I was not - and having looked at Wikipedia... that's news to me. Yet, a pro-United, pro-Liverpool bias might well understandably creep in, nonetheless - certainly, it's a predictable outcome, would you not agree? There's got to be a bias towards expressing popular views - public funding notwithstanding.Are you aware how the BBC is funded?
Only if there is an AGENDA!!I was not - and having looked at Wikipedia... that's news to me. Yet, a pro-United, pro-Liverpool bias might well understandably creep in, nonetheless - certainly, it's a predictable outcome, would you not agree? There's got to be a bias towards expressing popular views - public funding notwithstanding.
Aren't you aware - that the agenda debate is over? There's clearly a CONSPIR... er, AGENDA.Only if there is an AGENDA!!
Yes I think they should post click bait rubbish and then measure their success with the number of clicks they get. Worth the licence fee.How do you reckon the BBC measure success or otherwise of each article?
How else are they going to judge how popular an article is if not with clicks and engagement?Yes I think they should post click bait rubbish and then measure their success with the number of clicks they get. Worth the licence fee.
How else are they going to judge how popular an article is if not with clicks and engagement?
But even if people trust that it isn't biased, how do they look at two articles and judge which one was better received?By people trusting that isn’t biast.
If it was fair & equal you would understand it’s purpose but people shouldn’t be forced to pay for a popularity contest.
But even if people trust that it isn't biased, how do they look at two articles and judge which one was better received?
I don't, but it's how every media organisation judges online success. Just as BBC TV use viewing figures.If you think clicks & likes prove rights & wrongs, we’re doomed.
I don't, but it's how every media organisation judges online success. Just as BBC TV use viewing figures.