With prescient timing only yesterday this blog was highlighting another example of BBC omission bias, as it pointedly refused to identify as Muslim the inmates at Full Sutton prison who beat and stabbed an officer while holding him hostage for more than four hours. The Daily Wail is giving column inches today to a report into just this behaviour.
When it comes to matters Islamic or immigration related, many people have long argued the BBC’s coverage is outrageously slanted, deliberately taking an editorial line that plays down negatives while heaping focus on any perceived positives. This bias has now been quantified in a report written by Ed West for the New Culture Forum, which concludes that:
In its coverage of the topic of immigration, the BBC has given overwhelmingly greater weight to pro-migration voices, even though they represent a minority – even elitist – viewpoint. And in its coverage of the economic arguments for and against immigration, it has devoted somewhat more space to pro-migration voices. In terms of the social costs, the BBC has almost totally ignored certain areas.
Sure, there’s nothing new under the sun here, it only confirms what we knew. But it does provide evidence from a detailed analysis of the corporations output that will be impossible to deny. Let’s see if the BBC, supposedly its own greatest critic, deigns to report about this.
Autonomous Mind 
B-b-but “impartiality is in our genes” –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/09/impartiality_is_in_our_genes.html
1. Vote UKIP
2. Resurrect the Treason Act.
3. Use all evidence accumulated to display the daily BBC bias and humiliate them.
4. Shut them down.
The BBC is owned by the state. It makes great play of being independent of the government of the day. Therefore it’s a creature of the permanent state, and it should be no surprise that it defends and boosts that institution’s long-term policies: “multiculturalism”, the state monopoly on healthcare, European integration, the centralization of power under the guise of “devolution”, and the superiority of state action over civil society (indeed, the co-option of civil society by the state) in general.
This is the mistake all accusers of bias make. The BBC is not in party politics; its purpose is to bend party politics to the will of the permanent state. Over the period that it’s been in existence, this has more usually coincided with the socialist viewpoint, but not always (for example, European integrationism in the 1970s and ’80s).
Just try posting a comment on any DM article to criticise their own stance on Muslims and Islam….. even referring to the issues as the ‘m-word’ or the i-word’ gets your comment censored! Pot, black, kettle whatever.
“Pot, black, kettle whatever.”
The key difference is you can choose to buy the Daily Mail or not.
But if you want to watch TV, you’re forced to pay for the BBC.
This is one which has been doing my head in of late.
XX Sam Duncan 29/05/2013 at 4:39 pm
The BBC is owned by the state. It makes great play of being independent of the government of the day. XX
Nothing can be independent of a body, organisation, or group, on which it depends for its mere existence. (Spirutually/mentally/physicaly/finacially).
The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation needs disbanding.
FT: I don’t disagree. And that’s rather the point. I think the BBC is quite sincere in its attempts not to be the mouthpiece of the government of the day (although, as we’ve seen, it’s rather less cautious when Labour’s in power) and thus can’t help but become that of, effectively, the permanent Civil Service. Given its status, it must be one or the other; it can’t be truly independent.
XX I think the BBC is quite sincere in its attempts not to be the mouthpiece of the government of the day XX
HEJJ! I was BORN cynical! ;-)
My first words?
“Oh fuck! This is life is it? Hmm looks like its going to bloody snow to me! And then someone will want you to pay to clear it up! BASTARDS!”