The main problem with the BBC seems to be its strive for "balance". By which I mean taking a scientist or professional with facts, data and giving them the same, or less, airtime than a frothing wing-nut with the opposite view.
Unless you are talking about the TV coverage, which I have not seen living where I do, that is nonsense. The BBC news website is anything but Tory biased (nor is it particularly pro-anti Labour. Most articles are clickbait re promoting Gender neutral, Lesbian Gay agenda, Vegetarianism, Veganism, feminism etc. etc. plus articles about things like FGM. Not saying they are not 'worthy' but we are constantly bombarded with them. You quote one TV Journo (with no examples of where he is biased) when I could quote countless articles on BBC website regarding Corbyn reports e.g. where he went to meet Barnier, proposed alternatives to 'The Deal' none of which were disparaging. Your avatar suggest you have left leaning tendencies so you, like many on both sides only see what you want to see.
A violent, racist criminal with convictions for fraud, illegally entering the USA, beating up a policeman who intervened when he was beating up his then girlfriend and contempt of court. Mr Yaxley-Lennon / McMaster / Robinson / Harris / King to use all his known pseudonyms, is a blight on society.
The evidence is quite clearly in the viewing . This lot consider Blair to be far left So just shows how right wing they are . There’s been very little reporting on the effects of Austerity which is the usual ground the BBC cover . The relentless set up of Corbyn or anyone who agrees with him shows how far right they have become when Boris ,Grayling and Rees Mogg are taken more seriously . There’s no ground breaking reporting of the effects of government policy as in the past for fear of upsetting Tory back benchers .
Like I said... people only see what they want to see. As for people arguing BBC only report the facts, this is true but it is what 'facts' they choose to ignore and don't report on that leads many people to accuse them of bias.
There is undoubtedly bias in the media, some subtle, some more obvious. I'm no fan of Corbyn, and i'm definitely not a fan of this shocking excuse for a government either, so I tend to view everything with scepticism as a start. I think some aspects of the BBC have obvious right wing bias, but far less than the obvious bias of Sky, ITV is populist lightweight rubbish and C4 is probably the more neutral to left news outlet. I've seen many an interview or questioner go easy on a far right lunatic talking in riddles on the BBC, but then hammer someone talking sense, citing expert opinion and trying to bring context to something. As a result many right wing soundbites have gained traction, which was their intent. There are some who don't have biases. And others who just aren't very good and therefore give a poor performance. From a web content perspective, especially if overseas, the content will be different to what is seen and heard through visual and radio based media, and there is far more content tailored to a user than ever before. Jon Pienaar certainly isn't right wing biased. Nor is Emma Barnett. But then there are Nick Robinsons and John Humphreys who may as well be dressed in blue with a banner showing their allegiances. And personally... that's what I'd push to see. Whenever a discussion, interview, or presentation is being given, they should have to display their voting intention and how they voted at the last election and in the referendum. That may go someway to showing the bias that is inherent and the interviewers agenda with the questions they pose and what they allow to go unchallenged, or where challenge is excessive. It might also flush out some of the plants we are now seeing pushing govt or right wing propaganda that most people don't realise. But of most organisations, I don't think the BBC are anywhere near as bad as some of the others.
It depends largely on your political views. As far as I am concerned BBC, Sly and C4 are left wing biased. Corbyn and his mate McDonnell are beyond the pale, and make Labour unelectable. Most on here are obviously left wing, as their views demonstrate.
I haven’t seen every film that Robinson has been associated with - but what I have seen I wouldn’t say he’s a racist. What I’ve seen he is anti-Islam. That’s totally different. And he’s anti-Islam because there are sections of the Muslim community who are anti-Christian and anti westerners. So much so that Islamists are willing to blow up and kill your family and friends. So on that point Robinson should be heard. Islam is a religion - it is not a race. Spend time talking to HIndus in India and they say far worse things about Muslims than what Tommy Robinson does.
This Tommy Robinson? Not racist? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8410133/tommy-robinson-drugs-racist-slur-rant/
So your of the all Muslims are the same . Therefore in your world all Christians are the same . All Atheists are the same etc etc .if you can’t work out that’s just a stupid way of categorising people then I’d say your fodder for this Robinson nutcase . I’ve more in common with some of my Muslim friends than I have with some of my Atheist colleagues.
We don’t have Christian, Jewish or Hindu communities in this country that have gangs planning to bomb other religious communities. But we do have Muslim gangs wanting to do that. Latest police statistics put the number of terrorists at over 3000. That’s over 3000 individuals that will gladly kill your family. And as a consequence we now have a rise in ultra right wing groups.
Is there anything in that drunken foolishness that you don’t hear around Barnsley??? IMO it’s not racist. I can introduce you to individuals around town that will tell you what a proper racist sounds like. And in my experience - a proper racists is a very rare thing to find. I know a few women that think all black men are very unattractive. Is that racist ???
Jesus! I'm afraid i did too. The term 'left wing' in Britain these days has lost all meaning because the Country has moved so far to the right. When Ken Clarke and Roy Hattersley are now seen as dangerous left wingers it's time to give up. Mick Clarke was more dangerous.
I refer you to the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Last time I looked that is in the UK and they were actively bombing other religious communities for most of the last century, including at least one attack on the M62 just outside Cleckheaton. There is a significant chance they could start again in the near future if the DUP have their way.
So that is two posts on this thread you have made advocating violence (or hoping that someone physically attacks another). Pretty vile yourself and makes you little better than him. Agree or disagree with my political views and posts but I have never advocated violence against another person.