All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
MikeP: And I suspect I'm not. But even if I was in the minority, would that make the perception true?
However, polling and other actual data says otherwise. A poll of of most trusted and used news outlets in the UK shows that the BBC TV news are first choice by over 30% of those polled. The next most popular outlet was ITN, again TV. The press scores much lower than that. If you add the BBC TV news scores to the BBC Radio, Website and World Service, the figure is 39%. That indicates that people are not unhappy with the BBC's news output.
There is a poll from 2013 - http://www.theguardian.co…poll - where 60% of people thought the BBC's reporting was accurate and trustworthy, whereas 12% did not.37% thought it was neutral, 27% thought it was not. 41% thought it had some bias, but the vote was split on what this was. (And yes, these figures do not neatly add up, which shows that people are not exactly consistent when asked these sorts of questions).
44% of Tory voters thought it was too left wing, but 19% of Labour voters thought it too right wing. I suspect that the Tory voters views have as much to do with the fact that a) A Tory led government had been in power for 3 years, and thus is more likely to be questioned by the media, and b) Pretty all the print media is right wing, aside from the Guardian, the Independent (soon to depart) and possibly the FT. Hardly surprisingly, there tends to be an anti BBC drumbeat when it comes to coverage by most of the press.
Other research argues that the BBC is biased towards the right, or at least towards press set narratives and the status quo/authority.
As for websites like biassedbbc & isthebbcbiased - I really wonder about them. They seem to find something out of nothing. As one comment on the Guardian article put it ' When looking for bias, one invariably finds it.'
I's like to see some real data from people who say the BBC is biased. Not 'I think', not 'everyone I talk to', not 'everyone in the paper' or 'the internet'. I'd like to see proper robust facts, not cliches or fake outrage, and certainly not anecdotes. No broadcaster is going to be perfect, and I have plenty of things to say about BBC news coverage, and not all of it good.
But I'd like more evidence than 'Dimbleby says support the BBC' - thats not bias, that just a statement of support, and one that polling shows is popular. And its not just him saying it -
Doctor Who star David Tennant: we must protect the BBC
- as the above article shows.
| link to this comment |
MikeP: 'You are clearly biased against the centre and right views' - Possibly, possibly not - but that's not relevant.
'Try taking an impartial scietific look at what is offered and you will see that all news, whether broadcast or printed, has some bias one way or another.'
True, although that 'bias' is as much a matter of perception as anything else, which of course, isn't scientific or impartial.
'The point about the BBC is that their Charter requires them to not only be impartial but seen to be so - and they are failing in that.'
But thats the problem - is there any evidence that they are failing in that? I don't mean a matter of perception (Tory does not like coverage of budget cuts, Labour does not like coverage of leadership turmoil), but actual bias.
Nobody has come up with cold hard evidence of the BBC putting the thumb on the scale for Labour, or 'the left', etc. If they can, lets hear it. What I see is nudges and winks from the usual suspects, or 'affront' from various websites (where do they find the time for those?) at the BBC for mentioning something that they object to, or they think is 'politically correct'.
Put it this way, I can clearly see the bias something like 'Fox news' has, or RT (in its Russian coverage). But the BBC?
So I am asking for actual evidence of bias. Real examples. Can anyone oblige?
'
| link to this comment |
MikeP: But the point is that its not about my opinions, its about actual facts.
Nobody has managed to give me any actual examples of BBC bias. I'd love to see some, but all I get is the statement 'they are' or stuff people have culled from the Daily Mail, etc. I suspect they can't find any, but somehow 'feel' that they are. So can someone please supply some real BBC bias!
| link to this comment |
Frank Woodcock: The problem isn't with broadcasters wanting to show stuff in 4K - Sky Q - Overview - Your wireless home entertainment system - they do and increasingly will broadcast or stream. BT Infinity gives the inducement of watching much of the Premier League matches in 4K, for instance.
The problem is, as you point out, bandwidth, both with streaming and on terrestial. Better compression is going to help, but there are still large areas where speeds are far too slow and unreliable, and until we all go over to DVB-T2, there is no chance for 4K via an aerial. But dont expect anyone to give any part of the spectrum without a fight, and when you consider just how much TV is consumed in SD, never mind HD, 4K broadcasting is not the highest priority with most people at present.
| link to this comment |
Richard Johns: Ok - its true that there isn't much 4K content around at the moment, but thats changing - BT, Netflix, Amazon and especially Sky all want to supply you, and of course that will grow. 4K films on disc are being released as well, and players should be out soon. And of course a 4K will upscale from HD pretty well - a customer yesterday thought a 4K TV showing BBC 1HD looked better than a Full HD Tv next to it showing the same thing.
You've got an HD TV, and a HD source - fine. HD content is everywhere, and 10mb or less would be fine to stream, plus whatever else you can find on Freesat, etc.. If you want to watch 4K you need a 4K set and a 4K source. There seems to be a little on Freesat, but its going to be Sky and streaming where the action is. So that needs above 15mbps is average broadband speed (when everyone tries downloading at the same time is another story).
| link to this comment |
Nick: 'Why do you think there is so much comment on the BBC bias on the internet?'
There is also much discussion on the Internet about Kim Kardashian, whose doing what in Minecraft, and whats so special about the new Iphone.
In other words, just because the phrase 'BBC' tends to elicit strong emotions from some people, and even lead to people setting up their own websites to obsess over it doesn't mean:
a) It is biased
b) that everyone thinks it actually is biased.
Frankly, the Internet is not the real world, and does not always reflect it. If it did, then apparently a vast number of people would think that TV itself was an instrument of Satan (try googling it - scary stuff).
'And there are huge numbers of commentators on the internet now saying the same thing about the lefty bias'.
If we are judging truth by the number of websites out there, then 9/11 was 'an inside job', currently Beyonce is the most important woman in the world (the Superbowl thing was good) and that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya.
' I prefer to believe the hundreds at GF site than an individual like you.' So there are hundreds of people at these anti BBC sites? Wow, thats like a huge amount of people. Of course Countryfile alone gets 8.75m people watching it, but those hundreds of people know 'the truth!' (are they the same people, who just look at each others sites?)
' I don't need you opinions to sway my judgement.' . This is a variation on the 'my feelings beat your facts' meme. In fact I'm not talking about opinions (which MikeP also thinks I'm obsessed with) - I'm talking about actual EVIDENCE. All I'm asking for are some actual instances of bias, so can you supply some please.
The EU payments to the BBC is a perfect example of seeing bias where there doesn't actually seem to be. I get it that people don't like the EU - thats their opinion. But when you spend more than a minute looking at it, its a real stretch to argue that the EU payments have led to any sort of EU bias.
The Telegraph says that:
'BBC Media Action received 9.3million between 2011 and 2014, much of it to deliver the EU's European Neighbourhood Policy. European Union officials have described this as a broad political strategy designed to strengthen the prosperity, stability and security of Europe's neighbourhood in order to avoid any dividing lines between the enlarged EU and its direct neighbours.
As part of this work, BBC Media Action led the consortium of media companies that delivered a three-year project called Media Neighbourhood, which provided training for hundreds of journalists in 17 countries on the outskirts of Europe.
'Reporters taking part in the scheme attended study tours to the EU in Brussels during which they were able to interview top EU policy makers in the European Commission and the European Parliament.'
EU referendum bias row after EU pays BBC charity
| link to this comment |
MikeP: But you still havn't answered the question I asked of you or Nick or anyone else - where is the actual evidence of BBC bias?
Trevor J harris came up with 'You only have to watch the One Show to see their left wing bias.'
Nick came up with 'You say you need evidence. well, just watch it. And there are huge numbers of commentators on the internet now saying the same thing about the lefty bias. '
You've said:
'Many programmes from the BBC, and others, have a left-wards bias.'
'but you only have to watch the reaction of Dimbleby and a significant section of the audience to know there is a clear bias - especially if a Tory minister or a UKIP person makes a statement that is, to them, perfectly valid but not liked by the audience.Then compare that with the reaction to a Labour politician's statement and the audiences' reaction to them.'
'I suspect your are ignoring the majority view. '
'You are clearly biased against the centre and right views. '
'It *is* about opinions. Learn to accept that many people do not agree with you. '
The only actual piece of evidence offered (I'll ignore the supposed EU payoff, because that's deluded) is a possible perception that the Question Time audience is biased. But that assumes that the audience selected is deliberately biased against the Tories (is there any evidence that's true?). Of course they just might not like what the politician has to say - which would seem to be just as likely.
The rest of it simply treast a statement of someone's opinion/perception as fact or appealing to the authority of the internet. And apparently no further discussion.....
| link to this comment |
Keith: Looking at your location, your only 27km from Winter Hill. If your signal is breaking up, it could be due to too high a signal level. You've had two boosters, etc, but you've never told us what the signal strength is. So what is the signal strength?
| link to this comment |
Wednesday 17 February 2016 4:32PM
Jill Matthews.: How can I put this......this website has nothing, zero, ziltch, nada to do with True Entertainment. Which should be pretty clear .
So if your expecting a reply from UkFree.TV about anything on this channel, you'll be waiting a while.