{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/14/2015 5:48:24 PM
36
-
If anything I thought they were biased against Islam, having read and watched their reporting on issues in the UK over Islam.
-
They all work together without even knowing it.
-
They're biased about everything, but I agree, it's sickening the way they vilify Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslims.
-
I feel like you have no idea what you're talking about. Anyone who has seen any of the BBC would know they don't do that at all.
-
Edited by NeXuS: 1/14/2015 8:10:43 PM[quote]I feel like you have no idea what you're talking about. Anyone who has seen any of the BBC would know they don't do that at all.[/quote] Lol. The BBC are constantly hammering on about "Muslims this", and "Muslims that", and almost always follow on and associate the Islamic faith with terrorists. It happens all the time. It's part of the "war against terrorism" (or war against Islam) shite. Why do you think parties like UKIP are making a big comeback? Because the ignorant masses eagerly swallow the shite. If the BBC are covering it, you can bet there's an ulterior motive.
-
Nice one m8 that showed me alright.
-
Read the edit. :)
-
Can you give a solid example of what you're talking about?
-
Edited by NeXuS: 1/14/2015 8:23:42 PMhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/194960.stm One example, "Islamic terrorist threat". Why even say Islam? Why not just say "terrorist threat"? Headlines that's why. Fear mongering. Associating Islam with terrorism (subconsciously). Now if you search for terrorist related subjects on the BBC website, you almost always find that the subject matter of the article involves "Islam".
-
They say Islamic terrorist threat as the report they were talking about was about such. This was not a BBC opinion piece. And more, it's from 1998, I mean if you have to dig that far and still your point remains unproven... Islam and terrorism have become linked not because of BBC articles but because the majority of terrorism (or at least mainstream terrorism) is committed by Muslims. It would be wrong for the BBC to not to report this.
-
Edited by NeXuS: 1/14/2015 8:29:40 PMNo you miss my point. It's a subconscious association. It's irrelevant what faith the terrorist belongs to, why? Well, when it's a Christian, on a rampage, shouting from the rooftops that God told them to do it, they call him or her a crazed christian (rarely do they even say "Christian"), or something similar. They [u]don't[/u] call the perpetrator a [u]Christian terrorist[/u]. However, when it's an individual who happens to be Muslim, they take every opportunity to report it as an "Islamic terrorist". If you do as I say, and search through the archives, almost every terrorist related article has a direct association with the Islamic faith.
-
What was the last event in the UK that could be regarded as Christian terrorism? I mean the IRA are often considered religious extremists but their nationalism is more their thing.
-
Edited by NeXuS: 1/14/2015 8:50:38 PMThe BBC report worldwide, and as such, their broadcasts and articles are not restricted to the UK. Now, a prime example of bias, would be the reporting on "Anders Behring Breivik". Anders was a Christian, but not once was he labeled as a "Christian Terrorist", he was instead labeled as a "Christian Fundamentalist", this is my point. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Why do the BBC insist on associating terrorist actions with Muslims? It would be more appropriate to call the perpetrators "Islamic Fundamentalists". The BBC go out of their way to make a rather large deal of someone's faith, when they are not Christian. It's all in the wording. If you see "terrorist" and "Muslim" in the same article, consistently over many articles, people start associating the two directly. The IRA are Christian terrorists, but also Christian freedom fighters, depending on which side of the fence one is standing.
-
Sure that might be an issue, but it certainly isn't a conscious decision by the BBC. All across media this is how it is seen, to pin the blame on a bias of the BBC seems narrow. They are regarded as one of the more unbiased news sources in the UK and those who believe they have a bias often attribute a left wing stance nonetheless.
-
Edited by NeXuS: 1/14/2015 8:56:53 PMI disagree completely. One other prime example was the Scottish referendum. The BBC were overwhelmingly biased in favour of the Union, and as a result, they consistently gave unionist based articles more airtime and coverage. Into the bargain, they consistently propagated false statistics. A large proportion of English citizens now believe that England subsidises Scotland. It's false on so many levels. Just to note, I was in favour of the Union, but the "facts" the BBC were dishing out, were laughable.
-
I can't really argue for the Scottish referendum as I watched the Channel 4 coverage (although the BBC coverage on the night itself seemed impartial) but why would you disagree with that first point? Why hold a bias of the BBC responsible for something across the media?
-
Edited by NeXuS: 1/14/2015 9:14:13 PMThe BBC are the largest media broadcaster in the UK, and as such have a larger responsibility to remain impartial. They don't remain impartial, and people are now starting to realise this, thanks again, to the media coverage of the referendum. There are many instances of bias, another of which is the way they portray the TTIP (they see it as a positive venture), when all the evidence shows that the subject is very harmful. The BBC are the mouthpiece for whichever government is currently sitting in Westminster. Throw in the coverage of fracking, and the bias is even more apparent. The entire referendum, I had to look outside the UK for actual facts and statistics. RT were fantastic in their reporting of the entire charade, but they were silenced in the UK, and threatened with removal thanks to their impartial coverage. Don't misunderstand me though, I deem the majority of the media outlets in the UK as biased. They all have ulterior motives these days. The truth is an inconvenience.
-
The BBC tends to have a slight bias to current government but that's generally a given. Despite that, it's still considered the most impartial in the UK. We have to be realistic with expectations.
-
Edited by NeXuS: 1/14/2015 9:18:27 PM[quote]The BBC tends to have a slight bias to current government but that's generally a given. Despite that, it's still considered the most impartial in the UK. We have to be realistic with expectations.[/quote] Slight* - I would say *massive* bias towards the current government. The media of today, is overwhelmingly untrustworthy. So much so, that I've stopped watching it.
-
Surely that's your issue with the media in general more than the BBC in particular. The media is a necessary evil to be aware of things going on nonetheless, just have to try and see the wood from the trees.
-
BBC have much more to gain from being bias. In actual fact, their reliance on government opinion was highlighted during the referendum, when it was disclosed that the BBC funding was under fire, should they portray the current government in a negative light (particularly during the referendum), hence the majority of airtime being handed to pro-Union pieces. Into the bargain, the renewal for the BBC's funding charter happens to be next year. I cannot wait till the BBC's licence fee is removed. I hate the BBC, and in this day and age, with much better subscription services available, I rarely even watch the BBC channels. Hell, I don't [u]want[/u] the option to watch them, but the BBC is forcing me to pay for the opportunity.
-
The licence fee is a different issue. In terms of actual bias the facts remain that the BBC is still more impartial than most other mainstream news.
-
Edited by NeXuS: 1/14/2015 9:51:00 PMYou keep saying that it's considered the most impartial, but I'd like to see the statistics to back the claim. I'm not sure about England, but I know in Scotland, everyone is accepting the stark reality that the BBC are biased. Largely thanks to the portrayal of Scots as being subsidy junkies, and the BBC's stance on things like TTIP. The majority of Scotland want the Tories out of power, but most broadcasts portray them in a positive light. If you can't see the direct correlation between BBC license fee, and BBC* news bias, I'm not sure we'll ever see eye to eye on the subject. Lack of funding, or massive changes to the way funding is received would have a direct impact on the newscast arm of the BBC. This is precisely the reason for the BBC's incessant need to pander to whichever government is in power.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/03/bbc-left-right-poll This is one poll of quite a few that usually come to similar results. http://themediablog.typepad.com/.a/6a011570c131b2970c0134802d15d8970c-pi Another survey with some of the other channels included.
-
I do love these types of surveys, in fact I find them all rather amusing. They survey around 2,000 people in a country of close to 70 million, and expect us to believe it as as fact. I do not rate these numbers. If you showed me a survey consisting of a few million, I might give it more attention. I love the headline, "majority of Tory voters see the BBC as bias" - with a poll conducted involving less than 2000 people. Amusing.
