The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[bickster]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

I would expect Laura’s ability to do the job of a journalist and not just facilitate the party in power will greatly improve at some point in the next 18 months.

Well yes quite.

Its very clear from watching this how biased she is.

[Chindie]

Remember the good old days when Kuennsberg was a very good political journalist who's only dissenting voices just came from sore lefties who didn't like being criticised? 

lol

[Xann]

Will the editing of Boris's hungover antics on Remembrance Day ever be investigated?

[VILLAMARV]

I've seen a few mentions about bias in reporting this week's horrors in Israel and Palestine in that thread.

Is this something we might all actually agree on - that theres a massive pro-Israel bias in the Beeb?

I stopped imbibing their output some time ago, but before then I would definitely have said there was.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I've seen a few mentions about bias in reporting this week's horrors in Israel and Palestine in that thread.

Is this something we might all actually agree on - that theres a massive pro-Israel bias in the Beeb?

I stopped imbibing their output some time ago, but before then I would definitely have said there was.

Do we have any examples of this? I’ve seen criticism of the BBC that they don’t label Hamas as terrorists if that counts as pro-Israeli bias.

When it comes to world events the BBC is usually one of the least biased in its output imo. (Different story at home)

[VILLAMARV]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Do we have any examples of this? I’ve seen criticism of the BBC that they don’t label Hamas as terrorists if that counts as pro-Israeli bias.

When it comes to world events the BBC is usually one of the least biased in its output imo. (Different story at home)

Well, like I say, I'm referring to the odd post in the relevant thread mentioning it - but I don't watch it myself. So what has gone on over the last week, those posters might be able to elaborate on what they meant.

Historically there have been protest marches on the matter in various UK cities. Without researching further and off the top of my head, they've been criticised in the past for allowing Isreali spokespeople onto their programming unchalenged (I mean by a counterpoint talking head - I think it's called sourcing bias), not reporting 'in context', using language that seems to favour one side, not giving the same air time to the Israeli atrocities that they do to Hamas atrocities and so on.

In the 2000's I believe they set up a panel to look into themselves that returned the verdict of their coverage being misleading, suggesting there was a bias, but that it wasn't 'deliberate'.

Of course the Isreali government has often claimed it has displayed an anti-Israeli bias.

IIRC weren't the BBC criticised for refusing to air a charity aid appeal for the Palestinians some time ago?

[StefanAVFC]

I saw one, but was only a screenshot so can't validate it.

the headline was 

'90 killed in Israel + 150 died in Gaza'

That the bias is that those dying in Israel were killed and those in Gaza just died

[chrisp65]

It’s subtle but I think it is there, and perhaps if you used all their output over every medium it might be redressed. But if you’re doing the main BBC News website, News at 10, and Newsnight then I think there is a slight bias. But I’m fully aware that what I might be doing is showing my bias whilst listening out for theirs.

A couple of evenings ago, they showed a protest / vigil outside Downing Street by people supporting the Israeli side. They made no mention and showed no pictures of the equally sized equally peaceful pro Palestine protest / vigil outside the Israeli embassy happening at the same time. Perhaps they just didnt have 2 cameras available in central London.

I’ve heard them use the word killed for Israeli’s and dead for Palestinians. I saw that report. It might be as simple as just trying not to repeat the same words.

They did an article to show the shattered lives of everyday people in a small Israeli village, mentioning the family had moved there specifically, from England, and their son had wanted to be a front line Israeli soldier. They didn’t really expand on that potentially being a contributory factor in any way. They had moved to a conflict zone to keep the Palestinians penned in. 

Someone was saying their grandad had been killed, and he had been a volunteer that drives Palestinians to the hospital. They didn’t expand on why Palestinians would need a lift to an Israeli hospital. They didn’t mention the colour coding of individuals papers to know what grade of person they were and so what their hospital access entitlement was in various parts of the state.

I do suspect someone else could throw anecdotes of the opposite.

Jeremy Bowen appears to have a sense of balance. But it must be exceptionally difficult to ask an Israeli soldier right now if what they are doing is fair and legal.

There is a problem at the moment, in the heat of the moment, that ‘support’ for families in Israel or in Gaza is conflated with support of mass murder. The news with its need to put everything in tiny little digestible pieces struggles a little. But bloody hell I’d take the BBC’s output a thousand times before I took pretty much anything else. The outright partisan propaganda of much of the output from the US and elsewhere feels shocking when you’re used to the BBC.

[VILLAMARV]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

It might be as simple as just trying not to repeat the same words.

I apreciate theres some devils advocacy going on and I'm elaborating upon, rather than arguing against your point but I think for me, this type of suggestion would be more believable if the different words were attributed to different sides in different reports. Are there reports using soft language towards the Palestinians and harsher terminology towards the Isreali's that I'm unaware of? Without them, it's hard to see it as anything other than something more institutional

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

The outright partisan propaganda of much of the output from the US and elsewhere feels shocking when you’re used to the BBC

Couldn't agree more. I always cite the time I was in a diner in America and they had a news channel on above the counter. As I sat waiting for my order the anchor person said "And today in Venezuela, crackpot leader Hugo Chavez...." and I laughed out load. You can't say that on the news I thought as they said that on the news.

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

But I’m fully aware that what I might be doing is showing my bias whilst listening out for theirs.

Good point, whenever we're reaching out for things to back up our points, the objectivity can get lost simply because we're engaging in that action. I'd like to think the hive mind of VT is a good check/balance on these things. As individuals it would be impossible to imbibe all of the BBC's output across it's many platforms and get on with life. Proving the BBC is biased is harder than proving it is not unbiased. If you follow me.

Having said that. Integrity is a one time thing. Once your reputation has been tarnished it's gone. You'll never get it back untarnished.

 

[bannedfromHandV]

6 hours ago, bickster said:

Do we have any examples of this? I’ve seen criticism of the BBC that they don’t label Hamas as terrorists if that counts as pro-Israeli bias.

When it comes to world events the BBC is usually one of the least biased in its output imo. (Different story at home)

The difference between how the BBC are reporting on and presenting the ongoing situation versus how Al Jazeera are doing the same are very very different. As ever, the truth lies somewhere in the middle but no one represents the middle ground any more.

I’ve actually spent more time watching via Al Jazeera in the past week or so because I found the BBC to be far too biased.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

he difference between how the BBC are reporting on and presenting the ongoing situation versus how Al Jazeera are doing the same are very very different. As ever, the truth lies somewhere in the middle but no one represents the middle ground any more.

This is absolutely not true. The BBC is as much in the middle as you'll ever get. Go see how a Jewish Outlet is reporting it

[chrisp65]

It’s maybe a little bit of bias in any specific news item, but a lot more bias in what is considered newsworthy.

 

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

This is absolutely not true. The BBC is as much in the middle as you'll ever get. Go see how a Jewish Outlet is reporting it

I don’t think you can say ‘it’s absolutely not true’, inferring that I’m lying or exaggerating for effect. My firm opinion, having flicked between various news broadcasters over the past few days (and I’ve had lots of time on my hands as essentially been bed-ridden with illness) is that there is bias amongst all of them, BBC no exception. Unless you can present some form of evidence to contradict my opinion, it’s just your opinion.

[bickster]

15 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I don’t think you can say ‘it’s absolutely not true’, inferring that I’m lying or exaggerating for effect. My firm opinion, having flicked between various news broadcasters over the past few days (and I’ve had lots of time on my hands as essentially been bed-ridden with illness) is that there is bias amongst all of them, BBC no exception. Unless you can present some form of evidence to contradict my opinion, it’s just your opinion.

You presented Al Jaz at one end of the scale and the BBC at the other. I'm saying the BBC is in the middle. Israeli focused outlets will be at the other end of the scale. I inferred nothing. You're wrong because what you said is clearly wrong, there are many Israeli biased sites that represent the polar opposite view to your example of Al Jaz. The BBC is clearly much nearer the middle in the way the media is portraying this.

What you said is absolutely not true

[Seat68]

18 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I don’t think you can say ‘it’s absolutely not true’, inferring that I’m lying or exaggerating for effect. My firm opinion, having flicked between various news broadcasters over the past few days (and I’ve had lots of time on my hands as essentially been bed-ridden with illness) is that there is bias amongst all of them, BBC no exception. Unless you can present some form of evidence to contradict my opinion, it’s just your opinion.

Your view is anecdotal, but to disprove it you want statistical?

[Chindie]

The BBC is the voice of the establishment. The establishment is roundly pro-Israel, the BBC offers an angle with a lean towards to Israel - subtle things like 'Israelis killed v Palestinian deaths', which I also saw and they clearly got called out on because they've been very careful not to use those terms again, through to things like their reporting and presenting clearly following a line of presenting the Israeli position as the default and everything else must be subservient to it - which is why the few times that you see Palestinian perspectives given as anything other than just 'victims' and terrorists, it's somewhat shocking. The BBC could be worse in this perspective - they aren't quite Israeli mouthpieces the way some Israeli and some international Jewish media outlets can be, but they aren't unbiased.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The BBC is the voice of the establishment. The establishment is roundly pro-Israel, the BBC offers an angle with a lean towards to Israel - subtle things like 'Israelis killed v Palestinian deaths', which I also saw and they clearly got called out on because they've been very careful not to use those terms again, through to things like their reporting and presenting clearly following a line of presenting the Israeli position as the default and everything else must be subservient to it - which is why the few times that you see Palestinian perspectives given as anything other than just 'victims' and terrorists, it's somewhat shocking. The BBC could be worse in this perspective - they aren't quite Israeli mouthpieces the way some Israeli and some international Jewish media outlets can be, but they aren't unbiased.

No one said they weren't unbiased. I said they were in the middle of the reporting you're seeing. They are far less polarised than most

You give an example of killed / deaths which has been mentioned here before and you also say it was criticised and hasn't done it again (that you've seen). That to me says they are at least trying to report with a degree of objectivity, that's the middle ground

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

No one said they weren't unbiased. I said they were in the middle of the reporting you're seeing. They are far less polarised than most

You give an example of killed / deaths which has been mentioned here before and you also say it was criticised and hasn't done it again (that you've seen). That to me says they are at least trying to report with a degree of objectivity, that's the middle ground

I don't see the middle as a fenced off field, yay big, that if you're inside that fence you're in the middle and therefore OK.

The middle is a line, either side of it is a bias. It's impossible to stand entirely on the line, but it matters how far you stray from it. The BBC strays to the Israeli side, not too far, but stray it does, and firmly so. Could it be worse? Yes. Could it be better? Absolutely. Do they try to make some moves closer to the line? Sometimes. But fundamentally they won't go too far towards the line, they certainly won't overtly cross it. Are they one of the best news sources? Yes - thats why they are used as the gold standard for news even outside of just providing news - I've worked a job where a rule of thumb was 'it's not true until the BBC reports it'. But regardless of that it's important, in my view, to recognise and acknowledge they still have deep founded biases, for all of the good things about them. And their reputation has taken a hammering in the past decade as they became a domestic propaganda instrument for the Tories.

[icouldtelltheworld]

I feel like the BBC's reporting on Israel/Palestine improved after the 2014 Gaza war (Operation Protective Edge), largely IMO due to on the ground reporting on social media which had not really existed before.

Seem to remember a few examples of pretty egregious pro-Israel bias in their early reporting of that conflict, which was subsequently criticised. Things do seem more balanced now on the whole, whether my hypothesis holds any merit is debatable, but that's the way it has seemed to me

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Your view is anecdotal, but to disprove it you want statistical?

Anecdotal perhaps but based on my direct experience over the past few days. How that can be deemed ‘absolutely not true’ -

 

1 hour ago, bickster said:

You presented Al Jaz at one end of the scale and the BBC at the other. I'm saying the BBC is in the middle. Israeli focused outlets will be at the other end of the scale. I inferred nothing. You're wrong because what you said is clearly wrong, there are many Israeli biased sites that represent the polar opposite view to your example of Al Jaz. The BBC is clearly much nearer the middle in the way the media is portraying this.

What you said is absolutely not true

I wasn’t putting the BBC at one end of the spectrum - though I appreciate Al Jazeera would be at the other end - this is a thread about the BBC so I was merely using that as the reference point, not how far along the spectrum I think they are. I believe their reporting has been lop-sided on this issue based on what I have observed over the past few days, and to repeat, I’ve had far more time on my hands than usual and watched little more than ‘the news’ since the weekend (various broadcasters).

I agree the BBC are not on the far end of the spectrum, obviously not, but their days of impartiality are gone, perhaps once Labour get in we’ll see this change but I doubt it.