That statement is pure drivel and utter rubbish. The BBC delayed showing it for nearly two decades (commissioned 1983, shown 2002). They could easily have shown it after the election in 1987.
I agree, but as a whole, the BBC has long had an overall liberal / left bias.
Agreed. But it needs to try a bit harder, IMHO.
Steady, are you saying that what I said was rubbish? Or the reason given by the BBC for not showing “the Falklands play” and “Tumbledown”? Because that was certainly the official position at the time.
And for clarity, the play wasn’t recorded in 1987 and sat on for 15 years, it simply wasn’t put into production until 2002.
First of all, no it isn’t. Al Jazeera has a very different thrust. Like Fox News, their objective is to influence public opinion, and they carefully select stories based on the extent that they can use the story to deliver an editorial message. Most world stories are not covered by Al Jazeera at all.
And second, of course Al Jazeera English has a lot of staff that got their previous experience with English language news media elsewhere. And the BBC is a very large and deep organization that trained a lot of the world’s available English-language journalists. Even the American networks frequency use BBC staffers as stringers, because the US media has almost no presence anywhere in the world and when the Americans need a report from Katmandu or Ouagadougou, there is a BBC staffer already there with uplink access and knowledge of the local politics…
Basically, there is no such thing as journalism anymore. The news media decisions are made on the basis of economics and ideology, and what we call “news” is what comes out of the other end of the pipe.
Also no fan of BBC News.
The real answer, believe it or not, is Twitter; build your own personalised reportage based on specific journalists you respect, politicians you respect, think tanks and politically-orientated organisations, etc. By far the best source of insights and current thinking.
One minute i have the ONS, next some upcoming MP, then a Telegraph or Guardian journo, then a report from Democracy now, then Ed Snowden pops up with a good link … all day long - fab.
Also a big fan of al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/
That’s not lilkely to give you unbiased news; just news from sources whose biases align with your own.
It’s up to you if you want an echo chamber.
The idea for me is to get away from the hugely narrow confines of organisations like the BBC, as well as the agenda-shovelling agenda of media outlets like the Guardian and Telegraph.
It’s a choice.
The only news publication I am willing to pay for on a regular basis is Private Eye. They’re pretty unbiased - they hate everyone :). Seriously though, their letters pages regularly draws complaints about their take on things from both the extreme right and the extreme left, which I take as a pretty good indication that they’re reasonably balanced (along with the fact they’re willing to publish them). Also, they have the best cartoons, and lots of them.
The latter.
The BBC readily showed Tumbledown.
Agree, they do take a heavier stance against whichever flavour of government of the day but that’s common sense. They’re the one’s taking the executive decisions.
fair enough
after the election, and even though it had an anti-government slant (but with a curious pro-war undercurrent) sitting government officials were not the focus of the film.
Plus I believe it had already been made (the Falklands play had not)
Plus it had Colin Firth in it and I think I’m right in saying that UK law mandates regular public access to Colin Firth.
Thanks for the suggestions everyone, I’ll check them out. 
I usually use Google News. They just aggregate the news, so you can see the headlines and figure out what stories you want to read from what sources.
I came in to say that in my professional opinion, the BBC is excellent at just reporting “the facts”.
Obviously they’re not completely un-biased (that’s impossible), but as a general rule if I want to know what’s going on without getting told what I should think about it (or how I’m a terrible person for not thinking the correct things about it), then the Beeb is my first stop.
As much as I disagree with them politically and socially in many respects, the Graun (The Guardian) does some excellent in-depth work as well, but IMHO it’s far too left-wing and “right-on” for my tastes in many areas. Still useful to read in the interests of getting some balance, though - and knowing what’s going on with the Left side of things.
tbh, I now find it relentlessly male-bashing, way beyond the hair-shirt era.
Where do you think the Guardian stands on Corbyn’s leadership?
On political and economic issues I would find it closer to a central position than on social issues where it is firmly left-wing and yes I would say biased.
I read the Guardian although I also disagree with it in many respects, its interesting to read the article and then the comments section because there is often quite a disconnect between the two. The difference between it and the BBC is that I am not being forced to pay circa £150 per year for the former and for what is basically propaganda for viewpoints I may not agree with. If I wasn’t giving them money it wouldn’t bother me nearly as much.
And they do have some interesting articles and material, if they could just get over trying to push a certain agenda and trying to construct a particular narrative. It does have an easy to use layout that I haven’t found elsewhere.
But which facts? This is an organisation that is happy to let their staff refer to the Tories as new Nazis.
Oh, I agree completely. I actually find the male-bashing aspects quite offensive in many respects, but at least the Guardian has the decency to openly state what its social reporting agenda is (IMO left wing, pro-The Bad Kind Of Feminism, pro-extreme Social Justice Activism).
Basically, I know when I read the Graun it’s going to be full of OpEd pieces about “What does this mean for women’s causes and how can we blame men for things?” and “Why non-organic lightbulbs prove you hate the planet” alongside well-researched pieces on global economic policy, the long-term effects of the Trident Nuclear Defence programme and what it’s actually like to live in a trailer park in the most impoverished part of the US.
As Disposable Hero notes though, there’s also an often fascinating disconnect between the stories and the comment sections. I’ve noticed they’ve actually disabled comments on a lot of stories too - perhaps understandably in some cases, less so in others IMHO.
As I live in Australia, I don’t pay to read the BBC News website or stream/listen to the World Service. Both of them are excellent IMO, with the website in particular hosting an informative range of articles covering everything from the major accomplishments of the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand to how the Philae Lander works to interesting archaeological finds across the planet.
Basically, if I ever want to know “Why is this a thing?” or “What is the implication of this news?” or “Why do people care so much about this event?” the BBC News website is my first stop, and I’m pretty much guaranteed to get an informative and more or less factual and neutral answer.
I don’t think this is fair on the Guardian in two ways; firstly it isn’t just an aggregator, it still pays real journalists. Secondly, I read it daily and can’t remember any errors at all. Maybe they had a bad patch at some point.
Typos in the print Guardian were a standing joke, even among themselves, in the old typesetting days of writing in London and printing in Manchester - but that was decades ago (even if we still refer to the Grauniad). And they do have a reasonably responsive Readers’ Editor service for corrections and complaints about how stories are covered.