BBC - Biased?

[Contarini]

Roll away. The lovely Michelle and TWS have never claimed objectivity, unlike the British Biased Corporation. (eta) And such is the beauty of the New Media which are leaving the BBC, the AP, the New York Times, the U.S. broadcast networks, etc. in the dust.

First of all, Fox News does famously claim to be “fair and balanced”–one of the nastiest and most cynical jokes of our times.

And seriously–you think any of the “New Media” are leaving the BBC or NPR or the NYT in the dust? All three of these outlets have plenty of flaws and biases–I wouldn’t trust any of them to cover Christian news, though NPR at least tries to be fair at times. But in general they have a depth and breadth that make network U.S. TV news and the “New Media” both look like adolescent entertainment. Which in fact they are.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No, no, and no, in that order. The only significant bias I notice is an excessive deference to the establishment.

That’s very remarkable, because one of the most obvious things to this non-USA person is the deference paid by US Catholics to the clergy. Both the deference, and the hostility, seem to be much more acute in the USA than here, where it’s far more muted.​

Of course, I think the BBC is right-wing of me, but I’m quite a bit on the left. It’s just about in the center (in the UK. The center in the USA is way, way right of the center in the UK, so in USA terms it may appear left-wing, but that’s because you’ve got so much right-wing bias to the spectrum to start with.)

Very perceptive ​

The extremes of opinion in the UK would probably be contained within the spectrum of opinions in the US. ##

Most of the people who accuse the BBC of a left-wing bias seem to mean ‘to the left of me’, which for a right-winger is no doubt true. I recommend www.politicalcompass.com for further discussion on where left, right, and centre are in various countries.

I see little or no evidence of anti-Christian bias.

There is plenty of ignorance, but not much bias - Christianity in general (like just about any form of religion) is treated as a curiosity, as something that most people don’t bother with very much, as part of life’s rich tapestry. At worst, it seems to be treated as a potent source of social divisiveness (which it often has been, and is still) & violence (ditto).​

It’s impossible to regard the IRA as shining examples of Catholic piety (likewise their Protestant counterparts) - all things considered, the jihadis of today probably get much more of a roasting in the Press. ##

I do see a lot of critical reporting of the USA at the moment, but that’s hardly surprising. That’s not anti-American, it’s anti-current American policies, which almost everyone outside of America (and perhaps Israel) is. I wouldn’t say the BBC is anti-Iraqi either, but the actions of regime of Saddam Hussein came in for an awful lot of (justified) criticism.

Mike

To find sympathetic coverage of the US in Iraq, it’s probably best to read the Spectator, which is friendly to the US, but not slow to be critical when this seems to be called-for. There are times when one wishes that the TV news were less relentlessly critical & gloomy about events in Iraq - OTOH, maybe gloom is called-for.​

 

[Cygnus_X1]

First of all, Fox News does famously claim to be “fair and balanced”–one of the nastiest and most cynical jokes of our times.

I think Fox is, but even if they aren’t, it’s good to have a counterbalance to Jack Cafferty (does he EVER smile?), Wolf Blitzer, et al. And Fox is routinely trouncing CNN in the U.S. ratings.

And seriously–you think any of the “New Media” are leaving the BBC or NPR or the NYT in the dust? All three of these outlets have plenty of flaws and biases–I wouldn’t trust any of them to cover Christian news, though NPR at least tries to be fair at times. [guffaw – you’re funny] But in general they have a depth and breadth that make network U.S. TV news and the “New Media” both look like adolescent entertainment. Which in fact they are.

Ab. So. Lute. Ly. The Dinosaur Media’s monopoly on information is broken forever, and -]you/-] they can’t stand it.

You remember how the NYT broke the story about the fake National Guard documents, don’t you? Oh, silly me – that was Charles Johnson. (See also the Fauxtography scandal of last year.)

And it was the BBC that showed that the AP’s phantom Iraqi source, Captain Jamil Hussein, doesn’t exist? I think not.

And Newsweek ran the Clinton-Lewinsky story? Oops, that was Matt Drudge (Newsweek had it and spiked it).

Stop me any time, Contarini . . .

Oh, and I reckon you’ll find this amusing: the British Biased Corporation is so proud of free speech and secure in its role as an information provider that it’s blocked Little Green Footballs from its message boards.