Another reader writes:
There was an extraordinary example of presenter bias on WATO yesterday about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s warning on the politics of fear ( i.e. don’t mention right-wing issues!).
Nick Clarke: Now, have you seen evidence in the campaign so far of the exploitation of fear?
Rowan Williams: Well, of course the campaign hasn’t formally started yet, has it?
NC: I accept that – in the pre-campaign then, there’s been plenty going on, have you seen any evidence so far?
RW: I think it’s inevitable that there’s an emphasis on this campaign to go that way, and the temptation is to hit that first, I think.
NC: So when, for instance, I know you’re not going to be party political, but the Conservatives have raised, quite often, haven’t they, immigration and crime and so on, that’s the sort of thing that worries you, is it?
RW: It’s a cross-party phenomenon, but yes, that’s the sort of thing that worries me.
Dr Williams had to correct Nick Clarke (!), who assumed, as BBC presenters so often do, that the raising of issues such as immigration is beyond the pale.
I have to say I don’t see anything wrong with Nick Clarke’s comments – the Conservatives have been setting the agenda on these issues, and doing it quite well.
Rowan Williams was trying to avoid ‘getting involved in politics’ whilst, er, getting involved in politics.
I’d go further than that though. Nick Clarke is one of the few decent presenters left on the beeb – for instance, I have absolutely no idea what his politics is. He avoids flippant lefty remarks (a la Eddy Mair & Gavin Esler) and the WaO sets a pretty high standard.
WaO looks pretty isolated though. It’s the progamme that time forgot.
Yes Nick Clarke on WaO seemed incredulous at Labours new found zeal for home ownership Alan Milburn saying it gives people a steak in the economic benefits of the economy, and singing the praises of John Prescott’s efforts for home owners. I nearly fell of my chair. 😆
Much as it pains me to say this, I’ve generally found Nick Clarke to be rather even-handed. Of course, he does operate within the overall agenda set by the BBC (choice of item, who gets interviewed etc). But the general impression I get is that he’s not completely happy with towing the usual lefty line.
I’m not an avid listener to WATO so it’s probably safe to say I’m mistaken. I saw a comment elsewhere that would suggest I am. Am I? I’d like to know.
I have found Nick Clarke to be probably the best current BBC interviewer (no doubt why he has been left to moulder away on WAO rather than moving to TV). I have written to him several times and always had a thorough and straightforward reply. It is true though that even a good man can struggle in the new feminised and oh so PC BBC.
While I am yet another person who thinks Nick Clarke is generally pretty good, I am surprised the earlier commenters did not see what is wrong with the *framing* of certain “Tory” issues (immigration and crime) as being “the exploitation of fear.”
One way or another half of politics deals with fear. For instance I fear the loss of our liberties to the EU, or a left-winger fears the loss of our social safety net to global capitalism, or an anti-war activist fears the horrors of war. Why should only those issues that might benefit the Tories be called the politics of fear?
Then Nick Clarke goes on, rather in the tone of someone trying to get a person on a diet to have a slice of cake, to try and get Dr Williams to say that it’s the Conservatives doing the fear bit. Williams rather improved my opinion of him by resisting the cake!
I don’t think it was Mr Clarke’s finest hour.
Natalie,
Fair enough. I’m not so sure people didn’t see the ‘framing’ though. It’s more that we take it for granted I think – just part of the furniture. But it’s right and necessary to keep pointing it out, as you have.
I’m not looking to excuse Nick Clarke as such, but I’d hate to malign an innocent, if that he be. Given the ‘theme’ (set by the editor?) it strikes me that he probably had little choice.
Still, they’re all guilty until proved innocent as far as I’m concerned. I do have some principles, y’know. 🙂
Way O/T – not about BBC bias, rather their shameful incompetence:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1340529.html?menu=
Of course Nick Clarke framed ‘fear’ in Conservative terms. He said it. He could have framed it in Labour terms by citing the efforts of Blair, Blunkett and Charles Clarke to have us believe only ID cards and detention without trial will save us from mass murder at the hands of terrorists, that a Conservative government will sack all doctors, nurses and police (as they have) and that Muslims cannot trust the Jew Michael Howard.
Alternatively, he could have framed ‘fear’ in a politically neutral way. He simply chose not to.
NJW: Re your O/T:
They thought Bob Marley was still alive? Who else did they send inquiries to? Glenn Miller? Frank Sinatra? Keith Moon?
I heard the Bob Marley story on the radio this morning and the BBC came clean. No April Fool’s joke. And they think Bush is an idiot!
I must have missed Eisenhower’s analysis of the Iraq War …
Why was`nt the Archbishop asked some hard questions,like what does he do to alleviate the problems he refers to?Or that we can be concerned about those topics and about crime and immigration.And how these issues affect him personnaly.Has he ever been physically attacked or burgled?Does he have a credit card which could be cloned?DOES he have to worry about anything?
And why does he seem to be mumbling,have the BBC muted his voice?
OT. Politics of Fear and Right-wing issues…the gypsies. A story with the two essential elements for a Beeb liberal…a) romany-tic outsiders battling unfeeling bureaucracy; and b) white middle-class antagonists who probably all read the Daily Mail and whose views and feelings therefore don’t count, even though those people pay their salaries.
For those who don’t know, the BBC World Service has a Learning English site, which they use to promulgate their ‘distinctive’ worldview. The Week 12, Monday, lesson deals with gypsies. And deals with this divisive issue in classic Beeb style.
Against the colourful background of a mischievious violin, Frank the Romany gypsy reminisces about the old days. In fact, the lesson is built around Frank’s quotes: ‘You can’t even hear the rain in a house can you…I love to hear the rain. I suppose it’s cos of the way we’ve been brung up. I suppose it’s like taking a bird out of a tree and putting him in a cage.’
After the music and Frank, English students are then introduced to the other side of the story. Except, of course, they’re not. Sarah Spencer, from the Comission of Racial Equality, talks about the lack of legal traveller sites. And that’s it. The implication being, as the makers of this programme well know, that anyone who has a problem with travellers is a NIMBY, a racist and a bigot.
So, armed with both sides of the story, students are then invited to follow the links to the Beeb’s news site, where they are urged to have their say on the issue.
The link is here, bottom right: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/talkaboutenglish/monday/
Elsewhere on this site, a correspondent raised the matter of the BBC’s refusal to allow a representative from the BNP to ‘contribute’ to Question Time (TV) or Any Questions (Radio 4). It’s one of the BBC’s biases which I could understand or, at least, I thought I could. On Thursday’s edition of Any Questions, up popped George Galloway just before I switched off. What is the rationale for this? GG heads a grouping which aligns itself openly with Islamo-nazis and he is allowed on the BBC’s flagship debating programme. To my knowledge, the BNP does not support terrorism (although they appear to have quite a bit in common with GG’s views – anti-Iraq war, anti-Israel, anti-US). In the elections for the Mayor of London and the European assembly, the BNP polled higher than GG’s mob. From the wording of the BBC’s charter and the invitations given to GG, the BNP’s case is sound. What the BBC should do is invite neither of these groups, but why and how does Galloway get onto such programmes?
“What the BBC should do is invite neither of these groups…”
Why? The very justification of having a national “public service” broadcaster paid for by all (with enforcement) is that all viewpoints within the nation have the opportunity of being expressed and challenged – this concept is one of the cornerstones of its charter. Having George Galloway, the BNP, and other (legally based) extremists on air should be de rigueur for an organisation like the BBC.
I think the whole concept of so-called “public service” broadcasting (and the enforced BBC in particular) is ridiculous. But if you’re going to have it, then at least force it to observe its remit.
.
PJF, I agree with your sentiment that the BBC should observe the letter of its Charter, and the BNP’s recent electoral success does support its case for reperesentation on the BBC’s political output. What I’m querying is how those out on the far Left appear regularly on QT and AQ but their counterparts on the so-called far-Right do not. This is evident bias and I wonder whether the BBC’s charter has legal foundation in that it can be enforced by legal instruction (if the BNP were to bring to court and win such a case). The BNP and leftist equivalents are often on Radio 4’s The Moral Maze – and it is by some distance the BBC’s best broadcast because the boundaries are broken.
NJW: Re your O/T:
They thought Bob Marley was still alive? Who else did they send inquiries to? Glenn Miller? Frank Sinatra? Keith Moon?
Susan
Don’t forget Elvis…