Times – “Bias at the Beeb – Official“
There are some things you do not need an official report to tell you – that John Prescott thinks he is a babe magnet, that President Mugabe is not entirely in favour of white farmers and that Al-Qaeda takes a pretty dim view of the West. The report commissioned by the BBC into itself concluded with something equally blindingly obvious. It said that the organisation is institutionally biased and especially gullible to the blandishments of politically driven celebrities, such as Bono and Bob Geldof. Almost anyone in Britain could have told the BBC that for free, but maybe it’s better to have it in an official report.
Even taking into account the small but insistent internal voice pointing out that the Times is part of the Great Satan Murdoch’s media empire, there’s not much to disagree with there.
” … what emerges from the report is a picture of an organisation with a liberal, anti-American bias and an almost teenage fascination with fashionable causes … the BBC is a self-perpetuating liberal arts club.”
Telegraph – “BBC report finds bias within corporation”
The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded. The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased – and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.
After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation’s coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial. But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised. Instead, at a time when the corporation was renegotiating its charter with the government, it allowed itself to effectively become a promotional tool for Live 8, which was strongly supported by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Geldof, Bono and Curtis were attempting to pressure world leaders at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, which was taking place at the same time, to help reduce poverty in developing countries under the banner ‘Make Poverty History’.
Mr Blair said the campaign was a “mighty achievement”. The huge Live 8 concerts across the world were its culmination and the BBC cleared its schedules to show them, with coverage on BBC One, Two and Three and Radio One and Two. Around the same time it also screened a specially-written episode of Curtis’s popular sitcom The Vicar of Dibley that featured a minute long Make Poverty History video and saw characters urged to support it. And it aired another Curtis drama, The Girl in the Café, in which Bill Nighy falls in love with an anti-poverty campaigner – even giving Gordon Brown an advance copy. The BBC also ran a week long Africa special featuring a series of documentaries by Geldof and a day celebrating the National Health Service, prompting Sky News political editor Adam Boulton to tell a House of Lords select committee it was in danger of peddling government propaganda.
The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.
(En passant, the BBCs uncritical coverage of the millionaires Geldof, Bono and Curtis illustrates neatly a feature of modern philanthropy. In Victorian times a rich man with a conscience would put his hands in his own pockets to fund a worthy cause – a tradition which continues in America (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett) to this day. Across the water the favoured option of a charitably inclined multimillionaire is to get poorer people to fund your favourite causes via higher taxation – while in some cases avoiding such taxes yourself.)
Strangely the Observer headlines its report “Vicar of Dibley accused of breaking BBC guidelines“. Can’t imagine why. But they also have BBC insider Richard Tait’s view of the report.
UPDATE 18/06 – Commenter Richy is clairvoyant !
“If overly critical then surely the it’ll be placed in the “england” section or the “entertainment” section.”
“Entertainment” it is !
You can find the report here. Plenty of pdfs to get through. The “impartiality monitoring group” doesn’t look like a diverse cross-section of British political opinion to me – you do wonder what political perspectives the man who “co-founded the Democracy Coalition for Children and Young
People” or Kat Fletcher bring to the party.
More coverage at Times (also under Entertainment), Telegraph, Mail, more Sunday Times. Oh, and apologies for calling a BBC Trustee a BBC ‘insider’. Cultural misunderstanding … via commenter JBH, the Michael Crick anecdote about BBC execs all being Guardian readers. Sounds too good to be true – Mr Crick seems to have a puckish sense of humour. But I’m sure it “illustrates a wider truth”, as Dan Rather and Piers Morgan would say.
Some absolute nuggets in here….. I highly recommend a read.
BBC Trust: From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel
Click to access 18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf
“Helen Boaden said that the BBC’s institutional attitudes were sometimes confused with its editorial policy. As an employer, the BBC was ‘passionately committed to diversity beyond what the law requires’, and this led to muddled thinking. ‘I’ve literally had conversations with my journalists, who think we can’t say nasty things about black people even if they’re true, “because we’re committed to diversity, aren’t we?”’
…..
“Justin Webb, the BBC’s Washington correspondent, said the BBC and other broadcasters failed to ask serious questions about why the USA is ‘as successful as it is, why the system it invented works. And, in the tone of what we say about America, we have a tendency to scorn and deride. We don’t give America any kind of moral weight in our broadcasts.’ When Webb was asked about ‘a casual anti-Americanism’, he said he consciously tried to redress it.”
and
“Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, thought that ‘the BBC has in the past been too closed to a wide range of views and we’ve had too narrow an agenda. And I have some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda at times.’
and…
‘It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society’, said The Daily Telegraph’s Jeff Randall about his time as Business Editor of the BBC. ‘As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, “No, no, no, the earth is round!”, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.’
How does the BBC report ‘impartially on itself’ (for we have been told it’s the law for it to be so).
And how does the BBC respond to the allegations of bias?
Q: Does the BBC have a bias problem?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6764779.stm
A: (according to the BBC) No.
So much of the job is about trying to find the imagination within yourself to try to see, to really see, the world through the eyes of the people in the story. Not just through the eyes of the Palestinian who has just had his home smashed. But also through the eyes of the three young Israelis in a tank who smashed it. Why did they see that as a reasonable thing to do? What was going through their minds as their tank went through the house?
– Alan Johnston
Nick Reynolds (BBC),
Can you really see no bias in that?
No reason given for the demolition of the house. Was there perhaps an arms smuggling tunnel beneath the house? Was it perhaps the home of a suicide bomber?
We’re not told and even if the truth was either of the two cases above Johnston wouldn’t care. His mind was already made up. His brief was to report on the “Palestinians'” predicament
How about seeing through the eyes of the passengers on an Israeli bus, or their relatives, and also through the eyes of the young Jihadis and their supporters. Why did they see that as a reasonable thing to do?
How about seeing through the eyes of the Sderot resident looking helplessly at the ruins of his home and the also through the eyes of the terrorists who lauched the Qassam rocket. Why did they see that as a reasonable thing to do? What was going through their minds as their rocket went through the house?
You see Alan Johnston’s bias begins at the moment he stops comparing like with like and makes a value judgment, disregarding the BBC’s own guidelines.
The BBC has a long history of showing images of grieving “Palestinian” families and giving names to the suicide terrorists, they’re even counted among the number of victims, yet there is rarely such sympathy shown towards dead Jews in Israel.
I posted recently about the number of victims of Qassam rockets in Sderot being diminished by the BBC from 3 to 2 then to only one, and no mention at all that the third was a severly handicapped boy of 13.
Similar double standards have been shown in the reporting of the recent atrocities carried out by Hamas in Gaza. Barely a word about dead women and children killed by the Hamas terrorists – had they been killed by the IDF you know as well as I that the treatment would have been very different. Nothing at all about the ransacking of churches and Christian schools, bibles burnt and crucifixes destroyed.
All the while the constant bleating from the BBC and its guests on programmes like World Have Your Say insists that all of this is the fault of the US and Israel and if only “we” hadn’t stopped giving aid to Hamas none of this would have happened.
Of course the BBC is biased, and a very large part of the problem is that it can’t see it.
It’s a pity this thread has become about the Middle East again rather than the report on impartiality.
Biodegradable – you miss the point of what Johnson’s piece where the quotes come from is about. It’s not a news report, where the reasons why the house was demolished would be given. It’s a piece from Alan describing his philosophical approach to his job i.e. to try and see all sides point of view.
Biodegrade
I think Nick may have done a runner on us …. if he hasnt I would be interested in a specific response to the Alan Johnson quotes I have posted here …
whenever Beeboids are confronted with facts they disappear until the air has cleared …. the BBC as an institution adopts the same tactic … instead of dealing with the problem their problem they use a number of well tested tactics … MisDirection … Denial …. Delay … MisRepresentation …. Obfuscation … they calculate that as long as there are not to many obvious f*ck *ps …
like the Andrew Gilligan Affair where Fat Andy was caught with his pants down in a lie to a Parliamentary Comittee … then they can cary on with their shabby standards …
Ritter – have you read the report itself?
AAAhhhhh Nick
How about being specific about Alan Johnston journalistic philosophy …
so I take it that you agree that philosphically speaking …its OK to ignore the facts or at least not determine the exact facts and to instead devote the reporting to ones views and value judgements of a conflict
is that what you are stating?!
Nick
It’s a pity this thread has become about the Middle East again rather than the report on impartiality
to state the obvious the reason teh thread is orientating towards the Middle East is because this conflict is one in which teh BBC reporting bias is most obvious …
you see there are not too many here concerned about the alleged problems with the standards of impartiality shown in episodes of the Vicar of Dibly …
the Gorillas in teh room are the BBC reporting on ISLAM, ARAB ISRAELI DISPUTE, LEFT WING DICTATORSHIPS, …. do I need to go on?
Lets have a sensible fact based discussion … not MisDirection ..
Nick Reynolds,
Alan Johnston is most definitely not trying to see both sides of the real story. Interviewing someone who has just had his home destroyed and then asking what the soldier was thinking when he destroyed the home is not in reality both sides of the story. I think it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Johnston wonders what is going through the soldiers mind, does he? Does Johnston report that the owner of the destroyed home was connected to a suicide bomber? Does Johnston report that the home was a cover for a smuggling tunnel below? Does Johnston try to report that the home was hiding a massive weaons cache, or that mortars had been launched into Israeli territory – at non-military targets – from the home? That would be the true “other side” of the story. Not an emotional reaction from the soldier carrying out his job.
This is never what happens in these reports, though, is it? What Johnston and his brethren actually do is show a “victim” without honestly reporting on why the “victim” might have been a target of the action being reported.
Of course, if they ever did report it that way, the reader might be tempted to think that the action of the Israeli soldier was somewhat justified. This wouldn’t be acceptable, as the reader then might be tempted to think that the BBC report is biased in favor of Israel. Since that is also unacceptable, the Pally homeowner is portrayed as an innocent victim, out of context.
But there have been several discussions about context with other BBC employees, or BBC supporters, so I don’t expect this to be any different.
Biodegradable – you miss the point of what Johnson’s piece where the quotes come from is about. It’s not a news report, where the reasons why the house was demolished would be given. It’s a piece from Alan describing his philosophical approach to his job i.e. to try and see all sides point of view.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.06.07 – 6:31 pm
I understand that Nick, but the fact that he automatically sees one side as the agressor and the other as the innocent victim is a giveaway – it perfectly illustrates that he, and the BBC’s reporting of the ME in general, starts from that premise. It’s far from “see all sides’ point of view”. In fact, in real life, it’s very common for the BBC to report Israeli actions without explaining why that action was taken, or sneeringly report with the qualifier that “Israel says…” or “Israel claims…” The prime example being when reporting on those “crude, homemade rockets that rarely cause casualties”.
As I said, a fairer and more balanced way to achieve that declared aim would be to compare a “Palestinian” who’s home has been demolished with the victims of a suicide attack on a bus or cafe in Israel, or compare the views of IDF soldiers with those of the terrorists – but Johnson shows plainly that he only sees one side, only sympathises with one side, and feels that only one side carries any blame. That much is clear from his reporting – his explanation only confirms it.
Al Beeb now claims that it will present a ‘wider’ range of views to counter any of its own built-in bias. OK. Start with this article supporting Salman Rushdie’s knighthood, against the mullahs threats.
“An honour we should all agree with:
knighting Salman Rushdie means Whitehall is willing to offend the mullahs” (by A.S.H.Smyth)
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk
(go to ‘Opinion’).
Such an article would begin to redress Al Beeb’s built-in Islamic bias of its report in this evening’s Radio Four ‘PM’ 5.30 news summary, which I referred to here at 5.50pm.
If I knew what CAIR meant, I would…
hillhunt | 18.06.07 – 4:54 pm |
Hillhunt: never knowing when to stop digging.
The report commissioned by the BBC into itself concluded with something equally blindingly obvious. It said that the organisation is institutionally biased and especially gullible to the blandishments of politically driven celebrities, such as Bono and Bob Geldof. Almost anyone in Britain could have told the BBC that for free, but maybe it’s better to have it in an official report.
Maybe its not if all this report amounts to is a classic case of misdirection … what the BBC has done here is taken the most innocuous examples of its bias … where the bias has the least resistance in the public at large … and “owned up to it” in the Entertainment Section … and presumabley we wont have any other pro-Make Poverty History incidents in the Vicar of Dibley … and that is teh bias problem dealt with …
How stupid do the BBC think that the ordinary license payers are?! I think the answer is very very stupid indeed …
Did the 6 o’clock news cover the report into BBC bias?
Or was the story omitted in true BBC style?
Alan 18:54
I read the B-BBC online piece and was not really surprised to see that they mentioned Kohmeni’s fatwa against Rushdie, but did not mention that the fatwa in question was a call to have him murdered. Obviously, the concept of Islamic religious leaders calling for someone’s murder isn’t the sort of thing al-Beeb wants to highlight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6763119.stm
The “PM” item about Rushdie’s knighthood this afternoon was almost beyond belief. I listened with increasing horror as the monologue went on until the final coup de grace,
Lord Ahmed
“This man,you can see, not only provoked violence around the World because of his writings, but there were many people who were killed around the world…..
…And its’ not tine to forgive and forget you don’t think….
Forgiving and forgetting is one thing but honouring this man who has blood on his hands, sort of, because of what he did – honouring him, I think is going a bit too far.
….Lord Ahmed, thank you.”
Rushdie is the VICTIM not the perpetrator. He hasn’t kill anyone. He just wrote a book, and in liberal democracies we are allowed to do that!
This is an utterly unacceptable example of the double standards and bias of the BBC.
“moonbat nibbler:
This report is still a whitewash: “its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial”
While the support for Geldof and Bono is sickly, simplified and unquestioning at least it is well meant. Compare this to the African news output. Al-queda in Somalia are admired for bringing “law and order” to the country. Bbc viewers and listeners are not educated about Darfur because it would mean using the “M” word, show China in a bad light and reveal the structural irrelevance of the UN. This Bbc report sees Live 8 and the culture of celebrity as an easy, non-threatening, scapegoat. It is being used to hide the insidious, ugly and evil bias of the BBC.
Well-said Mr Nibbler,
But I believe that there is a more subtle misdirection going on here.
There is a wide perception that the “Make Poverty History” campaign is an unquestioned good thing, amongst less informed people anyway.
By admitting an uncritical acceptance and promotion of the idea, what the BBC are basically saying, is
“OK, we were spreading propoganda, but hey, perhaps we are only guilty of caring too much!”
After-all, supporting an end to third world poverty can only be considered a noble cause!
Taking the attention off the very serious bias that its News department shows day after day, and that they are refusing to discuss.
Nick, JR and other BBC lurkers.
Just read the most recommended section of the HYS on the bias report
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=6595&edition=1&ttl=20070618194951&#paginator
This is how the British public see you. These are not the views of us here at BBBC, but the views of the general public. Are you not ashamed that you have fallen to such a point where a once great institution is derided by those it purports to serve?
Yesterday I wrote: ‘I doubt anything will change at the corporation. The report will be publicised, there’ll be the usual speechifying from BBC-types about the importance of high standards and impartiality and then … it’ll be back to business as usual.’
From the BBC website today:
‘According to Richard Tait, the BBC Trust member who chaired the team overseeing the report: ‘Tait believes that, in the end, the broadcasts stayed within the impartiality guidelines.’
Hey, whaddya mean you’re not reassured?!
if you want to see the BBCs bias in all its glory, have a look at Newsround’s “Guides” page. This, may i add, is targetted at children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/guides/default.stm
All the usual left-liberal trendy causes get their boxes ticked. So, “India: Riots 2002” is mentioned, but no mention of say “Battle of Britain”.
“Islam” is mentioned , but no “Christianity”.
its also packed full of , well, downright lies for want of a better word.
for example, D-Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/world/d-day_/newsid_3754000/3754731.stm
“The allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy and started to break through the German army’s defences. They began an attack that lasted for eleven months and took them all the way to the German capital Berlin, to the bunker that was Adolf Hitler’s headquarters.”
Errr.. it was the Soviet Red Army that captured Berlin.
Or howlers , such as this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1610000/newsid_1612600/1612612.stm
“On 11 September 2001 armed people took control of four planes that were flying above the US”
No mention of Al Qaeda, Islam, or terrorism.
On this day when the BBC informs the world it has to be just a little more impartial, they report on a story from Afghanistan where a suicide bomber murders 3 people as well as himself. So on that note what do you think the headline for said article should be?
Suicide bomber kills 3.
3 people killed in suicide bomb attack
Suicide bomber strikes Kabul.
Well that is how any impartial news agency would report such a story . So just how do the BBC report on the above in light of its quest to report impartially?
Nato troops kill Afghan civilian
Nato troops have killed a civilian at the scene of a suicide bomb attack in Kabul, Afghan and Nato officials say. Several others were injured when the US soldiers opened fire. The US military said the shooting had been accidental. At least three people died in the suicide bombing,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6759309.stm
So any of you BBC clones wish to tell me how the BBC justifies 1 death over that of 3. A death I should which would not transpired if the BBC defended terrorists hadn’t decided to kill because their faith tells them to do so. The last I looked 3 deaths outweigh 1 death. Unless of course the victim has been killed by Non Muslims.
The BBC, the fifth columnist in our midst.
This report shows just how divorced from its blatant bias the BBC is:
“The new College of Journalism has recently launched an online training module on impartiality, presented by Evan Davies. An earlier module, on the pitfalls of loaded language in the Middle East, was presented by Jeremy Bowen.”
Jeremy Bowen constantly and consistently talks about Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Calling the territories “occupied” shows partiality towards Palestinian claims and the use of the plural is loaded language.
Gaza has not been ‘occupied’ for two years and so there is only one “occupied territory”, the West Bank. The inference Bowen constantly makes is that Israel along with Gaza and the West Bank is rightfully Palestinian.
Biogradable – he does not “automatically sees one side as the agressor and the other as the innocent victim”. He is simply using this example from his experience to make a point. The point being that news reporting is not just about “who did what to whom” but the human consequences of actions.
The BBC, and how it panders to Brown skinned people as only victims;
(PS. Ss a brown skinned person I find that article a bloody joke, but then so do many of the people who replied)
Bridget Jones? She’s got it easy
Since when did skin shade, religion and the prospect of living with your in-laws become a concern for educated, career women looking for Mr Right? For British Asian females, who are facing a shrinking pool of eligible men, Bridget Jones had it easy.
I can personally vouch that for every miserable, white Bridget Jones singleton out there, there is a brown Bridget having a worse time.
Many young British Asian women, be they Muslim, Sikh or Hindu, are struggling to find a life partner. Alongside their white peers they have delayed marriage, putting education and careers first.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6763443.stm
PPS
Hindu and Sikhs have no problem allowing their females to marry out of the faith. Only one faith out of the three listed doesn’t. I wonder which one that could be?
Now Now Nick
You arent being straight with us …
[Alan Johnstons] point being that news reporting is not just about “who did what to whom” but the human consequences of actions.
thats NOT what Alan was saying … what is the problem that people at the BBC have for dealing in facts … dont obfuscate just read what the man said!
Alan’s point was … the essential element in a conflict zone is not the facts but establishing the victims and identifying with them and conveying their message/struggle etc to the world at large … unintentionally Johnston has let the cat out of the bag … Alan’s approach is exactly what is wrong with BBC reporting ….
the correct approach to journalism is that reporters report, informed editors editorialize, and readers/viewers are left to make the value judgements.
the BBC in its patronising way has reporters making value judgements and then constantly shovelling their values down the viewers throats …
have a look at HYS most recoemended comments … and you will see that this approach is FAILING …
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.06.07 – 8:20 pm
“The point being that news reporting is not just about “who did what to whom” but the human consequences of actions.”
If that were truly the point, then why not report about the action that caused the home to be destroyed? And please don’t tell me that the Israeli soldier driving the tank is the cause. The actual cause would be whatever reason the particular home was targeted for destruction.
Johnston ignores this, as do most BBC reporters. And I don’t mean why don’t they report elsewhere that Palestinians have attacked and/or killed Israeli civilians. I mean this should be covered in the same report as the house being destroyed by an Israeli tank. Otherwise, Johnston’s reporting of one particular “human consequence” is out of context, and thus….you get the idea.
But we cannot view any action by an Israeli against a Palestinian as being anything other than horrible, disproportional – if not entirely unprovoked – aggression, can we?
BJ,
Appreciate the information and thank you for responding, albeit your claim that the BBC “has nothing to hush” is totally unconvincing as my fellow commenters pointed out.
the above was me.
The BBC, its hatred of the US and half a story
Azeri radar eyed for US shield
Standing beneath the dramatic Caucasus mountain range in northern Azerbaijan, the Qabala radar station is a stark concrete block which dominates the rural landscape.
This former Soviet installation is now at the centre of discussions between Moscow and Washington. Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested it could be used for a joint missile defence project as an alternative to the United States’ plan to build a missile shield in Europe to guard against attacks from what it describes as “rogue states”. The US sees Iran – bordering on Azerbaijan – as a potential threat.
………..
There was also scepticism about any possible US involvement in the radar station, which once tracked American military activity. “I do not think the Americans will bring anything good here,” said Mustafa, a local teacher. “They haven’t ever done anything for Azerbaijan and they only act in their own interests.”
…………
“The question is whether the US will agree to use Qabala to show it has a close partnership with Russia. It’s about political strategy, not military strategy.”
Concerns have also been raised that the proposed missile defence project could damage Azerbaijan’s relations with neighbouring Iran. The US believes Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6764079.stm
Yet again the BBC paints a negative picture of the US in order to please its Islamic masters. Err BBC I think you will find the US has rejected Putins offer for a number of reasons. 99% of them militarily reasons and 1% political. That 1% been Iran is next door and they wouldn’t let it rest with the Yanks to the right of them, to the left of them, to the South of them and to the North of them.
But hey nothing new from the impartial BBC.
moonbat
Gaza has not been ‘occupied’ for two years and so there is only one “occupied territory”, the West Bank. The inference Bowen constantly makes is that Israel along with Gaza and the West Bank is rightfully Palestinian.
you are correct about this …. its also the reason behind the BBC constantly repeats the Hamas mantra that Isreal is a country that “has no borders” …. this way Bowen can justify Hamas’ otherwise illegimate denial of the right for a Jewish state to exist.
David – because its not a news report its a piece about his philosphical approach to his job.
If it was a news report then of course why the house was destroyed should be reported.
BBC: [deleted]
[deleted]. the BBC proves you wrong …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6764779.stm
“In fact, the report is a remarkably frank dissection of the BBC’s attempts – and difficulties – in maintaining impartiality in the 21st Century, across its wide range of outlets and programmes.
Richard Tait, the BBC Trust member who chaired the team overseeing the report, is a former editor of ITN.
He said: “It doesn’t say the BBC has a liberal bias – it says the BBC will have to work even harder to maintain the trust of the audience in future.
Tait breathes in and then [deleted=]
“Newspapers are becoming viewspapers, people are using the web to get a whole range of different sources of information, and the technology means people can choose their own news.”
By the way the BBC would strongly advise you to get rid of your dog … its a najess animal that is haramand may offend you muslim neighbours as much as any refernce to that son of a bitch Sir Salman …
Edited By Siteowner
BJ – while there are not specific restrictions around the Balen Report it is a confidential document.
And in your contract of employment with the BBC you are restricted from revealing confidential information.
The High Court agreed with the BBC about the Balen Report, so end of story. And to quote:
“The BBC has always maintained that the Balen report is held for purposes of journalism and, therefore, outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner agreed. We believe that programme makers must have the space to be able to freely discuss and reflect on editorial issues in support of independent journalism.
The BBC also welcomes the High Court’s clarification that, in cases where the Information Commissioner agrees with a public service broadcaster that the information sought is outside the scope of the FOI Act, there is no appeal to the Information Tribunal.
The Balen report was commissioned by the former BBC Director of News, Richard Sambrook, from an experienced journalist. It was always intended as an internal review of programme content, to inform future output. It was never intended for publication.
The BBC’s action in this case had nothing to do with the fact that the Balen report was about the Middle East • the same approach would have been taken whatever area of news output was covered.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/04_april/27/balen.shtml
Could we PLEASE talk about the impartiality report?
Nick Reynolds (BBC)
I think you have a fair point that all the context does not need to be provided for an opinion piece as opposed to a news story.
However, wouldn’t you acknowledge that the BBC has form on this, i.e. middle east news stories denuded of anti-Palestinian/pro-Israeli facts? Thus, the natural distrust of Allen’s narrative. Why haven’t you reported this story?
Sometimes, whole stories are ignored because they either favour Israel or indict Palestinians. An example would be the story Terry Johnson referred to earlier.
Picture this:
I am a BBC reporter during the second world war based in Dresden. I have lived in that city for years reporting the “news” from the German point of view. Because of all my years in Dresden I have made many friends One day I am with a family of an SS officer who is fighting on the Russian front. Then one night bombs become raining down from the RAF – I see my friends house get flattened by a British bomb. My friends are panicking and obviousley in fear of their lives. They keep saying “How can the British do this” I immediatley report that the British are carrying out “war crimes” – I do not see this from the British point of view – how can I – I have known this family for years, and here I am witnessing the death of my friends.
My reporting cannot be unbiased, no ones would. This is the problem the BBC reporters like Alan Johnstone and Jerramy Bowen have an empathy with their friends. Maybe the BBC think they are actually reporting things from both sides – but they are deluded – An unbiased view would be from the outside, from afar. It is impossible to be unbised in cases where the “reporter” is actually living with one side in a conflict.
K – I don’t think its true that “whole stories are ignored” because of some ideological bias.
We can’t report every single story. I think our reporting of Israel/Palestine has got progressively better over the past few years and we make strenous efforts to show all sides.
But I doubt if anyone on this thread can ever be persuaded of that.
So could we PLEASE talk about the impartiality report?
So could we PLEASE talk about the impartiality report?
OK Nick …. So what do you think about the Impartiality Report?
Was it Excellent, or just Very Very Good, and impartial ….
Nick Reynolds(BBC),
The main concern of people at this site is the partiality of the BBC as opposed to this report which seemingly misses the point. The most common grievances of people on this this blog (in addition to many journalists like Melanie Philips, Charles Moore, Mark Steyn, Tim Hames, William Shawcross, etc.) is the constant tilt against America and Israel and towards muslims. This has been recognised in special meeting of your own people last year. This is the bias you need to address. If you were told to come here to fire-fight the report’s publication I fear you are wasting your time.
What’s the point in saving the kennel when the house is burning down?
This will continue to grow as a problem until the licence fee is scrapped or the problem is fixed.
If you want to fix it:
1) Start advertising jobs in both right and left wing newspapers (without filtering responses)
2) Staff your Middle East offices with people sympathetic to the existence of Israel.
3) Have an editorial policy that actually checks that salient context wasn’t omitted. If all else fails, you could always email Melanie Philips if your article missed anything.
But all of this presumes a will on the behalf of the BBC.
“The report quotes Curtis as arguing that Make Poverty History was a movement, rather than a campaign, so the BBC should not have been so concerned about impartiality.
He said all the main political parties were in support, which he believed made it uncontroversial.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6764779.stm
Membership of the EU is supported by all political parties, the theory of MMGW is supported by all political parties – does this mean that because it is a “movement” and not a “campaign” the BBC can be as biased as they want? I thought the BBC were supposed to report other views. There are a great many “sceptics” on MMGW and the EU. But the BBC door is almost closed on different viewpoints.
Nick Reynolds (BBC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the BBC would have neglected a report where Israelis had entered a mosque and threatened muslims?
I think you are being disingenuous about not covering this story because you can’t cover every story.
Good Analogy Jon
Because of all my years in Dresden I have made many friends One day I am with a family of an SS officer who is fighting on the Russian front.
But what would if one day the SS officer came around and took you to Gestapo Headquarters and held you there … and asked you to broadcast a tape blaming teh British, Americans and of course the Jews for reigning death and destruction on the 3rd Reich and demanding that certain Nazi Officials held in Britian …lets say Rudolph Hess … shoudl be released as they have not been tried yet … would you betray your country and do it?
Another five minutes to read, another gem:
“The whole point of message boards is that opinion should, in general, flow freely, as it does on Have Your Say on bbc.co.uk, with only such balance as the contributors themselves happen to supply.”
Dear Random House,
Could you please publish the BBC report “From Seesaw To Wagon Wheel” under your BBC Books comedy imprint?
Regards,
Mr Nibbler.
😉
Given the BBC’s claim to want to represent a ‘wider’ range of views in future, and given its gullibility to BONO’s blandishments hitherto, perhaps the BBC will present a critical programme based on this:
“Welcome to the People’s Republic of Bono” (13 June) (by Brendan O’Neill)
http://www.spiked-online.com
Nick Reynolds,
You’re right that:
“because its not a news report its a piece about his philosphical approach to his job.”
However, that’s how he does his news reports. If his philosophical approach to his job is to ignore all the things I mentioned previously, then his contributions – and those of other BBC reporters with a similar philosophical approach – should not be represented as news reports. They should be presented as One Side’s Perspective.
This goes right back to the impartiality report, no? There are many, many examples of this sort of philosophical report on topics that do not involve the Middle East. Otherwise, the report wouldn’t have even been done in the first place, nor would the Balen report, etc., etc.
I can deal with presentations of One Side’s Perspective, but only if they are represented as such. Which is most certainly not the case.
One small example that has nothing to do with the Middle East would be The Vicar of Dibley.
The original premise was to educate the masses to accept a female CofE vicar. So the recent political activist stunt on the show should be no surprise. But that’s Light Entertainment, not news. Although it is unfortunate that viewers are forced by law to pay for this “education”.
K – regarding your solutions.
1. We already advertsise jobs in all newspapers.
2. We couldn’t do this anymore than we could recruit staff who were sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The BBC has to be impartial.
3. We already have policies on accuracy. Of course we should report all the relevant facts and I hope we do. Melanie Phillips regularly appears on the BBC.
Jon – people who are sceptical about climate change and the EU regularly appear in the BBC’s output.
I didn’t think it was possible, but this report manages to be both Hogwash and Whitewash. Congratulations Beeb, another first!! 🙂
The BBC are under growing pressure from the public about their biases on so many things, from Europe, immigration,Israel, being anti-British and toadying up to every left-wing cause or “movement”. That’s why the have produced this meaningless bit of twaddle, to try and convince the ever sceptical, Licence fee paying masses that they will change. Yet, conveniently absolve the News dept rom any wrongdoing, despite most anger being directed at the wankers who call themsleves correspondents and news editors.
What a joke! Keep at it Beeb, you are merely nailing the coffin lid down on your license fee.
Nick Reynolds:
More nonsense. Having the odd person on to voice differing opinions doesn’t nearly make up for the overwhelming Bias of he editorials, especially as these people are always described as being right-wing or Pro-this or anti-that and are only included in the less watched elements of the news schedule, being tucked aware on obscure parts of the radio or News 24. Rarely do these people make appearences on the 6 or 10 o’clock BBC 1 News programmes. The strict editoraial line is maintained for the two most influential programmes to the mass of the population
Who has more influence on the tone of middel-east output: Jeremy Bowen or Melanie Philips and allies? Pretty obvious conclusion really.
I had to copy this from an earlier linked article in The Guardian:
Vin Ray uncovers a previously unpublished piece by captive BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston that underlines his mastery of the art of storytelling
STORYTELLING – Jackanory meets the 10 o´clock news. This sums the left’s use of news for lies.
BTW, I noticed from a link to the BBC that Bernard Manning died today and comments (not tributes – bias in BBC ‘comedy’??) were invited. Fortunately, the comments were all tributes. Bernard Manning was a genuinely great comedian because he told jokes. The likes of Mark Steele are not funny, and they epitomise the descent of the BBC into a cesspit of leftist, humourless bias.
Who has more influence on the tone of middel-east output: Jeremy Bowen or Melanie Philips and allies? Pretty obvious conclusion really.
good comment.
must say thankyou to nick reynolds though for debating the issues,makes
a change from hillhunts sneering
sarcastic gibberish.
Speaking of Melanie Phillips.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1555