Is this an example of BBC Bias?

I hope this is permissible. The linked article concerns the reactions to a verdict on four BLM protesters who toppled a statue of a Slave Trader in Bristol. I would prefer not to say anything more and just let anyone who feels they have something to say about the subject say it.
I would like to here any reasons you have for the conclusion(s)you reach after reading the article if you would please?.

So to reiterate: Is this an example of BBC bias?
www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: Granitebones

I don't see any bias in the article. Seemed like it covered both viewpoints. Where, may I ask, did you see bias?

I will answer that, but if you dont mind I would like to wait to see if any others offer any opinions.
a reply to: MRinder

a reply to: Granitebones

Didn't see any bias in the report but I did see something I agree with Johnson on.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he wouldn't comment on the case itself, but argued that it was "wrong" for people to "go round seeking retrospectively to change our history".

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill on the other hand has been rumbling for a while and is a far bigger issue that needs more exposure.

On the contrary, several of the Bill’s core proposals pose a significant threat to the UK’s adherence to its domestic and international human rights obligations, while also lacking an evidential basis to justify their introduction.
justice.org.uk...

Grant Shapps and his Bullingdon Club mates are trying to build a prison (For you and me to live in).

a reply to: Granitebones

I have to say I picked a feel of 'Walking on Eggs', carefully balancing a route through the issue.

Kind of understandable in the wider context of the BBC being funded through the law - which now can be muted if there is enough offence projected.

I mean I belong the Alf Garnet: No Stop Team (AGNST), and I'm still reeling from seeing a 1967 episode in which he said "sc**se g*t" repeatedly degrading me and my culture. We campaign for all licence fees paid since to be refunded, and an abject apology from the BBC.

So if I was them, I'd whisper carefully about people finding away round obeying the law

So yeah, it's biased - in favour of the BBC

a reply to: Granitebones

BBC bias is an interesting thing.

The left always accuses it of a right-wing bias.

The right always accuses it of a left-wing bias.

Given its diversity of opinions and representations, I guess that means the BBC is doing it right and the main people trying to drag it down are the MSM owners living in its shadow.

originally posted by: gortex

Didn't see any bias in the report but I did see something I agree with Johnson on.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he wouldn't comment on the case itself, but argued that it was "wrong" for people to "go round seeking retrospectively to change our history".

Which shows how little Johnson knows about history. History is about evaluating evidence. Statues have as much to do with history as pictures of a bridge have to do with engineering.

The removal of the statue, and it's new home in a museum, does not change history. It expands our understanding of it.

a reply to: Granitebones

There's slight bias towards the jury and defendents due to it taking the lead paragraphs and criticism of the decision featuring lower down (inverted news pyramid writing style - editors cut from the bottom so the most important information is in the lead paragraphs. This is contrasted with the major scandal/story of the PCSC Bill being buried in the final paragraphs.

It still presents both sides of the story though and seems fair, balanced and accurate. It doesn't use any loaded language, 'sensationalism or covert bias like placing key words in the areas of the screen/page the human eye spends the most time focussing on aside from the inverted pyramid.

a reply to: Granitebones

I cant see anything other than reporting, what is the BBCs view on the subject from the link you have provided?

for real bias always check the Daily Mail, i mean they dont even make it past the headline without putting their opinion in

Colston vandals are CLEARED: Gleeful BLM activists

or this one

mob of BLM activists who tore it down spout woke platitudes

they are true examples of bias reporting, and those are just the headlines

I think they should have done jail time for vandalism but I dont need the Daily mails opinion to come to that conclusion

I already did a thread about this?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

This thread was before yours .

That there's even a question of BBC bias seems a moot point and I was a fan most of my life. Many of the GREAT documentarians created there.

I used to torment colleagues in the CBS newsroom by singing the BBC's praises and ridiculing the relative death of ethical journalism in the U.S. msm.

Boy what a rube I was.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

This thread was before yours .

Uncle Carpy's was better though and had much less woke warriors cheerleading for the global party line.

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: Granitebones

I don't see any bias in the article. Seemed like it covered both viewpoints. Where, may I ask, did you see bias?

I never said I saw any bias.
Best wishes.

A few days ago BBC journalist Emily Maitlis said this about her interview with Prince Andrew:

Prince Andrew came to Newsnight that day because he wanted to clear his name. He believed things had been said about him that he could disprove. And he had his defence ready.

The answers he gave me on camera may have seemed astonishing, jaw-dropping, even, in places. But bizarrely, I had been expecting them. We had talked through the things he wanted to say earlier, so part of my job that day was just to let him speak. To let him explain to the world his own version of events...

But the point of the interview was not to catch him out - I can't stress this enough. The point of the interview was just to have a record of Prince Andrew's own version of events.

Prince Andrew: Emily Maitlis says duke's interview answers are critical to sex assault case

OK, so it backfired on Prince Andrew, but is this unbiased journalism?
When somebody is suspected of a crime, surely the object of good journalism is to get to the truth, not to contrive an interview in such a way that it provides the best possible platform for that person to present their defence.

Until the Newsnight provides a similar platform for politicians and other suspected criminals, it can hardly claim it's unbiased when it comes to Royalty.

originally posted by: EvilAxis
A few days ago BBC journalist Emily Maitlis said this about her interview with Prince Andrew:

Prince Andrew came to Newsnight that day because he wanted to clear his name. He believed things had been said about him that he could disprove. And he had his defence ready.

The answers he gave me on camera may have seemed astonishing, jaw-dropping, even, in places. But bizarrely, I had been expecting them. We had talked through the things he wanted to say earlier, so part of my job that day was just to let him speak. To let him explain to the world his own version of events...

But the point of the interview was not to catch him out - I can't stress this enough. The point of the interview was just to have a record of Prince Andrew's own version of events.

Prince Andrew: Emily Maitlis says duke's interview answers are critical to sex assault case

OK, so it backfired on Prince Andrew, but is this unbiased journalism?
When somebody is suspected of a crime, surely the object good journalism is to get to the truth, not to contrive an interview in such a way that it provides the best possible platform for that person to present their defence.

Until the Newsnight provides a similar platform for politicians and other suspected criminals, it can hardly claim it's unbiased when it comes to Royalty.

You think that that interview was the Duke of Pork's best possible platform for him to present his defence?!!!!

Do you not realise that most Brit's laughed at the creep?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I do - as I said, it backfired. From his point of view, it was very I'll-advised. But Emily Maitlis' method of interview (agreeing and rehearsing the questions beforehand and precluding unprepared questions) is not afforded to anyone else.

As it happens, this provided a most effective way for him to hang himself. There's no reason to suspect that this was the journalist's expectation or intention. Even if it was, the fact remains, because of his royal birth, he was treated differently from any other suspected criminal.

The BBC's pro-royal bias was truly on show following his father's death, when 48 hours of almost wall to wall eulogising garnered a record number of complaints from the public.

originally posted by: EvilAxis
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I do - as I said, it backfired. From his point of view, it was very I'll-advised. But Emily Maitlis' method of interview (agreeing and rehearsing the questions beforehand and precluding unprepared questions) is not afforded to anyone else.

As it happens, this provided a most effective way for him to hang himself. There's no reason to suspect that this was the journalist's expectation or intention. Even if it was, the fact remains, because of his royal birth, he was treated differently from any other suspected criminal.

The BBC's pro-royal bias was truly on show following his father's death, when 48 hours of almost wall to wall eulogising garnered a record number of complaints from the public.

.

What? You think that the BBC hanging him out to dry did him a favour?

Hello?

It made him a laughing stock.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Again, no, as I said, I don't think it did him any favour.

But do you think the BBC would afford an ordinary member of the public suspected of a crime the courtesy of agreeing to and rehearsing the questions to be asked before an interview?

But the point of the interview was not to catch him out - I can't stress this enough. The point of the interview was just to have a record of [his] own version of events.

a reply to: Granitebones

Yeah BBC Bias is an interesting thing.