May I firstly thank all those who have been commenting recently. There have been some riveting exchanges, and I feel Paul Reynolds may be regretting slightly that he came along to make our site even a little livelier! (I hope not regretting too much). Personally I think it’s clear- we all care about the media we have, and that makes our discussions full of interest to people of all kinds.
Anyhow, let me start the ‘BiasedBBC’ aspect of this post by pointing you to the triumphant return- after holidays- of the brilliant Melanie Phillips. Paul Reynolds has been arguing here doggedly that the BBC does not demonstrate any certifiable institutional bias, while acknowledging isolated instances, so it was interesting to read Melanie’s take on BBC radio’s flagship news programme- The Today Programme (I highlight the most interesting phrasing):
‘The rules of the BBC Radio Four Today programme’s game clearly have not changed one whit. Wednesday’s edition demonstrated that, bombs or no, it is still performing its iconic function as the noticeboard of a sick establishment.’
Read on for commentary on the latest C4Newsesque BBC reportage.
Melanie has relentlessly pointed out the biases on this particular programme. They are repeatedly noticed by many who visit this site. And this is theflagship of BBC radio news- the talk-based service that almost unarguably epitomises the BBC’s approach to broadcasting.
Second item is to flag up the American Expatriate’s great exchanges with the aforementioned Mr Reynolds. I followed glued to the screen (yes, a little sad- I know) on our own comments box, but was hesitant to lift the exchange from our comments to the main blog to widen their exposure. Fortunately Scott has been chronicling the exchange on his own site– and we don’t mind visiting, do we? You can find two posts so far- here and here.
A taster to read on this site:
‘Paul Reynolds: 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.TAE: 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.’
To which I feel like saying only: indeed.
Too late JohninLondon, they already cancelled them.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1634362005
Seamus,
” BoyBlue, why are you assuming all Muslims are extremists?”
I’m not. But their belief system is certainly an extremist ideology, that as it stands at present, is incompatible with all western liberal democracies. An incompatibility that will incidentally only become more apparent as the power and influence of islam grows within the UK.
What are the moderates doing about this incompatibility? As far as I’m concerned if they are not actively trying to reform their religion to make it compatible, then they ARE part of the problem. Sitting back and shrugging shoulders, or expecting us non-muslims to run around and clean up their religion for them, is not good enough.
Islamic domination of these Isles through either the bomb, ballot or demographics can not be allowed to happen under any circumstances.
OT
Hopefully Biased BBC is seeing a huge spike in traffic, especially from America.
I emailed Instapundit that Paul Reynolds from the BBC was commenting here and he kindly gave BBBC a link.
http://instapundit.com/archives/025145.php
I usually see a spike of between 5-10 thousands visitors when he links to me.
Hopefully more Americans will come to realize the terrible disservice the BBC is doing to America.
Seamus, there is no free speech on Question Time. It costs me £126.50 a year, and I never watch it. I pay for the BBC so that the government will allow me to watch football on Sky. And why shouldn’t BNP or other extremist views not be aired on the BBC? BNP members pay the licence fee don’t they, so they should get the odd 2 minutes every now and then, in proportion to their support. Or do you think that the BBC should take money from everyone but only publicise ‘acceptable’ views? Much as I dislike the BBC, I dislike the BNP more, but at least it doesn’t force me to pay it a subscription every year whether I want to or not. As for the amount of real harm done to Britain, I suspect the BBC does more than the BNP. The BNP is a fringe organistion which hardly anyone likes or takes seriously. The BBC is a mass provider of dodgy ‘impartial’ news and brain-rotting TV entertainment.
OT but a rare cause for the BBC to be praised:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4185550.stm
They criticize aid to Africa and the international NGO aid community!
‘It’s not liberal pandering to reassure a targeted group.’
Seamus. You’re becoming increasingly self-important. Let me throw you a lifeline before you get disappear up your own bottom.
Who tells muslims to hate Jews, to call gays dogs who should be slaughtered, and to keep their women silent, bovine and pregnant???
Who forces muslims to detonate backpacks on crowded trains???
Muslims, and their rotten-to-the-core women/gay/Jew/Christian-hating medieval ideology, are the cause of the problems in the Muslim community.
No one else.
Ridiculous, meaningless green ribbons do nothing for the Muslim community exepct to further deepen their paranoia and suspicions that the world is united against them.
And I’ll wager anything that other ethnic communities living peacefully in the UK, who don’t produce maniacal terrorists, are wondering to themselves: why do the muslims always get treated with kid gloves?
No. Chief constable + green ribbons in his hair = ridiculous chief constable + diminshed respect for the police.
The BBC never deserves praise. I am forced to pay for it, and that is wrong. I’d object if I was forced to pay for a BBC that was like a broadcast version of the Telegraph instead of the Guardian. I’m a big boy now and I can pay for and choose my own TV services. To praise the BBC because it says something you agree with only encourages the illiberal types who support the BBC poll tax.
OT but this made my heart sing.
BBC News have actually mentioned the TB crisis in Africa, admitedly after prompting from a medical journal.
TB in Africa has been hidden by the AIDS crisis as too many cases have just been put down to AIDS, leading to incorrect treatments and financial emphasis on reporting various diseases as AIDS by the NGOs active there.
Continuing my OT diatribe, one thing that annoys me immensely is the way that BBC News, and specifically teletext in the morning, panders to NGOs. I am fed up with the political agenda in this country being set by unappointed lefties (or greenies). So another hurrah for the BBC reporting that homeopathy is a load of bollocks, although I did notice that that report didn’t last long.
Protect Channel 4, says Lord Birt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4189332.stm
Does this mean he wants to increase the license fee?
I believe Birt is arguing during the closing phases of the review of the BBC’s Royal Charter that the BBC should not get all the funds that are raised by Government from the licence fee. Channel 4 should get some of the funds.
Well Jon Snow needs some new ties…
Seamus
you should differentiate between muslims and islam.
Muslims are human beings infected by a vile religious ideology (in its extremist forms)
It is islam and its horrific imperialism that is the enemy of democracy and non muslims .It is the root of the problems of centuries of massacre and mayhem throughout the world.
I know many muslim apostates who are wonderful human beings.
But even islamic ideology cannot permanently damage human nature, so there is hope that one day peaceful coexistance may be possible once islam is reformed.
Susan,
I must say that I’m shocked that the BBC actually reported criticism of the African aid and NGO. Maybe someone at the BBC had a fever?
Seamus,
Can you provide any links that prove attacks against Muslims is such a widespread problem? What incidents have taken place? Because I think it’s just paranoia and something the BBC likes to exaggerate.
One more thing I ask you all. Why is it that our society thinks it has to have a ribbon to represent this and a bracelet to symbolize that? Blue means this and green means that, etc… “This ribbon shows how much I care.” And bless the little pea pickin’ hearts who wear them. How ridiculous. What do they accomplish? Nothing. Why can’t people just speak their minds without having some stupid symbol to do it for them?
Phone beheading man found guilty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4189382.stm
The name suggests that the man’s a muslim but the BBC don’t go into that, of course.
Seamus:
Re cite, sure:-
Click to access hors223.pdf
Table 3.9: Characteristics of perpetrators
Ethnicity of the offender
White 40
Black 30
Asian 17
Other 3
Mixed 9
My memory was slightly at fault: Asians committed 17% of the racially-motivated crimes reported to the BCS. They are 3.7% of the population so they are 11 times more likely to attack a white or black person than a white person is to attack them.
I haven’t looked for more up to date stats but I’d be surprised if much has changed. Incidentally, Muslims are 7% of the UK prison population so they’re about twice as likely to be a jailbird.
Did I call Scott The American Patriate? Yes. I am sorry Scott. I meant of course The American Expatriate. Naturally he is patriot as well.
PR
I put this on the other thread, if that is the right word, but it properly belongs here.
To Ed: No I have not regretted even slightly coming to this site! I was glad as a point of detail to correct something you had misread!
More generally, I have found the exchanges to be very worthwhile. I think that blogs are very important strands in the rope of public opinion. I am not naive enough to believe that I will change the minds of some of your more regular contributors but at least I have put over a contrary point of view. I have tried to put forward the argument that while there are certainly mistakes, errors etc on the BBC, overall there is no conspiracy of bias nor any “world view”. The BBC reports society’s views and, as I said in one contribution, during the seventies we were accused of being rightwing and before that of being pro Israel. No doubt one day the pendulum will swing again.
To Marc; I still think that the examples you offer on conspiracy would not stand up in a court. You quote for example Paul Adams. This was from an internal e-mail during the Iraq war. He was doing his duty by correcting assumptions and language. That happens all the time, especially in time of war. War is a fog, as you as a former professional will know. You cannot now use that message to characterise the whole of the current output. There are daily, hourly, minutely (is that a word?) discussions about what words to use. To sustain a charge of bias and a conspiracy to defraud the license payer, you would need to come forward with evidence of more consistent pattern I think.
On a more personal note, you accused me a day or so ago of “cheering for the terrorists” in Iraq. This is an unsustainable accusation. No reasonable person, no “man on the Clapham omnibus” as we say, would agree with that. It is based on the propositon I put forward that President Bush has a race on his hands to stabilise Iraq before his presidency ends. What he manages to do will affect his legacy. There is nothing controversial about that. It is pretty obvious. The White House is well aware of it. I note that the same day, the Daily Telegrpah had a huge headline predicting civil war in Iraq. No doubt if I had said that, I would be beheaded in the Tower!
To those who have raised all kinds of points and complaints about BBC output, I am going to have to say, as I said to Scott The Amercian Patriate who asked me about the use of words in one story, that I can really only deal with what I have written myself or occasionally with something I have direct knowledge of.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent
BBC News Online.
paul reynolds | 27.08.05 – 9:27 am | #
You could always leave the BBC Paul, and sell your news to people who want to buy it, rather than those who are forced to buy it from you. There are plenty of newspapers and independent broaodcasting organisations around. If I were a journalist I wouldn’t want a captive audience for my work. I’d have either have enough confidence in my abilities to do without forced customers or I’d give up and try another job. Sorry if I seem ungrateful for your efforts, but I am. I don’t need you, and I don’t see why I should help pay your wages. Of course, everything I’ve just said could be used to justify the government funded BBC – maybe I’m one of those impressionable people who needs the unbiased BBC to balance all the suspect news available from elsewhere. That patronising attitude is alive and well at the BBC. It’s a natural home for the intellectual snob.
The camp commandant wrote:
“Asians committed 17% of the racially-motivated crimes reported to the BCS. They are 3.7% of the population so they are 11 times more likely to attack a white or black person than a white person is to attack them.”
Of course, Asians includes Hindus and Sikhs. Are Hindus and Sikhs likely to go and blow themselves up in tube trains? I don’t think so. I’ll wager that the vast majority of crimes committed by ‘Asians’ are in fact committed by muslims. Does anyone have any figures on that? Does anyone dispute my assertion as to the belief system of the Asian racist criminals?
from the ft 26/8/2005
“bbc appoints ex-disney chief”
sorry but i have to say this:
i always knew they were a mickey mouse organisation.
yasmin alibhai-brown
why is the bbc forever showing us this lady?
is she witty?is she fragrant? has she something useful to say?is she easy on the eyes?is her voice gorgeous?does she perhaps debate well?
none of the above.so why are we forced to continually have her on our screens?
By the way, here’s one to show why sources should be checked…
Over on The American Expatriate, which has re-posted the exchanges I have had here with Scott, the Expat himself, there is this comment:
“David said…
Have been enjoying the B-BBC comments for days now! Poor Paul – AKA rabbit-headlights-lion’s den!
5:05 PM”
David,
You should go back and read the Book of Daniel. Specifically Daniel 7: 16-24. I would be happy to suffer Daniel’s fate.
Daniel was, you remember, put into a den of lions by the Persian King Darius. The king had raised Daniel, a Jewish captive, over other courtiers who were jealous of him. They tricked the king into signing a decree saying that anyone who petitioned anyone but the king should be try life with the lions. Daniel of couse petitioned his God and was, despite Darius’ regrets at having signed the decree, put among the lions and the door sealed by the king with his “own signet”.
Te king then retired for the night and fasted, “and his sleep went from him.”
The king rushed to the cell the next morning and, fearing the worst, “cried with a lamentable voice.”
Daniel answered and said: “O King live for ever. My God hath sent his angel and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me; foreasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O King, have I done no hurt.”
Then was the king exceeding glad for him.
with regards and have a nice weekend
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
Paul. No one needs BBC news. No one cares about your subtley nuanced take on world affairs. Stop criminalising and jailing people who don’t want to pay to listen to your smug left-wing pov.
We don’t want the BBC sports dept in Manchester. We got sent the Religous dept a few years ago, presumably because religion on the BBC had become a joke. Now, for the same reason the sports dept is being dismissed from London. All we get from BBC sort is international bowls, athletics, the Paralympics and women’s football, things that nobody wants to watch, but which the BBC decides to show for in order to preserve the jobs of its self-serving employees. We still have to pay for them. When ITV’s world of sport lost its audience it ended. When Grandstand is reduced to showing stuff nobody wants to watch, it keeps going because we’re forced to pay for it. Shameless.
I feel I owe marc, captain of the USS Neverdock, a fuller response since he accuses me of cherry-picking( my charge against him of course).
Let me examine one of his main charges against the BBC for showing anti-Americanism. It is the quote he uses from one of the BBC’s Washington correspondents (its main radio correspondent in fact) Justin Webb in a broadcast in From Our Own Correspondent on Radio 4 earlier this year. The same quote is also used prominently as a kind of dreadful warning on the site of Scott Callahan, The American Expatriate.
This is the quote:
“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.”
However, I recommend that you read the whole piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4400865.stm
Justin is discussing the case of Terry Schiavo, the woman who died after feeding tubes had been removed.
The quoted admission of guilt turns out to be a set-up for something else and that is a rousing defence of the American public.
“There is plenty of barminess and plenty of nastiness here if you look for it, but for me, the revelation of the Schiavo case was that there is plenty of good sense as well.”
“The founding fathers, with a wisdom which truly does echo down the ages, decided that there would be a separation of powers.
General laws would be made by politicians representing the people, but then interpreted and applied by judges.
The reason is simple, to limit the power of government to interfere in any individuals life.
If you can convince the courts that you are legally in the right, then no politician, even the president himself in his pyjamas and on his high horse, can stop you.”
“The founding fathers must be watching from their heavenly perches and wondering at the power of the constitution they created.
It is common to mock at American attempts to export Jeffersonian democracy, but after these two weeks the mocking should stop.”
Now, you can agree or diagree with his analysis as to the state of play between conservatives and liberals in the US. But you should put the quote in context. Its context is one of respect for America.
Let me also point marc to the words in February of Rob Watson, now back in London as Defence and Security correspondent for the BBC World Service. He wrote about his time as a
BBC correspondent in Washington and at the UN:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4273765.stm
Rob said:
“In these times of anti-Americanism this is by way of a love letter to the country where I have lived for a quarter of my life.”
Another sample:
“Though I love the way America looks, its enduring appeal is the way it feels, its people and their attitude to life.”
And finally:
“As a European, what I found most refreshing here was the remarkable lack of envy in American society.
When Americans see someone doing well, they do not grumble about it being all right for some, instead they say, one day that could be me.”
Anti-Americanism?
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
were the BBC to cease trading NOW, the world would be a better and a happier place.
Resist Authoritarian Socialism.
Resist the dangerous agents of the deeply malevolent corporation.
paul reynolds
in the unlikely event that you ask bbc listeners what the bbc feels towards america then the overwhelming answer is one word only:
hatred.
no matter how justin webb qualifies his wicked remarks.brian hanrahan,stephen sackur and ben brown are the leaders in this loathing of america.
lord birt yesterday hints that the bbc shares its ill-gotten tax with channel 4.he also hints that the tax should in fact be abolished and the bbc go and raise funds in the markets.
why did he not say so when he was director-general or whatever position he held.
Re Birt’s lecture – the audience hears what it wants to hear?
The BBC’s report spends more time raking over the past (still bruised from Birt?) than reporting his lecture but says
He said it was vital that Channel 4 was sufficiently well-funded to be able “to snap at the heels of the BBC” and that consideration was needed over whether “ITV’s unique contribution to public service should be saved or revived”.
But did that mean they should receive some of the licence fee in years to come?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4189398.stm
Whereas The Times headlines
BBC should share licence fee, says former chief
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1752737,00.html
Paul, Paul, Paul, (*shaking my head sadly*)
My point was that at times it seems that you were like the poor wee rabbit caught and unable to move in the headlights of the approaching cars as they (the comments) are coming from all angles!
The lions’ den was B-BBC where you voluntarily put yourself! I have repeatedly thanked you for coming by as you have literally put yourself in the lions’ den and given back almost as good as you’ve got…almost.
Having attended Catholic boarding school (father in RAF) and been the “happy” (and sleepy) target of many an early morning sermon before we started school, your excellent grasp of the Bible left me shuddering …..and wondering what you were trying to say.
Still, to prove I learnt something at school: horas non numero nisi serenas (I count only the golden hours) (and there aren’t many of them either at Mass or on the BBC…well apart from maybe the Edinburgh Military Tattoo at 1735 hrs tonight here on BBC1!)
Have a nice weekend everybody!
Paul responds, finally.
On Justin Webb:
“Its context is one of respect for America.”
Read what he said again Paul.
“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.”
“In many respects a true one.”
Only someone from the BBC could turn that into a defense of America.
And on the Iraq war:
To Marc; I still think that the examples you offer on conspiracy would not stand up in a court. You quote for example Paul Adams. This was from an internal e-mail during the Iraq war. He was doing his duty by correcting assumptions and language.
Standing up in Court. Ah, goal post moving at its best from the BBC.
As for correcting assumptions and language, Adams clearly said the BBC was lying about several major issues.
Paul, it’s not just the one or two examples used here, it’s the whole post.
What about this Paul:
“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.”
You wanted court, one of your own editors warns you that the BBC reports are “potentially libellous”.
What about all the examples of reporters saying anti-American things? Calling Bush a “chimp” and sounding like a “baboon”. Or your radio announcers calling two American senators “American twats” on air?
You use a few examples to defend the BBC but that doesn’t negate the existence of outright bias and anti-Americanism at the BBC.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/britain-bbc-danger-to-society.html
I think we can leave it to the readers to judge for themselves – they do anyway.
And I think you can tell from most of the readers here, they don’t agree with you or the BBC.
Mr Reynolds
Justin Webbhs excelled himself with his piece on today’s From Our Own Correspondent.
His report was biased, condescending to Texans, incomplete and politically naive. I have posted on it in the next thread.
How much does it cost to keep Webb on the road, including overheads ? A quarter of million pounds a year easy, I bet. Waste of OUR money, and IMHO a disgrace to the BBC and to Britain. Undergraduate smartass stuff going out globally at our expense. Doesn’t anyone edit his inane speculations ? He does not seem to produce much copy , thank God, but what he produces is predictable and trite.
Roxana
Of course it was MLK not JFK, sorry wrong acronym.
Mr Reynolds, I think you are one of those people who think that if the BBC can prove itself to be fair and unbiased then that justifies the current licence fee arrangements. It doesn’t. I don’t want the BBC, I don’t want to pay for it and I do want to watch TV from other providers. These three facts make the fee unacceptable to me. The idea that an organisation can charge everyone for its non-essential services just because it deems those services to be high quality and fair is ludicrous. It’s a wonder that such an odd state of affairs has persisted for so long, or perhaps not so odd when you consider how many well-connected, Oxbridge, public school people want to hang on to cushy BBC jobs, nicely insulated from the vulgar world of trade and competition.
RR Fanclub: Perfectly understandable mistake – especially for a Brit, you are a Brit aren’t you? Though actually given the state of American public schools I wouldn’t be surprised at one of my younger compatriots making the same error.
Alot of European journalists see America through an East Coast prism.
It’s clear that some of that East Coast elitism (New York, Washington, Boston, where much of the media resides etc) permeates into many European journalist’s perception, creating a simplistic, almost cartoonish notion of America.
To dave t
The moral of the lion’s den. Daniel survived. So have I!
Paul R