NPR listener political affiliation

[California Girl]

Where have they stated that?

For the second time today.....

BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias...

Read more: Yes, BBC was biased: Mark Thompson admits a 'massive' lean to Left | Mail Online

Did you read the article? It says he said it "was" biased-not "is" biased.

From the article: "Speaking of the time when he joined the BBC, Mr Thompson told the magazine: 'In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979] there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the Left.

'The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher. 'Now it is a completely different generation.

Again where has the BBC stated that there are biased-not were biased.

I read the article.... they were incredibly biased, they are now less biased.... but anyone who watches the BBC knows they are left leaning.

 

[California Girl]

I like the BBC for their world news. But the Economist is the best source for that, imo.

The BBC America segment is broken up into two parts. The 1st twenty minutes being 'world affairs' (mainly U.S. related) and the other 10 minutes being 'world business news'.

BTW- I think the Economist is based out of London isn't it?

Yes, it is UK based.... but it has writers around the world.

 

[Dot Com]

I read the article.... they were incredibly biased, they are now less biased.... but anyone who watches the BBC knows they are left leaning.

I listen to the BBC every weeknight at midnight easter time and I see no bias in that particular program tailored to a U.S. audience. I'm a political animal too so I notice things like that. Granted, it's only a 30 minute segment so they really don't have time to do much else other than report the headlines. They only have 20 mins to talk about the news and the last 10 minutes, more likely than not, has a conservative bias as it is devoted to the business segment.

 

[HUGGY]

This a very old and tired debate. Freedom of speech is the first item on the list of constitutional amendments. That was not by accident. Commercial sponsored "news" is a form of free speech but certainly not the intention of the framers of our constitution. Otherwise it would say "You only have the right to news if it pays its own freight by commercial sponsorship. You only need to know what big corporations want you to know."

If necessary the "Protection" of free speech may very well extend to paying for it.

 

[Sheldon]

I like the BBC for their world news. But the Economist is the best source for that, imo.

The BBC America segment, broadcast on my local NPR affiliate, is broken up into two parts. The 1st twenty minutes being devoted to 'world affairs' (mainly U.S. related) and the other 10 minutes being 'world business news'.

BTW- I think the Economist is based out of London isn't it?

Oh. I was kind of wandering off in my own direction and talking about their website. I've never actually listened to their radio program, so no opinion there.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

For the second time today.....

BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias...

Read more: Yes, BBC was biased: Mark Thompson admits a 'massive' lean to Left | Mail Online

Did you read the article? It says he said it "was" biased-not "is" biased.

From the article: "Speaking of the time when he joined the BBC, Mr Thompson told the magazine: 'In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979] there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the Left.

'The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher. 'Now it is a completely different generation.

Again where has the BBC stated that there are biased-not were biased.

I read the article.... they were incredibly biased, they are now less biased.... but anyone who watches the BBC knows they are left leaning.

I never disputed whether they were biased or not. I merely asked you point out where they admit to being biased (as you claimed they did).

You then got snotty, and said "for the second time today...". Yet you failed to backup your claim that they admit to being biased.

When you make a claim as a fact (and do so with an attitude), yet you cannot prove it-it makes you look silly. You're a smart person-you know the difference between past and present tenses.

So you can either show where they admit to being biased, or you can't. There's no middle ground. If you can't you should think twice before acting condescending.