BBC admits to left bias

[Darat]

...snip.. It was a supposedly open governmental forum which, yes, should have been recorded.

...snip..

Er where did you get this "fact" from?

 

[back2basics]

They published quotes. Quotes which stand on their own. The people quoted either said what the Mail says they said, or they didn't. Have any of them denied they said what the Mail says they said? Why not?



As opposed to just regular partisan? Empty rhetoric. And what is the point of labeling me?



And yet, you persist. And what is the point of telling me that?



They receive license fees right? From the government? Ultimately from citizens? Are those fees optional? What happens if a citizen refuses to pay their license fee?



The evidence is the quotes - they are falsifyable - with transcripts.



The BBC could prove that the quotes in the Mail were not made by the people the Mail claims made them - with transcripts.



Now you're accusing me of being conspiratorial? Now who belongs in the Conspiracy Forum?

You have some quotes but no evidence they were said, as the Mail gets sued (succesfully) on an almost weekly basis for misquoting people why on earth do you think they are acurate this time? "Evidence is the quotes" really we need go no further than that.

The BBC is paid for by the people, and if they don't pay and they get caught using the service they can be fined. Yes they are optional. The BBC must therfore represent ALL it's constituents. So yes there will be programs that show one mind set and others that show another.

but it is not a government organization which clearly your level of knowlege on this subject, and because you live in America how much BBC programing can you possibly see or are you just taking other peoples words for it or Daily Mail quotes?

And you keep asking for evidence but offer none, other than "the quotes". Well here is a quote from GW Bush "I am evil and really wanted to get in to Iraq so Kissinger could show his Vietnam doctorine was valid". Now disprove he said that. Because that exactly what you are asking people to do. You posted the article you must think it's valid, so prove it.

 

[brodski]

No, you might just be a lousy researcher if you can't find it. How would I know? Point is - this was not mearly a departmental meeting with a few guys in a conference room. It was a supposedly open governmental forum which, yes, should have been recorded.



Fair enough. Maybe they should be considering the BBC uses public funds and maybe they are - I don't really know. And I bet the conference was recorded. Any takers?

E-mail the BBC and ask them for a copy, if they have a record of the meeting, and if it is not "secret" then they will have to send you one under FOI, you may have to pay for administrative some costs, even if you don't pay, you'd still have your answer.

 

[DaChew]

Er where did you get this "fact" from?

From the blog you posted:
For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism. The seminar was part of a bigger project kicked off by Michael Grade earlier this year to re-examine the underlying principles of impartiality in the digital age when boundaries between conventional broadcasting and the new platforms will increasingly disappear.

Which part was closed? and if so, why?

 

[back2basics]

I think he was questioning the "open governmental forum" which is ahem exactly what he quoted.

...snip.. It was a supposedly open governmental forum which, yes, should have been recorded.

...snip..

 

[DaChew]

You have some quotes but no evidence they were said,

Strawman. Not me, The Mail.

as the Mail gets sued (succesfully) on an almost weekly basis

And if they don't in this instance?

for misquoting people why on earth do you think they are acurate this time? "Evidence is the quotes" really we need go no further than that.

Has anybody denied they said what the Mail quoted? Why not? If they do, great! That would solve it wouldn't it? Especially after they presented the transcripts that showed that they never said it.

The BBC is paid for by the people, and if they don't pay and they get caught using the service they can be fined.

Sure sounds like an arm of government to me. Their money comes from government enforced license fees which they are obliged to pay even if they don't intend to watch the BBC on their own TV at all.

Yes they are optional. The BBC must therfore represent ALL it's constituents. So yes there will be programs that show one mind set and others that show another.

We agree. Except when it comes to the news. There, they are obliged to be objective and that's what this is about.

but it is not a government organization which clearly your level of knowlege on this subject, and because you live in America how much BBC programing can you possibly see or are you just taking other peoples words for it or Daily Mail quotes?

You building another straw man?

From the blog:
I am not surprised that some readers of the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and the Express are furious with the BBC. If I had paid my licence fee in good faith for an organisation which claims it is passionately committed to impartiality, only to discover – according to the Mail on Sunday – that the organisation itself has admitted it is biased, I would be pretty livid.

 

[DaChew]

E-mail the BBC and ask them for a copy, if they have a record of the meeting, and if it is not "secret" then they will have to send you one under FOI, you may have to pay for administrative some costs, even if you don't pay, you'd still have your answer.

Don't need to. The BBC will want to clear this all up for their viewers and license fee payers and what better way?

 

[Darat]

From the blog you posted:
For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism. The seminar was part of a bigger project kicked off by Michael Grade earlier this year to re-examine the underlying principles of impartiality in the digital age when boundaries between conventional broadcasting and the new platforms will increasingly disappear.

Which part was closed? and if so, why?

Sorry I can't see anywhere where she says it was a "open governmental forum ".

 

[Darat]

Don't need to. The BBC will want to clear this all up for their viewers and license fee payers and what better way?

Clear what up?

 

[back2basics]

Strawman. Not me, The Mail.

You are not defending it? Ohhh thats right you are. You are not the one offering only the Mails quotes as evidence? Oh yes you actually are. Thats not a straw man.

Here is the definition for your reference.

http://www.answers.com/topic/straw-man

Has anybody denied they said what the Mail quoted? Why not? If they do, great! That would solve it wouldn't it? Especially after they presented the transcripts that showed that they never said it.

Why must there be a denial? Most people intelligent people in the UK take the Mail with a pinch of salt, I can imagine that an American who has never actually read the paper would not understand this. That is actually straw man. You are saying that unless somebody denies, it must be true. Which of course is not the case, but it is a dictionary definition of a straw man.

Sure sounds like an arm of government to me. Their money comes from government enforced license fees which they are obliged to pay even if they don't intend to watch the BBC on their own TV at all.

Erm no it’s not an arm of government even if it "sounds like it to you".

We agree. Except when it comes to the news. There, they are obliged to be objective and that's what this is about.

And where is your evidence they are not objective, other than the unsubstantiated quotes you keep hiding behind?

From the blog:
I am not surprised that some readers of the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and the Express are furious with the BBC. If I had paid my licence fee in good faith for an organisation which claims it is passionately committed to impartiality, only to discover – according to the Mail on Sunday – that the organisation itself has admitted it is biased, I would be pretty livid.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything.