Yes, we are biased admits BBC

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives

By PAUL REVOIR, Daily Mail
22nd October 2006

BBC executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years - that the corporation is institutionally biased.

The revelation came after details of an 'impartiality' summit called by its chairman, Michael Grade, were leaked.

Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment.

They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities.

It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.

During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away - but would not do the same for the Koran.

Muslim leaders later condemned this approach.

Ishmail Farhat of the Muslim Association of Britain said: "We don't support this kind of action or abuse. If they are respecting all religions - then they should treat all religions the same."

The BBC executives also agreed that the BBC should broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, despite the offence it would cause.

Even one of the BBC's most senior journalists, political pundit Andrew Marr admitted that the corporation was unrepresentative of British society.

He said: "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly-funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.

"It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

BBC 'diversity tsar' Mary Fitzpatrick claimed women newsreaders should be allowed to wear what they liked on air and went on to say this should include a Muslim veil.

She spoke out after criticism was raised of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce wearing a necklace with a cross on it.

'We may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness'

The BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused his own employers of being anti-American saying they treated it with scorn and derision and "no moral weight".

He revealed that he had got deputy director general Mark Byford to secretly help him to "correct" it in his reports.

Business presenter Jeff Randall said he complained to a senior executive at the BBC about the corporation's pro-multiculturalism stance.

He claimed he was told: "The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism, it believes in it and it promotes it."

...

The BBC is believed to be taking a more critical look at itself because it fears if it does not, its regulation could be removed from its board of governors and handed over to the independent regulator Ofcom.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

How about having news stories that are vaguely current? You'll be posting up news of Tutankhamen's death in a minute.

love it - classic daily mail!

have you noticed how most of its readers have that twisted sour expression plastered across their face?

www.mailwatch.co.uk - occasionally has funny commentaries.

Guardian reader, are you?

Hold on. I'm confused. They're biased agaisnst the majority and someone noticed?

Are you sure we're not in a different universe to the one we woke up in?

Whoa, back up a minute. Tutankhamen's dead?

Sonofa... man, now what am I s'posed to do with the replica barge and the pyramid and the 50,000 dates and amphorae of honey?

re: the Beeb being biased... realised that one some time ago. They try to cultivate the appearance of being completely unbiarsed, but, sadly, t'aint' true.

Is there any news source that isn't biased?

realistically? I doubt it.
S'why I read as much news as I can from as many different sources as I can and let it percolate and filter in my head.

I always loved the fact that the BBC were impartial, its a blow.

nope. dont read papers, unless their discarded on the tube. dont watch tv news either at home thesedays either - I find it all rather insulting to my intelligence.

Eh, they're a lot less biased than a lot of institutions. Probably they're one of the LEAST biased, especially anything that size.

Most of what I've seen from the BBC doesn't ram things down your throat.


They're human beings, of course they're going to have some level of bias. But, by in large they are generally objective.

I shudder to think what the Daily Mail's vision for the BBC would be...

"This is the 9 o'clock news.
Bong...Johnny Foreigner stealing our jobs
Bong...Cure found for the disease of homosexuality
Bong...Hurrah for the Blackshirts"

I became disillusioned with the BBC (and media in general) when they covered topics that id researched heavily myself. They always want to skirt over the critical details and present a polarized debate. Youd expect that in a 4min news bulletin, because of time constraints and to bolster viewing figures. But they do it in a lot of the special features too! - I swear, sometimes id watch a studio debate on something or other and it seems like theyd deliberately hand-picked inarticulate or uninformed guests to play the 'pros' and 'antis' to ensure the debate follows their polarized 'lite' agenda. And whenever it seems like someone in the audience is about to say something relevant and add some meaningful points to the whole debacle, they get abruptly cut off!

well they are british. or something like that. they are known for being a bit...............oh wait, that's the french.

Give me a few weeks and I'll think of a witty response to that.