: 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.
Once again the Beeb’s supporters slag off Fox News.
Well, I thought PJF’S contribution in the comment section (Saturday, July 24, 2004) was illuminating:
“What I find most informative about the BBC piece (concerning Sandy Berger) is just how uninformative it is compared to the Associated Press report at Drudge (also at Fox News). The latter is more thorough, presenting detail context about the explanation offered as to why the records were previously thought destroyed; and giving voice to the Democrat challenge and Administration repost. ”
So “Anonymous”, I think the BBC can learn a hell of a lot from Fox News.
Also, would “Anonymous” like it if he/she was compelled to pay for a Fox News equivalent the way the rest of us are with the BBC?
If Fox produced the vast majority of reasonably intelligent TV and radio programming available in the UK, provided internet services as invaluable as the BBC’s, and didn’t subject me to mind numbing advertisements every ten minutes I’d be more than happy to pay £2 a week for it even if I perceived the politics to be a bit dubious.
Anonymous,
Then you support Subscription funding for the BBC as a replacement for the threat of jail?
“Perhaps the Beeb is learning.”
I hope so. We’ll see how they do with the Republican convention.
To the FOX bashers: I hope you are aware that FOX carried more of the Dem. convention than all of the broadcast networks combined. They ran it live and carried all the ‘important’ speeches uninterrupted. They also ran repeats all night after the convention had adjourned for the night.
They also interviewed everyone there that they could get in front of a microphone, including Micheal Moore.
Rob,
No.
Whilst I understand that the coercive nature of the licence fee has its drawbacks, on balance I’m still in favour.
The continuation of the BBC’s position as the world’s most respected broadcaster, and the benefits which that brings to Britain, requires an enormous and stable budget.
Funding by subscription would put the amount and stability of the budget at risk, hindering investment, and decrease quality through necessity for more ‘populist’ programming
Funding by subscription would
I misspelled ‘Michael’ in the above post. No excuses.
BTW are you aware that FOX cuts away from its regular programming to carry live feeds from the Kerry campaign as well as when the President speaks?
Carrying BOTH sides is what I consider to be fair and balanced. Carrying only one side is NOT. No wonder some elements hate FOX, they’ve had their own views expressed exclusively for so long that shoewing any other view is ‘unfair’.
I’ll repeat my request to be pointed to a BBC story which puts President Bush in a good light.
“…the BBC’s position as the world’s most respected broadcaster…”
Says who? Evidence please.
Alan asks:
> “…the BBC’s position as the world’s most respected broadcaster…”
>
> Says who? Evidence please.
During the Hutton aftermath, the Six O’Clock News resident lightweight simpery super Sophie Raworth asked “so where does this leave the World’s most respected broadcaster” – so I guess the answer is that this is what the Beebies think of themselves.
But oh how I laughed – the irony of her statement, on so many levels, was just too much to bear!
Anonymous “Funding by subscription would put the amount and stability of the budget at risk, hindering investment, and decrease quality through necessity for more ‘populist’ programming”
Surely the BBC of which you are so fond would have little difficulty in being showered with voluntary subscriptions. But to be on the safe side,you want the programming you want to be subsidised by the forced contributions of others.
The BBC only mentions one poll result regarding the US Presidential contest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3943185.stm
So how about this one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-01-poll-kerry_x.htm
Fair and balanced?
It seems many convention observers weren’t quite as feverishly moist as this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3938685.stm
.
BTW, if you get your news from BBC Online, you might not be very aware that the UK is also currently under a serious terror threat – from the same source as the one concerning the USA. For some reason it doesn’t warrant much of mention. Far less important an issue for the UK than a Scandinavian sports celeb sex scandal.
The Shadow Home Secretary has expressed concern at Government inaction over the terror threat – not mentioned on the BBC.
US banking interests in the City of London on hit list – not mentioned on the BBC.
.
PJF and all: check out this ludicrous article billed on the front page as being about how “Americans” are coping with the increased terror threats:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3529760.stm
Everyone they interviewed for this story about “Americans” was a European expatriate! And everyone they interviewed JUST HAPPENED to think that the latest strong terror alerts are being faked by the Bush administration to show up John Kerry!
Real Americans don’t seem to have been canvassed, and obviously no one who disputed the “Bush is faking it” official line!
Alan,
I’ve asked this question of BBC haters a lot of times and never had an answer.
If the BBC isn’t the world’s most respected broadcaster then who is?
Don,
I suspect that a significant minority of the country wouldn’t subscribe for the BBC as they, perfectly justifiably, would be quite happy watching crap on Sky One. To be honest, I probably wouldn’t subscribe to BBC TV (as opposed to web and radio) outside world/euro cup months as I have a life and my TV viewing is thus largely limited to footy and boxing.
My point is that the BBCs international reputation makes it worth funding through universal taxation – it’s a huge benefit to the country.
Hello Anonymous
I think you are tripping. On what basis do you suggest that the BBC is the ‘worlds most respected broadcaster?’ Try finding the BBC in countries were there is freedom of choice and a well established market.
I think you will be disappointed. My own experience travelling around is that the BBC is trounced everytime, by superior news, comedy and educational programs. In spite of their massive budget.
Perhaps you think England are also a great footballing nation? (I am English by the way… but I am not blind).
It took our ‘most respected’ broadcaster, famed for the breadth and depth of its cutting edge, world-class news service, over twelve hours to report that Her Majesty’s Opposition were calling on Her Majesty’s Government to be specific about the terror threat to the UK.
.
So Anonymous,
The BBC benefits the UKs “international reputation” so should be scaled down to only the size of the World Service?
BTW 24 people went to jail for your entertainment last year. Maybe the BBC could do a documentary on them!
Anon;
“I’ve asked this question of BBC haters a lot of times and never had an answer.
If the BBC isn’t the world’s most respected broadcaster then who is?”
That’s ’cause it’s a damn silly question. You might as well ask people which their favorite Politician or other media figure is. Their answer would be totally subjective, and liable to change from one week to the next.
Finally I don’t think the BBCs’ prestige, or lack of, has any impact on me at all as I’m not a goose-stepping nationalist/socialist and don’t regard the collective national pride as being very important.
The BBC keeps plugging the idea that the latest terror threat is a political fix by Bush – they had it as main item on the Today programme. Like an idee fixe. The notion that there are evil people out there that blow up buildings and fly planes into skyscrapers is just a ploy to dish their favourite John Kerry.
I take it that nobody can come up with a broadcaster better than the BBC then.
“I take it that nobody can come up with a broadcaster better than the BBC then”
I don’t think anyone else on the board can come up with a WORSE broadcaster than the BBC (well maybe s4c)!
So you think Jailing 24 people is worth it for ze reichs, sorry countries status! Nice to know where you stand. You can’t make a statist omelette without crushing some individual liberties.
I assert that Fox is a better news channel – because it tries to give balance.
Likewise in the UK Sky – and ITV – are better-balanced than the BBC. Sky is often better at getting the news fast and well. Even though they are not under a Charter duty to show balance, they achieve it better than the Beeb.
Maybe that’s because the BBC is so busy grinding out its own agenda. Which is presumably why so many people have stopped listening to the Today programme – 400,000 fewer listeners ? If the drop is that big, it suggests a lot of listener disapproval.
If anyone is really sad and bloody minded enough to prefer jail to coughing up a few quid for a TV licence they deserve all they get. And still nobody has come up with a higher quality broadcaster than the BBC….
The criticisms are like slagging off Brazil because Roberto Carlos hasn’t got a right foot. Maybe true but they’re still better than everyone else.
“I take it that nobody can come up with a broadcaster better than the BBC then.”
There are more important ways to judge an organisation than by its output. On that basis, I regard every broadcaster that doesn’t gain its funding via the police powers of the state to be better than the BBC.
So what if you might think Radio3 to be better than Classic FM? Since you’d be happy to see people imprisoned for not paying for you to enjoy your preference, your opinion wouldn’t be worth my consideration.
.
‘There are more important ways to judge an organisation than by its output.’???
No there aren’t unless you want to be rabidly ideological and rabid ideology went out with the dinosaurs.
“I take it that nobody can come up with a broadcaster better than the BBC then.”
Wrong approach. You’re the one making the claim; it is required that YOU provide the evidence to support your claim. We don’t have to do your leg work for you. Only once you’ve provided this evidence do we have to accept your claim, and even then only if we’re unable to come up with a valid, logical reason why your evidence is bogus.
“‘There are more important ways to judge an organisation than by its output.’???
No there aren’t…”
Great! Let’s bring back the cotton slavers. No need to let pesky rabid ideology get in the way of cheap cotton.
I love contemporary liberals. They’re just so… illiberal.
.
PJF there’s a program on TV at the moment where 10 people are locked up for entertainment purposes. It’s called appropriately enough “Big Brother” do you think Anonymous must be an avid watcher? Maybe not the contestants CHOOSE to get locked up for entertainment, rather than the BBC way…
My appreciation of the BBC isn’t BECAUSE it’s funded by a compulsary levy on the public. It’s because it’s the very best.
I just feel that it’s a bit puerile to deny that this matters on the basis that it is funded by a method which you are ideologically opposed to.
Presumably if you got mugged you wouldn’t inform the police on the basis that they are an inefficient state funded criminal catching monopoly but would instead invite private mugger catching firms to tender, irrespective of how rubbish they are.
I disagree that BBC output is the “Best”. I disagree that it even matters, to me the best broadcaster is the one I’m watching at that moment, and that is helped by choice, and choice is hindered by coerced payments.
Coerced Collectivists such as Anonymous can only see averages and Totals, they cannot see the patterns of choice. Choices, Liberty and Freedom only get in the way of their plans for controlling others.
Personally as a Minarchist I think the Police are a useful monopoly. However I was mugged, and didn’t bother telling the Police because they are rubbish. I did however tell the private company that held my credit cards, and they were very effective, in preventing any further problems.
Anonymous; “…It’s because it’s the very best.”
If it is the very best, as you claim, then it dosn’t need the protection of a compulsary levy then, does it?
Hello Anonymous
Broadcasters better than the BBC- I prefer CNN, for example, who usually manage to discuss topics with a republican and a democrat in the same piece.
Or Channel 4- Who can show Micchael Moore one week and Niall Ferguson the next.
People who think that the BBC is the worlds most respected broadcaster should perhaps visit a few more countries and switch on the tv. I did know a Norwegian guy who had seen ‘yes prime minister’. I believe the teletubbies also sells in America?
In all sincerity, I have not watched the BBC for quite some time. Simply because it is rubbish. Unfortunately only we British (and in particular the BBC who are defending their budget) have the conceit to believe that the BBC is the worlds most respected broadcaster.
Hi Lee,
Cheers for the specific response.
I’d probably disagree with CNN (too vomit inducingly ‘people story’ orientated) and C4 (far too liberal surely??) if you pushed me but I fully respect your opinion.
To be fair I spend most of my non UK time in the US and Italy, spiritual homes of the truly dire TV news (and everything else) coverage so my view is probably slanted.
Ciao!
Buon giorno anonymous
Exactly. If you were working in the US and Italy, surely you would be able to tune into the BBC, since it is the worlds most respected broadcaster. Thereby, not having to watch the poor/’unrespected’ ‘foreign’ media (though technically it would not be foreign, since you are in their country).
If American tv is the worst, how come you can find it all over the world. Perhaps you prefer ‘Coupling’ to ‘Freinds’ or ‘Gimme Gimme Gimme’ to ‘Will and Grace’. Come on, admit it, the BBC is pants. A £2.5 billion pa waste of money.
Rob Read:
“I don’t think anyone else on the board can come up with a WORSE broadcaster than the BBC (well maybe s4c)!”
What’s the problem with S4C then? Watch it a lot?
why does the comment count on this thread keep decreasing? was 68, now by stages 54.
stealth editing, perhaps? 😉