A correspondent points out that the Beeb are to carry out an exercise to check themselves for pro-EU bias. Though you could save yourselves a bob or two, guys, by just asking us.
It’s a first step.
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- digg Dec 25, 20:34
Christmas 2024
The BBC say Hamas only killed 6 Israeli hostages because of stuff the Israeli military did, like trying to rescue… - wronged Dec 25, 19:57
Christmas 2024
I hate it when this dickhead preaches untruths to me and no one, absolutely no one has the balls to… - Zephir Dec 25, 19:56
Christmas 2024
Although on the bright side I’ve got a whole new quarter panel of mercedes black recently deposited free of charge,… - Zephir Dec 25, 19:39
Christmas 2024
Sorry it just doesn’t work for me, much as I admire Mr MQueen, a 1968 ford mustang going through barbed… - StewGreen Dec 25, 19:34
Christmas 2024
I am looking at Blue Sky to see what Twitter traffic has diverted there . It’s a Lefty-Echo Chamber since… - Zephir Dec 25, 19:14
Christmas 2024
Quite a few home schooled apprentice gynaecologists though, with some ground breaking new approaches to the subject according to court… - Fedup2 Dec 25, 19:09
Christmas 2024
Scroblene – well done on ‘the great escape ‘ .. sounds like a good evening for you ..Happy Christmas …. - Lefty Wright Dec 25, 19:07
Christmas 2024
wronged I wonder if His Majesty can point to a single nation on earth that bears out his assumption.
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
There ought to be at least 4 separate ongoing reviews, on the areas where the BBC has been widely criticised. namely Europe, comments on America, the Middle East, and immigration/asylum seekers. Plus maybe a catch-all on PC stuff.
We should be told who are the reviewers, and their reports should be published. Also, the public should be able to put matters to them for analysis. That would start to giove some accountability.
When large industries were publicly owned, they used to have such bodies. The Post Office Users Council, for example. And current regulators have to carry out their work “in public”.
>Plus maybe a catch-all on PC stuff.
care to explain further?
I think he means “whenever the BBC’s editorial line differs from Richard Littlejohn’s”.
I’ll assume he means an ongoing review ‘of the BBC’s comittment to diversity and equal opportunities’
So he’s proposing reviews on ‘the areas where the BBC has been widely criticised.’ (by whom? the BNP?)
According to him, these are ‘Europe, comments on America, the Middle East, and immigration/asylum seekers.’
I agree, these are contentious areas, and it would be difficult for any news organisation to get the balance right all of the time on such issues.
But why does he, and this absurd (if compelling, like watching a five year old child try and explain nuclear fission) blog think this repesents ‘bias’, and why on earth would it be deliberate? Who gains from the bias? Who’s the bias towards? and against? And why?
Is it just that the BBC sometimes broadcasts things that you don’t agree with?
I think you find this blog compelling because secretly you know we are right, steve. But still you must preen about your “superior” intelligence and put all of us in the role of five-year-olds. With that kind of sneer-a-bility, you are almost qualifed to be a BBC presenter.
Why did you put “superior” in quotes, MissJessel?
I didn’t use that phrase, nor do I think it. I tried to explain why this blog is strangely compelling, even though I disagree with almost everything it concludes. I tried to stay on topic, and polite.
Still awaiting suggestions for my questions – How on earth could (bbc ‘bias’) be deliberate? Who gains from the bias? Who’s the bias towards? and against? And why?
“Who gains from the bias?”
Perhaps the vast BBC bureaucracy. The promotion of a left of centre, statist position makes more likely that people continue to accept the anachronistic BBC tax. A tax that gives the BBC a secure income of £2,500 million a year. Very cosy.
Rob, thanks, beginnings of a debate now.
So your problem seems to be a) bias and b) enforced taxation – two separate issues, no?
You say ‘The promotion of a left of centre, statist position makes [it] more likely that people continue to accept the anachronistic BBC tax’
Why? Why would the two go hand in hand?
What I’d rephrase it as is ‘the continuing editorial independence of the BBC…makes it more likely that people continue to accept the licence fee’ – which is, overall, the position I hold. But I respect yours. (it’s not that anachronistic, btw, lots of european countries have TV licences)
We need ELECTIONS to the BBC Board.
We have electoins for Building Societies and Trade Unions. There is no reason why the people shoudln’t take over appointments to the Board.
At the same time I think perhaps 5 minute slots (similar to the system of party political broadcasts, but more interesting I am sure) for major newspapers to give their slant on the news. This would ensure a much borader spectrum of opinion.
David Field
I call the BBC tax anachronistic because it was born in an age of a necessary monopoly.
But there is now no good reason why provision of TV should not be left to the market, as with the print medium.
Look through the TV listings. Is there any significant difference between the BBC’s offerings & those of the other terrestrial channels? Just what particular role does the BBC now fill?
I would have no problem with the BBC having an editorial independence (that I maintain does show a political bias – perhaps that is inevitable) as long as I am not forced to pay for it. In the same way as I am excused paying for the Mirror, Guardian etc.
steve jones
There have been many allegations of bias against the BBC – particularly that there is an editorial mindset that tends to criticise America, that prefers the UN and the EU to America, that tends to regard critics of the EU as Little Englanders, that tends to play down the faults of the Palestine side.
The people who set up Channel 4 News openly state that they wanted it to have a particular editorial stance – a bias. Likewise, most of the UK newspapers will readily agree that they have a stance, a bias in one or other direction. To suggest that the BBC is somehow pure of any bias is naive.
There are allegations of bias in the Today programme. Its former editor says he had strong bias and sought to reflect it in the way he managed the programme. Its presenters often take a predictable line. It is good that BBC management is looking into such worries.
steve jones, When you say “the continuing editorial independence of the BBC…” is the position you hold I presume you realise that “editorialising” is one of the main problems of BBC bias.
Instead of reporting facts the BBC editorialises everything to suit a very narrow viewpoint that it condones.
As we the viewers are forced (under legal threat) to pay for this crap it would be nice if we could at least get facts reported directly without some “holier than thou” journalistic tw*t adding pernicious editorial spin…or for that matter writing an editorial and then making ‘facts’ to fit the editorial.
The BBC appears to have taken on the idea that its charter ideal of ‘independence’ requires it to be an island unto itself, wherein whatever it holds to be politic automatically becomes THE truth that is reported- regardless of facts, law or consequence.
Joe, you say:
‘the BBC editorialises everything to suit a very narrow viewpoint that it condones.’
which viewpoint?
Why? Why does the BBC (in your mind) deliberately disregard all notions of impartiality?
Why does it ignore views it doesn’t agree with? Why would it do that? Have you ever worked in a newsroom? You wouldn’t get away with that for a second.
In my mind it doesn’t – it’s an example of standing *against* bias, of any nature.
I return to my previous point – you don’t like the BBC because it doesn’t agree with your point of view.
If the BBC was anywhere near as biased as you think, it would have been shut down years ago.
Hello steve jones,
Your conclusion that – “you don’t like the BBC because it doesn’t agree with your point of view”, is false and contradicts your prior statement that – “I’ll assume he means an ongoing review ‘of the BBC’s comittment to diversity and equal opportunities'” or in other words – their ‘editorial independence'(which is in your view fair and balanced?).
If that was the case, people here (and in other outlets) would have been finding problems with this or that subject or between one of many points of view, which should have been existed had the beeb been simply doing its journalistic duty in a balanced way.
The point is it simply doesn’t. You can find detailed examples of this bias here, where this bias is documented and linked to original articles which gives one the opportunity to decide for oneself.
Continued..
As for the ‘WHY’ question (“Why? Why does the BBC (in your mind) deliberately disregard all notions of impartiality?..Why does it ignore views it doesn’t agree with? Why would it do that?”).
That reminds me of a 3 year old kid i know who asks ‘why’ regarding evrything. No matter the answer given it will always be followed with a ‘why’ thus creating an endless loop.
It is the same ‘why’ as in ‘why do they hate us?’ and ‘who has gained from bombing the WTC’, and ‘why people are racist?’, ‘why are the last ones always at the end?’.
I’m not avoiding the question. It seems a bit peculiar that you (plural)who deny this bias and accuse us of absurdity, never adress the claims for bias or try to conradict it using reason (and facts), but always resort to the motives behind such claims and the supposed ‘non-reason’ of the beeb to hold it.
Continued…
I agree with your – “I agree, these are contentious areas, and it would be difficult for any news organisation to get the balance right all of the time on such issues.”
However, the beeb doesn’t get the balance almost all of the time on this issues, and considering its influence, that’s not a thing one should disregard with such casuality.
One possible answer might be that the so-called beeb journalists have a political agenda they might want to advance (because they truely believe they’re creating a better world, or because they’re evil, or because they’re fools, or because they simply can, or fill in the blanks______), and one mean to advance it might be skewing their reports towards their personal beliefs thus constituting bias. WHO KNOWS?
One last thing..
Regardless of explainations as to ‘why they do it’, the beeb’s bias just exists, and the sooner it stops the better.
The more adequate question would be: Why aren’t they held acountable for their appalling news services?
Something to do with monopoly and compulsory taxes, maybe?
Steve Jones made a few comments above, which can’t be answered in the usual 1000 word allotment, so like danS I’ll spread it out over several comments.
But why does he, and this absurd (if compelling, like watching a five year old child try and explain nuclear fission) blog think this [that it would be difficult for any news organisation to get the balance right all of the time] repesents ‘bias’, and why on earth would it be deliberate? Who gains from the bias? Who’s the bias towards? and against? And why?
Is it just that the BBC sometimes broadcasts things that you don’t agree with?
So
1. is (and if so, why is) failing to achieve balance “bias” ?
2. is it deliberate (and does it matter if it is ?)
3. who gains from the bias ?
4. who’s the bias towards ? And against ?
Question 1 “is (and if so, why is) failing to achieve balance “bias” ? ”
Yes it is, if you think (as I do, and as Steve does otherwise he wouldn’t pose question 2) that bias includes both the deliberate, and the not deliberate. As Steve says, this is all difficult stuff and so no news organisation can avoid imbalance altogether, so the real issue is whether the BBC displays consistent bias (or imbalance.)
Question 2 “is it deliberate (and does it matter if it is ?)”
I think it is deliberate relatively rarely, but not never. But without detailed knowledge of the organisation’s structure and without carefully interviewing each journalist and editor all we have to go on is inference from the output. I suspect that the BBC is deliberately biased, as an institution, in favour of itself (as are most institutions.) So stories about the pros and cons of the BBC, the licence fee, public service broadcasting, journalistic freedom/independence and so on are “deliberately” biased. Here the BBC is simply lobbying.
Question 3 “who gains from the bias ?”
I assume this is a cui bono type question • ie it is obvious that a bias in favour of, say, more public funds for hospitals benefits NHS bureaucrats, medical equipment suppliers, doctors, nurses and (perhaps) patients. But that doesn’t explain why the journalist is biased • such benefits do not accrue to the journalist (unless there’s someone else in the family benefiting.) But merely propagating your own opinions is a benefit. We all like to do it. Nobody supposes that journalists on, say, the Daily Mail expect personally and directly to benefit from restrictions on immigration. Their benefit is from the spread of their prejudices.
This blog is open to anyone, with any complaint about BBC bias. So if you are an anti-death penalty, pro Palestinian, close the last few grammar schools, regulation is the answer, down with Paisley, down with Bush, Kyoto “Now !” , stop the cuts, pro EU constitution, pro Euro, shorter prison sentences, stop the Murdoch stranglehold, ban “hatespeech”, the rich should pay more, immigration is good, the war was illegal, pro choice, ban landmines, the whites must atone, anti-discrimination legislation must be strengthened, Human Rights Act luvvie you are welcome to post your complaints about BBC bias here. We’ll be impressed, I assure you.
Well, I’m afraid the technology defeated my attempts to produce organised answers to Steve’s questions. There was a bit more to the answer to Question 2 (basically that there was plenty of prejudice driven bias that wasn’t deliberate, and a whole answer to Question 4 (basically that the bias is towards the journalists favoured opinions – which for the BBc tend to be left wing ones. However both got eaten by the internet monster.
Listen again to yesterday’s R4 “Today” prog on UK govt’s reaction to Kyoto. Gov have set targets for CO2 reductions in excess of Kyoto & UK performance is better than most other countries.
But CBI are concerned about loss of comptetiveness.
Does “Today” examine CBI case? Not on your nellie. The CBI only got a mention to show that there were evil forces at work wanting to undermine Kyoto. The whole thrust of the piece was suggesting that the gov was backtracking on Kyoto (despite above performance).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/
The BBC news service fails in its performance as well as its editorial stance.
Watch a televised news conference. There a numerous BBC journalists present. Overmanning on an easy job.
Watch a news broadcast from Iraq. We have the 1 journalist still posed in front of the mosque in central Baghdad. Newspapers get reporters in other places. The BBC do not seem to try.
I recently complained about ridiculous Falluja casualty figures published on BBCi – they calimed all but 27 of 600 reported dead were women & children. The BBC’s excuse – it was info from Reuters (but they still stealth edited their web page to remove the analysis of the 600).
Why should an organisation with such massive, secure resources provide so little 1st hand reporting?
lee moore wrote: “So if you are an anti-death penalty, pro Palestinian, close the last few grammar schools, regulation is the answer, down with Paisley, down with Bush, Kyoto “Now !” , stop the cuts, pro EU constitution, pro Euro, shorter prison sentences, stop the Murdoch stranglehold, ban “hatespeech”, the rich should pay more, immigration is good, the war was illegal, pro choice, ban landmines, the whites must atone, anti-discrimination legislation must be strengthened, Human Rights Act luvvie you are welcome to post your complaints about BBC bias here. We’ll be impressed, I assure you.”.
I second that. This quote sums the issue very well.
in other words, as we have thought all along – anything anti british and “sierra man” is ok for the beeb – on the issue of the reasons why the bias – if you have £2.5billion, a legal sysytem that jails you for not subscribing [but not for rape,robbery, burglary etc] then of course, you will get a little bit smarmy maybe [hawksley anybody??]
The Kyoto story is perhaps one where the BBC has moved from bias to misinformation – Russia isnt going to ratify which means that the treaty isnt going to come into force. So the fact that the BBC is still banging on about it just goes to show that it isnt really interested in informing the public, just pushing agendas unconnected with reality.
The Russian position is still up in the air so the only misinformation is in your comment.
Steve jones wrote:
“I tried to stay on topic, and polite.”
So you think it’s polite to smarmily accuse grown people — including those who write well-written, cogent posts backed up by reams of evidence — of acting like five-year-olds? And then expect them to engage you in lofty “dialogue”?
Good lord, not just sneering and elitist, but sanctimonious too! A BBC staffer for sure!
No he Russian carbon dioxide is up in the air.
The Russians have said they’re not going to ratify it, most of their scientists and economists consider it a joke.
Of course the die hards consider it all up in the air, but hell its still up in the air about whether John Kerry picks Donald Rumsfeld as his running mate innit?
The Russians have fluctuated wildly between both positions and most recently have been making noises about the economic impact and the science.
In my opinion this is a negotiating position and some sort of deal with financial sweeteners to Russia will ultimately get signed off – the Russians aren’t quite in the US position of being able to piss off the EU by rejecting the thing outright.
In any case, it’s all speculation therefore your accusation of BBC bias on the basis that it still mentions the thing is ridiculous.
Anyone who can suggest that the SCBBC does not have a “party line” that is in favour of Kyoto and critical of those who don’t sign it is simply blind.
I’d agree, I was responding to the suggestion that the BBC should ignore it completely based on Giles’ interpretation of Russia’s position rather than fact.
It’s also the case that the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion continues to be in favour of the need for the treaty as do the vast majority of Western governments. The position that Kyoto is a hugely expensive waste of time is held by a pretty small minority of scientific and political opinion outside the States so what admitedly seems to be the BBC’s ‘house position’ is hardly radically left wing. The position that it’s all a sinister plot against America is held by next to nobody outside bonkers right wing blogs.
David Bellamy appeared on “Daily Politics” last week. He said that the US rejection of Kyoto was the only thing on which he agreed with Bush.
With a BBC cuddly environmentalist taking this view, perhaps the BBC may reconsider its firm pro-Kyoto line.
“…Russian carbon dioxide is up in the air.”
Isn’t most carbon dioxide up in the air?