• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fox News Tries to Bash Atheist and Agnostics

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
CNN is probably one of the least biased major news sources in America, although they have been trying to do the "ratings" thing and have changed some stuff up to emulate Fox News, which is one of the more biased sources of news in America.

CNN has a soft bias, but it is a real bias, and sometimes soft bias is more insidious for being soft and unnoticed by those who don't really pay attention.

Fox is certainly biased, and often puerile, though with a few good shows. I will agree with you there.


The right is far more concerned with this. As illogical as it is, they have even adopted the term RINO (Republican In Name Only) because they are obsessed with identity (I saw a campaign add in Tennessee once where the candidate had people, even some celebrities, stressing the candidate is conservative).

What you are talking about is a reaction to the left. I could happily never hear terms like trigger warnings ever again. I only am forced to pay attention to them because of the left.


The BBC is a source - that only covers actual news and even whats going on in America better than most American sources - that is considerably less biased than just about any news source, especially the ones you are likely to hear of not living in America.
I disagree. The BBC is terribly biased. It is a soft bias, but that is still bias. On America it is more biased than usual - it gives a completely left-liberal analysis.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
What you are talking about is a reaction to the left. I could happily never hear terms like trigger warnings ever again. I only am forced to pay attention to them because of the left.
What do "trigger" warnings have to do with anything? Those have nothing to do with political identity, and are more like video game or movie ratings which point out the content of an item.
I disagree. The BBC is terribly biased. It is a soft bias, but that is still bias. On America it is more biased than usual - it gives a completely left-liberal analysis.
I see lots on the right complaining they are too far left, and some on the left complaining they are too far right, but I don't see this "terrible bias."
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
What do "trigger" warnings have to do with anything? Those have nothing to do with political identity, and are more like video game or movie ratings which point out the content of an item.


Trigger warnings is a trendy term amongst those obsessed with identity politics, cultural Marxist, deconstructionist, whatever you wish to call them. I was just using it as an example. I have never seen it used by someone who wasn't a supporter of such politics, except ironically


I see lots on the right complaining they are too far left, and some on the left complaining they are too far right, but I don't see this "terrible bias."

I can reiterate examples of their left-liberal bias indefinitely. I just recounted some in another thread. Many of these examples wouldn't be of interest to an American though, and would be quite tedious. Suffice it to say you get left-liberal position on American from police shootings to gun control to social issues. The BBC is actually worse on its American reporting than its British reporting, because they known conservative Americans are unlikely to be watching.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Trigger warnings is a trendy term amongst those obsessed with identity politics, cultural Marxist, deconstructionist, whatever you wish to call them. I was just using it as an example. I have never seen it used by someone who wasn't a supporter of such politics, except ironically
Please do yourself a favor and learn about Marxism. Not just by taking for granted what has been spoon-fed to you by propaganda, but by picking up books that were written by Marx and Engels, because I promise you they are nothing like the propaganda has lead you to believe.
I can reiterate examples of their left-liberal bias indefinitely.
As I said, there are many on the right who complain it is left-winged (as well as left-winged who complain it is right winged).
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
Please do yourself a favor and learn about Marxism. Not just by taking for granted what has been spoon-fed to you by propaganda, but by picking up books that were written by Marx and Engels, because I promise you they are nothing like the propaganda has lead you to believe.

I was just listing a term that sometimes been used. I can understand where it comes from, but I actually don't think it is the best term for the phenomena I was referring to, hence I used the term identity politics.



As I said, there are many on the right who complain it is left-winged (as well as left-winged who complain it is right winged).
As I said in that thread, usually this is done either without any support or back up, by those who are annoyed the BBC gave any time to non-left-wing positions, or those of the far left for it not being far left enough. The BBC is of the mainstream left on some issues and centre-left on others. Conservatives tend to complain because it is biased against the centre, centre-right, and the mainstream right, whereas the sorts of people you are talking about want it to be more far left. It is not the same. I have never seen a left-winger give anything like the evidence conservatives can for its bias.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
They are probably left-wing. I can't say I've especially noticed this. On CNN's American shows you get more voices that wouldn't get a look in at the likes of the BBC. You will get gun rights advocates, for example. But they aren't that different to the BBC, in my opinion. In fact, interestingly, the BBC, CNN, the Guardian, the Australian ABC, all have very similar viewpoints and bias.

Not really. It all depends on what you look at of course (and Bernie is the exception) but most of the "liberals" in this country are no where near the left in the UK and the rest of Europe. Obama, for example, is fiscally and diplomatically not all that far removed from his predecessor. Most of the liberal side in this country complain he is way too much like Bush. The same is true of Hillary and the rest of the field. A few domestic issues differentiate them and that's about it.

Bernie Sanders is the exception. He is what most of the world thinks of when they think of the left and he is literally the only one in national office.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
As I said, there are many on the right who complain it is left-winged (as well as left-winged who complain it is right winged).

I think there is a lot of truth in that with a lot of this discussion. A lot of the subtle 'bias' I hear talk about just means whoever is listening doesn't like what they are hearing.
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
Not really. It all depends on what you look at of course (and Bernie is the exception) but most of the "liberals" in this country are no where near the left in the UK and the rest of Europe. Obama, for example, is fiscally and diplomatically not all that far removed from his predecessor. Most of the liberal side in this country complain he is way too much like Bush. The same is true of Hillary and the rest of the field. A few domestic issues differentiate them and that's about it.

Bernie Sanders is the exception. He is what most of the world thinks of when they think of the left and he is literally the only one in national office.

I'm not so sure. I can't see, for example, that Obama is that different from many on the Labour left. He is more constrained by the American system perhaps, but what does he support that a mainstream Labourite does not?
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
I think there is a lot of truth in that with a lot of this discussion. A lot of the subtle 'bias' I hear talk about just means whoever is listening doesn't like what they are hearing.
In the case of the BBC this is just false. As I said, I can show example of its left-liberal bias indefinitely. Those who claim it has right-wing bias rarely back up their claims, especially not with more than a couple of examples. When also tend to mean it isn't openly left-liberal enough - it actually gives some time to those who aren't left-liberal! - or they mean it should give more time to far-left positions. Those on the right tend to think it biased because it doesn't give enough time to centrist, centre-right, and mainstream right positions, so their complaints are not comparable.
 

Baladas

An Págánach
Not really. It all depends on what you look at of course (and Bernie is the exception) but most of the "liberals" in this country are no where near the left in the UK and the rest of Europe. Obama, for example, is fiscally and diplomatically not all that far removed from his predecessor. Most of the liberal side in this country complain he is way too much like Bush. The same is true of Hillary and the rest of the field. A few domestic issues differentiate them and that's about it.

Bernie Sanders is the exception. He is what most of the world thinks of when they think of the left and he is literally the only one in national office.

Yep. I mostly through in with the "Left" in this country, but I am firmly a Left Libertarian.
My idea of the Left is all but absent in US politics.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
In the case of the BBC this is just false. As I said, I can show example of its left-liberal bias indefinitely. Those who claim it has right-wing bias rarely back up their claims, especially not with more than a couple of examples. When also tend to mean it isn't openly left-liberal enough - it actually gives some time to those who aren't left-liberal! - or they mean it should give more time to far-left positions. Those on the right tend to think it biased because it doesn't give enough time to centrist, centre-right, and mainstream right positions, so their complaints are not comparable.
You keep talking about it, but you haven't backed it up.
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
You keep talking about it, but you haven't backed it up.
I kept saying I had in another thread just recently, and didn't wish to bore you. From that other thread:


A thousand examples could be made. I have already mentioned its admitted stance against Eurosceptics for eleven years. One might also mention on twitter the mask often falls from the BBC types and they show obvious bias all the time; or their reporting on the US, which is always from the left; or the fact they buy daily ten thousand mores copies of the Guardian than, because it is the paper of choice there. The Guardian is where they tend to put job advertisement. Indeed Peter Sissons has written about the routine use of the Guardian and Independent as the main sources of the details for sources at the BBC. And almost all its entertainment figures are of the left. Altogether, the evidence is damning if you pay attention and don't block out what you don't want to hear. The BBC is the broadcast arm of the Guardian.

And

I simply reject the suggestion that accusations of the BBC's bias can be put down to the eye of the beholder or anything like that. Why, on twitter, do its staff so often drop the masks and show themselves quite left-liberal? Why does it get 10,000 copies of the Guardian more than other papers? Why does it advertise mostly in the Guardian and use the Guardian and Independent so often as the substance for their stories? Why are most of its comedians and entertainers left-wing? Why does it exclude Eurosceptics? Why do its reporters interpret UKIP MPs more than Tories and Tories more than Labour? One could go on and on. Why was Broadcasting House littered with champagne bottles the morning after the Blair abomination was elected in 1997? One could go on and on. I doubt one could find the same litany of evidence of bias against the left.


This is just the tip of the iceberg. Let's hear evidence of its supposed right-wing bias now.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I kept saying I had in another thread just recently, and didn't wish to bore you. From that other thread:
And in that other thread (if I'm thinking of the correct one), the accusations of this heavy bias were discredited, and the sources posted were incredibly biased themselves.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Let's hear evidence of its supposed right-wing bias now.
My pleasure, especially since you claim the BBC is the broadcast arm of the Guardian (even though the BBC is publicly owned)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/bbc-leftwing-bias-non-existent-myth
The claim of 'liberal bias' is a clever fairytale that allows the right to police the corporation and set the wider political agenda

There are three certainties about British life: it rains on bank holidays; England's chances at the Euros are always inflated and then disappointed; and the right claims that the BBC suffers from "leftwing bias".
It is a campaign based on myths and deception, but it is extraordinarily clever. It allows the right to police the BBC: to make the corporation fearful of crossing certain lines, and to ensure that the right sets the political agenda.
The truth is the BBC is stacked full of rightwingers.
Rather than having a leftwing bias, research actually suggests the BBC's output is biased towards establishment and rightwing sources. A study by Cardiff University academics found that while there is always a bias towards political incumbents, the ratio in favour of Conservative politicians appearing on BBC news is far greater than it was in favour of Labour figures when Gordon Brown was prime minister.
For too long, the right has got away with weaving a fairytale of BBC leftwing bias.
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about that thread. No one refuted my arguments.

You don't really show much evidence or respond to mine.

It should be noted that the Cameronian Tory party is not necessarily right-wing. As Peter Hitchens has pointed out, much to the appreciation of those like the BBC, Cameron has moved the Tory party to the left. Cameron is the self-proclaimed Heir to Blair, and his government is essentially Blairite. So, having Tory MPs on the BBC is not necessarily evidence of a lack of bias. Indeed, Gordon Brown was generally unpopular with even the likes of the Guardian, as Peter Hitchens shows in his The Cameron Delusion, because of his anti-Blairite position, and also because he was dour and considered antiquated. Cameron was welcomed as young, Blairite, and someone who would steer the Tory party towards a more left-ward position. I am a traditional conservative and yet in some ways I preferred Gordon Brown to the current PM, Mr. Slippery, so that should show you the issues aren't clear cut. Certainly, to talk of the BBC attitude to the current Tories says nothing about its general ideological bent. It doesn't show it isn't still heavily Europhile, pro-mass immigration, socially liberal, pro-multiculturalism, and so on. If what you were suggesting was correct, then surely the BBC wouldn't have shown the absurd amount of anti-UKIP bias it did.

Besides, it has been the case, still, that the BBC tends to interrupt politicians from different parties at different rates in its interviews and to treat them differently. Tories are second only to UKIP, still, in being interrupted and contradicted. Greens get especially good treatment.

Ironically, Owen Jones regularly appears on the BBC's Dateline show, where there is regularly a panel of three or four centre-leftists and leftists, and one week in three or four there is a single conservative. His article is not persuasive. For example, he starts by calling Chris Patten, someone from the left of the Tory party, a right-winger. If someone had any knowledge of British politics, this would be absurd. It is usual BBC defense tactics though - get on left-of-centre Tories and claim you are being balanced. Jones must take it for granted that only leftist are going to read this article. Andrew Neil is the sole proper conservative in the BBC reporter or senior administration ranks, and he is kept from important positions. Peter Hitchens recounts how he has been told he will never get to host his own show in a prominent position because of his views. He was trying to produce a show on grammar schools and was discretely told the BBC would never back such a project. Most of the BBC reporters are leftists, as shown by their twitter accounts and other instances. Webb and Bacon spring to mind as obvious examples. When Lord Tebbitt is made director of the BBC, get back to me.

Jones also doesn't appear to know that the Daily Mail and Sunday Mail, though sister papers, are not the same paper. Peter Hitchens, whom he mentions, does not work for the Daily Mail.

That is all the evidence Jones musters. It hardly compares to what I mention. The BBC admitted it didn't allow Eurosceptics on the for eleven years in the 1990s and 2000s, because they were considered fringe. And yet Euroscepticism has always been the dominant feeling amongst the British people.

Here is what some Beeboids have said themselves:


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


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


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


“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


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

Ben Stephenson, BBC controller of drama commissioning

The Peter Sissons quote is almost all the evidence needed. He was a senior news anchor. If the Guardian is by far and away the most popular and quoted paper at the BBC - and the figures show they order 10,000 more copies of that paper and tend to advertise for employees in it - then this is almost cast iron evidence of pervasive left-liberal bias. The Guardian is notoriously badly edited and written. Journalistically it is no better than the other broadsheets. They are buying it because they agree with its views.
 
Last edited:

Underhill

Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure. I can't see, for example, that Obama is that different from many on the Labour left. He is more constrained by the American system perhaps, but what does he support that a mainstream Labourite does not?

Obamacare alone is evidence. Any liberal worth his salt would have pushed for single payer health care, not this corporate friendly, warmed over version of a republican system (whether they want to admit it now or not).
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
Obamacare alone is evidence. Any liberal worth his salt would have pushed for single payer health care, not this corporate friendly, warmed over version of a republican system (whether they want to admit it now or not).
Pushed through? Despite his lack of regard for some niceties of the separation of powers and constitutional boundaries, Obama does at least knows he can't govern America, politically or legally, according to his own whim. If Obama thought he could have politically achieved singe payer system, he would have pushed it through. I think it is true that Democrats once were to the right of British Labourites, on average. Probably they still are. But I don't think the progressive wing of the party - Obama, Warren, etc., - are to the right of the British Labourites. I don't think there is daylight between the two. And it is the progressive wing that is on the ascendant.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
In the case of the BBC this is just false. As I said, I can show example of its left-liberal bias indefinitely. Those who claim it has right-wing bias rarely back up their claims, especially not with more than a couple of examples. When also tend to mean it isn't openly left-liberal enough - it actually gives some time to those who aren't left-liberal! - or they mean it should give more time to far-left positions. Those on the right tend to think it biased because it doesn't give enough time to centrist, centre-right, and mainstream right positions, so their complaints are not comparable.

Right, except every time someone does a study on what parties get the most attention on NPR and CNN they find that the right gets as much, and in NPR's case, more time. Most seem to grant NPR left status because they do things like accept that climate change is real (which is logical if not unanimously supported). I don't know much about the BBC. The only time I watch them is when I am looking for international coverage, which is sometimes lacking here in the states.

I remember reading not long ago that among the news networks in the US, the most unbiased was Al Jazeera. I haven't watched them much but what I have seen was decent.
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
Parties coverage is hardly a guarantee of much. Parties are not the end of politics. The BBC has Tories on plenty but on the issues it is still left-liberal. CNN certainly is left-liberal on the issues. Party coverage doesn't tell you this, nor does it tell you which party figures are chosen (ie., are they on the left of the republicans) and how they are treated.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Pushed through? Despite his lack of regard for some niceties of the separation of powers and constitutional boundaries, Obama does at least knows he can't govern America, politically or legally, according to his own whim. If Obama thought he could have politically achieved singe payer system, he would have pushed it through. I think it is true that Democrats once were to the right of British Labourites, on average. Probably they still are. But I don't think the progressive wing of the party - Obama, Warren, etc., - are to the right of the British Labourites. I don't think there is daylight between the two. And it is the progressive wing that is on the ascendant.

That last bit you have right but they have a long way to go. Look at where our country was prior to Reagan. We had republicans pushing for single payer health care. Reagan would be too liberal for this current batch of republicans. Bernie is pulling us back to the left, but he has a long row to hoe.

You may even be right about single payer, but I don't think so. The fiscal case is much easier to make for single payer than the monster we are now stuck with. The only people he had to convince, at the time, were the marginally blue democrats from the south as the republicans stood unified against anything Obama did even then. I think the original hope may have been that he could make the plan bi-partisan by going with a more conservative plan, but it was clear 20 minutes in that this was not going to happen.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Parties coverage is hardly a guarantee of much. Parties are not the end of politics. The BBC has Tories on plenty but on the issues it is still left-liberal. CNN certainly is left-liberal on the issues. Party coverage doesn't tell you this, nor does it tell you which party figures are chosen (ie., are they on the left of the republicans) and how they are treated.

Sorry, I just don't see it. MSNBC yes. CNN no.
 
Top