Sky News says they are neutral, it's in their licencing remit.
are you sure about that? I've never heard of this. I certainly don't view them as impartial though they're probably not as bad as the Beeb. Either way when I'm forced to pay Murdoch I'll start to worry about it.
Your argument would be so much better if there was a major difference between what the BBC show on their news and dramas than there is on ITV, CH 4, CH 5 and sky. You've not showed a single shred of proof that their editorial line is not broadly the same as every other single terrestrial broadcaster in the nation.
You're stuck in a rut; it doesn't matter what other channels do if they are commercially funded. That said given the public service remit of Ch 4 it's comedy levels of news bias are possibly an exception.
We've been over this before on these threads and some of it is alluded to in this thread. In news and drama the BBC displays a blatant 'guardianista' bias on subjects as diverse as europe, religion and social matters, Israel, demographics, multi culturalism, immigration and race, economics, scottish independence, terrorism, crime etc.
I've given examples above of what you'd be unlikely to ever find the BBC doing, in a list of categories selected because it is routinely biased with the same or equivalent topics but in a predictable pc direction; remember, by the way, that viewpoints excluded are just as much an aspect of bias as those selected for inclusion. I'm sure you don't really need those spelled out again - however so that you can't complain;
As repeatedly before, it's about social liberal assumptions more than party politics (which doesn't mean it isn't team labour because it blatantly is) so;
- On europe, it was sceptics - now so thoroughly vindicated - who were viewed and treated as swivel eyed loons
- on immigration it is relentless propaganda in reportage and drama, no platforming or viewing as racist the working class communities destroyed
- on gay marriage, it was opponents not advocates denounced as insane or wicked from the BBC bully pulpits. on the continent some of the biggest demos in europes history running for months and years - indeed going on unto this very week - and brutally put down by state robocops were not covered where every right on gathering of a few thousand gets reported, (and where people are sent around the world to find continuing maltreatment of gay people, and where further flung examples of police brutality are newsworthy). Hell, even melodramatic suicide protests went barely remarked. Moreover its impossible to understand the wider implosion of modern France without understanding the many fault lines in its society that opened up in the particularly vast and sustained french campaigns and vicious response from a state which is presiding over disintegration. In short, newsworthy.
- on AIDS, in albert square it was famously a disease of straight white men in the opposite of the world, lie filled panorama hatchet jobs made by anti catholic groups on the role of church teaching and AIDS are not balanced with reporting of the real world inverse correlation of catholicsm (and Islam) with aids, and it's positive correlation with secular approaches (repeated in different regions), while rapid new growth in the UK barely gets a mention
- on terrorism, we mince around the language used in respect of the biggest barbarians in modern times while in spooks it was Jews or yanks behind their every apparent action.
- on race, the BBC is far more given to obsess over white on black racism while barely any attention is given to the bigger issue of inter minority racism or far bigger problems today like black on black violence
- In politics and economics, once more in both reportage and drama, venal capitalists are a constant theme but the historical, humanitarian and ongoing economic disaster of socialism is rarely such rich material for dramatists or obsessive focus by documentaries.
- In selection of personnel there is gross over representation of some demographics and the opposite for others - the same of course goes for interests and subject matter covered.
- On Scotland - I'll leave to interminable debates on this subject alone; suffice to say the broadcast wing of the labour party has provoked even those normally blind to its biases
- as above, you also know with certainty what view bbc pieces or dramas will take on a whole number of issues from the death penalty to abortion to multiculturalism to crime. The BBC will take a predictable position, sometimes corresponding to a minority view, sometimes a majority one, sometimes view the BBC has moved from minority to majority with its propagandising, sometimes one it has failed to budge, but always predictable.
Check out the biased bbc blog for weekly lists of examples. Many of its contributors are of course themselves biased. And it's still not the point - nobody is forced to fund them. Nor does it matter if your own biases align with the BBCs - mine do on some things and not on others - but no one is forced to pay to listen to us.
Once more, no intrinsic problem with the BBCs biases - most commercial media and arts are broadly the same, probably for the reasons you insinuated about their dominance by an elite who trumpets its own values. However, we are not forced to pay for them. It is bad enough that posh progressives have drummed the proles off stage or into harmless performing jester roles, but being forced to pay the dominant lot is just taking the piss.
- - - Updated - - -
More than enough words now spilled S and most repeated for the umpteenth time. Unless you want to go back to the OP I will leave last word to you.
