I actually disagree. I think the BBC genuinely does try to be unbiased - specifically with regard to political parties. All state broadcasters are likely to support the "country" in wars - to do otherwise would invite fury. Equally the BBC generally as conservative with a small c will tend to regard the existing status as ground zero. So it will tend to show a slight favour towards whichever government is in power as it cannot be seen to lead dissent. Presenters are just people and they come with clear inbuilt political leanings - a lot of people have recently talked about Fiona Bruce or Laura Kuenssberg - you could equally though look at Charlie State and Naga Munchetty - they are careful not to show their outright opinions but they are not well hidden. So long as they try to keep their personal views unexpressed it is hard to fault them - they are human. On Gary Lineker the BBC have got into a muddle as it has tried to suppress the opinion of a non political commentator - because he is high profile. They have simply got it wrong. What does tend to be they case though is most of us notice views with which we disagree more than ones agreeing with our point of view - so most of us consider the likes of the BBC to be biased against our viewpoint.
I specifically mentioned left wing presenters to show that I am aware that general content is fairly balanced, BUT where it matters it is not. Nick Robinson, until recently their chief political correspondent is a Tory, it's not a secret. During the referendum in Scotland he put forward outright lies on PM and the news. He was not alone. People notice how many times an SNP politician is interrupted and challenged in an interview with the BBC compared to a Westminster government politician. I myself have personal experience (I won't go into detail, because I don't want to be identified) I have been interviewed by BBC tv and STV. The BBC reporter was clearly biased and I told him so. STV on the other hand were balanced. You can hear it now on the SNP leadership election. STV are clearly more neutral and balanced in their presentation than the BBC who support the government and ask questions based upon it. You might expect a commercial organisation to be more right wing than a state funded channel but it seems the opposite is true. Channel 4 news is clearly more balanced than the BBC yet another example and surprise surprise the Tories want to sell it off.
The only reason working class think immigration is a threat to them is because they are fed statements to that effect by people with ulterior motives. It is completely bonkers for working class people to vote tory on economic grounds so they are persuaded to do so by other means. There is absolutely no way the Tories are going to engage in a discussion about how much immigration is optimal when half their voting base believes the answer is zero. Another interesting point is that every argument for nation states deciding who can enter applies equally well to controls on who can leave. Actually even more so because a law forbidding people to exit the country only affects the people who decided it. But such a law would be considered authoritarian by almost everyone and the words on the UK passport 'require' other countries to let our citizens pass freely. The double standards are clear to see....I agree that they come from tribalism but that is exactly the same as racial discrimination. I am not hugely enthusiastic about relying on market forces but if adjusted for externalities like pollution I think they are the the best tool for rationing most things. Let's try it with immigration. It will save lives if nothing else.
I prefer the LBC model where each presenter is clearly biased and supports their own political view. They have presenters of the left and the right. That is clearly more honest IMO than the supposed and fictitious neutrality of the BBC.
My comment about being interviewed sounds wrong. It's worth pointing out that the media and politicians in Scotland are much more open and accessible than is the case in England so there is a much greater chance that you will appear on it. A smaller population has a big effect in this area.
Would you endorse that model, if it was taxpayer-funded ?? If the answer is yes, then you have one solution to any BBC political (non-news) programme issues you may have.
I think I would because I don't doubt the BBC has tried to be balanced but it's existence proves that it does not really work. Provided you have a balance of biases that is far more workable and far more honest and people know what and who they are listening to. and can give weight or not to the commentator as they feel fit.
We should also go back to how the BBC used to present news by excluding opinion and the reporters thoughts from it. Just present the basic facts: There was a car crash 4 people died, The government lost a vote by 33, A boat containing 59 people landed on Dover beach. and so on. Then have programmes where you discuss 'the facts' including the bias both ways. That's what we used to have on the BBC. Now we have opinion mixed in with the facts and that is my complaint.
We would have to do a "let the numbers decide" analysis (even if the will is there, it could cost the BBC more - no ad revenues etc) .
I think you underestimate the savvyness of working class people - not as easily fooled as you seem to think. We live in a ridiculous society. Who on earth would create from scratch a place where people earns millions for running a company or singing or playing sport while others try to hold two or three jobs just to scrape a living together. Blame William the Conqueror. Land ownership across centuries together wit royal privilege created a wealthy class and that still fundamentally exists and does not let go. Yes a few people can now join it by setting up dark satanic mills in past centuries or playing sport etc now - but they never really break into the wealthy set. At best they are noveaux riche. I see no solution to that. You would need a revolution but they almost always end in as bad or worse not to mention the death destruction aqnd misery they cause.
You also have to brutally enforce good journalist practices on things like "deceit by omission/structure" , deceitful use of stats etc (those who do so must get the boot - and the public knows of it) . ""That's what we used to have on the BBC." That the BBC was once considered to be a "gold standard" - both home and abroad - of nearly every domain of content production, can be hard to bear. IMHO some of it is reclaimable, but sadly not all of it.
It's not just the bias or the outright lies ("Labour activists" haranguing Matt Hancock outside Leeds hospital during the last election campaign, anybody?) but the fact they don't seem to care, as evidenced by how many of their packages air with obvious flubs in the commentary and yet they never do a second take to fix that, or the fact that several of their anchors seem incapable of pronouncing the names of any non-Western cities when they appear on the autocue, for example Fiona Bruce's complete inability to pronounce Hiroshima correctly that has never, ever been corrected I've long said that the BBC's opinion of itself is mainly based on how, for decades, when people switched on their TVs it the BBC was the first thing they saw - but ever since the digital switchover in 2012 that has not been the case, for example if I switch on my TV it'll usually come on to Channel 4, More 4, Dave or ITV4, and by complete coincidence none of those channels seem to like punching themselves in the face to make a story about their ****ups be about them
You're a statistician you know how stats can be presented in misleading ways to suit an agenda. As can percentages. I would want both to be avoided in a straight news bulletin because again they include opinion. Save 30%! 30% of what? We all know that marketing trick, but it's also used in politics. 30% of people think x Sounds like a big number but not as strong as 70% DON'T think X
