McRamFan Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 3 hours ago, King Kevin said: Compelling evidence of bias in BBC news reporting is uncovered by economist Dr. Oliver Latham in Bias at the BEEB? A quantitative study of slant in BBC Online reporting. This paper uses objective, quantitative methods, based on the existing academic literature on media bias, to look for evidence of slant in the BBC’s online reporting. These methods minimise the need for subjective analysis of the content of the BBC news website. As such, they are less susceptible to accusations of partiality on the part of the author than approaches using case studies. The paper first looks at how often BBC News online cites each of 40 think-tanks in any article between 1 June 2010 and 31 May 2013; and then compares the number of BBC think-tank citations to those of the same think-tanks in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph (taken as representative of left-of-centre and right-of-centre publications, respectively). The statistical evidence is clear: The BBC citations of these 40 think-tanks are “more similar” to that of The Guardian than that of The Daily Telegraph. In particular, the number of articles on the BBC website mentioning a given think-tank is more highly correlated with its number of mentions in The Guardian than its number of mentions in The Daily Telegraph. Regression analysis also shows that coverage in The Guardian is a much stronger predictor of coverage by the BBC than is coverage in The Daily Telegraph. The results suggest that if The Guardian prints an extra 10 articles citing a given think-tank, that think-tank can expect to be mentioned in an additional 7 articles on the BBC News website. In contrast, 10 extra articles in The Daily Telegraph translates to only 3 extra BBC website hits. Once we control for the coverage a think-tank receives in The Guardian, the number of hits it receives in The Daily Telegraph has no statistically significant correlation with its coverage by the BBC. These results are robust to a number of alternative specifications, including controlling for single-issue and foreign-policy think-tanks. The paper then looks at the “health warnings” given to think-tanks of different ideological persuasions when they are mentioned on the BBC website. It finds that right-of-centre think-tanks are far more likely to receive health warnings than their left-of-centre counterparts (the former received health warnings between 23% and 61% of the time while the latter received them between 0% and 12% of the time). A higher proportion of left-of-centre think-tanks than right-of-centre think-tanks are referred to as “independent” by the BBC. This quantitative analysis of think-tank citations and the use of “health warnings” is consistent with existing evidence that the BBC exhibits a left-of-centre slant in its online reporting. Dr. Oliver Latham concludes: “Although the effects measured may seem trivial at first glance (who, apart from the think-tanks themselves, really cares if the IPPR is more likely to be referred to as “independent” than the Centre for Policy Studies?), they could be indicative of a wider problem in areas of reporting where slant is harder to measure… With this in mind the BBC should take steps to implement the recommendations of the BBC Trust report. In addition, the BBC should follow up its previous study with a more wide-ranging investigation that looks not just at the level of coverage given to voices from across the political spectrum, but also the manner in which these voices are presented.” Tim Knox, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, comments: ‘Antony Jay has written for the CPS about how, 50 years ago, the institutional liberal bias within the BBC warped its news output: “We were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.” More recently, BBC insiders such as Peter Sissons, Andrew Marr and Robin Aitken have all confirmed that such prejudices still predominate within the Corporation today. This new evidence, published by the CPS as James Harding takes up his position as Director of News, asks many questions of the BBC. The most important is why should everyone in the UK be forced to pay a poll tax to support an institution which has so conspicuously failed for so long to obey its founding principle of impartiality?’ Media Impact: Daily Telegraph View - Shuffling desks will not solve the BBC’s problem Daily Mail - BBC 'is twice as likely to cover Left-wing news stories than Right-wing ones' claims study Daily Telegraph - BBC is biased toward the left, study finds Daily Mail - BBC bosses responsible for controversial payoffs are wined and dined by firm probing severance pay deals City AM - Report claims BBC has a bias towards left-wing think tanks Trending Central - New report statistically proves BBC bias Press Gazette – Think tank study claims to prove that the BBC has left-wing bias Breitbart – Study: BBC ‘twice as likely’ to air liberal leaning stories Guardian - BBC's handling of news is 'committee-driven', says former Sky news chief The BBC is not politically neutral ,it also was in receipt of £300,000 worth of EU funding whilst trying to remain neutral during the referendum .Cameron had the BBC in his sights at one point to sort them out another job he failed at. It's also worth a mention the ridiculous salaries paid along with pensions that we have no choice in funding. Fake facts...experts are to be believed now, that was reported on the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 5 hours ago, King Kevin said: Compelling evidence of bias in BBC news reporting is uncovered by economist Dr. Oliver Latham in Bias at the BEEB? A quantitative study of slant in BBC Online reporting. Quick bit of googling shows this piece originating on the website of 'Centre of Policy Studies' http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/bias-at-the-beeb/ This website's headline is .... "Centre for Policy Studies was where our Conservative revolution began. Its original purposes are as valid as ever. It has to abide by them." Margaret Thatcher. I am therefore guessing there is a bit of bias here then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 6 hours ago, StringerBell said: Yet again... Have you sent your CV to the BBC? (Don't waste your time if you're a white man mind). What if I would prefer adverts? What if I don't care about Welsh language programmes or the programmes that they make? What if I don't agree that the licence fee should fund providing broadband? What if I have problems with the BBC and feel I should be free to boycott them without losing the ability to use the television set I bought from a seperate company? Hows about I determine for myself whether or not I think it's value for money? I think the key point is that it allows the BBC to be impartial if it's publicly funded WAIT! WAIT! HOLD UP! I know what you're going to say, it isn't impartial, right? Damn right to say that because it's not impartial as it claims to be. But I can't figure out where the bias lies. The political right will tell you that the BBC is leftist, and the left will tell you it's rightist. It's not important who is correct, what is important is that very few people really like the way that it is. That doesn't mean the idea is flawed, just the execution. I think we need a publicly funded news outlet to give us the undiluted news as it truly is with as little political bias as possible. The BBC in its current form is not that, but the idea stands up. If the licence fee just became a compulsory tax that we all pay to fund the running of the public news medium, then it becomes at the mercy of the people in charge of the funds - i.e. the government of that time. Might as well just call it Pravda TV in that case. I don't know what the practical solution is, but for me the problem is the BBC and not the licence fee model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, Tombo said: I think the key point is that it allows the BBC to be impartial if it's publicly funded WAIT! WAIT! HOLD UP! I know what you're going to say, it isn't impartial, right? Damn right to say that because it's not impartial as it claims to be. But I can't figure out where the bias lies. The political right will tell you that the BBC is leftist, and the left will tell you it's rightist. It's not important who is correct, what is important is that very few people really like the way that it is. That doesn't mean the idea is flawed, just the execution. I think we need a publicly funded news outlet to give us the undiluted news as it truly is with as little political bias as possible. The BBC in its current form is not that, but the idea stands up. If the licence fee just became a compulsory tax that we all pay to fund the running of the public news medium, then it becomes at the mercy of the people in charge of the funds - i.e. the government of that time. Might as well just call it Pravda TV in that case. I don't know what the practical solution is, but for me the problem is the BBC and not the licence fee model. The free market should and supposedly does provide that if people want it but I'm not entirely bothered about news being impartial, I just distrust those networks who claim to be impartial as they never are. There could and perhaps should be some kind of increased regulation for journalism. Is there even a regulatory body? A gold standard for impartiality? I see no need for publically funded news as these things could provide that impartiality people crave just as well. If it's such a good idea to have a licence and a publically funded source of news does anyone else do it? Just like with our peculiarly British inability to rinse the soap suds off of washed pots, many around the world laugh at us for needing a licence to have a telly. Even if you like the model, and you make a good case for it, I don't see why there shouldn't be an opt out that doesn't involve you chucking your telly in the skip. The fact that this is the case means it is, in essence, a compulsory tax. Saying 'don't watch live TV then' as others have here is not a sensible answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I like the BBC and I think it's decent value. Could be better, they definitely pay over the odds for talent and have too much management. But not bad. But i would support a subscription based system. If you want to view BBC content you opt in and pay a license fee. If not you don't. If they want to be biased it's no problem - just vote with your feet. The pressure to stay inside with the political party of the day is done away with, as they would be able to set the license fee themselves and be responsible for how it's spent, including deciding how much it goes up every year. Just don't turn it commercial. I already don't watch ITV, don't make 2 channels I can't abide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 The left don't like the BBC, the right don't like the BBC, because the BBC don't bend either way very much and cannot can be manipulated as easy as other outlets. Long may it remain. If you don't like the BBC, great, has absolutly zero impact on my life, however if you want to moan about the BBC then I will disagree with you and fact check any 'fact' posted, and argue for the fee. If you don't like paying the fee and pay for sky/virgin/bbc hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 25 minutes ago, McRamFan said: The left don't like the BBC, the right don't like the BBC, because the BBC don't bend either way very much and cannot can be manipulated as easy as other outlets. Long may it remain. If you don't like the BBC, great, has absolutly zero impact on my life, however if you want to moan about the BBC then I will disagree with you and fact check any 'fact' posted, and argue for the fee. If you don't like paying the fee and pay for sky/virgin/bbc hypocrite. Why on earth does somebody wanting to make a consumer choice make them a hypocrite? No wonder you have no problem with communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I'm quite happy to pay the licence fee for the Radio and web content alone, add to that the occasional quality TV output they provide and it's a bargain. I do however see the point that you shouldn't be compelled to pay it, but there are enough ways around it if you so wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1of4 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Most european countries have tv licences, Finland instead of a licence fee collect money through everyones income tax. Not a bad idea, even save money as there wouldn't be the cost of collecting the licence fee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, 1of4 said: Most european countries have tv licences, Finland instead of a licence fee collect money through everyones income tax. Not a bad idea, even save money as there wouldn't be the cost of collecting the licence fee? Good to know although Finland sounds worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 11 hours ago, StringerBell said: Why on earth does somebody wanting to make a consumer choice make them a hypocrite? No wonder you have no problem with communism. I don't have a problem with anything really, however you seem to have a problem with everything. You avoid answering questions that challenge your opinion or half facts, you try to steam roll over anyones opinion that counter yours, you like to have everyone in a nice 'little box' and refuse to except that people can exist in multiple 'boxes', you don't / won't back up your 'facts' and cherry pick the headlines and ignore the content or structure. Having saying that, you are quite entertaining. Keep buzzing around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 36 minutes ago, McRamFan said: I don't have a problem with anything really, however you seem to have a problem with everything. You avoid answering questions that challenge your opinion or half facts, you try to steam roll over anyones opinion that counter yours, you like to have everyone in a nice 'little box' and refuse to except that people can exist in multiple 'boxes', you don't / won't back up your 'facts' and cherry pick the headlines and ignore the content or structure. Having saying that, you are quite entertaining. Keep buzzing around... A man of no principles then. No I'm fairly easy going day to day. I have a problem with some things you don't have a problem with or are in favour of, like the disgusting ideology of communism for instance. But the world doesn't revolve around you so you'll find the things I have a problem with don't encapsulate everything. Ok so I'm a hypocrite but you don't have a problem with me being a hypocrite? Fair enough there's no reason to compel someone to have a problem with perceived hypocrisy although I don't know why you'd bother to inform someone you thought they were a hypocrite if it didn't bother you. That's up to you though (see how easy going I am). Its interesting that you've gone on a nonsense ramble about me about avoiding answering questions whilst not answering the question you were asked as to why somebody would be a hypocrite for wanting Sky but not the BBC. That seems kind of.... hypocritical. I'm not particularly entertained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 20 minutes ago, StringerBell said: (see how easy going I am). Need to convince yourself? When did I call YOU a hypocrite, I made a statement, you took it as if it was directed at just you, paranoid...or if the hat fits. As for communism, yet again you half get it, go back to 1777, and not the distorted view fed to bottom feeders. Buzzzzzz... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 41 minutes ago, McRamFan said: Need to convince yourself? When did I call YOU a hypocrite, I made a statement, you took it as if it was directed at just you, paranoid...or if the hat fits. As for communism, yet again you half get it, go back to 1777, and not the distorted view fed to bottom feeders. Buzzzzzz... No I'm quite satisfied with my assessment of communism. I never said you said you singled me out personally as a hypocrite, you just made that up. You gave criteria that for my description so you did call me a hypocrite just as StivePesley brought up my brother the other week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 17 minutes ago, StringerBell said: you just made that up Just joining in, if you can, I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 12 minutes ago, McRamFan said: Just joining in, if you can, I can. But I didn't so that's quite some tautology that there's no point in engaging with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 £12.50 month for BBC or £30+ minimum for Virgin. I know which is the best value and looking at the channel numbers next to my recordings on my Tivo spells it out. If I'm happy to keep stumping up for Virgin, I really can't complain about the BBC. As for bias & as others have said, the BBC gets criticism from both right and left for bias, so can't be too bad. I am getting annoyed by the dumbing down of the BBC online news though. For instance: The wrong film being named at the oscars was their lead story for a whole day. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 27 minutes ago, StringerBell said: just as StivePesley brought up my brother the other week. Happy to point out again that I didn't bring up your brother. I brought up a particular subject that you then cited your brother as an example. The first person that mentioned your brother in that thread was you. I think by most sane people's definition that is YOU bringing him up not me. But I look forward to the creativity you bring to the debate in telling me exactly why I'm wrong Back on topic - I quite like the BBC in terms of the quality of the programming (both TV and radio) but the political news analysis annoys the heck out of me. They should just ditch the political analysis. If they were truly impartial they wouldn’t even feel the need to offer analysis would they? My thoughts on the licence fee are that it’s a complete anachronism. We’re stuck with it for another 10 years as they have renewed the charter, but it feel irrelevant in 2017 – imagine how much more irrelevant it will be in 2027! If any of us are still here in 10 years I’ll be amazed if they don’t ditch it completely next time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 2 hours ago, StringerBell said: I have a problem with some things, like the disgusting ideology of communism for instance. I'd argue that the ideology of communism is far from "disgusting". In fact in pure terms it would be the perfect society. Granted there has yet to be a real-life modern-era deployment of communism that has gone well, but were it ever possible to implement it in a pure way (which I suspect is close to impossible) it would actually suit a lot of the things you advocate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 30 minutes ago, StivePesley said: Happy to point out again that I didn't bring up your brother. I brought up a particular subject that you then cited your brother as an example. The first person that mentioned your brother in that thread was you. I think by most sane people's definition that is YOU bringing him up not me. But I look forward to the creativity you bring to the debate in telling me exactly why I'm wrong Back on topic - I quite like the BBC in terms of the quality of the programming (both TV and radio) but the political news analysis annoys the heck out of me. They should just ditch the political analysis. If they were truly impartial they wouldn’t even feel the need to offer analysis would they? My thoughts on the licence fee are that it’s a complete anachronism. We’re stuck with it for another 10 years as they have renewed the charter, but it feel irrelevant in 2017 – imagine how much more irrelevant it will be in 2027! If any of us are still here in 10 years I’ll be amazed if they don’t ditch it completely next time Why do you and McRamfan need this explaining to you? What is the contention? You brought a group of people. My brother was part of this group of people. Their membership of this group was the particular talking point being discussed. So when you brought up that group you brought up the members of that group, of which my brother is one, you brought up my brother. So without naming him individually you brought him up. Its like when Eddie was going on about Mo Farah. No one said 'Trump is just talking about the group you're part of Mo. He isn't talking about you.' (Even though Mo Farah and Eddie jumped the gun and he wasn't part of that group but that's besides the point). That isn't creative. It's just what happened. Like with McRamfan, I have never said he targeted me exclusively. I never said you brought my brother up exclusively. But he did bring call me a hypocrite by calling people who met a certain criteria hypocrites. And you did bring up my brother when you decided to use the people who had been targeted by 'hate crimes' after Brexit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.