 |
| The Papers |
Regardless of what you think about Donald Trump and his fitness to be President of the United States of America, it's surely beyond reasonable doubt that "a full-scale Corporation attack on him is now in full spate" - as News-watch's David Keighley put it the other day.
Yes, that may also be said of most other mainstream media outlets, but the BBC is the only one that people are forced (by law) to pay a compulsory licence fee to watch.
I've not seen much of the BBC News Channel overnight or today, but I did watch three short segments (about half an hour's viewing in total).
There was last night's edition of The Papers with its very cosy consensus between the BBC presenter and her two journalist guests from the Times and the FT on Trump and Brexit-related matters (biased in all the expected ways), with Martine Croxall adopting a special, slightly derisive tone when talking about Nigel Farage.
Then there was BBC Breakfast's paper review where the BBC's Rachel Burden shared a sneer, at Donald Trump's expense, with David Davies (formerly of the FA and the BBC).
Then I switched on (at around 10:10) and witnessed Gavin Esler interviewing an anti-Trump author and cosily reinforcing everything that anti-Trump author was saying in criticism of Mr Trump, with very little (if any) attempt at playing devil's advocate on Gavin's part.
As I say, those are just snapshots, yet all three contained varying degrees of bias - and all in the same direction.
Goodness knows what listening to hours of it would have yielded (other than a blogpost half a mile long)
As David said, "It is impossible to keep track", so why even try? The bias is all across the BBC. It's there for all to see and hear. I shall just resign myself from now on to just dipping in at random every so often and sampling (as above). That's all anyone can do.
Besides....
Though there's always the 'echo chamber' danger of seeing more and more people sharing your view and thinking that amounts to something significant, it really does seem to be the case that many, many more people are becoming seriously angry at BBC bias these days - and especially over the course of this year.
It seems to have gone way beyond 'the usual suspects'. Is it an explosion yet?
Complaints about BBC bias are certainly spreading like wildfire onto the BBC website, as anyone who regularly clicks on BBC Have Your Say threads will know.
I just clicked on a few minutes ago - on another of their 'Fake News' pieces - and where I might have seen the odd anti-BBC comment at most a few years ago it can now almost be guaranteed now that there will be legions of such comments.
(Of course, it could be that 'the usual suspects' have colonised there too, but I don't think that's the explanation).
On this typical piece all of the top-rated comments are critical of the BBC. Here are the Top 5:
Yes, that may also be said of most other mainstream media outlets, but the BBC is the only one that people are forced (by law) to pay a compulsory licence fee to watch.
I've not seen much of the BBC News Channel overnight or today, but I did watch three short segments (about half an hour's viewing in total).
There was last night's edition of The Papers with its very cosy consensus between the BBC presenter and her two journalist guests from the Times and the FT on Trump and Brexit-related matters (biased in all the expected ways), with Martine Croxall adopting a special, slightly derisive tone when talking about Nigel Farage.
Then there was BBC Breakfast's paper review where the BBC's Rachel Burden shared a sneer, at Donald Trump's expense, with David Davies (formerly of the FA and the BBC).
Then I switched on (at around 10:10) and witnessed Gavin Esler interviewing an anti-Trump author and cosily reinforcing everything that anti-Trump author was saying in criticism of Mr Trump, with very little (if any) attempt at playing devil's advocate on Gavin's part.
As I say, those are just snapshots, yet all three contained varying degrees of bias - and all in the same direction.
Goodness knows what listening to hours of it would have yielded (other than a blogpost half a mile long)
As David said, "It is impossible to keep track", so why even try? The bias is all across the BBC. It's there for all to see and hear. I shall just resign myself from now on to just dipping in at random every so often and sampling (as above). That's all anyone can do.
Besides....
Though there's always the 'echo chamber' danger of seeing more and more people sharing your view and thinking that amounts to something significant, it really does seem to be the case that many, many more people are becoming seriously angry at BBC bias these days - and especially over the course of this year.
It seems to have gone way beyond 'the usual suspects'. Is it an explosion yet?
Complaints about BBC bias are certainly spreading like wildfire onto the BBC website, as anyone who regularly clicks on BBC Have Your Say threads will know.
 |
| Is this gentleman Catholic? |
I just clicked on a few minutes ago - on another of their 'Fake News' pieces - and where I might have seen the odd anti-BBC comment at most a few years ago it can now almost be guaranteed now that there will be legions of such comments.
(Of course, it could be that 'the usual suspects' have colonised there too, but I don't think that's the explanation).
On this typical piece all of the top-rated comments are critical of the BBC. Here are the Top 5:
13. IWANTTOBREAKFREE: Dancer you are spot on. BBC has been ranting about this "fake news" issue all week with the inference that it affected the vote in the USA. This is despite it publishing its own "fake news" in the form of a supposed leaked Govt document saying there was no strategy for Brexit which turned out to be nothing to do with the Govt. Sadly BBC news can no longer be considered reliable. Look elsewhere.
11. Raskilnikov: The BBC and their ilk like to imagine that Brexit and Trump won because the people listened to the wrong advice, Murdoch etc as opposed to our moral guardians the BBC, the truth is people aren't stupid, they voted for Trump/Brexit because it was what's best for them, whats best for the BBC isn't what's best for the working class
3. BBCLeftWingBias: Facebook is cobblers, the BBC News publishes biased articles, the sun rises in the morning and water is wet. Move along, nothing to see here.
2. Dancer: So Zuckerberg is now political, BBC when are you going to admit you are politically motivated?
39. NigeM: The BBC is smarting because it failed to stop Brexit and Trump. As a result it is now slinging mud at everybody else because it knows its influence is on the slide. The population is slowly waking up to the antics of the BBC.The top-rated comment there ought to be particularly painful for the BBC. It is well put.
The 'fake news' story is, apparently, fake.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-showing-fake-news-beating-real-news-looks-like-garbage/article/2607626?custom_click=rss
It compared the engagement with the so-called 'fake news' websites with the Huffpo and Vox, not with Bloomberg, the BBC, or the Daily Mail, which gets more views on US stories than anyone else.
So basically it's a comparison between two sets of dishonest propaganda pieces, with sites like Vox and the HuffPo quite open about their desire to get people to vote Hillary.
The stories themselves aren't even really news stories. Trust the BBC to fall for it and promote it as gospel anyway, so long as it fits the narrative.
Three straight electoral defeats for the BBC groupthink. Dark days are ahead for the Beeboids.
It is sad how far the BBC has fallen.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC's seizing on "fake news" to explain how Trump was elected is simply pathetic.
It took took a strong and obvious anti Trump stance prior to the election. This was wrong. To continue this is wrong and stupid!
Who is the BBC accountable to?