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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6764779.stm
Meanwhile I can’t find the original link to the report on the front page of the website – by Gum that were quick lads!
At the very bottom is a link to the ‘article’ above which attempts to decry the Sunday press reaction..no bias there then… if BBC were impartial they should merely put the Sunday papers’ reactions in the article and NOT attempt to decry them etc. The BBC should report and WE should decide – THAT is where they went wrong so many years ago.
And on such a slow news day yet the report gets buried already…if people didn’t know about it and went looking they would never find it – especially under entertainment! I wonder if our American cousins will be able to find it without going via Fox News or suchlike since they are 8 hrs behind in some cases.
I do like the comment they show though – that only the BBC are surprised by this report! How did that one slip through?
The BBCs cultural bias is evident throughout its website.
Check out the On this Day section and look for missing events of real import.
For instance much is made of the loony loyalist grenade attack on an IRA funeral on March 16th.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_2523000/2523953.stm
It is the top story above the Halabja gas attack and Aldo Moro’s kidnapping.
Yet no mention of the savage killings by and IRA mob of two British Corporals (AKA the Corporals Killings) on the 19th of March the same year. It seems to have been outranked by the proposed building of Milton Keynes. This is suprising to me since it was one of the most shocking things I ever witnessed on film.
You have to go to wiki for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings
Both events were equally memorable and in fact part of a chain of events since the IRA mob at first assumed the Corporals to be loyalists attacking the funeral.
OTD is an archive now. It may prove to be a lasting monument to the BBCs cultural bias. Unless it is stealth edited of course.
John Boy – and no mention of the fact that both R SIGNALS Corporals deliberately fired into the air to try and drive off the mob when they could have (under the rules of engagement/ Yellow Card) fired AT their attackers and killed some of them. But then such sacrifice and sense of duty are unknown or not understood at the likes of the BBC are they? Why DO so many in the BBC support the cowards and thugs and murderers? Is it something to do with a moral vacuum in their liberal world makeup?
Look, Nick Reynolds, what about calling the president of Iran a “trenchant critic” of Israel?
Why no explanation?
I feel something worse than anger towards you.
Perhaps ‘trenchant critic’ is doubleplus truthspeak for ‘fruitloop’ and we’ve been wrong all along?
No I didn’t think so either…. 😎
The BBC is not even what it was in the Eighties. But even then as can be witnessed by dramas like Edge of Darkness there was an anti-American CND undercurrent. Drama is drama of course and I quite enjoyed that at the time, but I get the feeling that mindset has completely taken over the news organization now as well.
It seems to be the BBC is staffed by people who secretly wish the USSR had won the cold war, the IRA had driven the British from NI and feverishly await the next terror attack so it can be blamed on the disaster in Iraq. I think its sad really.
Anyway, those Corporals were brave and clearly decent men who did the8ir best to avoid the trouble they stumbled into, and deserve better from what is supposed to be an unslanted view of history.
I just spotted another classic in OTD – check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/september/17/newsid_2891000/2891661.stm
Does any other event in the history of the last half of the twentieth century get two articles? Hmmm.
Yes, Dave t it is the tiny little world they inhabit. I’ve spent time with the supposed anarchists of the world, even staying in their dirty little squats.They support any tinpot wanker that spreads their pathetic ideology. They got excited about being radical in their youth & sadly still believe it even into middle age. Well past their sel by date to my mind!
.
“Could we PLEASE talk about the impartiality report?”
No problem, Nick – look, commenters are.
Could we PLEASE see the Balen report?
You seem to think your parroting of the BBC press release will somehow bring closure. Forget that.
“And in your contract of employment with the BBC you are restricted from revealing confidential information.”
Well thank God that for the sake of freedom (and journalism) there are whistleblowers all over willing to put their conscience above their contracts, and hell, above even the Official Secrets Act, to reveal information in the public interest. All over except in the journalistic ranks of the BBC, it seems. They’ll happily use the information for which others may go to prison to release, but sod even a leak when it comes to their own pensions.
“The BBC has always maintained that the Balen report is held for purposes of journalism…”
The BBC and its journalists clearly have no idea just how contemptible that line makes the BBC and its journalists look.
.
People who are sceptical about climate change and the EU regularly appear in the BBC’s output.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.06.07 – 9:57 pm | #
It is refreshing that someone at the BBC is prepared to discuss the issues with us openly and I would thank you for that Nick. It does us all good to hear opinions different to our own.
However I am struggling to think of any climate change sceptic who regularly appears in the BBC output. Can you honestly say that coverage of this issue by the BBC reflects the views of the public?
(I know. Now I’m going to get a list of climate change sceptics who’ve appeared on the BBC talking about something else entirely!)
Biased BBC:
Whinge Speed: Hurricane Force.
My favourite… John Boy:
It seems to be the BBC is staffed by people who secretly wish the USSR had won the cold war, the IRA had driven the British from NI and feverishly await the next terror attack so it can be blamed on the disaster in Iraq. I think its sad really
Y-e-e-e-s. It is sad to post obvious tripe like that.
But you went and did it anyway.
Bryan, you are wrong about Helen Boaden and Barbara Plett. Helen Boaden actually said that Plett’s FOOC on Arafat was an error of judgement.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.06.07 – 12:52 pm
“Judgement” didn’t come into it. It was Plett’s spontaneous expression of her bias, snug in her BBC cocoon. And Boaden bent over backwards to cover for Plett and excuse her and represent the bias as something else.
Here’s what she added about Plett:
She unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Arafat.
That statement is worthy of close examination because it is a gem of an example of the deeply-ingrained attitudes that give rise to BBC bias and, at the same time, it’s such a poor attempt to represent the bias as something very different, almost innocent. We analysed it on this very blog at the time.
Perhaps you should take a careful look at it.
The BBC seems to want to change the history of the world.
It may well changes its future. Certainly I would never support any use of force or loss of my American compatriots’ lives to defend a country the licence payers of which support such an organisation. I would object, wholeheartedly.
Sarah:
The BBC seems to want to change the history of the world. It may well changes its future. Certainly I would never support any use of force or loss of my American compatriots’ lives to defend a country the licence payers of which support such an organisation.
Y-e-e-e-s. On that basis, you’all for pulling out of Iraq, given the welcome your (and our) troops are getting day after day?
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.
Thanks for your response Nick. Others have responded while I’ve been away, I agree with them and don’t want to repeat myself. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond and debate here, and I understand how you would want to defend your colleague, but I simply don’t go along with the idea that Alan Johnston has ever been other than biased in his reporting from Gaza.
While there has been a huge outpouring of sympathy and support for him since his “capture” most supporters, and indeed his own bosses at the BBC have praised him as a friend to the “palestinian cause”. To the best of my knowledge I haven’t heard any Israelis praising his impartiality and integrity. That, I thik, says it all.
The point being that news reporting is not just about “who did what to whom” but the human consequences of actions.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.06.07 – 8:20 pm
I’ve already pointed out that the “human consequences” of “Palestinian” terrorism on Israelis is rarely covered. Of course Johnston’s job was to cover Gaza, but surely somebody over there could cover the Israeli “predicament” too.
I previously asked “John Reith” to comment on the lack of any mention of terrorism as an obstacle in the recent “Obstacles to peace” series. He admitted that its omission was “iffy”.
Do you not see that as another clear example of “bias by omission” and unbalanced narrative?
Y-e-e-e-s. It is sad to post obvious tripe like that.
hillhunt | 18.06.07
hey dimwit,
we have to sift thru your shitty tripe everyday.
callmedave:
I see. The BBC is staffed by unreconstructed Stalinists who wanted an IRA victory and are desperately longing for another terror attack on the country they and their families live in?
And you expect the world to take this blog seriously?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) – Yes people do appear on the BBc who have a different opinion on MMGW (not often) – but watch this from the Politics Show with Al Gore and later Peter Hitchins and comapare and contrast how they are treated.
The opening line from the BBC presenter.
“…How he thinks he can convince people in Britain that are sceptical of climate change that it is a big problem”
Al Gore mentions that 6,000 scientists agree with him – the presenter does not question that figure (which is wrong according to the IPCC) – every other question put to Al Gore is on the presunption that MMGW is a fact. Contrast that with the questioning of Peter Hitchins – is this bias?
I couldn’t care less whether the BBC thinks it is biased or not. All I want is the right not to subscribe to it and to watch other channels without being fined and getting a criminal record.
Can anyone show me any facts that show the BBC’s hiring policy to be anymore Guardian-centric than any other media organisation.
Or at least a breakdown of where it places its adverts.
And I would imagine that the bulk of their job applicants come via their website.
hillhunt | 19.06.07 – 12:14 am
y.e.e.e.s shitty tripe is shitty tripe.
And I would imagine that the bulk of their job applicants come via their website.
MisterMinit | 19.06.07 – 12:18 am
Do you have a link for the page that advertises their job vacancies?
Don’t bother MisterMinit, it’s here, for what it’s worth:
https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp
Not much there.
Jon:
Contrast that with the questioning of Peter Hitchins – is this bias?
Hitchens is treated respectfully and his opinions given full weight. He does get into a (mild) verbal tussle at the end, but that’s with another guest, whom he puts down as a Guardian writer who only mixes with other lefties….
You could describe it as biased.
But you’d be wrong.
“Can anyone show me any facts that show the BBC’s hiring policy to be anymore Guardian-centric than any other media organisation.”
“In the fiscal year from from April 2004 until March 2005, the BBC spent a total of £568,343 on recruitment advertising in a total of 49 newspapers. The recipient of the largest amount of revenue from such BBC advertising was, by far, The Guardian. Nearly 41% of the BBC’s expenditures, or £231,944, went into The Guardian’s coffers. To put this into some perspective, this is over two and a half times more than the amount received by the next largest recipient, The Western Mail (a Welsh paper) which received £92,388, or just over 16% of the total expenditures. The Times/Sunday Times received a combined total of just £53,326, or a shade over 9% of the total. The amount received by The Guardian alone is approximately equal to the next seven largest recipients combined. And one of those seven, The Manchester Evening News, which received £11,100, is in fact itself a member of The Guardian Media Group.”
http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/2005/11/bbcguardian-partnership.html
Biodegradababble:
Don’t bother MisterMinit, it’s here, for what it’s worth:
https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp
Not much there.
Nothing of your stature for sure, although there are 10 junior-ish jobs on offer at the BBC website.
How many advertised, by contrast, in today’s Media Guardian?
Oh…none.
I’m on my mobile phone and you can’t seem to access the careers stuff from the BBC mobile home page.
But this Guardian argument slightly annoys me as I often hear this criticism yet I have never seen any statistics on the matter at all. And don’t forget, bias is an inherently statistical concept.
MisterMinit | 19.06.07 – 12:42 am |
“But this Guardian argument slightly annoys me as I often hear this criticism yet I have never seen any statistics on the matter at all. And don’t forget, bias is an inherently statistical concept.”
Read the post above
Jon, that’s interesting.
How does this compare with other media organisations?
And I would imagine that the bulk of their job applicants come via their website.
MisterMinit | 19.06.07 – 12:18 am
Well that would make the pushing of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pounds to theguardian the more outrageous.
As BSkyB and ITV are commercial companies, the FOI Act does not apply so it would be difficult to find out. But as BSkyB is owned by a media man – I would guess that he would use his own media outlets to recruit staff.
I’m not sure about Channel 4 as they are partly funded by the government so I believe.
.
Politics Show with Al Gore
The BBC interviewer was desperate to get Gore to criticise the UK’s efforts to meet its obligations on climate change.
She had obviously only been exposed to the BBC’s coverage, from which one would never know that, as Gore said, the UK is a world leader. The UK is set to make emission reductions of almost twice its Kyoto target – thus bailing out all the EU backsliders.
(Good job Hitchens is a gent. That scornful laughter from theguardianperson could have tempted some to give her the traditional cure for hysterics.)
Nick Reynolds or anybody:
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
Please publish the link to the Alan Johnston interview with the three Israelis. I seem to have missed this story.
Wrt the two coporals murdered by the IRA, not only was their honorable behaviour rarely alluded to, but the more robust idea that they should have fired on the crowd in the hope of making their escape or if not at least taking a few dozen of their attackers with them, was totally absent from public debate.
Why does the BBC call lebanese politicians who want less syrian goverment influence in their country, anti-syrian and not Pro-independence. Anti-syrian suggests a sort unrational hate of everything syrian.
Mike S
Perhaps Al Beeb isn’t aware of:
“ASSAD’S GAMBIT”
http://www.coxandforkum.com/
(14 June; scroll down).
Two useful piece on BBC Report in the ‘Telegraph’ today:
1.) “BBC viewers angered by its innate liberal bias”;
2.) “The BBC can’t kick its addition to bias” (Damian Thompson)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
The BBC Report on itself tries to reassure us of what it thinks is its ‘impartiality’ by approvingly quoting the following unimpeachable example of impartiality, i.e. bias:
“An earlier module, on the pitfalls of loaded language in the Middle East, was presented bt Jeremy Bowen”
(Page 11 of Report).
Please publish the link to the Alan Johnston interview with the three Israelis. I seem to have missed this story.
deegee | 19.06.07 – 6:45 am
Apparently it wasn’t a story but a hypothetical example that Johnston used in a lecture.
Nick Reynolds claims that because it wasn’t an actual story it proves nothing. I maintain that it shows very clearly the psycology behind BBC reporting.
deegee,
It was from “a previously unpublished piece by captive BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston that underlines his mastery of the art of storytelling”
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2105122,00.html
There is no myanishen district in Afghanistan.
Hillhunt are you going to retract this false reporting on behalf of your BBC?
The BBC’s response to the reporting of its new Impartiality Report:
Does the BBC have a bias problem?
If you’ve read the newspapers, you may have got the impression that a BBC report on impartiality has concluded that the BBC is “institutionally biased”. …
In fact, the report doesn’t reach that conclusion – though it does quote people who hold those beliefs
Ah. I see. So that’s okay then. These people are mistaken or deluded. Carry on as usual then.
Silly me. Er, now then, where did I put the Victory Gin….?
There is no myanishen district:
There is no myanishen district in Afghanistan. Hillhunt are you going to retract this false reporting on behalf of your BBC?
Of course.
Just as soon as I become an employee of theirs. Which I’m not. And never have been…
On the other hand, I bow to B-BBCers’ extensive knowledge of Afghan place names and only mention is passing that the name Myanishen is being quoted by the respected Reuters and AFP news agencies.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d66c9da9-5ba8-429c-80ef-3413f1173f78
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/fr/administration/article-afp.html?id=070619062334.e2rn0fox&cat=europe
In fact, you’ll find a comment in the French report from an ISAF spokesman named John Thomas, confirming the Taleban success.
Just remind me: What is it I’m supposed to apologise for?
Hillhunt
I accept your apology and retraction such as it is though it is not clear that it is on behalf of your corporation as you do not yet work for them.
I trust you will to see to it that your other colleagues at the BBC supporters club understand that they have been duped regarding its existence.
I am pleased to see that you at the BBC do not use other’s errors, however highly regarded those organisations are, to condone mistakes by your corporation, but instead follow the path that you should be up with the best and not trailing along with shoddy reporting behind the very worst.
I will approach people at Reuters and AFP to similarly retract as obviously the BBC and its supporters are not in a position to retract for them.
hmmm… googling on “myanishen” doesnt return a wikipedia entry (googling for geographical names usually does)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Myanishen&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
a direct search on wikipedia , again no results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=myanishen
hmmm.. interesting!
1) Start advertising jobs in both right and left wing newspapers (without filtering responses)
I haven’t seen a BBC job advertised in the Guardian for months now. Most are advertised on the BBC website. If they are advertised in the Guardian, it’s because the Guardian has the most popular media section of all daily newspapers.
2) Staff your Middle East offices with people sympathetic to the existence of Israel.
Can I refer you to this?
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.
Because she’s sooooooooo balanced, isn’t she?
ah. found it. its a mis spelling. the district is actually
Miyannasheen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyannasheen_District
Biodegradeable: what it shows is Alan Johnson’s approach to his job i.e. report both sides fairly.
Regarding climate change this is what the report says:
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.
But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate.
They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.”
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Biodegradeable: what it shows is Alan Johnson’s approach to his job i.e. report both sides fairly.
Thanks again for your response Nick, but once again I must disagree with you.
Johnston’s choice of example demonstrates his mindset; “Palestinians” as impotent, innocent bystanders watching their homes being destroyed by ruthless Israelis in tanks.
That is Johnston’s interpretation of the two sides; on one side the “Palestinian” victim, on the other side the Israeli aggressor. A little simplistic don’t you think for somebody who has so much to say about the “art of story telling” and the “crafting” of news reports?
His mind is made up and is about as fair as a propaganda piece from the ISM or Hamas itself.
i wonder has Alan Johnson ever reported on the Hamas Charter?
***********************************
the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take.
The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”
I did like the report as I read it. If the BBC were to implement it to the letter, I would be happy.
The killer line was that impartial didn’t mean politically correct.
As it happens, I doubt it will take a blind piece of notice of what people have been saying for years – its not in its style!
The BBC report is good in parts. They do give lots of examples – soem are new to me, eg bussing in ethnics to give some colour to a hideously white QT in Lincoln.
But they dismiss all these problems as either in the past, or one-off mistakes. They do not admit any fault, but at the same time promise to do better somehow. Just by trying harder – no real changes needed.
They also pick some prize examples. Its like being asked your own faults in a job interview. You invent something like “being a perfectionist”.
So they dish up the “make poverty history” campaign as an example – knowing that there is not a pro-poverty lobby – just lots of people who have passed their teens and realise that the campaign was a load of tosh.
The other weird example is in coverage of british teams and competitors in sporting events. This is probably one area where most of us would be very happy to see partisan coverage – so long as its not ridiculous.
Its called “cheering for your own team” and we could probably do with some of this when they report the british armed forces. Or at least some kind of presumption that they are “our” forces and should not undermined at every opportunity.
The report is correct when it identifies “group-think” at work.