Wednesday, 28 November 2012

How BBC bias works

Let's take the BBC's coverage of the minimum pricing legislation debate. The headline went something like this:

"Doctors [respected] have welcomed the governments proposal to introduce minimum pricing, but industry bodies [Boo! Profiteers] have reacted angrily [ie not rationally] to the proposals saying they will hit ordinary drinkers."
No one has seriously questioned the Sheffield university "report" which is basically assumptions, untested against evidence in a spreadsheet, reported with grotesque overconfidence and represents nothing more than policy-based evidence-making.

Anyone claiming to be a scientist, presenting this "data" on lives which will be saved by the policy, without pointing out the heroic assumptions (for example that heavy, problem alcoholics are MORE price sensitive, not less than the general population, something which flies in the face of evidence from other addictive drugs), is basically lying to you.

No-one questions the self-appointed experts who are basically a temperance movement dressed up in academic drag, on their evidence, which is taken at face value. The poor sap hauled up on the today program faced scrutiny of his opinions which was sorely lacking for the temperance witch on the other side of the desk. Once again, the BBC has come down in favour of MORE regulation by the state, more intrusion into the lives of ordinary people, not less. Once more supposedly skeptical journalists have have failed to question experts' assumptions with any rigour.

What are they for again?



5 comments:

jimbob said...

Dear Mr Jackart
The BBC's tendency to spew and regurgitate any 'survey' and 'research opinion' without caution or qualification is just one of many of its descents into fatuousness but I enjoyed this story today. The picture to accompany a story on puzzled economists was of a contestant completing soduko puzzles. What the hell hey? ... numbers is numbers innit. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19981498

Tomsmith said...

State media are not journalists. They are propagandists

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

Hello bias. A temperance guy will see :
"Doctors [Boo! Spoilsport!] have welcomed the governments proposal to introduce minimum pricing, but industry bodies [Employer, true worker] have reacted angrily [well I have nothing there but you get the point] to the proposals saying they will hit ordinary drinkers."

I'm all against the minimum pricing, but stuff like "Medias are against us" is pretty much saying "I can't go outside it's cold. Weather is against me !". It's dumb and doesn't help.

State media is propaganda ? Well, I can see that the News International/daily mail... are doing a pretty good job on their own, thanks.

John Galt said...

The BBC are the absolute epitome of everything that this country stands for.

They distort all contrary viewpoints within the UK as well as through their BBC Worldwide propaganda organ.

Despite all of this, the UK public at large is forced upon pain of imprisonment to give 145.50 of their tax paid income to allow these propagandists, watermelons and Marxists to live lives of affluent luxury while they pour the poison of treason into the very ears of those who are forced to pay for it.

I will oppose the BBC and the unique way it is funded until the day I die (or preferably the BBC is forced into the real world of subscription and/or advertising based broadcasting)

The BBC is the enemy within…

“…to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee —Moby-Dick

Umbongo said...

As a matter of interest, this thread on the Biased BBC site lists loads of examples of tweets by employees of the "impartial" BBC. Unsurprisingly, despite their efforts, it appears that those harvesting this crop of shite had difficulty finding any tweets which were not emanations of the "propagandist, watermelon and marxist" persuasions.

Share it