEB in the election campaign, it was the UKIP lunatics. Hardly the sign of a leftist propaganda machine.

Only positively when they were seen as damaging to Tories. When it became clear that damage to Labour was happening in their heartlands the coverage of Farage changed.

Knowing how the Beeb is run these days, I bet they measured their coverage of the main parties to the absolute micromillimetre. But for some reason UKIP got a free pass.

No of course Murdoch can print whatever garbage he likes! If people want to read it, that's up to them. The point is, the BBC is absolutely not leftist. It is obsessed by "balance", but usually ends up being pro-establishment, as several others have noted. Seriously, listen to Radio 4 Today, they loathe anyone on the left with undisguised contempt!


Absolutely! They really were obsessed with them, and it didn't help the debate. But it's done now.

Didn't seem like they favoured the opposition to me when they put so much headline emphasis on the uncertainty and risks of a Labour SNP lead hung parliament which had the tories rubbing their hands with glee as this played right to their advantage.

If a roughly equal number of people think it's biased in either direction some would say that possibly indicates balance of a kind?