Any perspective critical of Corbyn is only possible via bias.

+1

Bias isn't a problem provided people are honest about their views and affiliation. But when bias lurks under a pretence of objectivity, that's a problem, and it's what the BBC do best. When you repeat this stuff, and worse actually omit the key part of it, then you are aligning yourself with that agenda. I'm making a mountain from a molehill but it's probably still relevant.

As for the change in headline, was the article itself changed? If not then my point stands, you selectively quoted the question posed without reference to the answer. Now it doesn't make the slightest difference on 2+2 but there's a wider, more interesting discussion point to be had: the impact of the media on the character assassination of left wing leaders. It's a poor choice of issue given Corbyn's squeaky clean record.

who had BBC right-wing conspiracy in tin-foil hat bingo?

Suggests a degree of naivety not to consider the BBC part of the corporate media network run by a handful of individuals, given their output is largely the same. A conspiracy theory would require jumping to unproven conclusions, ample evidence can be found by simply watching TV.

Have a bash at rereading your last post, but in your head do it in an Alex Jones voice.

I've just made it clear that I pasted the article headline verbatim when it first appeared.

You seem to be unaware that online news articles are changed throughout the day as more facts are known.

First tell me who that is, then explain what they sound like and I'll try it.

The well-known far-right conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones:

Looks great, voice that makes you want to stick corkscrews in each ear and rip out your eardrums

It is not a conspiracy, it is obvious.

Most of their prominent journalists are outed right-wingers. They are all in the supertax league and are not going to be sympathetic to a socialist. The guy chairing question time was in the Bullingdon club.

Additionally the BBC is ultimately answerable to the government which is conservatively currently.

It really is a little absurd to pretend a group of prominent journalists who have admitted publicly that they are conservatives, who have a vested financial interest in conservative policy, and whom are ultimately answerable to the conservative party as their effective employer, would not, in fact, be somewhat conservative.

In other shock news, the TUC and the communist party is generally a bit left-wing.

There's a fairly large list of exemptions to this rule.

It is precisely a conspiracy theory. The BBC has over 20,000 employees yet you think that finding a few senior journos who are/or may be conservative in some guise (ignoring the many that are clearly not so) ruins the credibility of the entire organisation. In the above post you presented no actual evidence, yet you and tomj seem to just assume it as self-evident.

It's quite comforting to take a step back and see people on the right screaming 'THE BBC HAS A LEFTIE BIAS' and people on the left vice versa. This in itself is not evidence that it's neutral - I'm not pretending absolute neutrality is possible or desirable - but it's reassuring.

^ people who talk about the 'leftie BBC', usually reserved for complaints about hand picked question time audiences clapping socialist views, are simply absurd. This has no equivalence with what we are saying here.

You simply do not get a broad range of opinion through the BBC or any corporate media. Editorial lines are peddled, debates are staged, opinion is formed to suit those in charge, all under the pretence of objective journalism. Any alternative voice for change is wilfully ignored, or if they must be heard they are ridiculed.

Paul Mason or any progressive journalist for that matter, will tell you, that to present alternative viewpoints at the BBC means constant, daily degradation. While this doesn't mean BBC journalists are complete robots, it does match the experience a viewer or reader has, ie. there is a dominant, let's say pro-western voice.

It's good that you're reassured, hope you are too scared s***less when you finally wake up.

Best place on the BBC for left wing views is The News Quiz.

Holy ****, I have 'You sheep need to wake up!' BING BINGO BINGO!

In all seriousness, you've poo pooed the right-wing argument that the BBC is left-wring and offered precisely zero evidence for your claim.

I think there are 2 issues:

Firstly there is the degree of objective balance within the boundaries of a particular debate. For instance, BBC coverage of Corbyn which was the case in point re tax returns. Multiple studies have proven the BBC is biased against Corbyn by broadcasting many more negative views than positive, an example of blatant, mathematically provable bias.
Question time could be another: during the New Labour era we often went weeks without a single left voice on the panel, and when they did they were usually artists or comics. Here it could be argued that since there were few left politicians around this is to be expected.
But this leads onto the second issue: there is the broader question of how the boundaries of debate are set, which views they reflect, which stories are published, levels of funding assigned to particular programme making and so on. It comes as no surprise that BBC output doesn't reflect the everyday experiences of the majority of people in the UK. Rather the views and opinions reflect the cultural values expected of the collective body of individuals who run corporate media and by extension those to whom they are accountable. To understand this you have to at least acknowledge the basic existence of class - and accept that the majority of people are not involved in the decision making process. This is where demands to provide evidence becomes meaningless; there isn't need for proof when saying simply that a cultural narrative doesn't reflect the existence it is supposedly representing.

As for conspiracy: I'm certain specific conspiracies exist, some end up being proven, others don't. But as far as a general conspiracy goes, no, there isn't one because it's not needed. An accurate model of how the system works can be understood without the need to resort to such ideas. You might have to accept some of the ideas of Marx or his successors though.

That isn't mathematically provable bias and shows a very simplistic thought process.

BBC proven biased against rape and murder.

Would like to see one of these numerous studies, I utterly hate it when people drop in an appeal to authority, but then dont cite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39191876


Jeremy Corbyn has said that he believes Labour could win a snap election.

His comments to the BBC came after scientist Stephen Hawking said Mr Corbyn was a "disaster" for Labour and should step down as leader.

Yes I think the fact that all the senior BBC journalists any one can name are either self-proclaimed conservatives or in the supertax league means they support conservative policies. That's what bias is.

I would be surprised if you could name a single journalist who is verifiably liberal without googling and it is telling that you didn't actually provide any names. You certainly won't be able to name any who are actual socialists. You mention 20,000 employees and can't identify a single left-winger.

Pop quiz: Do you know how many recent Labour ministers have chaired the BBC? That's right. None. Despite ten tory ministers occupying that position since the war there hasn't been a single Labour minister since 1947.

Can you cite these "multiple studies"? and how you can mathematically prove this bias in a way that's suitable for peer review publication?

It seems to me you and GVB haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, and are just making stuff up to defend your viewpoints.

There are plenty of people in the super tax league who overtly express socialist beliefs, they may be champagne socialists, but they will support socialism if all they have to do is go on telly and say X.

Also Newsnight clearly has a bias to the left.

Seems to me you're wrong, perhaps you need to do a bit of your own research before dismissing the claims of others and looking stupid.

Graphs here:

http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kin...i-corbyn-bias/

Report here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7163706.html