Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
I used to think the BBC could be reformed. Today’s coverage makes me think the only option is to break it up and sell it. It’s completely unacceptable for the BBC to “campaign” like this.
The EU coverage is bad enough:
Mr Miliband echoed Mr Brown in rejecting calls for a referendum on the EU treaty, which critics say is almost the same as the abandoned EU constitution, on which a public vote was promised.
I complained to the BBC about this, pointing out Margot Wallstrom, EU VP for Institutional Relations and Communication, said (Svenska Dagbladet, 26 June 2007 via Open Europe):
“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”
But of course the BBC haven’t amended the article or replied. And now this seemingly deliberate bigging-up of Brown and doing-down of Cameron. I’m sick of it. It’s disgraceful the way the BBC can “campaign” on its own agenda with zero accountability. When will this end?
Now I’ve just found what appears to be the BBC’s reaction page to Ming’s speech:
Delegate views: Campbell’s speech
Lib Dem delegates give their opinions on Sir Menzies Campbell’s closing speech to their annual conference:
Guess what? it’s only Lib Dem delegates giving their reaction. No opposition. Gah!
The BBC and its hatred of cars.
I watched The One Show’s article on roadside pollution. Lots of pictures of evil cars. A nice clever looking scientist. A dandy pollution meter.
Testing for diesel particulates to prove where it is safer to breath, nothing wrong with that. I wait with baited breath for the presenter to explain that modern petrol cars do not put out this kind of pollution.
I’m still waiting.
Sadly I would have been amazed if they had mentioned this highly relevant piece of information. This is primetime BBC and the chances of them saying that modern petrol cars do not put out significant amounts of pollution are nil.
N.B. CO2 is not pollution anymore than water is. Plants need both.
>The BBC and its hatred of cars.
http://powercut.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-i-hate-top-gear.html
5Live news last night referring to the plot to blow up Sears Tower. Of course it didn’t mention that the individuals were muslims though the BBC did mention that the individuals believed they were ‘fighting a holy war’ (which kind of gave it away.)
Whether the BBC like it or not muslim terrorism is a news story and should be reported as such.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4030000/newsid_4032600/4032695.stm
Ok then all you commentators who are as infuriated with this as I am. Write to them! If you really want to provoke a reaction say you are copying in your comments to the appropriate regulator.
The BBC turns into the SUN
“Leapfrogging mayor bruises tomato”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7026851.stm
I have to say, that’s the best headline I have seen for ages, made me smile anyway 🙂
NotaSheep
“I am fed up with this BBC anti- Conservative/pro Labour bias,
surely there must be something we can do.”
There is, and it would be the most effective.
Stop, “en masse” paying the licence fee.
No licence fee, no BBC. Is that simple.
I didn’t watch the One show. But if the BBC’s approach to scientific reasoning is as flawed as the Panorama farce over Wi-fi safety a while back them I’m glad I missed it.
Just to remind those that missed it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675.stm
And a more balanced view
http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2190477/wifi-safety-concerns-slammed
Martin
The science seemed ok, it was the deliberate obfuscation of doing a piece on the very real problem of diesel particulates but managing to not mention the word diesel. Thus tarring traffic in general with the same brush.
Why would you do that if you had no agenda?
Surely even the One Show audience can cope with a word as technical as diesel.
Michael
Top Gear is to BBC environmentalism
as
Andrew Neil is to BBC politics
Neutrality tokenism
I watched the recent Horizon programmes about some doctors climbing Everest because I know someone who appears in them. I haven’t watched Horizon since the sixth form. What a shock I got. The science could have been condensed into one 15 minute programme. The rest was a sort of travel/lifestyle affair. I was half expecting a fashion expert to appear to tell us what colours not to wear this year when climbing mountains.
If that’s BBC science, then scrap it.
A lot of people are dismayed with the BBC’s treatment of Moira Stuart:
‘Moira Stuart resigns from BBC'(3 Oct)
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio
Despite the fact that B-BBC is gaining readers every day, it strikes me that we are not making the most of all the evidence that is gathered here. Apart from a handful of BBC Staffers we have no knowledge of whether the people that matter (no offence JR) at the BBC are seeing the evidence of this day in and day out bias.
Is it worth, he said volunteering some other poor soul, condensing the worst examples of bias into a fortnightly digest (with brief analysis) which is then sent directly to Mark Thompson, Helen Boaden (fat chance she will ever back down) and all the members of the BBC Trust?
When they regularly see this digest, they will at the very least have a greater understanding of where the public’s perception of BBC bias is coming from, even if they dispute the rights and wrongs of individual cases.
I just feel there are so many examples that they are somehow wasted if they just remain on this blog.
Alan Johnson – yes Alan Johnson the health secretary – is the guest on this week’s Desert Island Discs – it goes out on Sunday and is repeated on Friday – so if an election is called it will play during the official run-up period. So no political bias there then. It’s not as if the NHS is an important issue. Aren’t there rules against doing this?
[The Moderator: this is clutching at straws a bit, Oscar. After all, no election has been called.]
Admiral – very good point. Oly problem is – who’s got the tiem to do it?
Admiral, maybe sending this digest to all the National Press and TV stations might get some interesting reaction. Would Sky News be interested in publicising their rival’s bias? Would the Daily Mail be interested in publishing such a regular report. Perhaps the digest could also be posted to a website setup just for this purpose, then that website would need publicising, how about a guerilla poster campaign at any BBC outside broadcast? Any more ideas people?
The Admiral | 04.10.07 – 9:22 am |
The trouble with e-mails is that they ae easily diverted to the Trash Can …
If BBC people don’t read Biased BBC (although I think a lot do), why would they read a digest or another website with essentially the same sort of material on it? How would it help to be basically duplicating what Biased BBC already does, having to start all over again publicizing another website?
As for other TV stations, they wouldn’t be seen near it. The Daily Mail already regularly runs stories on the BBC. The Tele used to run a Biased BBC-style series for a while, but newspapers geenrally drop these sorts of things after a few weeks or months.
Anyone want to take a look at this story from the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7027481.stm
And another view
http://allafrica.com/stories/200710030073.html
doesn’t quite read the same does it?
Christianity is often treated less than fairly by the BBC.
However, on certain issues the bishops get as much coverage as they like:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7027541.stm
Oh and here’s another story from the Biased BBC. Note in the BBC story there is NO mention that the opposition in Australia (Labour) actually support the governments position.
Nice balance BBC. NOT
And if you read the BBC report, who is responsible for this comment about the Australian people? It does not make it clear if it’s the writer or the person being talked to in the paragraph above.
A link to a more balanced view is also posted here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7025386.stm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/No-support-for-African-refugees-study/2007/10/04/1191091235012.html
Israel is often treated less than fairly by the BBC.
However, on certain issues Israel get as little coverage as possible:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908848.html
Abandon Ship. Good points. Howver, the BBC fail to mention that the Palestiains are destroying any chance of the two state solution with their own political infighting. THAT is doing more harm than anything Israel might be seen to be doing. Not that the Beeboids would bother to make that point.
Interesting to find David Gregory (the Midlands Environment Correspondent) defending his generous (and publicly funded) employer. I hope this touching show of loyalty advances your career, but if it does, I guess it meands you’ll be leaving Birmingham. Why? Wel, perhaps David would like to explain the BBC’s virtual desertion of Birmingham where broadcasting has been reduced to a laughable “news programe” (fronted by none other than Nick “Smiley” Owen of Daytime TV fame and a couple of other presenters, one of whom cannot read more than three words but has a cute ethnic smile) and a couple of slightly more high profile radio shows and abysmal, cheap dramas. Perhaps David would also like to tell us why the Divine BBC regards Birmingham as being incapable of producing serious programes, and also why the BBC has squandered millions of pounds of public money in relocating to The Mailbox, the most expensive bit of real estate in the city. I guess they think footbalers wives are their main audience (hell, they may be right). Come one David, I await your answers with much interest.
[Dr. Reith, to avoid confusion please pick a different name – perhaps Doctor R., to avoid confusion with a certain John Reith (JR, Reith) of the BBC who frequents this forum. Thank you. The Moderator.]
Martin at 11:53
“Critics have accused the government of a pre-election move to appeal to xenophobic voters, and they have also said it is absolutely wrong to argue that Africans are failing to integrate.
One community leader said they were making an immense contribution to the economy by taking jobs which many Australians simply did not want to do.”
Unsurprisingly, the beeb fails to identify the ‘critics’ and ‘community leader’ or to quote them verbatim – and inform us how representative their views really are, if at all.
If BBC people don’t read Biased BBC (although I think a lot do), why would they read a digest or another website with essentially the same sort of material on it? How would it help to be basically duplicating what Biased BBC already does, having to start all over again publicizing another website?
As for other TV stations, they wouldn’t be seen near it. The Daily Mail already regularly runs stories on the BBC. The Tele used to run a Biased BBC-style series for a while, but newspapers geenrally drop these sorts of things after a few weeks or months.
Anon | 04.10.07 – 10:33 am | #
Fair points but I am not really suggesting duplicating another website. The main posts on BBBC are relatively infrequent (no criticism intended). It is in the comments that the day by day examples crop up. This detail gets lost unless you are a regular contributor/reader. If our purpose is to actually change the BBC for the better rather than just vent our fury then we need to make sure this evidence gets to the right places – the very top.
Any digest would need to make every effort to avoid being dismissed as some “foam-flecked, green ink diatribe” from “Daily Mail readers” – which would be the BBC’s default response. It would need to be calm, balanced, factual and short.
As for other media outlets, I work in corporate PR and I would agree that its not something that would work on an ongoing basis. An annual awards for “Most outrageous BBC Bias 2007” might work with the media in the same way that the Worst Film awards or Darwin Awards also works. Week by week coverage though is unlikely.
The distribution list for the digest could be very small. 2 or 3 senior people at the BBC, members of the BBC Trust, the relavant minister and his/her shadow, Ofcom (I know) and thats about it. It could even be posted but that would make web links superfluous.
I think the biggest obstacle is finding someone with enough time to do this…
Rather than using ‘separation’ to describe the process of separating palestinian suicide bombers from Israeli civilians, the BBC makes lavish use of the emotive ‘apartheid’. This is absurd and inappropriate but I’m pretty sure that the readers here get the point.
The Moderator: this is clutching at straws a bit, Oscar. After all, no election has been called.
OK – maybe I did get a little over-heated about this, but it still looks like some opportunistic political scheduling at a critical moment. Elsewhere coverage has been more balanced – WATO, just did a very full and fair interview with Cameron and a good dissection of election games with Michael White.
Go thither and read:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/arts/222896/todays-issues.thtml
Television
Today’s issues
James DelingpoleWednesday, 3rd October 200750 Years of the Today Programme (BBC 4), Panorama (BBC1)
So the big question this week is: is the Today programme a viper’s nest of evil pinkoes, all of whom should be put in sacks and dropped into a deep well?
And the answer is: yes.
Shame, though, really, because wrong and bad though it is I do have a soft spot for Today. I like the poshness of the cars they send to pick you up when you’re on it and the producers’ apparently genuine gratitude that you’ve agreed to appear at such a hideously early time. I like the teeny-weeny half-nod of acknowledgement which is all you get from the presenters when you creep to your mic in the studio because they’re busy concentrating and guests are two-a-penny. I like the fact that everyone you know hears you when you’re on it and takes you seriously for at least ten minutes afterwards. I even like Jim Naughtie, for God’s sake.
Why, then, must they all die? Well, it’s so obvious, I should have thought, that it’s barely worth explaining. But, very briefly, it’s that they think they’re the voice of balance, reason and moderation, whereas in fact on almost any issue — Europe, global warming, capitalism, Israel, women, hunting, race, immigration — you know damned well that the spin they’re going to put on it will essentially be that of the glib, unthinking, this-is-the-way-all-our-media-chums-think-so-it-must-be-right liberal Left.
This is what so infuriated me about that famous occasion when Brian Redhead gave Nigel Lawson a dressing-down on air for presuming to judge which way he voted. It was clever gamesmanship, no doubt about that, but it was also hypocrisy of the rankest kind. Of course, Brian Redhead wasn’t a Tory voter. Never in a billion years would he have even begun to understand why it is that Tories think the way they do. What incredible cheek, then, to act so affronted when his bluff was called!
On BBC4’s 50th anniversary celebration documentary 50 Years of the Today Programme (Thursday), this incident was of course presented as a marvellous example of Today programme feistiness and independence in the face of government interference. Then we heard John Humphrys (looking way too sleek and rich these days, one notices) telling us how the second New Labour got into power they were just as much on his case as the Tories had been. So that must mean Today gets the political balance about right, mustn’t it?
etc
Hows’s this for taking a quote out of context highlighted in the BBCs report on Cameron’s speech –
“I say – God, we have got to do better than that”
Cameron was of course talking about Brown, but clipping it like this makes it seem like self criticism. They are worms.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7024919.stm
Of course, Brian Redhead wasn’t a Tory voter……What incredible cheek, then, to act so affronted when his bluff was called!
Actually, Brian Redhead was a Tory voter. Not out of political conviction, granted. But he admired and liked his local Tory MP, Nicholas Winterton, so much that he always gave him his vote at general elections.
one of whom cannot read more than three words but has a cute ethnic smile
Every Friday my wife and I take a bet on how many autocue mishaps Mr Blake has before signing off with a cheery wave. We never pick a number less than 3.
A Have your say has been hijacked – where have the mods gone:http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=3630&edition=1&ttl=20071004144039&#paginator
JR
“he [Brian Redhead] always gave him [Nicholas Winterton] his vote at general elections.”
How do you know? Evidence please.
In the interests of balance (and therefore to avoid accusations of political campaigning) how about starting a biased-ITV or irrelevant-ITV site in parallel?
How did ITV get away with axing regional programmes, how is it getting away with axing children’s programmes? Is the ITV charter a moveable feast?
ITV is, after all, independent television, not, as would seem, profit-driven television – commercials and commercialism are the means to survival, not an end in themeselves.
I think the BBC is biased, so why do I have to pay for it? I just don’t get the idea that the BBC has to satisfy itself that it isn’t biased and that means it is OK to force everyone to pay for it. The customer is always right, not the person doing the selling. However good the shop thinks its products are, I’m still allowed to leave without buying anything. Why doesn’t this normal trading practice apply to the BBC’s products?
As Tom points out a HYS is currently going mad with people from the left and the right calling each other and now the modorator everything under the sun.
Fo once you have to hand it to the BBC they are playing this strictly down the middle!.
“How did ITV get away with axing regional programmes, how is it getting away with axing children’s programmes?”
Not very important compared to what the BBC is getting away with.
Umbongo | 04.10.07 – 2:49 pm |
How do you know?
Because Redhead said so. Okay • so he used to tell some tall tales about his past, so perhaps this was another fantasy? I doubt it though. He seemed genuine about it at the time.
Also • this Hansard page notes someone mentioning it in the presence of Nick Winterton, who doesn’t demur.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo981116/debtext/81116-30.htm
And how would he [Winterton] know?
In fact no-one knows. That you heard – or imply that you heard – Redhead say so is only evidence that he said so. It’s what I believe our legal friends call hearsay evidence unless Redhead was dying (and knew he was dying) at the time he made the statement and even then . . .
It is not not simply about “axing” regional programmes. The grotesque London hegemony is far more damaging. Why should just about all production and management be located in the most expensive and least representative place in the UK? Because “Noddy” Yentob happens to live there? Not only does it make no economic sense – more importantly, it culturally disenfranchises the rest of the country and forces a particular lefty-metropolitan view on the rest of us.
I should point out that one of the reasons America has such a brilliant and varies cultural output is precisely because different cities have their own independent voices. The BBC squashes that in the UK.
Umbongo | 04.10.07 – 3:45 pm
Yes Umbongo, on one level we must always maintain the important epistemological distinctions, such as that between knowledge and belief.
But in this case ‘knowledge’ would be reserved to the individual in the polling booth.
The BBC is axing regional services. On Radio Manchester on Saturday the presenter apologised for not having reporters at all the local matches as financial constraints meant they couldn’t do that any more. £3.5 billion a year guaranteed income and they can’t afford to send a bloke to Oldham for a couple of hours with a mobile phone. Perhaps if they had one person reading the news like they used to, and three Blue Peter presenters instead of the small crowd they have now, they could afford to run a proper service to the listeners in Manchester. And I’m sure the nation could get along with fewer visits to Albert Square every week.
JR
“But in this case ‘knowledge’ would be reserved to the individual [in] the polling booth”
Agreed
For general interest: I recently sent a letter to the BBC’s Director General to explain exactly why I had decided to cease paying the licence fee.
Among the points I raised was the issue of stealth editing, mentioning the 4 August story ‘Black MPs spurn Boris for Mayor’ that was altered to read ‘Labour MPs…’ a few days later, although the time stamp still (even today!) shows 4 August.
The response I received made an attempt to address this issue. It argued that a) BBC News Online is a constantly evolving news service, and so stories will inevitably change; and b) the News Online staff regularly update their stories when new information becomes available.
Unfortunately, neither of these arguments stands up even to cursory inspection.
a) If BBC News Online is indeed a constantly changing news service, why do the time-stamps on the articles fail to reflect this fact? Would a note that changes had been made not in fact demonstrate that the News Online staff were working conscientiously and following stories up?
b) The fact that the two MPs mentioned in the Boris Johnson story are Labour MPs was not a new development, any more than the fact that both MPs are black. Diane Abbot and Dawn Butler did not suddenly cross the House after the article was first published! There was no requirement to make the change to the headline, other than to cover up a rather obvious attempt to apply negative spin to Boris Johnson’s campaign.
Moderators – please do remove this if you feel it is not appropriate. I can post this on my blog.
If this post stays up, please could any readers affiliated with the BBC provide me with a better explanation of the alterations to the Johnson story?
Interested to hear that Brian Redhead voted Tory, remembering how furious he was when he was asked about it.
Admitting the truth would have meant sitting by himself in the BBC canteen for the rest of his days.
One solution to advertising the bias further could be to run a series of 30 second – 1 minute adverts on ITV… Each showing an example of BBC Bias with the message that the BBC must be unbiased or the licence fee is scrapped. Run the adverts during Corenation Street breaks everyday for a week… It’d have the BBC trust running in circles!
Of course, getting the money for such a venture would be rather difficult.. And time. But I’d be willing to donate some money to the cause.
Even if such ads did not fall foul of some law, I doubt that ITV or any other commercial station would want to run them. No TV station wants to be seen to be rocking the boat, when all they would get for it is a tiny amount of money.
Boo-hoo.
BBC News staff protest over cuts
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2183709,00.html
“Nearly 100 BBC News staff, including high-profile names such as Today presenter James Naughtie and Newsnight frontman Gavin Esler, have signed an open letter expressing their “dismay” over proposed budget cuts.
The open letter, addressed to the the BBC Trust chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, and other trustees, said: “We, the undersigned, all work for BBC News and want to express our dismay at the budget cuts that are being proposed by management.
“We believe the cuts as outlined would make it impossible for us to maintain the editorial standards for which BBC News is famous.
“The ‘salami slicing’ of budgets across the division will inevitably damage the quality, range and authority of news programmes across television, radio and online.
“BBC News is considered by the public to be the most important service the corporation provides. We urge you to safeguard it and reject these proposals.”
Scrapping BBC News TwentyBore would be a start….. I find it incredible that they are struggling to get by on £3.5Billion pa guaranteed income.
Does Jonathan Boyd Hunt still post at this site? I’m interested in the headline’s archive he posted here a while ago.
I wish to make a short film about BBC bias & post it on YouTube.
Any info would be much appreciated.
We believe the cuts as outlined would make it impossible for us to maintain the editorial standards for which BBC News is famous.
😆
If they’ve got money for the salary of Jonathan Woss and they can buy Lonely Planet (Fodors for me from now on) they why the cuts?