who think it’s clever to bugger around with photos as a means of expressing their own petty political prejudices have been busy again.
|
The photo of Norman Tebbit (see right) on the story Tebbit attacks ‘unreformed’ Islam has clearly been tampered with – first off they’ve selected the worst photo they could find of him, then they’ve slanted it to the left, then they’ve whacked up the white balance to make the picture look completely overexposed. |
 |
Looking through a selection of other BBC Tebbit (hey, that has a ring to it) photos, we can see that there are none anywhere near as bad as the one they’ve cooked up for this story.
Likewise, if we look at the BBC’s selection of pictures for a couple of randomly selected leftie elder-statesmen, Lord Callaghan and Robin Cook, we can see that none of their pictures have been manipulated in such a malicious manner.
To the Beeboids reading this, please do kick the backside of whoever cooked up this Tebbit picture – it’s not big and it’s not clever, and it clearly shows just how paper thin your claims to impartiality really are. To be fair, I suppose it could just be down to sheer incompetence – of the graphics person, the story compiler and the sub-editor, rather than bias – but that’s not saying much for you either.
I’m taking a summer break, so this may be my last post for a little while (unless I get some time to spare before going away), but I’m sure my colleagues will keep a light shining on the BBC in the meantime.
Update: I am informed on good authority that the picture of Norman Tebbit was not digitally manipulated. I am happy to accept that that is the case, however, the selected photo is poorly composed and very badly overexposed. It is therefore unrepresentative of and unfair to Lord Tebbit, and should not have been used. Lord Tebbit was shown on Newsnight on the campaign trail during the recent general election, looking rather hale and hearty. A screengrab from that would have sufficed if no better photo was available in the BBC’s archives.
A quick one for Ian Barnes:
If you go to the BBC website, type in Hamilton-Jewell British military police and you should find five pages of stories on this website.
Stories are always archived, never destroyed, but you have to do is use the serach engine at the top right hand side.
The story I am sure you aill agree was fully covered.
Paul Reynolds
BBC news website
“i am very supportive indeed of the americans.i believe they are a source of good and all things positive.
i also believe there is a measure of selflessness in all american actions.this is not a quality found elsewhere.”
Wow. That’s a lot farther than I, a loyal American, would go. To be frank I rather hope our foreign policy is based on a healthy degree of self interest. Of course what’s good for America might very well be good for other people too.
“so wishing them the best i believe there is no possible positive outcome in today’s iraq.the whole situation will weigh heavily on the americans.”
Not as heavily as the consequences of a precipitate retreat would, believe me! Been there, done that, (Vietnam) but this time the killing fields wouldn’t be limited to some faraway place.
A fawning, gushing, completely unbalanced portrayal of Hugo Chavez’s “new socialism.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4721961.stm
Filed away for future reference. When Chavez’s wonderful “land reform” policies reap the same results as Mugabe’s, can we relieve the BBC of some of its vast extortionary revenues to pay for food for the starving?
Hi Paul
My only final comment on this matter, i watch Channel 4 news. I think it is great.
I really feel Channel 4 is the model to aim for, its balanced, neutral and presents both sides of an argument, allowing the end user i.e. person at home to decide one way or the other.
That for me is the best way to present news.
On the BBC i am really sad to say, and i mean it, i always thought the BBC would strive for impartiality, but it doesnt appear able to do it.
For me if the BBC can emulate the Channel 4 model, then i will happily support it.
I give you my opinion in the hope that perhaps change might be possible.
I dont want extremism, or any kind of slant as is often the case. I just feel like for example if you are ill, once you have accepted that and been diagnosed, you can either take action and try to change/ improve things, or you can sit back and die a slow death.
I know what i would prefer.
Good luck in your quest for positive change at BBC HQ.
Ian
mr reynolds
as a supporter of free speech i would defend your right to whatever opinions you may have. as i am forced under penalty of law to pay for your opinions i do not support them or your right to hold them.
rather than making excuses for your rotten employer, resign and breathe the rarified air of truly free speech.
Paul Reynolds
As a Worls Affairs Correspondent for the BBC you may, from time to time, run into one Stuart Hughes, a World News Producer with BBC News:
http://stuarthughes.blogspot.com/2003/02/im-stuart-hughes-world-news-producer.html
If so, do tell him that in his position it’s not impressive nor is it prudent to so openly broadcast his views on George Bush; this claim to impartiality tends to lose credibility:
http://stuarthughes.blogspot.com/2005/08/hands-up-if-you-say-youre-innocent-my.html
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/07/iraq-war-support-put-uk-at-risk.html
Marc actually sussed out Prof Paul Wilkinson that well known anti war chap last year…..so Paul R quotes him…and Wilkinson is just as bad if not worse than Rime Allaf!
(Sorry Marc…beat you to it!)
OT
Might be of interest to people here.
Some of Gorgeous George’s and Sir Iqbal’s friends over at the PA.
Not something Orla and J. Reynolds will ever report on of course.
“Annihilate the Infidels”, a Study of the Ongoing Anti-British Religious Hatred in the PA.
Mr Reynolds,
Rob Read Reader is my “fan” {hooray}, not me.
Perhaps, you could get it right then you’d have fans too. Maybe it’s becuase I don’t rely on neo-slavery to fund my comments?
🙂
As an interim measure before abolishment of the License fee. License fee holders should be able to vote to elect the BBC board. Perhaps Mr Forsyth or Mark Steyn is looking for another job at the BBC, it would certainly enlarge the BBCs hideously left culture and help with political diversity.
http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/2005/08/harold-evans-strikes-again.html
Ref the post on Evans herewith a good fisking of the original article by the americanexpat ! Yet again people like Evans being allowed to play fast and loose with ‘facts’ and not being checked. What DO editors do all day at the BBC?
The BBC – today’s equivalent of the turkey shoot target – they can’t help themselves and help us shoot ’em down….
Mr Read: I do apologise.
I suppose I thought that “Reader” was part of the noms de plume which are favoured by contributors here. I should have realized that there was a difference — you use uppper case. Thank you for that.
As for substance, I can only repeat what I have said before. The BBC license fee is a matter for the British voters and government.
To Mr Reader: I am disappointed that you choose to use terms of personal abuse. I come to this site as I am indeed paid by people like you but surely debate does not have to be abusive.
To JIl re Prof Wilkinson: I think he would be most surprised to be called a leftie. He is a leading academic expert on terrorism.
Now I must get back to the trough.
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
Just one more thing I noticed before I go.
To Dave t: If you actually read the quotes from Prof Wilkinson on USS Neverdock, you will not find evidence that he opposed the war in Iraq.
“PROF. WILKINSON: I think that whatever your views about the desirability or otherwise of military intervention in Iraq, we have to be realistic. The al-Qaida organization and its affiliates would take this as an opportunity for propaganda, for further recruitment, and undoubtedly would use it as an opening for additional attacks.”
Could you therefore give me chapter and verse to back up your claim that Wilkinson is, as you put it, “that well known anti war chap last year.” Thanks.
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
roxana cooper
1 i did say as soon as decently possible.
2 i too believe that american actions should be more ruled by self-interest.
3 i do believe that in future america should should shun ground invasions.use the air-force.if it takes longer then so be it.
4 it is a military axiom that the longer the distance travelled the less chance of military victory.america is able to project power more effectively then others.yet the axiom is servicable.
5 finally america should understand that the cost of oil is far more then the wretched 65 dollars that the markets indicate.a gas tax is urgently needed.
Who said the BBC is against preemptive actions?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/4179106.stm
max | 24.08.05 – 11:01 am | #
Here again the BBC have used a very unflattering picture of David Cameron, they could very easily have used this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk_politics/03/shadow_cabinet/html/education.stm
————————————-
Paul Reynolds writes Popped back in to pick up my mail but really this is only for Peter since he has raised specific points.
Paul, I’m sorry that on your way to the toilet or something you did not find the time to address my post questions above – which I know also made ‘specific points’. We really don’t need to know your movements through the day, or any excuse you feel is necessary to justify your posting here. I believe I’m speaking for most of us to say it’s good that you do take the time to answer at least a few of them, even if not very satisfactorily.
But really, again I’m not surprised you have avoided confronting the points I made. The question in my mind is “what do you think when you see them?”. These points confirm bias and poor reporting on the part of the BBC, whether through design or incompetence. Your avoidance at confronting them shows willfullness since you are conscious that something is wrong and you prefer to ignore it. This is enough for me, as it confirms any doubts I might have had about the BBC agenda, (although can’t really say I had any) and its plan to immorally continue with it. You will not fob us off with your normal BS that you lay on your serving public – you do not brainwash us and we see what you do.
BTW, has the BBC considered taking the approach that Islamist terrorism is a result of a strategy to take over the world by doing its best to undermine, divide, and finally conquer our societies. In which case they will use every excuse that they feel will further their goal, including pretexts like the Iraq war, prisoner abuse, support for Israel, OR ANYTHING THEY FEEL SERVES THEM. Or is the BBC going to continue to do all that it can to help them by its present manner of reporting? Call me cynical, but until there’s a revolt inside your own organisation of those sickened by what you do, or the public refusing to support you anymore, I doubt there will be much change.
Just a reminder to those reading of the petition to be sent to Tony Blair to end the BBC Bias. There are 325 so far and we need at least 10 times that amount to have any impact.
http://www.petitiononline.com/bbbc/petition.html
Paul Reynolds,
I’d like to address what you claimed was your original purpose in posting here. You pointed out that blogs such as Biased-BBC do not provide the type of balance that they demand from the BBC, and you suggest that they are failing somehow in not pointing out the many instances in which the BBC is balanced and fair. As a journalist yourself, you should know that this is a foolish stance to take.
Does the BBC report the many instances in which bombs do not go off on trains? Does it report on the many people who do not go missing, or get burgled, or get murdered? Of course not.
The role of Biased BBC and its kin is not to congratulate the BBC for doing what, by law, it is suppose to do. It is to point out the instances in which it fails to do so. And, while the BBC is often balanced in its news presentation, the instances in which it is not are, unfortunately, legion. It is just as ridiculous to expect those who have set themselves up as watchdogs of the BBC to document the many instances in which the BBC does its job properly as it is to expect the BBC to document the many instances in which, say, a politician has not been corrupted.
You may have a point about “balance” if you think that the watchdogs are only pointing out bias that goes one way (eg anti-Americanism or anti-war) but not bias that goes the other way (eg pro-Americanism or pro-war). But I think you would have a very difficult time making that case, because the other side simply does not exist to any serious extent. The bias at the BBC goes almost universally one way. If it didn’t, you would find Biaed-BBC-like blogs attacking the BBC from the left. If you can find a significant number of such sites, if any at all, I would be extremely surprised.
Lastly, you seemed to think it fairly important that people not be anonymous here. I’m not sure why, but I’m happy to tell you who I am. My name is Scott Callahan, and you can find out even more about me in my bio at http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/ My e-mail address is sccinuk@yahoo.co.uk (It would be nice if BBC reporters/editors made theirs public!) Feel free to drop me a line if you are truly interested in a serious, respectful discussion with a non-anonymous person about the bias problem that exist at the BBC.
Scott Callahan
The American Expatriate
Surrey
Is it me, or did everyone else notice that Paul Reyonalds completely ignored my challenge to him?
Oh, well, the bias at BBC continues unabated. 🙂
Marc
Yeah, I noticed.
He’s in a difficult position as he chose not to post anonymously (!) for if he engaged in debate or even commented on the points you raised, he’d be Liddled before his mug of coffee touched his desk. Remember he does work in the Lublianka which is Broadcasting House.
marc, it’s a good sign that he did ignore it. It means he couldn’t, so he just picked the ones he thought he could get around.
Paul
In this interview immediately before the war on Saddam, Prof. Wilkinson expresses his view that a war in Iraq would be counter productive in combatting terrorism, and describes the US position as arrogant.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0306/p17s01-wogi.html
I am interested to see that, considering the BBC’s obvious regard for Prof Wilkinson’s professional expertise, the BBC website has not reported a remarkable speech made by him in July last year
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&requesttimeout=500&folder=1393&paper=1698
in which the two principal points he made were that (1) Al Qaeda is a very real organisation presenting a very clear and present danger to the free world and (2) that the free world should respond with unity and resolution to defend themselves from Al Qaeda’s attempt to destabilise world politics by overthrowing the government of Muslim countries.
As he says “Above all, we need to work together to win the vital battle of ideas against al-Qaeda’s cruel ideology.”
Haven’t seen much of that resolve, unity or attempts to win the battle of ideas in the BBC’s reportage of Iraq, or the risible responses of interviewers on the Today Programme when contributors say that blowing up women and children is incomprehensible unless they are Israeli have we?
“The Power of Nightmares”? Huh! The power of quislings more like!
Oh that was gooood…the past few days of hyperactive discussion have been great!
Mr Reynolds
I did not say Wilkinson was a leftie. But the BBC fields a lot of leftie profs….and comedians… and newspaper journalists ! As well as many of its presenters. Further left than New Labour, many of them.
To marc: there is, as I say to quite a lot of your fellow bloggers, no need to be distateful in your comments. We can have a useful dialogue if we both follow civilsed norms and avoid insults, implied or direct.
I have been thinking about your comments amd will reply, though of course I cannot in my small way carry the whole load thr BBC on my back! There will be some issues on which I am just as much an ordinary citizen as you.
By the way, are you the captain of USS Neverdock? Forgive my ignorance if you are, but it would be nice to know. It is difficult to know who is who on this site.
At least The American Expatriate has identified himself and I will be happy to respond. I lived for four years in New York once and later forthree years in Washington, so I am not entirely ignorant of the United States.
But please remember that I have a job to do for which you all pay.
Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online
I think my remarks about distasteful comments actually apply to Teddy Bear not to marc. But again a plea to all. We can have a dialogue but there is surely no need for abusive language.
Paul Reynolds
Paul,
I do not necessarily think either that you are or anyone else who writes about America for the BBC is ignorant of it. Rather, I think that their coverage of it, being so steeped in their own prejudices, leaves the BBC’s audience largely ignorant of it. The incessant portrayal of America as a nation steeped in religious bigotry and ignorance is a case in point. It may be true that the BBC’s reporters know such a portrayal is false, but, as Justin Webb himself has admitted, that is precisely the picture they do their best to paint.
Again, I invite you to e-mail me. I would very much like to have a dialogue about these issues with an insider at the BBC. I’m sure we would both be edified.
Scott Callahan
The American Expatriate
sccinuk@yahoo.co.uk
Rob Read
yes I am an enthusiastic fan. your instincts are spot on.
Paul, exactly what are you referring to when you state that I have been abusive? I have actually been very civil with you, and praised you for entering the fray, despite the fact that you have chosen to ignore the points I made. This I find uncivil on your part, but I made the excuses for you, since you deigned not to comment.
I think you are inventing problems to avoid answering me simply becasue you can’t.
Let me make this clear to you, although I put some of my words in a joking manner, let me assure you I’m not joking. I believe we are involved in a war between our culture and society and those that would bring us down. In my opinion the BBC works for those that would bring us down and I find the actions of the BBC in this regard treasonous and reprehensible. Your avoidance of answering direct points that show the BBC’s complicity indicates your awareness of this situation and you still try to dance around it. People are dying because of your policies, especially where you help justify attacks by militant MUSLIMS, or ignore events because of your political bent – which is illegal. I loathe what the BBC stands for, and feel that it is one of the worst forces within our society for the damage it does while using mealy mouthed accents to convince everyone that you are really civilised. Believe me, I haven’t begun to abuse you yet.
Paul, I am the author not the captain of the site USS Neverdock.
I do happen to be a retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer living in Scotland. Hence the nautical name for my blog.
I started my blog nearly two years ago because I was horrified at the anti-American and anti-Israeli “news” from the BBC.
I’ve lived in Scotland on and off for over 30 years now, returning most recently in 2000.
I could not believe how much things had changed in Scotland. Never before had I heard anti-American sentiments in my town. As I traveled to Aberdeen and Dundee, I heard even more. What was the source of this new ill will towards the US, I wondered? The BBC.
Paul, we really do appreciate your taking the time to talk with us. If some seem hostile towards you it is because we are frustrated and angry – at the BBC. Unfortunately, you represent the BBC here in this forum.
Please continue to engage with us but may I make a suggestion? Please take the time to read the links I provided, research this site, my site and we can suggest others.
Sometimes our complaints are about blatant bias or anti-American BBC articles and sometimes we complain about what seems, to you maybe, petty articles. Don’t dismiss the petty ones, they add to the overall picture of how biased the BBC is.
The bottom line is, we can’t fix the BBC if we don’t admit that it is broken. And there is no doubt that it is broken.
I don’t know how we are going to fix it. Prejudices run deep at the BBC and people’s attitudes are hard to change. But we must fix it somehow.
The BBC’s bias has become so bad that it has become a danger to society.
Suggestion for BBBC.
As you can see from the comments many people want to engage with Paul Reynolds of the BBC. This is a rare opprotunity for us to do so.
Would it be possible to start an open thread dedicated to just a round table discussion with Paul?
In addition, could everyone be polite to Paul?
I know we are all angry and frustrated at the BBC and for us here, Paul represents the BBC. But if we want to engage with him, being nasty is not the way. Why would he want to stay and get beat up on all the time? Besides, don’t we want more BBC reporters to come on and engage with us?
Mark,
I don’t think you can blame anti-Americanism in the UK on the BBC. The centre of political gravity in the UK is very different to that in the US, particularly amongst elements of the Republican support base. The current US administration obviously represents that support base and is not shy of challenging consensus reached elsewhere and pursuing its own world view. Many people here who would never dream of watching the BBC (or any broadcast) news resent this and have a genuine hostility to US superpower status unconnected to any media ‘bias’.
What these people seem unable to do however, in contrast to say the Irish’s historical antipathy towards the British government, is separate dislike for Bush and co from a general dislike of all things American. This seems pretty peurile to me.
Whilst I’d absolve the BBC of general responsibility for anti-Americanism I do agree that there are many petty digs indicative of some sort of anti US (or at least anti-‘republican’ US – and I realise that’s a generalisation) culture. Having said that I’ve read your site and personally I find it very very right wing and tunnel visioned to an extent far beyond the editorial policy of B-BBC for example, which might provide an excuse for Mr Reynolds to tactfully igore it.
Sorry, I meant Marc and the above is meant with every respect for your right to hold whatever views you see fit!
Cockney, you may find my site to “very right wing and tunnel visioned”, but I provide links to prove what I say. In fact, most of the time it’s not me saying it! I merely point out what the BBC is saying.
My latest post about the BBC is a good case in point. Did you read it?
This is the BBC talking here:
“The leaked e-mails sent by Hugh Berlyn, an assistant editor of BBC News Online, show that despite the furore surrounding the Gilligan report, dozens of “unvetted” stories appear on the internet every day. The result is a string of stories that are, at best, littered with errors and, at worst, inaccurate and potentially libellous.”
BBC reporter Justin Webb speaks:
“America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge.
I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture, and that picture is in many respects a true one.”
Paul Adams, the BBC’s defence correspondent, accused the BBC of lying in its coverage of the war.
If you read that post, did you follow any of the links? Links like these:
I have twice caught the BBC using well known anti-war activists, to fabricate stories alleging war crimes against Ameirca. See here and here. I have an email from Sarah Brown of the BBC apologizing for one of those stories and retracting it.
These are just a few examples in that post.
Nice try to add weight to your comments with this:
“…to an extent far beyond the editorial policy of B-BBC …”
Sorry Cockney, I think it is you who have tunnel vision. Read my post and follow the links. The truth and proof is there if you care to see it.
And remember, it is not me saying it, it is the BBC themselves.
Woops. Somehow my name got left off that last comment.
Man, it’s too early in the morning and I’m rushing to get the kids off to school.
I ment to include a link to my post I referred to in my comments to Cockney.
Here it is.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/britain-bbc-danger-to-society.html
To marc: thank you for identifying yourself.
I see that you had a go at me this morning on your own site. This is what I said:
“A race is developing to determine whether Iraq can evolve into a stable country before US President George W Bush’s term ends in January 2009.
If the president pulls it off, he can leave the legacy he has been seeking in the Middle East – Iraq as the democratic example which justified the war and the cost.
If he does not, his presidency will be in large part judged by a failure in Iraq.”
This was a statement of the obvious I would have thought. It was balanced between the pointing out the laurels that Mr Bush can gather if successful and the blows he will have to take if not.
I have also studied Marc your examples of BBC bias. My reply is that I would not defend them all by any means. But I do say that such examples are not enough in themselves to get a guilty verdict in a British or American jury on a conspiracy charge.
I will reply to others in due course.
regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
Paul,
I noticed that you placed an e-mail address at the bottom of yesterday’s article. Kudos. I not only hope this sets a trend at the BBC, but also that you actually read and respond to what you receive.
You say that you have looked at Marc’s examples of bias, and do not consider them enough to get a guilty verdict in a court of law on conspiracy charges. Well, for the moment I’d settle for a simple recognition of non-criminal, institutional bias. Which raises a pertinent question: What kind of evidence would it take to convince you that such an institutional political bias exists at the BBC, and that it permeates the BBC’s news coverage?
You say that you would not defend all of the examples you’ve seen. Fair enough (and quite sensible of you). But at what point would the weight of the examples that you would not defend tip over into an admission that the BBC has an institutional problem, and that steps should be taken to fix it? Can you conceive of any kind/amount of evidence which you would accept as convincing evidence of bias that would require a change in policy in order to eradicate? Or is the impossibility of a political bias becoming ingrained in the BBC culture (and hence reporting) simply received wisdom for which contrary evidence could never be produced?
As ever, I continue to look forward to a response.
Scott
TAE
sccinuk@yahoo.co.uk
To Scott Callaghan, the American Expatriate.
Thank you for identifying yourself by the way.
1. I have asked for others to do the same as I think they should stand up and be named. I do. But I do not make that a condition of debating with them.
2. The issue of balance in a blog.
The problem is that blogs like this one use the particular examples they give of bias and error to construct a general theory that the BBC is a giant conspiracy.
I think they should look at the wider picture.
This is not asking a blog to stop probing and exposing.
Let me give an example which I offered to Melanie Phillips.
In January, a BBC children’s website had an article which managed to explain the Holocaust without mentioning the Jews. Stunning.
This woeful piece of work was used by Melanie as representative of the BBC’s view of the Holocaust. Lord Reith she said would be spinning in grave. No doubt he would if that was all the BBC had done.
It was not. Shortly afterwards there was broadcast on BBC2 a multi-part documentary by Laurence Rees on Auschwitz. I think this was the most definitive account on television of the Holocaust so far. It described how it started and how it was carried out.
Lord Reith I think would have stopped spinning and would be resting comfortably again, knowing that such good work was being produced.
That is my complaint. The blog will pick up on the bad. No worries abot that. But it ignores the good in making its final judgment.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
Paul Reynolds | 25.08.05 – 2:06 pm |
to Scott, the American Expatriate
You raise a very fair point about how many examples of bad journalism you need to discredit the whole output.
I do not think the examples put forward actually come close to reaching a critical mass. Some I agree cannot really be defended. But they are selected from hours and hours of coverage and some go back quite a long way.
You talk as if the BBC did not on an hourly basis engage in checks and balances. There are countless meetings, discussions, arguments, worries etc about coverage. There are rules and guidelines and at the end of the day, plain common sense about what is fair and what is not. Is it always perfect? Of course not? Is it deliberately biased? No.
The BBC’s microphones pick up all the arguments of the day.
In the 1970’s, you might recall (if you were here then) the charge of bias was entirely the other way. The BBC was accused by unions and others of right-wing leanings. This was at a time of strikes and industrial unrest. The BBC was doing then what it does now. It was listening to and reflecting arguments among the people.
Again I think that a jury in the US or UK would conclude that although there might be some misdemeanours, there is not enough evidence to convict on a felony conspiracy charge.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
I’ll add my kudos to Scott’s for Paul’s inclusion of his email at the bottom of his articles. I hope he has a way of coping with his mail that leaves him some spare time!
I think we are only occasionally dealing with acts of deliberate deceit and/or misrepresention when it comes to BBC bias. There are undoubted examples of those, which een Paul Reynolds can admit, at the Beeb. However, what we are dealing with is an amalgamation of such tendancies with the much more widespread (within and outside the Beeb) screening out of substantive discussion concerning matters which don’t appeal to the P.C. or left leaning analysis of world affairs.
When voices are marginalised or made to feel marginal, even though they have substantive points of view, and when this process is reinforced and endorsed by a broadcaster like the BBC, is it any wonder that dishonesty and contempt concerning coverage of them arises quite often among the BBC rank and file?
The above paragraph refers to a wide range of matters- from the right to life abortion argument, to the limited government approach to poverty, to the shot gun debate, to animal testing, to hunting, to car ownership versus public transport etc. etc. In all these cases I would say the BBC in an act of collective consciousness which organisations are well known to make in corporate cultures, decides in an evolutionary way which it considers the enlightened pov, and essentially cooperates with the processes of marginalisation of the ‘unenlightened’.
There is a wider issue, which is that fundamentally the BBC accepts a pov driven version of the news- because facts, presented as information neutrally, are hard for viewers to weigh- so the BBC must decide, even if just to retain the interest of today’s mindset.
“1 i did say as soon as decently possible.”
Which should be when there is a constitutional government up and running and the foreign terrorist threat is under control and not a second before.
“2 i too believe that american actions should be more ruled by self-interest.”
Amen.
“3 i do believe that in future america should should shun ground invasions.use the air-force.if it takes longer then so be it.”
Air power alone does not work. That has been proved repeatedly, during WW II, Vietnam and Gulf War I.
“4 it is a military axiom that the longer the distance travelled the less chance of military victory.america is able to project power more effectively then others.yet the axiom is servicable.”
If that axiom was correct we should have lost the Pacific War and the British Empire would never have been built.
The US is on a continent separated by oceans from both Asia and Europe unless we want to pick a fight with Canada or Mexico *any* war is going to require our forces travel long distances, which is probably why we’ve gotten so good at ‘projecting power’.
“5 finally america should understand that the cost of oil is far more then the wretched 65 dollars that the markets indicate.a gas tax is urgently needed.”
Not unless you want a repeat of the Boston Tea Party! A gas tax to drive the price up further is exactly what we *don’t* need!
To Ed:
The addition of my e-mail address at the bottom of my stories is entirely coincidental with my contributions to the website! I did have it briefly a couple of years ago but it was dropped for some reason and we thought it time to revive it. Feel free to use it!
To your main points: I know that some sections of society feel neglected. At the moment, you appear to feel that causes which you hold dear are not given their proper prominence in the debates and discussions which the BBC holds.
But there is not in my experience any consensus within the BBC to take a certain line or to highlight one issue as opposed to another. The tide rises and falls.
Sometimes, to mix the metaphor, there is a pendulum effect. You cite car ownership, for example, as a despised issue. Yet for my generation at least, the car was never an issue. It was the green lobby, such as it was, which felt left out of public debate. City centres were pulled down for the car. I am personally grateful for Westway and Mr Rippon I recall wanted a box of such elevated motorways across the whole of London. The emphasis in the public mind in recent times has been the other way, on an anti-car agenda. This does not excuse neglect of either side but it sometimes helps to explain why one issue or another is under discussion.
BBC programmes do not choose in a vacuum. The pressures of society are on them all the time and they respond to what is current — in parliament, in other media, and dare I say, increasingly what is on the blogsites, which are important strands in the rope of public opinion.
Programmes also try to identify the issues which are next on the list and which will be of importance in the future.
A few years ago, as I pointed out to Scott Callaghan, the complaints were mostly coming from the left. During the 1970’s, when I remember riding a bus with workers into the Grunwick plant, the BBC was accused of being too right-wing etc. We were not, any more than we are left-wing now. It is simply that society changes and so do the issues. So therefore do the subjects debated on BBC programmes.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
Paul,
Sorry for the length, but while I’ve got your attention, I want to be thorough.
With regards to what will henceforth be alliteratively known as blog balance (BB):
I fear you sound a bit like the corrupt politician who gets caught taking bribes and then tries to defend himself by pointing out that he didn’t take nearly as many bribes as he could have.
My point (if not that of Melanie Philips and others) is not that the BBC never does good stories, or that the most obvious and, in your words, stunning examples of poor reporting are appropriate instances upon which to judge the whole of the BBC’s work. Nor is not my position, even if it is that of others, that the BBC represents a giant conspiracy.
It is my claim that the BBC is institutionally biased (in a political sense), and that this bias is reflected in its coverage, particularly on subjects of a political nature, although it does occasionally even make its way into otherwise non-political stories.
And let me be clear about what I mean by institutional bias. I mean that a particular sensibility and worldview is shared by the vast majority of reporters/editors (and probably even most employees) at the BBC, and that because of this, that sensibility and worldview is adopted as the normative standard by which reporting and editorial judgments are made.
While the “stunning” type of bias examples may not exemplify the general standard of BBC reporting, they are no doubt facilitated by this institutional bias. It is obviously possible, since it happened, that the BBC might produce a “woeful piece of work” about the Holocaust without mentioning the Jews. But it is darn near inconceivable that the BBC might ever produce a “woeful piece of work” about, say, the wonderful US prisoner of war facilities without mentioning Abu Ghraib. This is because its institutional sympathy with Palestine (Barbara Plett’s tears?) and hostility to Israel allow the first to sneak by, while its institutional hostility to US power (and GWB) and sympathy with whoever might be challenging the US (and GWB) would never allow the latter to sneak by. Even if a reporter wrote it, it would never get by your vaunted checking system.
Hence, to get back to blog balance, I think it is perfectly reasonable to focus on the Beeb’s most egregious examples of bias without balancing it with a litany of its properly done reports, for while in and of themselves they may not be representative of the BBC’s view (and indeed may even be condemned by the Beeb upon deeper reflection), they do fit into a pattern which does indeed help to inform us of the sort of institutional thinking that goes on there which allows it to get by in the first place.
And, by the way, I do not necessarily think that the bias at the BBC is necessarily deliberate. Again, I think it is largely the result of a lack of diversity (to use a word that I’m sure the Beeb must love) of thought, particularly on politics, which leads to a cloistered conclusion that, if everyone thinks X, then framing my report in terms of X is perfectly legitimate. What I do think is deliberate is the Beeb’s refusal to even consider the fact that a newsroom that is overrun with people of a similar political bent will necessarily be one that does not present news objectively.
Which gets me to my last point. You say that the BBC’s microphones pick up all the arguments of the day. That may be, but if all the Beeb used was a microphone, you’d be out of a job. What the microphone picks up is both influenced and filtered by the reporters who hold them and who solicit comments on them. That is probably a good thing, but only if the reporters themselves are coming from diverse points of view. I fear that such is definitely not the case at the BBC, which is one of its main institutional problems.
Scott CallahAHan
The American Expatriate
sccinuk@yahoo.co.uk
To Scott:
Institutional bias is an easy charge to make but hard to justify. I do not think you have established a critical mass of evidence to substantiate it. You provide what may be examples of bias but they show individual not institutional bias or error.
You therefore take refuge in that old hide-out, unconscious bias. This is an all-purpose cover, even harder to support and would have been added to their list of complaints by the American colonists alongside Bills of Attainder.
In my experience since joining the BBC in 1968 (Paris riots, Carnaby Street in full swing) there is no one view among its staff. That is part of its strength. I have known rightwingers who formed their own union and leftwingers who led a stike — and most everything in between and beyond.
Indeed, the BBC is criticised in some quarters for being too white, as Greg Dyke memorably remarked. He would still recognise the place.
Ah, but they are all left leaning, you say.
That ain’t necessarily so.
What determines the BBC agenda is society’s agenda. In the early seventies there was as much anti-trade unionism as there is anti-Americanism today. The BBC was regarded by the left as reactionary and rightist. Times change. So do agendas and voices.
You mention Israel and what you say is a “institutional sympathy” for Palestine. There is no instituional symapthy, but there is an institutional interest. It is one of the major issues of the day. The President of the United States wants a state of Palestine.
Back in 1967, it was rather different. The BBC was accused of being pro-Israeli. Public sympathy for the David of the Jewish state was high. Those who sought to lobby for Palestine still speak of their frustrations.
The BBC correspondent in Israal at the time was Michael Elkins. He remained there for twelve years. Whenever critics complained about an American Jew being the BBC man in Jerusalem, they were told that if he showed bias he would be removed. He did not and was not.
That is still the principle. Not who you are but what you do and say. Mistakes are made? Yes. But institutional bias, conscious or not? No.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent
BBC News Online
Paul,
Can you tell us a bit more about the BBC’s editorial guidelines and how they are not indicative of institutional bias?
For example, the reluctance to use the word “terrorism”.
For another example, Anthony Browne of the Times has reported that the BBC’s editorial guidelines forbid criticism of the Koran, but not of the Bible.
Comments?
To Susan: wihtout wishing to overwhelm you with words, here is a link to the BBC editorial guidelines:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/
Overall, they are an attempt to allow a balanced free expression of news and views.
As for the T words, they are not actually banned but discouraged. This applies not just to the Middle East bit to all conflicts. However it is not a dictat and we have used it post the London bombings and in reference to 9/11. There is no hard and fast rule.
This is what the Guidelines say:
“Terror
We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word “terrorist” itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.
We should not adopt other people’s language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like “liberate”, “court martial” or “execute” in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent, and “militant”. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.”
As for Anthony Browne’s story, I think he must be referring to this section of the Guidelines.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/religion/religioneditori.shtml
“We will reflect an awareness of the religious sensitivity of references to, or uses of, names, images, the historic deities, rituals, scriptures and language at the heart of the different faiths and ensure that any use of, or verbal or visual reference to them are treated with care and editorially justified. Examples include the Crucifixion, Holy Communion, the Koran, and the Jewish Sabbath.”
Now as you can see you could read into this that you cannot criticise the Koran but that the Bible is not mentioned. However, the list gives only examples and the implication is that all religions muist be treated with care.
Paul Reynolds
etc
Paul,
Are “Popetown” and “Jerry Springer The Opera” examples of the BBC’s awarenes of religious sensitivities?
Why are there no “Meccatowns” or “Muhammad The Operas” being broadcast by the BBC?
To Susan: I cannot answer for everything the BBC does! I provided you with the guidelines you asked for.
I do incidentally remember the day the fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie, as I tried to reach him by phone and I think you will find that coverage of that issue was pretty full over the years.
Paul R
Paul,
You are correct. Institutional bias is easy to charge and difficult to justify. And if it is difficult to justify, it is necessarily easy to deny even when it does exist, especially for those who have a vested interest in denying its existence. And remember, the fact that a thing is difficult to prove beyond doubt does not necessarily mean that it is not reasonable to accept the truth of that thing.
What makes the charge of institutional bias most difficult to justify is the fact that, in the absence of a directive instructing the workers to behave in a manifestly biased manner, there is no concrete evidence that one can provide. The only way to provide evidence to those who themselves do not recognize the bias is to cite individual instances in which the bias is manifested. What makes it easy to deny is the ability of the denier to accept the individual charge, but reject that the sum of instances amounts to a proven institutional bias. It can always be blamed on the individual without necessarily implicating the institution. Not surprisingly, this is precisely the strategy you have employed here. Time after time you have implicitly acknowledged that individual charges of bias are true (“I won’t defend that”), but assert that they just don’t add up to enough to convince you.
Which is precisely why I asked you what evidence you would ever accept as justifying the overall charge. You granted me that it was a fair question, but you never actually answered it. You simply (re)asserted that whatever we had, it wasn’t enough.
So I ask again: Can you conceive of any evidence, and identify either its nature or its abundance, that we could provide to you that would, in your mind, justify the charge of institutional bias? Or is it simply a matter of faith for you that, at the BBC, no such bias could ever spring into existence, and that therefore any single instance of acknowledged bias can only be attributable to individual failure?
BTW, do you accept that bias can manifest itself in more subtle forms than just the “stunning” type of examples which you have conceded so far?
Scott
The American Expatriate
sccinuk@yahoo.co.uk
Paul,
Also, a few ripostes:
PR says: “You provide what may be examples of bias but they show individual not institutional bias or error. You therefore take refuge in that old hide-out, unconscious bias.”
This baffles me. It seems to imply that the instances of individual bias that you acknowledge must be deliberate. Are you really acknowledging deliberate bias, albeit individual, on the part of BBC reporters? If not, then are you saying that individuals can be unconsciously biased, but institutions cannot be? If so, why? If not, then I confess I have no idea what you mean by the above.
PR says: “This is an all-purpose cover, even harder to support and would have been added to their list of complaints by the American colonists alongside Bills of Attainder.”
Believe me, the American colonists would have had a problem with the very notion of a BBC, much less its behaviour. Ever read the 1st amendment?
PR says: “In my experience since joining the BBC in 1968 (Paris riots, Carnaby Street in full swing) there is no one view among its staff.”
In the US they do regular polls of print and media journalists to gauge their political leanings and voting habits. The results are inevitably skewed towards the left, usually by quite a lot. I don’t know if the same is or has been done here, but if it has, I would be quite happy to place a wager with you on the leanings of the BBC reporting staff. I’d be surprised if as much as 10% of them voted conservative. (BTW, has a presenter of the BBC ever, even going back to 1968, referred to the Tories as “we”?)
PR says: “What determines the BBC agenda is society’s agenda.”
Society may help determine the types of things the BBC covers, but it does not determine how the BBC covers it. In what way has society dictated to the BBC that it should paint America as “..an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers etc” (I’m sure you know the quote by now)? Are you really suggesting that the reason the BBC’s coverage of America is so often misinformed and anti-American is because that is the way the British people want it to be?
PR says: “The President of the United States wants a state of Palestine.”
Yes he does. He also wants a state of Israel. I’m not at all sure that is true of many of your BBC colleagues.
PR says: Back in 1967, it was rather different.
The BBC has surely gone through a great many changes in its corporate culture since 1967. The fact that it was accused of one bias back then (whether legitimate or not) has little bearing on whether it is biased in a different way today.
Scott
TAE
sccinuk@yahoo.co.uk
Scott to PR Are you really suggesting that the reason the BBC’s coverage of America is so often misinformed and anti-American is because that is the way the British people want it to be?
That can’t be the answer given that the BBC doesn’t support the wishes of the majority on the EU, punishment of criminals, asylum, etc. In these cases the BBC adopts a position that it thinks the British people should take, so the same probably applies to its anti-US stance.
Excellent points Scott. I hope PR returns to deal with them.