Hacker News Reader

Comment by IshKebab | Hacker News Reader

Has anyone done any quantitative measurement of the BBC's bias? I feel like there must be some way to do it using sentiment analysis and other news sources as references somehow.

View on HN

An unbiased view of bias? Is that even possible?

IMO, the BBC can't be very biased because all sides accuse it of being biased against them!

But then one might argue that accusing the BBC of bias against your side is a calculated approach to deflect accusations of bias in favour of your side.

This is indeed what the right does.

And the right would say it's what the left does. Your turn.

Just because two opposing sides claim to have the correct answer, doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer.

I agree! I just don't think 'You're biased!'/'Nuh-uh, you're biased!' gets us any closer to it.

“The bbc” is a large organisation with many reporters and editors.

Those reporters and editors put out biased content from the left and right.

There are good arguments that the BBC do not criticise the current government and some people take that to mean that they support the government. That is exacerbated by the fact that David Cameron appointed prominent Conservatives to directorial roles in the BBC.[0]

But yes, the news they put out is not unbiased- it’s just that they have bias in all directions depending on who is writing and editing.

[0]: https://www.ft.com/content/7ba884c2-176d-11e6-b197-a4af20d55...

Generally, I think "the bbc" is centre-left (upper-middle-class flavoured).

Their positions on most issues conform to that faction.

I know what you mean but I think it's unhelpful to define it in terms of left/right. I'd describe them as having a bias towards the typical metropolitan liberal outlook.

The reason I'd describe it this way is that it's much more apparent on social issues and certain aspects of international relations, where they don't even seem to understand that other viewpoints might exist. On economics they seem to have at least some awareness that there are a spectrum of viewpoints and take a more consumerist view as often as they do a soft left view (although they still never really seem to consider libertarian or harder left viewpoints).

the BBC can't be very biased because all sides accuse it of being biased against them

I don’t think that’s true. For example you won’t find many Remainers claiming that the BBC was pro-Leave. Nor would you find many opposing Scottish independence saying the BBC was pro Scottish independence. It clearly does “take sides”.

The traditional left-right axis doesn’t work as a model here. The BBC’s bias is towards the opinions and interests of upper-middle-class Londoners, some of which would be traditionally be considered left and some of which would be right.

It depends on the show and the presenter. John Humpfreys was very pro-Leave -- there was one segment on the Today program where he was interviewing someone advocating for a people's vote and angrily asked them how working people would feel betrayed (or something to that effect); meanwhile, he was very soft when interviewing Gove and other Tories. The same applies to how the Today program focused its vox pops on Leave-voting areas.

Likewise, if you look at something like The News Quiz, that and the presenters/guests are left wing and pro-Remain.

The BBC's bias can be considered as pro-State. While some of their journalists and presenters have their own biases, the overall direction they take is to act as the mouthpiece of the government, particularly for international coverage. For domestic coverage, there is enough representation of the opposition to at least make it look like democracy is working and that people aren't being manipulated to do exactly what the State wants them to do. They hold the government to scrutiny on minor issues where there's a difference in the views of the opposition, but on major issues where both parties are united (for example, on going to war), the BBC simply repeats what they're told to.

Corbyn was smeared as an anti-semite with "evidence" every bit as good as Vice's "evidence" on Stallman.

BoJo had his gaffes covered with kid gloves, the BBC going so far as to pass off obviously fake footage to make him look competent. Despite his talk of "watermelon smiles" and "picaninnies", or the horror Tory policies had inflicted on Britain's vulnerable, or the srious, international lies Johnson was caught in, the BBC gushed on how affable and charming his persona was.

I would love a quantitative analysis, but I don't need one to see the truth. They can't be trusted much more than the Daily Mail or The Sun.

You probably aren’t interested because you have made up you mind already, but are you aware that the use of the watermelon smiles etc was in an article to satirise the kind of attitude that would use those terms? An article critical of outdated colonial attitudes.

There are methods of media analysis, basically taking every story and grading on certain parameters, exposing potential biases, positive or negative angles and such. It's journalism 101.

Some people do, such as how often right-wing vs left-wing guests appear on various shows. I’m not sure how useful these stats are though.

For e.g Nigel Farage moaned that the BBC and Question Time is too left wing, when ironically at the same time he was invited on the show more than any guest in its recent history.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigel-farage-set-record-question-t...

That is not ironic.

How many other right wing guests did they invite?

This is typical la-di-da lefty nonsense, thinking you can deflect from your negative behaviour by presenting shallow statistics.

Hey, guys! isnt like so funny cuz...look at the number!

The BBC routinely imposes their favoured races onto representations of British history and culture. I suppose that is "right wing". Is that what you are getting at?

It is ironic, the person whose views are most represented on the programme is complaining his views are under-represented? That's ironic.

As for how many other guests did they invite? Go and look it up, they have a publicly disclosed formula for which views gets represented and it's based on prior election performance and current polling during election cycles. Which is why it's so funny - it's just a nonsense to complain about the number of right wing guests.

Alternatively, the fact that the BBC is so bad at finding a broad selection of conservative voices to put on shows like Question Time that they keep on having to invite Nigel Farage back is a good demonstration of how their political leanings are causing them to fail at representing conservative views. I'm sure I've read a damning analysis of the BBC's process for finding conservatives to invite on and its failings along these lines.

It is you and this other person that are making this claim.

Provide the evidence to support your claim.

Or, just for fun...name 10 other genuinely "right-wing" figures they have on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com