, by Robin Aitken, a well respected former BBC journalist is due out this week.
There is a long extract in today’s Mail on Sunday, What is the loneliest job in Britain? Being a Tory at the BBC, that is well worth reading. To whet your appetite here’s the introduction:
Working at the BBC can be a strange experience. On occasions during my 25 years as a journalist with the corporation it was jaw-dropping.
In 1984 I returned to BBC Scotland after covering the Tory conference in Brighton. The IRA had come close to assassinating Margaret Thatcher with a bomb and the country was in shock.
Apart, that is, from some of my BBC colleagues. “Pity they missed the bitch,” one confided to me.
For three decades I was that rare breed – a Conservative at the BBC. In my time working on programmes such as Today and Breakfast News I couldn’t have formed a cricket team from Tory sympathisers.
As one producer put it, you feel almost part of an ethnic minority.
We all know the cliched critique of the BBC: a nest of Lefties promoting a progressive agenda and political correctness.
Depressingly, that cliche is uncomfortably close to the truth: the BBC is biased,and it is a bias that seriously distorts public debate.
In the past 30 years, ‘Auntie’ has transformed from the staid upholder of the status quo to a champion of progressive causes.
In the process, the ideal at the heart of the corporation – that it should be fair-minded and non-partisan – has all but disappeared.
Do read the rest of the article. Can we trust the BBC? is available from Amazon.co.uk for £9.89 plus delivery (free if you spend a bit over a fiver on something else!).
Another recent book about the BBC that is on my current stack of books is Scrap the BBC! by Richard D. North (no relation to the Richard North at the excellent EU Referendum blog). This is also available from Amazon, cost £15.95 with free delivery, though can be bought at a discount from the publisher, The Social Affairs Unit (omm-sau), for £10 plus £2.75 postage via Amazon Marketplace.
Update: Some interesting comments on the original Daily Mail story, particularly the second and third ones:
Yep, wholeheartedly agree. I don’t look at the BBC website, and avoid their news programmes like the plague.
Steve, New Zealand
My son worked at the BBC until recently – he always felt it wise to keep quiet about the fact that I am a senior Tory activist, as did the daughter of another Tory Association chairman – and neither of them worked on the front line.
Sjm, London, UK
I was a coal miner one of many that voted for Mrs. Thatcher, I never had any regrets. I agree with your take on what has happened to the BBC, it angers me so much. Ideas are more deadly than bombs and the end of this dictatorship of the left in our country will be very bad. When it comes to it these liberals have no guts when it comes to a scrap. Well done to you, this from an ordinary bloke.
Frederick Mee, Rhyl North Wales
Well done to this author. A book like this is vital in the discussion.
Lmo, Notts, England
Well I won’t comment on Nigel Wrench’s sexual activities, other than to repeat that they have nothing to do with political impartiality.
But on your point 1 I’m afraid I’m simply disagree. The evidence that you bring on Plett, Webb and Frei does not suggest they are biased, and to say they have a “rabid hatred” is absurd.
Although I am always delighted to discuss more examples, if you have some.
Reithy you old flatterer you !
‘after a long and distinguished career in the RAF, intelligence and police work’
Wasn’t really distinguished, except possibly for the grey hair at the end. The plod work came before the intelligence and you missed out the wannabe mercenary bit in the Oman & other Muslim countries in the 70s. The daughter is 2 & 1/4 yrs and forbidden to watch CBBC.
Couldn’t afford to go to Waterstones to get Aitken’s book as I spent a fortune in Mothercare and ELC getting her favourite 64 Zoo Lane toys (Disney Channel courtesy of Sky).
Finally the child bride works for a multi-national and the relocation to Canada is definite, and we have been warned about CBC.
Andy Tedd
’By broad I mean like I might find in the office of any big company.
So that’s a fairly middle-class, educated, metropolitan, culturally literate view of the world then’.
Must show this to the wife tonight, the people she works with have views similar to mine about the BBC some more extreme, like burning at the stake.
I’m not quite sure what you mean in your other comment;
’How do you feel about that? You are fortunate that you can shoot your mouth off without having to set a target, so if you want to decline to comment, fine.’
Which bit do you want me to ‘feel about’, Dyke, the quotas, you having to implement them, not having reached 12.5% or the senior management only being 5%. Mind you I have to say that your ‘Diversity’ director seems to making a bit of a ham fist at the moment, still she has her 90 grand salary & bouffant pension to look forward to.
Yes I suppose I’m fortunate that I can shoot my mouth off without having to set a target. That’s what happens when you retire but it wasn’t always thus. In the late 90s targets led us into a position where we were carrying staff because of quotas. This led to potentially dangerous situations because they weren’t up to what was required. It wasn’t exactly helped by having Herman Ousley almost permanently camped in our DG’s office. Yes I have a little experience of targets and quotas and believe it or not I sympathise with your predicament although I doubt that you are confronted with life or death situations whilst munching on your morning croissants.
By the way jr is right I try (don’t always succeeed) to keep a bit of tongue in cheek.
TPO – these people who you refer to in your ‘burning at your stake’ comment – have they worked at the BBC? Do they know anyone who has? Has anyone got any sons and daughters who work there?
Because if they haven’t – what do they base their opinion on?
One person’s book – he doesnt speak for me.
My point was if 12.5% of BBC staff were from an ethnic background (Dyke’s target) would you consider that ‘hideous’?
If you like to post tongue in cheek then that’s a pretty aggresive question, so if you can find a humourous way to avoid it, I am not particularly bothered I have made my point.
I will make a mental note to apend a 🙂 to your posts. You seem to have His Lordship’s blessing, which is good enough for me.
Reynolds
”Although I am always delighted to discuss more examples, if you have some”
What, so you can ‘simply disagree’?
I must have imagined this then…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
”Washington correspondent Justin Webb SAID that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’, it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it ‘no moral weight’.”
Care to discuss
beeskybeetle | 20.02.07 – 4:38 pm
On Purnell, Richards, and Hunter you say “The BBC wanted to establish some routes into Downing Street to beg for its licence fee after Mr Tone came to power. Smart move really.” If that’s the case then these Labour cronies were merely sucking on the licence payer’s tit until their jobs in government were available. Oh well, that’s all right then.
I didn’t include Chris Bryant because I wasn’t casting the net that wide (special advisers and current government ministers only – God alone knows how long it would take to follow John Reith’s example and list every BBC/Labour link). However, now that you mention Bryant, his BBC job title from 1998-2000 (having failed to win Wycombe for Labour in 1997) was Head of European Affairs. Doesn’t sound like a non-job, but I suppose it could be.
I concede your point that Katie Kay would be better as club secretary.
Okay that’s quite enough gossip. Down to some serious Lit Crit:
So desperate is Aitken to find something that smells like institutional bias at the BBC that he travels all the way back to the early 1970s. At least, he hears on Radio 4 a documentary programme about how the Heath government lobbied and nobbled in support of Britain joining the EEC back then.
Aitken quotes a contributor to that programme, an ad-man and pro-Europe lobbyist called Geoffrey Tucker. Tucker recalls how the Europhiles used to complain to the BBC that Jack de Manio, then the presenter of the Today programme, was far too anti-EEC. This is what Tucker said on page 81:
Jack de Manio was a presenter who was terribly anti-European and we protested privately about this and he was moved. Whether that was a coincidence or not, I really don’t know. {My emphasis}
The programme team asked the BBC for a statement. The BBC statement said that de Manio’s removal was entirely coincidental.
The programme then quoted Marshall Stewart, the then editor of the Today programme and the man who actually took the decision to sack de Manio.
Stewart made clear that it had always been his intention to replace de Manio with a trained Current Affairs journalist.
So faced with an extremely tentative ‘non-allegation allegation’ (….a coincidence or not, I really don’t know) versus two unequivocal, flat-out denials, – one from the horse’s mouth – what does our doughty campaigner against prejudice and bias, Mr Robin Aitken, conclude? Turn to page 83:
The episode clearly shows that the BBC willingly complied with the wishes of the government to silence Jack de Manio, and perhaps other journalists, because they were seen as insufficiently supportive of the pro-European argument.
{My emphasis}
Now, after that, why should we believe anything else he has to say or put any faith whatsoever in his intellectual integrity or judgment?
I have followed the discussion here with some interest.It seems to be getting mired in detail.I need to have it explained to me in clear and simple terms just why in the exploding information age we need a tax funded organisation like the BBC at all.Break it up and sell it off and then arguments over bias become as irrelevant as they are with newspapers.We will pay our money and take our choice.If we like the BBC’s world view then we will subscribe.If not we won’t.
jr, Andy T et al.
Sorry can only quick scan tonite. Dad duties call. will try and think of something witty for tomorrow, especially for Andy – sounds like he needs it.
John Reith | 20.02.07 – 6:11 pm
With that Jack de Manio story you make a powerful demonstration of Aitken’s shortcomings as a journalist – and possibly as a human being.
In what school of mendacity, prithee, did Aitken learn his trade?
Nick Reynolds 20.02.07 – 2:05 pm,
If the comment about Barbara Plett refers to her piece about crying about Arafat on From Our Own Correspondent, Helen Boaden (Head of BBC News) said at the time that the piece was “an editorial misjudgement”, and the BBC Governors upheld complaints about it.
Boaden also said that Plett “unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Arafat.”
It’s a fascinating sentence that one. Take a careful look at it and you’ll discover a world of bias right there.
John Reith
Your “lit crit” is certainly a classic example of BBC reporting.
Faced with a story which doesn’t comply with your world view, you stick your fingers in your ears, ignore most of it and cherry pick an item you think you can spin to your advantage.
In fact the item you chose struck me as being one of the most sinister episodes in the whole book.
The idea that the BBC colluded with a government PR unit and pro-europe politicians from both parties to deliberately skew the news agenda towards Europe totally demolishes any claim of impartialty – whatever happened to Demanio.
The BBC quote that his departure was “coincidental” deserves the Mandy Rice Davies response.
I think Roy Hattersley summed up the affair pretty well :- “….I am rather ashamed of sounding so pious , but it really did shock me at the time and, frankly, remembering it now, shocks me still.”
Are you going to comment on the extracts I posted previously?
You said you would.
You said you would.
John Reith – he of the false promises. He’s promised some of us months ago to respond to specific points we’ve made.
I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
Invincibly ignorant.
I asked for examples that Webb has a “rabid hatred” for the United States. The example you have chosen seems to indicate the opposite.
If it’s true of course. If this quote is from the Daily Mail’s coverage of the impartiality seminar, then all I can say is I watched the seminar live on the web, and I missed this.
TPO:
will try and think of something witty for tomorrow, especially for Andy – sounds like he needs it.
TPO | 20.02.07 – 7:18 pm | #
Oh dear, hope I’m not coming over as some po-faced trot. That isn’t the idea 😉
Nick Reynolds
“I asked for examples that Webb has a “rabid hatred” for the United States. The example you have chosen seems to indicate the opposite.”
I don’t know about “rabid hatred” for the United States.
But I think that this quote from JW demonstrates patronising contempt for a fair number of Americans.
“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…”
Justin Webb
Which is just the sort of ex-pat snobbery which the BBC purports to oppose, Nick.
Foxgoose 20.02.07 – 11:07 pm
Faced with a story which doesn’t comply with your world view, you stick your fingers in your ears
I’m not sticking my fingers in my ears, I am engaging directly with Aitken’s book • even down to detailed textual analysis.
The idea that the BBC colluded with a government PR unit and pro-europe politicians from both parties to deliberately skew the news agenda towards Europe totally demolishes any claim of impartialty
No. The fact of it might. But the unsubstantiated ‘idea’ of it that you and Aitken peddle is just moonshine.
It seems you have a lot in common with Aitken. For instance, a marked propensity to accept an allegation as true if it’s in line with you’re your worldview, even when the evidence suggests it’s nonsense. That’s ‘truthiness’. Details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
In the de Manio case, there wasn’t even an allegation to start with. Geoffrey Tucker was clear that he didn’t know whether it was coincidence or not. You and Aitken have elevated that admission of ignorance into an allegation of wrongdoing.
And you are dishonest with your quotations. You cite Hattersley to support your case:
I think Roy Hattersley summed up the affair pretty well :- “….I am rather ashamed of sounding so pious , but it really did shock me at the time and, frankly, remembering it now, shocks me still.”
But when we go back to the original, we find that Hattersley wasn’t talking about the de Manio case • but about a breakfast he’d been to where other journalists were criticised.
It is perhaps worth noting that the government you accuse the BBC of being in cahoots with was a Conservative government. The leading anti-Europeans in those days tended to come from the Left of the Labour Party. Hardly fits with Aitken’s general premise that the BBC is consistently a prisoner of the Left, does it?
You invite my comments over 3 passages:
1. Aitken overhears Greg Dyke asking a colleague ‘who was that f***er?’ {probably referring to Aitken}.
Typical Cockney sparra stuff from Greg. Not surprised. Bit uncouth. But it was a private conversation. Free country.
2. my boss asked what we would do if Labour formed the next government. John Birt replied “lets hope the f**ck they do”.
Typical Scouser stuff. Not surprised • he was a Labour Party member! Bit uncouth, again. Free country: JB is as entitled to express his political preferences in private as anyone else. It’s not as if he said it on television. The DG’s personal political preferences are as irrelevant to the BBC’s output as his taste in music or the football team he happens to support.
3. “…..The BBC has turned George Bush into a clownish hate figure……
Simply untrue. Certainly BBC News hasn’t. Some comedians/satirists may have done • though probably not nearly to the extent that C4’s Rory Bremner or US TV’s John Stewart have. But hell, that goes with the territory. If you dispute this point out one BBC News programme on either radio or TV that portrayed the President as ‘a clownish hate-figure’. Then, if you think you can make a case of consistent and deliberate bias, point out half a dozen more. Aitken can’t. Can you?
Fran | 21.02.07 – 4:01 pm
I think it is pretty clear from the passage by Justin Webb that you quote that Webb is about to go on to say something complimentary about the USA.
Check out the original article and you find this is indeed the case:
Americans do believe in God and they do believe in life, but they also believe in law, and rules, and the need for democracy to restrain, not satisfy, the wishes of politicians.
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. ………………..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.
Can’t fairly be described as rabidly anti-American, can it?
Fran,
this is the classic biased bbc quote. But if you read the rest of the article Webb actually praises the US. He says:
“…Americans do believe in God and they do believe in life, but they also believe in law, and rules, and the need for democracy to restrain, not satisfy, the wishes of politicians.”
He concludes:
“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.”
Does this show contempt for the US?
No
Does it show anti US bias?
No.
To read in full:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4400865.stm
Nick and John
Thanks Boys! But I can and had read the article (all the way to the bottom)!
Even if Webb concedes that, despite loving God and life, Americans also love justice, the law and the rest, this in no way mitigates his earlier comments which reveal his personal contempt for many citizens of the country in which he chooses to work.
For instance, in this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4469590.stm
Webb reveals how he checked out his hosts’ intelligence credentials whilst waiting to have dinner in their home – by judicious questioning of their son.
He informs us that his hosts were – shock – REPUBLICAN supporters. And the wife was (OMG) a SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER!
So when the son announces that he has a collection of dinosaurs upstairs, Webb cannot resist. After all,
“Millions of Americans, most of them supporters of the Republican party, believe that the world was created only a few thousand years ago as per the account in Genesis and the dinosaurs can only date from then, so the Tyrannosaurus Rex romped around with Adam and Eve.
…. And Meade’s parents – I know his mum teaches Sunday school – might be among them.”
What dangers might not lurk for Webb and his partner around this family’s dinner table!
Happily for Webb, when he asks the lad when the dinosaurs lived, the boy gives (for Webb) the correct answer.
Huge sighs of relief all round. Webb confides
“I could have hugged him and his parents; we are, after all, inhabiting the same mental planet.”
This comment seems rather ungracious in view of his being a guest, and had I been his hostess, I might be a tad miffed to read this article.
However, the hosts appear to be Christian, and on Ash Wednesday we Christians should be forgiving.
Justin might consider, though that there are millions of people on this planet, including millions of Muslims, Christian, Jews and others who do not accept the account of the origins of the world according to Richard Dawkins.
They include people whose intellectual credentials even Webb might aspire to.
They DO inhabit the same world as Justin’s, and they are entitled to rather more respect than he has accorded his hosts in this article.
John Reith
Well JR, Aitken’s little offering has obviously touched a nerve or two with his old colleagues – suddenly we’ve got beeboids attacking from all sides and the tone’s getting a touch shrill.
I think the fact that the first BBC insider ever to publicly offer an alternate view has caused such a flutter in the dovecote just confirms what we all thought – the organisation has a corporate world view that can’t be challenged.
Most of us in th real world work everyday alongside people whose views range from George Galloway’s to Nick Griffin’s – but clearly things are different at the Beeb.
By the way – your’re the one whose not telling the truth about Hattersley’s quote. Aitken introduces it by saying :- “He attended just one breakfast, but came away with the impression that the de Manio incident had not been an isolated act” – i.e. he was talking about de Manio and others.
The fact that the BBC colluded with Conservative as well as Labour europhile politicians to skew the referendum coverage doesn’t do anything to mitigate their bias – there were fervent pros and antis in both parties.
Loved your “cockney sparra/scouser – bit uncouth, never mind, free country” stuff about Dyke and Birt’s obscene and blatantly biased remarks
Lovable rogues really, bless ’em – that might wash if they were Saturday AM teen TV producers but we’re talking about two Director Generals.
Your namesake must be spinning in his grave.
On to George Bush.
Thought I’d type Bush & Clinton into the BBC website search engine and see what came up.
Hundreds of pages of course – so let’s just look at the first one of each:-
Clinton: http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&q=clinton&go=Search
Panorama Clinton Interview,
Bill Clinton 1993 – 2001,
The Clinton Years (all BBC Best Links by the way)
and so on and on.
Now George: http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=George+Bush&scope=all&edition=d&tab=all&recipe=all&x=19&y=8
On page one we have headings :-
“Storyville – Jesus Christ and George Bush – this film is interesting because, unlike most films about George Bush, it makes no overt judgements”
“Video Nation – George Bush by Robert Curry” – this appears to be an astrological peace confirming that Bush (like Thatcher) was a war monger ‘cos it’s in their stars!
“Press Office – George Bush on elusive peace – Nabil Shath said “President Bush said to all of us: I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.”
So – on the one hand Clinton gets statesman like Best Links with glamorous pix and Monica buried away in the small print and Bush gets jokey headlines along the lines that he’s a warmongering religous nut.
Pretty well spot on with Aitken’s quote I think.
Foxgoose – ‘attacking’? Merely a bit of light editorial scrutiny that’s all. I hope you are all enjoying it.
Anyway, I resent the term ‘Beeboid’ 🙂 I am merely a concerned license-fee paying stakeholder with moderate right-wing leanings – like most people on these boards.
Foxgoose | 21.02.07 – 6:48 pm |
When I click on your George Bush link, I don’t get any of the headlines you list.
I get:
George W. Bush Profile
Full Text of the 2004 State of the Union Adddress etc.
The only thing I can find relating to contempt or ridicule is this story about a US TV cartoon series about Bush, written by the guy who does the Simpsons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6205808.stm
Beeskybeetle
You might want to check your browser settings.
All the headlines Foxgoose references came up when I linked.
Foxgoose | 21.02.07 – 6:48 pm
I take it that your decision to seek refuge in the thicket of search-engine algorithms means that, like Aitken, you are unable to cite any TV or Radio programme broadcast by BBC News in the past seven years that can reasonably be said to portray President Bush as ‘a clownish hate-figure’.
Thought you’d have trouble with that.
John Reith | 22.02.07 – 10:04 am
How do you know some geek with an agenda didn’t design the search-engine algorithm precisely to bury bad news about Monica Lewinsky and/or foreground Bush’s evangelicalism?
Are there Geek Guidelines?
I’ve googled Andy Tedd – looks like he’d have the know-how.
John Reith
“I take it that your decision to seek refuge in the thicket of search-engine algorithms means that, like Aitken, you are unable to cite any TV or Radio programme broadcast by BBC News in the past seven years that can reasonably be said to portray President Bush as ‘a clownish hate-figure’. ”
How about the constant cheap jokes about President Bush on programmes like “Have I got News for You, the News Quiz, The Now Show, Dead Ringers, panelists on Question Time, Any Questions, contributors like Billy Bragg ….
Need I go on?
The stream of opprobrium directed against President Bush from the BBC and its guests is constant.
Fran | 22.02.07 – 11:28 am
I take it from your list – which includes only one programme (Question Time) that is any way connected to BBC News – that you too are finding difficulty in identifying any programme made by BBC News over the past seven years that has portrayed Bush as a ‘clownish hate figure’.
This discussion began with an allegation by a ‘source’ in Aitken’s book (quoted on another thread by Foxgoose) about ‘biased’ BBC news journalists portraying Bush in this way.
I must say that your clutching at straws – comedians, pop-singers, panelists and audience members on QT – takes you such a long distance from the original allegation that I feel confident in terming it a headlong retreat.
Tell me I am wrong: cite me half a dozen cases from BBC News programmes. At least then you’d be one step on the way to standing-up a charge of consistent, institutional bias.
Hello John!
Nice to see you’re out to play again!
I’d say that comedy programmes which use BBC news footage of Bush, played out of context, and played about with (backwards, repeat, etc) demonstrate the complicit culture of ridicule of which Aitken speaks.
And what about the stumbles from GW and Rumsfeld which used to be a regular feature of the Saturday today programme- explicitly used as comedy moments?
I’d also say that Webb’s portrayal of Bush supporters in America in his articles which I cited in an earlier post (and on which I notice you are silent) constitute further evidence.
Looks like you need a retreat yourself, John!
That’s enough of the light intellectual banter. Back to the serious business of marking Year 9 essays.
John Reith
I think the fact that you keep trying to narrow down the debate – as in “..any TV or radio programme broadcast by BBC News in the past X years…” indicates you know your on a loser.
Fran hit the nail on the head.
The bias in the BBC, as Aitken says, is cultural, endemic and “institutional” (in the McPherson sense) and pervades all the BBC’s output from childrens’ programming to comedy.
It stems from the fact that its employees at all levels are exclusively recruited either by ads in the Grauniad or continual, two way interchange with the left wing press and the Labour Party.
I shouldn’t think anybody here thinks that if Commander Yates did a raid on the BBC’s servers he would find emails saying “let’s bash the Tories again this week” – there wouldn’t be any need.
The “bias” is simply an unconscious expression of what BBC folk feel is a reasonable middle of the road view for them and the people they associate with (a bit like the pre- McPherson police “canteen culture” we keep being told about).
The only problem is that leaves the 30-40% ish of the population who lean towards the Telegraph/Daily Mail rather than the Grauniad/Independent view of the world paying for a service which completely ignores their point of view.
Perhaps the only way forward is for a new “diversity” post at the beeb so that someone like Norman Tebbit or Richard Littlejohn can be brought in to organise “cultural awareness of the needs of the right wing minority” seminars or something.
What do you think?
The Year 9 essays can wait.
Just got the last ticket to hear Aitken debating BBC Bias at the ICA tonight.
Re Bush as ‘clownish hate figure’. Natalie discussed a Today segment during which the presenters and John Pilger laughed about Bush’s stupidity.
Listen to how the two BBC interviewers chuckle along with Pilger when Pilger says, “who knows what he meant?” Then in comes Naughtie with, “Can he remember?” What wit. Pilger then says that he doubts if Bush knew what country he was in or has even heard of the Tet offensive and the merriment is shared once again.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2006/10/tet-on-today.html
Foxgoose | 22.02.07 – 12:37 pm
Looks like the retreat is turning into a rout.
Can we all agree then that the main areas of BBC output that might require ‘re-balancing’ are comedy and children’s TV and leave news & current affairs out of it?
I’m not sure that the BBC’s guarantee of impartiality does – or can – extend
to comedy. Not for want of effort. The BBC has been trying for years to identify a cadre of right-wing comics. Fox, I notice, is having difficulty too. Re-cycling Ann Coulter one-liners
doesn’t seem to hack it.
Comic culture tends to be pretty much universally leftie. Remeber ITV’s Spitting Image? Channel 4’s Rory Bremner? And Fran’s:
news footage of Bush, played out of context, and played about with (backwards, repeat, etc)
and
stumbles from GW and Rumsfeld
appear to be staples of US satirical comedy shows too.
The BBC did try giving Gyles Brandreth his own show. Any other suggestions?
On your wider theme:
Richard Littlejohn used to have his own show on 5-Live too. As did that Tory egg woman from Derbyshire who slept with John Major. And the fat little ex-Cabinet minister who sucked the toes of an actress. (Goodness how quickly one can forget their names). And Lord Tebbit has guest-edited Today. There’s inclusivity for you.
Re: the seminars……they happen already. About once a month. Representatives of all sorts of political/religious/cultural minorities (+ majorities) are invited in to speak to editors and producers about whether or not they’re getting a fair shake.
On children’s programmes – I can’t help you. I’ve never watched any. I gather from this blog though that the chief source of grievance is the presence of a little black boy in a programme set on the Hebridean island of Tobermorey….or is it Mull? Whatever, I suspect the real reason is because they want little black boys to watch the programme, rather than seeking to ‘indoctrinate impressionable young minds with the ideology of multiculturalism’ as posters here seem to argue.
I think you’ll find that Mail and Telegraph readers feature prominently in the most loyal ‘core’ audiences of Radio 4, Radio 3, BBC 2 and elsewhere in the BBC’s broadcast offering.
Now, back to Aitken – what do you think is a fair representation of Eurosceptics vs Europhiles? To this tricky question we must next address ourselves…………
The bulk of Al Beeb’s ‘liberal left’show little intellectual curiosity and little independent understanding about Islam’s political philosophy and history. Islamist apologists and propagandists are strongly featured on Al Beeb, whereas critics of Islam
are few and far between.
JR
I’ve heard the one about “comic culture tends to be universally leftie” before – usually from media lefties.
It isn’t true of course – remember the beeb’s “Citizen Smith”? – ran four years, thirty odd episodes,very funny and hugely popular.
Based entirely on taking the piss out of lefties and curiously never repeated or emulated in the last 27 years.
Interestingly the script idea came from a scenery shifter – not a BBC staff writer.
I’d forgotten that Norman Tebbit once guest edited Today – that obviously “re-balances” umpteen years of John (“more resources!”) Humphries and James (“when we win the election”) Naughtie then.
I’m not sure where you’re coming from with the story about the little black boy.
I was thinking about the CBBC news item about the Iraq friendly fire accident discussed here:
“Important
When troops on the same side fire at each other, it’s known as friendly fire, or blue-on-blue.
Although accidents like this do happen in war, this is seen as very important because it could show the Americans aren’t being honest about what happened”
Finally, on Europe I think a fair representation of Europhile/sceptic opinion would be 50/50 rather than the two to one ratio of coverage found by the Minotaur analysis of 5 years and 2000 hours of BBC output in 2004.(Chapter 5 of Aitken’s book.)
Bye for now – got to do some paperwork.
Alan | 22.02.07 – 2:54 pm
Islamist apologists and propagandists are strongly featured on Al Beeb, whereas critics of Islam are few and far between.
Mmm. I feel I see or hear quite a lot of critics of Islam on the BBC – notably Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Michael Gove. Hard to prove though.
Fortunately, last Summer Melanie P used to include her broadcasting spots on her blog diary and sent updates to regular readers like me.
I’ve left out her regular Moral Maze gig unless it was about Muslims. Here’s her BBC outings in the month 29 June to 29 July:
June 29th 2006 BBC 1 Question Time
June 30th 2006 BBC TV Politics Show
July 5th 2006 BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze (with 2 members of the Muslim Brotherhood)
July 17th 2006 Simon Mayo BBC Radio 5 Live.
July 29th 2006 BBC Radio 4 Talking Politics.
I doubt whether any ‘Islamist apologist’ got half so many high-profile slots as that in the same period.
John Reith:
Your ‘answer’ proves my original point.
Of course, Al Beeb doesn’t use just one token Islamist apologist;and
Al Beeb is not discriminating in its source of Islamist apologist: Muslim Councl of Britain, Muslim Brotherhood,etc.
Do you think Islam is a threat to
Western societies, like the UK?
I doubt whether any ‘Islamist apologist’ got half so many high-profile slots as that in the same period.
It was the anniversary of 7/7 and Melanie Phillips had a book out called “Londonistan”. Go figure. I think you’ll find there were plenty of Islamist apologists on the BBC during the same period.
There are no specific anniversaries next week, but someone has a slot on Start the Week to discuss Muhammad’s life. What do you reckon – critic or Islamist?
As it happens I think BBC coverage of Islam has become more critical and the likes of Hirsi Ali now get a fairer look-in, but that’s mainly thanks to the efforts of people like those who contribute to this blog.
Re. ‘clownish hate figure’ (I notice you ignored my reference to Pilger on Today). Do your “news and current affairs” criteria include all the many unchallenged moments of casual Bush-bashing from the regular guests who appear on shows like Simon Mayo, Worricker and Broadcasting House?
Sorry – above is addressed to JR.
Memo to Andrew Marr, and next Monday’s ‘Start the Week’ which includes an item on Muhammad, apparently:-
“Of course, many non-Muslims cannot accept the reality of what Muhammad did and taught because its implications are simply too frightening. Many assume that identifying the elements of Islam that today fuel jihad violence and subversive, nonviolent efforts to spread sharia in the West will end up creating a “clash of civilisations” and pitting the West against the entire Islamic world. More than a few analyists believe that if Western governments and media
ignore or downplay these facts about Islam, they will be able to head off
such a global conflict and empower reformers within the Islamic world.”
Robert Spencer,’The Truth about Muhammad'(Regnery, 2006).
(Robert Spencer is director of:
http://www/jihadwatch.org )
Fran wrote:
“Why ‘El Pajero’?”
Please ignore question Don’t want to know answer!
Fran | 19.02.07 – 8:02 am | #
Yes, Andrew has also used the English language version of this term to at least one other person who has criticised him. Provides a good insight into his character for those who see the campaign against BBC bias as a moral cause.
A nice little rhyme up above by the way Fran, but unfortunately somewhat way of the mark (in more ways than one – Pooter ‘female’!)
El P**ero [asterix for those who understand Spanish] isn’t the only example of Andrews unpleasant and tawdry character.
Some time ago now he referred to me as a “swivel eyed loon” for suggesting that MI5 should investigate certain BBC journalists such as Peter Marshall for their coverage of 7-7 with a view to bringing charges of Treason. What bought upon these hysterics was that he had just received a ‘scary letter’ from the BBC. He was also running around like a headless chicken being abusive to various other commentators on the BBC’s behalf. The guy is a complete fink who would sell this cause down the swanney at the drop of a hat if it suited him.
At least he has curbed the excesses of his ghastly character since I kept getting unbanned a while back to expose them. If only the excesses of the left wing John Humphreys could be similarly ‘curbed’!
Anonanon | 22.02.07 – 5:04 pm
Sorry I ignored your Pilger. I did so because I don’t want to be a bore by continually re-stating the terms of trade here.
The original accusation was about BBC journalists.
Pilger isn’t a BBC journalist. He is a well-known leftie who writes for the New Statesman. He may have used a BBC platform to slag off Bush, but Richard Perle and many others have used the same platform to defend and even praise the President.
We are trying to see if there is any merit in the claim that BBC staffers have consistently sought to denigrate Bush by portraying him as ‘a clownish hate figure’. To achieve the effect claimed in the Aitken book, they’d have to have done it time and time again on all main networks over a period of years.
So asking for half a dozen examples from BBC News isn’t asking for much.
Unless, of course, it just ain’t true!
… Would like to claim credit for the penultimate post (at least the right wing John Humphreys has neither the wit or invention to refer to me as ‘hippieputa’)
Andy Tedd suggests that Robin Aitken made up his accusations to make money:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/117176036086735950/#330649
This really says all that needs to be said about the BBC.
If the comment about Barbara Plett refers to her piece about crying about Arafat on From Our Own Correspondent, Helen Boaden (Head of BBC News) said at the time that the piece was “an editorial misjudgement”, and the BBC Governors upheld complaints about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter…ent/ 4471494.stm
Nick Reynolds | 20.02.07 – 2:05 pm
BBC Governors upholding complaints means sweet Fanny Adams mate.
The piece, “editorial misjudgment” and all is still online prominently linked from the link you provide:
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4471494.stm )
SEE ALSO:
Yasser Arafat’s unrelenting journey
30 Oct 04 | From Our Own Correspondent
So what exactly is the result of a complaint being upheld by the governors?
No editing of the offending (offensive) piece, no “health warning” accompanying it to inform the audience that it had been subject to a complaint which had been upheld, no nuffin’!
The world watches the unfolding drama as the man who has become the symbol for Palestinian nationalism seems to hover between life and death. Though full of uncertainties, Mr Arafat’s life has been one of sheer dedication and resilience.
To be honest, the coverage of Yasser Arafat’s illness and departure from Palestine was a real grind. I churned out one report after the other, without any sense of drama.
Foreign journalists seemed much more excited about Mr Arafat’s fate than anyone in Ramallah.
We hovered around the gate to his compound, swarming around the Palestinian officials who drove by, poking our microphones through their dark, half-open windows.
But where were the people, I wondered, the mass demonstrations of solidarity, the frantic expressions of concern?
Was this another story we Western journalists were getting wrong, bombarding the world with news of what we think is an historic event, while the locals get on with their lives?
Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry… without warning.
Excuse me while I wretch… at least I’m warning you.
‘a clownish hate figure’
I suppose the BBC news staff were just wannabe BBC comedians when they put a picture of Bush on the Newsroom wall, with the legend
Hail to the thief
John Reith | 22.02.07 – 6:13 pm
“Pilger isn’t a BBC journalist.”
No, but the Today presenters who joined him in mocking Bush most certainly are.
You’ve gone from this – “you are unable to cite any TV or Radio programme broadcast by BBC News in the past seven years that can reasonably be said to portray President Bush as ‘a clownish hate-figure”
to this-
“asking for half a dozen examples from BBC News isn’t asking for much.”
Actually yes it is – I for one don’t keep a diary of my viewing and listening habits. I can’t recall all the sneers and dismissive comments, or all those sympathetic interviews with anti-Bush guests. The memories merge together as one.
BBC bias is a Zen thing. Direct experience leads to understanding.
Q. What’s the sound of one hand clapping?
A. The BBC table at the RTS journalism awards.
Anonanon | 22.02.07 – 7:57 pm
…except when Panorama won the Home Current Affairs programme of the year award.
I understand some of you think the BBC is biased. I think youre wrong but each to their own. Please stop using the trendy phrase ‘Institutional bias’ though when you do not understand what this means. Perhaps someone can explain how it is ‘institutionally’ biased as opposed to just biased. (Bearing in mind jobs are not only advertised in the Guradian)
I think it is just a through away phrase that people use without knowing what it means.
Cris
“Please stop using the trendy phrase ‘Institutional bias’ though when you do not understand what this means. ”
How fortunate for us that you dropped by, Cris.
Perhaps you’d like to explain what the phrase really means, so that we can employ it properly in future.