Nick Watt, Rayner and total bias

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Nick Watt, Rayner and total bias

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

orpingtoneagle Orpington 21 Apr 24 9.06am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger As has been said before. The BBC may well have a charter of neutrality, but it is skewed by the bias of its employees. Your bias makes you see neutral where there is bias. The BBC's idea of neutral might well be different to someone else's. One simply cannot apply the concept of bias without applying it to ones self and to question what 'neutral' really means. My God I find myself agreeing with you! Any organisation will display bias based on its employees or even an employee. I have seen examples when the whole culture has changed when the person at the top does. But this is all distraction politics, which is big atbtbe moment. Let's talk about Angela Rayner (when the MP who has reported her to the press continually wants to and yet never says why her reported her.) Let's focus in London on anything but ULEZ despite it having a massive financial cost to anyone in the expanded zone. Let's listen on both sides to politicians promising to 'scrap,' legislation that does not exist. If we create enough made up things to worry the people they might not see the mess we are really in.
Alert a moderator to this post

orpingtoneagle

Orpington 21 Apr 24 9.06am

Send a Private Message to orpingtoneagle

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

As has been said before. The BBC may well have a charter of neutrality, but it is skewed by the bias of its employees.

Your bias makes you see neutral where there is bias. The BBC's idea of neutral might well be different to someone else's.

One simply cannot apply the concept of bias without applying it to ones self and to question what 'neutral' really means.

My God I find myself agreeing with you!

Any organisation will display bias based on its employees or even an employee. I have seen examples when the whole culture has changed when the person at the top does.

But this is all distraction politics, which is big atbtbe moment. Let's talk about Angela Rayner (when the MP who has reported her to the press continually wants to and yet never says why her reported her.) Let's focus in London on anything but ULEZ despite it having a massive financial cost to anyone in the expanded zone. Let's listen on both sides to politicians promising to 'scrap,' legislation that does not exist.

If we create enough made up things to worry the people they might not see the mess we are really in.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 21 Apr 24 9.07am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle From all I see the BBC doesn’t respond to pressure. It stands firm, so any observations are likely to be objective and factual rather than threatening. If then they are accepted as valid and acted upon that’s the BBC taking their own decision. It’s noticeable that the BBC will often say in a report that the person/organisation being discussed has been approached for their reaction. I don’t see anything unusual here at all. Move along. Nothing to see here. As usual.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Apr 24 9.07am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

From all I see the BBC doesn’t respond to pressure. It stands firm, so any observations are likely to be objective and factual rather than threatening. If then they are accepted as valid and acted upon that’s the BBC taking their own decision.

It’s noticeable that the BBC will often say in a report that the person/organisation being discussed has been approached for their reaction. I don’t see anything unusual here at all.

Move along. Nothing to see here. As usual.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Apr 24 9.11am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger As has been said before. The BBC may well have a charter of neutrality, but it is skewed by the bias of its employees. Your bias makes you see neutral where there is bias. The BBC's idea of neutral might well be different to someone else's. One simply cannot apply the concept of bias without applying it to ones self and to question what 'neutral' really means. Is this a breakthrough? The bias of any professional journalist is irrelevant. It’s the culture of the organisation who they work for and the editorial oversight which is. As I have said before I have a friend who wrote for the Mail but was quite far left in his personal politics. Which I don’t believe is so unusual but it did not interfere with his ability to do his job. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Apr 24 9.11am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

As has been said before. The BBC may well have a charter of neutrality, but it is skewed by the bias of its employees.

Your bias makes you see neutral where there is bias. The BBC's idea of neutral might well be different to someone else's.

One simply cannot apply the concept of bias without applying it to ones self and to question what 'neutral' really means.

Is this a breakthrough?

The bias of any professional journalist is irrelevant. It’s the culture of the organisation who they work for and the editorial oversight which is.

As I have said before I have a friend who wrote for the Mail but was quite far left in his personal politics. Which I don’t believe is so unusual but it did not interfere with his ability to do his job.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Apr 24 9.28am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Move along. Nothing to see here. As usual. Oh there are things to see, which are indeed usual. Just not the things that the right wing press want you to see. What’s to be seen is the right wing press continuing their relentless assault on the BBC with the ultimate aim of seeing it emasculated. No prizes for guessing why they might want that. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Apr 24 9.28am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Move along. Nothing to see here. As usual.

Oh there are things to see, which are indeed usual. Just not the things that the right wing press want you to see. What’s to be seen is the right wing press continuing their relentless assault on the BBC with the ultimate aim of seeing it emasculated. No prizes for guessing why they might want that.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 21 Apr 24 10.30am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Is this a breakthrough? The bias of any professional journalist is irrelevant. It’s the culture of the organisation who they work for and the editorial oversight which is. As I have said before I have a friend who wrote for the Mail but was quite far left in his personal politics. Which I don’t believe is so unusual but it did not interfere with his ability to do his job. Why didn't he get a job at the Morning Star or the Guardian, or the BBC?
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

21 Apr 24 10.30am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Is this a breakthrough?

The bias of any professional journalist is irrelevant. It’s the culture of the organisation who they work for and the editorial oversight which is.

Why didn't he get a job at the Morning Star or the Guardian, or the BBC?

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 24 10.30am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Is this a breakthrough? The bias of any professional journalist is irrelevant. It’s the culture of the organisation who they work for and the editorial oversight which is. As I have said before I have a friend who wrote for the Mail but was quite far left in his personal politics. Which I don’t believe is so unusual but it did not interfere with his ability to do his job. It clearly isn't. There has to be bias at every stage of journalism. What comes from the top is not necessarily what we see. Murdoch owns SKY. There can't be a more 'progressive' network. His influence is non existent. At the BBC, it is little different in practice. The only difference is that The BBC has the pretence of a public duty to uphold neutrality, which is clearly impossible in the real world.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

21 Apr 24 10.30am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Is this a breakthrough?

The bias of any professional journalist is irrelevant. It’s the culture of the organisation who they work for and the editorial oversight which is.

It clearly isn't. There has to be bias at every stage of journalism. What comes from the top is not necessarily what we see.

Murdoch owns SKY. There can't be a more 'progressive' network.
His influence is non existent.
At the BBC, it is little different in practice. The only difference is that The BBC has the pretence of a public duty to uphold neutrality, which is clearly impossible in the real world.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 21 Apr 24 11.05am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger It clearly isn't. There has to be bias at every stage of journalism. What comes from the top is not necessarily what we see. Murdoch owns SKY. There can't be a more 'progressive' network. His influence is non existent. At the BBC, it is little different in practice. The only difference is that The BBC has the pretence of a public duty to uphold neutrality, which is clearly impossible in the real world. Murdoch sold Sky it is now owned by Comcast so perhaps that is why it is now woke? One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 21 Apr 24 11.05am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It clearly isn't. There has to be bias at every stage of journalism. What comes from the top is not necessarily what we see.

Murdoch sold Sky it is now owned by Comcast so perhaps that is why it is now woke?

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 24 12.11pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Murdoch sold Sky it is now owned by Comcast so perhaps that is why it is now woke? Yes. Was Sky ever right wing? No.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

21 Apr 24 12.11pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Murdoch sold Sky it is now owned by Comcast so perhaps that is why it is now woke?

Yes. Was Sky ever right wing? No.

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 21 Apr 24 12.59pm
Originally posted by orpingtoneagle My God I find myself agreeing with you! Any organisation will display bias based on its employees or even an employee. I have seen examples when the whole culture has changed when the person at the top does. But this is all distraction politics, which is big atbtbe moment. Let's talk about Angela Rayner (when the MP who has reported her to the press continually wants to and yet never says why her reported her.) Let's focus in London on anything but ULEZ despite it having a massive financial cost to anyone in the expanded zone. Let's listen on both sides to politicians promising to 'scrap,' legislation that does not exist. If we create enough made up things to worry the people they might not see the mess we are really in. Have you complained to the mayor about ULEZ? Presumably you didn't mind until you came into the payment area Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 21 Apr 24 12.59pm

Originally posted by orpingtoneagle

My God I find myself agreeing with you!

Any organisation will display bias based on its employees or even an employee. I have seen examples when the whole culture has changed when the person at the top does.

If we create enough made up things to worry the people they might not see the mess we are really in.

Have you complained to the mayor about ULEZ? Presumably you didn't mind until you came into the payment area

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 21 Apr 24 1.00pm
Originally posted by georgenorman Why didn't he get a job at the Morning Star or the Guardian, or the BBC? Why do you engage with that generic tosh? Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 21 Apr 24 1.00pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

Why didn't he get a job at the Morning Star or the Guardian, or the BBC?

Why do you engage with that generic tosh?

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 21 Apr 24 1.03pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger As has been said before. The BBC may well have a charter of neutrality, but it is skewed by the bias of its employees. Your bias makes you see neutral where there is bias. The BBC's idea of neutral might well be different to someone else's. One simply cannot apply the concept of bias without applying it to ones self and to question what 'neutral' really means. You're perhaps assuming you are engaging with someone who may not think their opinions are facts and any disagreement is caused by stupidity. Have fun Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 21 Apr 24 1.03pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

As has been said before. The BBC may well have a charter of neutrality, but it is skewed by the bias of its employees.

Your bias makes you see neutral where there is bias. The BBC's idea of neutral might well be different to someone else's.

One simply cannot apply the concept of bias without applying it to ones self and to question what 'neutral' really means.

You're perhaps assuming you are engaging with someone who may not think their opinions are facts and any disagreement is caused by stupidity.

Have fun

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 21 Apr 24 1.10pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Oh there are things to see, which are indeed usual. Just not the things that the right wing press want you to see. What’s to be seen is the right wing press continuing their relentless assault on the BBC with the ultimate aim of seeing it emasculated. No prizes for guessing why they might want that. The right-wing press which is staffed by left-wing journalists? Perhaps they ought to develop more of a conscience. Never mind At least the BBC still produces the laugh riot which is Mrs. Brown's Boys.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Apr 24 1.10pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The right-wing press which is staffed by left-wing journalists? Perhaps they ought to develop more of a conscience.
Never mind At least the BBC still produces the laugh riot which is Mrs. Brown's Boys.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Nick Watt, Rayner and total bias

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors