.
Sometimes, given a fair degree of exposure to the endless cycle of enquiries which Tony Blair’s governmental culture has tended to foster, which has spread to many areas of society, I wonder whether in addition to all the cultures of this and that which the enquiries, studies and panels identify, there is a culture of enquiries themselves.
Richard North, giving his view of the recently published BBC-sponsored report on pro-EU bias within, highlighted one classic symptom of a modern enquiry in the report- which found no evidence of ‘deliberate bias’, as though the accusation demanded proof that the BBC’s view on the world had some origin in a dark and smoky (or smokeless, in Beebland) room- the ‘feels like’ clause:
‘ ”In essence it seems to be the result of a combination of factors including an institutional mindset, a tendency to polarise and over-simplify issues, a measure of ignorance of the EU on the part of some journalists and a failure to report issues which ought to be reported, perhaps out of a belief that they are not sufficiently entertaining. Whatever the cause in particular cases, the effect is the same for the outside world and feels like bias” (-quote from report)
We take issue with this. Intended or not, it does not feel like bias. It is bias and there is no comfort in knowing that some of it might be “mindset” – which we have long suspected.’
(italics, brackets and emboldenings mine)
Of course there isn’t endemic bias at the BBC. All the actual facts and evidence turned up by the Wilson panel can be airbrushed away, just as in the Rathergate enquiry.
I wonder what conclusion Hutton would have reached on the EVIDENCE in the Wilson report. Probably a more crisp and succinct statement that the facts drove him to only one conclusion.
I am happy with this report as quoted….they know reading between the lines they are in big trouble. A Green Paper due next month, critical reports, the Governors being silent dummies of whom at present i think 7 of the 12 are former Government officials………and the audience share at 35%……….not a good basis for tax-funded broadcasting.
The audiences voted with remote controls rather than on/off switches…….BBC is bereft and has alienated too many people……..it is like General Motors – big and beached – as customers defect and it has money but no product………………
The BBC has this time irritated both big political parties……it cannot play favours any more and it is a dog that has had its day………the BBC will survive….but not this BBC
According to ‘Broadcast’ magazine the poor lambs at the BBC are being offered ‘trauma counselling’ (no doubt F O C) due to what they witnesssed reporting the tsunami.Not just those who went there , even includes those who saw pictures beamed back.This is the same organisation who endlessly critize british troops facing the violence in Iraq – for a fraction of their salary.
“Off topic”
http://obsidianorder.blogspot.com/2005/01/very-special-effect.html
Have a look at these photographs of a ‘pre-election’ explosion in Iraq and read the comments.
Look familiar?
Wasn’t the same instance shown on the BBC news last night?
That the BBC is biased is one thing but for goodness sake, can’t they even achieve a decent standard of propaganda?
(You’ll get the story by clicking ‘Homepage’)
Steve M,
If they are found to be faked/staged, how miniscule/played down do you think the retraction the BBC will put out will be? Do you think they will even bother with a retraction?
No, I doubt it. After all, which news agencies would expose it?
GOOD NEWS …..They got him…..not Al Zarqawi… the other enemy of Iraq, the BBC…check it out
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050129/325/fbd3x.html
not a good day for the beeb methinks!
“…Iraq’s health minister said the BBC misinterpreted the statistics it had received and had ignored statements from the ministry clarifying the figures.”
Another POS from the big blouse himself, John Simpson, in a Rather-like attempt to influence an election.
Only difference is this is Britain, so nothing will happen.
“GOOD NEWS …..They got him…..not Al Zarqawi… the other enemy of Iraq, the BBC…check it out
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050129/325/fbd3x.html”
Yes – an appalling lapse by the Beeb (John Simpson no less, informing a believing Fiona Bruce on the Ten O’Clock News).
So, why did such an error end up being broadcast so quickly, without being double-checked? Because it fitted the Beeb’s agenda perhaps?
I watched today’s 10.00pm News. There was no apology, no retraction, not even a mention.
No surprise there then.
Here’s the BBC “retraction”:
Iraq data ‘includes rebel deaths’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4219451.stm
If you’re thinking this doesn’t look much like an appropriate retraction for such a major error on a major story – you’d be correct.
Steve M
I mentioned on the previous post about how Sky was taken in by the faked/staged/arranged bombing also. This is not just fishy but Billingsgate fishy. At least two British MSMs have been caught out. An investigation is called for, no doubt.
Wally Thumper
The news on BBC One tonight briefly mentioned the Panorama ‘statistical cock up’ at 11.10pm. They said an explanation is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama. I’ve just checked and at the momen their isn’t one.
“…Iraq’s health minister said the BBC misinterpreted the statistics it had received and had ignored statements from the ministry clarifying the figures.”
This is absolutely blatant. I simply won’t buy any ‘cock up’ theory. They have been caught lying. From my armchair in Blighty it’s obvious that our (I mean US, British, Iraqi and other) boys aren’t responsible for 60 per cent of civilian deaths. It simply isn’t credible. The last 48 hours have shown the BBC to be a true fifth column.
The BBC changed the original page that had the bogus figures. But it is cached, for now, at Google.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:4Xq9XVIILVwJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4217413.stm+iraq+casualty+figures%2Bbbc&hl=en
I used “Hello” to capture a screenshot of the original, complete with Simpson’s photo (that’s how cock sure he was), and posted it on my site here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-bbc-admits-it-lied-about-iraq-war.html
This is no simple mistake. Simpson is not just any old BBC reporter. He is the BBC’s world affairs editor.
He should resign like Rather, er, step aside, uh, go to another show…oh whatever!
Alas, the BBC’s lie is already circling the globe:
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=2992
I suspect the correction won’t travel as quickly.
I believe the old saying is: “A Lie makes it halfway around the World, Before Truth gets it’s Pants On.”
Dunno who said it, but it seems to apply here. You can bet the beeb knows it too.
StinKerr
That was my thought exactly on reading this disgraceful account – “A Lie can be half way round the world before Truth has got its boots on”.
This casts John Simpson in terrible light. His voiceover ads for the Panorama programme seemed to be gloating. There should be a fulsome apology, this was a terrible slur on the coalition forces. Instead we get this half-baked and sly semi-retraction. Sounds very like the Gilligan affair to me.
Winston Churchill said that.
Yep, John Simpson, World Affairs Editor, on Panorama, the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme, pre-announce a deeply critical Iraq story that just happens to fit the BBC’s worldview, on the eve of the elections.
Parallels can be drawn with Rathergate reports:
“The panel said a “myopic zeal” to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story about [casualties in Iraq] was a key factor in explaining why [BBC] News had produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet the organization’s internal standards.”
“The Panel does note, however, that on such a politically charged story, coming in the midst of a presidential campaign in which [casualty] records had become an issue, there was a need for meticulous care to avoid any suggestion of an agenda at work. The Panel does not believe that the appropriate level of care to avoid the appearance of political motivation was used in connection with this story.”
Off topic: “A brief guide to unconscious BBC bias”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1462256,00.html
By Rod Lidle! Rod Liddle was a former BBC employee and editor of the BBC Today program. My understanding is that he was one of the advocates of the ‘Why is the bastard lying
to me’ school of journalism. He was also the man who recruited Andrew Gilligan to ‘sex up’ BBC
news.
“The BBC, across the board adopts an approach it thinks the majority will agree with or-
and here’s the rub- should agree with.”
I think he is too kind to his former employers, claiming that it is noble intentions that forces this bias.
Personally, having been unfortunate enough to do some consulting at the BBC, I am more
cynical, they are like any other organisation. There as many empires and well paid jobs
at the BBC than there are at many global corporations.
Last night I saw what I assume was a BBC reporter at work. He was tall, thin and blond with an angular face and the kind of clipped accent we Americans love.
He had been interviewing an Iraqi family but he wasn’t satisfied with the results. ‘They immediately identified me with the coalition forces, (must have been the accent) and might not have told me the truth but what I wanted to hear.’
Only it wasn’t what he wanted to hear as obviously the Iraqi woman had had nothing bad to say about the coalition forces.
Betcha he wouldn’t have been worried about her truthfulness if she had told him about rapes and murders and similar atrocities.