: Trevor Asserson and Cassie Williams of BBCWatch have produced a study of BBC documentary coverage of Israel entitled ‘The Documentary Campaign 2000-2004’. Norm Geras has read it and summarises. (Via Glenn, who is not surprised by their findings).
One for media bias carnivores
Bookmark the permalink.
I’m surprised this blog doesn’t comment on BBC2’s newsnight more often. The other week I saw a really shoddy piece on the Moore film. This involved interviewing a couple of random US citizens before and after they went into the film. Hey presto: they were pro-Bush before they went in and but had changed their minds during the film.. This had absoutely no value as an exercise whatever
Tonight a report on the ‘House of Saudi Book’. The interviewer put a series of criticisms to the author – your points have been proved groundless etc. The question, however, is why spend a significant portion of Newsnight on THIS book at all?
Above should read ‘.. before they went in but had changed.. ‘
Stealth edit-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3916085.stm
Article on Tories moving from Smith Square. Picture of staff outside Central Office, now captioned
“Conservative Central Office staff wave farewell to Smith Square” was originally captioned
“hands up who thinks we can win the next General Election”
It would seem that the BBC allows its output to be compiled by juvenile jokers.
Well spotted Shay. In defence of the News Online Toytown hacks though, it does state near the end, that:
‘Posing for a family photo of party workers outside the old headquarters on Thursday, party co-chairman Maurice Saatchi joked: “Hands up who thinks we’re going to win the general election.”‘
– which is a bit of a gift to leftie caption writers everywhere – including those at News Online. That said though, I don’t expect the caption you saw was either quoted or attributed properly – to put it in the correct context as a joke rather than as third-party commentary.
To a.user, Concerning the pro-Bush people that went to the Moore film and came out as anti-Bush, I find this laughable. How does one completely change their ideolgy? You see similar stories like this everywhere. The media seem to find someone who “voted Republican all their life” and through the evilness of Bush have decided to “Vote for Kerry”! What dishonest claptrap.
With all the debunking of Moore’s film (from both the left and right) some people see it still as the truth.
It’s infuriating. I think this slob (Moore) has had enough publicity.
What seems most commendable in Trevor Asserson’s conclusions is that he does NOT accuse the management of the BBC of ant-semitism – but coldly and clinically lays out how they are heavily (viscerally?) anti-Israel.
The BBC notably failed to give proper answers to Asserson’s earlier work.
I bet the BBC does not give this latest and damning report any coverage, on air or on its website. Again – another sign of its bias.
Looks like your website has been one of the culprits rather ingloriously referred to as wacko by the BBC head of news.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1269721,00.html
Shockingly, a right wing website study concludes that the BBC is anti-Israel, just as a left wing school of Journalism study concluded that it was pro-Israel.
I think this says more about those writing the report than about the BBC.
Tokyo- If the Guardian refers to us through the BBC head of news as ‘wacko’ then I’d say that’s a kind of compliment coming from them. Sticks and stones etc.
RB- read the report. Nothing could be more moderate and studied- and I saw nothing in it about political affiliation, which can’t be said for the Glasgow Media Group.
That said, I only heard of it from notorious right-winger Norm Geras so you could be right.
That piece by Roger Mosey is superb. The controllers of the BBC information gates just can’t help themselves in displaying their innate bias.
He points to mere frothing about BBC bias from whacky websites, yet when referring to the openly ideological (and blatantly leftist) Glasgow University Media Group’s report on news coverage on the Middle East, sympathetically points to it having “some persuasive arguments”.
He mentions that studies pointing out BBC euro bias tend to be commissioned by eurosceptics, yet fails to mention that the Cardiff School of Journalism report that supposedly points to nice BBC middleness was commissioned by – the BBC!
He’s too comfortable to realise that it’s a rather big giveaway when he makes a sarcastic reference to “our friends at the Daily Telegraph” whilst writing a piece for the Guardian’s readership.
.
I did read the report. The language is certainly moderate and studied but the writers clearly start from various premises which are far from universally shared in reaching their assessment as to whether a programme is pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian or balanced.
I note that one author has been called to the Israeli Bar and the other holds an MA in Israeli and Jewish Diaspora Studies. Not firm evidence of any particular opinion on the conflict, admittedly, but possibly suggestive in my opinion.
The problem with achieving ‘balance’ in any reporting of the conflict is that there are so many areas which are subject to debate. The catch 22 is that failing to frame news in the context of some or all of these leaves one with the classic ‘huge death and destruction abroad – no Brits hurt’ non story.
For instance:
Does Israel have a right to exist?
Has Israel acted in contravention of UN resolutions?
Who was responsible for the 1967 war?
Do Palestinian suicide attacks give Israel the right to take security measures outside it’s 1967 borders?
Is there a moral justification for terrorist attacks when facing otherwise undefeatable military force?
Is the incompetence of Arafat’s leadership a more important reason for Palestinian hardship than Israeli actions.
Personally I’ve heard decent arguments for and against all of the above and more.
RB
The trouble with much of the BBC’s coverage and its TONE is that there is only one answer to each of the questions you list. The answer that favours the Palestinians and the terrorists.
RB: you’ve heard ‘decent’ arguments for genocide? Because that’s what denying Israel’s right to exist invites.
There’s certainly an argument that the designation of a new state by a colonial power and consequent mass migration without much regard to the views of the indigenous population a) raises questions of legitimacy and b) inevitably leads to future conflict, irrespective of the underlying reasons.
In your very strong opinion the establishment of the state of Israel cannot be separated from and can be justified on the basis of the Holocaust and previous persecutions. On balance I’d side with you. Any media reporting of the current conflict which didn’t mention this issue at all would be guilty of not providing all relative context.
You’ve proved my point – it’s ultimately impossible to provide reporting on this issue which is acceptable to everyone and not utterly trivial.
It’s absurd that a $3 billion enterprise with global reach and 30,000 employees is actually worried about “wacky” websites criticizing them. These people must be incredibly childish and thin-skinned.
Then again, that’s probably the way you get when the only opinions you ever hear all day long are echoes of your own.
OT: No sign of the following at BBC online:
Kerry Loses Momentum In Polls:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/kerry_poll_040726.html
Instead, we learn how “Clinton Dazzles the Dems”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3925421.stm
Do people in the UK not recognize the blatant propaganda?
I think it’s fair to say that an overwhelming majority of Brits just want Bush out, whether he’s replaced by Kerry or Brittney Spears.
No need for propaganda!!
Another fearless ‘Anonymous’ illiterate (‘Brittney’ indeed!) pops up. The same can be said of Tony Blair of course, so your point, as far as BBC bias goes, is pointless.
I don’t know where the Beeb get their “person on the street” quotes here in the US, but they almoset always find and pick 3 anti-bushites. Occasionally they’ll have 2 anti and 1 neutral or pro. Then the presenter will say “this isn’t scientific, but that was 2 to 1…”
pathetic.
want some poll data?
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2004/07/polls_sagging.html
“I think it’s fair to say that an overwhelming majority of Brits just want Bush out”
I very much doubt the majority of Brits give a shit one way or the other. It’s only political anoraks (like myself I guess š ) who care about this sort of thing.
The BBC Online shilling for Kerry & crew is for influencing its US visitors. Since most of its US visitors already vote Democrat, it’s a waste of time. But the BBC will be very happy to spend UK TV viewers money to try to change the US political world from the way it is to the way the BBC wants it to be. š
One would think that the Beeb would be likely to present a more balanced picture, in their own self-interest if nothing else. After all, what will viewers think of their excessive feel-good “the Dems are winning” propaganda if Bush wins by a landslide in November? It would make the Beeb look either incredibly clueless, or deeply dishonest.
Oh, wait, the Beeb IS incredibly clueless and deeply dishonest.
The BBC has been extremely ‘sympathetic’ in its coverage of the Democratic Convention.
It will be interesting and instructive to see the coverage of the Republican Convention in four weeks time!
OT
The BBC are running a feature on ‘Global Warming’ and introduce it with this doozy
‘Scientists predict the Earth will warm by 1.4 – 5.8C by 2100.’
What, all of them?
Great graphics though.
OT
One more example of not-at-all-biased scbbc. From the rottweiler. Very entertaining i think.
Dave T,
Saw it, laughed…
I think the BBC should do two more:-
one for the coming ice age touted circa 1970
another for the malthusian mass starvations killing billions touted circa 1950.
When they can accurately predict the weather more than a month ahead and when their models work backwards on historical data then maybe I’ll listen! Until then, this will be filed under “anti-capitalism”
Max:
I knew it was by Caroline Hawley even before clicking on the story. She takes objectivity lessons from Orla Bin Goering.
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel now in their obsequious Demo-worship: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3932637.stm
“(Don’t) Have Your Say” devotes an entire thread to Theresa Heinz Kerry’s speech to the DNC! And, guess, what, she’s the reincarnation of Martha Washington crossed with Jackie Kennedy!
More assinine editorialism disguised as “fact” here, in a story about 200 French Jews immigrating to Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3932313.stm
“But, she says, politicians in France believe the French Jews who are emigrating are being used as pawns by Israel in a wider political game.”
And just what would that “wider political game” be? Forcing the French to actually take action against their violently anti-Semitic Muslim criminals? Obviously a dirty little political game indeed! Shame, shame on the Israelis for using French Jews as “pawns” for this shady, despicable purpose! And Sharon had the nerve to actually meet the new Israeli citizens at the airport! What a terrible crime. One would think the head of state of any immigrant culture had never welcomed immigrants before. . .
The BBC just beggars belief. Just beggars belief.
There have, in fact, been many wonderful speeches at the Democrat Convention. But they have not come from the “big shots” (Clinton’s speech was, as ever, shallow).
Barach Aboma, who lamented the divisiveness in America, John Glenn, and Amy Klobuchar amongst others, have given sincere, heartfelt speeches.
On the subject of Anti-Semitism in France, the French elite won’t do anything about it, because there are more Muslims than Jews in France (Chirac said this himself a few years back).
Chirac has done nothing about Anti-Semitism, except make hollow platitudes.
STEALTH EDIT ALERT! STEALTH EDIT ALERT!
They completely rewrote the French Jewish immigrant story I posted earlier and removed all the snide editorializing about the French Jews being used as “political pawns.”
Still beggars belief.
“Vote USA 2004
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION
Edwards salutes ‘decisive’ Kerry
Wife rallies for ‘fighter’ Kerry
Clinton speech dazzles Democrats
Democrats: Second day in quotes
Convention day two in pictures ”
Okay, it’s the convention. I can’t wait to see how they cover the Rebublican convention.
Susan,
I am shocked, shocked that they would stealth edit the piece you quoted.
To RB,
Regarding your list of “questions’: some of them I agree should be discussed from “both sides”, others I find offensive.
Particularly: your “question” of whether murdering Israeli civilians is justified is outrageous, but apparently not so uncommon these days on the left. I tend to think that people would not ask this question if the victims were people with whom they identify more.
But in any event, Asserson’s report indicates that the BBC fails at two basic requirements for fairness that anyone should agree with: a) not giving unchallenged voice to patently incorrect assertions of fact b) giving the Israeli side an equal chance to respond
One missed at B-BBC
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1271882,00.html
The Guardian reports on the BBC’s Complaints Bulletin, including
“Presenter James Cox was also pulled up for lack of impartiality for comments on The World at One on BBC Radio 4 in January. He told Information Minister Douglas Alexander that “the culture of mendacity is now so embedded in everything your government does that it is very hard to believe that you would be converted to openness and honesty”.”
Pulled up, eh! Won’t do that again then, will he?
OT: Chris Moyles not quite the saviour of the BBC after all…
The BBC news site posted an item today that covered BBC 2 radio, Johnny Vaughan losing views for capital etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3936361.stm
But I noticed an absence of their “saviour” Chris Moyles, who just two months ago apparantly added 700,000 listeners to the breakfast slot (which they were happy to shout about). But not a mention of him today, when normally they don’t need much of an excuse.
I smelled a cover up.
Sure enough, his slot has lost 140,000 listeners in the period from March to June.
http://www.chrismoyles.net/mw/news.shtml
Not so happy to tout him now, are you BBC online? Better stick to Doctor Who, Michael Moore and Google.
They just can’t help it.
Radio5 prog @ 5pm has interview with producer of new US reality TV show which takes Amish folk to LA.
“Did you take them to the ghetto?” enquires female BBC presenter.
The BBC would never use the word ghetto to describe an area in Britain with a large ethnic minority population.
Which is funny, because “ghetto” is a European word, not an American-invented one.
OT: Sudan suing the Beeb for its coverage of the Darfur massacres?
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=556214§ion=news
Unlovely choice: Islamofascist mass murderers against the world’s foremost purveyors of The Tone?
A bit like watching a fist-fight between Charles Manson and Martha Stewart. If forced to take sides, you’ll take Martha, of course, but secretly you hope that Chuck lands a few good punches before going down.
OT: Am I missing something? This isn’t a trillion, is it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3935671.stm
Depends on whether you are using the small American trillion (1 with 12 zeros or a thousand million), or the big British trillion (1 with 18 zeros or a million million). The American one is in common useage now (I use it myself on occasion), so the BBC are correct.
Off Topic:
At bbc.co.uk the tribute to the late Francis Crick shows that it is business as usual. Matt Ridley is described as the author of “Nature Vs Nurture”, rather than “Nature Via Nurture”. It would be over-the-top to suppose that this is a biased attempt to portray him as a social darwinist; I believe it is either simple sloppiness, or else an ignorance of the rationale of the book which is reprehensible in someone writing scientific obituaries.
Last night, Rod Sharp, when talking to Robert Byrd, Sharp raised the subject of the “two women soldiers from West Virginia” and how they would impact on the election.
Byrd said that West Virginia is proud of Jessica Lynch, describing her as meek and humble (Byrd has actually met JL, whereas NO BBC journalist has interviewed her).
Byrd clearly did not want to politicise this…Sharp clearly did.
Sharp then moved onto a favourite BBC subject; Abu Ghraib.
What was striking was that Rod Sharp seemed to be to the Left of Byrd, frequently going further than the WV Senator.
They always hold up Byrd as some kind of hero while studiously neglecting to mention his checkered past as a Ku Klux Klan operative.
A while back someone gushed that Byrd was the “Father of the Senate” (i.e. equivalent to the UK position of “Father of the House”), just because he’s older than God and has been stuck like super-glue to his safe pork-barrel dispensing Senate seat since Benjamin Harrison’s inaugural speech. For chrissake, we don’t have any such position as “Father of the Senate” (or of the House for that matter), and it’s not exactly a difficult task to glom onto a Senate seat in some tiny, poverty-stricken state like WV and stay there forever, as long as you keep the federal pork rolling in. Someone please tell the BBC that Byrd’s longevity is no great accomplishment and doesn’t impress anyone Stateside at all.
No sign of THIS story on BBC online:
British link to oil for food scandal probed by Customs and Excise:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3581331&thesection=news&thesubsection=world
Gee, I wonder why?
i completely do not understand your sites hatred towards the BBC. The BBC is an absolutely wonderful news channel!
Kiran,
Entertainment funded by threat of jail, forced onto the U.K. population with a statist viewpoint and ignorant comment unbacked by real facts instead of news!
Yeah wonderful.
Just for the record:
“Vote USA 2004
KEY STORIES
Bush and Kerry tour key states
Kerry accepts Democratic ticket
Full text: John Kerry speech
Kerry passes test for US media
In pictures: Kerry nomination ”
Let’s see what the key stories are after the Republican convention.
StinKerr,
It’s interesting that the Kerry speech was linked to in full. That’s something the foxnews site likes to do.
Maybe the BBC is learning?
Rob.
If the BBC is ‘learning’ from Fox News then God help us all.