Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
The problem with NI is not so much that they control so much of the media, but that they have proved that they are willing to use that control to further the political beliefs of one man. One man who has been known to change his allegiance seemingly on a whim. Also, like most newspapers, the bias in his publications is overt (yes, I do count the Guardian in that list).
|
The rules on impartiality within the television media remain in place. Fox News UK isn't an option here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
You argue that print is dead, and it may be, but 3 to 4 million people still read the Times and The Sun everyday, and if they are basing their beliefs on what they read (and there is some evidence they do), that can mean the difference between one party winning an election and another.
|
This is a situation replicated worldwide. The Sun is actually the major culprit for this one as far as I'm aware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
That, IMO, is too much power for one man to have over our electoral system.
|
Shorting of restricting the freedom of the press further I'm unsure what can be done here?
The same argument that applies to the BBC, that people watch it because they choose to, applies to The Sun. People buy it because they choose to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
The BBC, while it has it's own political bias (slightly left, I'd say) also has strict rules governing political bias in it's output. Not just self enforced rules, but laws. It's political stance is also not set by one person.
|
It's set by a group of people, who are largely like-minded hence being in those positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
It's also worth remembering that the two primary sources I've seen for complaints about BBC bias (The Mail and News International) have their own agendas that have little to do with BBC bias, and it's entirely possible that they are using the bias claim as a weapon to attack the BBC.
|
Oh I've no doubt they are, which is why I couldn't care less what they say.
These issues are largely issues within the political arena though, these are issues replicated wherever there is some freedom of the press.
---------- Post added at 11:08 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
I thought this was discussed before? The Guardian has a large media section, and is considered a one-stop-shop when it comes to media jobs?
|
Please feel free to ignore the inconvenient parts of the post.
---------- Post added at 11:11 ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I do. That Google search doesn't prove they are 'Guardianistas'.
As for the quotes. Well that's what I said, they have a typically left wing staff but also as I mentioned they are in a large part working in Comedy, Drama and other non-news programming.
It's impossible to have individuals who are unbiased. Just Impossible. Everyone will have political opinions and professions can often tend to be self-selecting. It's true across the creative industries, from which the BBC employs, that it's heavily liberal. It is that to which Marr was referring. This is also true of ITV, Channel 4 and so on. You can't get a balance of left/right opinion in media.
The question is the influence of a editional line of reporting. This is very evident in News International where there is a strict line to which the staff will write too. This is not in place at the BBC News which attempts to be impartial. They do reports to measure the impact their staff's personal bias is reflected in news reports and they do admit it happens. That is a far cry from a institutional attempt to stick to a left wing position.
Also worth noting their Political Editor was a member of the Conservatives when he was younger.
|
I know you're a Guardian reader I'm sure you've mentioned it before. I'm glad you agree that there is bias within the BBC's staff, and that this bias does find its way to news reports.
I don't remember mentioning that there was an institutional bias within the BBC, merely that it has a high proportion of Guardianistas, which you appear to have agreed upon, so it's all good.
Of course it's only bias if it's not what you think
