Does the BBC have a Pro-EU Bias?

[WiseOwl182]

This is funny... you're the referee who is making his own rules up.

 

In which case can I have a tenner on a home win please?

 

I am the referee because this is my study with my methodology.

 

It's almost like some people are afraid to see the results. As I said, it's early days yet and I could be proven wrong. Why not just see how it pans out?

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 22:12 ----------

 

Jeez, have never seen so many naive, muddled and bat-crazy posts in my life! Just go to "biased BBC" site , it's not bloody Rocket Science !

 

I've been there. It's a bit muddled. I prefer some stats. I will continue to update this thread until the day of the EU referendum.

[ECCOnoob]

You're not playing the game. I could quite easily Google out dozens of pro-EU stories and we could play at making it 25-20 or whatever. That's not the point.

 

The referendum campaign officially started this week. The leading news homepage is what millions of people see. The peak times for reading news are lunchtime and evening. That is my methodology. This is where the BBC will have its influence. Let's see how it plays out.

 

So far: 3-0.

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 22:07 ----------

 

 

 

If a story is about, say, a letter (written at taxpayer's expense by No.10, incidentally) being signed by a minority of business leaders warning of job losses, would you say the headline "EU exit puts jobs at risk" is not giving an angle on the story? They could equally infer the headline "Majority of business leaders not worried about EU exit", but they didn't.

 

Of course they didn't because that's no as appealing as a headline. Its the whole point of them - grab your attention.

 

However, they have mentioned it in the second paragraph of the story and provided quotation comments from those both signing and refusing to sign the letter. That's the balance we are talking about.

 

A newspaper or a more biased network such as fox would, as we all know, choose to forget to mention those parts and merely push the headline grabbing points.

[WiseOwl182]

Of course they didn't because that's no as appealing as a headline. Its the whole point of them - grab your attention.

 

However, they have mentioned it in the second paragraph of the story and provided quotation comments from those both signing and refusing to sign the letter. That's the balance we are talking about.

 

A newspaper or a more biased network such as fox would, as we all know, choose to forget to mention those parts and merely push the headline grabbing points.

 

 

Eye catching headlines are not in the remit of the BBC. Impartial reporting is.

[ECCOnoob]

Jeez, have never seen so many naive, muddled and bat-crazy posts in my life! Just go to "biased BBC" site , it's not bloody Rocket Science !

 

Why???

 

Its only a collection of OPINIONS and about as valid an argument as comments on here.

 

You getting commission from it or something?

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 22:18 ----------

 

Eye catching headlines are not in the remit of the BBC. Impartial reporting is.

 

The reporting is impartial. That's why they quote BOTH sides in the content and provide the BALANCE in the second paragraph.

 

There is nothing to stop the BBC having a headline. Its not false or misleading. SOME of those people said it.

 

You are muddling issues up. A headline is just that. Its the CONTENT that's impartial.

 

The BBC has to get your attention just as much as any media source. Why do you think they have fancy graphics and videos and multi-media sources.

 

They still need to attract viewers, listeners and web traffic. If some grey suited bloke sat in front of a MDF desk in front of a poo brown backdrop it would hardly get us tuning in would it.

[chalga]

Jeez, have never seen so many naive, muddled and bat-crazy posts in my life! Just go to "biased BBC" site , it's not bloody Rocket Science !

 

Sorry,I can only go to sites that the BBC have told me to go to............I'm not able to think for myself.

[Magilla]

Jeez, have never seen so many naive, muddled and bat-crazy posts in my life! Just go to "biased BBC" site , it's not bloody Rocket Science !

 

You mean the biased "biased BBC" site. Lol

[ANGELFIRE1]

I watched the Daily Politics at 12 on Beeb 2 yesterday and have to say I thought it was absolutely pro EU biased.

 

Angel1.

[sgtkate]

I'd would say that the BBC has a slight pro-government bias, regardless of who is in power. So they won't bite off the hand that feeds them. As the government is 'officially' pro-EU (or is it? I'm not sure if the government actually has an official position beyond that of the PM...) then I would assume that the BBC would follow that agenda. I've not seen any specific evidence of bias either way, but then again I rarely watch BBC news.

[EUCLID 11]

A member of the BBC news team has resigned and gone over to ITV for reasons of bias. Not just EU related but VERY anti Labour and Jeremy Corbyn. Just watching question Time bears the accusations out. The Beeb is very right wing, and it shouldnt be. All we want is a news service, not a collection of opinions. Leave propaganda to the Murdoch media. At least we know where he stands, he doesnt pretend to be impartial.

I personally feel safer inside the EU. They have championed human rights issues where our Conservative led government seems hell bent on getting rid of all rights of representation and appeal.

[tzijlstra]

I think it's more a case of conformation bias. I remember seeing the headlines from IDS who suggested that if we stayed in the EU it could make a terrorist attack more likely.

 

This. And if anything, the BBC is doing a crappy job conveying what the EU is actually about.