91Èȱ¬

'You are 3709 characters over the limit for this comment'

Yours runs to 3839. Like most else from the 91Èȱ¬ 'we want your views' stable, until you decide on a level playing field, you are best left in the bubble of your own delusions.

'they who tend to shout loudest when confronted with the reality of impartiality' often are those controlling the mic & broadcast system.

''The 91Èȱ¬ is owned by all its viewers, listeners and online readers.''

No its not, its owned by those on twitter, closely followed by those on facebook.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Many complaints with evidence of bias & twisted reporting and non-reporting of main events were presented to ECU but seems no action."
-------

Standards were maintained, it would seem.

I'm sorry. Complete, general impartiality is impossible. An implicit assumption of norms is always made, and people are entitled to disagree about whether these are proper.

The 91Èȱ¬'s repeated claim to be "100% good and pure" in this regard is as silly as it is pompous and patronising.

French broadcasts often have acknowledged left and right wing commentators whose positions are known.

True Statement: "Our audience research suggests that the 91Èȱ¬ is the most trusted of all sources news..." That, in my opinion, should read: more independent, more impartial, and more accurate than the opposition, but not always unbiased.
91Èȱ¬ can be biased; this bias can interfere with pure honour-ability when reporting on such topics as Israel, Syria, & protecting the hind-end of the USA.

"The 91Èȱ¬ is owned by all its viewers, listeners and online readers."

Really? Then why did I have to buy a those Dr Who dvds if I already owned them?

" 91Èȱ¬ is the most trusted etc. " You must be joking, the 91Èȱ¬ has now become a clone of the worst of independent television celebrity opinion pushing . In addition, political correctness has taken over from truth in many cases, and sometimes, to get a balanced view of news means going to alternative sites where there is no anti British or diversity axe to grind.

As for 91Èȱ¬ sometimes asking uncomfortable questions the mayor & his advisers, like many other politicians, may find inconvenient, the questions posed by Tim Donovan were not suffering from political acumen but from shear taunting; this sort of reporter-bullying is so easy to accomplish & so embarrassing for the reporter who ends up his own victim because the audience is not deaf and blind.

Ms Purnell's biography: It was reasonable to offer her an interview on regional section of Politics Show...in October, 2011. But she & the book aren't really a topic NOW, are they? Why you would choose to mention the book NOW when it's impact had otherwise dwindled. My interpretation of this article: 91Èȱ¬'s defensive posture for manner in which it interviewed & otherwise dealt with Boris Johnson.

I used to trust the 91Èȱ¬ to be objective & balanced but since the Global Financial Crisis hit my research shows it's NOT.
The significant number of anti-established financial critics, commentators & economists that believe the big banks didn't just cause the crisis but deliberately engineered it, still fail to get a voice on any of the 91Èȱ¬ programs.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

OK then, explain why Johnson's victory margin was narrow at 3% and Hollandes victory margein was clear at ... 3%.

91Èȱ¬ not biased? Cue Jim Royle.

4. At 21:18 28th May 2012, Roland D :
Standards were maintained, it would seem.
There are so many, some have to be.
Not sure this notion of hitting The Editors to say 'We're right/trusted/loved/thebestthingsincesliced bread according to...us' is quite convincing as it once did, mind.

Interesting in comparison to media coverage of local South African politics right now with the move by the ruling ANC to ban a satirist publishing a less-than-flattering president . I doubt the 91Èȱ¬ would survive long if it replaced the local broadcasting authority!