A Biased BBC reader notes;

“Peter Hunt reporting on PM on Radio 4 yesterday [ at 8 minutes in]:

 “As a self-described senior member of the government and a senior Conservative, the Chancellor was involved…”

‘Self-described’ – really?!”

Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to NO HINT OF BIAS?

  1. Guest Who says:

    Maybe the BBC doesn’t think he is, and hence he had to tell them?
    Mind you, the BBC, and especially the DGette to be, self-describes itself as a ‘news’ organisation, as well as ‘professional’ and ‘impartial’, so perhaps everything they report needs the ‘self-described’ prefix to ensure it’s in keeping with corporate doctrine.


  2. wallygreeninker says:

    It’s the same mentality by which accusations from a favoured party are stated as fact while those from an unfavoured party are described as allegations or given in the form of “they say that …..” or something similar.

    It’s obviously getting far too carried away by force of habit when you to try that imply that Osborne’s cabinet position is factually contentious.


  3. dez says:

    Leverson transcript from June 11:
    Jay; “Why were you present at this meeting at all? Was it simply that you are one of Mr Cameron’s leading advisers in government?”
    Osborne; “Well, I’m a regular attender at the 4 o’clock meeting that’s held, and I’m a senior member of the government and senior Conservative.”


  4. Radical Rodent says:

    Somewhat off-topic, but I tried to watch BBC 4’s “The Grammar School: A Secret History”, me & my better half being ex-grammar school ourselves. Made slightly suspicious by the title, we had to give up after 10 minutes or so, made weary by the constant pummelling of dubious stories by such luminaries as Neil Kinnock (to mention the only identifiable one I can remember).

    Lord, but what a travesty of reporting: being a sceptic of the “class” system (being in a class of my own), anything that constantly refers to the “working class” makes my teeth itch. Add to that, the stories were inevitably of how hard-done-by the “working class” pupils were treated; one girl can remember where she was when it came to light that she thought a pharmacy had something to do with the country (“pharma” / “farmer” oh, how droll; I, too – along with everyone else in history – had (and still have!) similar displays of gross ignorance, but never let it hold me down). Another told of the rejection by her family when she went back home, talking and acting posh; the inference being that the parents, sending her to boarding school to go and better herself, then not liking the betterment, where just the victims, don’cha know?

    It would be interesting to know where the makers of this programme send their children to school…


    • dez says:

      Also OT, but why was it called; ““The Grammar School: A Secret History”? The BBC and others always refer to the “Grammar School System” of the 50’s.
      It emphasises the positive aspects.
      But only a minority of children (the only figure I could find was 25%?) went to Grammar Schools. The majority went to Secondary Modern Schools.
      Calling it the “Secondary Modern System” would be (at least) as valid; and carries different connotations. Yet it’s never, ever called that by the BBC.