Odd thing to say, the closest the article gets to this supposed BBC agenda is:
> "The possibility that some of those in the graves were Muslim cannot be completely ruled out,"
Then they say it's more likely it was some much more limited cultural influence. Then they talk about trade, in the context of the wide dispersion of Muslim coins. Then they say that the inscription isn't right, so probably it was an incorrect copy by whoever produced the fabric. The article is entirely reasonable, if it is a matter of ideology clouding judgment perhaps you should look at yourself rather than the BBC.
While not perfect and generally on the "liberal" side of the spectrum, the BBC is remarkably apolitical by US standards and I very much doubt they have any (Viking) axes to grind when it comes to Swedish politics.
Disclaimer: I used to work at a BBC company, although nowhere near the news department.
The BBC has a strong left wing bias. This doesn't come through so much in how they report mainstream political news but in the stories they choose to run on their website. A good example is the choice of stories for the "Society" section.
The BBC is also accused of having a right wing bias by the left. The 'Society' section appears to just be a view on the homepage with a few articles at a time, one of the things you can add or remove from the customizable homepage, not a cohesive category. These are the three articles on there at the moment:
BBC is biased towards the status quo. Very, very broadly it's position is economic-right social-left, which is pretty much Official Government Worldview, whatever the government, these days.
Yes, although there are a lot of diversions from that, for instance Farage and UKIP (who are anti establishment social conservatives) got substantially more coverage than was reflected in their polling. There are a lot of social conservative voices given a lot of coverage, and in positions of power (within a British context, more defense of the British Empire, Euroscepticism and than evangelical Christianity) like Paxman, Andrew Neil, Humphreys, Melanie Philips etc.
Also, I'd say their economics coverage is reactive, it's framed around the Budget, major speeches from prominent politicians, research or press releases from the OBR, IFS, the IMF or similar organizations. It reports those positions, then goes to opposition parties or other figures to ask for comment. The problem for left wing parties is that doesn't give much space to get across a completely different narrative, but that is frankly not the BBC's role.
Only by American standards. Barack Obama (and his policies) would firmly be on the right in the UK. I think it only goes to show that US 'center' is to the right of the European 'center'.
- Choose which stories to run
- Choose which stories not to run
- Choose which stories to allow discussion boards on
- More obvious mechanisms, like slanted coverage
Used together, they make an impressive suite of persuasion tools.
