o/T I thought BBC news was supposed to be objective?

[KerrAvon]

The 'facts' are the disproportionate number of right wing guests on BBC political programmes compared to left wing. Are you struggling to find them?

(by the way I don't think the BBC is biased one way or another. Just putting a little counter balance to the endless accusations of left wing bias from Auntie. Accusations that of course you're happy to let pass without question... Just Googled right wing bbc bias and the RT article was first up. There's loads of similar, just as there are loads of articles that inform IBS, Grist and Fire. I think the point being that extremists on both the left and right hold the vote that the BBC are biased against them, and endlessly drone on about it...)

You seem to be very confused, raging. You’ve gone from 'The BBC is most certainly biased' in post 2 to 'I don't think the BBC is biased one way or another' in post 8, to 'would you also yawningly accept that the BBC show bias towards the Conservative party with their general political output' in post 15. You complain in the post above about how 'extremists on both the left and right hold the vote [sic] that the BBC are biased against them, and endlessly drone on about it.' and then spend your Saturday evening doing just that.

Do you know what you believe?

I’m sure that there are plenty of articles on the web about right wing BBC bias. I’m sure that are plenty of accusing it of left wing bias too. There are also articles that demonstrate that the moon landings were faked or that the 911 attacks were orchestrated by the US government. The web is truly a dangerous place for those who accept all that they read and suspend all sense of critical thinking when they find something that accords with their view of the world.

As I’ve always said, the fact that political zealots such as gf and you (depending which of your stated positions is the actual one) both find bias in the BBC tells me that they are just about getting it about right. If you hear voices (and that’s not a reference to the smoking of ‘substances’) that are critical of your own version of political ‘truth‘ then that immediately becomes evidence of bias in your minds.

I’m not surprised that the Russia Today came at the top of your google search. Well-funded state propaganda agencies are very good at ensuring that their output is highly ranked on search engines. I am truly embarrassed for you that you can seriously hold out their output as being factual, however. If anything demonstrates the extent to which your political zealotry numbs your mind then it must surely be that.

What do you think of the other ‘facts’ on Russia Today? They of course broke the story about how those poor Russian gym instructors had been unfairly accused of involvement in the Novichok attack, when they had merely travelled to the UK to see the spire on Salisbury cathedral. What do you think of that ‘fact’?

I have to observe that it's particularly ironic that on a day when you take a pop at Grist/Jolly for his Daily Express addiction you are willing to hold Russia Today out as a source of ‘facts’.

The only 'fact' that it is possible to safely take from the Russia Today article is that they publish pro-Corbyn material, but that’s hardly a surprise.

[Exiletyke]

You don't do too badly in the bias stakes Kerr

[KerrAvon]

You don't do too badly in the bias stakes Kerr

If you mean that I hold and express personal opinions about the world and the way it works then of course I do.

What point are you making?

[Exiletyke]

If you mean that I hold and express personal opinions about the world and the way it works then of course I do.

What point are you making?

There's a clue in there ........bias

Every one tends to have it although you do quite a lot to disguise it

Is that clear enough?

Or will we now enter the twilight world of
" show me a link where you can demonstrate where I am biased"

[Gwyther]

Not a lot of reports about the Yellow vests in France is there ?. Weeks of them kicking off and all of a sudden its not worth reporting it seems.

[ragingpup]

You seem to be very confused, raging. You’ve gone from 'The BBC is most certainly biased' in post 2 to 'I don't think the BBC is biased one way or another' in post 8, to 'would you also yawningly accept that the BBC show bias towards the Conservative party with their general political output' in post 15. You complain in the post above about how 'extremists on both the left and right hold the vote [sic] that the BBC are biased against them, and endlessly drone on about it.' and then spend your Saturday evening doing just that.

Do you know what you believe?

I’m sure that there are plenty of articles on the web about right wing BBC bias. I’m sure that are plenty of accusing it of left wing bias too. There are also articles that demonstrate that the moon landings were faked or that the 911 attacks were orchestrated by the US government. The web is truly a dangerous place for those who accept all that they read and suspend all sense of critical thinking when they find something that accords with their view of the world.

As I’ve always said, the fact that political zealots such as gf and you (depending which of your stated positions is the actual one) both find bias in the BBC tells me that they are just about getting it about right. If you hear voices (and that’s not a reference to the smoking of ‘substances’) that are critical of your own version of political ‘truth‘ then that immediately becomes evidence of bias in your minds.

I’m not surprised that the Russia Today came at the top of your google search. Well-funded state propaganda agencies are very good at ensuring that their output is highly ranked on search engines. I am truly embarrassed for you that you can seriously hold out their output as being factual, however. If anything demonstrates the extent to which your political zealotry numbs your mind then it must surely be that.

What do you think of the other ‘facts’ on Russia Today? They of course broke the story about how those poor Russian gym instructors had been unfairly accused of involvement in the Novichok attack, when they had merely travelled to the UK to see the spire on Salisbury cathedral. What do you think of that ‘fact’?

I have to observe that it's particularly ironic that on a day when you take a pop at Grist/Jolly for his Daily Express addiction you are willing to hold Russia Today out as a source of ‘facts’.

The only 'fact' that it is possible to safely take from the Russia Today article is that they publish pro-Corbyn material, but that’s hardly a surprise.

If you read my posts carefully I'm not saying that the BBC overall is biased. I'm saying that I accept Fire's point that the producers of QT seem to have a pro remain bias. But I'm putting forward the fact that the BBC political team that schedule the political discussion shows have a bias also. The rt article is one article that expresses an argument on this, there are loads of others if you're interested. The article offers quite an interesting argument. What's your counter argument if you don't accept it?

Overall, the biases equal out between the shows and I don't think that the BBC overall is biased. That clear enough for ya?

[ragingpup]

As I’ve always said, the fact that political zealots such as gf and you (depending which of your stated positions is the actual one) both find bias in the BBC tells me that they are just about getting it about right.

In what way are you not a political zealot? You spend ages on here expressing the same political views over and over again, all of which are exactly in line with mainstream Conservative policy. No variation from Conservative policy. At all. You are a Conservative party political zealot, just as fire is a far right political zealot and I am a Labour political zealot.

Just accept it and go with the flow you old fool

[ragingpup]

You're doing it again rp

Sorry but I'm intrigued where fire is seeing neo Marxist views

[Exiletyke]

In what way are you not a political zealot? You spend ages on here expressing the same political views over and over again, all of which are exactly in line with mainstream Conservative policy. No variation from Conservative policy. At all. You are a Conservative party political zealot, just as fire is a far right political zealot and I am a Labour political zealot.

Just accept it and go with the flow you old fool

Couldn't have put it better myself
Although I might give it a go later
It's what I meant when I said he does a lot to disguise his bias

[KerrAvon]

If you read my posts carefully I'm not saying that the BBC overall is biased. I'm saying that I accept Fire's point that the producers of QT seem to have a pro remain bias. But I'm putting forward the fact that the BBC political team that schedule the political discussion shows have a bias also. The rt article is one article that expresses an argument on this, there are loads of others if you're interested. The article offers quite an interesting argument. What's your counter argument if you don't accept it?

Overall, the biases equal out between the shows and I don't think that the BBC overall is biased. That clear enough for ya?

So when you said 'the BBC is most certainly biased' you meant 'you don’t think the BBC is biased’. It's perfectly clear that you don't know what you think...

The Russia Today article doesn't express an interesting argument. It is a Russia Today article – a product of Putin's personal propaganda machine. Do you think Russia Today makes an ‘interesting argument’ when it put us ‘facts’ about Russian gym instructors travelling to Salisbury to see the spire on the Cathedral? I‘d really like to know. And how many of your posts are based on Russia Today articles?

The Russia Today piece is only interesting in the sense that it is clearly pro-Corbyn and that you seized upon it in a distinctly Pavlovian manner.