Unless of course you count modern Panorama programs, in which case it’s biased against people with an IQ over 80.

Matt Frei slavishly flirting with George Bush a week ago is another good example.

The difference is, leftists get angry at such BBC coverage but aren’t obsessed about it to turn it into a conspiracy theory.

Clearly, other people have too much time on their hands.

Back in the land of logic, what about the neocons who get an easy ride on Radio 5 programmes? In fact, what about Radio 5 full stop, from its ranting right-wing morons given airtime on the morning phone in to Peter Allen in the evening giving the benefit of the doubt to every establishment figure who comes across his path?

The BBC is essentially biased in favour of the establishment, end of story and since the establishment is currently reactionary, authoritarian and right wing, so is the BBC. Hence the unargued truths that underpin a lot of its output – British troops are always a force for good, even in a bad cause, there’s no problem that can’t be tackled by legislation, people want reassurance rather than explanation and powerful people’s words are worth more just because they’re powerful people’s words (example: the Heathrow climate change camp where the frame was ‘camp full of dirty hippies’ followed by asking a politician why the dirty hippies were wrong).

Sadly there’s not a lot left to learn from the shell of a once great country across the Atlantic, apart from how to spot pathetic propaganda and an awful lesson on why you should never let go of your country. My grandfather’s generation in Ireland looked west to the US for the future. Seventy years later, we’re looking south and east.

…Of course, just because some members of BBC staff say there is a bias doesn’t mean there is one. At the same time, just because others deny that there is a bias doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

I consider that there is a statist bias (e.g. <a href=”http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2008/02/20/hes-at-it-again/#comment-3007″Link), a socially liberal bias (Biased BBC is full of examples).

Even absent those considerations, I would still oppose the BBC because I disagree with having to pay a £100 per year subscription fee for the privilege of having your TV sets broadcast the transmissions that you do not wish to watch.

Several actually. The report on BBC impartiality has been twisted out of context.
See mroe on BBC bias here:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1383

Secondly, just because one or two reporters say think there is a bias doesn’t mean its true for everyone. Note, those who accuse it of bias are BBC staff, so clearly they’re right wing. And Andrew Marr was political editor. Now we have Robinson, who was previously head of the Young Conservatives. Is that too left wing for you?

If a BBC staffer said its economics coverage was too right-wing, would you take their generalisation at face value or accept its a stupid generalisation to make for 1000s of producers?

I bet he does. Doesn’t mean its not a rare example of the truth slipping out, though, does it?

I’m not sure going by quotes, one that I think Andrew Marr deeply regrets, and the other from Jeff Randall who continues to work for the BBC but is about as openly a right-wing individual as the corporation has ever employed, apart from perhaps Andrew Neil, is the way to go about damning the corporation.

If only it was cjcjc! That way it would be less likely to support knee-jerk legislation against perfectly legally created pornography. It is not the “liberal” bias that I find so troublesome about the BBC but the other ideologies that get sneaked in under that label, including authoritarian feminist and socialist ideology that get far more of an airing than they deserve.

It has, like cjcjc says, a culturally liberal bias (http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ covers this well) and also a pro-big state bias (Biased BBC doesn’t cover this so well).

http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/

I see it’s brought to us by those lovely types at ConservativeHome. Probably looking for funds for another shot at toppling Auntie, because 18 Doughty Street came so close.

;o)

Sorry, I’m just being a bitch. 18DS was essential viewing if you had a plastic plant fetish. Ooops, there I go again. LCTV can’t be far away, can it? Sunny?

(Samuel Coates? Surely not the Sam Coates who writes for the Times?)

(I know it’s from the Mail, but I assume he did actually say it.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Complete nonsense.

Jeff Randall, former BBC Business Editor, in The Observer, Jan 15th, 2006

http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/