A Biased BBC reader draws this to our attention;

“I’ve noticed something for a long-time that is clear evidence of bias – and that really gets on my nerves, but easily slips one’s mind because it’s so incomparably insignificant compared to TV News output or Question Time (which I’m really quite looking forward to!)… 

Whenever one links a BBC Story (and this most often occurs on Facebook), then the head-line changes from what’s actually on the news-page you’re linking to, to a more conspicuously supported position of the BBC. For example, I’m working at X and predicted that European Share Markets would collapse and the ECB would run-out of money. My predictions were largely correct. Thus I wished to post the BBC link to the fact that Shares had plummeted as I predicted.

The original headline was “European Share Markets reverse Earlier Gains”, which is still inaccurate but to be honest, the best we can expect from the Beeb. However, when I posted the link on Facebook, it transformed to a different headline altogether, “European Share Markets open higher”… Now these headlines give two completely different impressions. The first headline implies that European Markets are declining. The other, making no mention of this, implies everything is fine with the ECB/European Bond-Markets and that, at a quick-glance, nothing is worth worrying about. 

I’ve found that it does this whenever I post an article from the BBC regarding the Middle-East Conflicts, the European Crisis, Terrorism and quite a few other topics. I also wish to draw your attention to perpetual re-writing within the BBC. The problem is that the BBC will say something – and when it turns-out not to be true – they merely delete it or alter the sentence so that when you look back upon it, you think you’ve been mistaken. I know of numerous examples where this happened (such as the Breivik story, amongst others)… Surely, the BBC shouldn’t put-out material that it wont stand-by in perpetuity. Surely, they must fact-check before putting out news-content? 

These insidious, internet-based tactics – sometimes to hide biases that have turned out not to stand-up to facts – and sometimes, to promote their view of a story to people glancing at a headline… are yet more evidence of the BBC not behaving by those rigorous journalistic standards that it uniquely will hold against NewsCorp, but not the Trinity and Mirror Group or, evidently, itself.”

Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to BIAS IN LINKS

  1. Span Ows says:

    Welcome to our world! Anyone on BBBC I hope would have noticed, also the headlines, the missing words, the phantom religions or ethnicity. The changing stories always happens but as you say without a 24hr service taking screen shots it is impossible to sort out. Most blogs leave stories and update them or strike through text and reference edits; the BBC just changes what it had before. The important thing here is that 90% (made-up stat) of readers would have seen the original so the BBc get their cake and eat it.


  2. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC defense for this is “it reflects an evolving story”, but that’s no excuse for the spin we see so often.  I’d also be interested in this reader’s opinion on BBC bias regarding US economy issues as well as the EU.


  3. cjhartnett says:

    Somewhere in the 70s the BBC decided that the sixties merited the soft shoe shuffle through the institutions…starting with itself!
    Since then we have had the pastel revolution…pinks,lavenders and lime greens with sky blue thinkers! Nothing too obvious, just wristbands and pot pourri sachets in the knicker drawers!
    They are institutionally incapable of truth now-they have a revolution to massage us into accepting!
    Luckily the grade and calibre of their useless diverse intake of mummys boys and partners mean that they are as transparent and as useless as those whose policies they “showcase”.Hence sitting ducks for the inevitable backwash!


  4. cjhartnett says:

    Listening now to “The Reunion”.
    Nick Leeson is on talking about Barings and its collapse in 1995.
    The man is and was a prophet of so much that we`ve seen much more recently.
    In short, there is and was so much to learn from him.
    The people invited in around him also have so much to say…managers, experts at the time etc.
    But guess what-Sue McGregor has been given this pup to make up for not getting Sarah Montagues job…so as ringmaster, Sue hapes on like a BBC “Loose Woman”…remorse, emoting, non-sequiteurs and continually missing all the points that might yet be of use!
    Typical Beeb…snatching defeat from the jaws of victory as ever!
    Do they run courses for themselves in how to be obtuse, wilfully ignorant and refusing to go with what anyone actually SAYS to them!
    I long for Alan Partridge…I really do!