Paid Members JNLister Posted March 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 The fact that they have an overwhelmingly liberal bias that runs all the way through the corporation has been exposed on several occasions, and was even reported on by their friends at the Guardian, another bastion of liberal bigotry. Â The report said that while there was no evidence of conscious bias at the BBC, "individuals exercise on occasion a largely unconscious self-censorship out of a misguided attempt to be 'correct' in their thinking". Â Seriously, you do understand that when you link to a webpage, other people can read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 There are a lot of "individuals" in the BBC with similar views to other "individuals" in the BBC. Â How many times do we see "occasional" bias going the other way in the corporation? What was the last unabashedly right-wing programme aired on the BBC? Anything in the last 30 years even? Don't think so. And who can deny that the BBC has declined in quality over the same period of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 Also, in your sentence: But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever  Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "any"? As I said, some mildly critical posts are allowed just to give the illusion of fairness.  No.  Again, you are having trouble with the fact that people can read. In this case you don't even need to visit another site to see what was written. Or another page. Or, thanks you the quote function, another post.  What you said was not "some mildly critical posts are allowed just to give the illusion of fairness."  What you said was "But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever."  I then showed multiple posts from a single page that, erm, pointed out (in their minds) the utter ridiculousness of what the above the line contributor was saying.  Those posts were not ruthlessly quashed.  Those posters were not banished forever.  You're basically acting like a baby. Both in the sense that you are unable to engage in a sensible adult conversation, and partly in the fact that you are full of shit and not even trying to hide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) And who can deny that the BBC has declined in quality over the same period of time? Â Anyone who understands the concept that quality is, well, qualitative. Â How many times do we see "occasional" bias going the other way in the corporation? Â Every single time Nick Robinson opens his mouth if you believe about 50% of the people who comment on his blog. Â What was the last unabashedly right-wing programme aired on the BBC? Â Depends what you mean by a right-wing programme. If you mean "blindless patriotism at all costs", then World Cup coverage. If you mean "pro ruthless business, win at all costs", then The Apprentice. If you mean "pro Christianity" then Songs of Praise. Course, they're all pretty tenuous, but then so is describing programmed as left-wing. Edited March 3, 2011 by JNLister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) No. Again, you are having trouble with the fact that people can read. In this case you don't even need to visit another site to see what was written. Or another page. Or, thanks you the quote function, another post.  What you said was not "some mildly critical posts are allowed just to give the illusion of fairness."  What you said was "But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever."  I then showed multiple posts from a single page that, erm, pointed out (in their minds) the utter ridiculousness of what the above the line contributor was saying.  Those posts were not ruthlessly quashed.  Those posters were not banished forever.  You're basically acting like a baby. Both in the sense that you are unable to engage in a sensible adult conversation, and partly in the fact that you are full of shit and not even trying to hide it. Why can't people accept that some poeple just see things differently? That doesn't equate to "acting like a baby".  The posts you showed were not particularly strong and could easily be written off by someone as being the work of a few cranks.  The Guardian will never allow comments that show their contributors up for what they are.  If your idea of "engaging in a sensible adult conversation" equates to "listening to liberal views, realising they are the correct ones to have, and going away an affirmed liberal", you are right, I am unable to engage in a sensible adult conversation. The problem is that liberal views have been internalized so deeply in many people, including yourself, that you simply see them as beyond questioning, and anyone that does dare to question them is the equivalent of Galileo in the 16th century saying that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe, when it was considered blatantly obvious to anyone with an education that it was. Edited March 3, 2011 by Happ Hazzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BionicRedneck Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Fucking hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 3, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 3, 2011 Do you even read the contents of the links you post? Those are quotas for the content of their programming.  Quotas are illegal for hiring under Diversity laws. Targets are acceptable. You stated "quotas are illegal".  According to wikipedia there are several exceptions in the law that states that discrimination, quotas or favouritism on the grounds of sex, race and ethnicity is illegal.  Yeah, my bad. I thought it was implied that I meant in relation to the conversation that we were actually having. From now on though, just go ahead and assume that what I'm saying isn't a complete non sequiter unless I state otherwise.  Is there really any difference between targets and quotas? The BBC can effectively hire whoever they want. They have no bottom line. Diversity is more important to them than their responsibility to inform, educate and entertain.  Yes. Yes there is. And there are various legal requirements and criteria in their rationale for their hiring that try to ensure that these are adhered to as best as possible so they can't just 'hire whoever they want'.  That last sentence of your post is just some shit that you've made up and are asserting with no basis whatsoever so there's little point in me trying to refute it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Happ, here's the problem. I actually think that a number of the issues you raise are worthy of further exploration. But you're talking utter shit. You're making stuff up all over the place. Lister is not some liberal tyrant trying to force you into the hegemony. He's just someone who knows how to read and gets annoyed by people who refuse to even try. Even the other "right-wingers" in this thread have vanished, because they realise you're dragging them down. Â Here's an idea. Make a substantive point. Just one to start with. Back it up with actual evidence. Explain your interpretation of the evidence and why you think it supports your viewpoint. From there, we'll see if we have a throng of liberal hacks, unable to accept any other opinion, or whether we have some people with strong views who like to argue their case strongly who just happen to have better evidence for almost everything they say than you have for almost everything you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 An interesting article on the story that was released today in relation to Rupert Murdoch gaining control over BskyB. I should probably warn Happ that the article is written from a left/liberal standpoint; Â It has today been announced that the Government has given the go ahead for Rupert Murdoch to take a controlling share of BSkyB. This decision, which most media analysts had predicted, comes after Murdoch yesterday announced that he would sell Sky News while continuing to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I can't see what difference it will make. People are free to get their news from whichever source they wish. Â The main people that talk about Fox News in this country are the Guardian. I don't know anyone that watches it. Very few Americans watch it(less than 2 million, in prime time), yet the liberal media seems to paint it as some kind of insidious brainwashing machine. Â The BBC in this country is far more influential than News International is in any country in the world. Â As far as Sky news goes, they seem to present the news in a format that is easily digestible for the normal working person that hasn't got the time or inclination to watch something like Newsnight or the C4 News. Why don't other news outlets do something like this? Â And if Murdoch/Sky/NI are so wrong, why doesn't someone else launch a competing news channel to deliver the news as they think it should be delivered? How about Guardian Media Group or the Mirror Group? Â Could it be said that the prescence of the BBC stifles competition for Sky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Psygnosis Posted March 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) I just watch the news bulletins on any channel Sky News included, I tend to stay away from opinion based shows on news channels. Edited March 3, 2011 by Psygnosis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 I can't see what difference it will make. People are free to get their news from whichever source they wish. And a vast chunk of those sources are being run by the same person/company. That isn't healthy, Happ. Â I know your gimmick means you have to go against anything that so-called liberals will say, but fucking hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I can't see what difference it will make. People are free to get their news from whichever source they wish. And a vast chunk of those sources are being run by the same person/company. That isn't healthy, Happ. Â I know your gimmick means you have to go against anything that so-called liberals will say, but fucking hell... Sky News has been owned by Murdoch for years. What difference to news sources does it make if he has outright control over BSkyB? The news source is Sky News. Â Less people read his newspapers today than did ten or twenty years ago. Â He used to own three mainstream newspapers (Today as well as the Sun and Times). Â It is up to the other media outlets to up their game in order to get people reading/watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 The fact that such a massive amount of media ownership should be given over to one man would at any time constitute a scandal. That it is being done at a time when Murdoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Sky News isn't bad really, apart from the embarrassment that is Kay Burley. She really is a bit slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts