The Mahdi misses the point. There is an entire thread linking newspapers and media outlets with the Digger, all singing from the same hymn sheet in tiresome unison as a massive juggernaut grinding out its own spurious agenda.
Ofcom? Dont make me choke on my cornflakes. A toothless and moribund tiger hamstrung by the very people it is supposed to deliberate on.
A relation to call me Dave? A slur on my scottish heritage which unlike the Eton boy, I am not in denial from. I'm also better looking.

"you choose to focus your ire at Sky"

No Mehdi, you brought it up. you may wish to re-read the title of YOUR post 'Is Sky News biased against Labour?' if you were asking whether the BBC was biased against labour I would focus my ire at the BBC.

as for, "Btw, have any of you ever heard about Ofcom? Why not complain to them if you have any proper evidence about Sky News working for the Tories"

At no point did I accuse Sky of working for the tories. You haven't addressed any of my points, which I would like to highlight did not pass judgement on the Sky News channel. It is your logic I take issue with.

In future you may wish to take a moment to comprehend what is being said prior to responding in such an immature and frankly ignorant manner.

As someone who has worked at Sky too - albeit briefly - for the BBC, for the Labour Party, for a Minister, for a Select Ctte, and in the City, and who is a card carrying Labour member there's one thing I've found painfully true when talking to SOME of the grassroots: if you're private sector, if you're corporate, you're evil. Them's the rules and ain't nobody or nothin' gonna change it.

It's easy, trite, simplistic and frankly boring to hear uninformed people rant on about Murdoch this, private sector that. Everyone is against you when you're down.

Usually the people who say 'Sky News is the Sun' are people who've never watched Sky News and who've never read the Sun.

I particularly enjoy the comment on here that commentators on the Sky News website are all idiots, thus by extension the channel must serve them well. I don't expect many on here to appreciate the irony.

Nice stuff!!...It’s a very good post I have come across.There is a lot of helpful information within your post.Thank you so much.

national

Sky News certainly comes across as very biased indeed.And if you need proof it panders to the lowest common denominators in society take a look at some of the people who post comments on the sky news website some of those people would not have been out of place at a Nuremberg rally

Sky news are blatantly rooting for a Tory victory. They are pro war, anti Arab, pro Israel, anti cannabis, pro conservative. They treat the liberal democrats in a flippant off hand way, making no real attempt to hide there contempt for there party. There style of reporting shows clear disdain for liberals and left wing thinkers. There news watches like a Nazi propaganda film. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

D'oh- that should say 'as much as by what they OMIT' at the end. Too busy watching Sky.

I am sorry, much as I enjoyed your preformance on QT last night I cannot accept that Sky News is unbiased. It is a sensationlist as it is Conservative. Boulton's "pop" at Clegg in leaders debate was amateurish but his very telling fracas with Campbell was simply embarrassing. I just wish that the fat lad had thrown a punch because Campbell would have destroyed him. As for Burley, I cannot believe she is a national news anchor. Is she really as thick as she appears to be?

Blah Blah Blah.....Yes, is the REAL Answer.So what can be done?

Are you for real? You are either lying or incompetant. Murdoch is blatantly trying to destroy Labour, promoting the woeful Torys (who incidently will take this country back 30 years)and for what - so that he benefit from his own private agenda. It is sickening

Great article mate.

I'd signed that last comment Rupert Murdoch.There's obviously a filter.Actually you are talking tosh.

I lost count of the number of times the BBC's Nick Robinson referred to Gordon Brown as a desperate man after the last TV debate.As a licence payer I believe the least they could do is make em wear rosettes.The baldy so and so got right up my nose.

Every day, you consume news. Do you trust your news providers? Do you take for granted that they are independent, reliable and transparant? Or do you see opportunity for improvement? Do you have good examples of reliable journalism, or bad cases of doubtful news coverage? You can discuss it here: http://news2me.ebu.ch/ or go directly on Facebook ( http://tinyurl.com/39nsb6k )

Well, let's see what happens when the Tories abolish OFCOM before the next election, shall we?

And certainly how Sky and the BBC have presented the main themes of this election (and what they have omitted,) and indeed the headlines used for election stories - certainly some i've noticed on the BBC website, for instance- have shown some degree of bias, certainly. As ever, this is in favour of those who look likely to wield the power.

yes. John Prescott is a very relaible source. "YAK YAK YAK YAK...."

Bias is more subtle than this, and doesnt need to be explicitly ordered from above. Sky News workers know who pays their salaries.

The stories that, in this election, have been ignored or distorted by Sky tell a significant story. The BBC has been marginally better, but not great. Their main news headline is currently: "Tactical Voting Call Criticised" This is not actually unbiased reporting.

During the Israeli attacks on Gaza, employees at Sky, the BBC and ITN were sounding the boards to see if they could convince their fellow journos towards industrial action beyond limp NUJ statements of concern.

The person at Sky was firmly but politely dissuaded from pressing the issue with their colleagues who instead chose other, more clandestine means, of making their opinions heard.

sky news is not biased against labour? bullshit!!! just listn to michelle giffords report on the gordon brown and subsequent david cameron post election statements......not biased>>>>????? MY ARSE!!!! oh, and ps: im not a labour supporter...one thing more!!! murdoch...you are as dodgy as they come mate...you would take your grandmas false teeth if it meant you could get a story!!! what goes around comes around.

Their political unit is based at Millbank? Say... there wouldn't happen to be this thing called CCHQ based in the same area would there?

The Times, The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Guardian, Independent, Fincanical Times, Telegraph are all against Labour, Sky has an agenda and it is obvious, but ITV is worse... owned by a former Tory MP of course said he wanted his companies logo taken away from a Labour campaign event

"Labour critics of Sky News might point to last night's events at Methodist Central Hall, where Gordon Brown gave perhaps the best speech of the campaign so far - while Sky News chose to cover the lone anti-nuclear protester, rather than the speech itself and the impressive performance from the PM. It was a bad decision - but, again, in my view, this reflects Sky's sensationalist and perhaps understandable desire for ratings, upsets, gaffes and "incidents", rather than an explicit, pre-planned, anti-Brown agenda."

It doesn't have to be pre-planned to be biased.

In my view Sky News has debased TV news, and the BBC has fearfully followed in its wake.

Hmm I think it is close. It is always hard to speculate. You don't know what conversations go on. I have never worked in news, but I trust your opinion Mehdi.
What I am more concerned and convinced about is the BBC's bias in favour of Cameron. Whether they are doing this on purpose or whether they are subconciouslty emulating their commercial rivals I do not know. But one thing is for sure they should be less sensationalist and more balanced. The awful Laura Kuensberg would be better off at sky - gossipmonger that she is. And Nick Robinson, although better than Tom Bradby, Chris Ship and Lucy Manning at ITV, is too tabloidy for my liking.
Too much process and gossip from both ITV and Sky, not enough policy. You expect it from the commercials - not the BBC.

But what is the most obvious example of bias? The BBC website (along with teletext too). Just using today as an example. I see they give this publicity seeking nutter with an axe to grind, Manish Sood prominence but try to hide a negative Cameron story under the title 'Cameron backs hopeful Stroud':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/default.stm
Earlier in the day, the main headline was 'Brown: I will take responsibility' implying Labour is on course for definite failure. Funny how they picked that negative spin out from the Lorraine Kelly interview. Another headline. the other day was 'girl breaks down in tears in front of Brown'. As if Brown made her cry.

Why don't more people complain about this bias on the BBC website?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480

Just reading the Radio Times interview with Cameron this week and he says he is a regular visitor to the BBC News website.
The way the BBC News election site is so blatantly biased every time I visit leads me to believe he/Conservative HQ has contact with the webmaster.
The 'MOST POPULAR ELECTION STORIES NOW' is probably fixed too. I wouldn't be surprised. Having read Peter Hitchens views:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/04/a-media-election-not-a-ge...
I am beginning to see how right he is. Whether it is deliberate or sinister I don't know. But one thing is for certain it aint fair.

Of course Sky News is biased against Labour.

Look who they employ or have employed. Jeff Randall, Adam Boulton, Richard Littlejohn etc.

The idea you can somehow hive Sky News from the rest of News Corp. purely because of the existence of Ofcom is a joke.

Of course Sky News is not FNC but neither is it dare I say "fair and balanced".

No doubt there are people at Sky News who support Labour but it is the organisation they work for who are in control.

You take the Murdoch's shilling you should know what to expect...

I don't know about Sky News - don't have Sky and don't watch it. But as regards BBC - every time I switched it on around the hung parliament time almost everything was biased towards the Lib/Con deal. Nick Robinson, who is far from neutral didn't seem to sleep and was almost constantly on the TV giving us the voice of the Tories e.g. on the 6pm news after GB made his announcement to stand down just as the Tories thought they'd done a deal and telling us 'what the Tories would say' (before they even said anything) about Labour negotiators being 'unelected' bla bla bla... I really think it is a disgrace that he is political editor.