‘Note to Biased BBC, you are getting under their skin. You will be pleased to know you are the recognised enemy.’
Well, funnily enough I feel the same way about them.
Guido Fawkes was at the opening night of some We Media thing which the BBC is hosting, and has observations to offer.
There are of course many reasons for not resisting the temptation to become an enemy of the BBC, but one among them is the routine bias– bias like this incident noticed by Ian Dale.
When the media critique a group or institution they tend to do so with a kind of coordination: the BBC becomes all uncoordinated when it comes to Nu-Labour scandals, as Stephen Pollard notes.
Recently I was looking into the worst local government corruption scandal of all time: the Donnygate affair. Searching the BBC produced no ‘Q & A’ article, and the article which reported the conviction of coucillor Peter Birks failed to mention that he was A LABOUR COUNCILLOR- which is rather unlike their approach to a rather less seriously indicted Conservative from the same town- article here. Donnygate was a Nu-Labour scandal (in the sense, especially, that Nu-Lab was a cunning laundering of Old Labour money- metaphorically speaking!!!) through and through, and yet commentary of what it implied about Nu-Labour strategy/culture, occurring as it did in the constituency of one- friend of John Prescott- Rosie Winterton, was not forthcoming.
Well, political winds blow where they will, but the BBC is shelter from the storm for a certain pink tinged political party.
I cannot conceive of any legal advice that would debar the publication of ALL the submissions made to the review – except where there was a specific legal problem with a specific submission.
It is a total cop-out to say that the submissions cannot be published.
Why quote Iain Dale when one of your own posters made the point about David Davis being cut off yesterday? (me actually).
David
On a matter as serious as the Clarke affair, it is wholly wrong not to broadcast what Davis says in response to each twist and turn that Clarke makes.
The BBC keeps avoiding Davis, or using the LibDems spokesman. A cute way of softening the criticism.
To JR and others who doubtwho doubt bbc’s bias:
long list of documented BBC’s bias, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12
the reports’ conclusions are hard evidence that the BBc needs to be abolished. It is beyond hope.
re-university researchers, the Glasgow group, the most prominent media analysis group in the UK, and possibly the world, produced a very influential book based on a simple content analysis–quanitative: they counted and measured space allocated to opposing sides, similar to this BBC analysis, and came with the intended results. BBC’s bias is clear to any sane reader. By avoiding qualitative analysis both groups avoided exposing: the ever baised selection of sources, the ever biased selection of stories, the ever biased omission of stories, the ever biased omission of context, the ever biased selection of content in any one published story. This systematic bias cannot be uncovered, and was not intended to be exposed.
For a real analysis see the above source as well as the following:
http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/july04.html
http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/current2.html
http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/old.html
Fascinating comments line and one that has been more thoughtful than most.
One thing that commenters haven’t picked up on in the report, and one on which they regularly comment, is the finding that the BBC’s complaints procedure is seriously deficient. I, like Dumbisco, have read enough Government reports to realise that this is not a minor compliance failure but something that the BBC has to do something about quickly.
I do find it strange the way that both sides are taking this report. The idea that the BBC favours the Israelis is explained within the report, i.e. the stories reviewed were Israeli based, so the report admits that this is not necessarily the case. The idea that this report lets the BBC off the hook might be deduced from the praise that it lavishes on the positive, the problem here is that this highlights the negatives even more boldly. This is classic report writing; the shit sandwich.
Interesting that the report mentioned the perceived bias of the BBC through its natural Western Liberal bias. I have heard BBC staff mention this before and that they try and “balance” it out. Somebody somewhere seems to have forgotten that the people that pay for the BBC are “Western Liberals” and we expect our news to be framed within that culture rather than some autocratic non-rational religion.
Some highlights from today’s pro-Israel report on the World Service:
Newsreader:
Mr. Olmert said the future borders of Israel would be significantly different, The plan involves an Israeli withdrawal from some parts of the West Bank….
[a mere 60 000 – 70 000 people to be uprooted here]
….and the absorption into Israel of several large Jewish settlement blocks set up in contravention of the international law.
[Could they make it sound more ominous?]
Matthew Price:
Ehud Olmert’s plan is ambitious. Israel has occupied the West Bank for almost 40 years. It has refused to withdraw from the land despite a United Nations resolution calling on it to do so.
….permanently annexing parts of the West Bank to Israel…
….giving up a small number of settlements….
[Those 60 000 – 70 000 people again. And note the typical grim BBC determination to separate the settlements from Israel, when it really should know after all these years that these areas are disputed.]
Katya Adler:
If there had been any doubt before, Mr. Olmert nailed his colours to the mast, each hammer blow emphasizing his determination to press ahead with a programme that would significantly and permanently change his country’s borders.
[Hmmm, Katya waxing poetic in her pro-Israel indignation?]
The message was uncompromising. He would prefer to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority within the international peace plan known as the road map.
[Right, but he’s still uncompromising.]
The Palestinian objections wouldn’t be an impassable obstacle. He told parliament he was ready to act unilaterally to create what he called desirable borders.
[Heaven forbid that people might get the impression that Katya herself thinks that the borders will be desirable. Expect more quotes within quotes from Katya as the BBC’s pro-Israel coverage grinds on.]
Is that the UN resolution the review tells the BBC not to keep misquoting ?
dumbcisco, I’ll have to set some time aside to read the report.
I have a feeling it’s just begging to be Fisked.
This morning when the clock hit 03hrs 02min 01 sec it was the:
1st second of the
2nd minute of the
3rd hour of the
4th day of the
5th month of the
6th year of the
21st century.
This is proof positive that the BBC is pro-Israel.
er…anonymous at 11:51 pm was me.
Rachel
Thanks for the link. Don’t suppose JR will follow it.
JR
Welcome back. You really are an arrogant and rude fellow under your thin urbane skin. Your comments to good old Gary were unacceptable but most revealing. I daresay they were instantly regretted so a brief apology and I will continue to read you. I never agree with you but enjoy seeing you disassembled by the more errudite contributors to this vital blog.
of course, debate is healthy, and there will always be disagreement, even amongst those “on the same side”, never mind their opponents.
that said, i really believe john reith is being disingenuous.
having been a regular visitor to this blog for over six months or so, i cannot say that one of its major or most frequent complaints has been concerned with the bbc’s reporting of palestinian vs israeli casualties
yet, this seems now to be, for reith, an incredibly big deal almost to the exclusion of any other points this blog has raised.
why? is it because he feels vindicated ont this point because of the findings? what about all the other scores of allegations of bias?
am i to assume that reith agrees with them, since they largely remain uncommented on, much less refuted?
even if casualties reporting complaints completely missed the mark,
surely reith is not suggesting that the entire output of this blog is likewise inaccurate.
i think reith is wanting to make something analogous to the straw man tactic of this.
amimissingsomething writes:
“yet, this seems now to be, for reith, an incredibly big deal almost to the exclusion of any other points this blog has raised.”
I’m glad someone else has spotted Reith’s utterly disreputable tactic.
Having been out earning my living all day, I’ve read the procession of arguments here with resigned interest, not having been around to take part.
But, in the end, I found myself wondering, why does anyone even bother to engage him in debate?
Reith’s tactic is a well-honed BBC ploy (which is why I’m convinced he is deeply embedded in the corrupt carcass of the Corporation). The BBC apologist ignores the broad drift, the multiplicity of instances of abuse, brushes aside the accumulated evidence and picks on a single issue where s/he might be able to quibble – and then bangs away as if that were all that needed establishing for the case to be vindicated.
If Reith can’t (or daren’t) take on the multiplicity of instances of BBC bias (frankly – and with apologies – Israel/Palestine be damned, it is just a single example of BBC bias), then he is in absolutely no position to throw around the slurs he does.
The case for the BBC being biased is about far more than its coverage of Middle East politics and by picking on that alone as an excuse to damn commenters and posters on this blog, he is being both intellectually and morally dishonest.
PEDANTRY WARNING!!!!
Bryan | 04.05.06 – 11:56 pm
If you count the year 2000, isn’t this the seventh year of this century?
“I could obtain in 30 seconds was his running of Channel 4 News”
i actually *like* channel 4 news. it doesnt pretend to be unbiased. it clearly has a soft-left liberal agenda.
and i dont mind that – its honest.
what i object to is the BBC shouting “impartial” when its bloody obvious to anyone with a brain that its not.
gordon-bennett,
Last night I wrote:
This morning when the clock hit 03hrs 02min 01 sec it was the:
1st second of the
2nd minute of the
3rd hour of the
4th day of the
5th month of the
6th year of the
21st century.
Then I shut the computer down and afterwards realised that I had made an error:
03:02:01 is not the 1st second of the 2nd minute of the 3rd hour.
02:02:01 is correct.
Now, if I were working for the BBC I would claim that I meant 03 hours UK time, which would be 02 hours GMT. Or I would stealth edit the time to 02 hours. LOL!
When it comes to the year, as you say, it depends where you start. But I think I’ve just won the argument against myself.
Maybe some of the more mathematically-oriented contributors to this blog can resolve this small problem.
….er, sorry about the way OT.
Boblog, GCooper, amimissingetc
Boblog, I am genuinely sorry if I overstepped the mark with my whisky reference. For all I know Gary P is as sober as a judge. He used the word ‘hate’ in his rant, though. I didn’t like that.
GCooper and amimissing…
You have to admit that Israel/Palestine has been a big feature of this blog. And one of the most frequent complaints articulated with great passion by dumbcisco and others was about the T-word. I thought you might all be pleased with the reports recommendation on that. I also thought that you should take this report seriously and been a wee bit chastened by its findings on lack of consistent bias. Instead many posters have just attacked the integrity or competence of the panel members.
As Stan Fish says, it would be interesting to see more reviews or reports on BBC coverage on other issue. On Coverage of Bush for instance. But what’s the point if you guys just sling mud at the participants?
If you want the BBC to do better – then egage with the process. I’d have thought this blog could have put together a decent submission to this impartiality review. Maybe next time?
I am not fixated on the casualty coverage statistics. Just surprised.
“If you want the BBC to do better – then egage with the process. ”
the bbc could “engage” by making “have your say” completely un-moderated.
Rachel “the Glasgow group, the most prominent media analysis group in the UK, and possibly the world, produced a very influential book based on a simple content analysis–quanitative: they counted and measured space allocated to opposing sides”
One wonders how such a methodolgy should ever be considered appropriate to assess bias.
So we get 5 minutes of Orla hectoring an Israeli politician & 3 minutes of her sympathy & encouragment of a Palestinian spokesman, & hey presto the Glasgow study determines that the BBC is being partial to Israel.
John Reith,
The finding on the ‘T’ word was seriously hamstrung by the assertion that organisations shouldn’t be labelled as ‘T’. That’s appeasement.
Individual submissions to the Review were made from this blog. Apparently, along with all other submissions, they’ll never see the light of day, the BBC undertaking to do so notwithstanding. What is the BBC so scared of?
How’s your research on the number of times the BBC mentions Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel coming on? Must be developing into quite a project!
OT
Dumbcisco
I think you and I have been at cross purposes since the messenger boy post.
I am very pleased that the word terrorist will now be applied more frequently to acts and perps. You may remember I used to say that it should be – Mike’s Place, Egypt etc.
In fact messenger boy’s post did contain this ” The term “terrorism” should accordingly be used in respect of relevant events since it is the most accurate expression for
actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians” …etc
I agree that it was put even more strongly in another part of the report, but you misunderstand my intention if you think by quoting this bit, I was trying to minimise the force of the recommendation. You and I, I think agree, that terrorism should be called terrorism and terrorists, terrorists.
Where we used to disagree was that you thought the reason the BBC corrs avoided the term was because they were biased. I had other explanations. I think they were over-cautious, particularly those corrs in theatre.
will
“So we get 5 minutes of Orla hectoring an Israeli politician & 3 minutes of her sympathy & encouragment of a Palestinian spokesman, & hey presto the Glasgow study determines that the BBC is being partial to Israel.”
(One of) my points entirely. Counting minutes is meaningless if you ignore the comments to camera, the tone of the interview, the context . . . . etc. But, as I said, and of which john reith is entirely unconvinced, such evidence put before this particular panel led inexorably to its conclusion.
Archduke
“actually *like* channel 4 news. it doesnt pretend to be unbiased. it clearly has a soft-left liberal agenda”
Like or dislike its output, this particular (ostensibly disinterested) panel member controlled (set up?) the non-impartial Channel 4 News: by virtue of that alone can he be trusted to rule on the partiality or otherwise of BBC coverage? Mind you, I suppose he does know all about partiality of coverage.
reith
You bounced back in trying to say that the review did NOT find exactly what I had been arguing with you for weeks – that the BBC should describe bombings such as the tourist resorts with the T word, and the perpetrators of indiscriminate attacks aimed at civilians as terrorists rather than militants or some other weaselly euphemism. You spent weeks trying to defend the BBC’s spineless policy on this, its de facto refusal ever to use the T word in its Middle East reporting.
It now seems you realise your total error in suggesting that the BBC policy had been endorsed by the review, rather than torn up by the review. You tripped yourself up on that central point – the only point on which the review feels confident enough to print its recommendation in bold.
I had already posted more than once that the review stopped short of saying that the organisations that planned and ORGANISED the terrorism should also be described as terrorist. I happen to think the review’s position on this is totally illogical. But if the review’s recommendation on the T word is carried out, we will no longer be insulted by story after story after story where the T word should be used at least some of the time, but has been deliberately avoided ALL the time.
That was the main issue on which I had engaged with you. I had posted dozens of recent examples of stories where the BBC followed this de facto policy – and you tried to argue that it had a perfectly acceptable policy.
On wider issues of bias, I still feel it is irresponsible of the BBC to write about Hamas without very frequent reference to their intention to destroy Israel. That is the sort of CONTEXT that the review criticises the BBC for omitting.
I also welcomed the review’s argument that the BBC should not use the loaded term “illegal occupation”. That will get right up the nose of some of the BBC’s reporters. And the recommendation that it should not bang on about a wall – it should talk of a security barrier. These are all instances of what has appeared to be an implicit siding with the Palestinians. You could see the bias by the language they chose to use.
But the review falls lamentably short in failing to publish the written submissions. And failing to publish the minutes of oral evidence – there were only three days of this. This is a serious lack of transparency.
And I do not believe that the Loughborough analysis is an adequate base for concluding either way about whether the BBC lacks balance. They certainly lack context – but balance needs review over a far longer period – and not over just a few weeks when the BBC knew it was under review. This is a lack of thoroughness, a shallow approach, and it sits very badly with the failure to publish the submitted views which will mostly have taken a much longer historical perspective.
It is perhaps ironic that this week has seen the conclusion of this year’s Reith Lectures. The speaker was Daniel Barenboim – who is well known to be a critic of Israeli policy. I am perfectly prepared to listen to Barenboim, even though I disagree totally with the virulently anti-Israel arguments of his former colleague Edward Said. But it is impossible to imaging the BBC in its present state giving over the entire Reith Lecture platform to a critic of the PLA or Hamas.
Umbongo
You are correct in mentioning that Stewart Purvis, one of the review panel, set up Channel 4, which is unashamedly leftish.
Purvis is on record as saying that he wanted Channel 4 to take the left line.
However, in my view Purvis was the only member of the review panel with any real authority. (Elizabeth Vallance ? Come on – get real !) And he has been a serious critic of the BBC on many issues. I have a strong sense that he was the driving force behind the recommendation to stop being weaselly about using the T word.
reith
It is no good you saying that you would have used the T word. You argued incessantly that the BBC’s de facto policy was correct – when they were consistently avoiding the T word.
Why not stop digging. You tried to defend the indefensible.
I don’t think this Archbishop will be offered the Thought for the Day slot any time soon :
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pell-challenges-islam–o-ye-of-little-tolerant-faith/2006/05/04/1146335872951.html
anyone see question time last night?
i think i’m in love…
http://www.juliagoldsworthy.org/
http://www.jeanlambertmep.org.uk/
is surely the most delectable political face on TV.
Did the BBC report that this Gitmo appeal was thrown out when the judges found it could not assess conditions at Gitmo – especially the claims of torture which was the basis for the case ?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2165477,00.html
Yes of course the BBC carried a couple of reports. A long whine on behalf of the detainees. With NIL mention of WHY their case was thrown out – the absence of proper evidence that the detainees were subject to torture.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4973762.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4971900.stm
The BBC is just a mouthpiece for all those human rights lawyers. We are forced to pay both for the lawyers and for their glove-puppets at the BBC.
Who are the BBC journalists responsible for filing these stories ? Why no byline ?
Once again – why does the BBC always play one side of this issue ?
more PEDANTRY WARNING!!!!
Bryan | 04.05.06 – 11:56 pm
If you count the year 2000, isn’t this the seventh year of this century?
gordon-bennett | 05.05.06 – 2:07 am | #
this century began in 2001, because there was no year zero, the first century ended in yr 100. etc etc the 20th century ended in 2000…
D Burbage | 05.05.06 – 12:45 pm
more more PEDANTRY WARNING!!!!!
Unless you count the first century as having only 99 years!
Is that allowed? It would have the virtue of being tidier numerically.
I can see this topic being so fantastically gripping that it overwhelms all our work on beeb bias (NOT).
D Burbage and gordon-bennett,
Hmmmmmmm,
Situation requires much research:
http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/info/calendar.htm
Changes have happened since Pope Gregory XIII adjusted the calendar in 1582 AD, who eliminated the accumulated error caused by a faulty calculation of the length of a year and avoided its recurrence by restricting century leap years to those divisible by 400. (Yes 2000 IS A LEAP YEAR). This was introduced in Roman Catholic countries and other states only gradually changed from Old Style to New Style; Britain and its colonies didn’t adopt the Gregorian calendar for almost two centuries in 1752 AD, when the error amounted to 11 days. The 3 September 1752 AD became 14 September 1752 AD. Up until then England had celebrated beginning of the year on 25 March; after 1752 it was moved to 1 January.
Confused?
Think about this:
The last millennium would have been celebrated in Greenwich, England on 25 March 1001 AD but it wasn’t a thousand years ago because we “lost” 11 days along the way!
Hmmmmmmm, again. I like to think of it like this: if Jan 1st, 1901 was the first day of the first year of the 20th century, then Dec 31st, 2000 was the last day of the hundredth year of the 20th century, since a century ain’t got 99 years, but it does have 100 years.
So that means anyone getting really plastered to usher in the new century on New Year’s eve on Dec 31st, 1999 was a year too early.
Unless they stayed plastered for the whole year.
Unless they stayed plastered for the whole year.
I tried.
I tried.
I don’t have that much endurance.
My Liver Celebrated 2001