Imagine Alf Garnett, but less subtle and you have a picture of many of the contributors to Biased BBC. The unemployed are all scroungers, public sector workers all lazy and unions are for people who can't stand on their own feet. In this strange world David Cameron is a liberal, even a closet socialist. Michael Heseltine is not fit to speak on behalf of the Tory party because he "stabbed Thatcher in the back". And then there's the casual racism... But of course it's primarily the BBC that these guys abhor. As zealots they bravely expose themselves to the evil broadcaster to chronicle the torrent of left wing, multi-cultural, pro-Europe, anti capitalism, Daily Mail hating, Mugabe loving, Climate Change propaganda they would have us believe oozes out of every BBC pore. Accuracy is not a strong point in their rantings. Often the wilder the claims the more “likes” the poster gets. Challenge someone and ask for facts and at best you get ignored. More likely you'll be in for a dose of abuse. You have been warned.

I followed a link, ironically from the site itself (which by the way has moved to biased-bbc.com) to this site to see what other people had written about it. There seems to be a consensus - it is terrible. What an absolutely dysfunctional collection of malcontents, ill informed, prejudiced people congregate on that site. It is impossible to single out any one contributor for special mention since they are all universally ill informed, but I suppose the site's owner, one David Vance, must shoulder the blame. His modus operandi consists of making some entirely unsupported statement and then waiting for his followers to all fall in line to agree with him. There is no debate, dissent is not tolerated. Every now and then someone will attempt to point out a Jupiter-sized hole in their arguments (and I use that term its most extended sense); they will be met by a torrent of ad hominem abusive comments. Don't bother, they won't thank you. None of them have the first idea how the media works, perhaps one of them at one time worked in a newsroom, but that doesn't stop all of them pontificating away as if they are experts. All it does is to reveal their ignorance. Do not go to this site expecting informed debate, evidence, a balanced sensible interpretation. Do go to this site if you want to see prejudice, xenophobia, homophobia, racism and bigotry. It shouldn't take you long to find examples of all of them.

I find this B-BBC absolutely hilarious, and for that reason, and that reason alone, I thoroughly recommend it. The level of "analysis" is roughly on a par with that you would find in your local near closing time. My cat provides more intelligent commentary.
There is an unintentionally hysterical woman called Sue who perceives herself to be some great media analyst. In fact all she does in her "analysis" is reveal her woeful understanding of the media.
The site appears to be run by David Vance, a very angry failed Northern Ireland politician who was humiliated at the general election. Perhaps his need for a scapegoat for his own shortcomings has lead to this site.
But I do encourage you to read it. Seriously if you want a very good laugh at the expense of a collection of the most ill-informed, self-justifying, pedantic, ignorant group, then you will find few better sources than this site.

Biased BBC represents an opportunity missed. A publicly funded body should be held accountable and must uphold rigorous standards of impartiality. The problem with biased bbc is that it does not seek a rational debate but attcks the BBC form an entirely right wing perspective. I had a long look at the site the other day and engaged in debate with a regular, American contributor. To be fair discourse was civil and it touched whether Obama is Left wing or of the centre. Like I say I enjoyed the discussion but the problem was the whole debate was framed by the contributor's claim that a BBC correspondent was lying when she said in a report that Obama was of the centre. The narrative here being"The BCC (or the "Beeboids") are left wing and deliberately lie about politics to confound us." Sure enough other contributions to the thread included terms such as "Cryptocommunist" that Obama won in 2008 "cos he's black" and bizarreley that nazis were really socialists and any attempt to say other wise is part of the liberal rewriting of history. Biased BBC basically means not right wing. Its a shame. I'm not of the left and think a number of these people have pretty sane and decent values. But the ferocity with which they attack those with whom they disagree, is extreme in itself.

Awful blog unfortunately with a well founded meaning for existence. Caught completely up in its own perceived self importance. Really is a shame that this blog is so hideously lacking because if they cut out half the supposed arguments, childish nit-picking and bias of their own, this could be a good attempt to expose BBC bias. Clearly to most other people aside from its own contributors and a couple of naive journo's at the Daily Mail who are desperate for any quote possible, it doesn't live up to its intentions. If I was a betting man, i'd put my house on their being a great proportion of Daily Mail readers posting comments and very few Telegraph type contributors. That may be harsh on some contributers, but thats the impression i get. Just because something is left of the Daily Mail, its certainly doesn't make something left wing.

An excellent blog which daily points out the left wing bias of the BBC. The current Director-General of the BBC, Mark Thompson, recently stated that "'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". But we're supposed to believe this bias doesn't exist now. The Biased BBC blog proves otherwise.

Don't scratch the surface on this blog, you'll only find the same blinkered ignorance as on most other internet blogs. Although the idea for the blog is sound - there is a genuine cause for highlighting bias in BBC's news reporting - sadly the articles and particularly the comments turn into a BBC witchhunt. I get the feeling that whatever the BBC does, right or wrong, the contributors to this blog will hate it.

I found this blog whilst trying to further research examples of BBC bias. Unfotunately i didn't find much of worth here, which suprised me giving the supposed intention of the blog. Its just one of those blogs where mierable people congregate and have eventually forgotten what they were supposed to be talking about. Its a little bit like a daily mail blog would be - forgotten what their original point was and just firing off contradictory bile in all directions at any target, making things up along the way. Personally i wish the BBC was less biased and whilst i was trawling through the openblog nonsense, i was looking for some examples of bias - i was not looking for nicknames for bbc reporters (more evidence of daily mail-ness) calling them ugly (i'm sure our right wing reporters are of similar appearance), nitpicking over the Mail publishing a story and the BBC not for a couple of hours. Instead of waiting for the BBC to cover it they simply proclaim that the delay is simply because they're lefties and other such nonsensical tripe. Thats a further mail trait picked up by this blog - anyone that disagrees with our (supposedly collective) opinions on thing like the bbc must be a lefty bbc luvvie. Well the BBC is often wrong, but this blog is more frequently wrong so the chances of you being labelled a lefty bbc luvvie by the biased bbc angry mob (of the unemployable) is going to be frequent. I'd rather discuss the bbc bias in a constructive way where we can disagree without being childishly nicknamed as such - especially when i'd much rather the bbc was either streamlined or broken up completely. Give this blog a widebirth (unless your a mailite nutter). Unfortunate as the topic that should be being discussed should be far more prevailant today

This is probably one of the worst blogs out there, which genuinely is dissapointing considering what the content should be. The title would make you think its a blog about the bbc being biased. What it appears to actually be is group of biased daily mail readers used to lapping up daily anti bbc stories in that paper. The result is that the blog is full of half facts - people saying the bbc haven't covered a story which, after a quick bbc search, shows their point to be false or with a little logical thinking you can see that the story or their take on a story is completely baseless. Counter their arguments or state something that counters their argument and all you are told is that your a lefty, a troll or are you are accused of working for the BBC. You could counter that they work for the Mail or rupert murdoch, but i wouldn't lower myself to their low standards. Quite often you will add a reply and they visibly become aggitated that you don't agree with them by attempting to belittle you but 95% of the time use childish insults. A blog showing genuine bias of the BBC would be interesting and worth a read and contributing to - this blog 97% of the time appears to be anything but that. Unfortunate