Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 31, 2011 9:39:09 GMT
The article pretty much explains what has gone on here. although there is a more educated one on the subject under the title Has the BBC given up all pretence of political impartiality?. The journalist writing here about it doesn't seem that familiar with BBC bias in the past, as he writes
"...While her comments were supported by the majority of people posting on message boards..."
Since the BBC moderators control very carefully which comments get posted on their message boards, this is hardly surprising. Anybody who has tried to post comments which go against the desired agenda of the BBC has been subjected to the frustration of seeing their posts simply discarded without seeing the light of day.
In a similar brainwashing way, the BBC controls the majority mindset of the audience for their Question Time programme and makes sure it is sufficiently left-wing, besides just that of the panel and Dimbleby himself . By asking certain questions about the view of the applicant, like for example, do they support the Iraq war, they can easily minimise those who might applaud the more 'right-wing' views, as the BBC likes to call them.
The BBC left-wing agenda masquerading as 'fair and balanced', leading the other similar minded media companies, have done, and continue to do, more harm to this society than any other force present. For those still unaware of this bias and resulting decline, history will show just how diabolical this situation is with the public being forced to pay for it as well.
BBC criticised for bias over Zadie Smith's R4 broadcast
The BBC has been accused of bias after it invited Zadie Smith, the author, to read out a five-minute lecture attacking library closures.
By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor 2:56PM BST 30 Mar 2011
Her comments, broadcast during the Today Programme on Radio 4, were an impassioned defence of libraries and "shared institutions" in Britain.
The BBC has been criticised, however, for inviting Ms Smith to broadcast her comments without any interruptions or questions and for allowing the five minute piece to turn into a "party political broadcast".
After telling listeners about growing up with a love for Kensal Rise library in north west London, which is now earmarked for closure, Ms Smith rounded on the coalition Government's "shameful" policies.
“Of course I can see that if you went to Eton or Harrow, like so many of the present cabinet, you might not understand the point of such lowly gateways. Or conceive of why anyone would crawl on their hands on knees for the privilege of entering one.”
She continued with her criticism: "Perhaps this is why they [the government] are so cavalier with our heritage. The fewer places there are to find a history book these days, the better."
While her comments were supported by the majority of people posting on message boards, some believed the Today programme had made a serious error of judgement in allowing such a political speech to be made. One BBC insider said, "We've shot ourselves in the foot once again."
One listener on Twitter said: "Was this a new section on the Today Programme, socialist thought for the day?"
Over an hour later the programme invited Shaun Bailey, an ambassador for the Big Society, to preset an alternative view, but this was part of an interview conducted by the presenter Justin Webb.
Emma Boon at the TaxPayers' Alliance lobby group said: "Just because she is an author, I am not sure why she should not be subjected to the same rules of impartiality and balance as everyone else on the Today programme.
"It is unfair to use license fee funded programmes to broadcast such a one-sided view and only offer a balancing view in such a completely different format."
Various listeners pointed out that the decision to close Kensal Rise library was taken by the local Labour-controlled Brent council, which has earmarked six libraries for closure.
A spokesman for the BBC said: "The Today programme occasionally features personal authored essays. The programme balanced Zadie Smith's piece about libraries with an interview with Shaun Bailey, an ambassador for the Big Society project, who had the opportunity to respond to the points Smith raised."
"...While her comments were supported by the majority of people posting on message boards..."
Since the BBC moderators control very carefully which comments get posted on their message boards, this is hardly surprising. Anybody who has tried to post comments which go against the desired agenda of the BBC has been subjected to the frustration of seeing their posts simply discarded without seeing the light of day.
In a similar brainwashing way, the BBC controls the majority mindset of the audience for their Question Time programme and makes sure it is sufficiently left-wing, besides just that of the panel and Dimbleby himself . By asking certain questions about the view of the applicant, like for example, do they support the Iraq war, they can easily minimise those who might applaud the more 'right-wing' views, as the BBC likes to call them.
The BBC left-wing agenda masquerading as 'fair and balanced', leading the other similar minded media companies, have done, and continue to do, more harm to this society than any other force present. For those still unaware of this bias and resulting decline, history will show just how diabolical this situation is with the public being forced to pay for it as well.
BBC criticised for bias over Zadie Smith's R4 broadcast
The BBC has been accused of bias after it invited Zadie Smith, the author, to read out a five-minute lecture attacking library closures.
By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor 2:56PM BST 30 Mar 2011
Her comments, broadcast during the Today Programme on Radio 4, were an impassioned defence of libraries and "shared institutions" in Britain.
The BBC has been criticised, however, for inviting Ms Smith to broadcast her comments without any interruptions or questions and for allowing the five minute piece to turn into a "party political broadcast".
After telling listeners about growing up with a love for Kensal Rise library in north west London, which is now earmarked for closure, Ms Smith rounded on the coalition Government's "shameful" policies.
“Of course I can see that if you went to Eton or Harrow, like so many of the present cabinet, you might not understand the point of such lowly gateways. Or conceive of why anyone would crawl on their hands on knees for the privilege of entering one.”
She continued with her criticism: "Perhaps this is why they [the government] are so cavalier with our heritage. The fewer places there are to find a history book these days, the better."
While her comments were supported by the majority of people posting on message boards, some believed the Today programme had made a serious error of judgement in allowing such a political speech to be made. One BBC insider said, "We've shot ourselves in the foot once again."
One listener on Twitter said: "Was this a new section on the Today Programme, socialist thought for the day?"
Over an hour later the programme invited Shaun Bailey, an ambassador for the Big Society, to preset an alternative view, but this was part of an interview conducted by the presenter Justin Webb.
Emma Boon at the TaxPayers' Alliance lobby group said: "Just because she is an author, I am not sure why she should not be subjected to the same rules of impartiality and balance as everyone else on the Today programme.
"It is unfair to use license fee funded programmes to broadcast such a one-sided view and only offer a balancing view in such a completely different format."
Various listeners pointed out that the decision to close Kensal Rise library was taken by the local Labour-controlled Brent council, which has earmarked six libraries for closure.
A spokesman for the BBC said: "The Today programme occasionally features personal authored essays. The programme balanced Zadie Smith's piece about libraries with an interview with Shaun Bailey, an ambassador for the Big Society project, who had the opportunity to respond to the points Smith raised."