“when it became clear that the presenter was interested only in the opinion of his two Euro-phile guests, and had brought me along as a sort of pantomime Euro-phobe, I saw no purpose in carrying on.”
Indeed the BBC can sap the will to carry on. Daniel Hannan persevered, and got results. Read all about it.
The conclusion he draws is that the BBC is unwittingly biased, and amenable when challenged. I’m not convinced this is more than partly true, but certainly one can get results from standing up and being counted.
(hat tip to Iain Dale)
“Eurocrat Empire Building” (28 Mar.)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com
First 2 sentences:
“With the accession of Romania and Bulgaria on Jan.1, the EU’s territory has reached the outer boundaries of the European continent.
Since the European Empire by definition has to expand, it has to move into Asia and Africa.”
A Luker-
Interesting.
Never herd of the “New Left” movement, the “counter-culture” or “libertarian socialism”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist
Although the above articles are flawed I can clearly tell the “marketing strategy” of Al Beeb.
You see you are free to come and troll as you please Luker. You don’t pay for the privilege of being insulted by use. However you go to jail if you don’t pay the licence fee-so you’re effectively paying for an opinion that is neither welcome or wanted.
So much for freedom huh.
The other point is we are not paid to be journalist, nor do we claim to be, but seeing as we are all paying customers therefore we are stakeholders and we have every right to express our views, your argument, like so much of your narration, is based on the “journalism by assertion” rather than fact because you know nothing about me apart from what I print.
A Lurker | 28.03.07 – 7:44 am,
You are going from bad to worse. What’s “mild” about your “spluttering and twisted”??
You’ve evidently been browsing the internet too much and picking up too many bad habits. Do you actually have anything to say about BBC bias? After all, that’s what this blog is about.
Yes but what does it mean anyway? How can you have a spluttering view of the world?
Alan | 28.03.07 – 9:28 am | #
Alan, interesting that you should post that. I’ve heard rumours that Morrocco is aiming to join at some point in the future. The current king is quite determined to drag his country in to the 20th century (no, that isn’t a typo) and it’s been speculated that one of his reasons is so he can start negotiating to join the EU. Why? No idea. It might just be a load of rubbish…
But it’s interesting.
Lurker
Whatever you say (how can a PM who alows his chancellor to raise taxes 99 times in 10 years and employs an additional 900,000 people on the public purse, someone who fights the class war, be anything but a socialist? He might deny it, but I think it is you who mistake the definition of a socialist) you still have not presented a valid point. You are still relying on the fallacies.
Richard | 28.03.07 – 3:59 pm
I notice you mention GB’s 99 tax increases but not his 256 tax reduction measures.
Taken as a whole Brown has not been socialist in tooth and claw. In fact, during his first 9 years as chancellor, the tax burden (tax and NI as a percentage of GDP) has been lower on average than it was during the 1979-97 Conservative governments.
Even the recent hike only brought it back up to a level last seen under Maggie Thatcher.
It’s easy to forget that under Nigel Lawson, the basic rate of income tax was 25 per cent and the top rate was 60.
wrangler | 28.03.07 – 5:30 pm
It’s easy to forget that under Nigel Lawson, the basic rate of income tax was 25 per cent
under Geoffrey Howe it was 30%
Accusations of socialism against the current government are as ludicrous as the lefty charge that Blair is a closet Thatcherite. Accusations of chronic organisational incomepetence are another matter entirely….
Robbiekeane: indeed – there is nothing closeted about the Tory Blur’s love for all things Thugcherite. He is her linear successor: a supposed Christian who denies Christian teachings about the community, sexuality, the family (Meg Thug consistently voted against any reduction in the scope of abortion, and her party courted the gay vote) and prides himself on being pro-business. It is a measure of the terminal corruption of the trades unions, that they still support him.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that, like Meg Thug, the Tory Blur has been butchering the armed forces. In the last three decades, the effective fighting capacity of HM forces has been halved. Today Britain could not fight the Falklands War: it would have neither the means nor the resources. The only thing that has increased are corrupt PFI contracts and the sales of former military land and barracks.
Oh, and Lurker? Are you really that stupid? Upthread from here there is a clear statement of mine that I support European unity, though not in the rancid PC form that we are being offered it. This blog features many different viewpoints, all moved from one common perception – that the BBC is a bunch of liars. Maybe one day you will learn to read English and then you will understand what we are all, from our different viewpoints, saying.
Wrangler
That is far too simplistic a view.
A few points – how can anyone but a socialist increase tax as a proportion of GDP during a time of strong growth?
Secondly does nothing strike you as odd about the figure 256? Like it is a hell of a lot of tweaks? That he is (like a good socialist) trying to control people with tax policy, trying to give people money, forgetting that it is he that took it off them in the first place? Does it not strike you as, at the very least, unduly complicated?
The fact of a large number of changes in either direction are a socialist trait; it just happens that the 99 make up, overall, a larger amount of money than your claimed 256. The complete, rounded socialist.
Third you talk blithely about averages, ignoring the fact that this, coupled with the increases Brown has made shows that the Conservatives conversely gradually reduced taxes on income over the period.
This leads me to the most important point – you are talking about the tax burden, but only including income tax and NI. This is disingenuous, as the tax burden includes a lot more than that.
It also happens that when I was at my most vulnerable, with no job but paying for my own career training so unable to calim any benefits either, Brown introduced a tax change that ran contra to stated government policy and cost me at least £9000. That tax change, which disadvantaged many I knew and put the training out of reach of people without savings, ended up costing the government hundreds of millions of pounds in fraud which netted many criminals, including terrorists, hundreds of thousands of pounds. Note I am not on a high income – I earn less than train drivers and many manual workers, so i was not even a legitimate target except in the class war.
IngSoc
Thanks for the links nut I’m not sure how they would help. I’m no academic expert on the policitical movements you point to but from what I know of the Frankfurt School for instance I do not think these writers would in any way see the current government or the BBC as doing their bidding. I think Adorno, Horkheimer et al would be very disappointed.
Bryan:
Yes I guess I do have something to say about BBC bias. Firstly whether the BBC is biased depends upon where you think the centre ground is – and clearly many on this thread would see the centre ground in a very different place to me and many other people.
Secondly I have often heard BBC radio and TV pieces that have clearly got a right wing / conservative bias but don’t splutter away about them cos I accept that some things may well have a bias to them and it tends to balance out. But of course if you selectively only quote the supposed examples of liberal bias (as this site does) you will get a biased view (see what I did there?) of BBC bias.
If for example, you have a world view that does not understand why the abolition of slavery is such a significant issue for black people in the UK (the wealth of cities such as Bristol and Liverpool were build on slavery) is some militant liberal part of a great liberal conspiracy then your perception of bias will perhaps be different to mine.
Or your world view is such that any one who thinks that that Israeli state is guilty of occupying Palestine and sometimes carries out barbaric acts against the Palestinians is dangerously anti-Semitic then again your perception of bias will be different to mine.
But I am prepared to listen and absorb other points of view – I have read thoughtful intelligent comments on here that are not just part of some conservative love in (you get the same thing on leftie boards).
So is the BBC biased? Well as I said that depends on your view of where the centre ground is. Perhaps it even does have a liberal bias – but it is in no way as biased and dangerous as many on here make out – my perception of the centre ground may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the collective perception of the centre ground on B-BBC is further off the mark than mine.
Yes but what does it mean anyway? How can you have a spluttering view of the world?
Jonathan Cambridge | 28.03.07 – 12:52 pm
It’s a close cousin of foam-flecked. In other words, it is an attempt to denigrate your opponent, not by sound argument, but by portraying him/her as so incapable of rational thought that he/she merely splutters in indignation.
The BBC’s notion of the “centre ground” has been aptly exposed by the sidebars to this site, quoting people with inside experience.
The Corporation’s idea of the “centre ground” might be summarized as that of a middle-class leftist couple living in North London, who read (and believe) the Guardian or the Independent, who are employed at the soft end of the public sector, and who depend almost entirely on the taxpayer for their livelihood and for the services they consume.
The BBC has a vested interest in promoting this as the “centre ground”, since that is how the Corporation continues to claim its own handouts.
A Lurker,
….if you selectively only quote the supposed examples of liberal bias (as this site does)….
Untrue. I, and others, give the BBC credit where it’s due. You’ve never seen that? You go on to mention you’ve noticed “intelligent” comments on this site. Do you see how that contradicts the statement of yours that I’ve just quoted?
And what is supposed about the liberal bias? You’re so keen to make your point that you can’t see that your argument is muddled.
As regards the centre ground the BBC wouldn’t know where that was if it tripped over it. Have a look at this arrogant nonsense from The Editors blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/both_sides.html#commentsanchor
Jerry Timmins appears to genuinely believe that the World Service held to the middle ground in its Israel-bashing coverage of the Lebanon war. That in itself speaks volumes about BBC bias.
There are exceptions, but by and large the BBC cuddles up to the Arabs in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Why do you imagine Alan Johnston is so popular in Gaza?
A Lurker,
I think that you have been around these boards long enough to have seen the old “some left-wingers think the BBC is too right-wing so it must be impartial” argument debunked on several occasions. The fact is the BBC should not be taking a viewpoint at all; it’s reporting should be of the FACTS – all of them – and the viewers can determine their viewpoints for themselves. Interviewees should be selected to reflect ALL viewpoints on the issue, right-wing, left-wing, centrist, everything. Your argument to me demonstrates that you think the BBC is biased as well. To pick a viewpoint – even one you believe is in the centre of public opinion – and then report the facts to fit in with that story is poor journalism, and biased journalism – biased towards the viewpoint. The BBC does this nowadays by default. On some occasions the BBC is biased towards the middle ground – yes, this is possible – and this is why right and left will both complain simultaneously. If the BBC reported the facts in full and without omission, no-one could have valid cause for complaint.
My complaint – and I suspect many other posters are the same – is with the whole way the BBC’s reporters go about their job; polemic first, facts to suit the polemic. To use a cliche – Don’t Let The Facts Get In The Way Of A Good Story. If you read the posts on here, especially from the regular contributors, the complaints are usually about omission or misrepresentation of the facts. If facts from one side of a story (e.g. Israel/Palestine) are repeatedly omitted or misrepresented, this is what leads to accusations of bias. Of course the other major complaint is over the BBC’s selection and treatment of its guests (its “opinion-formers” if you like). I have dealt with this earlier in the thread and have no desire to go over it again. Briefly though, read the many posts that illustrate how one side is allowed to speak unchallenged at length, whilst the other is harangued, interrupted and cut off and you will see what I mean.
“So is the BBC biased? Well as I said that depends on your view of where the centre ground is. Perhaps it even does have a liberal bias – but it is in no way as biased and dangerous as many on here make out – my perception of the centre ground may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the collective perception of the centre ground on B-BBC is further off the mark than mine.”
Nope, there is no perception about it. The BBC is biased because it repeatedly fails to report all the facts, and because it subjects its guests to different levels of scrutiny. If you can prove that the BBC has reported all of the facts without prejudice, and if necessary covered the full range of opinion and given all interviewees the same treatment, then you will have proved that it is not biased. Contributors on this site have demonstrated, and will continue to demonstrate, where they have failed to do this. It’s always amusing to hear newcomers deride this board as right-wing. It is clear that many of the regular contributors here are anything but. I doubt anyone here wants the BBC to become a right-wing broadcaster. We just want to stop the BBC suppressing and distorting facts in order to follow a journalistic agenda. That’s it.
A Lurker,
If the BBC is to exist as a public service it needs to provide a more intelligent, intellectually stimulating and higher quality output than that provided by the market, otherwise what’s the point?
Clearly this means going beyond the baseline populist press, ideology dictates everything, approach is issues (immigrants are stealing out jobs, evil capitalist companies are robbing us all, support Palestine against Israeli oppression, support Israel in its honourable fight against terrorism, Blair is a socialist, Blair is Thatcher yadda yadda yadda).
The problem is that the Beeb just isn’t intelligent. It’s ideological. It’s so mired in BC uberliberal bollocks that any common sense has long since been vanquished.
An example would be why is British business underperfoming in productivity? Your “splutterer” would no doubt point (with some justification) to ‘high’ taxes and ‘Brussels beaurocrat’ red tape. Someone with experience in the area might also point to the poor quality of management (partly inspired by the residual jobs for the boys appointment system) and low R&D and capital investment (partly inspired by increased short termism amongst investors and analysts). The Beeb gives us shock horror articles about excessive profit, exploitation of poor worker drones and long hours.
“but it is in no way as biased and dangerous as many on here make out”
Yes…it is….it gives encouragment to the Terrorists, by acting as an appoligist for their actions.
The BBC has a lot of blood on it hands……it is a vile propaganda organisation with hard core communist and socialist values, it appeases Muslims in every vile view they may have of the world, and attacks the west at evry opportunity…..again, giving strength to those who would destory us…
the BBC is a dangerous steaming piece of shit mate….wake the hell up. Bloody fool.
Heron, Fran, Foxgoose, Johnse18, Fat Contractor et al
Thanks for your contributions above. I’ve found this one of the most interesting threads I’ve seen on B-BBC because it finally sets out in plain terms what you want from the BBC and feel you don’t get.
And I’ve also been able to get a proper feel for what many of you mean by ‘bias’.
I think there are profound and important differences between the way you see things and the way people working at the BBC see them that are worth looking at in detail.
First: johnse18 said:
JR. I thought it was written into the BBCs charter that it is required to reflect “all significant strands of public opinion”.
The BBC is required to reflect all significant strands of opinion. I believe it does put on air a very wide range of views and perspectives. But it isn’t required to treat them all equally.
For instance, Respect can’t expect the same airtime that Labour and the Conservatives get. 7-day Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates should be given a chance to put their views, but they shouldn’t expect them to be given the same weight as the theory of evolution. Holocaust deniers should be given the occasional outing, but not given the same time or the same treatment as respectable historians. Ditto those cranks who say 9/11 was down to Mossad. The Church of Scientology shouldn’t demand equal treatment with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I’m slightly labouring this point because a number of you did use phrases like:
all sides of the argument equally . All sides of the argument, yes. Equally, no.
The guidelines say:
to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented.
to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy.
and what do we mean by ‘impartiality’ in this context?
impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view.
our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters.
Another guideline worthy of note is this:
we must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response to our questions.
Note the ‘contentious views’. Does that mean that someone advocating genocide and brimstone is going to face a tougher inquisition that someone advocating motherhood and apple pie? Yes.
I’ll try to address some of your other points later.
sorry, Anonymous 29.03.07 – 2:01 pm |was me.
John Reith | 29.03.07 – 2:01 pm |
Note the ‘contentious views’. Does that mean that someone advocating genocide and brimstone is going to face a tougher inquisition that someone advocating motherhood and apple pie? Yes.
Really? So why do muslim extremists get more air time than pro-British muslims? Why are there no ‘Mosque undercover’ programmes on the BBC? Why are the Begg brothers given such a free, uninterupted reign? Do tell.
The Fat Contractor | 29.03.07 – 4:20 pm
So why do muslim extremists get more air time than pro-British muslims?
Most of the time they don’t.
Yasmin Alibhai Brown alone probably gets more airtime than the rest of the Umma put together. You may not like her, but she sure ain’t a jihadi.
Today ran a long interview with Abu Izzadin last Sept in which Humphrys gave him the full genocide-and-brimstone treatment as per my last.
And quite right too.
As for your other point –
Panorama, Newsnight and File on 4 have all done investigations of radical islamist groups along Undercover Mosques lines.
Also there are stories like this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6143632.stm
A Lurker | 29.03.07 – 8:39 am |
If for example, you have a world view that does not understand why the abolition of slavery is such a significant issue for black people in the UK (the wealth of cities such as Bristol and Liverpool were build on slavery) is some militant liberal part of a great liberal conspiracy then your perception of bias will perhaps be different to mine.
You’ve been watching the BBC again haven’t you?
The very idea that Britain’s wealth was soley or even mostly dependant on the slave trade is laughable. Bristol was major port before and after the slave trade. It’s decline was due to the Avon silting up not the loss of revenue from slavery. Liverpool was also a major port before the slave trade and continues to be one today.
Yes, Britain made money out of slavery, and no, I am not proud of it. But so what? 200 years ago people had diffent morals to now and Britain was not alone.
The reason why the treatment of this issue by the BBC is biased is because it does not address the single issue that makes 2007 so important. 2007 is the anniversary of the ABOLITION of slavery. We should be celebrating that rather than driving wedges between the Black and White communities with ignorant comments about the slave trade. After all it was Britain that was the most active nation in ending slavery throughout most of the world.
Very few other nations have contributed such a major improvement to the lives of those not under it’s direct control. But does the BBC tell you that? No, it doesn’t.
The Fat Contractor | 29.03.07 – 4:48 pm
….er yes, the BBC has told you/is telling you all that. The season is actually called ABOLITION.
See:
Melvyn Bragg will be exploring the life and legacy of William Wilberforce, visiting his memorial statue in Westminster Abbey and his birthplace in Hull and being shown the original copy of the Slave Trade Abolition Act in the House of Lords.
Amongst others, he will be talking to Wilberforce’s biographer, the Rt Hon William Hague MP, historian Zoe Laidlaw from Royal Holloway, University of London…etc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20070222.shtml
Now see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/abolition/
John Reith: Like all bureaucratic doubletalk, the guildlines you quote are so loose as to be meaningless.
You illustrate controversy with a trivially clear-cut case of basic science versus religion. In future, please illustrate your points with reference to matters of genuine controversy. Something like multiculturalism, the EU, the licence fee, AGW, and other big-state versus small-state issues.
Please explain:
– how it is possible for one’s professional judgment to differ from one’s personal opinion, as implied by the guidelines. Surely the one is formed from the other?
– how the BBC decides which views are ‘contentious’ enough to require special treatment, and which are not.
– how rigidly BBC staff are bound to uphold these guidelines, and what sanctions exist to enforce them (if, indeed, mere ‘guidelines’ can be enforced). Do the guidelines form part of an employment contract?
– how the guidelines rule against the BBC filling its comedy and drama output with left-wing agitprop.
etc, etc.
JohnofBorg:
The difference between personal opinion and professional judgement is I think quite easy to appreciate. I have no idea of what Nick Robinson’s personal views about politics are. But his expertise and knowledge, built up over very many years, help me understand what political events mean.
The BBC does not decide about contentious views in the mechanistic way you suggest. The BBC is not a monolithic organisation. This is a matter of journalistic and editorial judgement, which starts from basic news judgements like “what’s the story?” An internal debate goes on all the time. The BBC is a lot more diverse and argumentative internally then you think. Peter Horrocks’ concept of “radical imparticialty” is the latest contribution to that debate.
Under the BBC standard contract of employment BBC staff are obliged to abide by the Editorial Guidelines and other BBC guidelines.
John Reith
“I think there are profound and important differences between the way you see things and the way people working at the BBC see them…”
I agree.
John Birt brought with him from LWT his “mission to explain.” – the philosophy that news needs to be ‘explained’ to the audience. He implemented his philosophy within the BBC ruthlessly.
He had to because at that time many BBC journalists still expected to draw conclusions AFTER an investigation rather than produce programmes which supported a priori assumptions.
Pre-Birt, BBC news bulletins reported in a much more factual non-descriptive way. Events were relayed to the audience largely without comment.
We watched programmes such as Cliff Michelmore’s ‘Tonight’ and Robin Day’s programme (sorry memory of name faded) to see discussion and analysis of events from representatives of political parties and interest groups.
We listened to interested parties – and audiences KNEW who they were, and what they represented.
News and analysis were far more distinguishable one from another, and audiences were invited to place their own interpretations upon events.
No longer! Since Birt, BBC journalists are tasked to interpret the significance of events for the benefit of the audience.
As a result their personal views are slipstreamed alongside genuine reportage which permits an insidious elision of fact and journalistic speculation.
The dangers of this should be so obvious that they should not need to be spelled out, but I’ll suggest one.
Team playing is generally regarded as a key virtue in a corporate environment. Human nature being what it is, people recruit not only those whose qualifications fit them for a post, but also choose those with whom they have a rapport where there is a choice of candidates.
All part of corporate identity and values.
Now conceive the possiblity that the editorial teams of a national broadcaster – a national broadcaster which believes itself to be unequivocally to be on the side of right – is antipathetic towards the government, or a Prime Minister or a particular policy of that government.
For argument’s sake, let’s say they largely oppose a war upon which the government has embarked.
In news bulletin after analysis programme the members of the team, convinced of their own impartiality and rectitude (for do not all the other members of their team assure them that they are so) are commissioned to “explain” the story behind the war to the audience.
Can you see the problem, John?
Well, we can.
Nick Reynolds
“I have no idea of what Nick Robinson’s personal views about politics are. But his expertise and knowledge, built up over very many years, help me understand what political events mean. ”
Oh come, come!
How can you possibly derive any benefit at all from Nick Robinson’s expertise and knowledge about politics if you have no idea what political stance he’s coming from?
A person’s initial stance always colours their analysis of events, particularly when they are experts.
On the other hand, perhaps your trusting approach to the other Nick gives us insight as to why certain pundits’ contributions (for example Hans Blix, or the Global Warming wallahs) are accepted without question by BBC journalists and presenters, whilst anyone who dissents from their received wisdom is subjected to hostile interrogation!
A Lurker:
Or your world view is such that any one who thinks that that Israeli state is guilty of occupying Palestine and sometimes carries out barbaric acts against the Palestinians is dangerously anti-Semitic then again your perception of bias will be different to mine.
Some people do have occasional twinges of guilt or maybe pragmatism. So they, like Lurker, set up the straw man of a non existent charge of anti-Semitism to defend themselves when they make false, exaggerated and unfair charges against Israel. Charges they would not make against other countries with far more justification.
I personally think Britain is guilty of occupying the Malvinas. I think France is as guilty of occupying New Caledonia. Jordan occupied what is now referred to as the West Bank from 1948-1967 and gave up their claim only in 1988. A good case could be made that America occupies Texas. http://thumbsnap.com/v/VwbDKdVr.gif Is it just a coincidence that the one country constantly accused of occupation is Jewish?
I personally have a rule of thumb for deciding whether something is anti-Semitic or merely anti Israel (whether true or false). It comes from a cartoon that came out at the time of the Carter/Sadat/Begin negotiations. Begin and Sadat are athletes. Carter shoots Sadat with his starting pistol. Shortly afterwards I saw the same cartoon photocopied in a French/Palestinian ‘newspaper’. This time the ‘cartoonist’ had crudely painted a long black cloak, a broad brimmed black hat with a star of David and long side curls on Begin.
If Jewish iconography (soldiers portrayed as Hassidic Jews) is superfluous to the message or traditional anti-Semitic tropes (Jews controlling the world) are used then it is anti-Semitic.
The big question and the only one for this blog is whether the BBC is anti-Semitic. Using the cartoon test the answer is probably not at least not intentionally, most of the time. It is as many have pointed out hypocritical, clumsy, poor journalism, credulously accepting all Arab claims, repeating myths, covering the Palestinian side of the issue and either ignoring or ridiculing any other interpretation or context. The BBC has become the best Arab news media in the world. In short biased.
Bring on the Balen report 😆
JR said: “all sides of the argument equally . All sides of the argument, yes. Equally, no.”
So if what your saying is that representation on the BBC depends on the public support for a particular view, how come the Lib Dems are forever on the Beeb.
If we take this litraly this would mean that – in every argument or debate – the person with the most representatives would get to answer more of the questions than the person who has the least.
If this is what the BBC guidelines are – then the bias must be inbuilt.
You would never see both sides of an argument.
John Reith | 29.03.07 – 5:41 pm | plus
Er no. The series may be called ‘Abolition’ but it’s actually about slavery and how nasty the British were (& still are really, nudge, nudge). So don’t give me that crap, the BBC has played a disgusting hand the last couple of weeks and if race relations suffer from of it you may be justly proud.
As for the ‘Undercover Mosque’ stuff, maybe the BBC did do a bit of snooping – I can’t say because I obviously missed it. Must have been heavily promoted and talked about endlessly on other programmes too. Thought not.
However that doesn’t detract from the point that the BBC would rather promote the more fanatical muslims at the expense of the decent ones. As for JAB – don’t make me laugh, she is only notional muslim (I believe she is married to a ‘kuffar’?) and she is a self-admitted racist too, so not exactly typical.
“An internal debate goes on all the time.” (Nick Reynolds, BBC)
No doubt it does. As to the BBC’s own position: “Are we leftist, or very leftist?”
As to Iran: “Should Britain grovel? Or merely whimper?”
Here is a tip of how to conduct unbiased news reporting;
“Fairness requires the reporter to recognize his or her own biases in the story, and then consciously include all relevant points of view — even ones that the reporter doesn’t like, personally. Always look for the “other side” in any story. If someone or some institution is accused of something by a source in your story, you have an absolute obligation to contact the accused party and give them the opportunity to respond. This should be done in the first story, not in some later “response” story.”
http://www.ohlone.edu/people/bparks/basic_news_writing.html
This should be in the BBC guidelines.
I believe it is well over a year since John Reith started crossing swords with people on this site over BBC bias. Maybe much longer. And he would have us believe that only now, and as a result of this one thread, it has all suddenly swum into focus, light has dawned, and he finally understands our perception of BBC bias.
John Reith should pull the other one.
Bryan | 30.03.07 – 12:36 am
as a result of this one thread…….. light has dawned
Well Bryan this thread has not been like your average B-BBC thread where many allegations of BBC bias can be characterized in three words:
intemperate, paranoid and baseless.
By way of illustration • towards the tail end of the last open thread Biodegradable and Oscar between them accused the BBC of spreading a …creeping, subtle anti-semitic message by running this story about some Jews being divided over whether to support England or Israel in a football match:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6486611.stm
BioD went on to accuse the BBC of making it all up to provide a vehicle to legitimise Jew hatred
(Biodegradable | 26.03.07 – 6:27 pm)
Now, I’ve just taken a quick look to see whether any other UK media raised the issue of which team (England or Israel) to support. Three articles were published before the BBC ran its piece.
One in the Jewish Chronicle, was written by the Rabbi of St Albans synagogue.
After consulting rabbinical sources • which he finds don’t really clinch it • he decides to cheer for Israel.
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m12s114&SecId=114&AId=51041&ATypeId=1
Some days later – in the Telegraph • Stephen Pollard (who clearly hasn’t read the Rabbi’s piece) says it’s unthinkable that an English Jew should support anyone but England.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/03/23/do2302.xml
Meanwhile, in the Guardian, Seth Freedman says Anglo-Jewish football fans face a tough choice – should they cheer on England or Israel when they clash in a European Championship game on Saturday? He canvasses conflicting opinions.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2039885,00.html
So • 3 articles on the same issue written before the BBC one. But only the BBC accused of anti-semitic trope mongering in preparation for a pogrom. As I say: intemperate, paranoid and baseless.
But I don’t need to tell you Bryan.
Day in, day out, you peddle exactly this sort of libel all over this blog.
BioD went on to accuse the BBC of making it all up to provide a vehicle to legitimise Jew hatred
(Biodegradable | 26.03.07 – 6:27 pm)
Now, I’ve just taken a quick look to see whether any other UK media raised the issue of which team (England or Israel) to support. Three articles were published before the BBC ran its piece.
[snip]
Day in, day out, you peddle exactly this sort of libel all over this blog.
John Reith | 30.03.07 – 11:08 am
No Reith, it’s you peddling falsehoods again.
Read my post again and you will see that I refer to the original BBC article which alleges that there had been discussion on ‘divided loyalties’ in the Israeli press. I don’t care about the examples you’ve found in the UK media, it’s to be expected.
My point was that that Katya Adler made this up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6487833.stm
This Euro 2008 qualifier will, according to the Israeli press, test the loyalties of English Jews who live here. Which side will they cheer for, the papers ask?
If you can find me examples in the Israeli press I’ll gladly apologise. I’ve searched and can find nothing. Oscar, who I believe lives in Israel, has found nothing either to back up Adler’s claim.
What you have found in the UK press is not relevant to my argument.
Please keep your eye on the ball.
Day in, day out, you peddle exactly this sort of libel all over this blog.
John Reith | 30.03.07 – 11:08 am
Examples, old chap, examples. Generalisations wont do it. That’s an easy and lazy way to opt out of debate. It really is about time you changed your style of argument. You don’t disprove BBC bias by scouting around the output of other publications. When are you actually going to start engaging with people here on the serious issues of bias? You continually skirt the challenges to do so. If you are thereby admitting that you have no response to the bias then be big enough to acknowlege that fact.
Oh, and Reith,
You could try to take the blinkers off and have a careful read of Katya Adler’s mean-spirited example of Israel-bashing on the eve of what was an exciting sporting event for both Israel and Britain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6487833.stm
She had no interest in the football, but simply used it as a vehicle to arrive at the same old stale anti-Israel destination. Do you not think that the average sports fan deserves better journalism than this predictable crap? I thought that this was a good opportunity for the BBC to ease up on the Israel-bashing for a change and produce some real, informed journalism.
Silly me.
Bryan
mean-spirited?
Katya was a model of restraint.
Think what she could have reported –
here’s the Observer’s take on Israeli racism in football:
A day later, Beitar fans were living down to their reputation when at least 7,000 travelled to their opening match against arch-rivals Maccabi Tel Aviv. ‘We hate Arabs and Muslims,’ shouted 19-year-old fan Eliran, a member of Beitar’s La Familia hooligan gang. ‘If any Arab played for Beitar, we’d burn their ass and burn the club. They’re our enemy.’
…….Outside the stadium, wearing a green and white Maccabi Haifa top and clutching a large wooden suitcase, Oren was doing a brisk trade selling polyester scarves and tacky Star of David necklaces. Even more popular were stickers of a cartoon Haifa fan urinating on the face of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. He translated the words on the green sticker: ‘Nasrallah, you’re garbage.’
‘We’ve a chant for him today,’ he said. ‘”Yallah, yallah, Nasrallah, I kill you, I kill you Insha’Allah”.’
In March 2005, {Abbass}Swan scored Israel’s last-minute equaliser against the Republic of Ireland in a World Cup qualifier. But a week later, he played at Beitar’s notorious Teddy stadium and the home fans unfurled a banner that said: ‘Swan, you do not represent us.’ After a game at Sakhnin, Beitar fans rioted and broke into the room where Swan was giving a TV interview. He escaped, but says that the police at the ground failed to intervene. Yet he recently considered becoming Beitar’s first Arab player following an approach from the club’s owner, the Russia-born tycoon Arcadi Gaydamak. He is the father of Portsmouth owner Alexandre Gaydamak. ‘I said I was ready, that I could do it,’ Swan says, with an odd expression of disappointment. ‘I believe he was trying to break the image of Beitar and say that Arab players could play for them. But he got into trouble in Jerusalem. In the end, he apologised and said he couldn’t sign me.’
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,1956562,00.html
Anonymous | 30.03.07 – 4:55 pm
If that’s John Reith again, I’m still waiting for you to give examples of reports about ‘divided loyalties’ in the Israeli press.
That The Guardian/Observer are what they are does not mean Katya Adler isn’t ‘mean-spirited’.
That Adolph Hitler was responsible for the deaths of more Jews than Ahmedinajihad does not mean that the latter is not an antisemite.
Ne c’est pas?
No, I don’t think that was Reith. There’s a tacit admission in that post that Katya Adler’s article was mean-spirited. Reith would never make such an admission.
Biodegradable | 30.03.07 – 12:50 pm
I don’t care about the examples you’ve found in the UK media, it’s to be expected.
Huh??!!!!
So what are you saying now, that the Jewish Chronicle is not only anti-semitic but predictably anti-semitic? Pull the other one.
As for finding parallel examples in the Israeli papers, I can’t help you. They don’t sell them where I am at the moment and anyway I don’t read Hebrew. Do you?
So what are you saying now, that the Jewish Chronicle is not only anti-semitic but predictably anti-semitic? Pull the other one.
I’m saying the JC is not the Israeli press
As for finding parallel examples in the Israeli papers, I can’t help you.
So, basically you can’t say whether Katya Adler’s claim about what was written in the Israeli press is true or not. My comment was about that, not what was or was not written in the UK.
I don’t read Hebrew. Do you?
John Reith | 02.04.07 – 11:56 am
Does Katya Adler?
The point that you insist on skirting around, John Reith, is that Katya Adler and the rest of your motley crew have a responsibility to produce articles that bear at least a faint resemblance to journalism and not the agenda-driven narrow PC drivel they endlessly pump out.
One in the Jewish Chronicle, was written by the Rabbi of St Albans synagogue.
After consulting rabbinical sources • which he finds don’t really clinch it • he decides to cheer for Israel.
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m12s114&SecId=114&AId=51041&ATypeId=1
John Reith | 30.03.07 – 11:08 am
I’ve only just bothered to read the JC article now.
I’m not surprised to find that Reith has misrepresented the case once again. Rabbi Gordon didn’t decide to cheer for Israel in the abscence of a rabbinical ruling – he did so on the basis of the words of the German Interior Minister. Fancy that!
Several months ago, my European Masorti rabbinic colleagues and I were invited to meet with the German Interior Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schäuble, to discuss Germany’s offer of citizenship to around 150,000 Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Dr Schäuble wanted to talk about what was and was not necessary in order to be considered a good German. I took the opportunity to present the minister with a German version of Tebbit’s test. If Germany played Turkey at football, which side would he expect a German citizen of Turkish origin to support?
“In this case, Turkey,” came the surprising response. My memory of Dr Schäuble’s exact wording is vague, but he went on to say something like: “Of course, if Germany were playing anyone else, I would expect they would support Germany, but it makes no sense to expect a person to turn away from their ethnic origin, even to support the country where they live.”
It was a remarkable thing to hear from a minister with responsibility for immigration and a truly remarkable thing to hear in a re-united Berlin, of all European cities. More than that, I doubt any rabbi could have put it better. So, in the absence of any clear rabbinic precedent, I’ll be relying on the words of a German minister as I cheer on Israel, against England — once Shabbat goes out, of course.
Also, if we’re talking about British Jews and divided loyalties, please don’t forget that in every synagogue in the UK, at every religious service, prayers are said for the Royal Family.
From the same JC article:
Rabbi Hananya, a rabbi in the time of the Romans, called on the people to “pray for the welfare of the Kingdom [Rome], for without the fear of it, a man would eat his neighbour alive” (Avot 3). But his rationale seems to have more to do with one’s self-preservation than with national identity.
Similarly, the basic structure of the traditional prayer for the Royal Family — “May the One who gives salvation to Kings” — has been part of British Jewish liturgy since the time of Manasseh Ben Israel, 350 years ago, and would seem to imply that we should be supporting England. But it does call for “leaders and advisers… to deal kindly with the House of Israel”
Unsurprisingly there’s absolutely nothing in the JC article that be interpreted as antisemitic, either by me or anybody. Reith, for all his claims of having Jewish friends, still doesn’t seem to have grasped Jewish humour.
So I’m still waiting for Reith to provide me with the source on which Katya Adler based her claim that the matter had been discussed in the Israeli press.
Biodegradable | 02.04.07 – 3:10 pm
Reith has misrepresented the case once again. Rabbi Gordon didn’t decide to cheer for Israel in the absence of a rabbinical ruling
What I actually wrote was this:
After consulting rabbinical sources • which he finds don’t really clinch it • he decides to cheer for Israel.
This is not a misrepresentation.
Here are the operative passages. Those in italics support the After consulting rabinnical sources, while the words in bold confirm the which he finds don’t really clinch it part.
The Rabbi wrote:
The rabbis of antiquity did not have much time for football, especially on the holy Sabbath ……Nevertheless, we can look to them for some guidance.
First we should consider England’s claims.
Jeremiah might have cheered on Steve McClaren’s boys. He demanded that Israelite exiles living in Babylon should “seek the welfare of the city to which I [God] have exiled you and pray to the Lord in its behalf” (Chapter 29). However, I am not that sure he meant “at the expense of Israel”.
Rabbi Hananya, a rabbi in the time of the Romans, called on the people to “pray for the welfare of the Kingdom [Rome], for without the fear of it, a man would eat his neighbour alive” (Avot 3). But his rationale seems to have more to do with one’s self-preservation than with national identity.
Similarly, the basic structure of the traditional prayer for the Royal Family — “May the One who gives salvation to Kings” — has been part of British Jewish liturgy since the time of Manasseh Ben Israel, 350 years ago, and would seem to imply that we should be supporting England. But it does call for “leaders and advisers… to deal kindly with the House of Israel” — not exactly blessing English midfielders and strikers looking to capitalise on weaknesses in the Israeli defence.
Now for the Israeli case. A rabbinic teaching on which charitable causes we should support says: “The poor of your city take precedence over the poor of another city, but the inhabitants of Israel come before those who dwell outside the land” (Shulchan Arukh YD 251). This would be a good reason to support Israel, but trying to learn something about cash-soaked footballers from the laws of charity is stretching the rabbinic system beyond its limits. Hillel is perhaps the clearest cheerleader for the Israelis: “If I am not for me, who will be for me?” (Avot 1). It is a message Jews have come to understand again and again, no matter where we have wandered, but it is hardly a decisive call one way or the other.
You also say –
Unsurprisingly there’s absolutely nothing in the JC article that be interpreted as antisemitic, either by me or anybody.
Good. That’s clear then. The reason I raised the matter was that Oscar, strongly supported by you, advanced the view that merely by raising the issue of ‘divided loyalties’ the BBC was giving unwarranted currency to a stock anti-Semitic theme.
Your harping on about the Israeli press is a red-herring. Whether Katya wrote: ‘the Israeli press are asking’ or ‘the British press are asking’ makes no difference to the substance or gravamen of her point. But since it seems to matter to you • for reasons that remain unclear • perhaps you should settle the matter by writing to her to ask for an Israeli press reference. Unlike you near Alicante and me here • Katya Adler works in an office full of Hebrew speakers and copies of most of the Israeli papers. The same angle appears to have suggested itself to three separate newspaper writers in the UK • why should it not also occur to some in Israel?
And why is the BBC • uniquely • marked out for censure? The whole line of attack was -as I said above – intemperate, paranoid and baseless. Also pretty typical of the false accusations mounted here.
….perhaps you should settle the matter by writing to her to ask for an Israeli press reference.
Mr. Reith, I recall you making a similar suggestion some time ago to resolve another issue. I think you are a closet comedian. You missed your calling. Have you ever tried to get a response from the BBC? (From the outside, that is.)
This situation has the makings of a fine comedy. Here’s John Reith with all the facilities at his disposal of a gigantic worldwide organisation awash in public money, and he can’t ascertain what the Israeli papers say. It could just be, of course, that the BBC (Katya Adler included) doesn’t have the slightest interest in what the Israeli papers say – unless it’s the English version of the lefty Ha’aretz.
Maybe the BBC should think about establishing a BBC Hebrew service to balance the ever-expanding BBC Arabic service. I can just picture BBC staff polishing up their Hebrew and flocking to join up. This is getting funnier and funnier.
Reith:
First of all I don’t need any help from you in interpreting a Rabbi’s interpretation of Rabbinical Law, thank you very much.
Second, as I said before, you obviously don’t understand Jewish humour or you wouldn’t have taken the JC article as an example of a discussion on Jewish loyalties, and you wouldn’t be taking it so seriously now.
You also say –
“Unsurprisingly there’s absolutely nothing in the JC article that be interpreted as antisemitic, either by me or anybody.”
Good. That’s clear then. The reason I raised the matter was that Oscar, strongly supported by you, advanced the view that merely by raising the issue of ‘divided loyalties’ the BBC was giving unwarranted currency to a stock anti-Semitic theme.
I still hold that view, and the fact that the Jewish Chronicle published a typically Jewish, humorous article based on ancient Rabbinical Law doesn’t excuse the BBC from making false claims.
Whether Katya wrote: ‘the Israeli press are asking’ or ‘the British press are asking’ makes no difference to the substance or gravamen of her point.
What you’re saying then is that Katya Adler is free to make up whatever nonsense she wants and say, “somebody said that”?
This is unacceptable. Good journalism demands that when you say “it is reported” or “it is thought” you actually tell us who is doing the reporting or the thinking.
The BBC seems to be using more and more this ploy of using the “it is claimed” or “some believe” without attribution to back up none but their own prejudices.
I see Adler’s claim about the Israeli press as another example of this deceptive practice. Remember that the article I’m talking about was not the series of comments from British Israelis – it was a piece about alleged discrimination towards Arabs.
perhaps you should settle the matter by writing to her to ask for an Israeli press reference.
I’ve already wasted far too much time this month corresponding with the BBC. Why don’t you ask her? I’m sure you have better and more open channels of communication with her, and anyway, nobody pays for the time I spend writing to the BBC while you post here on the firm’s time, paid for by the unfortunate British tax payer.