6 ms·

This is worrying as the BBC is supposed to be impartial and yet seems to be moving rightwards. There would seem to be a pattern of events: Richard Sharp made a

This is worrying as the BBC is supposed to be impartial and yet seems to be moving rightwards. There would seem to be a pattern of events: Richard Sharp made a loan to Boris Johnson and then was made the Chair of the BBC which has been described as "an error of judgement". More recently, there's been the criticism of Gary Lineker for calling out the Home Office's use of language (he compared it to Nazi Germany). There certainly seems to be a trend of the right-wing not allowing freedom of speech or criticism of their more toxic policies and lies.

dontlaugh 4y ago
There’s been a clear right wing shift since around the Iraq war. It’s only gotten worse under the Tories, with party members in senior positions.
- gadders 4y ago
  The Iraq Was was started by a Labour government, and from what I remember the BBC seemed to be very against it.
  - dontlaugh 4y ago
    Yes, that's why the BBC was then subjugated more directly to state control. New Labour was a centre-right party, just like Labour today.
    - gadders 4y ago
      Sadly so is the Tory party.
      - dontlaugh 4y ago
        I’d say they’re still to the right of this New New Labour.
jjbinx007 4y ago
And don't forget the BBC's political editor exclaimed incredulously "that's quite a charge!" when a politician said that the former PM Boris Johnson has told lies in the past. BBC often prides itself of having "both sides" of an argument in a debate (as if there are only 2 sides). Not all subjects need to a counter point of view. For example, if the BBC produce a document about black holes I don't to hear from a flat earther who denies gravity exists.
- BrianHenryIE 4y ago
  Dara Ó Briain has a great skit on that (about a minute in, again at 4:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE
gadders 4y ago
BBC presenters are supposed to be politically neutral, so Lineker was right to be criticised (quite apart from the fact he was talking rubbish). The ex-director general of the BBC Mark Thompson joined that hotbed of right wing activism, the New York Times. You also have ex-Labour minister James Purnell who had a senior role in the BBC. Frankly if you think the BBC is anything other than the broadcast media wing of the Guardian you are severely deluded.
- KineticLensman 4y ago
  > Frankly if you think the BBC is anything other than the broadcast media wing of the Guardian you are severely deluded. The extensive airtime given to Nigel Farage on BBC Question Time (> 30 appearances) contradicts this statement.
  - Veen 4y ago
    Of the nine people who have appeared on Question Time most often, two might be considered right-wing: Farage and Ken Clarke. The remainder are Labour or Lib Dem MPs: Shirley Williams, Menzies Campbell, Harriet Harman, Charles Kennedy, Clare Short, Paddy Ashdown, and Roy Hattersley. Of these, Farage is the only Brexiteer; Clarke is a right-wing Remainer. Just this year, it has featured the following left-wing politicians and journalists: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Bridget Phillipson, Ash Sarkar (a libertarian communist), Wes Streeting, Tracy Brabin, Jenny Gilruth, Ian Murray, India Willoughby, Lisa Nandy, Stephen Kinnock, Thangam Debbonaire, and Sarah Jones. I think perhaps your issue is with right-wing people getting any airtime at all.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      What's your view on this: https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/an-open-letter-to-the-bbc/ https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/an-open-letter-to-th... particularly: "there is a clear and well-evidenced bias toward panellists from right-leaning media organisations"
  - lamp987 4y ago
    The number is meaningless without comparison to others.
misssocrates 4y ago
Can you think of any ways in which the BBC moved leftwards in recent years? And is it bad for them to adjust in either direction to orient toward neutrality?
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  Nothing springs to mind. I don't want them to be adjusting their position one way or another politically - I want them to be reporting and investigating facts as far as possible without using loaded language. However, I do have an axe to grind against the BBC as they are institutionally anti-cyclist and I've made many complaints to them over their cycling/active transport coverage. Usually they sit on the complaint for weeks/months and then adjust the original article which no-one will ever see as it's then too old.
- beardyw 4y ago
  Well if we take Gary Lineker's comments, would it have been right for the BBC to move closer to their philosophy?
Veen 4y ago
The Guardian article is misleading to the point of dishonesty. The episode that isn't being broadcast was not intended to be broadcast because it isn't part of the Wild Isles series. It's a companion documentary commissioned by the RSPB and the WWF. And for all the good both these charities do, the BBC should not be broadcasting programs made by what are, in effect, political lobbying organizations (and I say that as someone who agrees with their aims). Look at the last paragraph in the article, where they've put the real reason it isn't being broadcast. Lineker compared the Home Secretary to the Nazis. He's entitled to his personal opinions, but he's a very prominent and massively over-paid BBC employee, so he should know better than to air his views on Twitter.
- beardyw 4y ago
  > The episode that isn't being broadcast was not intended to be broadcast because it isn't part of the Wild Isles series. Apart from the statement by the BBC spokesman do you have any evidence of that?
  - jrex 4y ago
    The WWF have confirmed that it is a complementary documentary. (https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634230395037204482?s=61&t=ZgE1VbL7HoKxgex12KflNA https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634230395037204482?s=61&t...). Google shows that Wild Isles has always been referred to as being in five parts.
- Steven420 4y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. The last paragraph offers some much needed context. This article is just anti right wing propaganda
marcusverus 4y ago
The home office released this milquetoast video about stopping illegal immigration. Watch it. It's only a minute long.[0] Gary Lineker, who presents on the BBC, responded with hysterical comment "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s'". Tim Davie, a director at the BBC, said "If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC." If this is the BBC "moving right", it's hard to imagine that such a change is a bad thing. [0] https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992 https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  Well, I certainly don't agree with Braverman's words there at all. If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal. It's not possible to apply for asylum from outside of the UK, so they can only apply once they hit our shores and yet Braverman is branding them all as "illegal"? The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration. Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    It's all well and good to disagree with the policy, or the choice of the word "illegal". Had Gary Lineker done so, we wouldn't have heard a peep. But he called it Nazi rhetoric, which is hysterical, divisive and harmful to the public discourse. > If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal. Intentionally circumventing legal entry points when entering a given country is generally illegal. > It's not possible to apply for asylum from outside of the UK, so they can only apply once they hit our shores and yet Braverman is branding them all as "illegal"? The UK doesn't grant asylum to people who travel to the UK through a 'safe third country'[0]. Why would sneaking across the channel be made any less illegal by making an invalid asylum claim? > The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration. Tories were elected to implement immigration reform. What makes it toxic? > Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK. The Tories are in power and this issue matters to their constituents. Waving it off as a "dog whistle" assumes bad faith which is, in my experience, a poor substitute for understanding the other side's arguments. Also, "It's not that big of a problem" is an odd formulation. You acknowledge that there's a problem, but don't want it solved? Help me understand this mindset. [0]https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

dontlaugh 4y ago

There’s been a clear right wing shift since around the Iraq war. It’s only gotten worse under the Tories, with party members in senior positions.

gadders 4y ago
The Iraq Was was started by a Labour government, and from what I remember the BBC seemed to be very against it.
- dontlaugh 4y ago
  Yes, that's why the BBC was then subjugated more directly to state control. New Labour was a centre-right party, just like Labour today.
  - gadders 4y ago
    Sadly so is the Tory party.
    - dontlaugh 4y ago
      I’d say they’re still to the right of this New New Labour.

jjbinx007 4y ago

And don't forget the BBC's political editor exclaimed incredulously "that's quite a charge!" when a politician said that the former PM Boris Johnson has told lies in the past. BBC often prides itself of having "both sides" of an argument in a debate (as if there are only 2 sides). Not all subjects need to a counter point of view. For example, if the BBC produce a document about black holes I don't to hear from a flat earther who denies gravity exists.

BrianHenryIE 4y ago
Dara Ó Briain has a great skit on that (about a minute in, again at 4:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE

gadders 4y ago

BBC presenters are supposed to be politically neutral, so Lineker was right to be criticised (quite apart from the fact he was talking rubbish). The ex-director general of the BBC Mark Thompson joined that hotbed of right wing activism, the New York Times. You also have ex-Labour minister James Purnell who had a senior role in the BBC. Frankly if you think the BBC is anything other than the broadcast media wing of the Guardian you are severely deluded.

KineticLensman 4y ago
> Frankly if you think the BBC is anything other than the broadcast media wing of the Guardian you are severely deluded. The extensive airtime given to Nigel Farage on BBC Question Time (> 30 appearances) contradicts this statement.
- Veen 4y ago
  Of the nine people who have appeared on Question Time most often, two might be considered right-wing: Farage and Ken Clarke. The remainder are Labour or Lib Dem MPs: Shirley Williams, Menzies Campbell, Harriet Harman, Charles Kennedy, Clare Short, Paddy Ashdown, and Roy Hattersley. Of these, Farage is the only Brexiteer; Clarke is a right-wing Remainer. Just this year, it has featured the following left-wing politicians and journalists: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Bridget Phillipson, Ash Sarkar (a libertarian communist), Wes Streeting, Tracy Brabin, Jenny Gilruth, Ian Murray, India Willoughby, Lisa Nandy, Stephen Kinnock, Thangam Debbonaire, and Sarah Jones. I think perhaps your issue is with right-wing people getting any airtime at all.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    What's your view on this: https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/an-open-letter-to-the-bbc/ https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/an-open-letter-to-th... particularly: "there is a clear and well-evidenced bias toward panellists from right-leaning media organisations"
- lamp987 4y ago
  The number is meaningless without comparison to others.

misssocrates 4y ago

Can you think of any ways in which the BBC moved leftwards in recent years? And is it bad for them to adjust in either direction to orient toward neutrality?

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
Nothing springs to mind. I don't want them to be adjusting their position one way or another politically - I want them to be reporting and investigating facts as far as possible without using loaded language. However, I do have an axe to grind against the BBC as they are institutionally anti-cyclist and I've made many complaints to them over their cycling/active transport coverage. Usually they sit on the complaint for weeks/months and then adjust the original article which no-one will ever see as it's then too old.
beardyw 4y ago
Well if we take Gary Lineker's comments, would it have been right for the BBC to move closer to their philosophy?

Veen 4y ago

The Guardian article is misleading to the point of dishonesty. The episode that isn't being broadcast was not intended to be broadcast because it isn't part of the Wild Isles series. It's a companion documentary commissioned by the RSPB and the WWF. And for all the good both these charities do, the BBC should not be broadcasting programs made by what are, in effect, political lobbying organizations (and I say that as someone who agrees with their aims). Look at the last paragraph in the article, where they've put the real reason it isn't being broadcast. Lineker compared the Home Secretary to the Nazis. He's entitled to his personal opinions, but he's a very prominent and massively over-paid BBC employee, so he should know better than to air his views on Twitter.

beardyw 4y ago
> The episode that isn't being broadcast was not intended to be broadcast because it isn't part of the Wild Isles series. Apart from the statement by the BBC spokesman do you have any evidence of that?
- jrex 4y ago
  The WWF have confirmed that it is a complementary documentary. (https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634230395037204482?s=61&t=ZgE1VbL7HoKxgex12KflNA https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634230395037204482?s=61&t...). Google shows that Wild Isles has always been referred to as being in five parts.
Steven420 4y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. The last paragraph offers some much needed context. This article is just anti right wing propaganda

marcusverus 4y ago

The home office released this milquetoast video about stopping illegal immigration. Watch it. It's only a minute long.[0] Gary Lineker, who presents on the BBC, responded with hysterical comment "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s'". Tim Davie, a director at the BBC, said "If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC." If this is the BBC "moving right", it's hard to imagine that such a change is a bad thing. [0] https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992 https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
Well, I certainly don't agree with Braverman's words there at all. If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal. It's not possible to apply for asylum from outside of the UK, so they can only apply once they hit our shores and yet Braverman is branding them all as "illegal"? The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration. Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- marcusverus 4y ago
  It's all well and good to disagree with the policy, or the choice of the word "illegal". Had Gary Lineker done so, we wouldn't have heard a peep. But he called it Nazi rhetoric, which is hysterical, divisive and harmful to the public discourse. > If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal. Intentionally circumventing legal entry points when entering a given country is generally illegal. > It's not possible to apply for asylum from outside of the UK, so they can only apply once they hit our shores and yet Braverman is branding them all as "illegal"? The UK doesn't grant asylum to people who travel to the UK through a 'safe third country'[0]. Why would sneaking across the channel be made any less illegal by making an invalid asylum claim? > The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration. Tories were elected to implement immigration reform. What makes it toxic? > Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK. The Tories are in power and this issue matters to their constituents. Waving it off as a "dog whistle" assumes bad faith which is, in my experience, a poor substitute for understanding the other side's arguments. Also, "It's not that big of a problem" is an odd formulation. You acknowledge that there's a problem, but don't want it solved? Help me understand this mindset. [0]https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility