大象传媒

Good to see that 大象传媒 executives admit that they are biased.

Reading in detail it would appear there is an anti-christian and anti-american agenda.

As most of the people paying for the 大象传媒 are mostly likely neutral on this topic or even pro-christian is there any plan to change?

Or will the 大象传媒 let it reputation go down the toilet?

* this admission is good, sad to see that it appears only on your blog and not on the front pages of the 大象传媒 news - guess the 大象传媒s editors convictions smell of weakness.

Do I get a refund now that it is clear my hard earned money has been misappropriated? I have being paying for a product and have been lied to and decieved.

Can I admit what I have known for years? The Daily Mail has a tendency to be biased on religion and political issues too. In fact, biased on just about everything.

The link to the Daily Mail article is pretty important. Surly it deserves more comment in this section?

Example:

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The 大象传媒 is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Please - Lets see more of your thoughts on this.

Being called "biased" by the Daily Mail is like being called "damp" by the Atlantic Ocean.

Responding to Message 3 (from "Man in a Shed"):

Where is the contradiction in those two statements?

In the earlier one, Andrew Marr is talking about political bias ("biased in favour of the Labour Party"); in the second he expressly denies political bias ("not so much a party-political bias").

There's no contradiction; we live in a liberal society ("liberal" with a small "l") and the 大象传媒 reflects that.

Personally, I read the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail stories (written by different people, but clearly based on the same source) with a great deal of scepticism. This "leak" does not come across as credible.

For example, we have the story of the Deputy Director General (ie, the 大象传媒's number two executive) secretly conspiring with 大象传媒 Radio's Washington Correspondent because "they" (this mysterious "they" which represents the 大象传媒) are anti-American and anti-this, that and the other. Why does the Deputy Director General have to operate in this way? If "they" are not performing correctly, he has the authority to tell "them" to step into line, he doesn't need secret alliances. Much the same could be said about the Helen Boaden reference: she's the Head of News and is therefore in a position to exercise control. Or the Jeff Randall story: he was the Business Editor. Working at editor level, in other words at a level where he can exercise a lot of control over how things are done and how stories are presented. In short, it is these people who represent "the 大象传媒", who are the 大象传媒, not this mysterious "they".

The article also seems to have indulged in considerable editorialising. The way the "Room 101" material is presented smacks very heavily of this. And also the reference to newsreaders' dress code.

I don't doubt that such a meeting took place, but that this is a fair and accurate report of it I think is very unlikely. It should be placed in the same category as the stories that Fiona Bruce has been forbidden from wearing a cross.

What we can take from it, however, is that, at various levels within the 大象传媒 (within the Governors meetings in the case of the Fiona Bruce story, and amongst key 大象传媒 (and ex-大象传媒) personnel in the case of this story), there's a lively debate going on about issues of impartiality and what it means for our present time.

In other words, the 大象传媒 is taking its responsibilities seriously.

I'd like to think our other media 鈥� including the Mail group 鈥� are conducting their own discussions of these issues as well.

Graham (4), John R (7),

1. Since when did the Mail (or any newspaper in this country) claim to be impartial?

2. What would you think if you were required to buy the "Daily Beeb-o-graph" every day or prevented from purchasing any other newspaper?

3. Furthermore, what if the funding available to the B-o-g as a result of its vast circulation, caused it to kill off most of its competitors.

MTK.

There's bound to be a spectrum within an organization the size of the 大象传媒. If there were perfect impartiality across all presenters and programmes, the output would be incredibly dull!

To my mind, the 'anti-American' liberalism, etc, seems to be expressed more on the website and the World Service than on the mainstream broadcasts. For example, the teaching assistant 'veil' employment tribunal was reported as a 'defeat' for the teacher on Radio 4, but the website led with 'victory' for the victimization aspect of the case (but this was changed within an hour or so).

I never understand why people feel sad or surprised when someone who takes exceptionally foolish risks for thrills, notoriety, or some other mental defect winds up getting badly hurt or killed. Such is the case of Richard Hammond. I'm also surprised more people haven't mentioned Steve Irwin. Remember him? He was the "so called" Australian naturalist who was killed while chasing a deadly stingray under water and was stabbed through the heart by it. Speaking of traveling recklessly at very high speed in the wrong vehicle, it would appear that the decision to steer 大象传媒 in the wrong direction down a political dirt road may have finally reached a dead end and its enevitable fate will catch up with it as well. The only question is, once it does, will putting it on life support save it?

As soon as I hear 鈥淒aily Mail鈥� I know that I am not in a serious discussion.

Sad to see the 大象传媒 admit it is anti-christain and left wing?

Can i get a refund on my lincese fee.

People seem to be missing the point by claiming 'yes but the Mail is biased too'. It's allowed to be. The 大象传媒 is a publicly funded company & must always be representative & fair to all types of people - & not just avoid offending those who complain & react the most aggressively. You don't have to offend anyone! just make it less obvious what type of people run the company & what their views are.