Ah, the liberal BBC [Archive] - AikiWeb Aikido Forums

Neil Mick

09-11-2007, 03:07 PM

Are you still commenting on the BBC article? I didn't see much reasoning there. Just very simple statements of facts.

Mark

Mike...employ "reason?" Where??? :confused:

From the website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1610000/newsid_1612600/1612653.stm

Why did they do it?

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.

In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.

When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.

Makes me want to write one about why Hitler was "very angry" with the way people in Europe were running things, too. Not to mention how the actions of Jews just finally got out of hand. Of course, since Hitler is only "widely thought" to have done those things, let's leave a question dangling about it, just in case.;)

Mike

Ah, Mike's unfailing attempts to eternally find liberal bias. But will Mike Sigman find happiness in a kids' website, building castles in the sky out of an oversimplified synopsis?

Not this time. On the face of it:

1. Mike mentions Hitler, right off. Godwin's Rule...he loses. :p
2. Mike's favorite means of barter...apples for oranges...comes into play, again. In short,

the ME's anger at US policies and double-standards regarding Israel do not = Hitler's designs on Europe, or his treatment of the Jews.

3. As Mark points out: this is a site for kids, presenting an oversimplified view of the causes of 911. Typical of Mike to spin Liberal bias from a few sentences (ignoring, of course, that the actual information presented, is inarguably correct. Yeah, Al Qaeda actually WERE acting partly out of anger at the policies of the US.

Whoah! I bet MIKE was floored by this new intel! :p )

In sum, this thread is just one more weak attempt (out of many others) to "prove" that Liberal bias exists in the media. Well, at the very least, you cannot accuse Mike of failing to provide entertainment! :D

Mike Sigman

09-11-2007, 03:22 PM

Ah, Mike's unfailing attempts to eternally find liberal bias. But will Mike Sigman find happiness in a kids' website, building castles in the sky out of an oversimplified synopsis? I think in the last couple of months I posted a weblink to a story in the Telegraph which detailed the results of an internal BBC investigation in which they admit that they're biased, Neil. Sort of makes your argument here a bit silly.
1. Mike mentions Hitler, right off. Godwin's Rule...he loses. :p I remember a number of discussions at the time Godwin's "law" became trendy... right here on the internet. The unfortunate part about World War II is that at least 50 million people died directly or indirectly from it. I realize those are just statistics to a liberal, but those are actual human lives that were lost... so Hitler can't be trivialized and ignored, as much as you'd like the uncomfortable reminder to go away by calling "Godwin's Law". the ME's anger at US policies and double-standards regarding Israel do not = Hitler's designs on Europe, or his treatment of the Jews. The discussion was about gratuitous comments that show a bias. If you want to claim the statement is not biased, please feel free to do so, Neil. Your views are well known. 3. As Mark points out: this is a site for kids, presenting an oversimplified view of the causes of 911. Typical of Mike to spin Liberal bias from a few sentences (ignoring, of course, that the actual information presented, is inarguably correct. Yeah, Al Qaeda actually WERE acting partly out of anger at the policies of the US.

Whoah! I bet MIKE was floored by this new intel! :p ) Actually, it's sort of a joke going around the internet at the moment. It shows that the BBC is so liberal it doesn't recognize when it's flaunting its own biases, despite being on the carpet for being so biased over the last few years. Honestly... do you think that Brits should be taxed every year to pay for liberally-slanted news? Yes, you do. Do you think the Brits should be taxed to pay for conservatively-slanted news? Of course not. So enters the elements of hypocrisy.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Gibbons

09-11-2007, 03:52 PM

Godwin's rule doesn't really apply in one sense as no debate was in progress. No winners, no losers. In its purest form that eventually a reference to Nazi's will be made, sure that happened.

I wasn't trying to imply anything about Mike reasoning. :)

From what Mike said I think I see what he objected to. I thought it was too minor to really be liberal bias. He disagrees. I'm good with that.

Mark

Neil Mick

09-11-2007, 04:07 PM

I think in the last couple of months I posted a weblink to a story in the Telegraph which detailed the results of an internal BBC investigation in which they admit that they're biased, Neil. Sort of makes your argument here a bit silly.

Not being your librarian, I (and the rest of the readers here) can only go by what you've currently written. Besides, I'm more than willing to believe that their "confession" has been wrung thru a lot of interpretation by you.

I remember a number of discussions at the time Godwin's "law" became trendy... right here on the internet. The unfortunate part about World War II is that at least 50 million people died directly or indirectly from it. I realize those are just statistics to a liberal,

It's statistics to ANYONE, Mike: including YOU. YOU'RE using those deaths to make a political point, just like everyone else. No need attempting to raise yourself above the crowd with this news, cause you aren't.

but those are actual human lives that were lost...

as were lives lost in Vietnam, Russian gulags, the West Bank. But most of us don't need to obsessively point to one event in history, as if it's some sort of Copernican Center of the Political Universe, the way you (and many others who trip over Godwin's Rule) do.

so Hitler can't be trivialized and ignored,

Putting the context of WW2 (something you seem to HATE, which is putting things in their proper context) in its proper perspective

Does not = trivializing, or ignoring Hitler

as much as you'd like the uncomfortable reminder to go away by calling "Godwin's Law".

Nice ad hominem try, Mike: but try making that stick somewhere else. I am not at all discomforted by WW2, Hitler, or anything else. In my youth, I studied WW2, et al, a great deal.

Unlike you, tho: I realize that discussions of WW2 tend to have an emotional weight that distorts comparisons to it, of current political events.

The discussion was about gratuitous comments that show a bias. If you want to claim the statement is not biased, please feel free to do so, Neil. Your views are well known. Actually, it's sort of a joke going around the internet at the moment.

between Mike and his monitor, no doubt. The REST of us have better things to do.

Must be a real laugh riot, when you boys get together... :rolleyes:

It shows that the BBC is so liberal it doesn't recognize when it's flaunting its own biases, despite being on the carpet for being so biased over the last few years.

Does Mike make up these things, or does he just piece them together from Conservative blog-o-ramas?

Only the shadow knows...:hypno: :hypno:

Honestly... do you think that Brits should be taxed every year to pay for liberally-slanted news? Yes, you do.

Do you think it possible to virtually cram thoughts into my mouth, and play my head like some kind of virtual sock-puppet, spouting out this rehash as if these thoughts were my own??

Sure you can! You just tried! :D

I think that you like to pretend that you "know it all" about Liberal media bias, based upon your "conclusive findings" (read: castles in the sky, based upon relentless RightWingBlogoNonsense) and your "objective research."

Having convinced yourself, you paradoxically and messianically need to convince others of your "findings" by relentlessly linking every example of "bias" (read, nothing) you find.

OR,

You are really having us all on. You really KNOW that there's no such thing, and it's all a joke on us.

OR,

You're in pay with some sort of FBI/CIA/X-Files-type-program to control ppl's opinions thru forum posts. Ineffective, but so was the attempt to remove Castro's mustache by lacing his cigars with estrogen. :hypno: :hypno:

OR, some other reason, I'm not aware. Unlike you, I claim no powers of mindreading. :crazy:

Do you think the Brits should be taxed to pay for conservatively-slanted news? Of course not. So enters the elements of hypocrisy.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Do you think you'll ever make sense? Probably not. But I have hope. So enter the elements of boundless optimism. ;)

Neil Mick

09-11-2007, 04:14 PM

Godwin's rule doesn't really apply in one sense as no debate was in progress.

Mark

No, I don't think so. In his opening statement, he begins the debate.

You see where he quickly leads to, in his argument? An accusation that the BBC is essentially a tax upon the English to express a bias at-odds with the general public. He has made this statement (by his own admission) several times in the past.

Godwin's Rule was made to point out how distorting it can be to bring in references to Hitler, UNLESS the point directly referenced WW2 (example: Our press, with its bias and pressure for profit and big business; suffers from a different kind of pressure and repression than the German press during the Nazi regime, which suffered from state censorship.

This statement doesn't violate Godwin's rule, as I am making a direct reference rather than an unreasonable comparison, designed to play on one's emotions).

Mike Sigman

09-11-2007, 04:32 PM

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-details/BBC+accused+of+institutional+'trendy+left-wing+bias'/article.do

Michael Douglas

09-12-2007, 03:00 AM

The article seems like a super-simplified explanation using current media-accepted terms directed towards young children. Seems quite pointless to argue about the article one way or another, there aren't any downright lies as far as I can see, unlike the words of most major politicians here in Britain or the USA.

Neither the left nor the right of most political parties has much relevance to me, they just don't hold to values I find honourable.

...oh and we ARE taxed by the government to pay for the BBC to continue without commercial advertising, but far less than the damn fuel taxes and electric/phone companies steal.

Edit ;
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-details/BBC+accused+of+institutional+'trendy+left-wing+bias'/article.do
"At the BBC'impartiality summit' last year ; BBC 'diversity tzar' Mary Faitzpatrick claiming women newsreaders should be able to wear what they liked on air, ..."
I say ban those horrible trousersuits!

Taliesin

09-12-2007, 06:05 AM

Mike Sigman

09-12-2007, 10:33 AM

The biggest problem with the BBC is not that they are left of Mike Sigman (therefore liberal, just like Genghis Khan, Mararet Thatcher, etc)

It's that they do not stand up for themsleves - these are the people who appologise for being correct.Well, going by the very words used in the article, they are leftist and liberal. If you want to misconstrue the phrase "politically correct" with the word "correct", it just gives us one more example of leftist ethos. Anyway you cut it, the BBC by its own reckoning is biased... that was the point and it stands.

Mike

Neil Mick

09-12-2007, 02:08 PM

Well, going by the very words used in the article, they are leftist and liberal. If you want to misconstrue the phrase "politically correct" with the word "correct", it just gives us one more example of

Mike's reading bias into the equation.
Anyway you cut it, the BBC by

Mike's

reckoning is biased... that was the point and

Mike has yet to prove a thing. So, far, all he's presented is ONE link that discusses a study. Look down lower on the page, and you see a host so-called "proof" that the BBC is biased. Most are pretty laughable.

Even the contention that the BBC admitted it's biased is (to borrow my English cousins' slang) bollocks. Mike likes to dig a little till he finds the "proof" that reinforces his own views, before stopping.

Of course, the damning evidence starts well...Mike is no fool:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770)

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

And so, on the surface of it: Mike's right. But not so fast. The BBC editor Helen Boaden responded to these charges:

Helen Boaden's Blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/bias_at_the_bbc.html)

I am not surprised that some readers of the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and the Express are furious with the BBC. If I had paid my licence fee in good faith for an organisation which claims it is passionately committed to impartiality, only to discover – according to the Mail on Sunday – that the organisation itself has admitted it is biased, I would be pretty livid.
According to the Mail on Sunday, and other recent press reports, we have admitted that we are an organisation of trendy, left-leaning liberals who are anti-American, biased against Christianity, in favour of multiculturalism, and staffed by people who wouldn’t know an unbiased fact if it hit them on the head.
The Mail on Sunday based its story on a leak from what it called a “secret” meeting of BBC executives and governors, and claims that it was our former political editor, Andrew Marr himself, who confessed to the liberal bias of the organisation. His take was reinforced by Jeff Randall, who until recently was our business editor. “If they say it, then it must be true” was the thrust of the story.
Well I was one of the people who was at the "secret" meeting. and I have to say the reality was somewhat different to the way the press are reporting it.
For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism. The seminar was part of a bigger project kicked off by Michael Grade earlier this year to re-examine the underlying principles of impartiality in the digital age when boundaries between conventional broadcasting and the new platforms will increasingly disappear.
To keep us all on our toes, a rich variety of formats was used during the day. I was on a "Hypothetical" – where a panel of people in charge is given a series of mounting “real life” crises and asked how they would handle each of them. It was fun, occasionally illuminating, and often very challenging.
There was for example a heated debate about the whether or not a Muslim newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf. Jon Snow was all in favour. BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb was vehemently against. I had deep reservations because I felt a scarf would be a distraction from the news but pointed out - in the interests of debate - that if we banned the headscarf, how would we justify that cross which I was sure I had once seen Fiona Bruce wearing. From this discussion emerged the wholly untrue newspaper story that the BBC had banned Fiona’s cross.
The point of the Hypothetical is to generate discussion, debate and ideas. The situations aren’t real; the discussions aren’t binding and they certainly don’t define BBC policy.

There was discussion of the BBC’s culture and some provocative points were made. Jeff Randall made a few good jokes about the occasional examples of political correctness he found among some BBC colleagues. I remembered an incident about 15 years ago when a freelance reporter working for me on a programme about bullying in Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution asked me if it was acceptable to broadcast what they had discovered: that most of the bullies in Feltham at that time were black and most of the victims were white. Not only was it acceptable, I told the reporter, if he had evidence of this he had a duty to report it. And so we did.
Andrew Marr made some comments about BBC culture being more liberal than the rest of the country – points he makes in his book on journalism.
The main thing is, however, they were both giving their personal opinions. That is entirely their right and what they had been asked to do in the interests of discussion. I disagree with them. I found their claim of liberal bias unconvincing – based on anecdote and attitude rather than evidence.

The BBC employs more than 20,000 people across the UK. It is not a chattering class club of the kind depicted by the papers. It is a hugely varied organisation with many different cultures and a huge variety of opinions on every single issue among its staff. What does unite BBC staff however, is a deep commitment to BBC values and at the heart of those values is a commitment to impartiality.
When I first joined the BBC I asked a very experienced and subtle journalist what was meant by BBC impartiality. “It means we don’t take sides,” he said. “We don’t take sides either explicitly or implicitly. We test all opinion toughly but fairly and we let the audience make up their own minds.”
It’s a simple but absolutely correct definition which audiences see, hear and read in our output everyday. In the end, the personal views of our staff are not the point. The issue is that their views and opinions never stray on air.
And that’s where the broad audience comes in. What really counts is not what a group of BBC executives and VIPs think, or indeed what a few columnists believe. The important thing is whether or not our audiences think we are biased. And on that the evidence is robust.
Asked recently which of the four main broadcasters they would term "trustworthy", nearly two thirds - 60% - cited the BBC. In contrast, 26% said ITV, 16% mentioned Channel 4, and 14% Sky. (Mori, 2006)

That research is very cheering but it never allows us to rest on our laurels. Impartiality is not so much a fixed point as a process of open mindedness which should be the basis for everything we do in journalism.
Part of that open mindedness is being tested in exercises like the Hypothetical which ran at the impartiality seminar. No one has all the answers on any subject and debate and discussion are vital if we are to ensure that impartiality remains a living reality rather than an empty claim.
It’s a shame that the newspapers have made mischief with the seminar, but we won’t let this small storm put us off trying to get impartiality right.

So, to review:

1. The charges were based upon a supposedly "secret" meeting, which was filmed live, online.
2. The seminar took the stance of a hypothetical, which others interpreted as RL.
3. Helen Boaden makes the good point that even IF the BBC thinks itself biased: the REAL test is what the viewers feel.
4. The whole thing has a feel of a hit-job, an attempt to throw mud (by the Daily Mail, and others), that Mike ran with (not the first time he's taken supposition and spin, and commented on it as if it were fact).

You can get a much fuller picture of the controversy on wikipedia.

Criticism of the BBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#_note-dm)

Mike Sigman

09-12-2007, 02:57 PM

Mike's reading bias into the equation. Yeah, well, I'm sure you would argue that Santa Cruz is not really as a whole biased liberally, too, Neil, but there comes a point where some of your defenses conflict too much with reality. 3. Helen Boaden makes the good point that even IF the BBC thinks itself biased: the REAL test is what the viewers feel.
Really? Let's take Santa Cruz as an example. Do most people in Santa Cruz think that there is a heavy liberal bias or do they think that people there just "think the right things"? Let's put it another way. If a bunch of grammar school kids in Kansas have been raised to believe in Santa Claus and the local paper keeps talking about Santa Claus, do you think the kids would suggest the paper has a bias? Of course not.

In other words, your argument is silly.... the victims of propaganda against Jews think that Jews are bad people. The victims of constant propaganda against Bush or Clinton think they're both bad, right? So the question under discussion is whether a news organization presents only one point of view. One of the recent trends has been, for example, to count the number of negative commentaries about "Illegal Immigrants" for instance and compare it with articles that stand in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to stay regardless of the law. When shown that liberal newpapers overwhelmingly publish stories that are pro-illegal-immigrant, the papers simply refused to publish that poll. That's the heart of the argument..... dishonesty behaviour under the guise of "The Greater Good" (the liberal equivalent of "Jehovah"). Incidentally, Neil, you post the numbers of Iraqis killed in the war.... why isn't the number of American citizens killed by illegal immigrants easy to find in the papers or on your posts? You don't care about American citizens?

In the case of the BBC, for instance, a recent report by BBC Watch caused a stir in UK news when it showed that they did indeed have an anti-Israel bias http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html (BBC IIRC agreed to try to do better). But if you've ever watched the BBC (which I do a fair amount of), it's pretty obvious they have a bias by watching how they simply never report some sides of the news. You don't need to run polls and have discussions. If the BBC does not freely publish all sides of the issues, it is biased and normal people spot it fairly quickly.

Your attempt to try to argue against the obvious and skew your own "reportage" is one of the reasons I like to point things out to you. Mainly because I dislike dishonest reportage and commentary. I don't believe in skewing the facts or flat-out lying "for the Greater Good".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick

09-12-2007, 03:49 PM

Yeah, well, I'm sure you would argue that Santa Cruz is not really as a whole biased liberally, too, Neil, but there comes a point where some of your defenses conflict too much with reality.

Give 'em enough rope...

Really? Let's take Santa Cruz as an example.

Yes, lets.

As I was saying: give 'em enough rope...

and Mike will willingly hang himself, just to dance the jig a few more rounds. That's what I love about you, Mike: you're so EASY. Your strawmen fall apart with the slightest breath.

Do most people in Santa Cruz think that there is a heavy liberal bias or do they think that people there just "think the right things"?

Some do: some don't. Just as in Durango, CO (where there was a "World Can't Wait" rally, PROVING that Liberals in Durango exist, CONTRARY to Mikey's protestations): some are Liberal, some Conservative.

But, just to let you dance your silly hangman's jig awhile longer: I went to the Santa Cruz Sentinel site, and took a quick look around.

BRACE YOURSELF, MIKE! World shattering info ahead!! :hypno:

I was looking in the editorial section, poss to show that, yes, Virginia: Conservatives DO live in Santa Cruz...and lo, look what I found (took me all of about 30 seconds)!

Santa Cruz Conservative (http://forums.santacruzsentinel.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005451&p=1)

As the GW hysteria, driven by the liberal press, politicians and their green "Messiah" Albert Gore, more and more scientists are publishing articles in scientific journals that rebutting the GW crowd. The evidence is mounting that the GW is not as serious as movie "The misguided truth" presents and is nothing more than the natural warming and cooling cycles the earth has been going through for millions of years.

So, yes, Mike: people living in an area DO have a range of opinions, not just one. I know, I know: you're shocked and awed, you gotta sit down, etc. :p

But I DID notice that you totally ignored the meat of the last post which shot down your contention that the BBC "outed" itself, a long-claimed contention of yours. The truth must really hurt...:uch:

But of course, Mikey's not through. WHAT Mike Sigman post would be complete without a total ad hominem, thrown into the mix?

Incidentally, Neil, you post the numbers of Iraqis killed in the war.... why isn't the number of American citizens killed by illegal immigrants easy to find in the papers or on your posts? You don't care about American citizens?

Um, how about the statistics of American citizens killed by LEGAL immigrants? Or, the number of American's killed by plastic silverware?

Or, when DID I stop beating my wife?? :hypno: :crazy:

In the case of the BBC, for instance, a recent report by BBC Watch caused a stir in UK news when it showed that they did indeed have an anti-Israel bias http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html (BBC IIRC agreed to try to do better).

Oh, yeah, bastions of objectivity...BBCWATCH??? :D :D

But if you've ever watched the BBC (which I do a fair amount of), it's pretty obvious

that I, Mike Sigman, can find a

bias by watching how they simply never report some sides of the news. You don't need to run polls and have discussions.

I, Mike Sigman, can smell a bias from MILES away (unless, of course: it involves someone I believe). Polls and discussions?? We don' need no stinkin' "polls and discussions!" :D :p

If the BBC does not freely publish all sides of the issues, it is biased and

the Rightwingblogosphere

spot it fairly quickly.

Your attempt to try to argue against the obvious and skew your own "reportage" is one of the reasons I like to point things out to you.

I attempt to inject a little balance into your harshly skewed and one sided view of the media. You like to pretend that you're "pointing" things out to me...which makes it all the sadder when your strawmen tumble into dust, again and again.

Mainly because I dislike dishonest reportage and commentary.

Again, to quote you:

Thanks. Haven't had a guffaw like that one in years!

Too funny, Mike. That's got to be the single-most packed sentence filled with self-deception that I've read in quite a while. Thanks for the chuckle. :D

I don't believe in

facts. You seem to enjoy following the adage of a fave ex-Prez of yours:

Facts are stupid things

Mike Sigman

09-12-2007, 04:01 PM

Give 'em enough rope...

Some do: some don't. Just as in Durango, CO (where there was a "World Can't Wait" rally, PROVING that Liberals in Durango exist, CONTRARY to Mikey's protestations):I've never protested any such thing, Neil. Durango certainly leans liberal. Everyone except some of the liberal nutballs openly acknowledge it and they know they would appear foolish if they tried to pretend otherwise.

You, on the other hand, are once again trying to dispute the obvious and well-known about Santa Cruz .... proving my point, as usual and thereby dissolving your protestations about the BBC.

Mike

Mike Sigman

09-12-2007, 05:03 PM

BTW, in defense of the British press other than the BBC, note what happens when the Washington Post tries to borrow a story and be politically correct about it:

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_011002.htm

The moral? Tell the flat truth, whether it favors the Left or the Right.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick

09-12-2007, 05:49 PM

I've never protested any such thing, Neil. Durango certainly leans liberal.

Actually, you pooh-pooh'd the few "liberal nutballs" who came out to protest as some sort of minority.

You, on the other hand, are once again trying to dispute the obvious and well-known about Santa Cruz

Um...OK. Just to parse this out for you readers...the world, according to Mike:

1. Given: It is "obvious" and "well known" that Santa Cruz is a hotbed of Liberalism (a debatable label, but DEFINITELY not some broad-brush to predict ppl's opinions, here. We have our Conservatives here, too: and they're quite welcome to parade their W'04 bumperstickers, free from harassment.

A BIG group of Conservatives here are the bikers who come in and ignore the noise ordinances...yet seem to get few tickets).

2. Conflate the "Liberal" view to mean a broad category of things. Assume that the majority of Santa Cruzians believe these things, as Mikey has no need for polls, and such.

Do most people in Santa Cruz think that there is a heavy liberal bias or do they think that people there just "think the right things"?

3. Make one-ended statements using such large gaps in logic, and round off by

4. Proving to yourself that you are right, because your own, circular logic took you back to square 1. :freaky: :freaky: :freaky:

.... proving my point, as usual

5. Garnish with dill, serve with a pithy comment (nothing special...some bon mot that you find simultaneously witty, and dismissive).

and thereby dissolving your protestations about the BBC.

Mike

And serve!

Please don't ever stop posting, Mike. I don't know what I'd do without that little ego-boost I get after crashing another of your strawman chestnuts. :D :D

Mike Sigman

09-12-2007, 06:00 PM

Well there you have it, folks... a Far Left liberal trying to argue that Santa Cruz (very well known in the US) is not really liberal.

You decide.

Actually, the interesting part I find about listening to liberals (and sometimes conservatives) arguing that they really do not hold those views is trying to decide whether they are:

1. "In denial" (which I think is a cover term for the 2 below)

2. They are making the choice to lie thinking that they actually fool anyone.

3. They are not intelligent enough to really figure it out.

It's interesting. The question is that if someone cannot really figure obvious things out, why do they have the same vote as everyone else?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

HL1978

09-12-2007, 08:31 PM

Neil, having only visited Santa Cruz once (the California coast is quite nice, I would love to ride my motorcycle around there), I can't say what it is like to live there, but it is a bit disingenuous to say that Santa Cruz is not a liberal area, as it is one of the two cities in the US to have elected a socialist mayor, has a nuclear free zone, voted 3x1 for John Kerry, "measure k" etc. Wikipedia indicates it was once predominantly republican until a large population of UCSC alums decided to stay in the area.

There is nothing wrong with being liberal, but if you are surrounded by like minded people all the time of any political persuasion, then it is easy to think that everyone else thinks/feels the same way.

As for the topic at hand, I find the BBC's bias to be one of word choice, story selection and omission (much like NPR which I listen to every time I am in the car because while they are quite biased, there are no commercials). Much like how the Washington Post consistently refers to illegal immigrants, or illegal aliens merely as "immigrants", the BBC usually fails to distinguish between civilian and militant deaths in their broadcasts on NPR.

Neil Mick

09-12-2007, 10:48 PM

Neil, having only visited Santa Cruz once (the California coast is quite nice, I would love to ride my motorcycle around there), I can't say what it is like to live there, but it is a bit disingenuous to say that Santa Cruz is not a liberal area,

I never said it wasn't. And, barring Mike's rather sad and self-aggrandizing attempts to put words in my mouth, I didn't even imply that.

What I SAID was that you cannot simply "assume" an average Santa Cruz'ian's position on ANYTHING (as, Mike likes to do), merely because of where we live. And besides, 2 Liberals might disagree on a lot of issues. It's not accurate to suggest that just because a person is "Liberal" means that we all agree on the same things. My views in the Gun thread, for example: could well be termed Conservative by other Liberals.

I'm not even sure what the "average" SC'an thinks of gun control, net neutrality, or vagrancy laws. Did you know, for instance, that in spite of our Liberal reputation, we have some pretty fierce laws against homelessness? That it's against the law to SLEEP in Santa Cruz, for pity's sake?? :eek: Or that the City gov't was SUPPOSED to organize a citizen's police review committee, but have yet to do so after more than 3 years? What may appear to be "Liberal" on the surface, can be much more complex under the skin, if you decide to look beneath the labels.

There is nothing wrong with being liberal, but if you are surrounded by like minded people all the time of any political persuasion, then it is easy to think that everyone else thinks/feels the same way.

Then this is a glaring fallacy. Sorry, but I have NO IDEA what the "average" New Yorker thinks, altho NYC is supposed to be Liberal. I ALSO have no idea what the "average" North Dakotan thinks about a lot of other issues, either: even tho it's simple to find out their voting patterns.

Again, we have a very vocal Conservative minority here in SC. It is oversimplification to suggest that ALL SC'ans think alike on issues.

As for the topic at hand, I find the BBC's bias to be one of word choice, story selection and omission (much like NPR which I listen to every time I am in the car because while they are quite biased, there are no commercials). Much like how the Washington Post consistently refers to illegal immigrants, or illegal aliens merely as "immigrants", the BBC usually fails to distinguish between civilian and militant deaths in their broadcasts on NPR.

Maybe (I can come up with some examples showing a Conservative bias, in choice of words as well). But, at least you're not misrepresenting the BBC as "outing themselves as Liberally-baised," unlike certain OTHER post'ers, here (how's it going, Mike? :p ).

Neil Mick

09-12-2007, 10:57 PM

5. Garnish with dill, serve with a pithy comment (nothing special...some bon mot that you find simultaneously witty, and dismissive).

(or, outright disingenuous...)

Well there you have it, folks... a Far Left liberal trying to argue that Santa Cruz (very well known in the US) is not really liberal.

Right on time...like clockwork. :crazy:

Mike Sigman

09-13-2007, 10:22 AM

On whether Santa Cruz is a liberal place:
I never said it wasn't. Without getting into some more lengthy parsing, of course you took the position that Santa Cruz was not really liberal. You attempted to argue against it or at least to confound the argument. The problem is that Santa Cruz is obviously and well-known as an arch-liberal place, on the whole. If I'd have been in Neil's place in the discussion, I'd have simply conceded that in order to maintain my credibility. But that's not why liberals argue they are not liberal and why conservatives will sometimes (not as much, granted) argue that they are not conservative. If they concede that there is a bias, then the "rightness" ('we do it because it's the right thing to do') comes into question. Once the correctness of a position, as opposed to the actual partisan preference, is revealed then many statements are exposed as simply self-serving. There is no other reason to deny a bias.... admitting a bias undermines the absolutes of a debate position.

It's the same with the BBC bias. Interestingly, most polls show that liberals fall into 2 camps about journalistic bias. Many liberals freely admit it and argue positions around it. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.” Many other liberals deny that there is any bias, spotting that it weakens their position and brings into question hypocrisy.... which is not good in a "do it because it's the right thing to do" argument.

But when you have something as obvious as the question "is Santa Cruz, California a liberal place" and someone begins arguing and parsing, the denial is indication enough of either (1.) an inablility to see the obvious or (2.) a deliberate choice to avoid the truth. There's a third possibility that has to do with propaganda.... if someone has been raised in a schooling and environment where the peer-belief and teachings all point to certain positions, then those people probably can't recognize reality in relation to pertinent topics.

The same thing can be said about the BBC. Many liberal-leaning Brits I know simply shrug and acknowledge that the BBC is biased to the Left. But many Brits don't see any bias.... they've been raised on the BBC-tilted positions their whole life, both in school and on the telly. They'll deny any BBC bias in the same way a child brought up to believe in Santa Claus will adhere to his beliefs.

The several large reports in the last few years about the BBC have indicated that it is indeed biased to the Left, parse it how you will. To pretend that the BBC is not biased puts someone in the awkward position that is similar to Neil pretending there is a debate about whether Santa Cruz is liberal (a socialist mayor is a fairly good indicator of the voting public, BTW). Continually trying to spin out the obvious in order to suggest that black is actually white not only is a waste of time, but it also brings into question the ethics and motivation of someone who will spend so much time arguing speciously against the obvious.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick

09-13-2007, 02:53 PM

On whether Santa Cruz is a liberal place:
Without getting into some more lengthy parsing, of course you took the position that Santa Cruz was not really liberal.

Of course you'll attempt to put words in my mouth. Without getting into pointless detail:

1. Given: It is "obvious" and "well known" that Santa Cruz is a hotbed of Liberalism (a debatable label, but DEFINITELY not some broad-brush to predict ppl's opinions, here. We have our Conservatives here, too: and they're quite welcome to parade their W'04 bumperstickers, free from harassment.

A BIG group of Conservatives here are the bikers who come in and ignore the noise ordinances...yet seem to get few tickets).

2. Conflate the "Liberal" view to mean a broad category of things. Assume that the majority of Santa Cruzians believe these things, as Mikey has no need for polls, and such.

What I SAID was that you cannot simply "assume" an average Santa Cruz'ian's position on ANYTHING (as, Mike likes to do), merely because of where we live. And besides, 2 Liberals might disagree on a lot of issues.

So, nice try, Mike: but what I SAID was that you cannot accurately predict what ppl's preferences are (much as you like to do), even tho they live in a "Liberal" area. In short:

1. YOU like to pretend that I was trying to prove that SC WASN'T "Liberal;"
2. while I was attempting to show that we all don't think alike, just because we all live in one place.

There's a third possibility that has to do with propaganda....

Sure is: it's when the reader (ie, you) tries to spin a simple, declarative statement into something else. THAT's propaganda, too..

The several large reports in the last few years about the BBC have indicated that it is indeed biased to the Left, parse it how you will. To pretend that the BBC is not biased puts someone in the awkward position that is similar to Neil

Or, similar to you, dodging the issues that bring questions to these supposed charges of bias.

I answered your charges about the BBC. You, on the other hand, go of into your usual SoP: attempt to smear the character of the person you're debating, usually thru ad hominem attacks.

This instance is no different: you're up to your usual tricks. :yuck:

In a word: NEXT!!

HL1978

09-13-2007, 03:10 PM

2. while I was attempting to show that we all don't think alike, just because we all live in one place.

Of course it is unreasonable to expect that everyone thinks alike who live in the same general area, there will always be exceptions.

That being said, I think Mike does have a valid point, that democratically elected governments, should at least in theory, represent those that elected them. In fact we do see this all the time in terms of how the ruling party in various states (most recently Texas) redistrict in order to ensure "safe seats" in the legislature as those districts are drawn in such a way to maximize like minded voters.

With regards to Santa Cruz, the fact that they voted 3x1 for John Kerry, coupled with a multi-term socialist mayor in office, a reasonable person would ascertain that the majority of residents (and clearly not all of them in that it was not a unanimous vote for Sen. Kerry) hold a certain political outlook.

Neil Mick

09-13-2007, 03:43 PM

Of course it is unreasonable to expect that everyone thinks alike who live in the same general area, there will always be exceptions.

But see, here's the crux of it:

Mike likes to pretend that because SC is "Liberal:" that he can predict what we think about any wide range of issues.

Do most people in Santa Cruz think that there is a heavy liberal bias or do they think that people there just "think the right things"?

The thing is, we DON'T "think" the same along any number of issues. Even being "Liberal" is a moving target, covering a wide range of beliefs.

That being said, I think Mike does have a valid point, that democratically elected governments, should at least in theory, represent those that elected them.

But that isn't his point, as I see it (I'm not even sure where you get that he was :confused: ). What he's saying, from his starting thesis, is that the BBC is biased to the Left of the English people, who pay for the BBC to present biased views.

In fact we do see this all the time in terms of how the ruling party in various states (most recently Texas) redistrict in order to ensure "safe seats" in the legislature as those districts are drawn in such a way to maximize like minded voters.

With regards to Santa Cruz, the fact that they voted 3x1 for John Kerry, coupled with a multi-term socialist mayor in office, a reasonable person would ascertain that the majority of residents (and clearly not all of them in that it was not a unanimous vote for Sen. Kerry) hold a certain political outlook.

As I see it, the whole issue of whether SC is "Liberal" or not is just another attempt by Mike to instill a red herring in an argument he has already conceeded.

He cannot prove that the BBC has admitted to bias (per his oft-repeated claim), and so he goes for the next-best thing--attacking the character of his debater.

Neil Mick

09-13-2007, 03:56 PM

With regards to Santa Cruz, the fact that they voted 3x1 for John Kerry, coupled with a multi-term socialist mayor in office, a reasonable person would ascertain that the majority of residents (and clearly not all of them in that it was not a unanimous vote for Sen. Kerry) hold a certain political outlook.

But just so that Mikey doesn't attempt to play spin the "forumpost:" here's my take on it.

1. Yes, SC is "Liberal," in political outlook. We vote on progressive issues (something I'm proud of, BTW), and we don't like the war in Iraq. On THAT score, there is no debate.

1a. But, California is ALSO supposed to be a Liberal state, too. Our Beloved Actor-Governor just vetoed a bill that would allow us to pull out of the Iraqi war, in 6 months. His reason? That it would "divide us."

2. Beyond that, there is a wide berth of differences in opinion amongst Santa Cruzians. Liberals supposedly have a common belief in helping out the poor and disadvantaged--but we have oppressive laws against the homeless. It's even against the law to stand in one place for an hour, downtown: police can cite you for it.

A 1st amendment advocate went to court over being arrested for standing in one place for an hour not too long ago. His defence was that he was exercising his 1st amendment rights (which he was. He had a table set up, protesting the draconian downtown policies).

2a. And BTW, I hardly think that voting 3:1 for Kerry counts as "Liberal." I didn't vote for Kerry. And as far as being a "nuclear-free" zone...that's more symbolic, than anything else. A lot of the "Liberalism" here is more empty symbol.

But, I DO appreciate the amount of toleration this area provides. You could take any position on anything, and not be censured for it.

Mark Gibbons

09-13-2007, 04:18 PM

....

But that isn't his point, as I see it (I'm not even sure where you get that he was :confused: ). What he's saying, from his starting thesis, is that the BBC is biased to the Left of the English people, who pay for the BBC to present biased views.

....
I don't think Mike cares about a bias with respect to the English people or even the British. I think he's objecting to a bias from an abstract strictly neutral viewpoint. I think such a bias is inevitible, but that the BBC seems to try for that type of viewpoint as a goal.

Mark

Neil Mick

09-13-2007, 04:38 PM

I don't think Mike cares about a bias with respect to the English people or even the British. I think he's objecting to a bias from an abstract strictly neutral viewpoint.

Mark

By definition, a bias is supposed to reflect a view outside of the general public (in this case, the English, since it IS the "British" Broadcasting System). What else determines a "bias," except that of being outside the "view from the Center?" In this case, the "center" is the English.

Besides, Mike implicitly acknowledged this concern, here:

Honestly... do you think that Brits should be taxed every year to pay for liberally-slanted news?

Mike Sigman

09-13-2007, 06:39 PM

He cannot prove that the BBC has admitted to bias (per his oft-repeated claim), and so he goes for the next-best thing--attacking the character of his debater.I gave solid sources; you gave opinions that differed. You want to try to spin it that "it's a draw and no one know is Santa Cruz is liberal" in the same way you want to claim "it's a draw and no one knows if the BBC is liberal". And look who is making the unsupported argument that is based on opinion rather than a valid study. You. And that's the thesis of my point.... you and others like you are at heart dishonest and won't even concede a commonly acknowledged point like "Santa Cruz is a liberal city". I rest my case.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman

09-13-2007, 06:42 PM

Incidentally, I'm assuming that Jun will object to the "ad hominem" attacks in the subject headings by Neil. As a matter of impartiality.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick

09-13-2007, 07:24 PM

I gave solid sources; you gave opinions that differed.

Sorry, Mike, but you totally failed to respond to my point...that the BBC issued NO such study, claiming themselves biased. You completely failed to address this point, instead going for the weak (and cheap) ad hominem.

You want to try to spin it that "it's a draw and no one know is Santa Cruz is liberal" in the same way you want to claim "it's a draw and no one knows if the BBC is liberal". And look who is making the unsupported argument that is based on opinion rather than a valid study. You. And that's the thesis of my point.... you and others like you are at heart dishonest and won't even concede a commonly acknowledged point like "Santa Cruz is a liberal city". I rest my case.

Give it a rest, Mike. You and I have gone on for about a dozen posts now in your sideways attempt to refuse to answer the question, and it's getting old. Your tactic is succeeding in one respect: I'm beginning to lost interest in any possible answer you might proffer.

Either stick to the OP or just rename this thread, "Why I am right, and how Neil is dishonest." :dead:

Incidentally, I'm assuming that Jun will object to the "ad hominem" attacks in the subject headings by Neil. As a matter of impartiality.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Considering that folks here seem to get off scott-free for calling each other racists: I'd say you have no worries.

HL1978

09-13-2007, 11:45 PM

from

The BBC is out of touch with large swathes of the public and is guity of self-censoring subjects that the corporation finds unpalatable, an official report has claimed.

As part of the report's research the BBC's own controller of editorial policy admitted that people felt that the corporation was guilty of a "bias of omission" by not covering their views.

Authors of the report called on the corporation to be more "open-minded" in the views it reflects and warned against "bias of elimination" which it branded "offensive".

The report noted that the BBC had "come late" to several important stories in recent years, including Euroscepticism and immigration , which as it happens, were "off limits" in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone".

Research for the 80-page report showed that viewers were "frustrated" by political correctness at the BBC and feel the corporation is dominated by a London-centric bias, reflected in its programmes, presenters and coverage.

The report, which was commissioned by the BBC and written by independent programme-maker John Bridcut, also warned that if the BBC's viewers did not feel that the corporation was reflecting their lives and attitudes people would lose faith in it.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the 80 page report online.

from elsewhere about the same report:

The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.

It warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule.

After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation's coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.

But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.

Instead, at a time when the corporation was renegotiating its charter with the government, it allowed itself to effectively become a promotional tool for Live 8, which was strongly supported by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Perhaps the charter renewal is the reason for all this navel gazing?

The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

It reads: "There is a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."

A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.

another of the BBC being out of touch is their coverage of the Queen mother's death. and that a result of the BBC's own poll of viewers from their 2007 imparitaly study found that 57% of viewers thought that the BBC did not reflect their own views

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml

We belonged instead to a dispersed ''metropolitan-media-arts-graduate'' tribe. We met over coffee, lunch, drinks and dinner to reinforce our views on the evils of apartheid, nuclear deterrence, capital punishment, the British Empire, big business, advertising, public relations, the Royal Family, the defence budget… it's a wonder we ever got home. We so rarely encountered any coherent opposing arguments that we took our group-think as the views of all right-thinking people.

The second factor which shaped our media liberal attitudes was a sense of exclusion. We saw ourselves as part of the intellectual élite, full of ideas about how the country should be run, and yet with no involvement in the process or power to do anything about it. Being naïve in the way institutions actually work, yet having good arts degrees from reputable universities, we were convinced that Britain's problems were the result of the stupidity of the people in charge. We ignored the tedious practicalities of getting institutions to adopt and implement ideas.

This ignorance of the realities of government and management enabled us to occupy the moral high ground. We saw ourselves as clever people in a stupid world, upright people in a corrupt world, compassionate people in a brutal world, libertarian people in an authoritarian world. We were not Marxists but accepted a lot of Marxist social analysis. Some people called us arrogant; looking back, I am afraid I cannot dispute the epithet.

We also had an almost complete ignorance of market economics. That ignorance is still there. Say ''Tesco'' to a media liberal and the patellar reflex says, "Exploiting African farmers and driving out small shopkeepers". The achievement of providing the range of goods, the competitive prices, the food quality, the speed of service and the ease of parking that attract millions of shoppers every day does not show up on the media liberal radar.

(reminds me of how marketplace on NPR has a very different spin on world events than all things considered).

Its commissioning editor for documentaries, Richard Klein, has said: "By and large, people who work in the BBC think the same, and it's not the way the audience thinks." The former BBC political editor Andrew Marr says: "There is an innate liberal bias within the BBC".

A good example of bias with the BBC is with regards to their israel/palestinian coverage,though much of they studies/comparisons done are found on pro israeli websites. but here are a few examples

http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article715471.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=451138&in_page_id=1770

The above one is interesting, in that the BBC has blocked publication of a report as to wether or not they are biased wit Israel coverage and paying 200,000GBP to do so.

Taliesin

09-14-2007, 02:49 AM

Firstly could all you guys across the pond PLEASE remember that England is NOT the same as Britiain (It's like saying Alaska is all of the USA) And not all of us Brit's are English - It's particularly annoying for Celtic Brit's like myself.

Hunter

I understand that in the USA Newspapers are regarded as having greater credibillty than TV - A fair point in a country that has Fox News

In Britiain it's the other way round, the Telegraph, Times (owned by Murdock) and Mail are all clearly right wing papers.

So all you have is an argument that rigth wing papers call BBC left biased.

I'd also ask someone to point out why 'suicide bombings' only became 'evil' when the attacks were against Israeli's?

Robert Gardner

09-14-2007, 03:23 AM

Mike Sigman

09-14-2007, 09:19 AM

I understand that in the USA Newspapers are regarded as having greater credibillty than TV - A fair point in a country that has Fox News. Most of the mainstream newspapers in the US are vigorously left-wing. As a matter of fact, that's been shown in studies and analyses for the last 5 years and those same newspapers will not publish the results of those studies. Ipso facto.

Interestingly, Fox News is somewhat Right Wing (although they have a number of purely left-leaning commentators like Geraldo Rivera, Chris Wallace (who is probably the most impartial commentator on TV in the US), Greta van Sustren, and Shephard Smith. Fox has never been caught in deliberate bias as have CNN, ABC, CBS, and others who are more left-slanted than Fox is right-slanted. For instance, there was the scandal of CNN having an "arrangement" with Saddam not to report negative Saddam news, the head of the CNN news division was caught in one-too-many blatantly political statements and had to resign, and so on. I assume that the Left complains about Fox simply because it is not biased to the Left, given that it has not been caught skewing the news in the embarrassing ways that the other major networks all have. In other words, this is pure dishonesty hypocrisy from the Left. I'd also ask someone to point out why 'suicide bombings' only became 'evil' when the attacks were against Israeli's???? Who has inferred that suicide bombings were not evil, except the Left (who despise Israel as much as anyone ever has despised the Jews)?

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman

09-14-2007, 09:21 AM

Yes the BBC has a left bias, then again, so does most of the country, and lets not forget you have anabashed right wing newspaper saying it.Fair enough.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Fred Little

09-14-2007, 10:56 AM

Most of the mainstream newspapers in the US are vigorously left-wing. As a matter of fact, that's been shown in studies and analyses for the last 5 years and those same newspapers will not publish the results of those studies. Ipso facto.

Interestingly, Fox News is somewhat Right Wing (although they have a number of purely left-leaning commentators like Geraldo Rivera, Chris Wallace (who is probably the most impartial commentator on TV in the US), Greta van Sustren, and Shephard Smith.

Mike,

Here's an up-to-date study on editorial pages (http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/?f=h_top) (which are admittedly distinct from news pages) that draws a very different conclusion.

Similarly, here's a look at the rosters of guest experts and commentators on the network television Sunday Talk shows which draws a starkly different conclusion (http://mediamatters.org/sundayshowreport/) It is worth noting that Fox has a higher degree of gender and ethnic diversity than any of the other three networks, the former primarily due to regular features by Juan Williams.

As for Gerald Riviera, I'm not even sure his mother would claim him, much less any broad swath of liberals or conservatives. He's been a self-aggrandizing hustler since he was rode a gig as the Young Lords' mouthpiece to a job at ABC in 1969. I'd tag Chris Wallace as squarely on the right side of center. van Sustern I haven't paid attention to since she caught that OJ meteor-ride to stardom and.....Shephard Who?

But one underlying question would be which specific issues you're using as a proxy for identifying someone as right or left.

My contention would be that virtually all network news is right of center on both foreign policy and economic issues.

On issues of race, gender, gun control, and human sexuality, it's fair to say that almost nobody but Fox represents the socially conservative Republican base which appears to be about 30% of the national population, with a heavy concentration in the 55 and up demographic, much to the chagrin of both Fox advertising sales personnel and Republican strategists.

But out of that last list, you might have noticed that both the media and Democratic politicians, both of which have been historically associated with gun control, have been beating that drum much less often in the past couple of years. Why? They've discovered that the market (in the case of the media) and the voter base (in the case of the politicians) isn't with them. I would go so far as to say that gun control is effectively dead as a defining left/right issue, and cite as evidence the elections of Democratic Senators Jim Webb, Jon Tester, and Bob Casey in 2006, all of whom favor Second Amendment rights.

If my guess is right, you're referring to the surveys that have been done on the political identification of most reporters. It's an interesting piece of information, but it's also worth noting that both newspaper owners and middle and upper level newspaper editors -- who have the say-so over what actually runs in the paper, as opposed to what runs through a reporter's head -- skew significantly more conservative in self-identification.

Frankly, the long-standing charge of "liberal media bias" doesn't really hold up very well when you look at news programming.

My take is that most social conservatives form their basic notion of "liberal media bias" when looking at entertainment programming and the social values reflected in that programming rather than news programming. But the organized pressure groups (which may be non-profit, but are very much about people getting paid) have found that the myth of journalistic objectivity gives them a more effective rhetorical and fundraising lever when they go after news operations, so it's really a question of taking the low-hanging fruit, so to speak.

Your mileage may vary.

FL

Mike Sigman

09-14-2007, 11:59 AM

Mike,

Here's an up-to-date study on editorial pages (http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/?f=h_top) (which are admittedly distinct from news pages) that draws a very different conclusion.

Similarly, here's a look at the rosters of guest experts and commentators on the network television Sunday Talk shows which draws a starkly different conclusion (http://mediamatters.org/sundayshowreport/) It is worth noting that Fox has a higher degree of gender and ethnic diversity than any of the other three networks, the former primarily due to regular features by Juan Williams. Well, first of all, I was talking about studies by the Pew Research Center and similar institutions, Fred. You've just cited a well-known pro-liberal advocacy site, MediaMatters. There's also a pro-conservative website called the Media Research Center, in case you're interested. I would prefer to stay away from known partisan examples unless that proclivity is noted.My contention would be that virtually all network news is right of center on both foreign policy and economic issues. Just within the last week a count of the Democratic presidential contenders being interviewed showed that ABC, CBS, and NBC were far and away giving exposure to the Dems. It caused a brief embarrassment for them, but was not reported on their networks or in mainstream newspapers. A study of the coverage of the Kerry/Bush race showed far and away favorable coverage and comments about Kerry with 70-80% negative coverage of Bush on those networks. I.e., I think you're wrong. But why are you wrong? Why weren't you aware of these things? Because they weren't openly reported and only a few media would let the public know about them. That's bias and manipulation of the news, Fred. On issues of race, gender, gun control, and human sexuality, it's fair to say that almost nobody but Fox represents the socially conservative Republican base which appears to be about 30% of the national population, with a heavy concentration in the 55 and up demographic, much to the chagrin of both Fox advertising sales personnel and Republican strategists. THE most liberal advocacy group in the US is the NEA, Fred. Friends of mine in the teacher's union (for many years; some even union officials) have bragged how they quietly have taught liberal views for years. Surely that has an effect on your demographics. To me, it's about as ethical as a teacher quietly and constantly espousing creationism in school, knowing that it's against the rules but justifying it as "because it's the right thing to do." I don't care for extremism on either side, personally.
But out of that last list, you might have noticed that both the media and Democratic politicians, both of which have been historically associated with gun control, have been beating that drum much less often in the past couple of years. Why? They've discovered that the market (in the case of the media) and the voter base (in the case of the politicians) isn't with them. I would go so far as to say that gun control is effectively dead as a defining left/right issue, and cite as evidence the elections of Democratic Senators Jim Webb, Jon Tester, and Bob Casey in 2006, all of whom favor Second Amendment rights. I've never been much interested in the gun control issue, one way or the other. The Dems apparently quit beating that drum because too many moderate Democrats want to carry guns and the Dems lose votes if they push the issue. Similarly, the Repubs beat the abortion drum only so much, because too many Repubs are pro-choice. If my guess is right, you're referring to the surveys that have been done on the political identification of most reporters. It's an interesting piece of information, but it's also worth noting that both newspaper owners and middle and upper level newspaper editors -- who have the say-so over what actually runs in the paper, as opposed to what runs through a reporter's head -- skew significantly more conservative in self-identification. I disagree and I'd like to see your source on that one. The NYTimes is owned/controlled by the Sultzberger family who are radically Leftist; the WaPo is family-owned by avowed liberals, the AP is notoriously and provenly liberal, and so on. These are all heavily used sources by many papers in the U.S.

Out of curiosity, do you consider the New York Times to be a liberal paper, Fred? Frankly, the long-standing charge of "liberal media bias" doesn't really hold up very well when you look at news programming. Really? When has, for instance, any mainstream media outlet run a story or series that focuses on the plight of the families and victims of crimes done in the US by illegal immigrants. Not the occasional story, but the focus which equals the efforts/stories about the plights and hardships of the illegal immigrants? When has a mainstream media outlet focused on the corrupt government of Mexico and other southern-America countries as being a root cause of why their people have to leave to survive? As opposed to how bad the US is for not taking care of these people, etc.? In other words, maybe you're so used to seeing one side of an issue that you don't look for the missing "other side of the story"? My take is that most social conservatives form their basic notion of "liberal media bias" when looking at entertainment programming and the social values reflected in that programming rather than news programming. But the organized pressure groups (which may be non-profit, but are very much about people getting paid) have found that the myth of journalistic objectivity gives them a more effective rhetorical and fundraising lever when they go after news operations, so it's really a question of taking the low-hanging fruit, so to speak.
I've given a number of examples. Not to mention there are a number of studies in the last 5 years, none of which were reported by the mainstream media (the Washington Times does a good job of following these surveys; I'm not at my regular computer so I can't forward some of the URL's), and all of those studies were about content. I mentioned recent studies that show negative coverage of Bush while showing positive coverage of Kerry and others.... I'm not sure whether you're doing a "Santa Cruz Denial" on me or what.

Best.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick

09-14-2007, 05:24 PM

The bottom one of those links is out and out unashamed lie.

The BBC commisioned the report. They reported it themselves. It was ALL OVER the BBC news for weeks.

Don't put stock in what you read in the British newspapers, its a bunch of tabloid trash.

Its pretty much what was said above. We have a much more untrustworthy news media than TV. Yes the BBC has a left bias, then again, so does most of the country, and lets not forget you have anabashed right wing newspaper saying it.

Sorry, but unless I'm mistaken, the "report" was based on an online seminar in which many hypothetocals were used. The papers reported this so-called "secret" meeting as if the hupotheticals were actual opinions.

ALL news-outlets have a "bias:" no news organization should waste their time trying to prove otherwise. They also get themselves into trouble trying in attempting to report both sides.

The news-media is supposed to speak truth to power: not provide mouthpiece for it. The US media has fallen into the trap of "balance," in its need to appear "unbiased." And so you get fawning obsequiousness by the MSM, with headlines like "World Flat, Scientists Say. Administration Experts Disagree."

The BBC suffered from the same disease of obsequiousness, in kowtowing to Downing St in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. But to their defence, they were under the gun from Blair, et al. The excrement had to impact the oscillator, somewhere along the line....

Firstly could all you guys across the pond PLEASE remember that England is NOT the same as Britiain (It's like saying Alaska is all of the USA) And not all of us Brit's are English - It's particularly annoying for Celtic Brit's like myself.

I hope you've noticed that I've made the distinction, in this thread. Personally, I don't like being labelled as "from the United States," so I share your chagrin.

I (and everyone else who lives here) are American citizens--the United States is a centralized, bureaucratic agency that largely keeps us compliant, while robbing us of money to play dirty little wargames, overseas... :yuck:

Mark Uttech

09-15-2007, 06:07 AM

Whenever I come across threads such as this, the Kurt Vonnegut novel "Player Piano" comes to mind...

In gassho,

Mark

robert weatherall

09-15-2007, 12:38 PM

dps

09-15-2007, 01:21 PM

Neil Mick

09-16-2007, 12:18 AM

Mark Freeman

09-16-2007, 02:49 PM

AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information

If you want to bitch about the BBC choose a website which has forums on media ethics. I like to read about Aikdio here.

If you read the open discussion forums, examples of aikido principles in action are pretty hard to find. Just occasionly, you will see a post where the poster has read a point, accepted its intent, understood where it is coming from, blended with it (agreed that there may merit in it?), redirected it and given the original poster an oportunity to see the 'argument', from a different perspective.

Most of the discussions tend towards the combative approach, and I sometimes find myself being being drawn into the fight. Often because I actually enjoy the 'sparing' type of practice that tends to be the modus operandi of this section of the dojo.

It might be interesting for the regular posters to the OD forum, to see how far we could extend a thread (choose any topic, by post 2 we could already be in 'fighting mode'). by trying to apply a more aiki approach to the discussion, we may all be better off for the practice if nothing else.;)

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman

09-16-2007, 03:05 PM

It might be interesting for the regular posters to the OD forum, to see how far we could extend a thread (choose any topic, by post 2 we could already be in 'fighting mode'). by trying to apply a more aiki approach to the discussion, we may all be better off for the practice if nothing else.;) Since the trendy pop-psychology of an "aiki approach" has probably got absolutely nothing to do with Ai Ki Do and more to do with trends in western psychology that have to do with "conflict resolution", I'd probably just go :rolleyes: .

Besides, the syrupy forced conformity of "aiki speak" can be found in many of the archived posts in the various forums, if someone wants to look them up. Maybe a whole thread on "conformity" and "how to use passive-aggressive behavior to inflict damage", etc., would be a good topic, though. ;)

Best.

Mike

Mark Freeman

09-16-2007, 03:16 PM

Since the trendy pop-psychology of an "aiki approach" has probably got absolutely nothing to do with Ai Ki Do and more to do with trends in western psychology that have to do with "conflict resolution", I'd probably just go :rolleyes: .

Besides, the syrupy forced conformity of "aiki speak" can be found in many of the archived posts in the various forums, if someone wants to look them up. Maybe a whole thread on "conformity" and "how to use passive-aggressive behavior to inflict damage", etc., would be a good topic, though. ;)

Why am I not surprised that you would throw the first punch, Mike?;)

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman

09-16-2007, 03:28 PM

Why am I not surprised that you would throw the first punch, Mike?;) "First Punch" to describe a wry retort? How "aiki speak" of you, Mark! :D

Mike

Mark Freeman

09-16-2007, 03:32 PM

"First Punch" to describe a wry retort? How "aiki speak" of you, Mark! :D

Years of bad practice on my part Mike;)

Mike Sigman

09-16-2007, 04:02 PM

Mark Freeman

09-16-2007, 05:04 PM

Here's a good mention of the BBC and how it tries to popularize its liberal position, thus pushing an ideological agenda. The pertinent paragrah is the 7th one:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411406137&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The article is written by Melanie Phillips, a colunist for the Daily Mail (hardly the best example of British press output). Ms Phillips is well known for her 'strident' points of view on virtually any subject anyone askes her to comment on. Hardly surprising that she would try to get a pop in at the Beeb while she's commenting on what in all truth is a very serious subject. I don't dismiss what she says, it is a point of veiw that needs to be part of the mix.

The UK govt will do what it does, it is hadly going to be persuaded to change tack, even if she is right.

Personally, I'd like to see some proof that Tony Blair is doing something constructive, as we've heard precious little since he took up his new post (salary undisclosed?). What is he doing? the BBC don't seem to be reporting anything ( a liberal plot?).

Help me out Mike, tell me how it really is;)

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman

09-16-2007, 06:11 PM

The article is written by Melanie Phillips, a colunist for the Daily Mail (hardly the best example of British press output). Ms Phillips is well known for her 'strident' points of view on virtually any subject anyone askes her to comment on. In other words, Ms. Phillips is not a social/liberal? Hardly surprising that she would try to get a pop in at the Beeb while she's commenting on what in all truth is a very serious subject. I don't dismiss what she says, it is a point of veiw that needs to be part of the mix. The question, in line with the Subject heading, is whether the BBC, supposedly a non-partisan organ that is paid for in taxes by all people in the UK, not just the socialists/liberals, should be espousing a point of view and trying to sway public opinion in favor of the narrow views of the people within the BBC? Are you suggesting that the BBC does NOT espouse "engagement" with Hamas, which wants to destroy Israel?

The question is not how to smear Ms. Phillips, etc., but whether, as the header indicates, a "public" organ like the BBC is taking stances in order to sway public opinion. If it is, it either needs to quit receiving tax monies or it needs to be disbanded. And trust me, I'm hoping that you're non-hypocritical enough to agree that if BBC spouted nothing but the Tory line, it should be jerked also.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick

09-16-2007, 09:07 PM

In other words, Ms. Phillips is not a social/liberal?

Boy, Mike: you sure like to cherry-pick your sources! I'm beginning to see why you view the world the way you do...:freaky: :freaky: :crazy:

The question, in line with the Subject heading, is whether the BBC, supposedly a non-partisan organ that is paid for in taxes by all people in the UK, not just the socialists/liberals, should be espousing a point of view and trying to sway public opinion in favor of the narrow views of the people within the BBC?

And so far, all you've managed to produce are strident viewpoints, masquerading as reality. Still awaiting an actual quote from the BBC that it truly is biased, per your oft-repeated claim, here.

Are you suggesting that the BBC does NOT espouse "engagement" with Hamas, which wants to destroy Israel?

Huh?? :confused: And, speaking of non sequitors...

And, could you supply some sort of link, pls?

The question is not how to smear Ms. Phillips, etc., but whether, as the header indicates, a "public" organ like the BBC is taking stances in order to sway public opinion. If it is, it either needs to quit receiving tax monies or it needs to be disbanded.

Again and again, Mike: you provide strawman after strawman to prove your point. But, I think your point is valid, but unmeasurable.

In reality, all you have to do to answer your question is examine the role the media plays in affecting public opinion, and vice versa.

You also completely ignore the role the government plays upon the media. The fact that the British PM forced the resignation of the heads of the BBC seems absent in your assessment of the effects of the media, and what affects media organizations.

Mike Sigman

09-16-2007, 09:22 PM

Boy, Mike: you sure like to cherry-pick your sources! I'm beginning to see why you view the world the way you do...:freaky: :freaky: :crazy: You know, Neil.... the saga of your avoidance, try-to-confuse-the-issue, grudgingly-admit-Santa-Cruz-is-liberal, etc., tap-dance is right here in this thread and back-channel it's been a lot of amusement. Mark tried to smear Ms. Phillips, which is a very liberals-response-to-anything-they-don't-like reflex. It's disgusting. It's like when Borking got started, you guys never let go of the habit. My comment had nothing to do with "cherry picking"... go back and read the pertinent comment.

Let me see if I can say it a bit clearer. The BBC is about in the same boat as the liberalism in Santa Cruz.... the humorous liberal dichotomy where the rational ones admit the obvious and the dishonest ones pretend "it ain't so" lives on in you. There are no complaints about the BBC being conservative except in some rare fringe-nut Left groups. It's not even close to a real argument, as anyone not in the far fringes will tell you. But I suppose you'd just argue them to a standstill, thinking that if you don't lose the argument somehow you have done something for God.....er, I mean "The Greater Good", which is the same religious artifact for you guys. ;)

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick

09-17-2007, 12:02 AM

You know, Neil.... the saga of your avoidance, try-to-confuse-the-issue, grudgingly-admit-Santa-Cruz-is-liberal, etc., tap-dance is right here in this thread and back-channel it's been a lot of amusement.

For you.

For the rest of us, your change-the-subject, ad hominem tactics are annoying, at best.

Mark tried to smear Ms. Phillips, which is a very liberals-response-to-anything-they-don't-like reflex. It's disgusting.

Yes...disgusting. COMPLETELY unlike your take on Helen Boaden, of the BBC:

I gave solid sources; you gave opinions that differed.

No Mike: YOU gave a summation of misreported media-smears; I gave an eyewitness account, which you duly ignored as "opinion," because it was from a blog, and not in line with your worldview:

Well I was one of the people who was at the "secret" meeting. and I have to say the reality was somewhat different to the way the press are reporting it.
For a start, this wasn't a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web.

Translation:

Mike=good. The rest of us=baaaad. :yuck: :rolleyes:

It's like when Borking got started, you guys never let go of the habit. My comment had nothing to do with "cherry picking"... go back and read the pertinent comment.

Let me see if I can say it a bit clearer.

Gods, I hope so. But, I'm not holding my breath...

The BBC is about in the same boat as the liberalism in Santa Cruz....

Back to your old tricks of diverting the subject again, ay?

Tsk. Here, let's put that shoe on the opposite foot, see if it sounds as silly....

FoxNews is about in the same boat as the Conservatism in....um....Evanston, Illinois

Yep...VERY silly.

the humorous liberal dichotomy where the rational ones admit the obvious and the dishonest ones pretend "it ain't so" lives on in you. There are no complaints about the BBC being conservative except in some rare fringe-nut Left groups.

"Rare, finge-nut Left groups," in the World According to Mike. Sad, how you seem so blind to only what you want to see.

The truth of the matter, Mike, is that the BBC DOES actually promote some slants I would hardly call "Liberal," or "Left." The reportage on Haiti (since at least 2004) is one such example.

It's not even close to a real argument, as anyone not in the far fringes will tell you.

In The World According to Mike (or TWAM).

But I suppose you'd just argue them to a standstill, thinking that if you don't lose the argument somehow you have done something for God.....er, I mean "The Greater Good", which is the same religious artifact for you guys. ;)

Mike Sigman

Ahh...now, of course, you're attempting to label me a religious fanatic. There really is no end to the ad hominem's from you, is there? :rolleyes:

PS But it's OK, Mike: I know your secret...you don't read the links or posts of anything (or anyone) with whom you disagree. Take my last post, in which you only responded to the 1st line....your usual MO. I doubt you even read all of Helen Boaden's entry, and so I'm completely underwhelmed that you missed the boat...again.

Mark Freeman

09-17-2007, 05:51 AM

Mark tried to smear Ms. Phillips, which is a very liberals-response-to-anything-they-don't-like reflex. It's disgusting.

A little rich coming from you, Mike. Calling someone 'strident' in their views is hardly a smear. She makes her money being highly opinionated, she's used to people not always agreeing with her. I do, occasionally applaude the position she takes on some subjects.

The paper she writes for is sometimes referred to as the Daily Hate, I try to avoid reading it, as it is full of columnists and reporters banging on about how life would be so much better if it wasn't for the :- Foreigners (particularly europeans), illegal immigrants, assylum seekers, young people/criminals, single parents, drinkers, drivers, etc etc... It is read by the Victor Meldrews of this world. It is the epitomy of Little Englander xenophobic mentality.

The "It's disgusting" hurumph is just the sort of response that a Mail reader would be muttering to themselves as they plough their way through the odious little rag that masquerades as a 'news' paper.

Believe it or not, the majority of people in the UK are pleased that we have the BBC, are happy to pay their licence fee, and are aware of the 'bias' issues that have been levelled at them since before the Wilson government in the 60's. We are free to watch the BBC news, Channel 4 news ( my preference ) Sky and CNN.

We can make up our own minds. And being the secular liberal democracy that we are, we may not always a) get it right, or b) care what others think.

regards,

Mark

Taliesin

09-17-2007, 08:04 AM

I's like to echo Marks opinions - and say I do not regard haveing at least one TV news media outlet that is not totally right-wing.

Mike Sigman

09-17-2007, 10:55 AM

I's like to echo Marks opinions - and say I do not regard haveing at least one TV news media outlet that is not totally right-wing.That reminds me of a problem that NPR (National Public Radio.... funded by taxpayers) had back in the 90's when some alliances with liberals and Democrats (the donation lists were given to Democrat candidates because the listeners are overwhelmingly liberal because of the liberal spin) caused a brief furor. NPR was forced to solicit comments (to the liberal listening audience) about "are we really too liberal". Heh. Of course, the majority of responses were "Of course we're not!". But some of the liberals said things like, "Of course NPR is liberal... if the conservatives don't like it, let them get their own station."

The question is whether all the public should be forced to support a media that voices a political or religious perspective ... or whether such a public organ should be nonpartisan. Of course, when the side that the BBC or NPR favors says they like things that way and they don't think honesty/fairness is much of an issue, they shouldn't complain when other people force the to pay for things they don't like. Otherwise it's known as hypocrisy. And that's been my point all along.

FWIW

Mike

HL1978

09-17-2007, 11:05 AM

i posted a link this morning to the BBC comissioned report, anyone see what happened to it?

Mike Sigman

09-17-2007, 11:24 AM

Believe it or not, the majority of people in the UK are pleased that we have the BBC, are happy to pay their licence fee, and are aware of the 'bias' issues that have been levelled at them since before the Wilson government in the 60's. We are free to watch the BBC news, Channel 4 news ( my preference ) Sky and CNN. Well, I have no doubt the majority (or close to it) think along those lines, Mark. I notice the BBC tried to suppress the report showing that it (and "the majority of people in the UK", I presume) have a bias against Israel. After all, England did nothing to stop the Halocaust even though they knew it was going on, during WWII.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3319064,00.html

We can make up our own minds. And being the secular liberal democracy that we are, we may not always a) get it right, or b) care what others think.Of course. You're independent thinkers and all that. I just hope the U.S. can learn from the Europeans and will not contribute more than, say, 900 military soldiers to the next European-inspired (through action or typical diplomatic non-action) the next time. We should all be like the Europeans.... after all, what group of other people have been able to initiate *Two* world wars in one century through their brilliant, elitist maneuvers? ;)

Regards,

Mike

Mike Sigman

09-17-2007, 11:30 AM

Nice editorial by the Times. Note the open comment about their own bias, BTW:

excerpted from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece (read the full article)

Bias at the Beeb - official
There are some things you do not need an official report to tell you - that John Prescott thinks he is a babe magnet, that President Mugabe is not entirely in favour of white farmers and that Al-Qaeda takes a pretty dim view of the West. The report commissioned by the BBC into itself concluded with something equally blindingly obvious. It said that the organisation is institutionally biased and especially gullible to the blandishments of politically driven celebrities, such as Bono and Bob Geldof. Almost anyone in Britain could have told the BBC that for free, but maybe it’s better to have it in an official report.

All media organisations are biased and that applies especially to newspapers. But our bias is openly declared. If readers want different views they have no compulsion to pay and can go elsewhere. The BBC is in a different category; everyone has to pay for it and it is in the tricky position of being founded to be free from bias. It is meant to be a beacon of objective truth in a wildly polarised world. A tall order. In theory even rabid rightwingers and demented leftists can listen or watch (and increasingly read online) the BBC without discerning any tilt. But what emerges from the report is a picture of an organisation with a liberal, anti-American bias and an almost teenage fascination with fashionable causes. The report singles out the BBC’s overwhelming and uncritical backing for the campaign over Live Aid and now the Live Earth concerts on global warming.

HL1978

09-17-2007, 12:36 PM

ah i found it again. here is the link to the BBC's own study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf

be warned it is 81 pages.

Taliesin

09-17-2007, 01:07 PM

Mike Sigman

09-17-2007, 01:13 PM

Thanks

And - surprise , surprise - it doesn't say anything like Mike suggests - the closesest they get is that their get 'politically correct' in their efforts to maintain impartiality.

GO ahead Mike - that's your cue to

a) Say I'm Stupid
b) Say I'm Liberal (as if that's a bad thing)
c) Say I'm Anti-American
d) Say I'm misrepresenting the evidence
e) Claim that only his view of the world can be correct.
f) Assert his own 'superiority amongst those of us who make decisons on evidenceHow about if I just point out to you that there are several studies under discussion. Which one are you talking about? The Israel one, which the BBC asked to be suppressed? One of the several other studies that have been mentioned in the thread? Based on this vagary of yours, I'll go with (a). Thanks.

Mike

Neil Mick

09-17-2007, 01:24 PM

Well, I have no doubt the majority (or close to it) think along those lines, Mark.
Regards,

Mike

And there you have it: Mike contradicts himself. For if the BBC displays "Liberal bias:" it by definition HAS to be to the Left of mainstream English opinion (since, its target audience is the English).

Score another spin for Mike! :cool:

How about if I just point out to you that there are several studies under discussion. Which one are you talking about? The Israel one, which the BBC asked to be suppressed? One of the several other studies that have been mentioned in the thread? Based on this vagary of yours, I'll go with (a). Thanks.

Mike

Big surprise.

Neil Mick

09-17-2007, 01:32 PM

ah i found it again. here is the link to the BBC's own study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf

be warned it is 81 pages.

Yeah, at first glance: this report sure vindicates Mike:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Whereas the audience used simply to consume broadcasting, it is now a full participant. People upload as well as download content, they set up their own blogs or videoblogs, they communicate with programme-makers before, during and after transmission, and they increasingly offer their own pictures to television newsrooms. This much greater audience involvement has become a major factor in determining impartiality.

The BBC has a proud record in this area. With the volume of BBC output, some of it delivered at high speed, there will always be specific problems that arise. There are also those who suspect the BBC of having a point of view. But the evidence of the audience research in this Report is that the BBC is generally seen as impartial, and that this impartiality is both demanded and valued. It is the basis of the public’s trust, without which the BBC cannot function.

Damn those pinko Liberally-biased Commie-loving audiences and their heinous reports! Screwing up our much-valued slandering and rumor-mills! :hypno:

(I'll read more later, when I have more time. Perhaps there's a sentence or a word in it which might really vindicate Mike. I'm not holding my breath: but everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt...even Mike).

Mike Sigman

09-17-2007, 01:43 PM

Neil, if you'll look at the commentary within the British Press at the time of the study, you'll notice two things:

1. The BBC acknowledged some bias.

2. They denied, in this their own study about themselves, that they did this bias in the news.

For some reason, you seem to not have seen that one of the other studies, the study about anti-Israel bias (the one the BBC has attempted to suppress), shows that indeed the news portion of the BBC is biased in the news, thus contradicting the famous study where they admit to some bias while trying to say that it was innocuous. I'll let you figure it out. Then you can try to weasel-word it so that it doesn't really say that.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick

09-17-2007, 02:06 PM

. I'll let you figure it out. Then you can try to weasel-word it so that it doesn't really say that.

So far, all I have trouble "figuring out," is how stupid you think we all really are, with all your spinning and strawmen. NONE of your claims so far hold water with even a cursory scrutiny.

Why should the next set be any different?

Mike Sigman

09-17-2007, 02:32 PM

So far, all I have trouble "figuring out," is how stupid you think we all really are, with all your spinning and strawmen. NONE of your claims so far hold water with even a cursory scrutiny.

Why should the next set be any different?Actually, with a number of the actual reports themselves, plus a number of newpaper reports and commentaries actually supporting exactly what I've said, your trivialization stands as a bit dishonest, Neil. Not even a "cursory scrutiny"? Please.... there's a point when your opinions simply stand out as false characterizations, which brings into question many other of your asserted positions.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy this sort flashlight shining on you extremists. It started back in the Summer of 1968 when I played a solo gig at a bar in the Haight and I lived among the "peace and love" and "anti-war" crowd. I found then, to my disappointment, as I find now that most of the "peace and war" and "anti-war" posturers are really just self-absorbed mannikins with a schtick. Very similar to the boutique-leather guys with Rolexes who ride their Harley's around.... it's mostly role-play and "look at me" stuff.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman

09-17-2007, 05:17 PM

More on the Beeb. See any worries about how "conservative" the Beeb is?
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2007/09/let_google_buy.html

Regards,

Mike Sigman

HL1978

09-17-2007, 05:19 PM

Yeah, at first glance: this report sure vindicates Mike:

I tend to think it supports his position. On a number of occasions through the report it notes that it needs to maintain its impartiality because there has been a shift in thought in the public, and that there are more diverse viewpoints than before and that BBC coverage needs to embrace a broader range of opinions to be considered impartial(this could be considered more left wing as well as right wing viewpoints, but elsewhere in the report notes a shift towards the center from the left i the general public). It warns of its reports commenting on areas outside their expertise, whether factual or indeed opinions/arguments.

It notes that holding a centrist viewpoint is the wrong position for a number of reasons, but it is better instead to provide more coverage of both sides of a given topic, but not necessacrily equal coverage. They also noted that it is not the BBC's role to close down debate. As Mike indicated, the Palestininan/Israeli conflict does not receive equal attention, nor does it often cover the Israeli civilian viewpoint as often as the Palestinian.

It notes throughout the report that the BBC is late to the party on a number of issues, does not have experience in a wider variety of viewpoints which certainly reflects (and explicitly admitted by a number of current and former BBC employees within the report) journalists not in touch with public opinion, nor all sides of various stories. The editors quite explicitly say that the audience doesn't feel that all viewpoints are shown. Further that editors should be prepared to fight with program producers to include viewpoints outside the liberal consensus.

The curious thing though, is that they are trying to determine themselves how much weight they should give to the audience's opinon of impartiality.

It notes audience frustration of political correctness/regional representation etc.

More often than not, members of the press's comments in the report indicate that there appears to be bias.

It does not that the seminar attendees felt there was some sort of liberal consensus as well as group think common in any large organization. BBC editors state that they have different views than the public and that this isn't sustainable in the long term. Other employees and former employees state that BBC journalists demographics don't match the UK as a whole.

Further the instance where they had a very hard time trying to find a member of the public which agreed with a certain viewpoint advanced by a story, shows clear bias within the story itself.

It is interesting though to read that in the past it was considered biased towards the right.

There are no real examples throughout the document that state any sort of conservative bias is present, rather the opposite. The questions of what the BBC should stand for when reporting is quite interesting. In the 80's exporting democracy to communist countries was considered a good thing What about advocating so in the middle east ? Should the BBC export British values or cultural relativism? Should it report the facts and facts only?

Mike Sigman

09-17-2007, 05:39 PM

Good comments, Hunter, and thanks for taking the time to lay it out logically.

One point I'd make (and just to step back from my usual banter) is that Neil's immediate rejection of liberal bias for Santa Cruz and then the gradual and general admission that of course it is liberal, are part of this phenomenon that I like to watch (bear in mind that I've seen conservatives do this dissimulation also, my whole life). Mark Freeman and David Chalk both signalled that they recognize that the BBC is liberal, although grudgingly. Neil has fought a rearguard action against overwhelming odds. My point has never been so much that the BBC is liberal (which is a "threshold IQ" obvious point, at best), but that people espousing supposedly "higher moral" viewpoints will swear that the Beeb isn't liberal when they know full well that it is. That's the interesting part to watch. It makes me very cautious of people who claim to be on the moral high-ground. Same reason I run when someone asks me "Have you been saved?" ;)

Best.

Mike

Neil Mick

09-18-2007, 03:59 AM

I tend to think it supports his position.

Well, we can agree to disagree.

I began this post by searching through Mike's posts, to outline how extreme he thinks the BBC is. But why bother? From the OP he comes out with comparisons to Hitler and WW2, and throughout this thread his accusatory language has only moderately toned down.

This report, supposedly Mike's "smoking gun," is really a series of very mild recommendations:

needs to maintain its impartiality

BBC coverage needs to embrace a broader range of opinions

It warns of its reports commenting on areas outside their expertise, whether factual or indeed opinions/arguments.

All good, but still...all recommendations.

Recommendations, after a glowing compliment,

the BBC is generally seen as impartial, and that this impartiality is both demanded and valued. It is the basis of the public’s trust, without which the BBC cannot function.

It notes that holding a centrist viewpoint is the wrong position for a number of reasons, but it is better instead to provide more coverage of both sides of a given topic, but not necessacrily equal coverage. They also noted that it is not the BBC's role to close down debate. As Mike indicated, the Palestininan/Israeli conflict does not receive equal attention, nor does it often cover the Israeli civilian viewpoint as often as the Palestinian.

It notes throughout the report that the BBC is late to the party on a number of issues, does not have experience in a wider variety of viewpoints which certainly reflects (and explicitly admitted by a number of current and former BBC employees within the report) journalists not in touch with public opinion, nor all sides of various stories. The editors quite explicitly say that the audience doesn't feel that all viewpoints are shown. Further that editors should be prepared to fight with program producers to include viewpoints outside the liberal consensus.

All this stuff is exactly what you'd expect from an honest, thorough internal report. Nothing revelatory, here.

The curious thing though, is that they are trying to determine themselves how much weight they should give to the audience's opinon of impartiality.

Yes, an interesting question. What an audience considers "impartial," may not be.

It notes audience frustration of political correctness/regional representation etc.

More often than not, members of the press's comments in the report indicate that there appears to be bias.

"Appears"

It does not that the seminar attendees felt there was some sort of liberal consensus as well as group think common in any large organization. BBC editors state that they have different views than the public and that this isn't sustainable in the long term. Other employees and former employees state that BBC journalists demographics don't match the UK as a whole.

The link does not seem to work. I'd love to see this quoted directly, if you can get it on your end.

Further the instance where they had a very hard time trying to find a member of the public which agreed with a certain viewpoint advanced by a story, shows clear bias within the story itself.

It is interesting though to read that in the past it was considered biased towards the right.

There are no real examples throughout the document that state any sort of conservative bias is present, rather the opposite. The questions of what the BBC should stand for when reporting is quite interesting. In the 80's exporting democracy to communist countries was considered a good thing What about advocating so in the middle east ? Should the BBC export British values or cultural relativism? Should it report the facts and facts only?

You know, this is one study, and if you're right...then Mike's right that some editors acknowledged that they hold divergent views to the mainstream. Still, this report hardly holds up to the level of attack that Mike's invested.

And, how all that spells "Liberal bias," is totally beyond me.

I might add, their blind spots on the "Conservative bias" (poor choice of term...better might be "pro-military," anti-3rd World) is telling.

Taliesin

09-18-2007, 06:12 AM

robert weatherall

09-18-2007, 06:52 AM

Robert Weatherall wrote:
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information

If you want to bitch about the BBC choose a website which has forums on media ethics. I like to read about Aikdio here.

Yes, Robert: to underscore David's post, I think you should probably avoid the "Open Discussion" Section, if you don't want to read about non-Aikido topics here.

My apologies to all. I do tend to avoid the open topic section. Had clicked the link on the right hand side of the page which didn't indicate which section things were in.
My fault.
Sorry.

Neil Mick

09-18-2007, 03:14 PM

Neil

I think we'd all do better to debate matters with Hunter who, although I disagree with him, does put forward clear arguments in support of his position.

I may not personally find them convincing, but they are are clear, honest arguments - let's leave MS to continue acting the clown.

You're quite right. Better to leave Mike doing the things he does best (ie, misinform, obfuscate, and slander).

Meanwhile, Kudos to Hunter for laying out his arguments so clearly.

Mike Sigman

09-18-2007, 03:23 PM

Meanwhile, Kudos to Hunter for laying out his arguments so clearly.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: I tend to think it supports his (Mike's) position.Aw, thanks Neil and David. I knew I was right.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick

09-18-2007, 03:26 PM

I knew I was right.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

You always do (esp considering you mostly aren't). The TRUE test of character will come on the day you finally admit when you are WRONG. We're all still awaiting that proud moment...:drool:

PS oh, BTW, Mike: in case your head gets too big...we WEREN'T acknowledging you were right...we were complimenting Hunter on his ability to cogently present your case...an ability you so far have yet to demonstrate.

James Davis

09-18-2007, 03:38 PM

My apologies to all. I do tend to avoid the open topic section. Had clicked the link on the right hand side of the page which didn't indicate which section things were in.
My fault.
Sorry.

You're fired. Clear your desk.

akiy

09-18-2007, 04:22 PM

Please watch your tone, folks.

-- Jun

Taliesin

09-21-2007, 09:12 AM

Mike

The Fact that Hunter agrees with you. Demonstrates that Hunter agrees with you and nothing else.

It certainly doesn't prove you are right. (unless you mean politically)

Mike Sigman

09-21-2007, 09:26 AM

Mike

The Fact that Hunter agrees with you. Demonstrates that Hunter agrees with you and nothing else.

It certainly doesn't prove you are right. (unless you mean politically)Y'know, it would probably serve your debate position better if you simply said something like "so what if the BBC is a little-bit leftist in its views" or something, since, as has been noted by numerous sources, few people question that bit of data. The problem is that you're in a quandary: if you admit the BBC is biased, many of your asserted viewpoints become simply opinions, so you'd rather hold with your beliefs as "truth" because what *you* believe is more important than the truth. The other point you're caught on is that if you admit the BBC is biased, you're effectively admitting that you think it is ethically correct to collect money from individuals of all political persuasions in the UK and then use the money to promote essentially a liberal viewpoint. That is dishonest and hypocritical, so you'd rather maintain an obvious facade rather than admit the truth. As I've said numerous times, I'd complain bitterly about any biased representation calling itself a news organization, whether Rightist or Leftist. The "press" is granted extraordinary freedoms to do as it wishes, with the ostensible idea that it will get the full truth and facts out to the public. Any "press" organization that reaches large numbers of people and which deliberately skews the news should be held responsible via some mechanism. With great freedom must come great responsibilities. Unfortunately, I honestly don't think you would agree with my position until some rightist organization took over the news. And that's the difference between you and me.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Taliesin

09-21-2007, 10:00 AM

Oh Dear, O Dear, Oh Dear,

or as we say back home Duw Duw,

has anyone got any dried frog pills?

Hunter

If you are there, please explain your argument to Mike for us will you?

Explain that a right wing accusation that the BBC is biased towards the left - is merely an accusation.

You might want to explain to Mike the difference between accusation and proof.

Mark Freeman

09-21-2007, 10:32 AM

As I've said numerous times, I'd complain bitterly about any biased representation calling itself a news organization, whether Rightist or Leftist.

Mike, if we just stick to TV stations for the moment, which station would you recomend to give a 'completely' unbiased view, and only a complete representation of the true facts? I am interested to know.

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman

09-21-2007, 10:54 AM

Mike, if we just stick to TV stations for the moment, which station would you recomend to give a 'completely' unbiased view, and only a complete representation of the true facts? I am interested to know. Strawman argument, Mark. I've made no inference or claim that there is such a thing, anymore than there is a perfect politician, perfect wife, etc., etc. My complaint is against extremes and dishonesty... the BBC has been known in the last decade or two for swinging into the extremes in its news and opinion pieces. What you have to strive for is "moderation" and all viewpoints.

When I'm in Europe I'm stunned at how the BBC simply omits many of the actual facts and perspectives on things that are going on in America. I see "panel discussions" filled with anti-Americans who have half the facts and all the hate... and never a show to counterbalance it. It's quite sickening to see this type of coverage.

The UK has become so politically correct that sometimes I laugh out loud at some new policy that is being implemented so as not to offend criminals in jails, etc. But if that's all you're raised on, perhaps you don't even see the bias and tilt. Or you simply block it out because your beliefs are stronger than your reasoning power.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

HL1978

09-21-2007, 12:51 PM

The BBC has quite a few reasons to not admit any bias, and to take as many steps as possible to try and prevent bias. I could only wish NPR did the same. I think we can all agree, that in general, the politics of the UK are to the left of the US. Does that political stance effect coverage of the US by the BBC? Is the BBC itself left of those in the UK which pay its fee? The questions raised in their own study seems to support the second.

The BBC like NPR, predominatly shows bias through ommission and story/viewpoint selection. This is more than merely trying to use certain terms to attempt to appear impartial and clearly different than putting news that advocates a certain political agenda on the last page of a newspaper etc. In the case of middle east coverage, not distinguishing between, militant and non-milliant deaths, but instead simply referring to civilian deaths. While technically true (I regularly hear of deaths to Palestinian security forces referred to as that) that militants are in most cases civilian (i.e. not members of the security forces), it does misconstrue Israeli intentions as targeting the general public. The BBC does tend to call Israeli assassinations, "targeted killings" in an attempt to be impartial and not assign a value judgment, but needs to clearly distinguish between unintended damage/deaths of the general public, and those of militants. The BBC's reporting in this case isn't factually inaccurate, but through omission tends to show bias.

In my work, I serve a quasijudical function (I determine the metes and bounds of language, my decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court) and I know it is very difficult to be impartial and not have one's own personal beliefs or one's own background influence one's own arguments/viewpoints. The BBC's editors/journalists etc, according to their own report don't necessarily match the demographics of the public, and it is optimistic thinking to believe that ones own experiences/situation, despite best intent otherwise, don't colour commentary/reporting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY4umBmJHjg
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_WEZloX2fQ&mode=related&search=

the above is a video interview of former BBC Journalist Robin Aitken discussing the bias within the BBC. The first part deals with a poster of Bush as Hitler in BBC offices and how no one objects to this within the office. if there is no objection within the office, it is reasonable to construe that the same sort of personal feelings will carry over into news coverage. Sure, he has a new book out, and one could accuse him of trying to promote it, but after 25 years working there, he should have an understanding of the insider culture. One should also note why 41% of their recrutiment advertising budget went was spent at the Guardian in 2004 (the next highest amount went to "the western mail"). Perhaps they have the best journalists or those they wish to recruit predominantly read it, but as indicated by other posters, the british press is quite partisan and wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_guardian) indicates that its audience is left leaning in their voting record.

One should question why the BBC made such an effort to conceal the Balen Report. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but there must be some reason they wish to hide it, which runs counter to any body/government/corporation that accepts public funds. I think we all can admit that transparency is a good thing.

HL1978

09-21-2007, 01:00 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm

TAnderson

09-21-2007, 02:41 PM

FYI...
Scott Norvell London bureau chief for Fox News
The Wall Street Journal May 20 regarding left-wing bias at the BBC

"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it."

Regards,
Tim Anderson

Neil Mick

09-21-2007, 03:48 PM

Hello Hunter,

The BBC has quite a few reasons to not admit any bias, and to take as many steps as possible to try and prevent bias.

So far, tho: you have yet to show that there is an overt, "Liberal" bias. The study you quoted earlier, in fact, suggests there is too strong an attempt to push for the "Center" ground.

I could only wish NPR did the same. I think we can all agree, that in general, the politics of the UK are to the left of the US. Does that political stance effect coverage of the US by the BBC? Is the BBC itself left of those in the UK which pay its fee?

This is the central question.

The questions raised in their own study seems to support the second.

Going by your own references to the study (as I cannot get the link to work), again...you have yet to prove this.

It notes that holding a centrist viewpoint is the wrong position for a number of reasons, but it is better instead to provide more coverage of both sides of a given topic, but not necessacrily equal coverage. They also noted that it is not the BBC's role to close down debate. As Mike indicated, the Palestininan/Israeli conflict does not receive equal attention, nor does it often cover the Israeli civilian viewpoint as often as the Palestinian.

A position I hotly contend,,,but I failed to bother debating with Mike
months ago with the expectation of getting any sort of acknowledgement of reality.

It notes throughout the report that the BBC is late to the party on a number of issues, does not have experience in a wider variety of viewpoints which certainly reflects (and explicitly admitted by a number of current and former BBC employees within the report) journalists not in touch with public opinion, nor all sides of various stories. The editors quite explicitly say that the audience doesn't feel that all viewpoints are shown. Further that editors should be prepared to fight with program producers to include viewpoints outside the liberal consensus.

None of these "admissions" (again, I wish I could see the document) admit to a "Liberal" bias (Mike's main claim): only being out of touch with their audience.

The BBC like NPR, predominatly shows bias through ommission and story/viewpoint selection.

But Hunter: this is true of ALL news media. ALL media have a bias.

This is more than merely trying to use certain terms to attempt to appear impartial and clearly different than putting news that advocates a certain political agenda on the last page of a newspaper etc.

You're right...but it's not been shown to be "Liberal."

The BBC's reporting in this case isn't factually inaccurate, but through omission tends to show bias.

No, I don't think so. There are good arguments by both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian pundits that take issue with the BBC's "bias." Neither side is happy with their terms (not calling innocents "martyrs;" whether a "crossfire," is/is not a crossfire, et al).

The first part deals with a poster of Bush as Hitler in BBC offices and how no one objects to this within the office. if there is no objection within the office, it is reasonable to construe that the same sort of personal feelings will carry over into news coverage.

Sorry, but this is not "reasonable," at all. Do Republican police officers only enforce the laws that they like? Please. I have yet to see any evidence that political beliefs or voting records are an accurate indice of political bias.

Now, if you were able to show some political involvement on a career-level in some cause or other, or even some high-level connection to a political party, Communists or Name-your-evil-Lefty-group (to take an example: Roger Ailes, president of Fox)

Roger Eugene Ailes (born May 15, 1940) is the president of Fox News Channel and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group. He was a media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, as well as for presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's first mayoral campaign in 1989.

...well, THEN, I'd say you have a first step in uncovering some sort of bias. But it's a real stretch to show bias from an unobjected office-poster! :rolleyes:

Sure, he has a new book out, and one could accuse him of trying to promote it, but after 25 years working there, he should have an understanding of the insider culture.

You just shot your own argument in the foot. The guy has an axe to grind.

Have you ever noticed how the most compelling arguments for "Liberal bias" all come from disgruntled writers trying to push a book?

One should also note why 41% of their recrutiment advertising budget went was spent at the Guardian in 2004 (the next highest amount went to "the western mail"). Perhaps they have the best journalists

What percentage was the "Western Mail?" If it was something close, like 38%...then I'd say your findings aren't very rigorous...esp since the Western Mail is the (I assume) "Liberally unbiased" main paper of Wales...not exactly a hotbed of ultra-Liberalism.

You also fail to consider another possibility. Perhaps HR/editors at the BBC had ANOTHER reason (owed favors to someone there; wrote to old colleagues at the Guardian; some unique HR recruitment-drive; etc). In short, Hunter: I think you're "reading" (ouch...pun :uch: ) too much bias in where they spend the budget.

or those they wish to recruit predominantly read it, but as indicated by other posters, the british press is quite partisan and wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_guardian) indicates that its audience is left leaning in their voting record.

Then, this is hardly "biased," is it? For an agency to possess some political bias: it needs to hold views to the Left or the Right of their public.

One should question why the BBC made such an effort to conceal the Balen Report. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but there must be some reason they wish to hide it, which runs counter to any body/government/corporation that accepts public funds. I think we all can admit that transparency is a good thing.

Yes, it is. Liberal pundits (Noam Chomsky, etc) have ALSO opined that the Report was withheld because it would reveal the pro-Israel bias. So there you go.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel

Oh yah, that's why I always trust FoxNews...it's because they're a "private channel:" free from political interference ( from everyone, but their owner's). :hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :rolleyes:

OUtfoxed (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7798.htm)