Trump interview with Piers Morgan

[Stato]

Quite, it also doesn't in any way constitute 'evidence' that they are impartial.

What about having a code of conduct that requires impartiality and provides programme makers with guidance as to what this means?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality

 

[Stato]

Oh, and governing body independent of management which has the aim of making decisions in the best interests of license payers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/

 

[Stato]

And a monitored complaints procedure that can allow for investigations into accusations of bias:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint.html

 

[JC Footy Genius]

it sort of does: if you're upsetting everyone then you are not favouring anyone. the problem is people wont accept this in the whole, they'll come up with a number of examples that prove their perceived bias is there. you cant or shouldnt expect every single peice of output to be compeletly impartial and with out any bias, it would make for very convulted content that missed the important points to constantly present counterpoints.

With respect that isn't necessarily true. You could be upsetting everyone because you aren't very good at your job. You could be upsetting government because you are inherently biased against whoever is in power. Or whoever is in power could perceive bias as they are being held to account more than an opposition. Or all political parties claim bias to fight their corner to hopefully influence the broadcaster. I'm not saying the Beeb are biased but that particular argument is flawed on numerous levels.

If I wanted to suggest the BBC was biased I would quote some leading lights within the corporation past and present.

The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”.

All this, he said, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.

–Andrew Marr

“It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat.

“If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the earth is round!’, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.”

– Jeff Randall, former BBC business editor

By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. *Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on *running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

– Peter Sissons, Former BBC News and Current Affairs presenter

“In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people’s personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We’re like that, too.”

– Mark Thomspon, former BBC Director General

“I do remember… the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I’ll always remember that”

– Jane Garvey, Radio 4 presenter, recalling Tony Blair’s election victory in 1997

I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the Health Service, state welfare, the social sciences, the environment and state education. But perhaps our most powerful antagonism was directed at advertising. This is not surprising; commercial television was the biggest threat the BBC had ever had to face.

– Sir Antony Jay, former BBC producer and creator, inter alia, of “Yes, (Prime) Minister”

“Liberal sceptical humanists tend to dominate television”.

The “default position in broadcasting” – when covering issues such as gay marriage and the Roman Catholic position on IVF – revolved around human rights, and that opponents should not be treated as “lunatics”.

“All I’m saying is, if you have at the centre of News an editor, he could explain why people in particular areas…are motivated, why they behave as they do and I think that would just increase understanding.”

– Roger Bolton, Radio 4 presenter and former head of Panorama and Nationwide

“And, in the tone of what we say about America, we have a tendency to scorn and deride. We don’t give America any kind of moral weight in our broadcasts.”

– Justin Webb (pg. 66), Today presenter and former BBC North America editor

“We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”

– Ben Stephenson, BBC controller of drama commissioning

If anyone can find a similar list of quotes from Beeb insiders supporting right wing tendencies I would be surprised.

 

[Stato]

All of which is subject to review by the Houses of Parliament when discussing charter review:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...s-parliament-2015/media/renewing-bbc-charter/

 

[Stato]

If anyone can find a similar list of quotes from Beeb insiders supporting right wing tendencies I would be surprised.

Is that because they wouldn't have a ready made blog to cut and paste them from?

http://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/

The website's editor is David Vance, a right wing commentator and losing 2010 candidate for the TUV (Traditional Unionist Voice) a Eurosceptic, socially conservative party that splintered from the DUP because its members opposed the St Andrews Agreement. His other website 'A Tangled Web' ran into some trouble a few years back: http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/06/29/tuv-candidates-website-faces-closure-over-hate-speech/

Checking both of his websites, I couldn't find his statement on impartiality, or his complaints procedure.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Is that because they wouldn't have a ready made blog to cut and paste them from?

http://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/

Oh I think they would if any such quotes existed. The fact they don't (which you no doubt have looked for) ... lends more weight to a left wing bias argument.

On a serious note my personal opinion is that there was an indisputable left wing bias within the Beeb for many years (and probably still is) but this has been reigned in for numerous reasons and now it broadly could be described as neutral (ish).

 

[Stato]

On a serious note my personal opinion is that there was an indisputable left wing bias within the Beeb for many years (and probably still is) but this has been reigned in for numerous reasons and now it broadly could be described as neutral (ish).

My own view is that the BBC is much the same as other public sector organisations. Like in schools, universities, local and central government there is probably a majority of liberals among the staff and of conservatives among the management. However, staff loyalty to the organisation's ethos of public service, equality and impartiality is stronger than personal politics. I am quite content that Nick Robinson can put his background in the Conservative party to one side in order to do the job that the BBC requires of him. I believe Paxman also described himself as a one nation tory upon his retirement from Newsnight. This didn't stop him doing his job properly. It also doesn't stop any of the people described in any of David Vance's cherry picked quotes from doing their jobs properly.

 

[looney]

You're so intelligent that you've yet to master basic rules of English grammar. Definitely a wind up account, not even a subtle one at that.

You missed the bit about dyslexia,but I suppose if you have nothing intelligent to contribute and you are still driven by prejudice then spelling and grammar lames will do.

 

[looney]

an economist that doesnt know what a MBA is

Very little science content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Business_Administration#Content

business statistics/quantitative analysis and Operations research, 1/6th of core modules does no way match the scale or depth of a science MA either Research or taught.

 

[looney]

Its been fun Looney, but given the latest incomprehensible drivel you have provided in response to me and to LlcoolJ, its obvious that you are incapable of, or unwilling to, understand the debate you are attempting to engage in. Read back through your own posts and ask yourself what evidence you have actually provided and this may give you a pointer as to why I am giving up trying to engage with your hubristic, delusional ramblings.

No my MBA isn't in science. Unsurprisingly its in Business Administration: that's what the BA in MBA stands for. I hate to tell you, but your MA is not a science qualification either. If it were, it would be an MSc (Master of Science), not an MA (Master of Arts).

Bye then. I'll let you get on with claiming victory on the basis that I can't be bothered to waste any more time on you.

More empty rhetoric and not bothering to address examples or give them,

MA and MSc reflect the university standard ie if its generally an arts or science university. What matters is if it is ESRC recognised professional qualification or not, which mine is.

Personally I have you down as a graduate in Management/Marketing believing a bit of polish and shine is what is needed.

 

[looney]

What about having a code of conduct that requires impartiality and provides programme makers with guidance as to what this means?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality

Enforcement?

Oh here sort of...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint.html

List of judgements with reasons?

 

[Stato]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster

 

[looney]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster

Ah the non quoting sneaky comeback?

"Don’t let the Nobel prize fool you. Economics is not a science "

This says more about you and the Guardian than economics. For starters its called the Nobel Award as those are given in Sciences. Prizes are for beauty contests.

Let me guess. You jumped into a debate Like most here with some Blah blah blah and yaboo like most posters including myself When presented with a strong position you decided a bit of spin and polish with your MBA skills would be enough to see me off. It may fool simple folk like Lcoolj but you made a couple of fundemental mistakes.

1. You are fundamentally wrong, more so about what constitutes evidence and scientific method. Proof of that was others joining in to school you.

2. You picked the worst person, probably,, to try it on with. Anyone with some science training can see through your antics.

But keep sneaking back and replying without a quote(I will check now), thats another error,not knowing when your done and defending a losing position. All you have now is your ego to ride but please go for it.

 

[Stato]

Ah the non quoting sneaky comeback?

"Don’t let the Nobel prize fool you. Economics is not a science "

This says more about you and the Guardian than economics. For starters its called the Nobel Award as those are given in Sciences. Prizes are for beauty contests.

Let me guess. You jumped into a debate Like most here with some Blah blah blah and yaboo like most posters including myself When presented with a strong position you decided a bit of spin and polish with your MBA skills would be enough to see me off. It may fool simple folk like Lcoolj but you made a couple of fundemental mistakes.

1. You are fundamentally wrong, more so about what constitutes evidence and scientific method. Proof of that was others joining in to school you.

2. You picked the worst person, probably,, to try it on with. Anyone with some science training can see through your antics.

But keep sneaking back and replying without a quote(I will check now), thats another error,not knowing when your done and defending a losing position. All you have now is your ego to ride but please go for it.

I just posted it because I knew it would annoy you given your weird view that science outranks all other academic pursuits.

By the way, if subjects were ranked in such a way you can be sure that Economics would be perennial relegation strugglers at the very bottom of the science league, so its quite amusing to think that you self validate through a connection with it. Your self congratulation when everyone else seems to think that you have completely failed to sustain an argument reminds me of the Charlie Sheen 'Winning' interview.

 

[Stato]

MA and MSc reflect the university standard ie if its generally an arts or science university. What matters is if it is ESRC recognised professional qualification or not, which mine is.

Of course the ESRC, or Economic and Social Research Council funds post graduate qualifications in the "social sciences", like Business, Politics, Geography & Economics. The real sciences are dealt with by the Science & Technology Facilities Council.

By the way, would you mind sharing details of which University you graduated from?

Please don't think that your lack of knowledge of the academic requirements common to studying all subjects at post-graduate level make me doubt your claim to have completed post-grad study.

I just want to make sure that my kids don't go there.

 

[looney]

I just posted it because I knew it would annoy you given your weird view that science outranks all other academic pursuits.

By the way, if subjects were ranked in such a way you can be sure that Economics would be perennial relegation strugglers at the very bottom of the science league, so its quite amusing to think that you self validate through a connection with it. Your self congratulation when everyone else seems to think that you have completely failed to sustain an argument reminds me of the Charlie Sheen 'Winning' interview.

It doesn't annoy me it makes me laugh. I read the article.One of the obvious errors was that why dont economists share it with other social scientists?

What like experimental Psycologist Daniel Kahneman?
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=daniel+kahneman

Who won it jointly with Amos Tyversky in 2002? Erm.... in the study of risk, using erm ExperimentalEconomics? Its really hard to respond to you without making you look clumsey and ignorant.

I mean another howler in that article was saying that economics relies on numbers. Well some of it. Theory can be considered and art, but applied is where it becomes a science with numbers.

Top or bottom? meh, relevent to its field, it is worrying that an MBA grad doesn't get that.

 

[looney]

Of course the ESRC, or Economic and Social Research Council funds post graduate qualifications in the "social sciences", like Business, Politics, Geography & Economics. The real sciences are dealt with by the Science & Technology Facilities Council.

By the way, would you mind sharing details of which University you graduated from?

Please don't think that your lack of knowledge of the academic requirements common to studying all subjects at post-graduate level make me doubt your claim to have completed post-grad study.

I just want to make sure that my kids don't go there.

It was hayek who said an economist who is just an economist is a nuicanse and dangerous with it. you will find fewer better at slagging of their own profession but anyway.

yes I would be happy to share where I got my qualification as you wont gain any thing from it. But to continue the tradtion of you getting hung out to dry you go first that only fair.
BTW Producing an Alma Mater is not proof of academic study,your lack of substance and reliance on spin and shine suggests yours would be science light, at best. That is were the "Evidence" lies.


Like its only fair to say your only fan here has produced nothing were as others have jumped in offering example of your lack of understanding of bias or analysing examples of it.

 

[Stato]

Don't waste your time Looney, I didn't read The Guardian article. I also don't really care whether or where you went to university.

I was just mocking you. Childish I know, but you do set yourself up for it.

 

[looney]

Don't waste your time Looney, I didn't read The Guardian article. I also don't really care whether or where you went to university.

I was just mocking you. Childish I know, but you do set yourself up for it.

Back peddling noted.You are easy to manage.