Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 15:49:18 GMT 1
Why don't you twaddle off to the US and watch the wholly independent Fox News instead. I'm sure they'd adore your theories. If you actually watch the News shows on Fox they are as balanced as you will see anywhere. The opinion shows are a different matter. I just wish they did more straight news. NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN all slant heavily left in all their programming. The news on Fox isn't that balanced. Ive watched it as did my mother who grew up in the US. I'd take her viewpoint of the BBC over those in this country who haven't experienced the news outlets like she has. People from other nations admire the BBC for not trying to push any one political opinion. The right love to have a pop at the BBC as do the left when it suits. It's balanaced and independent of any political influence unlike many nations and even some here such as Sky News. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 15:52:15 GMT 1
1990s. - The heavily skewed recruitment advertising of Sky, The Sun, ITV etc by the same method I don't suppose you have anything to back this claim up, like I have for the BBC spending? Here it is again if needed... downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20110092_spend_on_recruitment_advertising.pdfEven if it were true, there's a huge difference in ethical behaviour, with regards to impartiality, between a privately owned media source and the nationally funded and owned broadcasting corporation that is the BBC. The BBC, being nationally owned, should have no bias whatsoever any way, including throwing the vast majority of it's recruiting and ad spending, to the furthest left mainstream press. It's a policy which by it's very nature, is just ensuring the BBC keeps it's left wing bias, which only benefits the BBC socialists and not the viewers and licence fee payers as a whole. So had The Telegraph won the battle with The Guardian over it's media job pages, would you be saying that their money shouldn't be going to a right-wing paper? |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Apr 10, 2015 15:52:49 GMT 1
its as balanced and independent as its editors are?  human nature has a lot to answer for... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 16:00:46 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 16:01:07 GMT 1
I don't suppose you have anything to back this claim up, like I have for the BBC spending? Here it is again if needed... downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20110092_spend_on_recruitment_advertising.pdfEven if it were true, there's a huge difference in ethical behaviour, with regards to impartiality, between a privately owned media source and the nationally funded and owned broadcasting corporation that is the BBC. The BBC, being nationally owned, should have no bias whatsoever any way, including throwing the vast majority of it's recruiting and ad spending, to the furthest left mainstream press. It's a policy which by it's very nature, is just ensuring the BBC keeps it's left wing bias, which only benefits the BBC socialists and not the viewers and licence fee payers as a whole. So had The Telegraph won the battle with The Guardian over it's media job pages, would you be saying that their money shouldn't be going to a right-wing paper? Yes. The level of bias currently to the far left press is unacceptable, just as it would be if the figures were reversed in favour of the right. I can see political bias in the media from both sides and don't like any of it. A lot of devout left wingers seem blinkered to bias unless it points to the right. Mind you, the BBC are a little more subtle about it than the likes of the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Not so subtle about it at the Guardian though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 16:46:20 GMT 1
So had The Telegraph won the battle with The Guardian over it's media job pages, would you be saying that their money shouldn't be going to a right-wing paper? Yes. The level of bias currently to the far left press is unacceptable, just as it would be if the figures were reversed in favour of the right. I can see political bias in the media from both sides and don't like any of it. A lot of devout left wingers seem blinkered to bias unless it points to the right. Mind you, the BBC are a little more subtle about it than the likes of the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Not so subtle about it at the Guardian though. But you're arguing that the BBC shouldn't advertise in a paper that specialises in media jobs pages?! Other broadcasters will advertise there so where should the BBC advertise? They should advertise in the same place that everyone else does as they are competing with other media outlets for the same people to work with them. |
|
|
|
Post by goodshot (FGS) on Apr 10, 2015 16:52:29 GMT 1
Yes. The level of bias currently to the far left press is unacceptable, just as it would be if the figures were reversed in favour of the right. I can see political bias in the media from both sides and don't like any of it. A lot of devout left wingers seem blinkered to bias unless it points to the right. Mind you, the BBC are a little more subtle about it than the likes of the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Not so subtle about it at the Guardian though. But you're arguing that the BBC shouldn't advertise in a paper that specialises in media jobs pages?! Other broadcasters will advertise there so where should the BBC advertise? They should advertise in the same place that everyone else does as they are competing with other media outlets for the same people to work with them. All smart organisations stopped advertising jobs in the press in about 1998. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 17:09:28 GMT 1
Yes. The level of bias currently to the far left press is unacceptable, just as it would be if the figures were reversed in favour of the right. I can see political bias in the media from both sides and don't like any of it. A lot of devout left wingers seem blinkered to bias unless it points to the right. Mind you, the BBC are a little more subtle about it than the likes of the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Not so subtle about it at the Guardian though. But you're arguing that the BBC shouldn't advertise in a paper that specialises in media jobs pages?! Other broadcasters will advertise there so where should the BBC advertise? They should advertise in the same place that everyone else does as they are competing with other media outlets for the same people to work with them. It depends whether you think the Gaurdian media jobs section was popular first, or whether the biggest media employer in the country made it so by using it almost exclusively. The same newspaper which, even though has one of the lowest readerships across the UK, is the biggest selling to the BBC. As a supposedly impartial nationally funded service, it should not be spending 95% of it's recruitment advertising budget on the main media outlet, which represents the far left socialist view. When the BBC is such a big player in the market for media recruitment, If they choose to select their candidates almost exclusively from one source, wherever they take their advertising for media jobs will become the main. Being impartial, shouldn't they be spreading their recruitment amongst all walks of life? Impartial BBC, don't make me laugh!  |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 10, 2015 17:51:23 GMT 1
1990s. - The heavily skewed recruitment advertising of Sky, The Sun, ITV etc by the same method I don't suppose you have anything to back this claim up, like I have for the BBC spending? Here it is again if needed... downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20110092_spend_on_recruitment_advertising.pdfEven if it were true, there's a huge difference in ethical behaviour, with regards to impartiality, between a privately owned media source and the nationally funded and owned broadcasting corporation that is the BBC. The BBC, being nationally owned, should have no bias whatsoever any way, including throwing the vast majority of it's recruiting and ad spending, to the furthest left mainstream press. It's a policy which by it's very nature, is just ensuring the BBC keeps it's left wing bias, which only benefits the BBC socialists and not the viewers and licence fee payers as a whole. Phew, this is hard work. No, I don't have stats - the only reason the BBC figures are available is because it is accountable in a different way to private companies. But then I didn't dispute the facts you put forward, just your interpretation. Can't you see that if I wanted to recruit a local man for a job, I wouldn't put the ad in the Plymouth Recorder? If the BBC advertised widely as you suggest, people would think they were spending wildly for the sake of satisfying a few people who add up 2 and 2 and get 5. It isn't bias, it's (and I can't believe this isn't getting through) spending money as effectively as possible in the acknowledged leader in where to look for media jobs. And, again, people who buy the Guardian on a Monday (or, more likely, don't buy it and go online) for the information they need about jobs aren't necessarily reading the rest of the paper. Neither are they any more likely to be left wing than if the best place to look was in the Mail. But we are going in circles - if you want to believe that it is a master plan to ensure a constant stream of Trotskyites, nothing I or others will dissuade you. Having said that, it is sometimes worthwhile taking yourself out of the bubble and read things you don't agree with - it might help you develop some nuance. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Apr 10, 2015 18:07:26 GMT 1
I usually find these offtopic threads gripping but I have to say this one has left me a bit cold
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 18:09:41 GMT 1
But you're arguing that the BBC shouldn't advertise in a paper that specialises in media jobs pages?! Other broadcasters will advertise there so where should the BBC advertise? They should advertise in the same place that everyone else does as they are competing with other media outlets for the same people to work with them. It depends whether you think the Gaurdian media jobs section was popular first, or whether the biggest media employer in the country made it so by using it almost exclusively. The same newspaper which, even though has one of the lowest readerships across the UK, is the biggest selling to the BBC. As a supposedly impartial nationally funded service, it should not be spending 95% of it's recruitment advertising budget on the main media outlet, which represents the far left socialist view. When the BBC is such a big player in the market for media recruitment, If they choose to select their candidates almost exclusively from one source, wherever they take their advertising for media jobs will become the main. Being impartial, shouldn't they be spreading their recruitment amongst all walks of life? If you're a media company that needs to recruit - where do you advertise? The newspaper with a specific media jobs section. Doesn't matter if it's right/left wing - it's common sense. The BBC don't select their candidates from one source. They advertise all of the jobs on there own website, niche areas such as Broadcast magazine and job sites such as Monster, Indeed etc. I'm a centreist, not a right-winger, but I've bought The Telegraph before for the cricket section - there's no stopping a right-wing individual to but The Guardian to aid their job search. Marcus your argument is based, not on fact, but assumptions. Clearly you dislike The Guardian and the BBC and will seek any way to put them down even if you're wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 22:10:42 GMT 1
BBC News at Ten, as it starts..... "And the headline tonight...Ed Milliband.... Bla bla bla..." Edit. Even the local BBC South East Today managed to squeeze that snarmy dark haired Labour bloke a bit of time on a story about how Labour are going to win seats in the South East. No other party got a look in tonight. Mmm. Copy of the Guardian anyone? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 23:25:56 GMT 1
I usually find these offtopic threads gripping but I have to say this one has left me a bit cold Hasn't stopped you constantly coming back posting inane worthless comments though eh?! Have an opinion or go away. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 23:27:42 GMT 1
It depends whether you think the Gaurdian media jobs section was popular first, or whether the biggest media employer in the country made it so by using it almost exclusively. The same newspaper which, even though has one of the lowest readerships across the UK, is the biggest selling to the BBC. As a supposedly impartial nationally funded service, it should not be spending 95% of it's recruitment advertising budget on the main media outlet, which represents the far left socialist view. When the BBC is such a big player in the market for media recruitment, If they choose to select their candidates almost exclusively from one source, wherever they take their advertising for media jobs will become the main. Being impartial, shouldn't they be spreading their recruitment amongst all walks of life? If you're a media company that needs to recruit - where do you advertise? The newspaper with a specific media jobs section. Doesn't matter if it's right/left wing - it's common sense. The BBC don't select their candidates from one source. They advertise all of the jobs on there own website, niche areas such as Broadcast magazine and job sites such as Monster, Indeed etc. I'm a centreist, not a right-winger, but I've bought The Telegraph before for the cricket section - there's no stopping a right-wing individual to but The Guardian to aid their job search. Marcus your argument is based, not on fact, but assumptions. Clearly you dislike The Guardian and the BBC and will seek any way to put them down even if you're wrong. They are not a company, they are a national corporation. How did you miss that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 23:50:47 GMT 1
I usually find these offtopic threads gripping but I have to say this one has left me a bit cold Arguing over how the BBC spends 0.26% of its budget is utterly fascinating you philistine. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Apr 10, 2015 23:54:00 GMT 1
I usually find these offtopic threads gripping but I have to say this one has left me a bit cold Hasn't stopped you constantly coming back posting inane worthless comments though eh?! Have an opinion or go away. I think you'll find I've mostly kept away and left you to monopolise the inane |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Apr 10, 2015 23:54:47 GMT 1
I usually find these offtopic threads gripping but I have to say this one has left me a bit cold Arguing over how the BBC spends 0.26% of its budget is utterly fascinating you philistine. Gripping stuff |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 0:00:00 GMT 1
Arguing over how the BBC spends 0.26% of its budget is utterly fascinating you philistine. Gripping stuff Aye it's up there with the the thrilling discussion of child benefit (1.3% of government spending) Talk about deckchairs on the Titanic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 2:04:03 GMT 1
Hasn't stopped you constantly coming back posting inane worthless comments though eh?! Have an opinion or go away. I think you'll find I've mostly kept away and left you to monopolise the inane You know what, your post has made me realise that talking politics online just makes me grumpy. You're right, sod this for a game of soldiers. Haven't we got anything interesting Town related to discuss? Christ, if this is in season, the summer's going to be hard work! |
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,105 
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 11, 2015 20:29:20 GMT 1
And when was that? How many years ago? 1990s. Not sure "when" is relevant - when there was a viable alternative, it was used (in a far right newspaper). You've taken 2 facts - The guardian is a left wing newspaper and the BBC advertise heavily for recruits in it to come to a conclusion that is a fallacy, because you haven't considered the other facts: - The Guardian's pre-eminence in media job advertising - The heavily skewed recruitment advertising of Sky, The Sun, ITV etc by the same method However, but not for the reason stated, I think it highly likely that many recruits to the BBC will be left leaning, mainly because the arts and media tends to attract more people who are left leaning than right leaning. Similarly, conservatives tend not to be particularly good at comedy or satire. When they get there though (and only a fraction will be employed in current affairs), they become subject to broadcasting laws which demands equal treatment. Oversight is probably not perfect, and never will be, absolute balance is impossible (left or right)and what to you may look like a heavily weighted tilt to the left is to others either centrist or tilting to the right (theory of relativity). Far right??? |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Apr 11, 2015 20:32:10 GMT 1
1990s. Not sure "when" is relevant - when there was a viable alternative, it was used (in a far right newspaper). You've taken 2 facts - The guardian is a left wing newspaper and the BBC advertise heavily for recruits in it to come to a conclusion that is a fallacy, because you haven't considered the other facts: - The Guardian's pre-eminence in media job advertising - The heavily skewed recruitment advertising of Sky, The Sun, ITV etc by the same method However, but not for the reason stated, I think it highly likely that many recruits to the BBC will be left leaning, mainly because the arts and media tends to attract more people who are left leaning than right leaning. Similarly, conservatives tend not to be particularly good at comedy or satire. When they get there though (and only a fraction will be employed in current affairs), they become subject to broadcasting laws which demands equal treatment. Oversight is probably not perfect, and never will be, absolute balance is impossible (left or right)and what to you may look like a heavily weighted tilt to the left is to others either centrist or tilting to the right (theory of relativity). Far right??? I thought we'd all agreed to let this drop!! |
|
