Trump interview with Piers Morgan

[looney]

You do go on and on.

I can accept that you might not read what I have written before arguing, but I would hope that you would at least read what you have written.

The first two links were obviously not provided to support an argument that there is a left wing bias, they were provided to counter your suggestion that I quoted that the liberal left do not argue that the BBC is biased against them. They do. There it is in writing from, as you say yourself, 'leftwing' (sic) sources.

They dont present any arguments of bias(Detailed examples) against them they make noises as such as a psychological comfort blanket as it is quite honestly becoming embarrassing!

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-in-somalia-giving-tips-for-illegal-migrants/

Let me know when the BBC goes OTT about giving out tips on how to report suspected illegal immigrants

 

[Stato]

They dont present any arguments of bias(Detailed examples) against them they make noises as such as a psychological comfort blanket as it is quite honestly becoming embarrassing!

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-in-somalia-giving-tips-for-illegal-migrants/

Let me know when the BBC goes OTT about giving out tips on how to report suspected illegal immigrants

The first part of your first sentence is irrelevant as I provided the links only to show that there are perceptions of bias from the left, not that these perceptions have any substance.
The rest of the sentence is unintelligible.

Its ironic that, to support an argument that another media source is biased, you quote Breitbart, a site whose executive director is well known neutral (and Supertramp fan) James Dellingpole; a site that has regular contributions from the always fair and balanced Nigel Farage and that middle of the road commentator Katie Hopkins. These people think that the BBC is left wing? To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies 'Well they would, wouldn't they?'

 

[Leekbrookgull]

They elected Reagan

Is that a problem ?

 

[looney]

The first part of your first sentence is irrelevant as I provided the links only to show that there are perceptions of bias from the left, not that these perceptions have any substance.
The rest of the sentence is unintelligible.

Its ironic that, to support an argument that another media source is biased, you quote Breitbart, a site whose executive director is well known neutral (and Supertramp fan) James Dellingpole; a site that has regular contributions from the always fair and balanced Nigel Farage and that middle of the road commentator Katie Hopkins. These people think that the BBC is left wing? To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies 'Well they would, wouldn't they?'

Your links were not perceptions of bias, they gave no examples (Well ones spurious example of Union airtime.) and were just making excuses. I gave you a Conservative example to contrast..You should quote and show bias rather than link leftwing rags using ad hominem arguments of bias.

 

[Stato]

Your links were not perceptions of bias, they gave no examples (Well ones spurious example of Union airtime.) and were just making excuses. I gave you a Conservative example to contrast..You should quote and show bias rather than link leftwing rags using ad hominem arguments of bias.

Go and look up the word 'perception' and then try again.

 

[Randsta]

Trump is pure comedy gold!! I can't tell when I see a parody (SNL) what are the jokes and what he has actually said

 

[looney]

Go and look up the word 'perception' and then try again.

You can perceive anything but you can show bias.
Let me know when your definition of bias makes it into the dictionary.

 

[Stato]

You can perceive anything but you can show bias.
Let me know when your definition of bias makes it into the dictionary.

As Basil Fawlty said "Please try to understand before one of us dies!"

You said there were no perceptions of BBC bias from the left.
I showed you links that show there are.
You want to argue that these perceptions of bias have no basis in fact.
Why would I argue with this? I said it myself in my first post.
However, I also said that the right wing's perception of a leftist bias in BBC reporting is equally without foundation and you obviously don't agree.
My view, I thought clearly stated, is that the BBC assiduously strives to be as fair and even handed as possible in all its news coverage.

When watching BBC reporting I sometimes do perceive right wing bias, but I also understand that I am approaching news coverage with my own left wing bias. Should I want to just have my own views confirmed and not challenged I can instead read The Guardian. Similarly, right wingers can choose from any of the many right wing media providers for the same experience. However, for many on the right having access to The Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun, Standard, Fox News, Sky News etc. etc. is not enough. They aim to denigrate anything that doesn't support an obvious right wing agenda in an attempt to move the perception of the centre to the right. This brings to mind 1984's 'The best books... are those that tell you what you know already.'

If you want to pursue an argument, perhaps you could start by explaining what motive the long list of Conservative Party members and right wing establishment figures who have chaired the BBC over the last sixty years had for providing news coverage with a left wing bias.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Horrified to say this but I think Trump stands a chance of winning this election.

Hils has sat back on the basis he will self implode but he has been, cleverly, working hard to become more statesmanlike.

It's freaky-scary.

4.33 on betfair, good value I reckon...

Do a double on Trump-Corbyn?

What goods your money when your country is about to be nuked?

 

[brightn'ove]

They dont present any arguments of bias(Detailed examples) against them they make noises as such as a psychological comfort blanket as it is quite honestly becoming embarrassing!

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-in-somalia-giving-tips-for-illegal-migrants/

Let me know when the BBC goes OTT about giving out tips on how to report suspected illegal immigrants

Sorry but quoting breitbart in an argument about bias is quite funny

 

[The_Viper]

Sorry but quoting breitbart in an argument about bias is quite funny

Pretty much every media outlet has a bias these days, just very few along the bias that Breitbart has.

 

[LlcoolJ]

As Basil Fawlty said "Please try to understand before one of us dies!"

You said there were no perceptions of BBC bias from the left.
I showed you links that show there are.
You want to argue that these perceptions of bias have no basis in fact.
Why would I argue with this? I said it myself in my first post.
However, I also said that the right wing's perception of a leftist bias in BBC reporting is equally without foundation and you obviously don't agree.
My view, I thought clearly stated, is that the BBC assiduously strives to be as fair and even handed as possible in all its news coverage.

When watching BBC reporting I sometimes do perceive right wing bias, but I also understand that I am approaching news coverage with my own left wing bias. Should I want to just have my own views confirmed and not challenged I can instead read The Guardian. Similarly, right wingers can choose from any of the many right wing media providers for the same experience. However, for many on the right having access to The Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun, Standard, Fox News, Sky News etc. etc. is not enough. They aim to denigrate anything that doesn't support an obvious right wing agenda in an attempt to move the perception of the centre to the right. This brings to mind 1984's 'The best books... are those that tell you what you know already.'

If you want to pursue an argument, perhaps you could start by explaining what motive the long list of Conservative Party members and right wing establishment figures who have chaired the BBC over the last sixty years had for providing news coverage with a left wing bias.

Stato, well done.

I found it difficult enough to read this thread without losing it, let alone replying and continuing to debunk this fool's idiotic nonsense so eloquently and with such patience.

Massive respect. I'd have called him a moron, sworn heavily and thrown my phone at the wall.

 

[looney]

As Basil Fawlty said "Please try to understand before one of us dies!"

You said there were no perceptions of BBC bias from the left.
I showed you links that show there are.
You want to argue that these perceptions of bias have no basis in fact.
Why would I argue with this? I said it myself in my first post.
However, I also said that the right wing's perception of a leftist bias in BBC reporting is equally without foundation and you obviously don't agree.
My view, I thought clearly stated, is that the BBC assiduously strives to be as fair and even handed as possible in all its news coverage.

When watching BBC reporting I sometimes do perceive right wing bias, but I also understand that I am approaching news coverage with my own left wing bias. Should I want to just have my own views confirmed and not challenged I can instead read The Guardian. Similarly, right wingers can choose from any of the many right wing media providers for the same experience. However, for many on the right having access to The Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun, Standard, Fox News, Sky News etc. etc. is not enough. They aim to denigrate anything that doesn't support an obvious right wing agenda in an attempt to move the perception of the centre to the right. This brings to mind 1984's 'The best books... are those that tell you what you know already.'

If you want to pursue an argument, perhaps you could start by explaining what motive the long list of Conservative Party members and right wing establishment figures who have chaired the BBC over the last sixty years had for providing news coverage with a left wing bias.

So many slight of hand arguments it unreal.

Lets start with your last sentence. If you think having tories running the show is bias, you need to show a connection with their role and editorial content,

People crying "righwing bias" because people have been calling leftwing bias does not equal things out, it means your going to be called on your bullshit.

The difference between the BBC and the Guardian is the latter is a choice where the BBC is funded via tax and has a duty of impartiality.

I can remember watching the BBC with lefties and they are squirming with embarressment at whats pumped out.

A bbc classic is think tanks. These are all independent and some are rightwing and some are leftwing. Although the BBC will present their findings as Rightwing for the rightwing ones, and independent for the leftwing ones.

Or how it will often quote from the Southern Poverty Law Centre, a marxistorganisation so dodgy even most of the American left give i a wide birth, accused of exstortion, scaremongering for example.

These above examples are claims of bias They are not perceptons they are quantifiable.

Likewise I can Percieve the DG of the BBC as a tory toff, the anti-christ or whatever. Hard evidence though is needed to accuse him of being culpable for bias.

You have produced nothing so far..

 

[looney]

Sorry but quoting breitbart in an argument about bias is quite funny

I agree sort of.

Wasn't meant to show breitbart as unbiased, its pretty rabid in places. It was meant as a contrast to the BBC's position, ie other far end of the spectrum.

 

[looney]

Stato, well done.

I found it difficult enough to read this thread without losing it, let alone replying and continuing to debunk this fool's idiotic nonsense so eloquently and with such patience.

Massive respect. I'd have called him a moron, sworn heavily and thrown my phone at the wall.

Let me guess you are not a science graduate are you? Postman? Street cleaner?

 

[Stato]

If you think having tories running the show is bias, you need to show a connection with their role and editorial content.

You are right, I would have to. Luckily I didn't say that and don't think that.

I said that there wasn't bias. Easy for you to miss I know because I only said it and then repeated it, referencing back to the previous post that I said it in. Perhaps I should have been clearer, written it in capital letters or turned it into the lyrics of a jaunty song? Or perhaps, you are continuing to ignore this deliberately, so you don't have to answer the question: Why would a succession of governors with right wing views allow an organisation they were running to broadcast left wing propaganda when they could have sacked anyone they thought was responsible for biased reporting?

As for the rest of your post you may as well have simply written "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!"

Do you ever consider that your your view of the BBC may be subject to any kind of cognitive bias? If not, do you also think that every Albion fan that has ever questioned a decision given against us was making an even handed and neutral objective judgement of the motives of the FL's army of evil Albion hating referees?

 

[looney]

You are right, I would have to. Luckily I didn't say that and don't think that.

I said that there wasn't bias. Easy for you to miss I know because I only said it and then repeated it, referencing back to the previous post that I said it in. Perhaps I should have been clearer, written it in capital letters or turned it into the lyrics of a jaunty song? Or perhaps, you are continuing to ignore this deliberately, so you don't have to answer the question: Why would a succession of governors with right wing views allow an organisation they were running to broadcast left wing propaganda when they could have sacked anyone they thought was responsible for biased reporting?

As for the rest of your post you may as well have simply written "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!"

Do you ever consider that your your view of the BBC may be subject to any kind of cognitive bias? If not, do you also think that every Albion fan that has ever questioned a decision given against us was making an even handed and neutral objective judgement of the motives of the FL's army of evil Albion hating referees?

Yes nice dodge, soyou say theres no bias now? So what about the examples I give you in every post?Is this cognitive dissonance you are experiencing?

Funny that the complaint the Israelis make (And they like to make complaints), are at the same level and scope as those leveled at the guardian newspaper?

Another perspective or bias?

You really are not very good at this are you? After all if there wasno systematic bias you would have no trouble debunking my examples but you haven't. You produce nothing but textual noise.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You are right, I would have to. Luckily I didn't say that and don't think that.

I said that there wasn't bias. Easy for you to miss I know because I only said it and then repeated it, referencing back to the previous post that I said it in. Perhaps I should have been clearer, written it in capital letters or turned it into the lyrics of a jaunty song? Or perhaps, you are continuing to ignore this deliberately, so you don't have to answer the question: Why would a succession of governors with right wing views allow an organisation they were running to broadcast left wing propaganda when they could have sacked anyone they thought was responsible for biased reporting?

As for the rest of your post you may as well have simply written "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!"

Do you ever consider that your your view of the BBC may be subject to any kind of cognitive bias? If not, do you also think that every Albion fan that has ever questioned a decision given against us was making an even handed and neutral objective judgement of the motives of the FL's army of evil Albion hating referees?

Good grief. I have read only a few of the posts and already its clear your patience is matched only by your clarity. Only a looney could fail to see that . . .

 

[Stato]

Yes nice dodge, soyou say theres no bias now? So what about the examples I give you in every post?Is this cognitive dissonance you are experiencing?

Funny that the complaint the Israelis make (And they like to make complaints), are at the same level and scope as those leveled at the guardian newspaper?

Another perspective or bias?

You really are not very good at this are you? After all if there wasno systematic bias you would have no trouble debunking my examples but you haven't. You produce nothing but textual noise.

Of course, your examples that the most well respected broadcast organisation in the world is really a tool of the Trotskyite left have been sourced from peer reviewed academic texts and journals beyond suspicion of any kind of partiality? Or are they from:

1) Migrantwatch,
2) Breitbart,
3) You, &
4) The Israeli Government.

You are, to rational debate, what David Dunn is to the Rabona.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Let me guess you are not a science graduate are you? Postman? Street cleaner?

A science graduate?

I'm not sure what relevance that has to the fact that you've made a total fool of yourself in this argument and failed miserably to prove your incorrect point but no, I'm neither science graduate nor postman/street cleaner.

If I were any of the above though, you'd still be wrong.