Cameron and the BBC - the gloves are off

I agree that was excellent. I like Channel 4. I watch Channel 4 News. But I still think they are left-biased. That documentary was unusual and not the norm. All of these organisations are clever enough not to be too too obvious in their bias, otherwise the public would all tune out.

Thing is Claig, you are extrapolating from what you watch and read to make massive and inaccurate statements about the whole media. You can't say 'the media is overwhelmingly left wing' without bothering to check whether there are any titles you might not read personally that are right wing. In fact if you look at the number of titles and readership you'll see there is massive right wing bias in the press. And it's still the press that sets the news agenda, so the theoretically impartial broadcast news actually starts from a position largely defined by news sources with a right wing bias.

BBC News had some right-wing anti-EU Tories on tonight, btw. Bill Cash IIRC.

Well if you remember, C4 did screen that anti-global warming consensus documentary a while back. Later of course had to apologise as it turned out the documentary had seriously misrepresented its participants. But you can't fault them for trying.

There isn't one. What we need is intelligent debate and opinion on the BBC and Channel 4. We need them to give equal access to opposing right wing views, views that are anti-EU or anti the left wing global warming consensus, among other issues.

So claig, tell us, if the BBC and Channel 4 both have a left wing bias, what is it you consider the ideal, politically neutral media outlet?

I don't read the Express and the Star, that's why I forgot about them. I watch Channel 4 and the BBC because it is intelligent coverage, but I don't kid myself that it is unbiased. I know that they leave certain sides of an argument out of it and don't give them access.

I agree that somebody is obviously pulling some strings at the Tea Party. I don't know who they are, but I agree it is a political movement, just like any other and is therefore funded by rich people who wish to influence political decisions.

No, they didn't win. You know that perfectly well. That's why they are in coalition with the Lib Dems.

And really, you completely forgot the existence of the Star and the Express? Bit rich to start claiming the media is dominated by the left wing when you can't even remember how many national newspapers there are... in fact the reality is there's a huge right wing bias in the press. And in broadcasting, the BBC is impartial (TV news is supposed to be impartial but I don't see much evidence of that on Sky). That's what pisses the rabid Tories off so much, they think the state broadcaster should just regurgitate Tory Party press releases, no questions asked.

As for the Tea Party, nice attempt at spin but I'm sure you are aware it is bankrolled by billionaires seeking to promote their own interests. Which would be OK if they were honest. Dressing it up as a mass popular movement of ordinary homespun folks is a big, fat lie.

'an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.'

I don't expect him to say it still has a 'massive' left wing bias.

lol claig. I notice you have discreetly cut off the sentence which makes it clear that he was talking specifically about the state of the BBC in 1979 as opposed to now.

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

Now it is a completely different generation."

'BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past.

The TV chief also admitted there had been a 'struggle' to achieve impartiality and that staff were ' mystified' by the early years of Margaret Thatcher's government.
But he claimed there was now 'much less overt tribalism' among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a 'broader church'.
He claimed there was now an 'honourable tradition of journalists from the right' working for the corporation.
His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.
The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.'

Massive left wing bias? Good god. So what's the evidence for this then? (And no, the fact that you find your own opinions to the right of a lot of what you read in the media is not evidence that the media has a left wing bias.)

'General elections? You mean the tories? It's funny, I don't remember them getting a majority.'

In spite of the "massive" left wing bias, the Tories still won. Without the bias, it would have been a landslide.

Re the Mail health scares, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. If your brief is to come up with a health scare on a daily basis, you're bound to come close to the truth once in a blue moon.

General elections? You mean the tories? It's funny, I don't remember them getting a majority.

SylviaPankhurst, did you believe all the stuff about swine flu? 1 in 3 nurses apparently refused to take the injection. Do you remember the Mail's story about the leaked memo about possible side effects like Guillen-Barre Syndrome. I remember when it broke on a Sunday. It was the only paper that broke that story.

'So claig, what is it that makes you believe that most people prefer lower taxation and less government "interference"? Did you read it in the Mail?'

no, I go by the election results.

It's the same in almost every country. People are against bureaucrats and being taxed, hence the rise of the Tea Party in America.

Honestly as a nurse I am often appalled at the health drivel in the mail.

SHJ :o

So claig, what is it that makes you believe that most people prefer lower taxation and less government "interference"? Did you read it in the Mail?

if you think he's of the left, no wonder you think the media has a left wing bias!

'Claig the health stories in the daily wail are the standard joke of those trained in health care!'

are these people like the Chief Medical Officer who predicted tens of thousands of deaths due to swine flu, while the Mail was doing good reporting on swine flu?

I agree about the Guardian. The Oxbridge types who write for it are class warriors, but for which class?

Claig the health stories in the daily wail are the standard joke of those trained in health care!

As for the morning star being a left wing paper of course but its only sold in about three places. the Guardian asked its readers to vote lib dem at the last election nothing left wing about that then.

no they are not a category, but they are things that the right usually stand for and support, and they are things that the majority of people agree with them on

A small point amidst all the reds-under-the-beds type craziness on this thread, but claig:

"right wing is about family, law and order, less taxation, less government interference etc"

You are aware that those four things do not make up any kind of category, right? "family" and "law and order" have nothing whatsoever in common with "less taxation" or "less government interference"

The Mail on Sunday has Suzanne Moore as one of its columnists, and she isn't misogynistic or particularly right wing.

I don't think it is misogynistic. It is aimed at women and I think that the majority of its readers are women. Granted not all of its stories are good, but I do like the health stories.

SylviaPankhurst, the Director General of the BBC said that the BBC had suffered from a "massive" left wing bias. A left wing paper is the Morning Star. Also the Guardian is fairly left of centre.

sooo haven't been getting myinformation from Labour spin doctors. I have read the Daily Mail, quite a lot. We get it every day at work and there is always some bullshit in the "Femail" section about how one working woman aged 38 has really regretted not having children earlier and how she'd been selfishly building her career, or how another teenaged mum really regretted fucking up her life. And there is a different story every day about something or other giving you cancer. While I might conceed the BBC can have a left wing bias you can't possibly claim the Daily Mail isn't mysoginistic!