Do you trust the BBC to tell the truth 100% of the time

[INTERVIEWER]

An organisation is either trustworthy - or it's not.

 

The results of this poll (so far) reveal that the majority of respondents do not believe that the BBC is trustworthy.

[Longcol]

To most people, including my good self, if somebody is not trusted to tell the truth 100% of the time - then they are NOT TRUSTED - full stop. It's as simple as that.

 

 

So which media outlet gets it's facts right 100% of the time?

[INTERVIEWER]

What's the matter? You asked me to expand on my point and I did. You've got nothing? Haven't you? You liar.

 

Insulting and aggressive. I am not a liar, and I suspect that you have no real interest in this thread or the results of the poll. You simply wish to incite conflict, for your own reasons.

 

I find that deeply immature and shall not play your childish game.

[BritPat]

Jane, It's behind you !

 

BBC reported WTC7 had collapsed, it was still standing behind dozy Jane.

 

The BBC then lost the footage when it became controversial,

 

The BBC then recovered the footage when its loss became controversial !

[flamingjimmy]

Insulting. I am not a liar.

You must be a liar, I am in fact complementing you by calling you one, because the only alternative is that you're actually stupid enough to believe the guff you're writing.

 

I've made my substantiative points, you chose to ignore them. Here they are again, in case you've got the stones to actually make a response.

 

!If we are to take the poll results at face value, its actually remarkebly good for the BBC. You would expect a 100% no answer because of course trusting them 100% of the time seems bizarre.

 

But no, over 25% of people apparently do trust the BBC to tell the truth 100% of the time, that's amazing. There's no way you'd get a figure that high with sky or itv, no way in hell.

 

You can only speculate as to how much people trust the BBC in general, the poll does not tell you about that at all. As such, anyone who interpreted it in such a way would be a complete idiot. "

 

Of course you will not respond because you have no reasonable response to that.

[Magilla]

Of course you will not respond because you have no reasonable response to that.

 

Nail, head, hit!

[Wildcat]

Very very interesting and a good read. I will view ITN in a better light from now on and watch less BBC News!

 

I wouldn't give too much weight to that. The clear evidence is of the BBC being right-wing biased.

 

Just think of Andrew Neil and the platform he is given despite being tot he right of most of the Conservative party. Or Nick Robinson the BBC's political editor.... who used to be Chair of the Young Conservatives.

 

As Mehdi Hussein's excelent article concludes:

 

The BBC's bias is thus an Establishment bias, a bias towards power and privilege, tradition and orthodoxy. The accusation that the BBC is left-wing and liberal is a calculated and cynical move by the right to cow the corporation into submission. "The right in America has waged a long and successful battle to brand the news as liberal, and the same is happening here [in relation to the BBC] with the aid of a predominantly right-wing press," says Barnett. "I fear they may have similar success in redefining the centre ground of politics to suit their own political agenda." With a Tory government on the verge of power, it is time for liberals and the left to fight back and force the BBC to acknowledge its real bias.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/08/mehdi-hasan-bbc-wing-bias-corporation

 

It is worth noting in terms of news bias the impact of the Comcast takeover on MSNBC.... the sacking of the popular liberal commentator Keith Olbermann for being critical of Fox News Tea Party nutjob Bill Reilly.

 

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_oreilly_factor.php?page=all

[INTERVIEWER]

You must be a liar, I am in fact complementing you by calling you one, because the only alternative is that you're actually stupid enough to believe the guff you're writing.

 

Very complimentary. I am either deliberately telling untruths, despite posting links and politely explaining my viewpoint - even to those who are aggressive and hostile such as yourself. Or I am lacking in intelligence. I suspect that in fact you don't actually believe what you are writing - you simply want to force a reaction. Possibly to make you feel better about your life, a twisted form of 'self-medication'? I don't really know, or care.

 

I've made my substantiative points, you chose to ignore them. Here they are again, in case you've got the stones to actually make a response.

 

Your points are merely your opinion, nothing more. They are certainly not 'substantive' evidence. They are only evidence of your own views (perhaps) and your own flawed forum strategy.

 

!If we are to take the poll results at face value, its actually remarkebly good for the BBC. You would expect a 100% no answer because of course trusting them 100% of the time seems bizarre.

 

Of course there will be people who trust the BBC to tell the truth 100% of the time. I certainly wouldn't expect a 100% 'NO' answer. I live in the real world, and am aware that there exists a body of the population that places their complete trust and blind faith in the state broadcaster. Just as some people in the Soviet Union trusted 'Pravda' to tell the truth.

 

But no, over 25% of people apparently do trust the BBC to tell the truth 100% of the time, that's amazing. There's no way you'd get a figure that high with sky or itv, no way in hell.

 

The over 25% figure is indicative of a couple of things. Firstly, there does exist some people who completely and utterly trust the BBC. Secondly, there are people who see this poll as a critical attack upon the Corporation, and so have voted in favour of it because, generally, they support it. Perhaps a small number of people voted in the way that they did in order to incite a negative reaction?

 

You can only speculate as to how much people trust the BBC in general, the poll does not tell you about that at all. As such, anyone who interpreted it in such a way would be a complete idiot. "

 

Of course you will not respond because you have no reasonable response to that.

 

The poll reveals that a large majority of respondents believe that the BBC is simply not trustworthy. You can paint it any way you like, but that is what the results are showing.

 

You can insult me as much as you like, for I stand on the higher moral ground and your barbs are easily deflected.

[BritPat]

Chomsky v Marr

 

Marr didn't even know that he didn't know.

 

...As the model also suggests, however, the mainstream is not monolithic and is not maintained by a conscious conspiracy...

 

 

...(1)The very efficiency of 'democratic' thought control is such that many individuals are completely unaware of the realities of the system by which they are controlled, and so perceive no danger in exposing that system to radical examination. For this and other reasons, damaging rationality and common sense do occasionally slip through the net.

 

Such was the case when Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was interviewed by Andrew Marr of the Independent. This encounter was particularly significant, as (2)Chomsky was facing a mainstream journalist convinced that we have a basically free press. Chomsky was very much preaching to the unconverted, and so we had a chance to see how his radical critique held up against what to most people is simple common sense...

 

 

Most of the posters on here are covered by (1) just as Marr is covered by (2)

[INTERVIEWER]

The results of the poll reveals that the majority of respondents consider that the BBC is not be trusted to tell the truth 100% of the time. This means that these people who voted in this way see the Corporation as being unreliable, untrustworthy, in its output as it does not tell the truth all of the time.

 

No amount of degrading and offensive posts can alter this truly substantive fact.