[Closed] More shameful left-wing bias from the BBC

It's Stephen Doughty you should be annoyed at for this crass piece of attention-whoring, not the BBC. What news outlet would have turned this kind of stunt down?

Well Kuensberg is obviously a deplorable idiot, but the major point is that a Labour MP should act in a way to maximise the damage to his party leader. It just shows the complete lack of morals or principles on the right of the party, and illustrates what a job Corbyn has ahead of him to rid the party of these sh1ts.

So a political stunt designed to hurt the Labour party as much as possible is considered to represent left wing bias?

The BBC people aren't content to report the news, they go about making it too, and then very often report that too in a self-congratulatory sort of way.

See also "shameful royalist bias from the BBC", "shameful xenophobic bias from the BBC", shameful pandering to the rich and powerful by the BBC"... .

[quote=gonefishin spake unto the masses, saying]So a political stunt designed to hurt the Labour party as much as possible is considered to represent left wing bias?

I sort of assumed that was meant ironically ... 🙂

Does anyone still think the BBC aren't biased? They've been very pro-New Labour for donkeys years so it's no surprise there is a bias against a left wing swing in the Labour party.

On the other hand Corbyn does deserve all he gets - the hypocrisy in wanting to have everyone in the party follow his personal agenda given his rebel past makes him an easy target.

What news outlet would have turned this kind of stunt down?

One with integrity?

I sort of assumed that was meant ironically ...

Thought that was kind of obvious! It was a reference to the supposed left-wing bias of the BBC, which if it ever existed is long gone.

Does anyone still think the BBC aren't biased? They've been very pro-New Labour for donkeys years so it's no surprise there is a bias against a left wing swing in the Labour party.

You think Laura Kuenssberg is following a New Labour agenda? I highly doubt that. Nick Robinson who she took over from as political editor was a former chairman of the Young Conservatives. She's way to the right of him it would seem.

Edukator +1 but it's a lot, lot worse than it used to be.

What news outlet would have turned this kind of stunt down?

One with integrity?

So name that one then.

They are pandering to their paymasters like all media outlets do. The paymasters being the Tory government, not the license fee payers, obviously.

The BBC think objectivity and balance is giving two sides to a story, even when there are more than two perspectives, and/or when one side is clearly lunacy.

Does anyone still think the BBC aren't biased?

Me, for one

Or at least ,as I think you are trying to say they are, I don't think the BBC is biased towards the left, if anything it is too deferential to the current establishment
http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/08/hard-evidence-how-biased-bbc

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/14/bbc-political-bias-news-nick-robinson

Most of the claims of BBC bias come from those, shall we say right of centre, tabloids and broadsheets whose owners have a vested interest in cutting back the BBC output.

It can be more cogently argued that it is BBC''s inherent conservatism ( small c) that should be the thing that should change

This is not as simple as left versus right. It is rather different. The BBC’s political coverage operates on a default presumption of scepticism. Governments propose policy; the BBC subjects those proposals to intense scrutiny. It is reflexively opposed to change. Almost any change. The status quo – being known and therefore endurable – is preferable to the unknown risks of an alternative vision. In this respect it is actually a profoundly conservative institution
Which is also why every government thinks the corporation is instinctively hostile. Because it is. The BBC is a reactive institution (Jones is right about that). It often dominates the news cycle but it rarely sets the news agenda on the back of its own journalism. It feeds off two things: the morning papers and whatever the government announces on any given day.

And it is (almost) always hostile to the government’s agenda. Why are you proposing this? Why do you think, even assuming your idea might work, it’s a good idea? What about the cost? You’re making it up as you go along, aren’t you?
.

alex Massie, The Spectator

On the other hand Corbyn does deserve all he gets - the hypocrisy in wanting to have everyone in the party follow his personal agenda given his rebel past makes him an easy target.

But he doesn't.

He wants - reasonably, it seems to me - for the shadow cabinet to not side with the Tories in attacking him in the way that Doughty did here, and that McFadden did over Paris, and that Eagle did after General Houghton's comments.

I find it all rather amusing being of an age to remember when the beeb was DEFINITELY a nest of commies.

jimw +1 - good post.

So name that one then.

Well there isn't one is there. The BBC possibly used to be one.

I find it all rather amusing being of an age to remember when the beeb was DEFINITELY a nest of commies.

When was that then?? I am an old git as well and commmunists at the BBC it is not something I can recall.

Or am I missing the irony?

Given that they don't introduce our Chancellor of the Exchequer as "and here once-a-bloody-gain is the smarmy mother ****er to end all mother ****ers, the world's greatest COTHO bar none, George Gideon Osborne" I would say they have a definite right wing bias

and that McFadden did over Paris

I'll defend Laura Kuenssberg. The guy was going to resign. He's supposedly an intelligent person and a politician to boot. He should be quite capable of making up his own mind how and where he does that. He could have said no.

and that McFadden did over Paris

Even if Corbyn is completely wrong and McFadden is correct?

I've had some fairly nobbish bosses, but have only publicly said so (and even then not on social media) after the fact.

JC, like it or not (significant proportions of the parliamentary Labour Party clearly don't) was elected leader by supporters of the party (despite being 'unelectable'), and has achieved a higher proportion of votes for Labour in the only by-election held since he became leader.

Further to this, the accusations of him wanting to control the actions of all Labour MPs based on him removing those who have publicly attacked him from the cabinet, and this being hypocrisy based on his back-bench voting history is self evidently bollocks. He does however wish to have a cabinet that, publicly at least, support him (and by extension the grass roots of the party) more than they support, say, the leader of the Conservatives. Which is pretty reasonable.

edit - and in response to the OP, that blog post doesn't really show what it claims to show. Just that the BBC went for a sensationalist story (when there are far more important things they could have reported on, but that's another thread I expect!) given the opportunity. It would've been well in the public domain regardless of the BBC's interview and prominence they gave to this story, unfortunately.

I'll be honest I'm a bit confused by the OP title. Is it sarcastic?

I've had some fairly nobbish bosses, but have only publicly said so (and even then not on social media) after the fact.

You're assuming (because that's what McFadden says) that the reason he was sacked was for that one comment. I'd be very surprised if that were true.
It could well be that he was leaking stories and opinion to the press to undermine Corbyn.
Some of the things that Laura Kuenssberg as been reporting as "from a senior Labour source" after the PLP meetings in particular were utterly ridiculous. Hopefully after the resignations, some of those have gone.

I'll defend Laura Kuenssberg. The guy was going to resign. He's supposedly an intelligent person and a politician to boot. He should be quite capable of making up his own mind how and where he does that. He could have said no.

I'm not taking the responsibility away from him being a traitorous little weasel. I'm talking about Laura Kuessenberg's naked right-wing bias being displayed and whether it's appropriate for a national broadcaster (clue: it's not).

Did anyone watch the interview with Corbyn about Trident? It was disgraceful.

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/naked-bbc-bias-on-comical-display-in-jeremy-corbyn-interview

JC isn't left wing. He's very very left of left wing. So the BBC going after him is consistent with their left wing bias. And he's comedy gold so it would be rude not to. 🙂

[quote=wrecker spake unto the masses, saying]I've had some fairly nobbish bosses, but have only publicly said so (and even then not on social media) after the fact.
To suggest that McFadden called Corbyn "nobbish" is (as you say) bollocks.
McFadden gave an opinion, and nothing more. It happened to be spot on, and obviously was well received by right thinking people which embarrassed Jezza.

McFadden gave his opinion during PMQ, in the form of an invitation to Cameron to join him in labelling Corbyn as an ISIS-sympathiser. The only surprise is why it took so long to sack him.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/the-deceptive-debate-over-what-causes-terrorism-against-the-west/

It was a valid opinion with more than a bit of truth, and if it offended Corbyn, then frankly he deserves to be offended.

JC isn't left wing. He's very very left of left wing.

He's not, he just seems that way because Britain has moved to the right so much.

Disappointed in you wrecker - you really think Corbyn is an ISIS sympathiser?

molgrips +1

I didn't say that grum. I chose to take McFaddens comment as it stood, rather than as a snipe at Jezza. I did say that [i]if[/i] it offended Jezza, then he probably deserves to be offended.

He's not, he just seems that way because Britain has moved to the right so much.

Another BBC bashing thread? What was wrong with the other one (aside from most of the comments)?

I didn't say that grum. I chose to take McFaddens comment as it stood, rather than as a snipe at Jezza. I did say that if it offended Jezza, then he probably deserves it

I think that anyone would be offended to be called an ISIS sympathiser. And on a factual basis this insinuation has no justification.

He didn't call him anything of the sort though did he DrJ?

I must say that I like the insinuation that those who disagree with this;

reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the west do

I believe my colleague Pat McFadden was right to condemn those who would to any degree absolve ISIS for their actions following the atrocities in Paris

molgrips - Member

"JC isn't left wing. He's very very left of left wing."

He's not, he just seems that way because Britain has moved to the right so much.

He didn't call him anything of the sort though did he DrJ?

Do you know the context of his "question"?

Whenever I see anyone complaining of [b]shameful bias[/b] I just kinda assume that its just stating a different opinion to the one they have.

And since I consider most politicians and journalists, at best just morally corrupt fools, I don't really pay a lot of attention to what any of them have to say - although their actual actions are something different...

Do you know the context of his "question"?

The man spoke sense

Clearly people differ on the subject of what constitutes "sense". McFadden and Cameron seem to have lined up against those pinkos at the Pentagon and the Brookings Institution, as per my previous link.

Whenever I see anyone complaining of shameful bias I just kinda assume that its just stating a different opinion to the one they have.

Especially with Auntie!

I can watch a football match with another person and we're both convinced the referees biased against 'our' teams!

Wow some people are really dim in terms of detecting sarcasm aren't they. 🙂

[i]I'm not taking the responsibility away from him being a traitorous little weasel. I'm talking about Laura Kuessenberg's naked right-wing bias being displayed and whether it's appropriate for a national broadcaster (clue: it's not).[/i]

You lot clearly don't know Laura K very well! She's an absolute Rottweiler and will have a go at anyone left or right....if she can get her name in lights. Its actually all about HER!

Its actually all about HER!

And the demands of 24 hour news and the next headline/stunt?

I think if you add up all the biases the BBC is accused of they probably cancel each other out and amount to balanced reporting.

😀

Remember remember the left wings abject failire to make electoral progress is ALWAYS someone else's fault most especially the "right wing press"

LK wanted a scoop and she got one. Corbyn's reschuffle was a shambkes from start to finish. News reporters gold all of it. Labour is now full steam ahead to divert attention away from its own failires, at least theyve been oaying some attention to the SNP's tactics.

LK --no rottweiler, piranha maybe--check out the teeth--but i agree with grum, she is unashamedly right wing, and her bias is not even remotely subtle....james harding will reward her....

[quote=grum ]Wow some people are really dim in terms of detecting sarcasm aren't they.
NO

Remember remember the left wings abject failire to make electoral progress is ALWAYS someone else's fault most especially the "right wing press"

you know this, you followed hacked off and the Leveson enquiry, but you seem principled enough to turn a blind eye to it for political expediency

This has zero link with Levenson. Its clear he wanted to resign and to do so in the most public way to get the most coverage for his message. LK was very happy to oblige, win-win.

This is a total non story

part of the remit of the enquiry was the closeness of the relationship between the media and politicians. It can lead to things like this.
Anyway the broader point is that the press, when they distort things and in general, have real power and what they do and what they say does affect the real world. Clearly having a press that does this , generally about the left, is not helpful and has some impact.
[Some}People really did believe ed was red and some sort of radical left winger which is patently BS as a simple example of what the constant distortions/polemics achieve.

I am not sure how anyone can argue otherwise tbh but I am sure you will try.

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not it was good journalism, it isn't bias because the BBC would cheerfully allow any politician of any big party to resign live. They see it as newsworthy.

We're centre left liberals

You're delusional. There's been nothing centre or left about the government of the U.K. for a number of decades. The only liberal thing about it has been freeing 'the markets'

Really?

Government spending as % GDP is well above the levels of a decade ago and in line with medium term average

We have a progressive tax system and even under the nasty Tories income inequality has fallen

The state provides the majority of certain services - health, education - often free at the point of delivery

Even in austerity (sic) the government continues to spend more than it receives and continues to bring forth consumption while delaying payment

The state currently manipulates the cost of borrowing and the cost of buying/selling currencies through policies that current benefit it far more than the private sector and the financially prudent (QE). The state also intervened heavily/nationalised large banks and we have an opposition talking openly about re-nationalising other parts of the economy (transport, energy)

So which part of all this falsifies the idea that we are anything other than a mixed economy with centrist politics?

You may have a point on liberal trends or lack of them - Theresa May being a prime example and she is supposed to be one of the nasty lot on the faaaaaaarrrrrrrr right according to some. Our liberty continues to be eroded consistently even by the nasty party!

I'll defend Laura Kuenssberg. The guy was going to resign. He's supposedly an intelligent person and a politician to boot. He should be quite capable of making up his own mind how and where he does that. He could have said no.

All true, but LK works for an organisation with a legal obligation to be impartial, which she clearly broke.

She better not report on any Carsdale/Farrage spats then either.

She wanted a scoop FFS, she is a journo on the up. It's part of the Icarus paradox. It will burn out of its own accord without the sensationalist accusations.

All true, but LK works for an organisation with a legal obligation to be impartial, which she clearly broke.

Nonsense, the BBC would be equally willing to let any newsworthy political drama unfold live regardless of party. Embarrassing resignations are newsworthy regardless of party.

True - she will have plenty of fun with the Tories and Europe to come

The villian, if there is one, is the MP. And all those with the twitter addiction that leads to such undignified spats on social mejia. They should grow up.

We have a progressive tax system and even under the nasty Tories income inequality has fallen

ANd you have the nerve to moan about how politicians distort the facts and present them spun to the point they are both true and yet utter BS at the same time
You are AS and I claim my right to the asset that is our pound 🙄
Be the change you want to see dude.

The state also intervened heavily/nationalised large banks

Still at least they are regulating them more heavily now after having carefully looked at the sector and all the banks are paying us bank with shit loads of tax.

They bailed the banks out they did not suddenly start nationalising the banks - FWIW that would be "far left" policies rather than liberal mixed economy. Unless you wish to list the long list of liberal mixed economies with state controlled banking systems Facepalm

Deary me

You are correct we have a largely mixed economy but it is hard to argue its liberal As zokes notes its liberal in [not] monitoring the banks its not so liberal in freeing up the unions to strike.

Nonsense, the BBC would be equally willing to let any newsworthy political drama unfold live regardless of party. Embarrassing resignations are newsworthy regardless of party.

That may or may not be true, but in this instance they had the obligation to be impartial by, for example, giving Corbyn the opportunity to respond to the charges made. Clearly they acted partially. Whether that is part of a larger pattern is another issue (one might look at other examples of LK's work as a starting point).

Still at least they are regulating them more heavily now after having carefully looked at the sector and all the banks are paying us bank with shit loads of tax.

If only.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/09/city-watchdog-denies-going-soft-on-banks-after-dropping-inquiry

That may or may not be true, but in this instance they had the obligation to be impartial by, for example, giving Corbyn the opportunity to respond to the charges made.

Was that not allowed?

he was in the commons and he was unable to respond immediately but he was able to be informed by Dave

That said most journos would have done what she did, though some of us still wish the BBC was above this sort of political media manipulation stunt, and the MP is the main culprit.

That said most journos would have done what she did, though some of us still wish the BBC was above this sort of political media manipulation stunt

That doesn't excuse it, and whereas if Sky does it it is pretty deplorable, if the BBC does it it is in breach of its charter.

All true, but LK works for an organisation with a legal obligation to be impartial, which she clearly broke.

Corbyn and Labour have done an Alex Salmond and tried to divert attention from their own fsilings by complaining about the "BBC bias"

I think if you add up all the biases the BBC is accused of they probably cancel each other out and amount to balanced reporting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

if the BBC does it it is in breach of its charter.

POSTED 8 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

This needs a petition! Or a hash tag!

Quick, comrades! To the [s]barricades[/s] keyboards!

😀

CFH its dangerous to come and play here you know.

Nick Robinson was LK's predecessor - as above former chairman of the Yoing Conservatives. I thought he made an effort to be relatively neutral and balanced most of the time. LK makes no such effort. It's really not professional or acceptable.

[quote=jambalaya ]
CFH its dangerous to come and play here you know.

at least you are finally admitting that what you write is done for the play.
I suspected non one could be that incoherent without considerable effort.

If only.

Only what?

Banks are clearly facing a much higher regulatory burden (correctly so).

I suspected non one could be that incoherent without considerable effort.

I guess it comes easier after so much practice.

I think its the first time he has admitted he only writes things for the reaction "laughs" though