: under the headline ‘Britons confused about mid-east’, BBC Ceefax informs us that
“A new survey has shown that many people in Britain think the Palestinians are occupying Israeli territory and not the other way around.”
Lest the ridiculousness of any such thought not strike you sufficiently, it immediately adds,
“Despite extensive media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some Britons think Palestinians are refugees from Afghanistan.”
Clearly, the two ideas are at a very similar level of absurdity.
If you read on, you will learn that these are in fact the conclusions of the Glasgow Media studies group (well known for its hard-left stance, though this was not mentioned), but the casual browser might easily get the impression that this was the BBC’s own view (after all, the new survey ‘has shown it’) and though such a casual browser might be just the sort of person the report has in mind, I think they would not be wrong.
Some Britons in the nation’s Broadcasting Centre seem a bit confused about their duty of impartiality. The question of who occupied whose land when, who started the various wars, and how far back in history one looks is very much the issue in that part of the world. Various views are possible. A private media concern may choose a given line. A publicly-funded agency whose charter demands impartiality should not present a given view as fact.
Meanwhile, despite the efforts of the BBC (and the Glasgow Media group), I suspect that Britons will continue to be ‘confused’ as different people focus on different events in the region’s long and troubled history.
Yes, this is the ‘study’ mentioned by the ex BBC Middle East correspondent writing in the Sunday Grauniad:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1242833,00.html
He claims the study is “scientifically based”.
Sorry, ‘media studies’ is not a science. This isn’t a scientific report published in a science journal after peer review, this is a piece of propaganda from a private campaign group being published by a ‘right-on’ print oufit.
No advertising on the BBC…
OFF TOPIC:
Confirmed? – not quite
“Iran has seized three UK navy vessels and eight crew members inside its territorial waters near the Iraq border, UK defence officials confirmed.”
Interesting lead, since there is nothing in the report to support that:
Iran seizes UK vessels and crew
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3826179.stm
“A spokesman at the UK defence ministry said British forces in Iraq were using boats to train the Iraqi river patrol service, and the craft may have strayed across the maritime border by mistake.
“The waterway runs over a mile wide. The border runs pretty much down the middle of it,” he said.”
Strikes me as indicating just how big a the MIddle East is to most folks. If something is important to them, people usually get it right.
It’s a bit like those perennial surveys alleging everyone’s geographic ignorance because students in Kansas couldn’t find Brighton on a map, and vice versa. Not, of course, that they’d have a reason to do that.
yes the theory of compensating errors does not work here .
It’s a case of the malinformed leading the uninformed.
Even the BBC Jihad fails to reach some of the parts that …..
Well we could start criticising the BBC’s lack of geographical knowledge couldn’t we?
Why do they refer to Mumbai but not Roma?
Why do they refer to “Europe” when they mean the countries of the European Union?
Why indeed do they refer to the “Middle East”. Isn’t this an archaic term? I think we should refer to North Africa, Arabia, South West Asia etc. The Middle East as a concept is highly misleading. It’s almost a synonym for “land of the Muslim Arabs”.
David Field
Radio 4 had a feature interview with the leader of the study, Prof Philo, whose rabid views are well known to be biased – but of course his bias matches that of the BBC so they can’t see it.
Why is anyone surprised that peoples’ views of the Middle East are so awry? After all, how many surveys do we see in the media about the number of people in Britain hold absurd misconceptions about British history, WWII etc? That’s not the media’s fault, it’s the educational establishment’s. And certainly, anyone who speaks for a University Department of “Media Studies” almost certainly has contributed more than most to this nation’s current educational decadence.
The BBC is just exercised that its 24/7 anti-Israel propaganda hasn’t “adjusted” everyone’s viewpoints to the “correct” orientation. Horrors!
It probably never occurs to them that perhaps people are so turned off by the BBC’s constant propaganda that they automatically believe the opposite of every thing the Beeb says, even when it tells the truth?
Just a thought.
‘the Glasgow Media studies group (well known for its hard-left stance, though this was not mentioned’. It was not ‘mentioned,’ perhaps, because it is not a ‘fact’. You do not ‘mention’ your own tendentious interpretation and/or try and pass it off as a simple description. The Glasgow group has produced some highly well researched and useful work and is respected by people from different parts of the political spectrum. I wonder how you’d respond if someone ‘mentioned’ that Mr Bush was ‘hard-right’..
Listening to Prof Philo – he sounded very fixed in his view, very anxious to get his OWN arguments across. Academic detachment – or just another polemic ?
It was not ‘mentioned,’ perhaps, because it is not a ‘fact’.
Many groups don’t actually state a political leaning. This doesn’t mean they don’t have one, of course; and it certainly doesn’t prevent news organisations from labelling such groups with their own interpretation. Indeed, during the Iraq crisis, the BBC was noted on this blog to be pointing out the rightist leanings of some ‘pro-war’ groups and failing to mention the leftist leanings of ‘anti-war’ groups. Some ‘facts’ are worth mentioning more than others, it seems.
It is my opinion that only a proverbial wet fish could fail to notice the liberal/left leaning of the GUMG. I also think they are as much ‘leftfield’ as left-wing, living in barking, ivory-tower isolation, stuck with dusty old notions of class struggle.
Even some in social studies academia see them for what they are:
http://shaunbest.tripod.com/socialtheory/id8.html
.
Incidentally, for someone bemoaning ignorance of the ‘real’ story from the Middle East, Philo has some very firm ideas about what are actually disputed issues. In this interview with the Socialist Worker
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/1797/sw179714.htm
He states:
“People simply do not know the Palestinians were pushed off their land and out of their homes in 1948.”
Compare that with this, from Khaled al-Azem, former prime minister of Syria:
“…the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries… We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land.”
Were they pushed or did they jump?
And I wonder if Philo knows that a similar number of Jews were very firmly pushed out of their homes during the same period?
It was a nasty, complex conflict. Philo wants it drawn in crayon (red, green and black ones).
If the BBC refers to the Glasgow Media Group as ‘hard left’ it not only situates THEM on the political spectrum, it situates itself also and therefore relinquishes ‘neutrality’.
I think it inappropriate for the BBC to start assigning political labels to non-party groups who have not themselves declared a political allegiance.
There is a significant difference between ‘hard-left’ and ‘left/liberal’, and you perhaps therefore illustrate, inadvertently, just how open to interpretation these matters are. If you are happy with BBC people to have such interpretative leeway, fine • just don’t complain when it works against you. The political ‘leaning’ of the Glasgow group or any other group is not one of its objective properties, like the number of members. It is a matter of construal.
n.b, ‘Philo has some very firm ideas about what are actually disputed issues.’
Kind of a category error. They are ‘disputed’ precisely in the sense that competing ‘firm ideas’ exist about them.
On the issue of whether or not the Palestinians were ‘forced out’ of Palestine, people might like to consult ‘Broadcasts’ by Christopher Hitchens, in Blaming the Victims, ed. Said and Hitchens.
“I think it inappropriate for the BBC to start assigning political labels to non-party groups who have not themselves declared a political allegiance.”
I think it is inappropriate for the BBC to continue selectively assigning political labels to non-party groups who have not themselves declared a political leaning.
The BBC should decide on a policy and stick to it. It either gives its audience ‘context’ by referring to the leanings of all such groups; or it reports on all such groups without ‘context’. At the moment it is too fond of mentioning right-wing ‘context’ whilst failing to mention left-wing ‘context’.
“Kind of a category error. They are ‘disputed’ precisely in the sense that competing ‘firm ideas’ exist about them.”
Kind of a redundant point. Competing ‘firm ideas’ do exist, so Philo should not be chiding broadcasters for failing to promote his preferred ‘firm idea’ as undisputed fact.
If you would like to hear Mr. Philo speak, his next engagement is at The Glasgow Palestine Solidarity Campaign. No bias there!
Thanks you for making me aware of the work of Professor Philo. It sounds interesting. As Professor Philo obviously believes his ‘ideas’ to be true (and others to be not true), then of course he has every right to question broadcasters, as does everyone in a democratic society. Just because there are other ‘firm ideas’ out there shouldn’t somehow resign one to relativism. There are, for example, competing ‘firm ideas’ about the BBC and its biases, but it shouldn’t stop you putting pressure on the organization. Sorry for making such a self-evident point, but it seems not to have been grasped by some.
The problem is that Philo is known to be very pro-Palestinian.
So hardly the man to ask to present views on “what the public thinks”.
A bit like asking George Galloway to comment on “what the public thinks about Iraq”.
The difference is – Galloway is notorious, and widely recognised to be a nutter. Hence the abysmal vote gathered by Respect. So people KNOW that Galloway’s words need to be taken with extreme caution. Philo is pretty extreme as well – but the general public does not know this, and the BBC (which DOES know) makes sure it doesn’t introduce him as such. Rather than saying up front that he is a veteran speaker at pro-Palestinian rallies, they introduce him as some kind of disinterested academic. Typical BBC sleaziness.
‘The problem is that Philo is known to be very pro-Palestinian.
So hardly the man to ask to present views on “what the public thinks”.’
NO, what equips him to answer questions on ‘what the public thinks’ is the fact that he has conducted an academic survey on this very issue and that no one else has.
Unless there is evidence that he has doctored his findings and/or framed his questions in an unacceptable way, then why not refer to his survey? It is neither possible nor desirable to be a ‘disinterested’ academic in any case.
Janus
With your pointless remarks, tortured logic and rhetorical cul-de-sacs it sometimes becomes difficult for me to know where exactly you are coming from.
However when I imagine the ‘J’ in your name to be silent, all becomes crystal clear
“It is neither possible nor desirable to be a ‘disinterested’ academic in any case.”
Umm, why the hell not? Aren’t “scientists” supposed to be objective in their findings, or otherwise they are not really scientists? Sure there have been cases of scientists who made up data to support their biases, but they are usually referred to as Lynsenkoists and are not really considered to be real scientists.
Thanks for admitting this fellow is no scientist. However, in your viewpoint, it’s not “desirable” for scientists to really be scientists (any more than it is for journalists to really be journalists), so I guess you don’t really care if this guy’s findings are credible or not.
YOY, I don’t think there is really any attempt at “dialogue” going on here. It’s really just the frightened ravings of the Left, which is terrified that one of its most effective propaganda outlets is being attacked by a group undeserving peons — us.
the frightened ravings of the Left, which is terrified that one of its most effective propaganda outlets is being attacked by a group undeserving peons
Oh dear. If you seriously think that I or any broadcasting or media group are even slightly troubled by the self-congratulatory, ideologically motivated activities of this blog then you need to see a psychiatrist. The only thing that might be mildly disconcerting to me or any thinking person is the capacity of the right to dramatize itself as some noble minority fighting a left-liberal establishment.
Now your friend Professor Philo: if this blog were seriously interested in BBC bias, you would actively seek to draw attention to his work, as it is full of very well documented instances of such media partiality. Instead, you lambast him as being somehow complicit with your enemy, the BBC. You are not interested in his work, though, because you have no genuine interest in BBC bias. What you do have an interest in is promoting a very obvious right-wing agenda under the disingenuous guise of a concern for ‘objectivity’
Not only that, you then refuse to engage with any dissent, and immediately revert to clumsy rhetoric and predictable abuse when questioned. Anything outside a pro-conservative/ pro-republican line is vilified as a pathological deviation.
What is also striking is the seeming unfamiliarity of any of your writers with elementary logic or the basic tools of media analysis.
The whole enterprise is without rigour, humour or self-insight. Fortunately, it is also entirely without efficacy
“Oh dear. If you seriously think that I or any broadcasting or media group are even slightly troubled by the self-congratulatory, ideologically motivated activities of this blog then you need to see a psychiatrist.”
Hello? If that is REALLY the way you feel, janus, then why are you investing so much time in trying to refute us? We’ve seen lots of your colleagues blow throw this blog and they all say the same thing — ho-ho-ho, we don’t consider you guys to be any threat, giggle, giggle. But somehow they find always themselves devoting a great deal of effort into trying to show us the “error” of our ways.
“Not only that, you then refuse to engage with any dissent, and immediately revert to clumsy rhetoric and predictable abuse when questioned. Anything outside a pro-conservative/ pro-republican line is vilified as a pathological deviation.”
–Good description of the attitudes promoted by the BBC, except the other way ’round, of course!
janus
You simply have not dealt with the FACT that Greg Philo is known as a leading speaker at pro-Palestinian rallies.
Which hardly makes him the appropriate person to SELECT the people who were interviewed for an “impartial” study.
Greg Philo is axe-grinding, pure and simple. Do you deny that he would seek to insert his own views into the character of the study ?
When will the Zionist apologists for state sponsored terrorism stop believing everything that comes our of the mouth of the Isreali Governemnt, and start looking seriously at its track record?.
When hell freezes over is the answer, or at least when the terrorists in Government die.
“When hell freezes over is the answer, or at least when the terrorists in Government die.”
What pray tell does that have to do with BBC Bias?