NationStates Jolt Archive

I own a house that has a television in it. I pay a licence fee to the TV licence organisation. they give the money to the BBC who broadcasts unbiased, informative and entertaining programs.

In the old days, the Beeb didnt even show the person reading the news, for fear that his or her facial expressions would influence peoples views.

Ignore, their recent war against the government, when they were a bit biased toward the anti-war poresters.

I own a house that has a television in it. I pay a licence fee to the TV licence organisation. they give the money to the BBC who broadcasts unbiased, informative and entertaining programs.

Unbiased my foot. I suggest you look into the British Flagship the Ark Royal The admiral yanked it off his ship because of the bias they were showing when the Iraq War started.

Yep, I just realised that one. At least it wasnt pro-government.

always easy to misconstrue truth for bias

... The admiral yanked it off his ship because of the bias they were showing when the Iraq War started.
Maybe the admiral was a great fan of ITV? :)

yey Beeb

Of all the terrestrial channels...with the odd exception of channel 4 every now and then...the BBC is the only decent station to watch...and its ours...a great way of running a media body...and an institution i would never want to see got rid of

*snicker*
Yeah, BBC. Unbiased.
Just as unbiased as FOX.

Y'see, thats one reason I used to like CNN. Both sides (if you like the black&white conservative&liberal view of things) accused CNN of being biased towards the other side, so I figured CNN was at least moderatly unbiased.
Of course, now CNN seems to have morphed into some sort of gossip forum, so I dont watch it anymore, I now get all my news from carrier pigeons. :p

I think its the closest we'll ever get to a state run institution thats run for the people and sort of by the people

The BBC is fantastic in every way, but especially with news broadcasts. Have you ever watched ANY American news broadcasts? They're laughably crap, every single one. Crap, crap, crap, crap and more crap. The BBC may not be as unbiased as some claim, but it's NOTHING like as biased as every single American station (in one way or another). In fact, when I watch CNN (or Sky News, which tries to emulate the American model), I feel myself begin to retch and vomit all over my TV. I saw an ABC broadcast last night and I slit my throat to make it stop. Don't even get me started on the laugh-fest that is Fox.

That said, the BBC does produce a lot of shit programs. We need to kill that Antiques Roadshow guy before he takes over the world.

I have conspiracies about the bbc involving spacefleets, golden tombs of past director generals, and galactic domination. They amuse me endlessly.

Aside from that, the BBC is where I usually get my news from. I tend to watch news 24 til it loops, then watch it again (not attentively this time though), or have it on whilst I'm doing something else.

Fox? No, no, noooooooooo! the politically biased drivel...Melting...Brain...Dying.

American news programmes have become The Day Today

Whats 'the day today'?

Anyway, the opinions of the public and news are far to important to be left in the hands of business executives.

I really don't think that any news outlet ever in existence has ever been unbiased. The people who write what will be said for certain stories insert their bias, the reporters insert their bias with their tone of voice, the producers insert their bias by their choice and ranking of stories, no, BBC is biased, just like everything else.

I really don't think that any news outlet ever in existence has ever been unbiased. The people who write what will be said for certain stories insert their bias, the reporters insert their bias with their tone of voice, the producers insert their bias by their choice and ranking of stories, no, BBC is biased, just like everything else.

But the difference is, some is written biased deliberately, and some is unintentional.
There's a paradoxical argument here. is it not better that we receive obviously biased news sources, but lots of them? That way, we can easily interpret and compare the bias, as opposed to being exposed to apparently unbiased sources.

But the difference is, some is written biased deliberately, and some is unintentional.
There's a paradoxical argument here. is it not better that we receive obviously biased news sources, but lots of them? That way, we can easily interpret and compare the bias, as opposed to being exposed to apparently unbiased sources.
In happy agreement with the many biased news sources bit!

I own a house that has a television in it. I pay a licence fee to the TV licence organisation. they give the money to the BBC who broadcasts unbiased, informative and entertaining programs.

In the old days, the Beeb didnt even show the person reading the news, for fear that his or her facial expressions would influence peoples views.is the TV Licence Organisation a government run facitity or a privately owed one?

In the old days, the Beeb didnt even show the person reading the news, for fear that his or her facial expressions would influence peoples views.

Said period lasted only a couple of weeks during 1954 when specially produced televised news reports were first introduced by the BBC. Hardly sufficient a time frame from which to draw any conclusions, no?

It does not matter if Fox or whatever is biased or not very good, because you don't pay for it and can just turn it off. Everyone is forced, with the threat of fine or even jail, to pay for the BBC (if they own a TV)- if it is biased or not very good it is serious.

The BBC is biased in its coverage of Iraq War and the EU. A presenter of the Today programme referred to Labour as "we". In interviews presenters would often question Conservatives commitment to public services with proposed cuts (quite rightly), they would very rarely question Labour or LibDems commitment to individual independence, and how pouring more and more money into public services isnt working. The BBC is a watered down version of the Guardian on TV.

Why do people critcise private news stations for having weighted/opionated coverage? All newspapers do this and I think they are more interesting because of it.

IMO Channel 4 7pm news and newsnight are the best news programmes on TV - with Channel 4 winning because it is free.

Unbiased my foot. I suggest you look into the British Flagship the Ark Royal The admiral yanked it off his ship because of the bias they were showing when the Iraq War started.
Or were they not sufficiently pro-war for him? Is it not a sign of health that an organisation can criticise the government that funds it?

Unbiased my foot. I suggest you look into the British Flagship the Ark Royal The admiral yanked it off his ship because of the bias they were showing when the Iraq War started.

Are we to assume from this that you consider the Admiral in command of the aircraft carrier to be an unbiased individual?

***

Lets step back from this for a moment and paraphrase your argument: the BBC is obviously biased because it was censored by somebody in the pay of the government and actively involved in one of the stories on which they were reporting... consider me unpersuaded on these grounds.

<snip>
The BBC is biased in its coverage of Iraq War and the EU. A presenter of the Today programme referred to Labour as "we". In interviews presenters would often question Conservatives commitment to public services with proposed cuts (quite rightly), they would very rarely question Labour or LibDems commitment to individual independence, and how pouring more and more money into public services isnt working. The BBC is a watered down version of the Guardian on TV.

Why do people critcise private news stations for having weighted/opionated coverage? All newspapers do this and I think they are more interesting because of it.

IMO Channel 4 7pm news and newsnight are the best news programmes on TV - with Channel 4 winning because it is free.
As well as being a news program, 'Today' is also a comment and analysis show, and while I didn't hear the actual incident, it is entirely possible that the presenter was referring to him being part of Labour in the context of the argument. (or it could have been a mistake)
Furthermore, I would say that they do a very good job of ripping into everyone equally, which is just as it should be. How else are things gonna improve without critisicm (sp?)

Which private news stations are you refering to? If you're talking about Fox, then it's (in general) because it is biased in favour of it's owner's interests, and as such is a propaganda tool, not a news network.

And finally, Newsnight is run by the BBC News department, and as such 'is biased', so why do you like it? And as for Ch4, it has public service obligations, like all the other terrestrial channels (yes even 5!!!), and so gets a cut of your license fee.

IMHO the BBC is one of the best things the UK has ever produced. Doctor who, dead ringers and question time outweigh flog it and the antique roadshow

Unbiased my foot. I suggest you look into the British Flagship the Ark Royal The admiral yanked it off his ship because of the bias they were showing when the Iraq War started.

see Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Media_coverage)

THE BBC is great they asked Pink Floyd to change the lyrics in a song because they had Coca Cola in it.
They also stopped playing Six months in a leaky boat cause it was offensive to the Falklands war.

THE BBC is great they asked Pink Floyd to change the lyrics in a song because they had Coca Cola in it.

Eh? Sure you're not thinking of the Kinks re-recording the lyrics to Lola and changing them from 'coca cola' to 'cherry cola' because the record had fallen foul of the BBCs guidlines on product placement?

Eh? Sure you're not thinking of the Kinks re-recording the lyrics to Lola and changing them from 'coca cola' to 'cherry cola' because the record had fallen foul of the BBCs guidlines on product placement?
Nope im sure it was Pink Floyd although my sources may have been incorrect.
*Shrugs Shoulders*

*In any case "Thats Gold"*

that tv tax you lot in the UK has got to go. That is BS. Especially when they cruise the hood with a special van that can see if you have your tv on. Talk about big brother. As far as the BBC. They are biased as ever. I thought Leftist took over the station when I use to watch the nightly news in the UK.

Yep, the BBC is damn good. Except for Chris Moyles.

Nope im sure it was Pink Floyd although my sources may have been incorrect.
*Shrugs Shoulders*

*In any case "Thats Gold"*

===

No it was the Kinks, not Floyd, and they self-censored themselves just in case, the BBC later told them they would have played it anyway.

BBC is the best broadcaster in the world. At the end of the day, world over anyone would trust the BBC. From Indians to Africans they all listen to the world service, not FOX!