Three million hits!
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 12:26 am on Weekend 20th April 2024Marathons have got smaller, and mars bars
- Deborah April 19, 2024 at 11:51 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Foscari, you mean that temperatures were similar then to now? In spite of global warming.
- Deborah April 19, 2024 at 11:48 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024I noticed whilst watching Bangers and Cash on whatever channel it’s on, adverts for Big (?) Bottom with Ade Edmondson...
- Nibor April 19, 2024 at 11:15 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Last week the show was circling the wagons by "humour" against Angela Rayners critics .
- Foscari April 19, 2024 at 10:42 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024As an appendage . Although there a slight degree of embellishment in my last contribution. It is around 85% accurate....
- Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate April 19, 2024 at 10:23 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024You have flooded this website with your views on Netayanhu and Israel straight from the George Galloway school of thought...
- Mustapha Sheikup al-Beebi April 19, 2024 at 10:21 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Revenons a nos moutons, as the French say. "The Now Show" on Radio 4 reached its final episode after 25...
- Thoughtful April 19, 2024 at 10:13 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024"as if forced or not entirely in good faith." Please explain this further as I can't see it myself.
- Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate April 19, 2024 at 10:09 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Thoughtful: "to heal a few old wounds" What wounds? It comes over as awkward as if forced or not entirely...
- Foscari April 19, 2024 at 10:03 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024I was exstatic when I heard on the BBC that this years London Marathon on Sunday is going to be...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Congratulations!
Woohoo!
Well done, keep it up. Keep on reporting the BBC’s misdeeds and trying to hold the BBC to account.
3 million comments, and 3 million comments completely ignored by the BBC, and counting.
Congratulations all the same.
Even if they have all been obviously 100% more then ignored by the system, at least this site fulfilled the need for a cathartic letting off of steam.
If it helps.
If the purpose of this site was ever changing any thing whatsoever at The BBC.
Then the task always was so incredibly impossible, it truly defies short polite description. So please do not start to feel you are in some way a failure, or that the effort was totally in vain.
There really is a purpose in everything, and there always will be.
“Here is to the next 3 million completely ignored comments…CHEERS ALL.”
That’s nearly as many hits as the BBC extorts in Pounds from us each year! Congrats to all!!!
If I may make a recommendation.
You are aware that you and I do not share the same wview reagrding BBC bias, thats fine, we live in a democracy. I do think that there is a valuable purpose to this site, which is to hold the BBC to account (after all, we all pay for it). However…there is too much nitpicking on here for the site, and its main arguements, to ever be taken seriously by the mass public (in my opinion ). There are issues of Bias, but this daily hunt for any story involving the choice of words, or the obsession with some individuals, does not help this sites credibility.
At times this site seems more like a far-right (I know you hate the term, but its hard to come up with a better ones for these purposes) site complaining about Labour, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown. Again, that is good for freedom of ideas and speech, but you must remember that not everyone who comes here cos they are interested in the issue of bias wants to get shouted down by people who are really here with their own conservative (small c) agenda.
Also, cutting the insults and abusive language would be a good idea. I only make these suggestions cos I do want this website to succeed, its just that sometimes anyone who expresses a different view (ie. they dont think Gordon Brown or the BBC is pure and simple evil) gets shouted down with insults and childish abuse. Its easy in this day and age for people to cry ‘racist’ – and sometimes some of the comments on this site leave it open to this kind of attack, and in the end that just marginalises the site, and diverts attention from its true purpose.
Well done to all.
GH: “At times this site seems more like a far-right site complaining about Labour, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown”
You miss the point Gus. Doesn’t matter if we are left, right or Seventh day Adventists.We have Labour, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown propaganda shoved in our faces by our national state broadcaster, in breach of its constitution, and which we have to pay for.
You may not recall the Russian NKVD calling on relatives of those shot by Stalin’s goons, demanding they pay for the bullets. Analogy ring any bells?
It doesn’t matter if we do or don’t like Gordon. We expect the fourth estate to be just that, not a fifth column on behalf of the favoured Liberal/ Left elite.
Congratulations to the site owners, moderators, and commenters.
Atlas Shrugged: You know perfectly well that not all comments are ignored. You’ve been hanging around here long enough to know that you’re telling a fib.
Several BBC employees, from various departments and job levels, have not only kept an eye on things here but have engaged in debate with us. It used to be fairly regular and at great length. Martin Belam even wrote about Biased BBC in the BBC house organ, “Ariel”. That’s dried up now for various reasons, but it still means that your statement is false and mean-spirited.
Please don’t tell lies as it only encourages the ignorant defenders of the indefensible.
“far-right “? far right of what? The BBC? Even Tony Blair was “far right” of the BBC occasionally.
To All:
Congratulations on the landmark – I hope it may continue.
3 million hits and not a single ad or threat of imprisonment in sight…
Congrats to all involved.
I agree with Gus Haynes (about the site, not sure about anything else )
We should be open freindly and willing to debate with others of a contrary view.
The abuse against others and foul language should be out, the humour left in.
This opens the site to a couple more sectors of the population; The old, who didnt use profane language except when it was called for; and the young, who may have seen a “yoof” programme or CBBC and could come here for a different view.
Incidentally, if you`ve ever mixed with hard men, the hard b^$@^7*s of society, have you noticed they dont swear gratuitously (contrary to the BBCs and other media portrayal of them )? Do you know why?
Original Robin: Real men don’t need to use profanity to get their point across.
David Preiser,
On the topic of BBC employees commenting here, I would welcome that. I am aware they have departed since I arrived and I am not sure why as I am not impolite but nor am I inclined to compromise on my views with them.
I also accept Original Alan’s point that we must be tolerant of those who hold alternate opinions. The best thing is to agree to disagree, not always easy I know.
“We should be open friendly and willing to debate with others of a contrary view.”
I quite agree – but the question that most beeboids can’t answer and is usually ignored – that is “Why should I be forced to pay for the BBC?” I have never had an answer to this.
Congratulations! A terrific achievement and one down to David, Ed, Natalie, Laban – and every interesting contributor (from both sides of the debate).
I think I’ll be long dead before my blog gets within a distant sniff of this milestone.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Sorry for the double post but David, the BBC guys departed long *after* you arrived and so no blame for rudeness or hostility can be placed at your door at all.
My daily reading here leads me to think that as their postings became less frequent they basically just got bored and drifted away.
Alternative views mustn’t just be tolerated, they must be welcomed, encouraged – and responded to with a sensible and well argued reply. Abuse isn’t the way forward…logic and persuasion is. Keep the boring replies to a minimum and really address the bias to them. Hey, the replies might get more interesting!
I see another poll shows the Tories stretching their lead. No doubt the BBC will do what the BBC does with good news for Tories.
Ignore it.
Where is the Brown bounce now BBC? Like your licence fee when the Tories get power, down the toilet pan.
Remember this story folks. Note how TORY is prominent in the headline and the first paragraph.
Now compare to this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849594.stm
Anyone spot the difference?
Mazeltov!
Used to come in here, but it gets pretty nutty after a while.
Anything useful gets buried beneath all the foaming at the mouth and flying spittle.
Whoops didn’t add the Spelman link. Try again.
Remember this story folks. Note how TORY is prominent in the headline and the first paragraph.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7441360.stm
Now compare to this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/ 7849594.stm
Anyone spot the difference?
“Anything useful gets buried beneath all the foaming at the mouth and flying spittle.
Ady | 25.01.09 – 11:56 pm | # “
That’s a pointless exaggeration if every I heard one.
Jason | 26.01.09 – 1:23 am | #
..if ever I heard one, idiot.
*fume*
*spit*
Mark Thompson, the Director-General of the BBC, is quite right to refuse to broadcast the appeal of the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) for humanitarian relief for Gaza, but not for the reason he thinks. He is under the impression that it will damage the BBC’s reputation for impartiality in reporting the Israel-Palestine question, but the fact is that the BBC does not have any such reputation, having for years been institutionally pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. The reason that his decision is brave and right, however, is that many of the 13 charities that make up the DEC are even more mired in anti-Israeli assumptions than the BBC itself.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5586716.ece
David Vance | Homepage | 25.01.09 – 10:39 pm |
My apologies: I wasn’t accusing you specifically. I think Geoff is mostly correct in that the two or three who were engaging in serious debate stated that they’d gotten fed up with the overall tone (things had gotten a little rough, but I think a lot of that was due to trolls), probably felt like they were getting nowhere, things like that. Yes, initially some of your posts were a bit rough as well, but this is a different atmosphere than your own blog, and that’s how it goes. If one of them left because they objected to your presence, then that’s their mistake. I’ve always felt that the intelligence and variety of commenters here were at least half the equation, if not more. Some critics do seem to write the whole thing off if a minimum number of people don’t condemn something or other, as if we’re all sycophants. The homosexual issue is an example. That’s a shallow interpretation of this place, and they’re just throwing the baby out with the bath water, as far as I’m concerned. Maybe it’s more like throwing their toys out of the pram?
That’s what I meant by “various reasons”. The only one I know for certain is the homosexual issue because a Beeboid said so here. If we welcome BBC employees here, I suggest we’ll have to accept that.
In any case, things have certainly gotten much better since then, so there’s no excuse for any of them not to come back. Actually, Sarah Jane came back once things calmed down.
The point is that the blog has not been ignored, AS knew it, but chose to be a pain anyway. Not everyone has seen the debates we’ve had with Beeboids, or heard about mentions elsewhere, and it’s unfair to the people who put in the effort to run the show for that not to be known.
Amazing. AND USEFUL!
Congratulations B-BBC!
Your monthly traffic graph shows a definite upward trend for the year too.
Three million. Bet I’m about 30,000 of them, so congratulations to me, too. And all the other B-BBC lovers (and haters) out there.
Oh, and happy birthday, DV! Oh, wait, that was a few days ago. Happy anniversary, DV! Oh, wait, that was downblog.
Well, this place has definitely taken on new life since you signed on.
Much as I love this site, it is on most occasions easy to provide counterfactuals to the specific examples of “bias” because the hypotheses that underpin it are so extreme. So in vance-land the bbc is pro-terrorist, anti-christian, anti-business; all poins easily dismissed with evidence. There’s the conspiracy theories too that the bbc takes instruction from the labour party. The andrew marr comment about a cultural liberal bias is where you should pitch your arguments. This is far more fecund and demonstrable ground for b-bbc it strikes me. But it requires a more subtle analysis than most here seem capable.
The place has got friedlier though since I first flounced off.
I notice the BBC has given the top slot on its news website to one of its favorite themes – Marxism on the move.
In reporting the victory for comrade Evo Morales in Bolivia and his new far-left constitution, shiny-eyed Beeboids can of course barely contain their joy. Of course the usual gloss prevails…
Compare the Beeb article with this one for example…no mention of things like the following:
“More than a dozen people have died in clashes related to the constitutional text.”
The Beeb gives us instead:
“Many Bolivians of European or mixed-race descent strongly oppose the constitution, but the head of an international monitoring team, Raul Lagos, said voting had been largely peaceful. ”
The Telegraph gives us:
“The opposition, led by state governors in the country’s more prosperous east, fear that Mr Morales’ march towards a socialist state is taking their nation into the orbit of Venezuela’s fervently anti-US president, Hugo Chavez, and further away from economic efficiency.
Mr Morales’s nationalisation of the telecommunications and gas sectors has scared off foreign investors, worsening state finances that are now also succumbing to the woes brought on by the global economic crisis.”
Compared to the BBC’s:
“The Bolivian leader has followed his closest allies, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, in rewriting their countries’ constitutions to extend their rule, tackle inequalities and exert greater control over natural resources, observers say. “
“Observers say”…..BBC observers, that is.
Well done, everyone.
Well done, chaps and chapettes.
Well done, everyone.
I found this site after Hurricane Katrina. I had a general sense of unease that the BBC reports were gloating about a natural disaster and somehow enjoying the real misery suffered by many just because they could somehow lay the blame on Pres Bush.
This site has helped me to realise that I am not alone, that others share my concerns.
It’s also helped me to turn my subconscious feelings of unease into rational and coherent views.
Its not just Katrina – its all kind of issues, from Global Warming, Anti-Americanism, Anti-business, pro-NHS. The BBC even has a house opinion on plastic bags, for freaks sake.
I’ve found some interesting links here as well – eg to EU referendum
and Harmless Sky
The one big danger is that you can easily and lazily form all your own opinions as simply the opposite of the BBC house view. The risk here is that the BBC may one day be on the right side of an issue.
martin | 25.01.09 – 11:38 pm | #
At times comments on here read like riddles or cryptic crossword clues. The above is an example and it is not the only one even on this thread. A point made clearly and immediately on the page will have more interest and impact for the reader, whether it be someone from the BBC or anyone interested in BBC bias. I don’t think people read blogs to solve riddles or to work out what someone’s point about bias actually is. Well, I don’t, anyway.
Congratulations!!!!!!!
I think you should try and place this as a news story within one of the newspapers. Surely we have some PR capability here???
You really are challenging the disgusting BBC… and I am sure with every passing day your support will grow.
Another possible area of attack – as wel as BBC bias – is local programming. The London bias is simply ludicrous and people do resent the way a tiny coterie of London lefties are allowed such a massive sway over national politics and culture.
One example. In the West Midlands we have 5 million BBC taxpayers, and what do we get for our money? Routine insults about how thick we all are (yes, luvvies don’t like Birmingham – far too “trade” my dears!) and a selection of barely literate ethnics delivering the stupidest “news” programme imaginable. It amounts to an almost total cultural disenfranchisement.
Ditto the rest of the country. People LOATHE the London bias and this is an excellent and very justifiable way of further undermining the vile BBC.
But well done! YOu are doing a brilliant job – true, honourable democracy in action.
While I would always prefer to inhabit a group free from flame wars and strife, I do think there isn’t much to be said for tolerating trolls.
We have had a fair few here over the years and they have done nothing to enhance this blog’s cause or reputation. Some of the nonsense on the Lords A Mercy thread being posted by naked apologists, for example, simply serves to get tempers frayed and that leads to conflict. Which is just what trolls thrive on.
GCooper | 26.01.09 – 12:37 pm | #
You are too quick to accuse posters of being troll-like. An apologist is necessarily a troll! Nor more seriously is someone who has a different view to you.
But someone who comes here simply to blandly assert that the BBC is wonderful and snipes rather than engages with difficult issues is most certainly a troll.
I wonder if he has sandals and a beard. Heh.
GCooper | 26.01.09 – 1:17 pm
Not me then. I furnish all sorts of evidence to render toilet assertions on here.
Millie Tant | 26.01.09 – 1:47 pm
As it happens, I do have an old pair of birkenstocks and a beard.
Oh, no! Not a polytech lecturer, I trust? Well, I know we don’t have polytechs now – they are all “universities”!
GCooper is right about trolls but I doubt very much that MWL is one, he has opinions which differ but he speaks with real care and conviction and while I may disagree with MWL, he does add to the debate quality, a voice of constructive caution is to be welcomed, he has certainly made me think twice before jumping in with accusations of bias.
I think the site would be poorer if MWL didnt ontribute.
mikewineliberal | 26.01.09 – 6:45 am |
There’s the conspiracy theories too that the bbc takes instruction from the labour party.
Let me remind you that Nick Robinson admitted on his blog that he and Robert Peston got briefed before Labour went public about the PBR. A few days before, Robinson was doing the “I’m told” routine. Meanwhile, Peston was doing his usual Oracle of Delphi impersonation, pretending he was predicting something someone from No. 10 already told him.
Labour backtracked about the VAT increase when they went public. Peston pretended he was really predicting that other taxes would rise, and Robinson had to dance around the fact that he got sort of double-crossed.
It’s impossible to believe that this was the one and only time that No.10 briefed them, or, as Peston has occasionally given the impression in his blog posts, that they consult somebody at the BBC before a key announcement to see how it will play.
I’ve made plenty of comments here about how Robert Peston’s blog posts keep dovetailing nicely with Labour economic policy announcements.
It’s no conspiracy theory.
mikewineliberal…..
“As it happens, I do have an old pair of birkenstocks and a beard”
So not only are you a ‘leftie’,but you are a female ‘leftie’!
jeffD | 26.01.09 – 6:30 pm
Was it the beard that gave it away?
Sorry for coming back late 49erDweet.
What you say is true, but it`s not the main reason why the real hard b^$*^£*$ dont swear.
I`m talking about the ones nearly unhinged with violence in their records and probably go OTT if they lose their temper.
They need to show that they are getting close to loss of control. It gives others, whether normal or criminal, a sign to back off or somethings coming.
A bit like a dog snarling.
Jonathon Ross gives no indications about his temper when he swears because he is using it childishly.
My Birkenstocks are worn out, and I have no beard. I guess that makes me a neocon?
Cassandra | 26.01.09 – 4:15 pm
That’s very kind. Thank you.
jeffD | 26.01.09 – 6:30 pm
Very good! i’m am a devilishly handsome chap though. Think michael york in the three musketeers.
And david, real neo-cons wear greek billionaire flip-flops.
Liar! Liar! No man is handsome who has a beard.