BF2S Forums BBC Admits Anti-American Bias

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals

That made me roffle my waffles.

ATG wrote:

England is much more socialist than America, so it would appear so.

SpaceApollyon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Do you believe the BBC is biased or that it promotes a leftist agenda?

Yes. Because “reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

No, BBC, just like every news org, is big business.....not accurate news.

BBC is biased as any other news channel, its just they pretend not to be bias which creates a problem because they blatantly are.

As for people quoting the BBC news as the truth its not, its mediated version of events meaning the only words you can really trust most of the time are the nouns and verbs and any type of description is bias by nature.

It does promote leftist agenda but it also bashes the Tony Blair alot so they are really just going along with what they think people want to hear rather than being bothered about actually news.

Having said that though it doesn't have nearly as much bias as some news channels.

Last edited by Recoil555 (2006-12-27 06:03:47)

Kmarion wrote:

BBC Admits Anti-American Bias http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/a … p;num=9954

What a load of tripe.  The reporting in that article is shockingly bad and it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the only biased party is it's author.  I mean, what intelligent reporter would say something like the BBC is 'dominated' by homosexuals?  It sounds like a childish insult rather than an insightful analysis. 

At one point it states the example of a Muslim fundementalist being given 12 minutes of air time.  So how many HOURS air time does George Bush (a Christian fundementalist IMO) get a day, let alone all together?  Surely televising Bush go on his "war on terror" speeches without showing a single reply from the people he is trying to kill is biased (something most Republican channels in the US do I'm sure), showing both points of view (as the BBC do, even if it upsets the likes of the cowboy Rodeo guy in Borat) is unbiased as the BBC tend to do.

This article stinks of American red-neckism and the fact they cite the Daily Mail for back up proves it.  Basically, a day doesn't go by when that paper aren't moaning about immigration and "foreigners".  It's a Neo-Cons dream and I'm in no doubt the writer here is exactly that type of guy.  Someone who wants the BBC  to show non-stop clips of George Bush making his speeches about "then evil folks in Iraq".

The whole story fell flat though when Richard Klein's comments made absolutley no reference to the BBC being anti-American.  All he said was he felt the BBC were out of touch with the people.  He could mean they should be more left wing!  He doesn't make any reference to the headline.

I watch BBC news everyday and there is NO bias.  As with all news reporting, the newscaster only tells the facts and not opinion (unless it's the opinion of an interviewee).  There can only be bias in BBC documenetary but then, if you don't have analysis, opinion and conclusion in a documentary then it isn't one.

The BBC is one of the most unbiased media corporations out there compared to the likes of Al-Jazeera or the Daily Mail.

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2006-12-27 07:26:46)

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

BBC Admits Anti-American Bias http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/a … p;num=9954

What a load of tripe.  The reporting in that article is shockingly bad and it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the only biased party is it's author.  I mean, what intelligent reporter would say something like the BBC is 'dominated' by homosexuals?  It sounds like a childish insult rather than an insightful analysis. 

At one point it states the example of a Muslim fundementalist being given 12 minutes of air time.  So how many HOURS air time does George Bush (a Christian fundementalist IMO) get a day, let alone all together?  Surely televising Bush go on his "war on terror" speeches without showing a single reply from the people he is trying to kill is biased (something most Republican channels in the US do I'm sure), showing both points of view (as the BBC do, even if it upsets the likes of the cowboy Rodeo guy in Borat) is unbiased as the BBC tend to do.

This article stinks of American red-neckism and the fact they cite the Daily Mail for back up proves it.  Basically, a day doesn't go by when that paper aren't moaning about immigration and "foreigners".  It's a Neo-Cons dream and I'm in no doubt the writer here is exactly that type of guy.  Someone who wants the BBC  to show non-stop clips of George Bush making his speeches about "then evil folks in Iraq".

The whole story fell flat though when Richard Klein's comments made absolutley no reference to the BBC being anti-American.  All he said was he felt the BBC were out of touch with the people.  He could mean they should be more left wing!  He doesn't make any reference to the headline.

I watch BBC news everyday and there is NO bias.  As with all news reporting, the newscaster only tells the facts and not opinion (unless it's the opinion of an interviewee).  There can only be bias in BBC documenetary but then, if you don't have analysis, opinion and conclusion in a documentary then it isn't one.

The BBC is one of the most unbiased media corporations out there compared to the likes of Al-Jazeera or the Daily Mail.

You cannot honestyl say their is NO bias on BBC. I listen to BBC radio on NPR and the coverage on a news story takes a different slant from the get go. Its in their subtle choice of words and news coverage that may make it seem that they are impartial but they are most certainly not. I only say this because I have removed myself from my personal point of view on the material being reported and I truly listened to what was being said.  I still listen to them but I listen more intently on the facts than what the report trys to say.

usmarine2007 wrote:

Can't say that I am suprised.....look at the people on this forum who ALWAYS quote the BBC.

Who are these people who always quote the BBC?  Which is your preferred News source?  And you believe that BBC is anti-American just because it appeared in some biased News site.

I watch BBC and like the fact that it's biased. That's why I watch it. If I want to hear the American perspective on things, I watch CNN and/or Fox. I'm uncertain why this is "news" to anyone. It's painfully obvious which side of the fence they want you to see and who is the "victim" in their news casts. Everyone has a right to their opinion and I would never doubt for a minute that a station like Al Jahzeer would make Westerners and infidels look like the bad guys. Total no brainer. More like, duh-

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

BBC Admits Anti-American Bias http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/a … p;num=9954

What a load of tripe.  The reporting in that article is shockingly bad and it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the only biased party is it's author.  I mean, what intelligent reporter would say something like the BBC is 'dominated' by homosexuals?  It sounds like a childish insult rather than an insightful analysis. 

At one point it states the example of a Muslim fundementalist being given 12 minutes of air time.  So how many HOURS air time does George Bush (a Christian fundementalist IMO) get a day, let alone all together?  Surely televising Bush go on his "war on terror" speeches without showing a single reply from the people he is trying to kill is biased (something most Republican channels in the US do I'm sure), showing both points of view (as the BBC do, even if it upsets the likes of the cowboy Rodeo guy in Borat) is unbiased as the BBC tend to do.

This article stinks of American red-neckism and the fact they cite the Daily Mail for back up proves it.  Basically, a day doesn't go by when that paper aren't moaning about immigration and "foreigners".  It's a Neo-Cons dream and I'm in no doubt the writer here is exactly that type of guy.  Someone who wants the BBC  to show non-stop clips of George Bush making his speeches about "then evil folks in Iraq".

The whole story fell flat though when Richard Klein's comments made absolutley no reference to the BBC being anti-American.  All he said was he felt the BBC were out of touch with the people.  He could mean they should be more left wing!  He doesn't make any reference to the headline.

I watch BBC news everyday and there is NO bias.  As with all news reporting, the newscaster only tells the facts and not opinion (unless it's the opinion of an interviewee).  There can only be bias in BBC documenetary but then, if you don't have analysis, opinion and conclusion in a documentary then it isn't one.

The BBC is one of the most unbiased media corporations out there compared to the likes of Al-Jazeera or the Daily Mail.

It's the BBC own people that created this.
As far as the Homosexual remarks, I suggest you check with Jeff Randall.

In the seminar former BBC business editor Jeff Randall claimed that he was told by a senior news executive in the organisation that "The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it." Political correspondent Andrew Marr said that "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias".[2] These comments were reported in the UK national press a couple of weeks later. At the seminar Helen Boaden (Director of BBC News) said that the BBC must be impartial on the issue of multiculturalism.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

http://www.californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/Aronoff/AronoffHome.html

The author of that article is a grade-A assclown...a cheaper version of Bill O'Liely and a neo-conservative pundit disguised as a "freedom fighter" that roots out "liberal bias" in the media.  He has no credentials other than punditry and his message isn't that thoroughly thought out in the BBC article.  Thank you for playing, Mr. Aronoff, but you didn't win the prize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ … ty_Seminar
Better?

The point of this post was not to claim such information as gospel. It was to get others opinions with regards to how impartial BBC is.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-27 10:01:14)

Notice that the only people here defending BBC are those who are anti-US and extreme liberals. People just don't get it. Just because a news source's bias is aligned to your own, it doesn't mean it's no longer biased.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-27 10:49:56)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Notice that the only people here defending BBC are those who are anti-US and extreme liberals. People just don't get it. Just because a news source's bias is aligned to your own, it doesn't mean it's no longer biased.

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!

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Notice that the only people here defending BBC are those who are anti-US and extreme liberals. People just don't get it. Just because a news source's bias is aligned to your own, it doesn't mean it's no longer biased.

I think that just made him leave.

wooohoo!