Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
Are you’re telling me this isn’t a slow news day?
You have to hand it to John Reith – the man will die with his boots on. But aside from his valiant loyalty come rain or shine, the fact is that the Today programme has become desperately threadbare. It is dull, inward looking, tired and in need of a complete editorial overhaul and new presenters. The biggest problem is that the programme has become a client of the government. The Cherie Blair interview just confirmed the terminal, new Labour clubiness of their editorial policy. It’s the insider programme for new Labour politics and culture. And the programme now sounds as clapped out as the government. If new labour does finally fall (it will eventually) I’m pretty confident (at least in its present form) that this particular BBC edifice, will fall with it.
The Fat Contractor | 31.10.07 – 1:32 pm
I think you’ll find the reason why ‘the wide-mouthed bottom feeder’ ain’t gracing the pages of the Telegraph this morning is that she was all over them on Friday.
A similar ‘futures’ angle, and nicely tailored to a Telegraph demographic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/27/ncherie127.xml
and I see the Mail have taken this morning’s story once round the block –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490853&in_page_id=1770
She even made the Hindustan Times last Thursday:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=28c96fe1-5676-4550-8840-47e946aef780&ParentID=3c1a6c91-b707-4175-a119-e3f063b98082&&Headline=Cherie+Blair+strikes+the+'write'+deal
Who does her PR?
John, as all these other news sources have the Heather Mills and other stories covered why do we need BBC news at all? Let’s get rid of everything the BBC does that is done as well or better by others. That’d leave nothing except the sinister BBC adverts for the TV licence and stuff that nobody else wants like the Olympics.
This is always an enjoyable and useful forum. Inevitably (and quite rightly) things get a bit granular and the debate gets dragged down to the level of minute detail. I wonder if we could step up a level for a moment. I have a question for John Reith, who seems to go out of his way to deny there is any sort of bias at all at the beeb: has he viewed the comments of his confreres on the right of the main page? Does he agree with the (second) comment of Andrew Marr, or the Paxman comment of Jan 31 2007? Does he concede that there is any bias at all at the BBC?
State Visits mired in Controversy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069124.stm
Of all the examples cited by the BBC, of which there are four. Which photo does the BBC choose as the one for the title link from the main politics page?
Yep, the one with George Bush and Tony Blair. The visit by the Chinese president is more topical as it happened more recently and I actually thought that the visit by President Bush marked one of the great occasions marking Anglo-American relations. Nonetheless, the BBC has a bit of a record where it comes to Iraq so no real surprise in the choice of photo.
Dave, I’ve already asked Reith similar questions. He says no.
The caped crusaders at the BBC love nothing better than rooting out those racists and giving them full exposure for their evil:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4447471.stm
Why so silent when one of their own presenters is accused of an EVIL racist remark? Nothing on the web site, as far as I can see or search. Here in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=14RUVR4UHAC3XQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/10/31/nkennedy131.xml
JR
Thanks for your response. As “Oscar” and “TFC” imply it’s not so slow a news day that attention to Mrs Blair’s predictable opinions is required. In reality it’s never that slow a news day – ever. Nevertheless, it’s the futurology aspect of the “news” which appals.
Saying that Brown or Cameron or Mrs Blair are going to say something is not news: the news would be that they have said something and what they’ve said. “Today’s” remit might include speculation/discussion on what is to be said. Even this is usually less than useful since you only have to wait 24 hours to know for certain what was said – then have the discussion. However, announcing a future – and predictably dull – event is not the function of the 8:00 news.
dave | 31.10.07 – 3:36 pm
Does he agree with the (second) comment of Andrew Marr, or the Paxman comment of Jan 31 2007?
I disagree with Marr, but broadly agree with Paxman.
Does he concede that there is any bias at all at the BBC?
I do not believe that the BBC’s news and current affairs output on TV, radio and the web – considered as a whole – is skewed in favour of any political party or ideological camp. I think a very wide range of views and perspectives are represented on the BBC and I think the corporation’s own reporting is genuinely impartial nearly all of the time and on nearly every issue.
While it is true that people of a generally left/liberal outlook constitute a majority of the BBC’s staff, I find this is neither very surprising nor particularly significant.
It isn’t surprising because people of a left/liberal outlook probably make up a majority in society – and it isn’t significant because BBC output is governed by guidelines at every stage of the production process. There is a culture of compliance with the said guidelines, which are strictly policed by editors. And the editors themselves have to face regular programme review boards. Output, therefore, tends to be impartial, irrespective of the private views of the people creating it.
Broadcasting is, in any case, a collaborative, group enterprise. For any single reporter or producer to introduce a sustained bias into a programme and get away with it isn’t easy. Somewhere along the chain of editorial command they’re bound to come up across someone who will shout ‘foul’.
I am not saying the BBC gets all its judgment calls right.
As I indicate in answer to your question – I think it is currently making a mistake in thinking the mmgw argument is settled.
But I think editors act in good faith.
I also know that BBC journalists very often disagree on how best to cover a topic. There are lively debates and discussions about all aspects of the news.
The idea of a single, top-down, ‘editorial line’ – common in newspapers – doesn’t exist in the BBC.
Can’t cover everything here. Hope this is the kind of thing you wanted to know.
John Reith
“I do not believe that the BBC’s news and current affairs output on TV, radio and the web – considered as a whole – is skewed in favour of any political party or ideological camp.”
I don’t think that you really believe that. On this blog we provide many examples of BBC bias against conservative ideas and people, but examples of the opposite just aren’t there in any numbers.
And this:
“It isn’t surprising because people of a left/liberal outlook probably make up a majority in society”
is plain wrong. It may be the case in the streets and cafes of north London, or in the Questiuon Time or Any Questions audience, but not in the majority of the UK.
Get out of your bubble a little more.
Just two examples I listen to regularly – how can a “comedy” programme hosted by Sandi Toksvig with regular guests Hardy and Steel be regarded as anything more than a chance for these deadheads to spout anti-(insert Thatcher, Cameron, Bush, Christian, Tory, royalty, Clarkson, Israel as necessary) “jokes”? And secondly how many conservative commentators are there on Thought for Today? All the Christian ones (Bell, Fraser) are lefties to their bones. And Madeleine Bunting? Joke over.
“It isn’t surprising because people of a left/liberal outlook probably make up a majority in society”
Absolute rubbish. England is broadly a conservative (with a small ‘c’) country.
What is true is that within the MEDIA people of a left/liberal outlook make up the majority.
These days we all work long hours and spend a lot of time with our work colleagues so it perhaps isn’t surprising that media people think the left/liberal outlook is the predominant one but outside of the predominantly London-based media enclave it just isn’t true.
To say that the BBC is not biased John Reith is a joke. So please tell us about the report the BBC has been hiding aover it’s bias against Israel.
Global warming! Are you serious. The BBC NEVER gives an alternative view on the news. The BBC state cliamte change as man made as FACT, when if you bother to look into it, most scientists say that the link is NOT proven yet and that more reseach is needed and that there are many other possible causes and of course the cliamte has always changed.
The bias towards Islam.
And as i’ve pointed out before, just how many people in a Questiontime audience do you think read the Sun orDaily Mail? Two of the bigggest selling newspapers yet I bet almost no one would put there hand up if asked.
Rob Clark | 31.10.07 – 5:18 pm
Abandon Ship! | 31.10.07 – 4:55 pm
Absolute rubbish. England is broadly a conservative……
Used to be. I’m not so sure now.
Consider – the ‘older generation’ – usually the more conservative demographic – now includes the sixties hippies.
Crude, I know, but just look at political attitudes:
those supporting Labour and Libdem added together easily outnumber Conservatives.
Take a look at the British Social Attitudes Survey etc. and I reckon you’d find that small c conservatives are now a minority.
In any case, the point I was making was merely that being left -liberal isn’t so very strange or outlandish. Labour have, after all, won three elections on the trot.
John- thank you for your comments. I must admit that I find it hard to accept the idea that a group of editors and reporters are capable of generating a body of news and analysis that does not in any way reflect the left of centre outlook which you acknowledge is held by the majority of them. That seems rather idealistic and unrealistic.
Most people on this forum do not feel that their opinions and views (minority though they may be- although I doubt it) are reflected in the BBC’s reporting. Either we are all quacks and cranks, which seems a bit unfair, or the dissonance we perceive between the BBC’s portrayal of a range of issues and our own views is a legitmate concern.I suppose ultimately what most of us object to is not so much the bias of the BBC (which is probably inevitable), rather it is that we are forced to pay for the propagation of views and values with which we disagree. I am not forced to buy the Guardian if I do not wish to; I am forced to support the BBC.
Thanks
Dave
dave | 31.10.07 – 5:35 pm
the dissonance we perceive between the BBC’s portrayal of a range of issues and our own views…
You know, dave, I think you’ve hit on something here.
I accept that you and others here who feel strongly about certain issues do indeed experience a dissonance between the BBC’s coverage and your own views.
That’s because the BBC is being impartial.
An impartial account is bound to differ markedly from a partisan one.
I believe you (generally) may well be misinterpreting that dissonance between the BBC’s impartiality and your own partisanship as evidence of bias.
In any case, the point I was making was merely that being left -liberal isn’t so very strange or outlandish. Labour have, after all, won three elections on the trot.
John Reith | 31.10.07 – 5:34 pm | #
Can’t let you get away with that one JR.
The fact is that the best selling newspapers are all right-wing and the circulation of the Grauniad, Indie and Mirror are declining (despite the huge captive Grauniad circulation in the public sector).
Remember also that Blair won his three elections by moving “New” Labour sharply to the right and enticing voters from the Tories.
The Beeb’s editorial position during this time has been to attack the government exclusively from the left, at least until Brown took over.
When did you last hear a BBC journalist advocating less public expenditure, lower taxation or longer prison sentences?
My impression is that most Beeboid’s subscribe to what I would describe as “undergraduate intellectual Marxism” translating as – “I quite fancy being Che Guevara as long as mummy/daddy/the taxpayers keep a roof over my head”.
spinner,
When did you last hear a BBC journalist advocating less public expenditure, lower taxation or longer prison sentences?
Last night. At dinner.
I wouldn’t expect to hear it on air.
Nor would I expect to hear a BBC journalist advocating more public expenditure, higher taxation or shorter prison sentences. ‘Advocating’ ain’t part of the job description.
‘Advocating’ ain’t part of the job description.
John Reith | 31.10.07 – 6:16 pm | #
You should be on the stand up circuit, JR – I’ve got coffee all over my keyboard!
That surely deserves a sidebar spot on its own.
Was I still dreaming when I used to wake up to Humphreys morning after morning during the Thatcher years “..when are the government going to make sufficient resources available…” or alternatively “.. how much will these cuts effect public services…” (they never were cuts, of course – just denial of ambitious bureaucratic budget expectations).
Try this one for size – “many people think the flat tax sytem adopted by several eastern european countries is a simpler and fairer system” – will we ever hear that from a Beeboid?
I won’t hold my breath.
On Abandon Ship’s link to the BBC’s latest racism story, a photograph has as its caption:
“Most people have a preference for white faces rather than black, researchers say”
By ‘people’, do they include blacks or is it just whites. It’s important because it is either very sloppy reporting or it means that blacks prefer whites or whites prefer whites. In any case, one is none-the-wiser, as is usual from a BBC report.
Oh Dear.
“It isn’t surprising because people of a left/liberal outlook probably make up a majority in society”
How revealing.
“It isn’t surprising because people of a left/liberal outlook probably make up a majority in society”
Yup, look at all the liberal papers that swamp the ABC’s circulation statistics:
News of the World — 3,446,476
The Sun — 3,213,756
The Daily Mail — 2,365,499
The Mail on Sunday — 2,348,982
Daily Mirror — 1,584,742
Sunday Mirror — 1,451,980
The Sunday Times — 1,244,218
The Daily Telegraph — 890,973
Daily Express — 814,921
Daily Star — 803,726
Sunday Express — 727,439
The People — 722,148
The Times — 654,482
The Sunday Telegraph — 644,828
Sunday Mail — 512,115
Daily Star – Sunday — 485,415
The Observer — 472,252
Financial Times — 441,219
Daily Record — 412,332
Sunday Post — 410,804
The Guardian — 367,546
Evening Standard — 291,150
The Independent — 251,470
Independent on Sunday — 213,566
Sunday Sport — 92,912
LOL
I thought other BBBC readers might enjoy this from the Daily Mash ..
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=503&Itemid=59
I have heard of slow news days and the posters refer to it above but is it really the case that the number one story od the day should be this !!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7069914.stm
Granted it hits the BBC anti fatty button, but even here their writer has mysteriously missed out on the open goal of the BBC party line of having a go at Americans for being fat (I assume the writer is in with an editor being wigged as we speak for that ‘cock-up’).
What beggars belief is that this constitutes the major headline and what is more it admits in the article that “There is no new research involved in this document” i.e. it is not actually news, more olds.
The report actually says these are recommendations not commandments (unusual if referring to the level of risk the BBC imply). The report admits that the majority of risk is not down to lifestyle. However they have just run the article they would have anyway with a few provisos.
Even I as someone who has lost 4 stone this year in order to become much fitter who might be thought of as an ‘interested party’ can see this article for the large level of bs that it is, it certainly does not merit being the number one headline story.
It must go back to what I said, any fatty story rings the BBC’s bias button to the max.
I think I’ll stick to the expert’s advice “The main message I would have is not to worry about it.”
So the number one headline story is in reality summarised as ‘no worries’.
John Reith
Dear me. Most days, I deal with engineers, mechanics, farmers, builders or or one-man-band self employed folks in general. They all tend to share the views of biased bbc – and dont get how their views on society, law and television are not listened to.
When I worked in education a large number seemed to be left-liberal.
A rough calculation there indicates to me that the majority of the working population are not as ‘john reith’ describes – and my experience has been that those of a left-liberal nature are simply overgrown students who have managed to continue in a rarified bubble by hiding away within state supported organisations where their prejudices can be maintained as badges of honour.
John Reith 5.56
The seminal post on this blog in the couple of months I have been reading it.
I think the seminal post is moonbat nibbler’s 7.15 –
Which shows conclusively that :-
1) JR is talking rubbish
and
2) At least 15 million literate adults are being forced to pay for a broadcasting organisation which makes no effort to represent their views.
I think that John Reith should be applauded for at least acknowledging and attempting to answer this question but quite how tomorrows John Reith will take this news is another issue.
As for :
“It isn’t surprising because people of a left/liberal outlook probably make up a majority in society”
Perhaps he would care to join me in my betting shop one day, it may come as some surprise to him.
1. Notice how the BBC don’t say to Cherie Blair – ‘if you keep whinging about equality for women how come you keep going to Saudi Arabia and Dubai to give money making lectures’?
2. I remember this from June:
Click to access 18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf
Impartiality of the BBC in the 21st Century. The report is entitled “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel”
“Impartiality in broadcasting has long been assumed to apply mainly to party politics and industrial disputes. It involved keeping a balance to ensure the seesaw did not tip too far to one side or the other.
Those days are over. In today’s multi-polar Britain, with its range of cultures, beliefs and identities, impartiality involves many more than two sides to an argument. Party politics is in decline, and industrial disputes are only rarely central to national debate. The seesaw has been replaced by the wagon wheel • the modern version used in the television coverage of cricket, where the wheel is not circular and has a shifting centre with spokes that go in all directions.”
The report describes a “comfort zone” or “shared space” which employees of the BBC inhabit which establishes a “group think” about issues which characterize the predominant view of the world and where certain views go unchallenged
Says it all……….
“John Reith” in his seminal(ha!) post wrote: “That’s because the BBC is being impartial.”
Well, this blog has megabytes of examples that conclusively refutes that.
Now, if al-Beeb was truly impartial then there should be just as many counter examples of bias where the BBC favours the Conservatives (oops, sorry Tories), the GOP, the US, Israel and against the Palestinians, the EU, the UN.
So, where are these examples then bias-deniers?
The Fat Contractor | 31.10.07 – 12:17 pm,
I agree broadly with your perception of HYS. It has improved considerably over the past year or two. One also has to take into account many factors before concluding that the moderators of any given topic are biased.
Still, one regularly comes across instances where the bias is quite blatant. The HYS on Iran was one of them.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=7711&edition=2&ttl=20071031231807
One has to scratch one’s head when looking at a topic that has this breakdown:
Total comments:3105
Published comments:1883
Rejected comments:1111
How many of that extraordinary number of rejected comments really broke the rules? And how many simply contradicted the moderators’ pro-Iranian stance? When you personally break no rules and yet have your anti-Iranian comments rejected, then you start to realise that you are simply coming up against a brick wall of bias – along with many other people.
But I would agree that overall HYS is a vast improvement on what it used to be.
John Reith:
………There is a culture of compliance with the said guidelines, which are strictly policed by editors. And……. boards. Output, therefore, tends to be impartial, irrespective of the private views of the people creating it……………
JR has to be admired for defending the indefensible but this comment is truly side splitting stuff.
Bryan/Fat Contractor
Sorry to say it but I strongly disagree that HYS has improved so very much.
If this were true I would have had more than just one of my posts published even though none of them have been rejected.
Moderation that involves simply not publishing the majority of posts is stealth rejection of posts without having to justify your decision not to publish – until that is sorted it must continue to be called DHYS.
I’ve always wondered if it’s possible to get a FOI order to see those posts?
Knowing the BBC’s contempt of the FOI process, probably not.
John Reith
I accept that you and others here who feel strongly about certain issues do indeed experience a dissonance between the BBC’s coverage and your own views.
That’s because the BBC is being impartial.
An impartial account is bound to differ markedly from a partisan one.
Who judges whether the BBC is being impartial?
You think they are but I don’t. How do we decide?
An editorial board and guidlines, you say. But this depends on who makes up the board and how the guidelines are interpreted.
The fact is that impartiality is impossible. Balance is possible but impartiality isn’t.
Balance is what the BBC should aim for but they find it very difficult because so few of their editorial staff believe, for example, that the Iraq war was justified. So they reason like this:
– those who believe it wasn’t justified are impartial (I mean, we editorial board all agree)
– those who believe it was are partisan (because none of us think this).
I know lots of intelligent, well-informed people who think that the Iraq war was justified. At the BBC can you think of a single one?
This means that the BBC genuinely believe they’re being impartial, simply because the makeup of the editorial staff.
‘Perhaps he would care to join me in my betting shop one day, it may come as some surprise to him.’ Trifecta
Or indeed, any pub, building site, farm, church, train, bus, office… the list goes on.
The idea that left-leaning, London-based media types are representative of the general population of England would be funny were the consequences of such a belief not so serious.
Rob: “The idea that left-leaning, London-based media types are representative of the general population of England”
…or even of Britain for that matter.
The newspaper numbers were revealing, but the fact that England had more votes for the then dysfunctional conservative party than for Labour in 2005 suggests that his comment on most people being of a left-liberal persuasion is demonstrably bollocks.
so John Reith has admitted that the BBC is a bunch of left-leaning types.
‘Rob: “The idea that left-leaning, London-based media types are representative of the general population of England”
…or even of Britain for that matter.’
Ha-ha! Apologies Andrew. I try to avoid passing judgments on things I know nothing about, whereas I have of course personally visited every pub in England to canvas opinion…
BaggieJonathan | 01.11.07 – 11:23 am,
Well, the jury is still out on DHYS. A significant improvement is the Debate Status breakdown of comments into total received, published and rejected, although the Moderation Queue is very often a joke since it’s mostly the flushed down the loo queue. But at least we now have an idea of what is happening to the comments whereas previously we wouldn’t even have known how many comments were received.
I’m not suggesting that there isn’t a lot of room for improvement. It would be great if they would simply publish all comments as they came in and only reject those that really break the rules.
But this is the BBC we’re talking about, after all.
novelPhenomena | 01.11.07 – 11:47 am-
The fact is that impartiality is impossible. Balance is possible but impartiality isn’t.
Nonsense.
I, for instance, find it very easy to be impartial between Arsenal and Tottenham.
I really couldn’t give a monkey’s which of them wins or loses, or if they draw.
If you meant that ‘objectivity’ is impossible, then maybe.
Philosophically, I can see a case for saying that, though I’d still recommend that journalists should have a go at trying to achieve this supposed impossibility.
But impartiality – I do it every day.
JR: “But impartiality – I do it every day”
Great punchline JR!
It’s the bits in between your bouts of impartiality that worry me 🙂
John Reith:
What if the football teams were Israel vs Palestine?
This is a very good question. I suspect that John Reith would initially do his very best to report impartially on the game but would soon be gritting his teeth at every goal that Israel scored and cheering at every Palestinian goal.
From what I know of the BBC, there are very few who would be genuinely impartial spectators at the game and none at all who would back Israel.