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.
Above was me.
They also describe political correctness as “a sign of a civilised and respectful society”. This is a classic defence – usually deployed when pretending PC does not exist has failed.
It suggests that the only alternative to stultifying PC is an organised campaign of rudeness to the handicapped – where we all sing the horst-wessel song before we run over some gays in our 4x4s.
The piece Nick Reynolds (BBC) and I have been discussing is now on the BBC website.
Alan Johnston on the art of journalism
“When you are with one side from the conflict, you have got to put to them the very best arguments of the other side – the toughest questions.”
Fine words, but I can’t recall him ever asking any tough questions to any side.
No tough questions here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6459521.stm
NR
Your comments are always thoughtful even when you feel that you have to defend the indefensible. I also appreciate your use of the term “unbalanced” rather than “biased”
Implicit in the ideas of balance or imbalance is the word “fulcrum”. In other words what points of view are to be judged so inimicable to our sense of right and wrong that they should be regarded as inexpressible?
Would the BBC interview the Klu Klux Klan and leave the immpression that its vile stance wrt blacks is just another point of view and part of life’s rich tapestry?
I assume not.
Now why not the same approach to the Taliban who practise the slaughter of both female students and their teachers.
Where would you set the limits of the fulcrum Mr Reynolds?
Best wishes
Gordon
Excellent post, Gordon. I think you may have a long wait before (if ever) Mr. Reynolds gets back to you ..
Not too long.
Yes I can see occasions when the BBC would interview the Klu Klux Klan.
We probably have done in the past.
I would expect any interview with them (or the Taliban) to be appropriately testing and tough.
Nick Reynolds
“I would expect any interview with them (or the Taliban) to be appropriately testing and tough.”
In which case David Loyn’s fawning obsequies to the Taliban on Newsnight last year must have fallen somewhat short of your expectations…
It’s a very good interview and very good journalism.
There’s nothing “fawning” about it. Indeed he describes the Taliban as “religious zealots” and shows that they are burning down schools.
Did you actually see it Guy R?
Nick – Did you actually check the link I gave to the Politics Show and Al Gore – did you think Al Gore and Peter Hitchins were treated the same by the interviewer?
As far as I could see Al Gore was treated like the Pope. Maybe you were right about having “sceptics” on the BBc but they are always treated with contempt.
No doubt Copernicus or Kepler if they were alive today would get the same treatment as eminent scientists who disagree with the MMGW movement get today.
Can anyone say that the science on MMGW has been proven beyond all doubt.
Can the 3% of man made CO2 really alter the earth so catastrophically. Whereas the sun has no effect on the earths climate at all.
The problem is now that the myth has been spread by the BBC and others – they will not relent. The only way to silence critics is to ridicule them – or shout louder so that no one can be heard. And this is the tactics of people who know that to debate MMGW reasonably would put an end to the myth.
Just a thought – but did Al Gore only agree to the “interview” if it was done by someone who would not argue the “other side”.
As everyone knows Al Gore is not a scientist but a politician – would the BBC treat George Bush with the same reverence?
“I would expect any interview with them (or the Taliban) to be appropriately testing and tough.”
RUBBISH !! Al-BBC treat the Taliban with kid gloves because a) They’re not white so they score high on Al-Beeb’s PC-ometer. b) they’re muslim which also scores high on Al-BBC’s PC-ometer.
If the KKK did one tenth of the things the Taleban did Al-BBC would be down on them like a ton of bricks.
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?
hillhunt | 19.06.07 – 12:14 am | #
Well [deleted], the BBC solicits the details of troop movements in Iraq, embeds reporters with the Taliban and employs staff who weep over the medical evacuation of a terrorist, so the above scenarios are not at all unlikely.
Edited By Siteowner
Jon
If I can just explain how I tackle reporting climate change as a BBC Science Correspondent?
I work in the Midlands so my job is less likely to be reporting on the latest big climate change report. Instead I’ll do stories like; Bulmers planting apple trees that have rootstock capable of surviving drought. Or showing how new estates are being built so they can handle more heavy downpours and deal with the run off effectively.
Now as Science Correspondent (with about 1.30 to tell my story) I see my job as reporting the Scientific consensus. One of the cries on here is that people don’t want opinion from BBC journalists, just facts.
With that in mind I don’t often put in a whole clip from a climate change sceptic scientist (Indeed I’m not sure I ever have) but over time I will mention that point of view.
Of course the scientific consensus may change over time and I will report that.
This same approach means when I do stories about people who baco-foil their bedrooms to block out the mobile phone signals because of health worries then I’ll often put in a script line or more saying so far there is no credible scientific evidence of any health problems.
“Can anyone say that the science on MMGW has been proven beyond all doubt.” Well no. But science doesn’t work like that and it’s important to know that.
Anyway, as I’ve said before I don’t know much about the Middle East but I thought you might interested to know how a BBC Journalist tries to achieve balance when it comes to reporting science. Which in theory is a bit more black and white than some of the other topics debated here.
Another reason why the BBC is biased in favour of the European Union:
“The European Investment Bank, the European Union’s long-term lending institution, is providing BBC Worldwide with a EUR 40 million (£25 million) loan facility.” (From EIB press release of 2002).
http://www.eib.europa.eu/news/press/press.asp?press=37
“Johnston’s choice of example demonstrates his mindset; “Palestinians” as impotent, innocent bystanders watching their homes being destroyed by ruthless Israelis in tanks.”
Given that he’s famously based in Gaza, self evidently he’s going to have experience the results of Israeli aggression rather than vice versa??
Anonymous:
Well [deleted], the BBC solicits the details of troop movements in Iraq, embeds reporters with the Taliban and employs staff who weep over the medical evacuation of a terrorist, so the above scenarios are not at all unlikely.
Y-e-e-e-s.
Who was embedded with the Taleban? When?
Ms Plett’s teary moment has been criticised publicly by the BBC. Everyone makes mistakes.
And troop movements? £500 says some junior sub-editor applied the standard dumb-ass citizen-journalist paragraph to the wrong story.
It says so much about this blog that it harbours people who actually believe that BBC staff want their own families put at risk from terrorism.
Biased BBC: The worst is not bad enough.
@ David Gregory (BBC):
David,
The issue with al-BBC’s coverage of global warming is the routine conflation of several quite separate themes into one.
There are two broad positions about GW itself, but many subtleties.
The major positions seem to me to be either that
1/ The earth is not getting warmer at all; or that
2/ It is getting warmer, but…
…and 2 is then followed by any of the following illustrative qualifiers:-
a/ …it’s not man-made, but cyclical, often seen previously and extra-terrestrially, and the science does not in any case support the cause-effect assumption so often used;
b/ …it’s beyond our ability to control it – we can’t control the temperature inside an office building to within 2 degrees, so it is laughable hubris to attempt the same with the entire atmosphere in 100 years’ time;
c/ it’s a statistical artefact brought about by factors such as warmer winters (if the temperature in Alaska varies between -20 and plus 20 instead of -24 and plus 20, has the average temperature really warmed up by 2 degrees or has nothing of any practical significance occurred?);
d/ …it’s so uneven (eg the southern hemisphere is acknowledged to be cooling) that global measures make no sense and undermine the scientific assumptions;
e/ …acting to prevent it now makes no sense because the economics suggest we should deal with it in the future at relatively much less cost to future generations;
f/ ..the greatest factor bearing on the likely success of CO2 reduction is the global population, which nobody is talking about at all;
g/ …just because one buys into the existence of GW does not mean I have to accept also the statist top-down “solution” to it that authoritarian lefties favour so much; how about a free-market one instead?
h/ …the advocates of MMGW resemble the adherents of a religion and are probably lying to me about it to secure more wealth and influence for themselves;
i/ …we’ve been here before with The Next Ice Age, Nuclear Winter, etc., and nothing ever comes of it;
j/ …on balance, GW will be a good thing and will reduce hunger, so let it rip;
k/ …there is an obvious correlation between GDP and CO2 emissions. Those who castigate the USA over Kyoto are lying by omission in never mentioning this reason for the state of US CO2 emissions, so nothing else they say can be trusted either;
l/ …in the future it will be India and China that are the worst offenders, and they’re getting a free ride now while we are penalised with economic costs that will do nothing to solve the problem;
m/ …why should Indian and Chinese poverty be perpetuated to appease western liberals? Aren’t they entitled to industrialise?
n/ …I completely 100% accept the factual truth of everything the IPCC and “mainstream” opinion tells me about this.
In my experience, 1/ above is a minority opinion. The issue is that there are many who hold one or more of opinions 2a through 2m, and al-BBC routinely conflates all such people together with those who hold opinion 1/. There’s either opinion 2n, and everyone else is a “sceptic” or – most offensively – a “denier”.
This is either lazy or intellectually dishonest, but above all it is not a reasoned response to critique so much as a political one. If your opponent’s argument is hard to refute, lump him in with some extremists and accuse him of being the same.
Thus, if a conservative suggests that prison sentences are too lenient and criminals should be taken off the streets for a lot longer – an opinion most people agree with – the liberal will retort by accusing the conservative of wanting to bring back hanging.
This is the debate that we do not often hear on al-BBC. Or does it happen and I’ve just missed it?
Gordon-Broon-Eats-Hez-Bawgies:
I think you have hit the nail on the head there. The BBC is OK to report the scientific concensus that man-made global warming is happening. What there is no justification in doing is the propagandising for a statist solution for that MMGW. Especially when you consider the following facts:
1] Britain has far lower CO2 output than Germany or the US or many other industrialised countries.
2] The Chinese really don’t give a damn. They will burn all the oil and coal that we don’t burn.
3] Natural climate change happens anyway and is something we need to learn to adapt to. The Horizon programme on the Moche civilisation of Peru should have been a lesson to those that are under the mistaken impression that solving CO2 emissions solves climate change.
BBC News: not biased, just stupid.
David Gregory writes:
“Now as Science Correspondent (with about 1.30 to tell my story) I see my job as reporting the Scientific consensus. One of the cries on here is that people don’t want opinion from BBC journalists, just facts.
With that in mind I don’t often put in a whole clip from a climate change sceptic scientist (Indeed I’m not sure I ever have) but over time I will mention that point of view.”
Thank you for responding on the GW issue – it’s very helpful.
Can you see that if every BBC journalist reporting on GW delivers his reports the same way, then the overall impression becomes misleading? And that doesn’t take into account the causal babbling of disc jockeys and entertainers, whose scientific credibility doesn’t stand a lot of examination.
Meanwhile, the ‘consensus’ on which your case rests isn’t awfully convincing. A lot of the serious criticism of the anthropocentric theory comes from hard-nosed specialists, while much of the ‘consensus’ comes from scientists whose expertise lies in very different fields.
No less a figure than Saint Jeremy de Paxman has opined on the BBC’s coverage of the GW issue, so it’s not as if unease were restricted to ‘the usual suspects’. We have to take the BBC’s coverage of the subject as a whole. However well your individual 1.30s may stand up, can you say the same if you step back and take an overview?
Sorry if this has been mentioned, but there was an extremely fiery debate last night on World Have You Say:
Alan Dershowitz lays into the BBC presenter for describing him as “pro-Israel” but nobody else on the debate as “anti-Israel”. He calls the BBC “biased.” Good man.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=i&q=World+have+your+say&go.x=30&go.y=13
Click on Audio – Top right.
Link wont last past tonight. Dunno how to get a permanent link to the debate.
Thanks Cockney and Hillhunt for good comments.
David Gregory – welcome to biased bbc.
Re climate change – I don’t think we “propergandize” for a particular solution. See this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/sceptics.shtml
A quick search of the phrase “climate change denier” on the BBC website.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=climate+change+denier&scope=all&edition=d&tab=all&recipe=all&x=32&y=14
This reveals that while contributors to programmes and message boards might use the phrase (as is their right) it is not being widely used by the BBC itself.
Nice to see some comments from people who have actually read the report.
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Thanks Cockney and Hillhunt for good comments.
Hahahaha! 😆
Alan Dershowitz lays into the BBC presenter for describing him as “pro-Israel” but nobody else on the debate as “anti-Israel”. He calls the BBC “biased.” Good man.
…
Link wont last past tonight. Dunno how to get a permanent link to the debate.
Bryan | 20.06.07 – 11:31 am |
I commented here, maybe the “Tuesday” link will last longer:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2302952105080211852/#361145
In response to Dershowitz’s complaint Peter Doobie then asked the other guests if they were anti-Israel. Of course they all said “no”, rather like hillhunt denying he’s an antisemite.
Gordon_Broon_Eats_Hez_Bawgies: Well there is a larger debate on all the topics you mention. So that might run from a longer debate about the politics of carbon trading on Newsnight to an email conversation between me and a viewer on some more speicific aspect of climate change science. So I do believe the debate is there.
GCooper: Actually I emailed JP about that comment and got a rather enigmatic reply. I don’t think the overall impression is misleading. Man made cliamte change is the scientific consensus. Mobile phones do not damage our health is the scientific consensus. I believe it is good to try and treat viewers and listeners as intelligent enough to understand this debate. My job is to bring them the latest evidence and news about what is happening right now.
As for the usual suspects. Well Melanie Phillips is a climate change sceptic. But she gets the science wrong. I emailed her about one of her recent posts and she showed little understanding of how science works and she cut me off. Personally I wouldn’t use her. But if a strong scientist gets a good paper published in a recognised journal, well that that would be different, I’d be very interested in talking to them. But you have to be careful with “maveric” (for want of a better term) science.
To finish off with a practical example I’m just off out to stand next to puddles and took about climate change. Was last night’s downpour due to global warming? No. Last night was just weather. But do the models predict such heavy sudden downpours if climate change was real? Yes.
But all journalists should remember the plural of “anecdote” isn’t “data”
Nick Reynolds writes:
“This reveals that while contributors to programmes and message boards might use the phrase (as is their right) it is not being widely used by the BBC itself.”
That’s somewhat questionable. After all, who chooses the contributors?
Beyond a point this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The BBC’s talking heads babble about it with utter conviction, not because they have seen and weighed the conflicting evidence, but because they have heard nothing but one side of the argument.
This, they then repeat ad nauseum .
That’s not consensus: it’s group-think.
“Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Thanks Cockney and Hillhunt for good comments.
Hahahaha! ”
Like I keep telling you, they aren’t biased so much as unbelievably stupid. They just believe whatever the last clever chap told them. They haven’t got the wit to challenge what is said. Consequently they can be easily manipulated by people that are smarter than they are.
BBC News: not biased, just UNBELIEVABLY STUPID!
Given that he’s famously based in Gaza, self evidently he’s going to have experience the results of Israeli aggression rather than vice versa??
Cockney | 20.06.07 – 10:04 am
Exactly, so where’s the “reporting both sides fairly” that he and Nick Reynolds claim he does?
David Gregory writes:
“I believe it is good to try and treat viewers and listeners as intelligent enough to understand this debate.”
So do I. And that implies giving them both sides of the story.
“My job is to bring them the latest evidence and news about what is happening right now.”
Excellent news. But it pays a journalist to question the credibility of his sources, as I’m sure you would agree. ‘Evidence’ from, say, a body funded to ‘combat climate change’ and staffed with MMGW believers, is no more innately credible than that funded by Exxon.
Challenge the non-scientist Melanie Phillips, by all means: but why give Al Gore such an easy ride, as the BBC does?
As for your willingness to consider dissenting opinions (we can argue about the reality and usefulness of consensus some other time), in case you are unaware of it, may I recommend Dr John Rae’s ‘Greenie Watch’ website? It’s a good place to get a sense of the conflicting evidence – something I don’t get from the BBC, I’m afraid.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
GCooper: Quick word before I dash out to my puddle. It’s too simplistic to ask for “both sides of the story”. As far as the scientific majority is concerned climate change is real, we’re responsible and it’s happening. That’s what the science is telling us right now. The reporting of those who disagree with the consensus is a difficult task. Many journalists love a maverick, science reporters tend by nature to be more cautious. But I stay accross the debate and will reflect any changes in what the science tells us.
The problem with this debate is framing it in terms like “both sides of the story” because that simply isn’t how science works. And stuff like “it’s the coldest weekend ever in NY how’s that for climate change!” doesn’t do anyone any favours. (Happy to check out your website you suggest)
Ryan: “BBC News: not biased, just stupid.” Well at the risk of indulging in intellectual willy waggling, I’ve got a PhD in Physics. So at least on paper I’m not stupid.
David Gregory – thanks for the input on MMGW. I would take issue with your views on a scientific consensus; there are numerous high profile scientists who are at best agnostics on the issue, though as this has become a political issue they have been silenced rather effectively, and funding cut off. There have been several reports criticising both the methodology and conclusions of the IPCC, such as this one (linked below) by Vincent Gray:
Click to access 20072141112360.SPM07GrayCritique.pdf
Other notable examples are Nigel Calder (whose theories were well covered by the BBC), and Richard Lindzen, both of whom have impeccable scientific backgrounds, as opposed to, well…. let’s pick a name at random… Al Gore, for example. So I think there is a good basis to challenge your views on a consensus. A majority, quite possibly, but certainly not a consensus.
While any response on this would be desirable and, I’m sure, enlightening, my question to you is rather different.
I just wondered whether you were around at the time when the BBC was faithfully covering the “Global Cooling” or “we’re entering a new Ice Age” stories in the 1970s and 1980s? If so, how did you view those issues – now proven as complete poppycock – at the time? Did the BBC cover dissenting views then, or did it pretty much go along with the “conensus” like it mostly does today? What were your personal views at the time, and are there any lessons to be learned from the coverage of these issues that can relate to the BBC’s coverage of MMGW today?
I look forward to your response, either now or on your return from the puddle.
David Gregory writes:
“The problem with this debate is framing it in terms like “both sides of the story” because that simply isn’t how science works.”
But science doesn’t work by consensus, either – indeed, consensus is frequently inimical to the scientific method.
What do you think Galileo might have said about about consensus?
Simply reporting the majority view as if it were established fact isn’t very helpful – particularly when that message is reinforced by a constant stream of uninformed certainty from other broadcasters, who really aren’t qualified to hold an opinion about anything.
Well, maybe hairstyles. And footballers. They probably know about footballers.
Enjoy your puddle story. I too have work. And do check out Greenie Watch. It’s a useful digest of the Damned.
Oh.. and please let us not get into an academic arms race.
GCooper | 20.06.07 – 1:37 pm:
What do you think Galileo might have said about about consensus?
Simply reporting the majority view as if it were established fact isn’t very helpful – particularly when that message is reinforced by a constant stream of uninformed certainty from other broadcasters, who really aren’t qualified to hold an opinion about anything.
Are we talking about MMGW here or “the political controversy that helped bring down the last Conservative government”?
Al Beeb’s mix of entertainment and politics continues today; it’s Royal Ascot coverage, not only includes horse racing and fashion, but has Ms. Balding asking Ms. Adie in the paddock (at about 2.30pm local) about how Alan Johnston must be feeling. No comment about Islamists though. Perhaps we’ll have Bono on soon, condemning western politicians, and giving tips for the last race.
Ms. Adie in the paddock
Alan | 20.06.07 – 2:44 pm |
Has she been saddled up?
Exactly, so where’s the “reporting both sides fairly” that he and Nick Reynolds claim he does?
Perhaps part of the problem is the concept that there are ‘two’ sides i.e Israeli/Arab. After all the time AJ spent in Gaza what picture do we have of Gazans?
Did A.J. ever interview:
• Gazan Christians about what it is like to be Christian in a Muslim society?
• Gazan Gypsies (Dom) about what it is like to be Gypsy in a Muslim society?
• homosexuals about what it is like to be gay in a Muslim society?
• daughters in a family after an honour killing?
• Beduins about how it was to live in a culture dominated by town Arabs?
• teacher who were earning more as illegal workers on Israeli building sites than they could ever earn in Gaza?
• a woman who has undergone female circumcision and now is forced to do the same to her new daughter?
• Palestinians about what part of the Hamas platform they were voting for?
• Gazan workers expelled from the West Bank by Palestinians?
• families what what they thought about their husbands and sons storing explosives in their home?
• a Palestinian girl whose only hope of escape was to get arrested by the Israelis?
• Palestinian authorities about why so much of this supposedly densely populated area is undeveloped?
• an Arab patient whose life was changed by surgery in Israel?
• Palestinians about how it was under Egyptian control?
• young couples when the father of the bride couldn’t come up with a dowry?
• leaders and followers of criminal clans like the Dagamoush?
• Palestinians how they felt about constantly receiving aid and never standing on their own feet?
• Palestinians how they felt when they saw the freedoms enjoyed by Israeli Arabs and compared that to their own lives?
For that matter has any BBC person ever reported on these issues? Tunnel vision and half a story.
“Well at the risk of indulging in intellectual willy waggling, I’ve got a PhD in Physics. So at least on paper I’m not stupid.”
Well Dr Gregory, it doesn’t show. What are you doing wasting it at the BBC?
I’ve got a PhD too, but I’m using mine….
…and you haven’t answered my point about the presumption the BBC makes about how the problem can be tackled (if it actually is real). The BBC website’s “Ethical Man” series being pertinent.
All fine at the puddle. Off out to talk to farmers now.
Heron: Well at the time I was pretty concerned about Dr Who since I was about 10. Actually that hasn’t changed much in the past few years thinking about it.
The big freeze was a very popular idea with tv programme makes and the general public, I’m not sure how seriously it was taken by climate scientists. Though obviously that’s not a contemporaneous view and scientsists I talk to about it certainly have the benefit of hindsight.
Can I also assure you that while an interesting film, my primary scientific source is not Al Gore or his movie.
GCooper: I totally agree that science builds to a point and then often some amazing maverick comes along and changes everything. As a physicist I have no illusions about my contribution. Useful, but part of an established set of ideas, I wasn’t going to turn anything on it’s head. But the temptation is to see mavericks at every turn, especially for journalists as I said before.
B-BBC often stresses the need for facts. Surely as Science Correspondent that’s what I should provide? So the fact is I present the current state of scientific knowledge as it is.
When you say “Simply reporting the majority view as if it were established fact isn’t very helpful” Erm, what would you like me to report instead? These are the facts. I report them.
The problem I have with the BBC coverage of global warming is that it relentlessly gives the impression that there is no scientific argument about mankind’s responsibility for it. But it isn’t difficult to find well-written pieces which purport to show otherwise, and that the IPCC reports are not as scientifically sound as we are led to believe.
For example see http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2007/06/climate-change.html
I freely confess I don’t have the time to read through the various links and probably wouldn’t understand them, so at the end of the day I have to rely on gut feeling. But contrary opinions seem to be ignored by the BBC (and media and political parties) or simply insulted which gives me the gut feeling that the whole thing is a hoax.
Presumably, Al Beeb will now give as much open, public support to Salman Rushdie, who is under Islamic death threats again, as it is giving to Alan Johnston.
Like this, for example:
“Death to Rushdie, Again”
by Robert Spencer, 20 June).
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com
deegee | 20.06.07 – 2:54 pm |
Bravo! :+:
David Gregory writes:
“B-BBC often stresses the need for facts. Surely as Science Correspondent that’s what I should provide? So the fact is I present the current state of scientific knowledge as it is.”
And then:
“When you say “Simply reporting the majority view as if it were established fact isn’t very helpful” Erm, what would you like me to report instead? These are the facts. I report them.”
Surely the question is not whether you should report facts, but whose facts do you (‘you’ in the sense of the BBC as a whole) choose to report?
For example, this recent story http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1896266.ece
didn’t seem to make much of a splash on the BBC, where the casual (and implausible) connection between GW and hurricane activity is regularly made.
How many times was Katrina blamed by BBC pundits on ‘manmade Global Warming’? Often enough, I would suggest, for it to have become ‘common knowledge’.
And here, really, is the nub of the problem. You and your scientically trained colleagues may well be entirely blameless in either what you report, or how you report it. But you are a needle in the BBC’s giant haystack.
Most of the BBC’s listeners and viewers get their opinions from the ragbag hegemony that produces 90 per cent of the Corporation’s output. The people who conduct fawning interviews with the idiotic Al Gore, or make casual observations in the middle of whatever house makeover or fashion programme they happen to be presenting that week.
That’s the BBC’s output perceived by most people: the very Left-liberal arts bias that we are complaining about here.
Deegee – “For that matter has any BBC person ever reported on these issues? Tunnel vision and half a story.”
This is the thing about B-BBC. I believe Martin Belam made this very point – people make all sorts of claims without checking them, presumably on the assumption that, this being a blog on which most people agree with them, everyone will nod and tut and accept it as fact. But it isn’t. And perhaps this is ramming the point home, but what the hell:
Gazan Christians – a cursory look on the BBC website reveals a whole sidebar on Middle East Christians. Specifically Gaza? Fine – how about this pastor – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4514822.stm –
“We have lived side by side with our neighbours for a long time, and we thank God it is peaceful, but at the same time you cannot really fully live your Christian life here and have full freedom to share your faith.”
Homosexuals – How about this feature, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4514822.stm, which was obviously run on both the World Service’s Outlook programme and the news website, about gay Gazans who feel their only chance is to live in Israel? “Many Palestinian gays say they would still rather live under
house arrest in Israel, where homosexuality is not considered a crime, than at home.”
Daughters and honour killings – there’s a very moving interview right
here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1779602.stm – “I have had to pay a high price. My friends have become my new family. I
do not regret leaving my family, but I feel sad that I was forced to do so. My family lost both its honour and a daughter. For my family the
purpose of my life was that I would marry a Kurdish man. Suddenly I was transformed from a good Kurdish girl into a wasteful whore.”
Cont…
Bedouin – as far as I can see, there isn’t anything on any struggle with Gaza’s townies. Although this article – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6400501.stm – explains many of them in Israel are not having it great either: “I could come home and not find my house,” says one. Then again, the Israeli housing minister does make clear that the land “does not belong to them, so they have no licence to build on it.”
Teachers – Jeremy Bowen mentions in this piece – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6300317.stm – that after Hamas won the elections, they did not get paid and that everything became “much worse”. Or how about this piece, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6194517.stm, in which a Fatah-supporting teacher explains “Fatah recognises Israel, we realise that we must live side by side with it. Israel is a fact and it won’t go away. Hamas’s rigid policy is costing us a lot of support round the world”.
Female circumcision – Deary me, one recent story – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6734261.stm – reveals that a chap in Cameroon actually won a BBC award for his campaign against female circumcision. In fact,”mutilation campaigner wins BBC award” is even the damn headline. Or, there’s an interview with a Somali
woman who underwent it here – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3711459.stm – “She cut me up and removed my clitoris, put it in a bag and threw it away. I cried, I was screaming but I couldn’t escape.” If you can find evidence of female circumcision being carried out in Gaza I would be very interested to know; it is, according to the US State Department, overwhelmingly a practice carried out in
sub-Saharan Africa – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#_note-20
Hamas platform – the piece I referred to earlier about the Fatah teacher also has a man from the Hamas side, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6194517.stm, who says “We are living under occupation, but we need to be reasonable with Israel. But the problem is that Fatah want to give too much anyway, and
we can’t give away our rights.” Oh, or how about James Reynolds’ piece, “on
the campaign trail with Hamas”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4640334.stm, which details the following exchange: “One voter approaches a Hamas candidate. “You should negotiate with
Israel,” the man says. “Why?” the Hamas candidate replies. “We need to win our rights by force.”
Palestinian women getting arrested – as this article
makes clear – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6123380.stm – there are many Palestinian women and children living in
fear of domestic violence and so presumably would be keen to escape – especially because “the legal and justice systems in the West Bank and
Gaza result in light sentences for men who, claiming an affront to family honour, kill female relatives suspected of adultery.” However it also makes clear that “although the number of shelters for Palestinian women is growing, Israeli restrictions on movement in the West Bank and Gaza make them difficult or impossible to reach.” Admittedly, there is no mention of whether this forces them to get themselves arrested.
Explosives stored in homes – There’s a debate between Israel’s ambassador to London and an Amnesty spokesperson here – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3725173.stm – in which the Israeli outlines that “a family of a mother – a pregnant woman – and her four daughters were killed at point-blank range by terrorists from a house that the Supreme Court in Israel had prevented from being
bulldozed and knocked down earlier.”
Who is to blame for undeveloped Gaza – how about this, er, Alan Johnston piece, “Gaza economic woes hit firms hard”? – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6077414.stm “The political situation has destroyed all our ambitions,” says one businessman.
Gazan workers expelled/Gazan patients in Israel – there’s a story from today, for pity’s sake: “Israel to let in stranded Gazans”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6220904.stm – or, how about this – an
interview with – yes! – a Gazan teacher http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4439826.stm on the benefits of border controls being lifted in 2005 – “many Palestinian
patients who were ill and needed to go for treatment in hospitals were not able to go… If the borders were to open it would encourage the
economy,especially for the tens of thousands of Palestinian labourers
who are dependent on work in Israel to survive. It would give them the chance to make money to feed their kids, improve their economic
situation and make life come back to Gaza.”
Life under Egyptian control – another piece by, um, Alan Johnston, entitled “hero-worship in the ruins of Rafah,” talks about life
in a refugee camp under – yes – Egyptian control. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3757569.stm
Cont…
Dowries – there is nothing I can find on this, but this may be because, as the Washington Post has reported, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/07/AR2006100700387_pf.html, economic problems have caused marriage to become “a tradition many could no longer afford” and forced a cap “on
the cost of weddings and bridal dowries that had swelled enormously.”
Receiving aid (a total of $1bn last year) – this story, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6638241.stm, explains that the Wolfowitz-controlled (at the time) World Bank believes “economic progress in the Palestinian territories will continue to be stunted as
long as restrictions on movement there remain.” The Palestinian authority welcomed the report and said “It helps convince the relevant
governments and public opinion of the actual reality that the
Palestinians have been trying to explain without much success.”
Israeli-Arab comparative freedoms – This Middle East
penfriends exchange, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3529467.stm from 2004 (the whole thing lasted 7 episodes) has
an Egyptian teacher (yes, another teacher) discussing the relative views of Arab freedoms and Israeli freedoms, as well as a raft of other
topics. It is very interesting and informative, and for those that pick up on this sort of thing and claim it to be of relevance, the Israeli is
always first and usually writes a longer piece (ie, has more of a say).
I’m not making these points to be smug. But I think sometimes it’s important to have the evidence to back up your claims.
or make casual observations in the middle of whatever house makeover or fashion programme they happen to be presenting that week.
Recent examples –
Oddy rooting for Gore for President on Springwatch.
Breakfast TV woman presenter, in quick unscripted aside, reminding man presenter, apropos not much, that mortgage rates used to be 15% back in the 1990s.
Thom Boston:
I don’t know how many of those examples prove your point.
None that I can see came from Alan Johnston.
The Middle East Christians: Gaza pastor article was about how wonderful it is to be Christian in Gaza. Things are difficult but for everyone and Israel is to blame. It sounded exactly like the false reports that came from Soviet Russia during the famine.
The honour killing report came from Sweden not Gaza. The girl was Kurdish not Palestinian.
The Bedouin report wasn’t unreasonable but said nothing about Bedouin under Palestinian control only Israel.
The mutilation reports came from Cameroon not Gaza. Cameroon, it should be noted is a) in West Africa not North Africa and b) Black African not Arab.
The Hamas report was a typical whitewash. All the elements of the Hamas Charter calling for the killing of Jews were ignored. All the elements in the Charter stating that nothing could be negotiated were ignored.
The economic article typically blames Israel for everything. The Karni project was designed to allow easier shipment of goods and materials and only stopped after continuous attacks by the Palestinians made it too dangerous for the Israelis.
Similarly the question of population density in the Strip (repeatedly and falsely described as the world’s highest and a cause for the violence) while most of the land area is idle is not touched. Israel is not stopping Palestinians building houses or for that matter shacks on vacant land.So who is?
That Israel allows some sick and injured to cross its borders in the present crisis does not replace an interview with someone who has been treated in Israeli hospitals or explain the female suicide bomber caught while on her way to bomb the doctors at the Beer Sheva hospital where she had received treatment.
The discussion between the two women really said nothing. Had this been a discussion between a Gazan Palestinian and an Israeli Arab instead of an Egyptian and a Jew it would have answered my point.
Are you really saying that all Muslims and Muslim countries are the same so an isolated report from one covers all the others? The examples you have provided seem to suggest that.
David Gregory – thanks for taking the time to respond. I realaise that it would be hardley unlikely for a maveric BBC physicist to question the BBcs wholesale endorsemant of the “facts” as you put it.
I would however question the word “fact”, MMGW is a hypothesis – and a hypothesis is not a fact.
I agree that a maverick scientist may be just that a maverick but any scientist who can put forward an “alternative” hypothesis should be heard – then let the scientists shoot holes in his hypothesis if possible. Is this not the scientific way not “consensus”. Talking of consensus is that word not an anathema to a “real ” scientist. Actually I don’t believe that the “consensus” among scientists is as large as you think.
Can I suggest you read this research on the IPCC report undertaken by an independant research organisation.
Here is one point they make from the evidence.
“A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the
IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of
negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their
selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the
scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the
underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.
Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to
whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC
reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their
objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression
that they endorsed the views expressed therein.”
Here is the full report.
Click to access Independent%20Summary5.pdf
Oh by the way no one has answered my question on the non-scientist Al Gores “interview” on the politics show.
Deegee: “none that I can see came from Alan Johnson”.
I think that sentence utterly proves my point. Rant first, think (or even look properly) later.
Actually, to engage properly rather than being snarky (you have paid me the respect of answering me in full; you deserve the same, I apologise, I was point-scoring there and it was cheap) I’m not saying all Muslims and Muslim countries are the same at all. But as I point out, the genital mutilation, for example, is mainly concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa. Where have you got it from that it is widespread in Gaza? (And by that I mean a reliable source – eg the US State Department (my source) not an anti-Muslim propaganda site).
I think that you’re coming from this from too narrow a perspective. You initially said “has any BBC person ever reorted on these issues”? I have shown you that yes, they have, and often. Now you’re changing the parameters, swapping “issues” for specific stories you have in mind, and, additionally, a specific spin (ie anti-Palestinian) you think they should be reported with.
Private individual buys A380 superjumbo. BBC choice of comment – “Planestupid” – apparently a German eco group.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6768237.stm
Well, it seems that “balance” requires that the purchaser be branded a ‘climate criminal’ but I don’t see any comment to the effect that this is a good thing for European industry.
Jon
Interesting report from an interesting perspective. It’s doesn’t seem to dismiss climate change though.
As for Al Gore. Well I’m sorry to say I didn’t see the interview and as I’m sure you realise I have no control over how it was conducted. I think it might be fair to point out that I can’t really slag-off other BBC staff or programmes on the web. Happy to discuss the processes and things I do see. But in the case of Mr Gore I’m not sure I can be much more help.