, Samuel Coates, deputy editor of Conservativehome, has cleverly found a silver lining to such wholesale Beeboid waste of tellytaxpayer’s time – revealing that there are eleven times more ‘liberals’ at the BBC than ‘conservatives’.
Facebook lets you target advertising at people based on various criteria, including their workplace and their declared political outlook (using the American terms liberal, moderate and conservative to represent left of centre, centre and right of centre views).
Currently there are 10,580 known BBC people registered on Facebook. Of these, 1,800 have indicated their political views, as follows:
BBC staff profiles on Facebook: |
|
All BBC staff |
10,580 |
BBC liberals |
1,340 |
BBC moderates |
340 |
BBC conservatives |
120 |
It’s not a scientific survey, but it’s certainly indicative of the imbalance of views represented by those who work for our beloved state broadcasting institution.
For good measure, Samuel goes on to compare the breakdown of BBC political views on Facebook with those of the general UK and London populations on Facebook. It turns out that across the UK, the ratio of liberals to conservatives on Facebook is just 2.5 to 1, with London at 3 to 1 – a long way short of the BBC’s 11 to 1.
There may be an argument that the use of the American terms liberal, moderate and conservative causes confusion, but in that case, why does it seem to cause so much more confusion at the BBC than among the UK population at large?
I wonder how long it will take for the BBC to forbid their employees from indicating their political views on their Facebook profiles…
Update (1pm): Samuel adds:
There are tonnes of stats out there waiting to be found via Flyers Pro in Facebook’s Advertising section, including that the Lib-Con ratio is fairly even throughout the demographics of BBC employees, with men having a very slightly better ratio than women and over thirties slightly better than twentysomethings.
Thank you to Samuel for the tip. Top stuff!
One freedom we are not to be allowed is the freedom to decide whether we contribute or not to the wages of all the liberals at the BBC.
Let’s get liberal about BBC funding.
Andrew
As Alan C points out over at ConservativeHome, BBC staff (at least, those working at the sharp end) aren’t supposed to declare their political views. So maybe the only inferences that can legitimately be drawn from Sam Coates’s research are:
1. About 11 per cent of BBC staff are disobedient;
2. Liberals are 11 times more likely to flout the rules than conservatives.
No surprises there, then.
On the other hand, it’s possible that those declaring their political views via Facebook aren’t working at the sharp end, but are bean-counters, HR types or IT geeks. In which case their political preferences aren’t really any of our business, are they?
John, everything work-related is our business about these people. We employ them. I hope they aren’t wasting time on the internet at work.
Some points on why the imbalance may be so huge:
• Conservatives are known for not stating their preferences to pollsters, the same probably applies to their entries on facebook.
• Moderates by their very nature aren’t the sort who need to state any world view.
• Liberals do break rules more often.
• Facebook users tend to be younger than the general population and tend to believe that they are liberal (most are just moderate really).
• Liberal has many meanings and can cover progressives, libertarians, Liberals (the old fashioned sort), LibDems, nuLab and any range of reds and greens.
Regarding JR’s point about it being the admin. staff only posting their world view, I would respond that an organisations admin staff tend to reflect the organisations central view as much as those at the operational end.
However one tries to adjust the number, the proportion is scarily high but not at all surprising. What will be interesting is the BBC management response. Will they order the boxes unticked or will they put away their authoritarian fear and let their staff continue unchecked?
I noticed this comment at Conservativehome….
I run a Facebook site for my local PPC. We received a very abusive, anti tory message on the site this week and on checking the users profile he was listed as a BBC employee.
Whatever happened to journalistic integrity?
How typical from an organisation that carried out 7,000+ Wikipedia edits, some abusive.
Peregrine, and, to some extent, JR, your points about the nature of Facebook users, lefties and the different meanings of liberal are certainly reasonable, but they can’t alone account for the huge discrepancy between ‘liberals vs. ‘conservatives’ in the general UK population of Facebook users (2.5 to 1) and the BBC population of Facebook users (11 to 1), surely?
Not being a Facebook user, I wonder, with regard to those who have indicated their political views in this way, if they have done so publicly (i.e. visible to other Facebook users) or privately (i.e. in background information that Facebook use for demographic purposes). If the latter, as I suspect, then JR’s points are further diminished.
It’s just too huge a difference for any of those excuses to wash.
(But loved JR’s resurrecting the “It’s the cleaners” response again. Marvellous. Now we know what he does at the Beeb, he writes comedy scripts).
John Reith | 26.10.07 – 3:23 pm,
So it doesn’t matter that “HR types” declare a political preference? I suppose they are all able to put aside their political preference when scouting for hacks, er sorry, journalists to work for the BBC?
Yeah, right.
11 liberals to every 1 conservative at the BBC? Even more reason to keep ignoring the pesky TVL letters i keep getting.
Facebook – More evidence of the BBC’s institutionalised leftism.
JR’s response – This individual[s] really should have been writing for Pravda in the cold war days.
“Not a scientific survey” is putting it mildly. This is indicative of nothing at all.
79% of people on the BBC Facebook network sensibly decided not to tick this particular box.
47% of them have not specified whether they are male or female. So half the BBC are either very confused or transexuals waiting for the op.
Isn’t this more a function of Facebook’s rather strange classification system? When I signed up I was a bit confused by this one. I mean should I tick Conservative as in believing in favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression…
Or should I tick Liberal as in believing in favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression?
I left it blank
Judging by the abuse mentioned above, it looks like the element which inserted George Wa*ker Bush into Wikipedia is still well and flourishing in the BBC cesspit. He/she is probably writing some online content as we speak … perhaps Newsround guide for children on Al-Qaeda. Isn’t it great what you get for the BBC Licence Fee!
David Gregory & JR
Most of my recent contributions on BBBC have if anything been pro-Beeb – but come off it chaps!
10,000 plus BBC staff have time to put profiles on Facebook from BBC IP addresses. That in itself raises doubts in the mind of all of us who are required by law to pay UKP 100 plus pa for you, about the management of the Corp. Do so many of you really not have enough to do while you are at the office? It ain’t like that in the real world, lads!
And of those, over 1,800 are dim enough to answer a question on political views even though, as I understand it, they are supposed to keep their heads down when such questions are asked. It may be that the skew of answers means that those with liberal views are 1100% more stupid than those of conservative views – but the real history of polling shows that people who do answer such questions tend to do so honestly – that’s why the parties pay so much for polling.
So a population broadly split between supporters of the right and the left are being required to pay for a public body which seems to be staffed by an overwhelming majority of people with a leftish leaning and which – as the mainstream of comment on this blog has shown – consistently shows itself to be unable to be objective.
Listen to what you are being told lads – if the Beeb wants to survive it has to serve all the nation – not just the tiny group of priveleged people who happen to be lucky enough to work for it!
Nick and David
Your continual surprise at the view of outsiders of the organisation you work for surprises me. The only people that I have met who don’t think that there is a liberal bias within the BBC are those who work within it (btw including a cousin).
I have been involved in polling within the organisation I work in (by MORI) and from what they have told me the significance of the result of this survey is strong enough to make some sort of judgement, although you are both correct that a real scientist (even of the social sort) would ignore it (especially as it was self selecting)[although I should note that this doesn’t stop the BBC reporting equally self selecting surveys].
Can’t you just take in that this survey (for all its faults) reveals that there is a real problem at the BBC?
They can’t take it in – as Jeff Randall puts it “They think they are on the middle ground”. Truth hurts doesn’t it Gregory/Reynolds/Reith et al.
Nick Reynolds:
“47% of them have not specified whether they are male or female. So half the BBC are either very confused or transexuals waiting for the op.”
Nick, if it weren’t the BBC you were talking about, that could have been passed off as irony.
David Gregory:
“favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression”
At least use your own words Grego – “favoring” gave it away.
“…but they can’t alone account for the huge discrepancy between ‘liberals vs. ‘conservatives’ in the general UK population of Facebook users (2.5 to 1) and the BBC population of Facebook users (11 to 1), surely?”
Let’s not forget that we also live in a very liberal society, and generally we’re quite happy about it. So much so, that we want to export our views to the Middle East.
Is this not just like complaining that most BBC staff believe democracy is a good thing? Or that facism is a bad thing?
Who knows, maybe the BBC definition of liberalism does differ from that of the population at large?
Just thought that I’d ask the question.
Although I don’t think there is anything surprising about this result and it’s nice to see some vaguely scientific analysis going on (note that this did not actually eminate from anyone at B-BBC) and a discussion of possible flaws in the analysis to boot!
I’ve noticed in the past John Reith’s tendency to keep quiet when faced with a major example of BBC bias, while cherry picking away at minor mistakes made by commenters.
Based upon JR’s 26.10.07 – 3:23 pm contribution, I think silence IS the best policy.
Face it Reith, an 11 to 1 ratio of liberals to conservatives inside the BBC will surprise no one. Suggesting it’s the HR dept. + BBC’s bogs n’ drains wallahs makes you look ridiculous.
The BBC and Facebook – Moving from the Blogosphere to the MSM…
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/298421/how-liberal-is-the-bbc.thtml
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23418400-details/Facebook+reveals+the+BBC+as+a+liberal+hotbed/article.do
As someone who has some involvement in serious survey research and the issues surrounding its justification I’d say this isn’t a bad survey. It certainly isn’t as unscientific as Nick Reynolds suggests.
Almost all surveys have a large number of non-responders. It is a problem, but it’s not unique to this survey. I’ve seen plenty of much worse surveys get into the headlines, including the BBC headlines (“GM Nation”, for example, was a far worse survey than this). I’ve also seen academics publish research in good journals with shakier samples than this. And smaller — this is a good-sized sample. I know acas who would kill for this sort of data.
To say “It is indicative of nothing at all” is itself an unscientific attitude, and another example of Nick Reynolds’ lack of ability to see anything that he does not want to see, which we’ve all become used to.
“79% of people on the BBC Facebook network sensibly decided not to tick this particular box.”
So that’s a 21% response rate, not at all out of the usual.
“47% of them have not specified whether they are male or female. So half the BBC are either very confused or transexuals waiting for the op.”
No Nick, they’re just classed as non-responders, and not included in the results. I hope the BBC is not letting you be involved in any surveys.
There are still several flaws with this as a survey. As has been pointed out, the classification is crude, and the term “liberal” is more appropriate to the US than the UK. There is also the point that the sample might be biased to some degree, in that Facebook generally attracts more “liberals” than “conservatives” anyway. But as was pointed out, there are very robust figures on the general proportions of liberals to conservatives on Facebook which can be used to put this in perspective.
This survey also has another advantage. Sometimes a survey’s results have to be discounted because it advertised for participants on the basis that it would be a survey concerned with a controversial issue, and that attracts a lot of people with strong views on that issue, biasing the sample. The participants in this survey were not recruited in any such way. The survey could fairly be said to be “topic-blind”.
Biases are always in the same direction …
I think the fact that 10,000+ BBC employees have FaceBook accounts that are apparently used during working hours is much more indicititave of a problem than what box they ticked for politics.
Creating a BBC club that they use from home is one thing but is anyone at the BBC asking what they are paying these people to do for 37.5 hours a week?
How odd it is that B-BBC commenters should so stridently insist that the BBC reflect the general population of the country.
What about the 40 per cent of school leavers who are barely able to read, write and do simple arithmetic?
Are you going to insist that the BBC’s hiring policy is somehow deficient because it doesn’t recruit enough illiterates?
I would expect the journalism, production and management grades of the BBC to reflect the social and political diversity of the Russell Group of universities, not the country as a whole.
Firstly, with one stroke of the pen Mr Reith dumps all the students who have the temerity to choose to attend a University outside the Russel group into the garbage bin, of “not wanted at the BBC”.
Secondly he makes the assumption (any data to support it, Mr Reith) that the political leanings of the Russel Group Universities fall into the 1:11 ratio revealed in the survey of BBC Facebook entries.
Thirdly, diversity in the BBC seems to allow the selective recruitment of other minorities, and some evidence from it’s jounalistic output that it is not immune from recruting illiterates, innumerates and those who wouldn’t know a statistical error even if it were presented in capital letters and floodlit.
Reith, the BBC is supposed to be “impartial” in regards to politics. Employing mainly leftists means this doesn’t happen.
It isn’t supposed to be impartial in regard to literacy.
(Really, this man’s arguments get more bizarre every week).
John Reith | 27.10.07 – 4:09 pm
Oh dear – JR is losing the plot.
“How odd it is that B-BBC commenters should so stridently insist that the BBC reflect the general population of the country”
My God John you really are on another world if you honestly think this is an unreasonable request.
John Reith: “How odd it is that B-BBC commenters should so stridently insist that the BBC reflect the general population of the country.
What about the 40 per cent of school leavers who are barely able to read, write and do simple arithmetic?”
The BBC Charter is, I thought, about the important issue of political balance. There is no need to have 40, or even 4%, dipsticks. This latter is amply catered for with Jonathan Woss and Graham Smut Norton. But, if the BBC and socialism persists on its present favoured course, that 40% figure will inexorably increase.
this is a rough explanation why the “mistakes” or “laziness” in their news reporting often results to a bias towards left-wing. Expect pigs flying when one finds right-wing bias as a result of “mistakes”.
MattLondon said ‘10,000 plus BBC staff have time to put profiles on Facebook from BBC IP addresses’
This is incorrect. As a BBC staffer and facebook user, (I ticked ‘other’ thank you – none of your, or my colleagues’ business), can I just say that the identification as to one’s BBC-ness isn’t down to using FB from an internal BBC IP address.
Instead, it’s about a one-time signup giving a bbc.co.uk email address, in the same way that there are yahoo, civil service, argos, and many other companies’ networks available. From then on, all usage (for me at least) from home, or Internet cafes, is within the ‘BBC network’
I hope that clarifies your main point.
Thanks for the cherry pick, J.Stevens. Now explain the 11:1 ratio.
JS, if it’s all a matter of your private time, why are you using a work e-mail address?
Anon, there is nothing sinister. It is because Facebook requires an authentic work e-mail address to ensure that you are authorised to join such a group. I am a member of my own companies group, and although my work e-mail address was a requirement. I do not peruse Facebook at work.
Anon, tellytithe
I’m neither explaining, nor discussing the 11:1 ratio. This is a simple case of explaining how Facebook works. Arthur Dent has done so far better than I could.
Reg Hammer | 27.10.07 – 7:07 pm
My God John you really are on another world if you honestly think this is an unreasonable request.
It’s not at all reasonable. Should the BBC go out of its way to see that it hires the same proportion of paedophiles, pickpockets or pimps that are found in the wider society?
Of course not.
Nor should it be forced to hire unreasonable numbers of dimwits, bigots or pub bores.
As I explained earlier, this 11-1 ratio is simply false.
Of the 10,580 BBC staff on facebook only 1,800 chose to reveal their political opinions.
Staff working in journalism or production are told not to reveal their opinions.
My guess is that most of those working in these areas are obeyed the rules and your survey results are largely based on the political preferences of secretaries.
Reith’s sophistry never ceases to amaze. I’m surprised he didn’t add “If we had to reflect the general population then we’d have to hire people in comas”.
“Of the 10,580 BBC staff on facebook only 1,800 chose to reveal their political opinions.”
Like I said, Reith knows nothing about survey methodology. It doesn’t matter that there are non-responders in any survey (and we can treat this as though it’s a survey — many survey researchers use data which doesn’t come from what is explicitly set up to be a survey). That only matters if we have reason to believe that the members of one political group were more likely to not respond than another, and there’s no evidence for that.
Besides, it would be a bizarre result if the secretaries at the BBC were so overwhemingly “liberal”. This is unlikely to reflect the political affiliations of secretaries in general, so either the BBC prefers to mainly hire liberal secretaries , which is unlikely, or, more likely, these are not just secretaries responding.
John Reith:
You’ve gone from being obtuse to just downright stupid.
What do pedophiles, pick-pockets and pimps have to do with representing the face of Britain? Nobody seeks representation from criminals John, unless of course you are so cynical as to suggest that this is how you see the general populace of the UK.
I would have hoped the BBC would at the very least attempt to employ a wide range of people across the spectrum of social class and education to balance their programming.
Instead the BBC is top-heavy with middle class uni graduates. These tend to be cut from the same cloth in regards to outlook and politics.
Personally, I would like to see more working class people – or those with a state education at least – filling a few high profile jobs in the BBC, instead of toilet cleaning, canteen duty and taking the blame for BBC bias when it suits people like yourself John.
One further point to John Reith, is that I also find his constant blame shifting to what is effectively the underclass of the BBC, snobbish and offensive.
Yes it’s all the un-educated plebs in meaningless, unimportant positions of the BBC causing the grief.
Don’t know you John but from your obnoxious attitude to those people beneath you, I suspect you hold a position of high authority in the BBC.
Doubtlessly earned not by your ability to make good telly, or by your creativity, but what public school you attended.
Reg Hammer | 28.10.07 – 6:30 pm
Reg Hammer | 28.10.07 – 6:39 pm
What do paedophiles, pick-pockets and pimps have to do with representing the face of Britain?
You clearly haven’t been reading the papers.
I’d have thought a chippy type like you would be dead keen on the fish wrap. But let me save you the bother: Britain as portrayed by the News of the Screws and similar tabs appears to be a country where the ‘working class’ you are so keen on do little other than sodomize their own and their neighbours’ children, nick things and either frequent or control prostitutes. If it really ain’t as bad as it’s portrayed up there on the council estates of darkest Derbyshire or wherever, then good…but I shan’t be visiting ‘til Rupert Murdoch himself guarantees it’s safe.
the BBC is top-heavy with middle class uni graduates….
If going to university generally makes you middle-class, then you’re probably right. If you mean that the BBC is full of people whose grandparents were middle class • you’re probably wrong.
Personally, I would like to see more working class people – or those with a state education at least – filling a few high profile jobs in the BBC
Instead of toffs like that Greg Dyke? Yeah, right.
…what is effectively the underclass of the BBC… all the un-educated plebs in meaningless, unimportant positions….
Huh? The groups I cited as free to post their political preferences were IT staff, HR staff and secretaries. You’ve clearly never met a BBC secretary if you think they’re uneducated….or plebeian, for that matter. Nor do I think IT people do ‘meaningless, unimportant’ jobs. (And I’m sure even HR managers perform some kind of useful service….)
Blithering Bunny | Homepage | 28.10.07 – 5:48 pm
That only matters if we have reason to believe that the members of one political group were more likely to not respond than another
But we do. People of a conservative cast of mind, being respectful of authority, are more likely to obey the rule that forbids disclosure than liberals, who will probably see it as some gross infringement of an imagined ‘right’ of self-expression.
it would be a bizarre result if the secretaries at the BBC were so overwhemingly “liberal”
Why? They tend to be young. Younger people tend to be more
Left-wing than the middle-aged.
John Reith makes a suggestion that liberals are more likely to break the rules.
I agree, rules such as those governing impartiality at the BBC?
“Why? They tend to be young. Younger people tend to be more Left-wing than the middle-aged.”
By 11 to 1? Pull the other one!
John, I don’t live on a council estate, and the view you have of the working classes is just sickening.
Considering so many of these disgusting crime obsessed people you refer to pay a large chunk of your wage, you should perhaps have a little more respect.
I sincerely hope that someone here OUTs your position at the BBC soon – because by your snotty attitude, you don’t deserve any gainful employment at other people’s expense.
John Reith | 29.10.07 – 3:36 pm,
Evidently Reith didn’t notice my 26.10.07 – 6:21 pm comment. Otherwise he would have realised that he’s arguing against himself by claiming that liberal attitudes at the BBC are restricted to HR staff among others.
I reiterate: who are these liberal BBC HR staff likely to employ? Conservatives? BNP people?
I work for the BBC, but choose not to associate myself with the BBC network on Facebook.
This is entirely to avoid accusations such as those presented on this site, because I work for the BBC as a journalist.
I agree to a point that declaring your political views, if you work in an editorial or programme-making role, could be construed as bias.
To be honest I think any serious news journalist who reveals their political views on Facebook is being silly.
However I think you need to consider the possibility that;
– many BBC people will not join the BBC Network.
– Some of those who do will not allow strangers to know their political views.
– Some BBC people will have declared themselves ‘libertarian’ or ‘apathetic’ – two entirely separate philosophies, but neither of which were included in your study.
Bryan | 29.10.07 – 11:29 pm
I reiterate: who are these liberal BBC HR staff likely to employ?
HR people don’t decide whom to employ as journalists at the BBC. Editors do.
e2, none of that invalidates a survey.
John Reith | 30.10.07 – 11:02 am,
Well, thanks for that info, John Reith. So what do those BBC Human Resources people do with their time then, if not glean human resources for the BBC?
Same as they do everywhere else, Bryan: bugger all, except to get in the way, obstruct progress, and cost a lot of money.