BBC Admits Own Liberal Bias

[USMC the Almighty]

Told you 9sub ;)

"The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml
http://tailrank.com/2130218/BBC-report-finds-bias-within-corporation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

[lipmonkey]

Cool. The U.K. has their own version of Fox News.:cool:

[USMC the Almighty]

Cool. The U.K. has their own version of Fox News.:cool:

And by Fox News you mean CNN.

[lipmonkey]

Damn. Rupert Murdoch owns that one too?:)

[Abraxis Axis]

6 corporations own ALL media outlets in the United states

[lipmonkey]

That doesn't surprise me much.:)

I know better than to pay much attention to everything any one of the major networks say without double checking other sources.

They all are biased to a certain extent.

[drippinhun]

...and while some worry about the BBC (a news organization a damn sight better than the Daily Mail or Telegraph, both of which would be sold behind the counters here and come in a brown bag), Reagan and Daddy Bush wiped out the Fairness Doctrine that did exactly what the original poster of this thread is pointing out how the Conservatives in the U.K. are not being represented fairly in their media. I detect a note of irony.

[palerider]

...and while some worry about the BBC (a news organization a damn sight better than the Daily Mail or Telegraph, both of which would be sold behind the counters here and come in a brown bag), Reagan and Daddy Bush wiped out the Fairness Doctrine that did exactly what the original poster of this thread is pointing out how the Conservatives in the U.K. are not being represented fairly in their media. I detect a note of irony.


There was nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. We have a system in which anyone can hit the airwaves with whatever political position he or she wants and if they are interesting, they can succeed. The fairness doctrine would require that opposing viewpoints be given equal time whether they were interesting or not. Rather than carry one interesting show and one show which amounts to nothing more than dead air time, radio and TV stations would change their formats and not carry political programming at all. The fairness doctrine was a crock. It was a scheme invented by the left to force programmers to put their uninterestiing views on the air.

[drippinhun]

The scheme provided contrasting viewpoints. Sometimes opinions can't be wrapped in bacon and make to taste good or shine like bling. However, intelligent discourse dictates pragmatic and sometimes boring discussion. I guess formats for that have no place when Madison Avenue can sell us junk like the Bush family. But who really gives a damn about our country? It's all about winning and fostering a climate to do such, right? But somehow I believe if your team was losing, you'd be screaming unfair about some mythical liberal media or other such nonsense.

[palerider]

The scheme provided contrasting viewpoints. Sometimes opinions can't be wrapped in bacon and make to taste good or shine like bling. However, intelligent discourse dictates pragmatic and sometimes boring discussion. I guess formats for that have no place when Madison Avenue can sell us junk like the Bush family. But who really gives a damn about our country? It's all about winning and fostering a climate to do such, right? But somehow I believe if your team was losing, you'd be screaming unfair about some mythical liberal media or other such nonsense.

The reality is that the media is about making a profit and schemes like the fairness doctrine interfere with a media comany's ability to make a profit. Everyone has access to the airwaves, but people will only listen if you have something interesting to say. It is clear that liberals (in the US anyway) have very little that is interesting enough to support repeating talk shows as evidenced by the left's inability to get a national liberal talk show off the ground no matter how much money they throw at it.

To demand that media outlets put shows on in contrast to conservative shows even when the liberal shows will not earn their keep is nothing more and nothing less than socialism.

[drippinhun]

The reality is that the media is about making a profit and schemes like the fairness doctrine interfere with a media comany's ability to make a profit. Everyone has access to the airwaves, but people will only listen if you have something interesting to say. It is clear that liberals (in the US anyway) have very little that is interesting enough to support repeating talk shows as evidenced by the left's inability to get a national liberal talk show off the ground no matter how much money they throw at it.

To demand that media outlets put shows on in contrast to conservative shows even when the liberal shows will not earn their keep is nothing more and nothing less than socialism.

I've been involved in pirate radio before. The potential profits are obscene compared to the costs of production. And because their is a limited amount of space on the publicly-owned airwaves, it is only through our creed of justice for all that opposing viewpoints be given equal time.

[palerider]

I've been involved in pirate radio before. The potential profits are obscene compared to the costs of production. And because their is a limited amount of space on the publicly-owned airwaves, it is only through our creed of justice for all that opposing viewpoints be given equal time.


All liberals have to do in order to be heard in the form of a national show is have something interesting to say. Typical of modern liberals, if you can't compete fairly, you attempt to simply eliminate choice by forcing your wishes on everyone.

[USMC the Almighty]

All liberals have to do in order to be heard in the form of a national show is have something interesting to say. Typical of modern liberals, if you can't compete fairly, you attempt to simply eliminate choice by forcing your wishes on everyone.

Bingo. It's also ironic that this whole fairness doctrine comes up right after I just watched a show where CNN had 4 liberals debating the Iraq War. And by debating, of course, I mean proverbially slapping each others' asses on a job well done.

Like it or not, you've got to give it to Fox's opinion shows -- if they have more than 1 outside person, you are guaranteed that one is conservative and one is liberal. In fact, many of the regular Fox News analysts are very liberal.

[steveox]

And CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN and MSNBC wont admit their own Liberal Bias.

[drippinhun]

And CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN and MSNBC wont admit their own Liberal Bias.

Yeah, real leebral corporations. Heinz Baked Beans. More music, more music, ... <cue in Maryann with the Shaky Hands>

[lipmonkey]

Bingo. It's also ironic that this whole fairness doctrine comes up right after I just watched a show where CNN had 4 liberals debating the Iraq War. And by debating, of course, I mean proverbially slapping each others' asses on a job well done.

Like it or not, you've got to give it to Fox's opinion shows -- if they have more than 1 outside person, you are guaranteed that one is conservative and one is liberal. In fact, many of the regular Fox News analysts are very liberal.

The problem with that is anyone who knows anything about the issues can see right through the bs coming from Fox News.

Fox News Liberal? I hardly think so.:D

[palerider]

The problem with that is anyone who knows anything about the issues can see right through the bs coming from Fox News.

Fox News Liberal? I hardly think so.:D

CNN and the major networks are equally transparent. Forcing them to give equal time to opposing views which can't generate a profit, however will only cause them to drop all political programming and switch formats.

With the incredible number of sources available today in which one can get information, the idea of forcing media outlets to grant equal time to speech that people obviously dont' have an interest in hearing is silly at best, and a direct violation of the 1st amendment at worst.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly telling an outlet what sort of programming they must provide via the law is abridging the freedom of the press.

[lipmonkey]

I have no problem with Fox News being a voice for Conservatives.

I don't watch it for the simple fact they claim to be Fair and Balanced, which couldn't be further from the truth. It's a misleading statement.

[qalam]

I have yet to find a lefty lean to any news outlet that has been mentioned here. Maybe some more liberal than others, but none of the majors is a lefty news organization.

[USMC the Almighty]

Fox News Liberal? I hardly think so.:D

I didn't say Fox is liberal. I said that some of its analysts are very liberal -- Bob Beckel, Laura Schwartz, Wesley Clarke, Dick Morris, Alan Colmes...

[USMC the Almighty]

I have yet to find a lefty lean to any news outlet that has been mentioned here. Maybe some more liberal than others, but none of the majors is a lefty news organization.

Well, you're wrong.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf

[qalam]

Ok, No I Am Not!

[DrWho]

6 corporations own ALL media outlets in the United states

I call BS. Prove it.

[DrWho]

The reality is that the media is about making a profit and schemes like the fairness doctrine interfere with a media comany's ability to make a profit. Everyone has access to the airwaves, but people will only listen if you have something interesting to say. It is clear that liberals (in the US anyway) have very little that is interesting enough to support repeating talk shows as evidenced by the left's inability to get a national liberal talk show off the ground no matter how much money they throw at it.

To demand that media outlets put shows on in contrast to conservative shows even when the liberal shows will not earn their keep is nothing more and nothing less than socialism.


Well Fox news, for example, has played opposing views; it is called CNN. And Rush played Randy Roads. Just because they played it on a different network and and let someone else pay for it...:)

[rmbarron]

Well Fox news, for example, has played opposing views; it is called CNN. And Rush played Randy Roads. Just because they played it on a different network and and let someone else pay for it...:)

Shoot, the Daily Show plays Fox clips all the time. I wouldn't call that airing divergent view points. I have to agree with that any kind of fairness regulation could only backfire, hurting Fox when it's a liberal government, and PBS when it's a conservative one. Besides, this whole liberal bais thing is a myth. The news always sounds liberal when its telling the truth.

[USMC the Almighty]

The news always sounds liberal when its telling the truth.

Hahahahaha.

[rmbarron]

Hahahahaha.

I thought you'd like that. :D

[DrWho]

Shoot, the Daily Show plays Fox clips all the time. I wouldn't call that airing divergent view points. I have to agree with that any kind of fairness regulation could only backfire, hurting Fox when it's a liberal government, and PBS when it's a conservative one. Besides, this whole liberal bais thing is a myth. The news always sounds liberal when its telling the truth.


And when the people don't agree with the truth it is "market failure." It is easier to blame the audience than to think that people in the newsroom might be wrong.

[mustardayonnaise]

I call BS. Prove it.

Maybe not quite all, but the point remains that at least nearly all major media outlets in America are controlled by an absurdly small number of enormous transnational corporations....

http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/media-ownership.html
http://www.thinkandask.com/news/mediagiants.html

This is not from in-depth study; both of these sites were found with a quick Google search so the info is not hard to find. BTW the 6 companies alluded to by Abraxis Axis are probably these: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart.php?chart=main

While not controlling 100% of the media in America, they certainly dominate the industry and give the lie to the idea of a truly free press.

[DrWho]

Maybe not quite all, but the point remains that at least nearly all major media outlets in America are controlled by an absurdly small number of enormous transnational corporations....

http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/media-ownership.html
http://www.thinkandask.com/news/mediagiants.html

This is not from in-depth study; both of these sites were found with a quick Google search so the info is not hard to find. BTW the 6 companies alluded to by Abraxis Axis are probably these: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart.php?chart=main

While not controlling 100% of the media in America, they certainly dominate the industry and give the lie to the idea of a truly free press.

On this one I do not call BS. Because you added the word 'major'. It may very well be true that all the major media outlets are owned by six corps.

But there are so many outlets for truth and news, including huge numbers of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, newsletters, journals, blogs, forums, word of mouth, etc. that while the major outlets can influence public opinion greatly the most they can do is temporarily slant the truth and will not be able to suppress it entirely. So no I think we do have a free press, if you include any source of information as 'press'. I do also think that the fairness doctrine is a small threat to that free press; a monster we dare not feed.

It is important that there be competition and even divisiveness among our sources of news. We must keep both CNN and FOX and we must watch them both with a critical eye.

[USMC the Almighty]

We must keep both CNN and FOX and we must watch them both with a critical eye.

Interesting facts from the book Freedomonics -- 81% of the people who work at Fox News and donated to a politician/party donated to the Democrats.

[Reliant]

Interesting facts from the book Freedomonics -- 81% of the people who work at Fox News and donated to a politician/party donated to the Democrats.

Right on! Just goes to show you that even the folks who work at Fox don't believe the excrement Rupert forces them to broadcast.:D