The Beeb is influenced by lefties...

[Tito Fuente]

"it is pretty routine for media editors etc to suggest more focus on different things".

That part is correct but media editors don't have to remain impartial at other news outlets/broadcasters.

The message read:

"D St complaining that we’re not reflecting Labour’s mess of plan b online. ie Ashworth said it earlier this week, then reversed. Can we turn up the scepticism a bit on this?”

'Downing Street' complained about a lack of focus of negativity on Labour from the BBC so a senior editor kowtowed to them and told his staff to be more critical.

For what it's worth, I've always felt that the BBC were pretty balanced in terms of news coverage.

The left & right equally complain that it's biased - which, on the balance of probability, shows that they generally do a good job - but how much more damning testimony do you personally need to see that this incarnation of the BBC is in cahoots with the Tory government?

You've replied to everyone except me, James.

Give a brother some love and let me know what your opinion is on this.

I'm feeling a bit left out here.

[JamesWales]

You've replied to everyone except me, James.

Give a brother some love and let me know what your opinion is on this.

I'm feeling a bit left out here.

Sorry buddy.

Well, I agree with you on party political bias. I do think the BBC is generally impartial on that, which isn't easy but they do okay. They naturally challenge the Tories more (as the govt) but again I think they challenge Labour more in Wales so that seems reasonable

On its own I don't think it's that damning without wider context. What did the rest of the email say? Did the Tories bombard them with thousands of emails but the BBC only enacted one? Would they have reported on Labours change of policies more?

I agree it doesn't look great, but context does matter.

[az city]

I had a contract advising BBC journalists in the 2000s before I moved to the US. Based on knowing many producers, editors and journalists of that time, I'd say a majority of them were liberal progressives in outlook. I don't know whether some on here want to translate that as "lefties". Personally, I don't think it is.

[Tito Fuente]

Sorry buddy.

Well, I agree with you on party political bias. I do think the BBC is generally impartial on that, which isn't easy but they do okay. They naturally challenge the Tories more (as the govt) but again I think they challenge Labour more in Wales so that seems reasonable

On its own I don't think it's that damning without wider context. What did the rest of the email say? Did the Tories bombard them with thousands of emails but the BBC only enacted one? Would they have reported on Labours change of policies more?

I agree it doesn't look great, but context does matter.

What context do you think would improve the fact that a senior editor (at the official public broadcaster for the nation) told staff to report more negatively on the Labour party at the behest of the Tory government?

I'm all for balance when it comes to the BBC and I have always defended them in conversation when they are being called right or left wing - but this is an example of damning evidence that they are favouring one party over another.

This is a deep cut for Richard Sharp. His death by a thousand of them must be close now when you factor all of the other controversies.

[the other bob wilson]

Sure! I don’t see all of these as necessarily left wing btw, as the right would claim moral ownership over many of these, but unquestionably they are topics that people on the left would typically reference and rightly support. So, excluding the greatest universal support package in the history of the country (related to Covid) off the top of my head, I would note the following:

Record investment in the universal healthcare NHS

Record rises in the minimum wage

Equalising immigration laws, rising to record high immigration levels

Enormous is increase in renewable energy production and reduction in fossil fuel use

Support for Ukraine against Russian invasion

Marriage equality

Ensuring the result of a referendum was enacted

Raising the top rate of tax

Lowering the threshold for the top rare of tax

Producing the first non-white prime minister in history

Providing direct support for refugees from Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine

Energy support scheme knocking £60 a month off everyones bills.

Increasing corporation tax.

There are counter examples of course, and people can question whether all of these have worked, but my point isn’t that the government are left-wing, it’s that they are not ‘massively right wing’, as was claimed earlier.

Is there really that much to distinguish them from Blairs New Labour?

Either way, whether it's posters here or TV pundits, I just don't see the benefit in using exaggerated language really

Glad you said you didn’t necessarily see them as left wing.

[Doucas]

Sure! I don’t see all of these as necessarily left wing btw, as the right would claim moral ownership over many of these, but unquestionably they are topics that people on the left would typically reference and rightly support. So, excluding the greatest universal support package in the history of the country (related to Covid) off the top of my head, I would note the following:

Record investment in the universal healthcare NHS

Record rises in the minimum wage

Equalising immigration laws, rising to record high immigration levels

Enormous is increase in renewable energy production and reduction in fossil fuel use

Support for Ukraine against Russian invasion

Marriage equality

Ensuring the result of a referendum was enacted

Raising the top rate of tax

Lowering the threshold for the top rare of tax

Producing the first non-white prime minister in history

Providing direct support for refugees from Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine

Energy support scheme knocking £60 a month off everyones bills.

Increasing corporation tax.

There are counter examples of course, and people can question whether all of these have worked, but my point isn’t that the government are left-wing, it’s that they are not ‘massively right wing’, as was claimed earlier.

Is there really that much to distinguish them from Blairs New Labour?

Either way, whether it's posters here or TV pundits, I just don't see the benefit in using exaggerated language really

You can't claim record levels when it's just a result of inflation.

Corporation tax you're wrong - https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...orate-tax-rate

According to political scientists they are extreme right - https://www.ft.com/content/d5f1d564-...d-9c6c7759f2b8

[+ the native hipster]

The problem is that the events of the last few days have shown that the scenario was/is entirely believable under the current management of the BBC. Rather than you playing the sort of party political games on here that you accuse those on the left of doing, an acknowledgment that political interference from Governments of the right or left shouldn't be allowed when it comes to appointments of Director Generals, Chairmen/women etc. at the BBC and that it should be down to the same sort of independent person/body which is supposed to be conducting the inquiry into impartiality wouldn't go amiss..

except it simply wasn't true, but every grundian reader believed it was, so they/ you believed what you wanted to believe , show me one bbc program with a right wing bias, show me one news item on the bbc web page with a right wing bias, in inquiry into impartiality wouldn't go amiss

[the other bob wilson]

except it simply wasn't true, but every grundian reader believed it was, so they/ you believed what you wanted to believe , show me one bbc program with a right wing bias, show me one news item on the bbc web page with a right wing bias, in inquiry into impartiality wouldn't go amiss

Being the Guardian, you’ll say it doesn’t count, but I’d say this shows that BBC news programmes can have a right wing bias. All Governments would try to influence how the BBC reports a story I’m sure, but, until about ten days ago, I believed the BBC was independent enough to, effectively, tell them to piss off, but it seems the current management at the Corporation are happy enough to do this Government’s bidding.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...rt-of-pandemic

[+ the native hipster]

Being the Guardian, you’ll say it doesn’t count, but I’d say this shows that BBC news programmes can have a right wing bias. All Governments would try to influence how the BBC reports a story I’m sure, but, until about ten days ago, I believed the BBC was independent enough to, effectively, tell them to piss off, but it seems the current management at the Corporation are happy enough to do this Government’s bidding.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...rt-of-pandemic

i didn't remember any labour mp's saying don't call it a lock down at the time, if there was a change of government you would be happy to see them do their bidding? let the bbc declare its political leaning and stand on it's own two feet scrap the licence tax

[the other bob wilson]

i didn't remember any labour mp's saying don't call it a lock down at the time, if there was a change of government you would be happy to see them do their bidding? let the bbc declare its political leaning and stand on it's own two feet scrap the licence tax

You only have to read my message at 7,03 two days ago for proof that what you’re saying is rubbish - the BBC should be independent of Government interference from the right or left. I thought that, broadly speaking, it was until the last ten days or so, but the Lineker episode proved me wrong and that story proves it was going on long before that.

Good to see you finish off with the sort of cheap slogan that the right seem to have cornered the market in.

[TWGL1]

You only have to read my message at 7,03 two days ago for proof that what you’re saying is rubbish - the BBC should be independent of Government interference from the right or left. I thought that, broadly speaking, it was until the last ten days or so, but the Lineker episode proved me wrong and that story proves it was going on long before that.

Good to see you finish off with the sort of cheap slogan that the right seem to have cornered the market in.

The BBC had the world's best investigative journalist, yet so many low-down staff knew of the late Jimmy Saville’s activities," but strangely, the "trustworthy" Beeb bosses all state that they had "no idea”

Saville was “into all sorts of seediness. We all know about it, but we’re not allowed to talk about it... I did my bit, I said what I had to, but they didn’t air that. I found myself banned from BBC Radio for quite a while"...Johnny Rotten

[the other bob wilson]

The BBC had the world's best investigative journalist, yet so many low-down staff knew of the late Jimmy Saville’s activities," but strangely, the "trustworthy" Beeb bosses all state that they had "no idea”

Saville was “into all sorts of seediness. We all know about it, but we’re not allowed to talk about it... I did my bit, I said what I had to, but they didn’t air that. I found myself banned from BBC Radio for quite a while"...Johnny Rotten

So, is that you agreeing with me or arguing against me? If it's the latter, I've got two posters on here disagreeing with me after I've stated twice categorically, that the BBC should be free of political interference from parties of both the right and left - are you both saying that output should reflect the policies of the Government of the day?

[TWGL1]

So, is that you agreeing with me or arguing against me? If it's the latter, I've got two posters on here disagreeing with me after I've stated twice categorically, that the BBC should be free of political interference from parties of both the right and left - are you both saying that output should reflect the policies of the Government of the day?

I’m in agreement with you , but it’s clear “auntie” is so reliant on the licence fee and terrified of the module being reformed that it’s bound to “sway” towards the Government, you only have to see how the organisation behaved during the last three years with its reporting on current affairs at the time.

In conclusion, you only have to research as to who has been funding the BBC privately to see why it’s not impartial.

On a totally unrelated issue , the BBC’s propaganda with TV detector vans was nothing more than a hoax to put fear into the public regarding the fee. How many millions was wasted on those things

[cyril evans awaydays]

I’m in agreement with you , but it’s clear “auntie” is so reliant on the licence fee and terrified of the module being reformed that it’s bound to “sway” towards the Government, you only have to see how the organisation behaved during the last three years with its reporting on current affairs at the time.

In conclusion, you only have to research as to who has been funding the BBC privately to see why it’s not impartial.

On a totally unrelated issue , the BBC’s propaganda with TV detector vans was nothing more than a hoax to put fear into the public regarding the fee. How many millions was wasted on those things

That's a very unambiguous statement in the last paragraph. I have read as much evidence that they operated as stated as I have seen skepticism.

You couldn't show the proof could you (struggling to decide whether to end that sentence with a question mark or an exclamation mark).

[lardy]

I’m in agreement with you , but it’s clear “auntie” is so reliant on the licence fee and terrified of the module being reformed that it’s bound to “sway” towards the Government, you only have to see how the organisation behaved during the last three years with its reporting on current affairs at the time.

In conclusion, you only have to research as to who has been funding the BBC privately to see why it’s not impartial.

On a totally unrelated issue , the BBC’s propaganda with TV detector vans was nothing more than a hoax to put fear into the public regarding the fee. How many millions was wasted on those things

I'd say it's clear that the government is exploiting that fear to impose itself on the BBC.

[TWGL1]

That's a very unambiguous statement in the last paragraph. I have read as much evidence that they operated as stated as I have seen skepticism.

You couldn't show the proof could you (struggling to decide whether to end that sentence with a question mark or an exclamation mark).

I didn’t expect you, of all posters in this narrow window of opinion, to agree with the last paragraph, but duly noted just for you.

[cyril evans awaydays]

I didn’t expect you, of all posters in this narrow window of opinion, to agree with the last paragraph, but duly noted just for you.

tbf fair you are not the first of your ilk/franchise (delete as appropriate) to put words in my mouth I did not utter.

I am genuinely open minded on whether the BBC detector vans worked or not. I have seen quite a bit on Google which is inconclusive one way or another.

Given that you categorically stated that the BBC’s propaganda with TV detector vans was nothing more than a hoax to put fear into the public regarding the fee. How many millions was wasted on those things you must have facts rather than opinions on this.

Hopefully you won't go all Wales Bales Cowardly Custard on me and are able to post the proof.

[Tito Fuente]

tbf fair you are not the first of your ilk/franchise (delete as appropriate) to put words in my mouth I did not utter.

I am genuinely open minded on whether the BBC detector vans worked or not. I have seen quite a bit on Google which is inconclusive one way or another.

Given that you categorically stated that the BBC’s propaganda with TV detector vans was nothing more than a hoax to put fear into the public regarding the fee. How many millions was wasted on those things you must have facts rather than opinions on this.

Hopefully you won't go all Wales Bales Cowardly Custard on me and are able to post the proof.

I'd like make an addendum to your post, if you don't mind?

TWGL also said "you only have to research as to who has been funding the BBC privately to see why it’s not impartial".

I've previously asked him who is funding the BBC but he wouldn't tell me.

Perhaps he can show his research when he responds to your post.

Also, one final thing, what do the initials TWGL represent?

There's no rush to respond. Thanks.

[TWGL1]

I'd like make an addendum to your post, if you don't mind?

TWGL also said "you only have to research as to who has been funding the BBC privately to see why it’s not impartial".

I've previously asked him who is funding the BBC but he wouldn't tell me.

Perhaps he can show his research when he responds to your post.

Also, one final thing, what do the initials TWGL represent?

There's no rush to respond. Thanks.

This is a message board and, shock horror, gives rise to opinions. Some are extreme; some are nonsensical; some are critical ,some are fact ,the sooner you realise that the better.

With regards to my user name , why would you wish to know mine in particular it appears rather weird,that said PM me if you have any personal questions to ask and I’ll be happy to oblige.

[Tito Fuente]

This is a message board and, shock horror, gives rise to opinions. Some are extreme; some are nonsensical; some are critical ,some are fact ,the sooner you realise that the better.

With regards to my user name , why would you wish to know mine in particular it appears rather weird,that said PM me if you have any personal questions to ask and I’ll be happy to oblige.

How many times are you going to drag out the "opinions" line?

Nobody on here is silencing your opinions. I actually find them quite funny on occasion.

You stated a *fact* about BBC funding though and I've simply asked you if you could tell us more about it.

If you can't back it up then that's fine. It just means that your words are a bit meaningless.

"With regards" to your username, I was just curious as to what the initials meant. Nothing more than that.

Sorry if that harmless question offended you. I didn't realise that it was a "personal question" either.

[TWGL1]

How many times are you going to drag out the "opinions" line?

Nobody on here is silencing your opinions. I actually find them quite funny on occasion.

You stated a *fact* about BBC funding though and I've simply asked you if you could tell us more about it.

If you can't back it up then that's fine. It just means that your words are a bit meaningless.

"With regards" to your username, I was just curious as to what the initials meant. Nothing more than that.

Sorry if that harmless question offended you. I didn't realise that it was a "personal question" either.

You can quickly google the BBC funding charter and where it receives its donations, are you constantly on a wind up or something ?

[Tito Fuente]

You can quickly google the BBC funding charter and where it receives its donations, are you constantly on a wind up or something ?

Calm down mate, it's just a football messageboard.

Why can't you just share the information if you already have it?

[Jordi Culé]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-jimmy-savile

"A Conservative party spokesperson said the requests were part of normal media management and that conversations were professional and courteous. It is understood CCHQ does not consider them to amount to “pressure”.

Hmmmm...

[+ the native hipster]

You only have to read my message at 7,03 two days ago for proof that what you’re saying is rubbish - the BBC should be independent of Government interference from the right or left. I thought that, broadly speaking, it was until the last ten days or so, but the Lineker episode proved me wrong and that story proves it was going on long before that.

Good to see you finish off with the sort of cheap slogan that the right seem to have cornered the market in.

but i'm a marxist , i think people should have free access to a truth.

[the other bob wilson]

but i'm a marxist , i think people should have free access to a truth.

Course you are.