大象传媒

how dare the the bbc make our minds
up for us regarding jade goody
I for one will not be giving a penny to red nose day
still you have probably gianed
another millon votes for the bnp

We have already had this debate, 333 bloggers said the 大象传媒 was biased 2 said it was not.
Ms Bowden refused to answer any of the comments, so what is the point of you bringing it up again?, you never, never admit your left wing bias.
The 大象传媒 is the most arrogant, anti-Isreali, anti-Catholic media oulet outside Iran.

And for once please post my comment, it is amazing how you fail to publish comments that don't fit your left wing agenda, shame on the 大象传媒.

I am very unhappy with your report on the United States plan to attack Iran. Here is the link to the article.

What I am most upset about is the audacity you have as a source of news to discuss another country's military plans in too much detail in an articel to the world, which includes Iran. I know you are probably thinking well even if Iran knows this the plan could still work or maybe it will slightly discourage an attack at all. I do not want more war, but it might come down to being neccessary.

Maybe this case is not a big deal, but I am almost sure U.S troops have died somewhere because of someone's abuse of the free press. It can be abused.

Nathan
A dissappointed American

Your blog has no value, and as a licence payer, I don't feel it's salaried time well spent. Please get on with remedying the decline in value of journalism on the 大象传媒 instead of furthering this cult of the individual that so consumes both airtime and webpage.

"Naturally I disagree with Robin on this."

This is a joke, right? I've long ago lost track of the times I've contacted the 大象传媒 with complaints about bias, which - even if I am faithfully promised replies - routinely disappear into a stratosphere from which even a year of persistent phone calls cannot rescue them. (By contrast, a complaint about the cancelling of one episode of "What The Romans Did For Us" got a two page reply within days).

I've even posted many comments here, but have no problems with repeating one persistent complaint, the anti-shooting sports bias of the 大象传媒. In particular, coverage of gun laws always puts the police and govt point of view unchallenged even though all evidence shows them to be wrong.

If you start asking this question, this can only mean that the 大象传媒 IS biased!

So think about this twice before people find out and want to shut you up.

I hadn't heard the latest accusation about 大象传媒 bias but I read your web site tonight when I was about to write and ask if the Guardian social service team had taken over the programming of Radio 4.
On my occasional days of working from home I have listened to Radio 4 for "ever" but the past few months have been increasingly dire with only the occasional highlight. Never have I turned the radio off so frequently. We know there are problems in the world but I for one don't want a continual virtually unbroken diet of grim reports and programmes even the plays and short stories are grim. If you want to discuss and I mean discuss let's have more of the Laurie Taylor type approach.

Just a brief comment. I was listening to radio 4 news at 6pm today and started to think about how one story was reported: the story of Michael Meecher joining the race for the next leader of the labour party. The reporter rallied off a few of his proposals, such as re-nationalising the railways, rising the minimum wage to over seven pounds, putting more resources into renewable energy and checking our partnership with the U.S. The reporter then mentioned that Meecher was "far left" in his views. I beg to differ, I'm sure that if people were asked on the street about these issues, a majority would agree. Even if a questionnaire was contructed and people were asked whether they would be happy to pay a bit more tax if these policies were addressed and cured, a majority would say yes(although I have not conducted a study so I can't tell for definite).

Why are these issues deemed "far left"?

Does not the public have a say? Or is the 大象传媒 sucked into a neoliberal ideology which promotes an agenda promulgated by massive financial institutions and certain academics from places such as Chicago University (to name a few)

The 大象传媒 is funded by the public, why deem publicly minded policies as "far left"?

I argue that what normal people really want is not a "far left" view. The 大象传媒 does a disservice to the majority of people who fund it if they report it in this way

I argue that social policies are not 鈥渇ar left鈥�. The only reason they are labelled in this way is because we have become such a market orientated society and left institutions of power have too much influence on how stories are reported.

Please, 大象传媒, provide a service to the British people. Dont wilt to semantics used by institutions which are so adverse to an egalitarian and fair society.

Wrong question. That 大象传媒 is biased is for me a foregone fact of life. I listen to everything I hear on it with a filter which acknowledges that whatever is said is likely skewed towards a Eurosocialist view suggestive of the politics of France and Germany, not the UK. The real question is does it know that it is doing it or is its bias so ingrained in the corporate culture and the way 大象传媒 constructs its material that it isn't even aware of it. It is too easy to take it for granted that those in whose charge 大象传媒 has been placed during this era understand the difference between objective disengaged journalism and editorial slanting of the news. It's not that 大象传媒 was once more conservative, it was more objective. I have written to HYS on many occasions pointing out the vast array of techniques 大象传媒 uses to spin its stories to its own liking, for example its incessant insistance during the last few days that the pullout of about 1500 British troops from Basra to be sent home is indicative of a political breech between the governments of the US and UK despite the vehement denials by both governments. One seemingly new one is 大象传媒's recent propensity for sensationalization. I don't know why this is happening now but it's possible that it wants to attract the affections of its captive audience in the UK by appealing to its basest interests and instincts so as to reduce any pressure to eliminate its near monopoly in British broadcast media. We've been bombarded lately by a slew of trite subjects 大象传媒 wishes to engage its audience in such as Anna Nicole Smith, Brittany Spears, Is marriage dead, the 9-11 conspiracy theories, the political editor's skill at flipping pancakes, etc. I think there is only one real cure for all of this and the Hutton report missed it entirely because it assumed that the current management and staff are salvageable. I disagree, I think 大象传媒 needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom and that means 100% replacement of its personnel. Not kidding.

Peter

I attended last night's event, and very enjoyable it was too. Thank you for your part in making it so.

I'm one of the people who broadly agrees with Robin Aitken's point of view, so I'm interested to read that "naturally (you) disagree with his point of view."

Why 'naturally'? What is wrong with looking honestly at the issues Aitken raises and asking whether there might not be some truth in them?

Even more revealing was Jean Seaton's comment that "she doesn't want the 大象传媒 to be balanced, she wants it to be right". This encapsulates the problem that so many of us perceive with 大象传媒 output reflected from comedy, to drama, to News and current affairs output.

Policy makers at the 大象传媒 believe that they stand for 'right' - without realising that their concept of 'right' has a very definite and very identifiable flavour to it.

You yourself gave excellent examples of this as you conceded that the 大象传媒 was unaware of the strength of public opinion on immigration and on Europe.

That you recognise the lapse in this instance is good, but you need to examine seriously why the lapse occured in the first place.

Aitken has suggested that it happened because there is a culture of accepted 'goods' at the 大象传媒 - in which Eurosceptism and concern about high levels of immigration did not appear!

Should you really be dismissing Aitken's observations so lightly when you yourself have admitted a lapse which could only have arisen within a culture of pre-judged rectitude such as he describes?

I was encouraged to hear that the 大象传媒 wishes to engage more seriously with its license fee payers, and I'd suggest that more meetings like last night's be set up so that interested parties can express support and concern directly to representatives of the 大象传媒.

Don't you think 'Question Time' or 'Any Questions' would have been a more transparent forum for this discussion?

A tiny metropolitan audiance at a central London art gallery is not going to create much of a debate.

A cynic might think you don't want much attention paid to this topic.

The only people who don't think the 大象传媒 are bias are those who work for it, for everyone else it's pretty much common knowledge. The 大象传媒 is increasingly out of touch with those who fund it, with the licence fee now feeling like a forced political donation.

If those at the top can't see this then maybe they need to be replaced before 大象传媒 news becomes the lefts answer to FOX news.

I have already written to Guy Smith et al at the 大象传媒 to complain about the Conspiracy Files series. My complaint is that the 大象传媒 has drawn a line in the sand dividing those who question the status quo and those who do not. Before the show even aired they had by default labeled those who question the status quo as 'conspiracy theorists' and proceeded (in the first episode) to paint this group as paranoid, biased and irrational people. Many of the people they are categorizing in this way are respected authors, journalists, historians and engineers offering legitimate observations. When did these people become conspiracy theorists? By making this sweeping generalization the 大象传媒 is (wittingly or unwittingly) selling the public on the idea that the official version of events should not be questioned. They are in effect saying that we should all quietly accept that our government and our media are doing their jobs responsibly and that no dissent is necessary nor any action required. I wholeheartedly disagree. This kind of thinking is dangerous and counterproductive. Furthermore the relentless use of the term 'conspiracy theorists' is not a fair and balanced use of language, it is divisive.

I for one have come to be wary of trusting the 大象传媒's editorial commentary, although I still greatly respect the work done by its journalists around the world.

Fortunately, others have done the research for you already.

Just go to beebwatch, biased 大象传媒 or Last Night's 大象传媒 News to get your answers. That's where many of your former viewers are.

jim-uk wrote:

"The only people who don't think the 大象传媒 are bias are those who work for it, for everyone else it's pretty much common knowledge."

That, frankly, is utter nonsense. Don't mistake the opinions of bloggers and those who post on here for the opinions of the public at large. Repeating it ad infinitum won't making any more true.

Any source of news that you choose to look at is going to be biased. Before a piece of news gets delivered to the public there are many factors that influence its release:

For example, who funds the news organization, the opinions of the people themselves, cultural views etc. etc. It's just a simple fact of human life that pretty much everything is going to be biased in some way. (and you must be especially wary of organizations that claim to be objective)

That's why it is important not to just blindly absorb information; we must also think critically about the information that we receive.

Yes the 大象传媒 is biased but not in the way most of the bloggers have represented it.

I see the bias of the journalist as the main problem. You and the other news gathering and media organisations can no longer look at any topic or event objectively. Why? Because you are so desperate to create a splash, to have a headline to get scoop or get on a few minutes ahead of the others.

The effect is the focus on the sensational, the need to find an angle, inability to accept information at face value (you have to get at the "truth" after all) and search for bad news because it is more interesting than good.

I find it hard to watch or listen to any news broadcasts from any source anymore. USing the internet allows me to bypass the whims of the editors and to seek different views on the same topic (e.g. Washington Post vs Daily Telegraph). It does help to understand better some of the whys and wherefores of what happens around the world.

Gareth

Is 大象传媒 funded by Baathists or Islamiist please ?

It has been a gradual process over several years, but I have moved from a position of trusting everything the 大象传媒 broadcasts to one where I have to make a mental check that the interpretation of the facts is reasonable. Yes, I certainly believe there is bias. I would also criticise the 大象传媒 for frequent sensationalism and exaggeration. Too often there is as much air time given to the extreme minority view as there is to the middle of the road majority view. Political interviews frequently start from the position that the politician is a perpetual liar, out only for himself. Similarly many scientists are assumed to be evil, scheming to create a radioactive world populated by genetically engineered zombies or some such rubbish. So, too often we don鈥檛 get the sensible, balanced view and interviews rarely get to explore the middle ground.

I notice you did well at the Royal Television Society Awards Peter.

Maybe you'll start listening to some of the valid criticisms levelled at you from now on.

Stop the dumbing down for a start.....

You 'naturally' disagree? Which part of thinking about it before you 'naturally' disagree are you averse to?

Just to pick one subject, the 大象传媒 is the most anti-Zionist, anti-semitic and pro-terror rag currently playing the heartstrings of the liberal left.

Your coverage of the Middle East is absolutely shocking not only in its partisanship but also in its propagandising.

Last Tuesday in Israel a major terrorist attack was prevented, a large bomb found in a pedestrian precinct on a busy shopping evening, and the three responsible arrested.

There was not a word of it mentioned anywhere on the 大象传媒.

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, the arrested named the commander who had coordinated the plan and provided the explosives and he was subsequently confronted, armed with an assault rifle, and in the ensuing firefight killed by IDF troops.

The headline ran 'Palestinian killed in Israel ambush', the article concerned contained next to no context for this strike, nor the fact that he was armed at the time he was stopped by the IDF.

The following day there is a headline of Peretz's binocular blunder and a 'human interest' piece on hardships in Gaza by, of course, Alan 'Nazi' Johnstone.

Still no mention of the thwarted bomb attack, and much lower level coverage of the 18,000 rounds, 240 anti-tank missiles, two suicide bomb belts found and 23 people arrested in Egypt with plans to strike against Israeli civillian targets.

The regular qassam missile strikes are not reported, however, if Israel strikes against Gazans it is always headline news with a mention that "crudely made rockets" have been in use (but no mention that they randomly target civillian areas).

During the riots in Jerusalem following the attempts to fix a damaged structure you printed the line 'Violence has broken out at Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque after Israeli police moved in to break up crowds of stone-throwing Palestinian protesters.'

Please explain how the violence broke out AFTER the police moved in to stop the stone throwers?

In what definition of 'violence' is stone throwing not violent?

Surely the police moved in to curtail current and prevent further violence?

However, by far the worst I have read so far was an article (https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254691.stm) in which the phrase "The Israeli press is speculating that the appointment of Majadele will allow Mr Peretz to rally support among Palestinian citizens of Israel ahead of party elections in May." was used.

This is a glaring error as there are no Palestinian citizens of Israel, only Israeli citizens of Israel. There are, however, Israeli Arab citizens to whom I can only assume you are referring.

This appears to be a direct assault upon Israel and an attempt to delegitimise her status as a sovereign nation in the opinion of the 大象传媒 and can not be seen as anything other than deliberate and premeditated.

So is the 大象传媒 biased? I think maybe just a little, either that or, as most Jews and Israelis tend to think, downright anti-semitic.

I write constant complaints regarding this to the 大象传媒 and never receive a reply, how about an opportunity for Alan Johnstone or his equally nefarious counterpart Jeremy Bowen to field our questions and justify their reporting style?

Or better still how about releasing the Balen Report that tens of thousands of license payers' money is being spent to keep under wraps, despite the fact that their money paid for it in the first place.

Somehow I don't think you wil post this, as much as I would like to see other posters' resoponses I would be pleased just to receive one from you, my E-Mail is n.w.miller@dunelm.org.uk.

Nik Miller, Tel Aviv

My greatest dislike of 大象传媒 bias isn't so much the news, it's the drama and comedy output. When was the last time the 大象传媒 (radio or TV) commisioned a right of centre drama? I really can't think of one.

And it's not so much that I object to bias, the Guardian is highly biased and so is the Telegraph, both great papers but they are aware of their bias and I can choose whether I want to buy it or not.

The really sad thing is that a more balanced 大象传媒 would be a fantastic force for good, prompting real informed debate, a much wider range of strong drama and perhaps the comedies would be funny again!

Jose, 333 bloggers on here may have agreed - but this place is infested with right wing "email a link to like minded fellows" types that simply don't reflect the British public.

Tony 'left of centre' Blair for 10 years, remember?

The coverage of plans to upgrade the national gas transmission system is consistently biased towards big business. Yesterday a local public meeting was held at Corse in Gloucestershire to discuss the National Grid plans to ruin and pollute our valley. In fairness, the 大象传媒 did attend and I was interviewed. However on today's web page where the meeting is briefly reported links are given to National Grid but not to the protest groups. Why is this always the case?

All we have ever asked for is the same chances at publicity and the the right to openly to present an alternate case. Why is this not given? And why on the few occassions when I have been interviewed is the last word always given to National Grid? Fortunately the upcoming Public Enquiry in April gives us to redress this bias. National Grid are often on TV, on the radio and in the papers. The alternate view does not have the same privileges and the 大象传媒 (and others) have not afforded us the same amount of coverage. For example, unlike NG, we have NEVER received any national coverage.

It has been difficult to convince media people we really do have a case, and for NG and the media's benefit we really DO have a case. The National Grid plans and thir overall strategy are flawed and somewhat illogical. Our environment and our beautiful countryside will suffer as the result of other people not thinking clearly and only in the financial interests of NG. They always cloak their case as being in 'The National Interest'.

We are supposed to live in an advanced democracy, but the 'powers that be' and the media responsible for upholding such democratic rights often work to a quite different agenda.

Is the 大象传媒 biased it most certainly is.Censorship in never reporting items of value from near and far is rife when the item is reported in another media.The staffing on the news and other programs causes me to comment in being positive in discrimination are the selectors of newsreaders now actively discriminating against Englishmen and women.There is in case you've missed it an ever increasing number of us that now refuse to be called British but to be called English which we are.The percentage of non english news readers and presenters far exceeds the appropriate figure.Today on Andrew Mar the Scots presenter introduces another scot who is an actor then another scot a comedian and then a Kenyan of scots descent.Is there no room for us as on the last QT when Dimbelby refused to defend and speak for England shame on him.When such comments are made by panel members the time for us to say enough is here.

The 大象传媒's coverage of climate change has been relentlessly one-sided. The UN itself is now reconsidering its more alarmist projections. It is time for the 大象传媒 to reflect this movement of the scientific consensus away from alarmism.

Bias has becomes part of our everyday's lives. Form judges making their rulings to referees or umpires officiating the games. 大象传媒 also put some bias reports to make the news feels attractive.

大象传媒 =anti American, anti conservative, anti christian, anti Jew, pro muslim, pro immigration, pro leftist.

No the idea that the 大象传媒 still considers itself a news agency and not an agenda driven socalist rag is very amusing to me.

There's hardly a programme worth watching on the 大象传媒 any more.Every programme seems to be about pushing the rotten politically correct left/liberal agendas of minority groups down our throats.One particular area of disinformation is global warming, the presentation of which is totally biased.None of the opposing evidence is ever presented and in fact global temperatures have gone down in the last ten years.We no longer have any faith in the 大象传媒 as an honest broker of world events.

Yes this is true. The B.B.C is indistinguishable from the Guardian.

I for one would prefer the service to be scrapped. We spend the same on the B.B.C as we spend on the Royal Navy. And, what do we get for it?
Leftwing bias and Propaganda.

The 'Service' costs a fortune and clearly has it's own agenda
Beware B.B.C Or you will find yourself not fit for purpose.

As it is sometimes said, "The facts have a liberal bias." There's a reason why most intelligent people are liberal-- on both sides of the Atlantic, I might add. Are the conservatives in the audience attempting to suggest that the 大象传媒 should hire a small cadre of young-earth Creationist gun-nuts, for the sake of balance?

Peter Horrocks did indeed debate bias with me in public in February - since when the 大象传媒 has determinedly ignored the points raised in my book ('Can We Trust the 大象传媒?'- Continuum). This is odd and, I think, somewhat shameful. The 大象传媒 is, rightly, committed to the idea that it should be a public watchdog, when institutions, or individuals, fail in their duty in some way. Now we have a situation where I, as an ex 大象传媒 employee, have raised in a level-headed and non-sensational way, what I believe to be serious failings in the department Peter leads. If this was any other institution we would expect the 大象传媒 to interview the author of those complaints and begin to debate the issue; because it is the 大象传媒 itself which is under scrutiny the Corporation's news machine goes into denial and simply blanks the whole issue. This is quite wrong. The 大象传媒 makes much of 'accountability' on its website and as the recipient of 拢3billion of public money annually it jolly well should be accountable. But it seems absolutely determined not to be, in this instance. Could it possibly be that the 大象传媒 is actually scared of debating this issue knowing itself to be on weak ground?

Dear Mr. Porter,

Your feeble explanation in "Part of the Conspiracy (2)" received comments a bit to hot to handle eh!. So you dumped that and leave the first part only on for debate. Really?
Max.