That's higher figures than I expected.
It's undeniable that the BBC could have had some influence on the election.
The bbc, again.
- Topic starter Eagleman13
- Start date
That's higher figures than I expected.
It's undeniable that the BBC could have had some influence on the election.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
England
Apparently these are the issues raised in the “Prescott” memo that started all this. Does the tone seem familiar? To me they could have been written by any one of a number of posters here! So what does that indicate about Prescott? Does he have fair, neutral and unbiased approach? Or a heavily politicised one?
The rest is entirely from a right wing perspective. Which the BBC doesn’t share, anymore than it shares a left wing one.
He is entitled to his view. He isn’t entitled to force it.
- "Anti-Trump" bias: Prescott says the BBC’s coverage of the 2024 US election was more critical of Donald Trump than of his opponent, Kamala Harris - including a misleading edit of a speech Trump delivered on 6 January 2021
- "Ill-researched" stories on racism: He says the BBC had published "ill-researched material that suggested issues of racism when there were none", including in a now-removed BBC Verify story about car insurance
- Too few push alerts on migration and asylum seekers: There was a "selection bias" against sending stories about migration and asylum seekers to BBC News app users as push notifications, Prescott says
- "One-sided" transgender coverage: He says the BBC had often published stories "celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity" and had ignored certain voices
- Anti-Israel bias in BBC Arabic: Several contributors to the BBC’s Arabic service selectively covered stories that were critical of Israel, Prescott writes
- Broader issues in Gaza coverage: His other criticisms include misrepresenting the percentage of Palestinian women and children who have been killed by Israel’s military, and misrepresenting the likelihood of children starving under Israel's aid blockade”
The rest is entirely from a right wing perspective. Which the BBC doesn’t share, anymore than it shares a left wing one.
He is entitled to his view. He isn’t entitled to force it.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
Complete nonsense.
Just because something is available on a TV doesn’t mean you watch it. There are hundreds on mine I have never watched and have no intention of watching.
There is no data available about the actual number of views this programme had in the USA at the time but it must have been minuscule.
It was only seen by 1.2 million in the UK! About 2% of us saw it and the BBC is our mainstream channel.
It could have had no influence of any kind in the US election. One that, in any event, Trump won.
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
Ireland
I watched it and I'm in Ireland.
Common Sense Club
Member
- Country
-
England
So Prescott was good enough to be engaged by the BBC at taxpayer expense but not good enough to report his findings. I wonder if their own staff are engaged in a similar fashion…
eaglesdare
Member
- Country
-
England
I don't see why anyone here is defending the actions of the BBC on this one.
The BBC reaches millions of people around the world. Up to 50-60 million in the US. The show knowingly made a false video in the run up to a US election. This is election interference. Why else would it have been edited in such a way?
Anyways I thought there were only 5 stages of TDS? Seems we may have found an extra one....Stage 6: The BBC Panorama Edit. where they edit a speech then resign in shame, and still blame Trump for their own meltdown.
The BBC reaches millions of people around the world. Up to 50-60 million in the US. The show knowingly made a false video in the run up to a US election. This is election interference. Why else would it have been edited in such a way?
Anyways I thought there were only 5 stages of TDS? Seems we may have found an extra one....Stage 6: The BBC Panorama Edit. where they edit a speech then resign in shame, and still blame Trump for their own meltdown.
- Location
- Caterham
- Country
-
England
The BBC used to be great
Sport - lost a lot of events to Sky etc. Full of lefty presenters and choices of presenters for minority box ticking but without full or proper knowledge
Drama - can still be good, but with a huge splattering of wokery, false representation of minority umbers and minorities in historic times when they weren’t even in England etc. Probably have a black Elizabeth I soon. Just put King Charles kneeling on a mat in a Niqab. May as well.
News - say no more. Huge left of centre or left wing opinion or government propaganda. Stick to the facts. Actually, never switch it on. I can’t now. A few seconds and it has to go.
Documentaries - more liberal bias, anti anyone right of centre.
Travel - that Simon Reeves bloke has ruined his own once decent travel programme.
Education - used to be great. No doubt full of liberal indoctrination and anti British slant on history now.
Nature - huge climate crisis focus.
Cars and motor shows - See Jeremy Clarkson.
Weather - probably Trump’s fault the weather is sh1t.
It ain’t worth £1.99 a month. Honestly, make it subscription only. It’s shyte.
Sport - lost a lot of events to Sky etc. Full of lefty presenters and choices of presenters for minority box ticking but without full or proper knowledge
Drama - can still be good, but with a huge splattering of wokery, false representation of minority umbers and minorities in historic times when they weren’t even in England etc. Probably have a black Elizabeth I soon. Just put King Charles kneeling on a mat in a Niqab. May as well.
News - say no more. Huge left of centre or left wing opinion or government propaganda. Stick to the facts. Actually, never switch it on. I can’t now. A few seconds and it has to go.
Documentaries - more liberal bias, anti anyone right of centre.
Travel - that Simon Reeves bloke has ruined his own once decent travel programme.
Education - used to be great. No doubt full of liberal indoctrination and anti British slant on history now.
Nature - huge climate crisis focus.
Cars and motor shows - See Jeremy Clarkson.
Weather - probably Trump’s fault the weather is sh1t.
It ain’t worth £1.99 a month. Honestly, make it subscription only. It’s shyte.
Last edited:
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
He is entitled to have his view incorporated into other views though.
On the Gaza conflict, he has made observations and used as one source a guy called Dan Cohen who's name does not scream impartiality.
I am also probably the lone speaker on this site who would like to see Hamas reps interviewed and their view broadcast. I know: terrorists, oxygen of publicity, justification for their outrage etc. All very good points. But how can we make our minds up by only knowing half the tale? It is very clear many on here do not really know why Oct 7 happened. Do you not wish to know, if only to hate them more? And you cannot argue anti Israel bias if you are only interviewing spokespeople for the Israeli government and not the other side.
In terms of misrepresenting numbers, if they are reporting, say, 25,000 deaths of women and children when only 18,000 were actually proven to be killed, is that such a material difference? Also, Israel have no figures. All we have is Hamas controlled medical authorities reporting on body numbers identified. The UN say that is all we have; if the count is accurate they say it is probably an underestimate (bodies remaining buries etc.); and in all the BBC reports I have heard, the reporter stresses in the clearest caveat where the figures are from and that is all they have to report on.
Thus, in this context, is "misrepresenting" a fair criticism?
Common Sense Club
Member
- Country
-
England
I get what you’re saying but by not declaring that the boy in the Gaza programme was the son of a Hamas fighter, then by keeping this info from the public you are effecting a bias. Similarly, if you don’t put a fade between different parts of the same speech, you are altering the context. Of more worry is that outsiders have to highlight when these potential biases occur, implying that there is little editorial control or it is done deliberately. Either way = not good.
Hrolf The Ganger
Member
- Location
- a sofa somewhere in Kent.
- Country
-
England
Wait, you are saying the BBC's own figures on their audience are "complete nonsense"?
Even their Number 1 fanboy no longer trusts them!
'End of Days' stuff for the Beeb.
- Location
- Caterham
- Country
-
England
GB News always has an opposing view from the left on any panel they have on, which is every evening, all evening. The BBC channels do not.
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
For the umpteenth time, the wokery is statutorily imposed. The Tories placed the BBC and Ch4 under the Equality Act through secondary legislation and (ironically) now accuse it of wokery. The BBC MUST by law hire people of colour to play e.g. warriors in the Battle of Hastings etc. If you don't like it (I don't and have fallen out with erstwhile friends over it), write to your MP to have the law repealed.
News: government "propaganda" is nonsense, but pro-establishment (i.e. leaning to any government of the day) is perhaps more fair. Rather like The Times newspaper. You might be interested to know that those on the actual left can't watch it either as it is too right wing"! Thus, you need to listen to Labour cabinet ministers being eviscerated at the 8.10am slot on the Today Programme to know that they are a long way from lefty. Nick Robinson, for instance, was a Young Conservative and worked for no fewer than 3 right wing think tanks before he joined the BBC.
Nature: climate change and losses of habitat are the central concerns of scientists in nature. Do you suggest a fluffy display of cute mammals with a light hearted narration as the only acceptable form of presentation? Not really accurate documentary is it?
The BBC will lean to the nature of those who control it which is tertiary educated and loosely "liberal" in thought which must cause them to depart from the views of many of "the average bloke in the pub". The alterative is that we hand over the reigns to the average bloke in the pub. How do you suggest we do that without causing the bias needle to swing sharply and the quality to descend precipitously?
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
Yes they do. On any news programme they must. Even if the person who you would deem "left" has knowledge of the subject, but the person hauled on for balance hasn't a clue.
Where do you get this view? Is it something so ingrained it has become fact, even though you admit you don't actually watch the BBC? Are you Mary Whitehouse?
eaglesdare
Member
- Country
-
England
And if you dont have to pay for GB news if you don't watch it or like it.
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
Oh dear.
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
Ah, we have drifted from bias to funding. For me a more difficult point.
- Location
- Caterham
- Country
-
England
Absolute bollox.
- Location
- Caterham
- Country
-
England
Prove that law please.
Nonsense. You say tomato I say tomato.
Robert Peston at anti brexit protests, any of them at any opportunity spouting their anti right opinions.
The climate change on nature programs always blames man, and specifically us. As we contribute 1% of pollution, do us all a favour and tell the truth.
I don’t know if you know, but GB News is not run by blokes in a pub. Do you believe that anyone who isn’t liberal or woke is uneducated, unintelligent, a Neanderthal or just a Carling top drinking ficko? Please tell.