I make no apologies for comparing a Fox News report with a BBC one. The success of Fox speaks for itself, and as Peter C. Glover argues, it’s about time we saw something similar in the UK.
But one of the biggest slanders going today is that Israel is an aggressor, a source of trouble, an arrogant ungrateful unilateral go-it-alone bully.
So I think that a responsible media outlet would look carefully and be wary of reinforcing that impression (which any sane person must see is extremely far-fetched).
That’s why I really didn’t like this article from the BBC, because, for an article concerning an international issue like Iran’s nuclear program, it’s all about Israel.
The contrast I said I’d offer was with this Fox News article:
Yes the lede is about Israel, but the headline indicates the multilateral approach that is in fact taking place. We all know about Chirac’s threat this week to use nuclear weapons to retaliate against a terrorist state- Fox also points out the German Defence Minister’s avowal that “Yes, we need all options.”.
So what we can see from Fox that we can’t from the BBC is that Israel isn’t in fact out of step, that the precisely stated Israeli position is consistent with everyone else’s precisely stated position within the concerned western alliance. It’s obvious there is a concerted effort going on- that is the news, rather than Israelis on the warpath.
Of course, if I were pro-mullah Iranian I would want the headlines to be all about Israel. There’s enough anti-Israeli feeling out there to fuel a pacifist movement towards Iran if Israel is seen to be the cause of an impending war. Not only that, Israel has both a track record (Osirak ’81) and is widely considered the most imminent realistic threat, militarily-speaking, so any pressure that could be applied to her through the media would be welcome.
But I’m not Iranian, and I don’t like the BBC adopting the talking points of the Iranian leadership. In allowing Israel to be in the foreground, and similarly worried (though less directly threatened) nations to fade into the background, the BBC wittingly or unwittingly wields the spotlight for Iranian security.
Still, I shouldn’t complain too much. For ridiculous bias, look at this:-
http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/P/politicalawards/vote.html
I heard part of Shami Chakrawhatsits citation by Snow on Channel 4 news last night – it was nauseating. But then again, I don’t have to pay for Channel 4.
Susan, re Sir Winston’s sublime opinion on islam, thanks for the re-production and link. His description is concise and his remarkable antennae for detecting totalitarianism picked up on islam even before the rise of nazism and communism. Were he to write (or say) those words today, he’d be jailed.
Eamonn – the Channel 4 List is political satire – once politicians and their ilke entered the satire business people like Rory Bremner (who cannot satirise the Left) were dead.
There are a lot of BBC types who probably identify with the LibDems and resent the Tories as the party their parents voted for. The BBC must be an extension of the Junior Common Room and Student Politics and Campaigns – an Alternative Reality generated by pot and dementia
Re: Fox News in the UK – come off it. If there was a market for a dedicated right wing / ‘conservative’ news channel someone would have put the cash up by now. Sure there’s ‘impartiality’ rules, but as C4 demonstrates it only takes a token attempt at ‘balance’ to circumvent these. Anyway, Fox News itself is freely available to most households and nobody watches it.
The issue is that mass market right wing/conservative opinion these days is reactive – i.e. demanding harsher policy on crime, immigration etc etc as these issues arise. This lends itself to campaigning print media – as provided brilliantly by the Sun, Mail etc etc. Since the holes in Thatcherism became apparent there’s been nothing in the way of a mass coherent conservative ideological movement of the size required to sustain a dedicated news channel (or successful Conservative party).
From the Radio Times (BBC publication, overseas readers), previewing Channel 4’s ‘Munich: Mossad’s Revenge’:
‘This disturbing documentary looks at the string of *murders carried out by the Israeli secret service, Mossad, to avenge the 11 Israeli athletes who were taken hostage and *killed at the Munich Olympics in 1972.’
At least moral equivalence has been abandoned – unfortunately, for open anti-Semitism.
“The issue is that mass market right wing/conservative opinion these days is reactive”
even the term “conservative” suggests reaction and /or regressing backwards to some idyllic ,mythical past.
Cockney writes:
” Anyway, Fox News itself is freely available to most households and nobody watches it.”
Oh? And how might that be – by telepathy? As it isn’t broadcast either on analogue or ‘Freeview’, I’d say you are talking rubbish.
As for the demand for a British version, why would viewers here have a deep fascination for the latest scandal surrounding Senator Hiram J. Hackenfarb’s committee on hog breeding in Iowa?
There is no British equivalent because the barrier to entry – competition from a state-owned broadcaster financed at metaphorical gun point – is so high that even the joint efforts of the independent television companies is close to collapse.
GCooper – b*llocks. We’re moving towards analogue switchoff. Sky’s market penetration continues apace. If the demand was there someone would have taken a punt by now.
Why would the BBC represent a barrier to entry? If it has a left wing slant a Fox-esque channel would capture an entirely different market – there would be next to no crossover. Did McDonalds on Picadilly represent a barrier to entry for Nobu?
Afghan women in the driving seat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4630966.stm
This report details better news from Afghanistan – more freedom for women is the big theme (driving cars, going outside, not being forced to cover up).
The report fails to mention why this change may have come about. Can you guess reader? Something to do with the US/UK kicking the Taliban out of power?
The BBC of course doesn’t agree with this military action, however it does agree with womens rights. Although there is a link between the military action and better human rights for women, the BBC can’t bring itself to accept this. So the report explains things have changed for the better with no context of the military action and consequent toppling of the muslim fundamentalist Taliban. If it wasn’t for the US/UK action, these women would still be top to toe in Burka, uneducated, tied to the house ect etc.
Is it a hatred of the US that outweighs all else?
Cockney writes:
“We’re moving towards analogue switchoff. Sky’s market penetration continues apace. If the demand was there someone would have taken a punt by now.”
You’re wriggling. Your claim was:”…Fox News itself is freely available to most households…”
Clearly, untrue. It is not .
Not even in the Leftist’s parallel universe where Rupert Murdoch controls the world from bunkers on Mars.
OT
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/23012006/325/russia-accuses-britain-spying.html
Usually our people are very careful. I do hope they weren’t tipped off.
And more importantly
why arent the Police Investigating THE FA? and football in general over allegations made by Mike Newell? and Now Sven Erikson?
This is very strange, given that if you say something you can be investigated for crimes.
And yet when million pound money laundering is going on, no one seems to care?
Who has paid off whom?
GC, after further investigation you’re right. Thought Sky were doing better than that (although Fox’s tiny percentage audience share based on all Sky viewers would be unaffected).
Doesn’t really address the crux of the argument though does it (and flinging random ‘Leftist’ slurs about looks like a bit of a wriggle yourself)? Why would BBC competition impede market entry when the sort of audience you’re targetting positively loathes the BBC?
Fox News is not available on Freeview or Terrestrial TV.
It is available on satellite within the Sky ‘News & Documentaries’ mix of paid for channels. There are Sky boxes in 8 million UK homes, but not all will pay for the ‘News & Documentaries’ channels so the total number of households that can recieve FOXNews will be somewhat less than 8 million.
Anyone can however find it online here:
http://www.foxnews.com/
On the front page there is currently an accurate headline that you’d never find on the BBC:
Iraq Terrorists Kill 13
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182421,00.html
“Insurgents fired rocket-propelled grenades at the home of an Iraqi police officer in Balad Ruz, 45 miles northeast of Baghdad, said a spokesman for the Iraqi police Joint Coordination Center. The officer’s children, ages 6 to 11, and their uncle were killed, the spokesman said on condition of anonymity due to fears of reprisal attacks. The officer was unharmed, but his wife was wounded.”
I’d call that terrorism – wouldn’t you? But don’t take my word for it, read some definitions of the word itself:
define:Terrorist
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Terrorist
I can’t find this story on the BBC. Figures.
It says ‘Militants kill 13 in Iraq’ now??!!
have not heard the BBC interview anyone from CND or the “Peace Movement” telling us how terrible it would be if Iran becomes another proliferator of nuclear weapons.
ACtually – you may know this in any case – but the peace movement (and ESPECIALLY CND) are more in bed, disgustingly so, with the Iranian regime, to a far greater extent than the BBC or even that kind of moronic anti-American part of liberal middle-class British opinion. EVen more than the Independent. It’s disgusting (if – given past form, during hte cold war, for example), not entirely surprising. Although how supporting Islamist theocracy is “progressive” I have no idea.
It says ‘Militants kill 13 in Iraq’ now??!!
Well spotted Cockney! Could it be that Fox are frightened to use the T word as well? Tut tut – maybe they’re going soft 😉
“have not heard the BBC interview anyone from CND or the “Peace Movement” telling us how terrible it would be if Iran becomes another proliferator of nuclear weapons”
Nick Cohen has some insight into the CND/Iran ‘relationship’:
http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=53
Frontpage for the T word
http://www.foxnews.com/
“From the Radio Times (BBC publication, overseas readers), previewing Channel 4’s ‘Munich: Mossad’s Revenge’:
‘This disturbing documentary looks at the string of *murders carried out by the Israeli secret service, Mossad, to avenge the 11 Israeli athletes who were taken hostage and *killed at the Munich Olympics in 1972.’
At least moral equivalence has been abandoned – unfortunately, for open anti-Semitism.
Chris | 23.01.06 – 9:32 am | # ”
Chris,
Please can you tell me when this C4 prog was broadcast? I want to complain to the RT.
Cheers.
Cockney wrote: “Why would the BBC represent a barrier to entry?”
Maybe not a barrier to entry, but a barrier to survival? Most definitely.
Just ask ITV News Channel how hard it was to gain market share when up against a publiv-funded leviathan like al-Beeb.
Beeb write about the Canadian election:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4637986.stm
The candidate they profile used to front an arts programmes for the BBC.
Can you guess if he’s running for the Conservatives or the Liberals?
If he goes down to defeat, do you think al-Beeb will blame his pro-Iraq liberation stance?
Anonymous writes:
“Maybe not a barrier to entry, but a barrier to survival”
Indeed. The latter provides the former.
There didn’t seem much point my saying it again to Cockney, who didn’t get it the first time round. But perhaps you’ll have more success.
O/T: Beeb online is running a puff-piece on a candidate in the Canadian Elections today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4637986.stm
Three guesses for which party he is running.
I thought the Canadian Liberal Party was sponsored by Paul Desmerais and his Power Corporation – he certainly made Martin a millionaire and it seems quite a few of the leading Liberal politicians worked for him, and Chretien’s daughter was even married into the family which has oil interests with Elf I think – and even one of the UN guys who resigned over the Oil for Food scandal was a former Power Corp employee.
OT Murdoch attacks BBC fee increase
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4639076.stm
Mr Murdoch – who rarely gives interviews – was asked about his opinions on the BBC’s ambitions and its request for the licence fee rise.
He said: “I can’t believe what the BBC is doing with a lot of the surplus money it has.
“It’s even starting websites against local newspapers all over the country. That’s not necessary. They are not improving any services. They are trying to put out of business, it seems, a lot of small, medium-sized businessmen.
“Take News 24, it’s fine but it’s free. We struggled for years and made a small charge and we’ve also had to go free. In any other country, that is predatory competition.”
But when asked whether he feared a fully-funded BBC was a threat to News Corporation he said: “No, but I don’t know where it stops.
“It’s a threat to everybody. They are always thinking of some new business to get into right away from broadcasting.”
But former BBC director general Greg Dyke told Five Live Mr Murdoch would never understand the concept of a state-funded broadcaster.
“Australians and Americans have difficulty understanding the BBC, that we should collect two and a half-billion pounds in a sort of poll tax to fund a broadcasting system,” he said.
I’m British, I don’t understand (or agree) either. No-one ever asks me what id like – but the BBC seems to know what I need. How so?
The worry here is that there are few other ‘pressure goups’ speaking up against further increases in BBC TV taxes.
With the BBC highlighting Murdoch as the ‘big bad’ opposition, the risk is an outcome on a par with the Chirac v Le Penn episode.
“Why would BBC competition impede market entry when the sort of audience you’re targetting positively loathes the BBC?”
I think the mentality with a lot of people is “I pay my licence fee and I get BBC news for free. Why should I pay extra for more news? Especially news that doesn’t have that nice Huw Edwards and an expensive-looking set”.
I wouldn’t say that many people *loathe* the BBC, just as I’m sure that most Americans who watch Fox news do so because they prefer Fox to other news channels rather than because they *loathe* CNN and so forth, i.e. for a negative reason.
I reckon that even if people loathed CNN, but at the same time Fox News was crude and cheap, people would either say to hell with it and watch CNN, or not watch news at all. A news outlet has to provide what people want, even if they do not yet know what they want, rather than rely upon people loathing the competetion. I loathe Burger King’s burgers but that doesn’t mean I’m automatically going to eat at McDonalds; I would buy different food elsewhere, and if I was a vegetarian I wouldn’t buy a burger at all. I think I’m waffling at this point.
I think that a person’s choice of news outlet boils down to familiarity – with the channel, the news programme and the presenters – and whether the news outlet looks professional, expensive, and on the level. A lot of the BBC’s biases simple wash over the audience; I imagine most people don’t give a flip about Israel and the Middle East, or about the use of “militant” rather than “terrorist”, because the news just washes over them. It’s something to have on in the background whilst having tea. The bias creeps in.
Kulibar Tree asks
Please can you tell me when this C4 prog was broadcast? I want to complain to the RT.
It’s going out this Thursday (26 January) at 9 pm. (I suspect that the programme will be biased, but not as disgusting as the RT preview.)
C4 biased? But former head of BBC News Roger Mosey says C4 should be cherished!
Seen and herd
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4630000/newsid_4639000/4639080.stm
“And that is why we should cherish the people and the outlets who stand aside from the herd. Most of Newsnight, most of Channel 4 News, much of BBC Radio and the correspondents who add insight to the Ten O’Clock News. Writers like Simon Jenkins, Rod Liddle and Jason Burke. We should celebrate intelligence and analysis – and, at times, a bloody-minded refusal to conform.”
I do like a good laugh! Is there any space in the 6:30pm R4 comedy slots for Roger?!
GC,
I tend to ‘get’ arguments about investment opportunities, impediments to market entry etc etc, as it’s my line of work. Your argument just doesn’t follow.
Anon highlights the demise of the ITV news channel, but the frequent criticism of that on here was that it duplicated the BBC’s PC/liberal approach. A Fox newsalike would offer something completely different, hence wouldn’t be competing for the same market – unless of course the BBC isn’t nearly as bad as its being portrayed.
I certainly take Ashley’s point that it would take a lot of initial investment to get the presentation up to standard and market effectively, but the world is hardly short of wealthy media organisations owned by right wingers is it?
As I said orginally, I think that the ‘problem’ is the lack in the UK of an intellectually coherent ‘rightest’ mass movement that could sustain a consistently ideological approach along Fox lines.
Off Topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4630000/newsid_4639000/4639080.stm
“An ITV News political specialist produced a piece of such witlessness on the school paedophile issue that I thought he must be auditioning for Fox News. Right-thinking people are against dangerous paedophiles being employed as teachers, but as the story broke there was little attempt to unpick the issues about the scale of risk or the right to fair process”
I don’t have Sky and have never watched Fox News. However, this isn’t the first time that Roger Mosey has used the Newswatch section of the website to insult Fox News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4675900/4675953.stm
If I may leave our customary impartiality aside for a moment, the comments made on Fox News are beneath contempt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4740000/newsid_4748000/4748011.stm
…it would be a disaster for the US and for the wider world if Fox’s version of the words “fair and balanced” became the norm.
Yet another piece of impartial BBC reporting…
At least Fox News survives on it’s own. It doesn’t require extortion to stay “in business”…
All these financial arguments are irrelevant until the BBC loses the power to jail TV-owners, goes to a subscription model and gets real customer feedback.
Roger Mosey says………poor Roger after so many years – 20+ at the Beeb he has become a company man and cannot see outside the box. I read him in The Business and am confident he cannot believe what he writes, noone else does.
Re the Mosey article:
I’m sorry, but as soon as somebody uses the phrase “right thinking people…” anywhere in my vicinity my hackles rise. This form of words is almost exlusive to Guardian/BBC and the murkier depths of Social Services mission statements. It immediately implies there are wrong thinking people who have no place in any debate.
Shame, ’cause the article itself was quite a good one but it still makes Mosey a p*~k for uttering it and discredits anything he might say.
Ashley Pomeroy’s comments comparing news to burgers are remarkably appropriate.
The problem with BBC news is that it comes as part of an entertainment package. Most people watch TV to be entertained and the news programs are just something that fills the gap between the sit-com and the film. Irrespective of how good Fox News is you have to make a special effort to watch it.
McDonalds may serve an acceptable burger but their coffee sucks. But how many people can be bothered to walk to the other end of the High Street to Coffee Republic? By the time you do that your double with cheese and fries is stone cold.
Likewise with BBC news. By the time you switch back from Fox the film’s in its 10th minute and you haven’t the vaguest who the blonde in the blue dress is.
TV just isn’t a good medium for real news.
TV just isn’t a good medium for real news.
Rob Read | 23.01.06 – 3:37 pm | #
So very true !
How often we get stock film footage of some completely inane background image, and how rarely the pictures match the story…………..worse still to think stories are dropped if they don’t have the video footage.
Radio and Net are far better for analytical News though with BBC debasing Radio 4 and the utterly infantile 5Live it is hard to know if BBC is out to disprove this thesis.
On the link to the audio interview from the News page the BBC had the quote from Murdoch “The Labour Government have been pretty good”. Of all the bits they could have chosen, why the complimentary bit about the Government? They’ve removed it now, and replaced the link from that page with “Hear Rupert Murdoch speak about his political beliefs”… now how does one use google cache.. ?
“utterly infantile 5Live”
How true. News for idiots. The morning programme is dross, and Ms Derbyshire “phone in” is great.
Mark Thompson having a laugh at the tv tax payers expense(s)…
BBC defends £36m expenses costs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4639706.stm
D Burbage
This morning, on the 8:00 am news during the Today programme, the quotes used concerning the Murdoch interview were that the “Labour government had been pretty good” and another quote concerning his relative disappointment with the Tories. Surprisingly there wasn’t a mention of his criticisms of the government. I didn’t catch the exact wording of the second quote since at that very moment I’d dropped my cornflakes all over the floor.
From the expenses story……
£19.5 million spent on flights? £16 million on hotels?
I do like it when an Australian who changes his citizenship to US “for business reasons”, ditches his second wife for a younger Chinese model, pops into London to tell Jeff Randall how super he finds the government in Britain loathed as it is by all and sundry and elected by 21.6 eligible voters.
Now Rupert is probably grateful for the fact that News International pays almost no tax in GB and he has a servile bunch in office. Cameron told us he would stand up to Big Business…….now is his chance !
I watch the NFL on Sky quite a lot. Whenever there is an advert break it cuts to British adverts. Every now and again though, they forget to press whatever switch they press and we get to see the US commercials instead, quite entertaining really.
I am currently watching the Nigeria v Ghana African Cup of Nations match on Eurosport. The last avdert in the end-of-half-time break amazed me. I have a feeling it might not have been meant for the UK (or maybe it was, maybe they like laughing at us)
It was an advert for the BBC. Yep fully paid for by the licence payer on Eurosport. It was for BBC World and featured one of their correspondents (I forgot to note which one in my astonishment) selling to the rest of the world the fact that the BBC are fair, balanced and unbiased. He used Israel/Palestine as an example and said that both sides accuse them of being biased towards the other and they have to work hard at all times to ensure they give a fair and balanced view. And you can always trust the BBC to do this.
You never know it may be on again at full time if you want to try and see it for yourselves….
You’ve been mugged again – TV Licence fee to rise to £131.50 – a rise of 4.2%
The increased TV licence fee is only relevant if you pay it in the rist place.
“Don’t get one, don’t get done…”
The licence fee is going up on april fools day, how appropriate.
Cockney writes:
“…but the world is hardly short of wealthy media organisations owned by right wingers is it?”
Isn’t it? We’ve been through this argument before, about the printed media. Just look how few Right-wing (or even merely Conservative supporting) titles there are in the UK. Ditto for the USA, with both broadcast and printed media. If, as you say, you’re in the investment business then you know as well as I do that the myth of the top-hatted, cigar smoking capitalist was over before they’d printed the first run of Monopoly boards. Today’s CEO is quite likely to be at least mildly on the Left. How else do you account for Trinity Mirror’s prize daily rag?
Meanwhile, I still don’t think you’re getting the point. The barrier to entry in the broadcast news market is that you have to compete with the BBC – its production values, resources, brand image etc.
It’s true, there is no clearly defined ‘Rightist’ market for a Fox equivalent in the UK. But where is the ‘Leftist’ market for the BBC? Your theory demands one.
Of course, it doesn’t exist, save for the fact that the corporation has used the Chinese water torture tactic for fifty years to cultivate a generally Leftist, welfarist mood in its audience.
It’s not the lack of potential viewers (what do you think Daily Mail readers watch in the evening?) that inhibits competition, but quite possibly the lack of a suitably rash entrepreneur and, most certainly, the almost insurmountable odds stacked against such a venture by the BBC’s hegemonic attitude that seeks to smother competition at birth. Ask Kelvin MacKenzie.
4.2%??
WTF?
OT – no ‘spelling’ mistakes in Scranie comments
Muslim chief will not face charge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4640542.stm
Licence fee is set to rise by 4%
err – 4.2% actually
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4641006.stm
We are being taken for a long ride. About 10 years I recon.