Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 18 March 2010, 23:06:04
-
This won't please Elizabeth, I'm sure, but I'm heartily sick to death of the blatant bias of the BBC.
Sure, the Ashcroft affair is not good, but the BBC have been running it for days, and days, and days. Today, I read elsewhere a comment to the effect that "it would not be a surprise if Ashcroft was not mentioned in the weather forecast". Even tonight the BBC website says "Ashcroft affair rumbles on". It only does because they keep it rumbling.
What I want to know, is where is the BBC coverage of these:
State advertising was £13 million in December – yet surged to £34 million last month. To put this in perspective, the cap on election spending is £19 million. The UK government is now the biggest advertising spender in the land, a title it has held since 1998.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5849178/the-cost-of-browns-propaganda-splurge.thtml
The Unite union has received backing from its US counterpart, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as well as large European unions. A spokesman for the Teamsters confirmed that its transport union was “mobilising” support for its BA “brothers and sisters”.
On Wednesday in Washington representatives from Unite will meet with officials from the Teamsters Airline Division.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7459948/British-Airways-strike-dispute-goes-international-as-Unite-officials-meet-US-union.html
The union behind the British Airways strike has received £18million from taxpayers under Labour...
Unite, and the two unions that formed it, received the public money under two little-known funds to improve management and training for its members.
It has been the biggest beneficiary of one of the schemes, the Union Modernisation Fund, and received a sixth of all the money given out under the Union Learning Fund.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7473683/Union-behind-BA-strike-receives-18m-from-taxpayers-in-money-laundering-deal-with-Labour.html
So, here we have a government spending millions of OUR money on propaganda, a union which is trying to coerce foreign unions to bankrupt our national carrier, and that same union (which bankrolls the party in power) receiving handouts from the government .
Twenty years ago, any one of these stories would have caused outrage, brought shame upon the government, and received widespread press coverage.
Now we have next to nothing from our state broadcaster and, even when it is made public in the printed press, it is merely greeted with a shrug of the shoulders.
I am no great fan of Cameron's Tories, but this Labour administration is SO rotten that I find it quite unbelievable that anyone could possibly support Brown.
And yet, some will (especially if they are Beeboids). :( >:( >:(
I despair.
-
All these were reported on Radio 4 yesterday, Ashcroft was mentionned too.
-
All these were reported on Radio 4 yesterday, Ashcroft was mentionned too.
Nowt on their news website. :(
-
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2898713/Sun-unearths-alarming-smears-against-Tories-by-state-owned-BBC.html#ixzz0ic6EZ3aC
-
Unite donations account for at least 25% of all Liebore donations.
Unite delegates will be standing in many constituencies as Liebore candidates to parliament.
One of these Unite delegates is Harriet Harpresons husband (he is one of the most powerful figures in the union).
The constiuency in Birmingham where he is going to stand has been mysteriously exempted from the women only shortlists that his wife has imposed on many other constituencies.
Liebore - rotten to the core and rotten from the core. ;)
As for the Beeb, I have said for a long time that it was hijacked by Lefties, it doesnt even appear to make much effort to hide its bias any more.Its just another gravy train running on taxpayers money. Abolish the licence fee is the only answer imo.
-
is the Rupert Murdoch's Sun by any chance......now what would that media mogul gain by pushing for the dismantling of the BBC I wonder.........
I am curious as to what you consider to be an unbiased news channel? FOX(weasel) News does indeed claim to be "fair and balanced" of course ;D
this notion of the beeb having an agenda because they don't toe Rupert Murdoch's line beggars belief, it seems to me that unless somebody fits your world view then they have an agenda?
poppycock
-
Unite donations account for at least 25% of all Liebore donations.
Unite delegates will be standing in many constituencies as Liebore candidates to parliament.
One of these Unite delegates is Harriet Harpresons husband (he is one of the most powerful figures in the union).
The constiuency in Birmingham where he is going to stand has been mysteriously exempted from the women only shortlists that his wife has imposed on many other constituencies.
Liebore - rotten to the core and rotten from the core. ;)
As for the Beeb, I have said for a long time that it was hijacked by Lefties, it doesnt even appear to make much effort to hide its bias any more.Its just another gravy train running on taxpayers money. Abolish the licence fee is the only answer imo.
......You have indeed......total 'dangle berries' though. The BBC is certainly not perfect ......but in my view it is pretty objective and well balanced in it's reporting.......Some may disagree... :y :P
-
Unite donations account for at least 25% of all Liebore donations.
Unite delegates will be standing in many constituencies as Liebore candidates to parliament.
One of these Unite delegates is Harriet Harpresons husband (he is one of the most powerful figures in the union).
The constiuency in Birmingham where he is going to stand has been mysteriously exempted from the women only shortlists that his wife has imposed on many other constituencies.
Liebore - rotten to the core and rotten from the core. ;)
As for the Beeb, I have said for a long time that it was hijacked by Lefties, it doesnt even appear to make much effort to hide its bias any more.Its just another gravy train running on taxpayers money. Abolish the licence fee is the only answer imo.
......You have indeed......total 'dangle berries' though. The BBC is certainly not perfect ......but in my view it is pretty objective and well balanced in it's reporting.......Some may disagree... :y :P
Then I suggest you 'listen again' to the disgraceful way that Lord Pearson (UKIP) was interviewed on the Today programme ths morning by Evan Davies.
-
Unite donations account for at least 25% of all Liebore donations.
Unite delegates will be standing in many constituencies as Liebore candidates to parliament.
One of these Unite delegates is Harriet Harpresons husband (he is one of the most powerful figures in the union).
The constiuency in Birmingham where he is going to stand has been mysteriously exempted from the women only shortlists that his wife has imposed on many other constituencies.
Liebore - rotten to the core and rotten from the core. ;)
As for the Beeb, I have said for a long time that it was hijacked by Lefties, it doesnt even appear to make much effort to hide its bias any more.Its just another gravy train running on taxpayers money. Abolish the licence fee is the only answer imo.
......You have indeed......total 'dangle berries' though. The BBC is certainly not perfect ......but in my view it is pretty objective and well balanced in it's reporting.......Some may disagree... :y :P
Then I suggest you 'listen again' to the disgraceful way that Lord Pearson (UKIP) was interviewed on the Today programme ths morning by Evan Davies.
......Surely not.......Evan does nothing but smile at people ......as far as I can see. .....He's so nice... ;) :y
-
people who wear tin-foil hats shouldn't throw stones ;D ;D
you're right - the Beeb is a leftist conspiracy sent to destroy the right mwahahah ;)
i was a part of it...but i escaped....quickly - i don't have much time there is someone who knows the truth - ask him, his name is[THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED BY LAWYERS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION]
-
people who wear tin-foil hats shouldn't throw stones ;D ;D
you're right - the Beeb is a leftist conspiracy sent to destroy the right mwahahah ;)
i was a part of it...but i escaped....quickly - i don't have much time there is someone who knows the truth - ask him, his name is[THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED BY LAWYERS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION]
.......one for Scully and Mulder Perhaps B.J.......The truth is out there..... ::) ;)
-
people who wear tin-foil hats shouldn't throw stones ;D ;D
you're right - the Beeb is a leftist conspiracy sent to destroy the right mwahahah ;)
i was a part of it...but i escaped....quickly - i don't have much time there is someone who knows the truth - ask him, his name is[THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED BY LAWYERS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION]
.......one for Scully and Mulder Perhaps B.J.......The truth is out there..... ::) ;)
;D
wait a second................didn't the BBC show X-files???? a message perhaps??
-
It appears that some people genuinely want a News Channel to only reflect one, shared viewpoint - can you imagine what that would be like?(rupert can) I watch BBC output to be challenged, to be educated, to be informed - I want it to be informative and challenging and educational - it seems some of us have learned all there is to learn and now devote far too much energy to shutting out any differing opinion, which is sad.
I watch FOX news, I watch SKY news, I watch BBC, Channel 4, ITV, i listen to talksport and 5live among other stuff, i read the Indy, the Guardian, the times, telegraph, mail, star, FT all for various reasons and with varying degrees of credulity - i don't agree 100% on every view with any of the above outlets but surely thats the point of diversity? everyone has different opinions but you look who the overwhelming majority of people turn to for major news stories - most people, from whatever background or allegiance choose the BBC to inform them with good reason 8-)
-
is the Rupert Murdoch's Sun by any chance......now what would that media mogul gain by pushing for the dismantling of the BBC I wonder.........
I am curious as to what you consider to be an unbiased news channel? FOX(weasel) News does indeed claim to be "fair and balanced" of course ;D
this notion of the beeb having an agenda because they don't toe Rupert Murdoch's line beggars belief, it seems to me that unless somebody fits your world view then they have an agenda?
poppycock
FOX news is a commercial channel and is free to be as biased as it likes.
The BBC is a publicly-funded news service and MUST therefore be totally objective.
This article from the Mail in 2006 is rather revealing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html
Of course, you will counter that anything in the Mail is a lie, but prove to me that any of the quotes in the article are fabrications if you can.
You can't. ;)
-
ffs - i give up - who's next?
'kin Mail quotes now ;D ;D
-
ffs - i give up - who's next?
'kin Mail quotes now ;D ;D
I repeat: prove to me that any of the quotes in the article are fabrications if you can.
-
It appears that some people genuinely want a News Channel to only reflect one, shared viewpoint - can you imagine what that would be like?(rupert can) I watch BBC output to be challenged, to be educated, to be informed - I want it to be informative and challenging and educational - it seems some of us have learned all there is to learn and now devote far too much energy to shutting out any differing opinion, which is sad.
I watch FOX news, I watch SKY news, I watch BBC, Channel 4, ITV, i listen to talksport and 5live among other stuff, i read the Indy, the Guardian, the times, telegraph, mail, star, FT all for various reasons and with varying degrees of credulity - i don't agree 100% on every view with any of the above outlets but surely thats the point of diversity? everyone has different opinions but you look who the overwhelming majority of people turn to for major news stories - most people, from whatever background or allegiance choose the BBC to inform them with good reason 8-)
Indeed BJ, and across the globe they do. I would also add that last night's BBC News clearly stated that there is not only the Ashcroft story for the Tories, but Labour and the Lib Dems have had, or got their controversial donors, with Tony Blair even having had the police interview him over the "cash for honours" scandal involving his personal friend Lord Levy.
Sorry Nick, I saw no bias there only good faithful balanced reporting ;) ;)
-
It appears that some people genuinely want a News Channel to only reflect one, shared viewpoint - can you imagine what that would be like?(rupert can) I watch BBC output to be challenged, to be educated, to be informed - I want it to be informative and challenging and educational - it seems some of us have learned all there is to learn and now devote far too much energy to shutting out any differing opinion, which is sad.
I watch FOX news, I watch SKY news, I watch BBC, Channel 4, ITV, i listen to talksport and 5live among other stuff, i read the Indy, the Guardian, the times, telegraph, mail, star, FT all for various reasons and with varying degrees of credulity - i don't agree 100% on every view with any of the above outlets but surely thats the point of diversity? everyone has different opinions but you look who the overwhelming majority of people turn to for major news stories - most people, from whatever background or allegiance choose the BBC to inform them with good reason 8-)
Indeed BJ, and across the globe they do. I would also add that last night's BBC News clearly stated that there is not only the Ashcroft story for the Tories, but Labour and the Lib Dems have had, or got their controversial donors, with Tony Blair even having had the police interview him over the "cash for honours" scandal involving his personal friend Lord Levy.
Sorry Nick, I saw no bias there only good faithful balanced reporting ;) ;)
.....yep....... I concur with Lizzie and BJ... :y ;).
-
I also watch a wide variety of news channels and read a variety of newspapers etc. I am completely convinced that the Beeb is very strongly biased towards the left. It has been a standing joke for years within the media in general that it is run by sandal wearing/ tree hugging/ ex hippies and champagne socialists., its not a new discovery and outside of this forum I dont remember anyone seriously trying to deny it.
As Nickbat says, the other channels are commercial and can choose their bias if they wish, but the Beeb is actually legally bound to provide an unbiased neutral service - that,ll be the day. ::)
-
I also watch a wide variety of news channels and read a variety of newspapers etc. I am completely convinced that the Beeb is very strongly biased towards the left. It has been a standing joke for years within the media in general that it is run by sandal wearing/ tree hugging/ ex hippies and champagne socialists., its not a new discovery and outside of this forum I dont remember anyone seriously trying to deny it.
As Nickbat says, the other channels are commercial and can choose their bias if they wish, but the Beeb is actually legally bound to provide an unbiased neutral service - that,ll be the day. ::)
Sorry Albs but how do you arrive at that conclusion?
I have just watched the 1800 BBC News where they outlined in some detail how British Airways and Rail Track are about to be crippled by trade union action (no doubt taken by lefties and socialists!!) and this is going to do no good to the companies concerned, nor the Labour Government in the run up to the General Election.
All very balanced reporting as far as I am concerned, but if biased at all it was not to the benefit of the lefties, but actually the Conservative right! ;) ;)
-
Havent watched the news tonight LZ so cant comment. But have formed the opinion over many years of watching and listening. Ever listened to radio 4 ? its unbelievable at times.
As I said I didnt watch the news but are you sure they werent trying to do a bit of deflection/ damage limitation on behalf of Gordon ? :-/
-
Havent watched the news tonight LZ so cant comment. But have formed the opinion over many years of watching and listening. Ever listened to radio 4 ? its unbelievable at times.
As I said I didnt watch the news but are you sure they werent trying to do a bit of deflection/ damage limitation on behalf of Gordon ? :-/
No, not at all in my opinion. Quite the reverse.
As for Radio 4; no in all honesty Albs never listen to it :-[ :-[
-
I think this strike, from Gordons point of view could end up being a big problem. There is a school of thought that the members are being used as pawns in the game of who controls the Labour party after the election.
Although the union is called Unite, it has 2 leaders who cant stand each other and wont even appear in the samr TV studio as each other, they both want to get into a position of major power and influence to steer the labour movement / party in the very near future. There is a lot of political skullduggery going on behind the scenes, much of it tied up in the huge donations/ Unite delagates standing (in numbers) as candidates/ Harpersons husband being a link to the top of the party etc. And the powerbroker in the union is a certain Mr. Charlie Whelan - former chief spin doctor for Gordon. It could easily end up as a summer of discontent in 2010.
Imo Gordon doesnt care that much if they go on strike or not, but he would desperately like to see it delayed until after the election.
Perhaps the faction within Unite which isnt on his wing of the party are pushing things in a certain direction to try to damage him ? hard to say, but its certainly a very dirty game being played by people with big ego,s and ambitions.
-
I think this strike, from Gordons point of view could end up being a big problem. There is a school of thought that the members are being used as pawns in the game of who controls the Labour party after the election.
Although the union is called Unite, it has 2 leaders who cant stand each other and wont even appear in the samr TV studio as each other, they both want to get into a position of major power and influence to steer the labour movement / party in the very near future. There is a lot of political skullduggery going on behind the scenes, much of it tied up in the huge donations/ Unite delagates standing (in numbers) as candidates/ Harpersons husband being a link to the top of the party etc. And the powerbroker in the union is a certain Mr. Charlie Whelan - former chief spin doctor for Gordon. It could easily end up as a summer of discontent in 2010.
Imo Gordon doesnt care that much if they go on strike or not, but he would desperately like to see it delayed until after the election.
Perhaps the faction within Unite which isnt on his wing of the party are pushing things in a certain direction to try to damage him ? hard to say, but its certainly a very dirty game being played by people with big ego,s and ambitions.
jeesus h christ - i agree with almost everything Albs just said, although i don't think Mr Harperson (i forget his name) has any influence on either the labour party or the unions.
i do feel sorry for the workers being manouvered into strike action, that said BA senior management have acted without honour, used bullying tactics and brinkmanship to force the unions hand, by all accounts its a nasty, dirty bitter dispute - neither side has any particular dibs on the moral high ground
-
I think this strike, from Gordons point of view could end up being a big problem. There is a school of thought that the members are being used as pawns in the game of who controls the Labour party after the election.
Although the union is called Unite, it has 2 leaders who cant stand each other and wont even appear in the samr TV studio as each other, they both want to get into a position of major power and influence to steer the labour movement / party in the very near future. There is a lot of political skullduggery going on behind the scenes, much of it tied up in the huge donations/ Unite delagates standing (in numbers) as candidates/ Harpersons husband being a link to the top of the party etc. And the powerbroker in the union is a certain Mr. Charlie Whelan - former chief spin doctor for Gordon. It could easily end up as a summer of discontent in 2010.
Imo Gordon doesnt care that much if they go on strike or not, but he would desperately like to see it delayed until after the election.
Perhaps the faction within Unite which isnt on his wing of the party are pushing things in a certain direction to try to damage him ? hard to say, but its certainly a very dirty game being played by people with big ego,s and ambitions.
Indeed Albs, and with the signal staff union, the RMT with a 50+% agreement for members now to strike and bring the whole of the National network to a standstill, for the first time in 16 years, things are not looking good for Gordon Brown :D :D :D 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) The RMT are not even members of the Labour Party having been expelled a few years back! 8-) 8-)
-
NAHT and NUT are balloting about refusing to administer the SATS tests right now. Sats begin on May 3rd, general election scheduled for 6th.
-
NAHT and NUT are balloting about refusing to administer the SATS tests right now. Sats begin on May 3rd, general election scheduled for 6th.
We used to take the piss out of teachers in NUT.
Used to say they were nuts. ;D ;D
As to BBC - I would say slight left wing bias but left wing people accuse them of right wing bias :-/ :-/
-
I think this strike, from Gordons point of view could end up being a big problem. There is a school of thought that the members are being used as pawns in the game of who controls the Labour party after the election.
Although the union is called Unite, it has 2 leaders who cant stand each other and wont even appear in the samr TV studio as each other, they both want to get into a position of major power and influence to steer the labour movement / party in the very near future. There is a lot of political skullduggery going on behind the scenes, much of it tied up in the huge donations/ Unite delagates standing (in numbers) as candidates/ Harpersons husband being a link to the top of the party etc. And the powerbroker in the union is a certain Mr. Charlie Whelan - former chief spin doctor for Gordon. It could easily end up as a summer of discontent in 2010.
Imo Gordon doesnt care that much if they go on strike or not, but he would desperately like to see it delayed until after the election.
Perhaps the faction within Unite which isnt on his wing of the party are pushing things in a certain direction to try to damage him ? hard to say, but its certainly a very dirty game being played by people with big ego,s and ambitions.
jeesus h christ - i agree with almost everything Albs just said, although i don't think Mr Harperson (i forget his name) has any influence on either the labour party or the unions.
i do feel sorry for the workers being manouvered into strike action, that said BA senior management have acted without honour, used bullying tactics and brinkmanship to force the unions hand, by all accounts its a nasty, dirty bitter dispute - neither side has any particular dibs on the moral high ground
I take it all back. :o :o ;D.........Mr Harperson might not be that influential, that point is debatable imo, but his wife has ambitions to lead the party and if she succeeded I would imagine he would be potentially hugely influential. ;)
-
Anyways, my opinion - short version - Gordon needs this strike ( and the other which are looming) like a hole in the head this close to an election, so he is condemning his paymasters in the strongest terms that dare use and the Beeb are toeing his line.. When they tried to go on strike over christmas we didnt hear a word from him because he didnt care then. In fact his party recieved a very substantial cheque from the Unite union on the very day that BA were in the high court getting the strike declared illegal.
The unions are maybe trying to get what they can while they can as there may be a Tory gov. very soon and they would then be back in the wilderness for years.
Unite are playing a bit of a different game - who in the Labour movement calls the shots in the medium term.
Tried to make it a short version but I am a natural born gobsh1te. :)
-
BBC:
BA strike blame 'lies with those at the top'
A member of British Airways' cabin crew, who has worked for the airline for more than 30 years, explains the reasons for the walkouts at the airline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576930.stm
Hmm..
Seen elsewhere:
"One of the main themes on this and previous threads is that BA crew are paid better that competitors and have better conditions."
"Just been speaking to a friend wrapped up in this unfortunate mess. She mentioned that she has just received an email with the final proposal from the company this evening and that her mind is now made up having read it. She will be reporting for duty. Good luck to all concerned."
"I see an offer that, if asked by my reps, I would be happy to accept."
All comments taken from the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (3400 posts on this subject, mostly by crew).
http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/404353-british-airways-cc-industrial-relations-mk-vi-172.html
So why couldn't the Beeb have found a balanced non-strike viewpoint from BA staff?
It's bias by omission, IMHO. :(
-
BBC:
BA strike blame 'lies with those at the top'
A member of British Airways' cabin crew, who has worked for the airline for more than 30 years, explains the reasons for the walkouts at the airline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576930.stm
Hmm..
Seen elsewhere:
"One of the main themes on this and previous threads is that BA crew are paid better that competitors and have better conditions."
"Just been speaking to a friend wrapped up in this unfortunate mess. She mentioned that she has just received an email with the final proposal from the company this evening and that her mind is now made up having read it. She will be reporting for duty. Good luck to all concerned."
"I see an offer that, if asked by my reps, I would be happy to accept."
All comments taken from the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (3400 posts on this subject, mostly by crew).
http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/404353-british-airways-cc-industrial-relations-mk-vi-172.html
So why couldn't the Beeb have found a balanced non-strike viewpoint from BA staff?
It's bias by omission, IMHO. :(
such as the :"BA cabin crew member: 'I won't strike' " link on the same page? or the devasted couple "'We booked our honeymoon with BA' " piece? doesn't add up Nick, sorry - you're the one showing irrational bias mate :(
-
such as the :"BA cabin crew member: 'I won't strike' " link on the same page? or the devasted couple "'We booked our honeymoon with BA' " piece? doesn't add up Nick, sorry - you're the one showing irrational bias mate :(
Not at all. The BBC chooses to run an article from an unnamed member of staff blaming "management". It is crystal clear that a sizable number of the workforce believe the problem lies with BASSA & Unite.
The BBC should have balanced the article with a view from the latter group.
No irrational bias in my viewpoint at all. >:(
-
BBC:
BA strike blame 'lies with those at the top'
A member of British Airways' cabin crew, who has worked for the airline for more than 30 years, explains the reasons for the walkouts at the airline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576930.stm
Hmm..
Seen elsewhere:
"One of the main themes on this and previous threads is that BA crew are paid better that competitors and have better conditions."
"Just been speaking to a friend wrapped up in this unfortunate mess. She mentioned that she has just received an email with the final proposal from the company this evening and that her mind is now made up having read it. She will be reporting for duty. Good luck to all concerned."
"I see an offer that, if asked by my reps, I would be happy to accept."
All comments taken from the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (3400 posts on this subject, mostly by crew).
http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/404353-british-airways-cc-industrial-relations-mk-vi-172.html
So why couldn't the Beeb have found a balanced non-strike viewpoint from BA staff?
It's bias by omission, IMHO. :(
They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers. Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!
So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes! :D :D :D :D ;) ;) :y
-
They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers. Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!
So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes! :D :D :D :D ;) ;) :y
I was saying that the article on BBC website should have been balanced. I didn't mention programming. Perhaps the website and the TV are run under different guidelines. :-/
-
They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers. Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!
So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes! :D :D :D :D ;) ;) :y
I was saying that the article on BBC website should have been balanced. I didn't mention programming. Perhaps the website and the TV are run under different guidelines. :-/
Well on their web site is a staff member who is against the strike giving her reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576003.stm
and the staff member who is pro the strike giving his reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576274.stm
So what is biased, not balanced or fair in that reporting? :-/ :-/
Therefore both on TV and on their web site Nick once more the BBC are doing a great job. ;) ;) ;)
-
They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers. Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!
So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes! :D :D :D :D ;) ;) :y
I was saying that the article on BBC website should have been balanced. I didn't mention programming. Perhaps the website and the TV are run under different guidelines. :-/
Well on their web site is a staff member who is against the strike giving her reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576003.stm
and the staff member who is pro the strike giving his reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576274.stm
So what is biased, not balanced or fair in that reporting? :-/ :-/
Therefore both on TV and on their web site Nick once more the BBC are doing a great job. ;) ;) ;)
Didn't see those. Good. :y
-
They did Nick, with a flight director being interviewed, with back to the camera, explaining how he could not afford to strike and all this would do is damage their future careers. Also a flight attendant was interviewed, with her blacked out, who explained she was not with the strike as she would sooner work for slightly less if necessary than perhaps loose her job in the long term!
So Nick please switch off your bias, and listen to more BBC News programmes! :D :D :D :D ;) ;) :y
I was saying that the article on BBC website should have been balanced. I didn't mention programming. Perhaps the website and the TV are run under different guidelines. :-/
Well on their web site is a staff member who is against the strike giving her reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576003.stm
and the staff member who is pro the strike giving his reasons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8576274.stm
So what is biased, not balanced or fair in that reporting? :-/ :-/
Therefore both on TV and on their web site Nick once more the BBC are doing a great job. ;) ;) ;)
One for Lizzie:
http://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/10888842767
;)
-
The BBC is a publicly-funded news service and MUST therefore be totally objective.
This article from the Mail in 2006 is rather revealing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html
Of course, you will counter that anything in the Mail is a lie, but prove to me that any of the quotes in the article are fabrications if you can.
You can't. ;)
Sorry, just skimming the forum after a few beers, but i have to call you on that quote, I know that's what it should be, but it's not :-[
-
What is the BBC up to?
Too many fingers in too many rancid pies, I would seem.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/sustainable-bbc.html
:( :(
-
not the BBC Nick, it's supported by BBC World Service Trust ie an independently funded international charity who work in partnership with the BBC World Service (mainly using their excellent worldwide facilities to bring valuable information and education to parts of the third world via radio) but please, don't let the facts stand in the way of cutting and pasting more swivel-eyed rants from a lone blogger :y
i can see how he's confused tho, if you never do even light research you're going to have to accept you'll be wrong more often than not......unless this lone blogger didn't want his followers knowing the full truthor the truth was inconvenient to his argument? but that couldn't possibly be the case ;)
i've posted that reply on the loonballs thread - cheers for the link - he's more entertaining than FOX news 8-)
-
The BBC and the rest of the Uk media is biased.
You get very little coverage of anything from countries that don't speak English for example. Recently there was a succesful resolution to a long running Spanish hostages in a South American country scenario. "Foreign"stuff only get coverage if there is a natural disaster, it affects peoples holidays or Britain is fighting them in a war. ;D ;D
-
not the BBC Nick, it's supported by BBC World Service Trust ie an independently funded international charity who work in partnership with the BBC World Service (mainly using their excellent worldwide facilities to bring valuable information and education to parts of the third world via radio) but please, don't let the facts stand in the way of cutting and pasting more swivel-eyed rants from a lone blogger :y
i can see how he's confused tho, if you never do even light research you're going to have to accept you'll be wrong more often than not......unless this lone blogger didn't want his followers knowing the full truthor the truth was inconvenient to his argument? but that couldn't possibly be the case ;)
i've posted that reply on the loonballs thread - cheers for the link - he's more entertaining than FOX news 8-)
Independently-funded charity? 37% from the UK Government (taxpayers money), EU 15% (taxpayers money). And why should the BBC be running a charity anyway?
"We worked in partnership with The Energy Resources Institute (TERI), Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) and the Stockholm Environment Institute to mobilise public opinion around the environment"
That's NOT the BBC's job, nor that of any phoney charity they set up.
QUOTE:
"...but please, don't let the facts stand in the way of cutting and pasting more swivel-eyed rants from a lone blogger"
Rude, nasty, ignorant, and says more about you than me. >:( >:(
-
The BBC and the rest of the Uk media is biased.
You get very little coverage of anything from countries that don't speak English for example. Recently there was a succesful resolution to a long running Spanish hostages in a South American country scenario. "Foreign"stuff only get coverage if there is a natural disaster, it affects peoples holidays or Britain is fighting them in a war. ;D ;D
The BBC is very good at reporting current news affairs from all around the world Varche, and is well known for doing so.
If you go outside the UK to the USA you soon realise how good the BBC is and how you miss it whilst there. Indeed there news is almost 100% centred on the state you are residing in, or America in general. To hear news on what is happening outside the United States is rare, and usually is coupled to US interests!
For instance I was in the US when the Detroit terrorist incident took place. For three solid DAYS the news concentrated on that story at the exclusion of anything else, and only mentioned Europe, and the UK in particular, when the story could be linked to where the aircraft had flown from, with also our Gordon Brown announcing new upgarded security checks at UK airports (to satisfy American worries??!!). The rest of the news was all about America and the terrorist threat.
I came home once again from the United States shouting out thank God for the BBC and it's great style of unbiased reporting!! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ;) ;)
-
Lizzie, I see you didn't comment on that Matt Frei Twitter I posted earlier. ;)
-
The BBC and the rest of the Uk media is biased.
You get very little coverage of anything from countries that don't speak English for example. Recently there was a succesful resolution to a long running Spanish hostages in a South American country scenario. "Foreign"stuff only get coverage if there is a natural disaster, it affects peoples holidays or Britain is fighting them in a war. ;D ;D
The BBC is very good at reporting current news affairs from all around the world Varche, and is well known for doing so. REALLY!
If you go outside the UK to the USA you soon realise how good the BBC is and how you miss it whilst there. Indeed there news is almost 100% centred on the state you are residing in, or America in general. To hear news on what is happening outside the United States is rare, and usually is coupled to US interests! THE USA ISN'T a GOOD EXAMPLE AS THEY ARE WELL KNOWN FOR BEING ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY SELF CENTRED
For instance I was in the US when the Detroit terrorist incident took place. For three solid DAYS the news concentrated on that story at the exclusion of anything else, and only mentioned Europe, and the UK in particular, when the story could be linked to where the aircraft had flown from, with also our Gordon Brown announcing new upgarded security checks at UK airports (to satisfy American worries??!!). The rest of the news was all about America and the terrorist threat. AND THE SAME THING DOESN'T HAPPEN IN BRITAIN!!! A BIT OF FLOODING AND THE NEWS CREWS ARE THERE FOR DAYS TO THE EXCLUSION OF NEARLY ALL ELSE!
I came home once again from the United States shouting out thank God for the BBC and it's great style of unbiased reporting!! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ;) ;)
I would say that the BBC does try.
-
The BBC is very good at reporting current news affairs from all around the world Varche, and is well known for doing so. REALLY!
So much so that when I'm abroad and want to know what's going on at home, and the BBC is the only english-speaking channel available from this side of the atlantic, I find news from all over the place and precious little from home. >:(
Kevin
-
The BBC is very good at reporting current news affairs from all around the world Varche, and is well known for doing so. REALLY!
So much so that when I'm abroad and want to know what's going on at home, and the BBC is the only english-speaking channel available from this side of the atlantic, I find news from all over the place and precious little from home. >:(
Kevin
That I suggest Kevin is because the UK, whether we like it or not, is no longer the centre of the world and can no longer have world news domination. We are a small country with mainly just domestic news that appeals to no one other than British nationals. That is why in America, which at the moment is the centre of news interest as what they do currently affects the rest of the world big time, and they have the might to do so, their news is basically all about the USA and her interests.
The BBC recognises the international news worthiness of current events and although in Britain concentrates on domestic issues with international affairs, when broadcasting in 'foreign' lands fashions it's news content to what is important in those places. It may well be anything but "British" news. ;) ;)
-
Lizzie, I see you didn't comment on that Matt Frei Twitter I posted earlier. ;)
Nicks Quote:
One for Lizzie:
http://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/10888842767
;)
Sorry Nick, I have not ignored it thanks :y :y
Did not comment as I found nothing worth commenting about ;) ;)
-
Lizzie, I see you didn't comment on that Matt Frei Twitter I posted earlier. ;)
Nicks Quote:
One for Lizzie:
http://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/10888842767
;)
Sorry Nick, I have not ignored it thanks :y :y
Did not comment as I found nothing worth commenting about ;) ;)
Ah, so if a reporter from the oh-so-independent BBC publishes his views, "the Tory Party = Nasty Party" it does not, in any way, draw into question the political impartiality that his position demands.
OK, that's settled then. ;)
-
not the BBC Nick, it's supported by BBC World Service Trust ie an independently funded international charity who work in partnership with the BBC World Service (mainly using their excellent worldwide facilities to bring valuable information and education to parts of the third world via radio) but please, don't let the facts stand in the way of cutting and pasting more swivel-eyed rants from a lone blogger :y
i can see how he's confused tho, if you never do even light research you're going to have to accept you'll be wrong more often than not......unless this lone blogger didn't want his followers knowing the full truthor the truth was inconvenient to his argument? but that couldn't possibly be the case ;)
i've posted that reply on the loonballs thread - cheers for the link - he's more entertaining than FOX news 8-)
Independently-funded charity? 37% from the UK Government (taxpayers money), EU 15% (taxpayers money). And why should the BBC be running a charity anyway?
"We worked in partnership with The Energy Resources Institute (TERI), Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) and the Stockholm Environment Institute to mobilise public opinion around the environment"
That's NOT the BBC's job, nor that of any phoney charity they set up.
QUOTE:
"...but please, don't let the facts stand in the way of cutting and pasting more swivel-eyed rants from a lone blogger"
Rude, nasty, ignorant, and says more about you than me. >:( >:(
I'm not being any ruder, nastier or more arrogant than the blogger, again someone who doesn't agree with you is automatically vilified?
What tells me much about you is your phrase "why should the BBC be running a charity anyway" not only a sad reflection on whatever you believe society to be, but shows a lack of humanity I find breathtaking - take a look at the work they do and tell me it's worthless :(
-
What tells me much about you is your phrase "why should the BBC be running a charity anyway" not only a sad reflection on whatever you believe society to be, but shows a lack of humanity I find breathtaking - take a look at the work they do and tell me it's worthless :(
There are many charities around. They should be funded by voluntary contributions and be accountable to those who fund them. I am more than happy for such charitable organisations that meet this criteria to continue their good work.
However, the BBC is the UK's public service broadcaster, paid for by the taxpayer and answerable to the taxpayer. In my view it should not be using its resources to inspire political change and spread radical environmentalism around the globe.
Since it receives a good deal of its money and resources from the Government, the EU and the BBC, it effectively rules out any accountability.
That's my gripe. >:(
-
Lizzie, I see you didn't comment on that Matt Frei Twitter I posted earlier. ;)
Nicks Quote:
One for Lizzie:
http://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/10888842767
;)
Sorry Nick, I have not ignored it thanks :y :y
Did not comment as I found nothing worth commenting about ;) ;)
Ah, so if a reporter from the oh-so-independent BBC publishes his views, "the Tory Party = Nasty Party" it does not, in any way, draw into question the political impartiality that his position demands.
OK, that's settled then. ;)
So Matt Fry has proved he is a prat - so is he a Labour or LD supporter?
-
"Ever wondered why your complaint of left-wing bias against the BBC wasn’t upheld?"
"Labour Candidate is BBC Bias Complaints Judge"
..."Elsewhere in on his Facebook page Summers spins for Brown, who he refers to as “the boss” and advocates his friends vote Labour."
http://order-order.com/2010/04/19/labour-candidate-is-bbc-bias-complaints-judge/
Quelle surprise! ;) ::)
-
type "BBC left wing bias" into google UK - 21500 hits
type "BBC right wing bias" into google uk - 25100 hits
the only bias is coming from the rabbits at the controls in your head, Nick - keep calm and carry on ;)
-
type "BBC left wing bias" into google UK - 21500 hits
type "BBC right wing bias" into google uk - 25100 hits
the only bias is coming from the rabbits at the controls in your head, Nick - keep calm and carry on ;)
So you think that someone who is charged with maintaining impartiality at our Public Service Broadcaster should be an active member of a political party?
I don't. It's a conflict of interest.
Pleased to see you can use Google. ::)
And what's that sneering comment about "rabbits in my head" all about? >:( >:(
-
type "BBC left wing bias" into google UK - 21500 hits
type "BBC right wing bias" into google uk - 25100 hits
the only bias is coming from the rabbits at the controls in your head, Nick - keep calm and carry on ;)
So you think that someone who is charged with maintaining impartiality at our Public Service Broadcaster should be an active member of a political party?
I don't. It's a conflict of interest.
Pleased to see you can use Google. ::)
And what's that sneering comment about "rabbits in my head" all about? >:( >:(
not a Father Ted fan then? ;)