BF2S Forums BBC Admits Anti-American Bias

m3thod wrote:

Tits rule.

To put it bluntly, why do people give such a big flying shit if a news service is biased? If you get all your information from one source, you deserve to be duped like the fool you are.

I think it's quite funny having a blatantly, horrendously biased media article about the BBC being biased. Most of the article was based on second hand reports and hearsay. The Daily Mail (which is a commonly riddiculed tabloid paper in the UK) is hardly a great source for an article on bias either. The whole slant of the article paints it in a very grim light - but of course you have to be able to see past the bias and look at where the news actually comes from.

With the BBC the bulk of important stories are handled by the bigger name correspondants, who can hardly be accused of a liberal bias. Andrew Marr (the BBC's political correspondant) is not liberally biased, John Humphries and Jeremy Paxman (two of the toughest BBC interviewers) could certainly not be accused of any sort of liberal bias.

In other programming the BBC hardly fits a liberal stereotype, just look at the attitudes of some of their employees, Jeremy Clarkson is a great example.

Ask Jeremy Clarkson

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I think it's quite funny having a blatantly, horrendously biased media article about the BBC being biased.

Get it straight from the horses mouth if it helps.
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/revi … _final.txt
This is their own report. They admit being biased but the claim it is unintentional. Go figure.

In summary, the finding is that BBC coverage does not
consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects,
presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this bit, check it out it's totally f@cking jackson

"There were many emails from abroad, mostly from North America but also from Israel
and Europe. Pressure group activity could be seen in the number of identical letters or parts of
letters. A large number of pro-Israel supporters emailed from the United States, often with the
same complaint, on the same date and/or from the same state."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm

The BBC fails to always give a "full and fair account" of the Israeli Palestinian conflict but is not deliberately biased, a report has said.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-27 14:24:41)

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

In other programming the BBC hardly fits a liberal stereotype, just look at the attitudes of some of their employees, Jeremy Clarkson is a great example.

To be fair though, Clarkson's not a very good example.  He's right-wing sure but probably the most anti-american (and therefore proving the OP's point) presenter on the BBC.

He has/had a Ford GT, what more you want!!!!??

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

If BBC are biased it might be because the English media was kinda fooled with all the lies that were told too them BEFORE the war started, along with the UK citizens...perhaps they feel a tad used and now want to pay their duece. I find their anti-american bias very natural after all this.

That was well Jackson, totally f@cking mexico dude!

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I think it's quite funny having a blatantly, horrendously biased media article about the BBC being biased.

Get it straight from the horses mouth if it helps.
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/revi … _final.txt
This is their own report. They admit being biased but the claim it is unintentional. Go figure.

In summary, the finding is that BBC coverage does not
consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects,
presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.

You don't think the very fact that they have an independent impartiality panel giving a report shows they are less biased than virtually any other news broadcaster?

I was really just pointing out that I found it quite humourous that the articel you linked to was one of the most trashy biased things I've ever read, short of anything printed by the Jerusalem Post.

That is also only based on one aspect of the BBC's reporting and the findings are nothing like as negative as the article you originally posted suggested (through it's incredible levels of bias).

a) apart from individual lapses, sometimes of tone, language or attitude, there was little to
suggest systematic or deliberate bias; on the contrary there was evidence, in the programming
and in other ways, of a commitment to be fair, accurate and impartial;
b) the news reporting from location, particularly that from the Jerusalem Bureau, is of high
quality, especially when account is taken of the tensions and complexities of the conflict and
the pressures brought by interested parties;
c) there are outstanding examples of current affairs programmes and the BBC has used its
website to provide historical and analytical background to the conflict;
d) the BBC has made considerable efforts through the Journalism Board, enhanced dialogue
with representative organisations from both sides and the work of the Senior Editorial Adviser
on the Middle East to improve its output on the conflict;

Doesn't sound too condemning too me.

The panel found that there are some shortcomings in the fullness and fairness of reports of the conflict, which to be fair is one of the most complex conflicts ever. The suggestion of the panel that every aspect of the history of the conflict (or as much of the relevant history as possible) should be addressed in every related news broadcast is, in my opinion, unworkable. I am quite familliar with the history behind this issue and it can be quite controversial and difficult to express in an unbiased fashion without going into enormous detail, which modern broadcast scheduling would not allow for (perhaps on a dedicated news channel like News 24).


I have yet to see any evidence of the BBC admitting to an anti American bias, as is stated in the OP.

It is interesting that almost all the complaints about the BBC's portrayal of the Israel/Palestine conflict (which the panel found their reporting on to be free of "deliberate or systematic bias") came from the US.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-27 14:56:55)

You don't think the very fact that they have an independent impartiality panel giving a report shows they are less biased than virtually any other news broadcaster?

I do, but that doesnt excuse their findings.

I was responding to everyone challenging the source I used. When in doubt attack the source I guess. I was trying to show everyone that the report was from the BBC itself and not from a "blatantly, horrendously biased media article". I still don't think people understand that this was an internal report conducted by the BBC.

Kmarion wrote:

You don't think the very fact that they have an independent impartiality panel giving a report shows they are less biased than virtually any other news broadcaster?

I do, but that doesnt excuse their findings.

I was responding to everyone challenging the source I used. When in doubt attack the source I guess. I was trying to show everyone that the report was from the BBC itself and not from a "blatantly, horrendously biased media article". I still don't think people understand that this was an internal report conducted by the BBC.

It's not though. The report mentions nothing to do with any sort of anti-American bias.

It wasn't conducted by the BBC either. It was conducted for the BBC. There is a difference. Their findings were almost entirely complementary and the changes suggested seem almost entirely unworkable in the real world. Use of language is about the only change that would be made effectively.

I remember the conflict in Lebanon, where Hezbollah militants were generally refered to as guerillas, whereas the panel would have prefered them to be called terrorists to prevent any ambiguity (the panel was not producing their report on this conflict though, but they (the BBC, not the panel) made clear to point out how the Hezbollah militia were barely distinct from the civilians, "only indentifiable by their walkie talkies" was the exact phrase used). But there is room for ambiguity in such cases. Exactly who is labelled a terrorist is a delicate matter and personally I commend the BBC for not rushing into things and calling everyone who could be a terrorist a terrorist. When there is ambiguity, making unambiguous statements only serves to promote confusion and often leads to facts being misrepresented.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-27 15:05:46)

Bertster7 wrote:

I have yet to see any evidence of the BBC admitting to an anti American bias, as is stated in the OP.

Kmarion wrote:

I have a problem with the PC stuff, not so much as the so called "anti-American" stuff.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I still don't think people understand that this was an internal report conducted by the BBC.

Not really internal if they employed an independant panel but that's a matter of syntax...

Agreed, but it's a far cry from just some right wing news agency making their own allegations.

Kmarion.... I didn´t say it was right...neither that i like the news that way, but this is what happens when you lie too people and fool them into wars, people get biased and feel they were tricked. Simple as that.

Vilham wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Read my post again and tell me where I say that the BBC isn't biased....

P.S Your logical works the other way round too you know?  I.e If a news station's view isn't alligned with your own, how do you know you're not the "biased" one?  Way to go with the circular argument there!

Everybody's biased, it's just how biased they are.

Exactly, however the BBC is one of the least bias.

I have a question for everyone.

If you had to choose one news broadcasting company that you would get your news from for the rest of your life and werent allowed to view any other news broadcasting company for the rest of your life who would it be and why?

I think the lesson here is to not accept "one".