|
||||||||
So the BBC is impartial is it? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,342
|
Confirmation of the leftist BBC attitude from the people who should know, BBC employees themselves !
https://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/ |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,692
|
Quote:
Confirmation of the leftist BBC attitude from the people who should know, BBC employees themselves !
https://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/ What have you seen with your own eyes over a period of time across BBC news and political programming that makes you arrive at the conclusion that the BBC is blatantly oppressing the political viewpoints of the Conservative Party and UKIP. |
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,540
|
Quote:
The UKIP viewpoint is suppressed by having it presented all the time by fruitcakes and nut cases like Farage and Nuttall. It makes 5/6 of the population see them as a bad joke.
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,507
|
Quote:
Confirmation of the leftist BBC attitude from the people who should know, BBC employees themselves !
https://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/ |
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,507
|
Quote:
Farage and Nuttall are the people who currently (or previously) lead UKIP. How can you claim that having them to speak on behalf of UKIP is suppressing the UKIP viewpoint?
For a man whose party only has 1 MP, and is only an MEP himself (who never turns up to do his job) himself, Farage gets a hell of a lot of airtime by the BBC. For a party with pretty much zero power and influence, the BBC give them a big platform for their views. |
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,540
|
Quote:
He's taking the piss out of the poster who's claiming UKIP and Tory voices are suppressed even though both appear on the BBC all the time (UKIP significtantly disprpoptionatly to the amount of power they actually have).
For a man whose party only has 1 MP, and is only an MEP himself (who never turns up to do his job) himself, Farage gets a hell of a lot of airtime by the BBC. For a party with pretty much zero power and influence, the BBC give them a big platform for their views. |
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,266
|
Quote:
Farage and Nuttall are the people who currently (or previously) lead UKIP. How can you claim that having them to speak on behalf of UKIP is suppressing the UKIP viewpoint?
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 1,251
|
The BBC has never been impartial its bias is obvious. Time to end the TV extortion tax
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,050
|
Quote:
The BBC has never been impartial its bias is obvious. Time to end the TV extortion tax
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,692
|
Quote:
The BBC has never been impartial its bias is obvious. Time to end the TV extortion tax
If it is so obvious a few examples from each should be a beeeze for you. After all, if such bias is obvious it will span across all of the BBC's output on a daily basis. What have you personally seen and heard to arrive at the view that the BBC has never been impartial. So much so it is obvious. |
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,422
|
Quote:
The BBC has never been impartial its bias is obvious. Time to end the TV extortion tax
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,507
|
Bias usually means "they report the side of the argument I don't agree with".
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,078
|
Quote:
Bias usually means "they report the side of the argument I don't agree with".
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
|
Quote:
No, I don't really want any kind of bias, but, right now, I prefer their brand to that hiding behind the false face of tolerance, whilst creaming off the money and furthering a questionable agenda. The national broadcaster should not be going anywhere near someone like Common Purpose.
You can't improve a society if you exploit the Chatham House Rule. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Purpose_UK "Writing in The Guardian, Roy Greenslade described the Mail coverage of Common Purpose in general, and the central focus on Sir David Bell in particular, as "a classic example of conspiracist innuendo" and went on that "through a series of leaps of logic and phoney 'revelations' of Bell's publicly acknowledged positions, the articles persistently insinuate that he has been up to no good." This opinion was shared in an article in the New Statesman by Peter Wilby. Also in The Guardian, Michael White acknowledged that, "anti-establishment bodies should be as much fair game for accountability as those of the old establishment", but said: "I couldn't help thinking as I read it that the analysis itself is a bit of a conspiracy. Delete 'Common Purpose' throughout and insert 'Jew', 'Etonian' or 'Freemason' and you'd rightly feel uneasy."" |
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,344
|
Quote:
Basically, you're against any kind of diversity or openness if discussion. In other words, maintenance of the conservative, right wing status quo, with a tin foil hat twist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Purpose_UK "Writing in The Guardian, Roy Greenslade described the Mail coverage of Common Purpose in general, and the central focus on Sir David Bell in particular, as "a classic example of conspiracist innuendo" and went on that "through a series of leaps of logic and phoney 'revelations' of Bell's publicly acknowledged positions, the articles persistently insinuate that he has been up to no good." This opinion was shared in an article in the New Statesman by Peter Wilby. Also in The Guardian, Michael White acknowledged that, "anti-establishment bodies should be as much fair game for accountability as those of the old establishment", but said: "I couldn't help thinking as I read it that the analysis itself is a bit of a conspiracy. Delete 'Common Purpose' throughout and insert 'Jew', 'Etonian' or 'Freemason' and you'd rightly feel uneasy."" It's probably far more plausible that I'm psychic, and that's why Mishcon de Reya's website was exactly what I was expecting. Not just that there's this relentless pattern... |
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 14,764
|
The BBC editorial staff is saturated with Guardianistas. If there is any internal bias in an organisation it is nigh impossible to purge it without some government intervention, which then leads "impartial broadcasters" to claim government oppression.
"We must maintain our neutrality!" the broadcasters squeel in delight. As they caress their EU flags and slip into their Socialist slippers. |
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,540
|
Quote:
The BBC editorial staff is saturated with Guardianistas. If there is any internal bias in an organisation it is nigh impossible to purge it without some government intervention, which then leads "impartial broadcasters" to claim government oppression.
"We must maintain our neutrality!" the broadcasters squeel in delight. As they caress their EU flags and slip into their Socialist slippers. |
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 1,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,488
|
Quote:
I haven't looked, but I've a feeling that website might be bias.
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 42,514
|
Quote:
A partisan rant from a partisan site... you may as well slip the words "liberal metropolitan elite" in than link to a site called biased BBC to show the depth of your bias.
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,540
|
Quote:
dave666 - I've looked at that article. Leaving aside the argument that a website called "biasedbbc" is unlikely to be a balanced and impartial one, can you explain to me what this bit means please?"Curiously the BBC seems unconcerned about the Russian spy, Snowden, who was aided and abetted by the Guardian, and the BBC itself, to attack US, and Western , intelligence and security, doing them enormous damage." In what way did the BBC aid and abet the alleged attack on the US and Western intelligence and security? |
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,692
|
Quote:
Are you unable to form your own opinion based on what you have seen? Why is it you need a web site to tell you how to think? A web site that does not have to adhere to the same impartiality rules as UK broadcasters.
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,724
|
Quote:
Hilarious link! Impartial, much? Hoist by your own petard.
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 22,788
|
Quote:
No time to end pointless threads especially when the source is the joke of a newspaper Daily Express.
BTY, i do not read the Express, i do not read any newspaper apart from a local one. |
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 22,788
|
Quote:
Both the Mail and Express under fire for 'toxic' and 'nasty' Brexit front pages.
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/both-the-...nt-pages/91258 Daily Express Forced To Remove List Of Things We’d ‘Get Back’ If We Left The EU Because It Wasn’t True http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b07cb01dcf7871 Three newspapers to be reported to Ipso over 'inaccurate' EU stories https://www.theguardian.com/media/gr...ate-eu-stories Press’ hateful 8 stories from Brexit debate https://infacts.org/hateful_eight/ The Express corrects over a third of “facts” in this pro-Brexit piece published before the vote It was forced to remove the entire article, which was riddled with misinformation. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...published-vote SIX LIES TOLD BY NIGEL FARAGE IN EXPRESS ARTICLE https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress...press-article/ |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22.



