How bias is the BBC in what you read?

How bias is the BBC in what you read?

I have just read articles and commented on my reaction to the election of the new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy.

BBC news & comments page

While posting, I was reading the disclaimers and was dubious about the way they "moderate" these postings.

Every comment submitted to a fully moderated discussion has to be checked by a BBC moderator before it is published on the site. We try to publish as many comments as we can but unfortunately, due to the volume of comments we receive every day, we cannot guarantee that all comments submitted will be published.

Who is the moderator? No mention is given (unlike ATS). How do they select which posts are shown?

As a news organisation we report on many different issues and many of them generate a lot of passion. We have a very diverse audience and a duty to provide an impartial and balanced output.

Does this "very diverse audience" get the "impartiality" they claim?

We are keen to encourage lively and informed debate but at the same time think that some of our Have Your Say topics will always require a closer level of editorial oversight.

What is the basis for the "editorial oversight" and by whom?

The above quote states "a BBC moderator". Singular. This tells me it is one person only. Surely this can provide a bias depending on the individual and/or their briefing!

While I recognise the need for stopping the usual problems involved in public postings to websites (obsenities, racism, copyright etc), I cannot help feeing there is the possibility of an unfair bias here.
Does anyone have more experience at posting with the BBC that could shed some light on this for me?

I am not being paranoid or cynical, but just want some clarity.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by nerbot]

Spend some time reading what is actually posted on Have Your Say and other interactive BBC forums. You'll find that, on any given issue, all shades of opinion are represented. Only hate speech is not permitted.

Read, also, some of the news stories posted on news.bbc.co.uk or simply watch some BBC World news footage. Unless your own views are highly biased, you'll probably agree that their coverage is pretty even-handed.

If you understood how the BBC is run and funded, and the mandate under which it operates, you would be greatly reassured. Check it out.

Thanx for imput.

I agree, the posts are from all points of view and obviously they cannot publish crank comments and obsenities. I was just wondering who gets to do the editing and how?

The comment I sent them was fair and polite, based on my knowledge and experiance as a Brit in France but didn't get posted.

Only hate speech is not permitted.

Not quite true, Oh well "c'est la vie"

Once again, thanx.

I know where you're coming from with this one. I visit the BBC's have-your-say nearly every day and comment on most subjects, apart from politics because as well as being an alien language there's usually no common sense involved. It's frustrating trying to get your point over with a limited amount of letters, and so you edit your stuff to try to get your point fitted in and then they don't include your message after all. I've been saying for weeks that I'm going to get my own blog on the internet and dedicate it to the have-your-sayers whose messages get rejected, including my own. I'd also include a hys on things they seem not to want to discuss on the BBC. A couple of times I've kept a copy of my message and if they don't include it within a couple of hours I try again and sometimes I manage to squeeze myself in.

Lost in the crowd

You're not suggesting the BBC is biased just because it didn't print or broadcast your Have Your Say contribution, surely?

The BBC reaches a lot of people. There's the TV service, BBC World, which is quite popular:

A potential 77.4 million free-to-air terrestrial households now have access to the channel's additional continuous news output, on top of the channel's ordinary distribution of 254 million households globally.

...and BBC World Service radio, which also watched by a few:

Audience figures for the BBC World Service have reached a record 163 million a week. The figure is 14 million higher than last year and beats the previous record of 153 million listeners in 2001.

...and then, of course, there's the Web site:

2005/2006 was a year in which the digital revolution shifted up another gear. Month after month, the BBC’s website set new records for reach. Page impressions are now more than three billion a month. -- BBC Annual Report 2006, available here

All three of these BBC media participate in Have Your Say. Viewers, listeners and site visitors from all over the world participate. I'd say the chance of any particular contribution being broadcast was almost zero. I can't imagine why people even bother.

The BBC still suffers from bias and "hidden hands" higher up in the organisation.. they are still effectively a government propaganda tool in all honestly, its just that they have got ALOT slicker in the past decade, and very eye catching/more presentable.

Its got alot of people fooled thats for sure.. but luckily some woke up to the fact after the 9/11 conspiracy files, and the WTC 7 still standing footage.

If you watch the news segments, they are very selective about the facts they mention, and what they don't, aswell as stories they don't talk about until 2am in the morning when no one is watching..

Some mite argue thats because they have a time limit on presenting news etc...sorry, not good enough. The news is about telling the whole story, not just half of it.

This going back a bit, but I remember when Tony Blair made some crack about Cherie & Gordon Brown in a speech at a party conference or something. On the BBc the reporter said 'Gordon didn't look amused' but on ITN they said 'Gordon was also amused by the joke'. So which one was it?

BBC reporters are human, so naturally their reports are going to be slightly biased.