is a featured article in BBC News Online’s Magazine section, concerning the disturbing oppression of gay people in Jamaica. Taking this as inspiration for a new BBC News Online Magazine ‘Growing up in’ series, here are some suggestions for future instalments:
Growing up female in Iran – exposing the feudal oppression of girls and women, including cases like that of Atefeh Rajabi;
Growing up agnostic in Saudi Arabia – the problems faced by Saudi youngsters as they explore issues of faith;
Growing up unmutilated in Africa – investigating the problems and consequences of female genital mutilation common in some African societies;
Growing up malnourished in North Korea – a review of the widespread malnourishment and lack of basic necessities facing most North Koreans;
And so on. I’m sure BBBC readers will be able to supply many further examples of injustice and oppression of groups that could do with having the trusty News Online spotlight shone upon their plight. News Online – please feel free to adopt these suggestions without further ado!
Working as a white male heterosexual at the BBC
Growing up well informed in the UK.
Growing up pro-American in Europe.
Growing up pro-Israel almost anywhere in the world.
Of course, the BBC has *never* run features on the problems faced by girls in Iran, the problems and consequences of female genital mutilation, and the miserable conditions faced by North Koreans.
…and I can’t think of any white male heterosexuals at the BBC at all. Oh, wait, except for the director general, the chairman, and half the journalists you slate on this site.
Nelson Ascher’s comments are beneath contempt.
Working as a conservative at the BBC.
john b- “Nelson Ascher’s comments are beneath contempt.”
Nelson Ascher lists three items which narrow minded left wing activists attack and oppress the general public by all manner and means, both mental and physical, at every opportunity they can… and you berate him for doing so.
Move on by folks, there’s nothing to see here – john b says there’s definitely no such thing as left wing oppression of thought regarding pro-america, pro Israel or media bias in the UK -and that to contemplate its existence is beneath contempt- so move on now….
…or else! 😉
Yes I think Peter Bolton’s point is the more relevant. How many genuine conservatives have worked as journalists/reporters at the BBC in the last 20 years and prospered? I can’t think of one. Even people like John Cole who you might think is reasonably balanced turn out to be Labour through and through when you get round to reading the truth about them in biographies and so on.
It’s a closed shop. Guardian readers only need apply.
David Field
The BBC becomes part of the Lib Dem fan club:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3663280.stm
“As Charles Kennedy prepares for this autumn’s party conference he leads a very different Liberal Democrat party from the one he took over five years ago.
Buoyed by advances in recent by-elections and the respect Mr Kennedy won from many for his Iraq war stance – the Lib Dems are riding on the crest of a wave.
Mr Kennedy says he is looking forward to lively conference debates
They have a new confidence and a sense they are now serious contenders – not just making up the numbers.”
Funny how the BBC always give warm support to anyone who opposed the Iraq war.
What about the fox-hunting protest reports no the BBC by the way?
I thought there was a lot of bias in (a) suggesting the protest went “out of control” – not the sort of thing they say about leftie protests (there they usually talk about extremists spoiling an otherwise peaceful protest).
(b) swallowing the New Labour “modernisation” line on HoC security hook, line and sinker.
(c) peddling the old “men in tights” insults, rather than recognising that democracies work because of tradition (cf Iraq – not much tradition there) – costumes can still have contemporary relevance.
It is ignorant prejudice to sugegst otherwise. Political communities are built on tradition and recognisable symbols.
David Field
Growing up rural in Blair’s Britain?
Yes, the BBC would never suggest that Native Americans give up their buckskin and feathers regalia in the name of “modernity”, but rural Englishmen in pink coats are fair game!
The problem with journalists at the BBC and Guardian is not that they allow their liberal leanngs to taint their reporting.
The problem with journalists at Fox News, etc., is not that they allow their conservative leanings to taint their reporting.
Here’s the problem (two, actually):
1. Journalists of any political coloration who are so unprofessional, or so misguided, or so arrogant, that they make no pretense of objectivity.
2. People who hire journalists –broadcasters, publishers, etc. — who deliberately direct the creation of biased reporting to garner a larger audience or to cater to an existing audience.
Political bias from left or right has no place in reporting the news. Put the bias on the editorials are in the commentaries. Otherwise, I want to know what reporters know, not what they think.
“The problem with journalists at the BBC and Guardian is not that they allow their liberal leanngs to taint their reporting.
The problem with journalists at Fox News, etc., is not that they allow their conservative leanings to taint their reporting.”
The REAl problem is that Fox News sinks or swims depending on who watches it- The BBC pumps out it’s propaganda on the back of a compulsory TV tax!
Let me explain to John B. what certain words and expressions mean nowadays in the context of a political discussion:
Fascist = you disagree with me
Racist = I’m unable to refute your
points
Beneath contempt = fascist + racist as, for instance, in the phrase: “The people who put in doubt the authenticity of the Bush memos are beneath contempt”.
Well said billg – what also doesn’t help is that a lot of journalists these days are operating in such a crowded market place that the onus is on being first, which means corners are cut, cliches are trotted out and no-one stops to analyse the issues properly.
JST – Fox News does not sink or swim depending you watches it – it (and Sky News) can be loss leaders for Murdoch, and still pump out their propoganda on the back of his bottomless pockets.
The licence fee could be scrapped tomorrow if the Government so wished, but Murdoch and his mouthpieces would still be there and just as unassailable.
“…but Murdoch and his mouthpieces would still be there and just as unassailable.”
So what? You could easily ignore them with no loss to yourself.
Nothing wrong with Fox news, the difference between Fox and the BBC is the BBC pretend to be independant but with Fox its quite obvious where they lean and they often make no secret of it.
I’d rather have a journalist be honest about their point of view than claim to be ‘neutral’.
Fox actually has a lot of balance in its studio discussions – both sides of the story are usually represented.
Reith’s idea that Murdoch doesn’t care much about the costs of Fox or Sky News is just ludicrous. He has made an art of running lean mean news machines – Sky is often just as good as the entire BBC in covering stories, with a budget about 10% of the equivalent BBC expenditure.
If Sky News or Fox wasn’t winning viewers, their editors would not stay in post for long. Murdoch would dump them.
And likely Fox will gain some more, now that CBS audience figures are slumping because of their patent dishonesty/incompetence.
Fox viewers are a cross section of the political spectrum as evidenced by the commentary they get.
They almost always provide both sides of an issue in a debate. They covered both party conventions providing more coverage than any other news outlet with the exception of C-SPAN. They had opposition commenters at each convention as well as party loyalists.
They cut away from programming as readily for Senator Kerry’s speeches as they do for President Bush’s speeches.
The far left hates Fox for presenting both sides of an issue in contrast to the one-sided view they have been able to get away with for so long.
For those unfamiliar with C-SPAN: it is a non commercial cable network that broadcasts Senate and House proceedings when in session as well as Congressional committee hearings all without comment or moderation.
The network is wholly supported by the cable companies.
They also cover political speeches without comment and try very hard to balance their content.
On their morning news/interview/call in presentation the moderator never mentions his/her own name and never expresses an opinion, even when asked.
They do book features on the weekend. Usually authors speaking at book signings. Sometimes an author is interviewed and can include call in questions and comments.
People still complain about bias though. It must be for letting the other side have their say, I suppose.
JohninLondon said:
‘Sky … with a budget about 10% of the equivalent BBC expenditure.
Rubbish:
Sky UKs budget in GBP 3,656 million
BBC budget in GPB 2,798million
But facts get in the way of prejudice, don’t they?
Oh dear ‘godbless’ – JohninLondon’s post is clearly about Sky News – yet you compare the total revenue of BSkyB with the BBC’s licence fee revenue (exc. revenue from selling DVD’s of programmes we’ve already paid for).
According to an Ofcom report:
The quoted budget of Sky News (£38.6m in 2002-03) is lower than that of BBC News 24 (£43m), although a true comparison is made difficult by the way that the organisations account for newsgathering costs and other overheads.
This is just News 24 – if we include all of BBC News, upwards of £400M p.a., IIRC, then John’s 10% figure is near spot on.
Note also that Sky’s revenues are freely obtained, whereas the BBC’s are extorted by criminal law, with the extortion shockingly costing over 11% of licence fee income.
As for your jibe about facts and prejudice, consider yourself well skewered.
shocking 11%, oh my god that is outrageous!!!!!!!!!!!!
How dare they, this cannot stand,
I pay 12.75 pounds a year for that crap, wow,
you people are really petty, all this over 12 pounds,
I understand this is a matter of principle but come on, 12.75 pounds for the news. and I dont know where you get your numbers from but I dont think it’s even that high. Even if it is a measly 12.5 pounds, so bloody what. Need I also remind you that BBC news also gets alot of revenue from subscription if you live over sees or if you want to get the 24 hour service.
I think this is all rather petty,
12.5 pounds come on really,
the BBC (BBC 1, BBC 2 and the BBC Radio) also provides alot of Entertainment that dare I say isnt crap!
this whole argument about the licence is just petty
I’m sure you people pay taxes for other things that you dont readily agree with or are distant from you political beliefs such as the NHS why dont you go protest that
Khaled,
The current cost of a TV licence in the UK for a colour TV is £121:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2003/dcms127_2003.htm
This money is used to subsidise a news service that is consistently left wing, anti-US and anti-israel (check the archives of this blog for numerous examples).
Those are positions that are fine for a self-funded media outlet like The Guardian. They are not okay for the BBC, an organisation that has a legal obligation to be impartial.
Gill: Khaled was referring to the 11% of the budget spent on the news, although having posted on this forum for a while now I’ve realised that differing opinions are often ignored rather than debated, misrepresented, or just used just a excuse to have a rant. I think he makes a good point too, as much as we can debate the quality/bias of BBC’s news, I don’t think the quality of their entertainment can be matched by any British channel. If you disagree then fine, just sit back and enjoy Ibiza Reprobates Uncovered or TV’s Least Funniest Bloopers 48 or perhaps an episode of Friends that’s been aired at least 50 times before.
Theghostofredken: Apologies, but the following text misled me into thinking that Khaled was referring to the licence fee…
“I pay 12.75 pounds a year for that crap, wow,
you people are really petty, all this over 12 pounds,…”
Perhaps the lack of coherence made me think it was “just a excuse to have a rant”.
BTW., I’d rather see “TV’s Least Funniest Bloopers 48” on the airwaves than some Orla Goering distortion.
Then I feel you’re beyond help. I’ll leave you to chuckling to yourself at Steve Penk.
Well Khaled, the “over 11% of the licence fee spent on collection” figure comes from the document quoted by ‘godbless’. More than a tenth of the licence fee going on enforcement costs is dreadful (although it’s an improvement over the previous 18%+, same doc.).
‘theghostofredken’ – I think there’s lots you could teach me about misrepresentation – although you’re doing quite well by example just now 🙂
As for BBC entertainment, most of the good stuff was made (and paid for) years ago – Yes Minister, Likely Lads, Porridge, etc., although things like The Office are quite amusing.
Whatever, if it’s so good, let people choose – they’ll be queueing up in droves!
But of course that’s all a diversion from the relative costs of Sky News vs. BBC News, JiL’s original point.
Andrew: “But of course that’s all a diversion from the relative costs of Sky News vs. BBC News, JiL’s original point.” In other words it’s a point that you can’t reasonably argue against.
“Whatever, if it’s so good, let people choose – they’ll be queueing up in droves!” They probably would be given the choices on offer. I used to have SKY but the only decent channels were SKY News and the sport channels. This cost around £40 pounds a month which works out at £480 p.a. • far in excess of the licence fee. As for the others, Five • don’t make me laugh, ITV • Low budget and low quality, 4 • Not bad but an over reliance on cheap US imports. And furthermore it is relevant point, you cannot pluck this figure out the air (11% or not) without taking into account the bigger percentage of the fee spent on quality entertainment, radio, sport, and internet outlets.
Surely if the British public are late/negligent in paying their taxes (i.e the licence fee) and need chasing it’s the fault of the British public not the BBC.
A large amount of direct tax revenue goes towards chasing non payers and investigating dubious tax avoidence schemes. Is that a reason for abolishing income and corporation tax?
‘thelickspittleofredken’: “In other words it’s a point that you can’t reasonably argue against.”
I expected a better quality of response from you than that. I answered Khaled’s point, and your point (although you got it wrong saying that 11% was the cost of news – that’s the cost of enforcement), and *then* pointed out that you were, typical of the trolls hereabouts, creating a diversion from JiL’s point that Sky News costs less than a tenth of BBC News – just think, we could have half-a-dozen competing Sky-News-alikes (left, right, impartial, whatever), and still have change left over to have another 5 or 6 more!
Regardless of your tittle-tattle – the case remains, as demonstrated in almost every post on this blog, that BBC News is institutionally biased – prejudiced towards its own institutional world view.
“I expected a better quality of response from you than that.” Sir, you do flatter me.
“As for BBC entertainment, most of the good stuff was made (and paid for) years ago – Yes Minister, Likely Lads, Porridge, etc., although things like The Office are quite amusing.” Sorry I didn’t realise this constituted a response, after all the depth you go into, like naming ONE modern BBC production. Case proven then, “obliviously, it’s all crap except The Office” says Andrew, who’s very handsome and not at all patronising, even if he does say so himself.
If you don’t like feeling patronised don’t bother to come here and insult people, like you did on a comment to David Farrer earlier.
You are though very welcome though to respond sensibly and objectively (without the personal insults) to BBBC posts.
Is “troll” not an insult in your book? I’ll refrain from personal insult in future as long as you don’t refer to anyone who disagrees with you as a troll, ok?
Unlike your anonymous self, I do have a first name. You’re not some public school type accustomed to talking down to people by using surnames are you?
You were quite rude to David F. earlier. Given that and your generally destructive approach to posting here (in contrast with engaging in reasonable debate), it’s reasonable to acknowledge you as a troll.
By all means correct errors, point out innaccuracies, disagree, etc., but please try to do so in a civilised and rational manner – as if you wish to remain a welcome friend and contributor, rather than as if wish to just be antagonistic and obnoxious.
And if you really don’t like what we do or say on this blog, do set up your own ‘Impartial BBC’ blog or whatever – you seem to have a lot to say about the benefits of the BBC and a lot of time to devote to it (they may even give you a pay rise) – we’ll even link to it for you.
Don’t cross the line Andrew, I definitely didn’t go to public school. Troll is a personal insult, or in least in my book it is, so unless you refrain from using the term (I think you’ve also called Reith and RB it) I will continue to say exactly what I want. If you want people to treat this forum with respect then I suggest you start by showing respect to their opinions, in particular to those who don’t agree with you.
Thank you for doing me the courtesy of using my name in non-public-school manner, at last.
I will refain from referring to you as a troll if you will:
a) apologise to David F. for needlessly calling him a buffoon, by means of another comment on the thread in question.
b) post sensible and reasonable comments, rebuttals, points etc., rather than indulging in abusive/diversionary/destructive politicking of your own.
As I said, if you don’t like what we say on this blog, do set up your own rather than just being negative and nasty on this one.
P.S. If you wish to continue this line of debate please email me directly rather than have us spoil this thread further.
Ok. Although I will say I wasn’t being deliberately diversionary on this thread.
Getting back to the original topic, to be fair to the BBC, in the few days since I posted this article, News Online has published articles about the barren state of North Korea’s shops and also about female genital mutilation in Africa.
I do think though that it would be a good idea to have a regular Magazine feature, say weekly, highlightung injustice and oppression of these sorts – there’s plenty of it about all round the world, and precious little attention is paid to much of it because it’s not news in the sense of headlines – so if a popular News Online section like the Magazine were to highlight a ‘quiet’ injustice of the week it would help to make the world at least think about becoming a better place.
That’s a very good idea.
The tricky part is compiling documentary evidence of oppression in ‘closed’ or inaccessible parts of the world – as evidenced by the BBC report on North Korea. Who knows what the reality is there, or in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Kazakhstan, hence the ‘quietness’ of the injustice in these countries.
There’s always a danger of relying on horror stories from exiles who may have political agendas of their own.
..and there are obvious problems (covered here recently) with trying to investigate what happens in ‘closed’ places without getting people in trouble.
Tricky, yes, difficult, yes, but that’s not to say that it shouldn’t be attempted – a few fearless journalists keen to make their names, a spot of ingenuity and derring-do and bright lights get shone into dark spaces.
Heavens, if someone as well known as Peter Oborne can do an exposé on Zimbabwe (C4, last year) I’m sure a lot of light could get shone into a lot places if the news organisations did more than just chase headlines.
That of course is for ‘closed’ societies – there are plenty of injustices going on in non-totalitarian states too.
On the point of being wary of insiders motives I agree, but these places don’t have their reputations simply because we don’t know what’s going on – there’s not much smoke without fire when it comes to abusing human beings.