You’re a Justice Minister in one of the most violent countries in the developed world. The prisons are full AND the budgets are tight, so you need to start sending fewer people down. But your stupid voters, brainwashed by the punitive tabloids, won’t like it one little bit. Telling them they’re stupid is bad PR. How can you spin it to avoid “Thugs free to walk streets” headlines ?
You need to find a company who can market it to the stupid voters as “cutting reoffending rates”. But where can such a company be found ?
“There’s a firm at Pacific Quay in Glasgow who’ll do it for free!”
Sarah-Jane | 31.01.08 – 5:32 pm
Yes, you are probably right. Perceptions matter almost as much as reality in this area.
They should have signalled a follow-up right to reply was coming.
But it’s a good opportunity to challenge a wrongheaded notion of what impartiality is supposed to be – that I find pervades this blog and leads to quite a lot of false accusations of bias.
…. and I agree with Lee Moore too. Especially the last bit. That’s what Peter Horrocks’s ‘radical impartiality’ is about.
Yes, Lee’s post is pretty good and insightful.
Horrocks has his heart in the right place, but I think he worries too much about what people are going to think as a result of what the beeb says – now that it is visible due to the joy of HYS etc.
They are going to think what they are going to think – we just have to let them think it and ride it.
(see Horrocks most recent contribution to the Editors)
I agree with you to some extent on people not understanding impartiality of a single article vs balance over series/time/output but again that is a bit dependant on expert knowledge of what the whole is. We could signpost better I think.
Reith: Thank you for the reply. I am sorry to take issue with it again, but…
“The story links to another (companion piece) which…” would have been the perfect place to explore the scheme in as much detail as you like and using extensive quotation if you want, while still allowing alternative views as to its merit. It would also have avoid the ministerial rhetoric that does nothing to increase understanding of the issue.
“You seem to share a misunderstanding of the nature of the BBC’s duty to be impartial. It is not some ‘equal time directive.’”
I don’t believe I said it was. I don’t care about time. I care about the impression on the reader and whether they’re receiving a balanced report.
“The question of bias would only arise if the BBC were to take a position itself on the matter in question, or consistently favoured one particular side at the expense of the others.”
Well, so far you’re favouring the minister you have published a piece for. When will we review?
“a wrongheaded notion of what impartiality is supposed to be..” It’s not wrongheaded. I just disagree with you – and possibly the BBC’s guidelines (they could be wrong, you know).
You believe balance can be achieved over time (period not specified) by publishing the arguments of various groups (though how many, which ones and when remain unspecified), unchallenged and without comment. Someone presumably must take a great deal of care to keep an overview of this coverage to ensure that at some point it reaches a balance. I think you’re wrong, and to rely on a reader to view every article written on a subject before understanding that there are different views is ridiculous.
I believe you could just produce balanced reports and save yourself the hassle.
Or, to use a more succinct arguement: why does the BBC news website need comment pages (where such pieces as the one we’re discussing are found)? Does the market not provide this sufficiently?
Hugh – these are not ‘comment pages’. Comment pages are where the host editorializes. The BBC doesn’t do that.
The market provides a variety of those – to be sure.
But unless you buy more than one paper (and few of us do that) you’ll tend to get a fairly consistent line from your paper of choice.
Most broadsheets give over columns to politicians from time to time. It’s a guest comment. Where a politician is invited to write without any reply, it is not placed in the news pages as far as I know.
Reith/Gregory combo….I have been watching the’Ross Kemp in Afghanistan’series.I have to say it is some of the most compelling TV I have ever seen.There is no deriding of our troops,no sarcasm,no looking for ‘answers’,no blaming America or Israel,no Toynbee-esque narration.Its just straight forward ,brilliant viewing.Now I wonder if the BBC has anything like this planned?
I know this has nothing to do with bias (in fact its the least biased programme I’ve heard on Fivelive for a long time).This afternoon they were discussing re-offending by criminals on probation.They had the loopiest probation officer I’ve ever heard on.When asked if offenders that miss probation appointments because they slept in or had hangovers should automatically go to jail,she replied “No,we have to give them leeway,they can’t be punished because they live that type of lifestyle”! God help us all!
jeffD: Actually Ross has produced an interting piece of TV. All credit to him and Sky. But can you imagine the fuss if the BBC had done the same thing?
I believe we are expanding our Kabul beaureau and Alastair Leithead produces news reports and longer form stuff too. So it is there, but without the celebrity angle.
I think there’s room for both approaches to be honest.
D.Gregory…An ‘interting’ piece of TV.Is this BBC jargon?
jeffD writes;
“Now I wonder if the BBC has anything like this planned?”
jeffD writes;
“Now I wonder if the BBC has anything like this planned?”
Have you not seen the BBC news reports from the Taliban,Hamas and Hezbollah angle?
But this is a government minister writing FOR the BBC completely unmolested by any editorial comment or contrary view.
Even when the BBC write their own articles they frequently simply, uncritically relay what a government minister has said. For instance Jack Straw’s (widely lampooned) remarks about the “skip” in Brown’s step, were delivered straight in this post – no ifs no buts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7217090.stm
“The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world” –
and you are saying Al Beeb complies with this agreement? LOL.
“But it’s a good opportunity to challenge a wrongheaded notion of what impartiality is supposed to be – that I find pervades this blog and leads to quite a lot of false accusations of bias”
You couldn’t make it up.
“Hugh – these are not ‘comment pages’. Comment pages are where the host editorializes. The BBC doesn’t do that” –
that is simply nonsense. It does it all the time, albeit not honestly like a newspaper, but in a dishonest, underhand fashion, by sneaking editorial comment into what purport to be factual, objective news reports, sometimes (and as far as on location ME reports are concerned, virtually all the time) by reporters talking to camera. In fact, I shouldn’t even use the word ‘sneaking’, because the all-pervading anti-Israel, anti-America agenda is pretty blatant. Now, I and others here who have some acquaintance with the ME know they are lying and distorting, by acts of commission and/or omission, so all that happens is that we shout ‘Bloody lies!’ and perhaps spill our coffee. But Gullible and Ignorant of N1 says: ‘Fascist Imperialist running dogs and global Zionist conspiracy yet agai’, not even bothering to express the truism that ‘the BBC cannot do wrong or tell a lie’.
Therefore, there is no ‘balance’ either in one given report, or (as you claim, wrongly) over time.
The comparison with newspapers is nonsense in another sense: newspapers are not funded by the state from taxes. They don’t have a charter. The BBC does, and it breaches it non-stop.
John Reith | 31.01.08 – 6:29 pm
Comment pages are where the host editorializes. The BBC doesn’t do that.
Except on some of the Blogs, you mean.
I think you all are being a bit hasty in dismissing Justice Secretary MacAskill’s little plans. Using criminals as slave or extremely low-paid labor is a brilliant idea, and could do wonders for everyone concerned.
Just think about all the bodies they could send to fix the rail system, when the union schlubs can’t be bothered, get that bit of pavement done finally, or clean trash out of the local commons. All at less cost to the taxpayer than a crew of unionized city workers and the price of housing petty criminals.
Let them have the touchy-feely holistic needs-led fig leaf, and get on with the business of using criminals as cheap labor. Terrific idea. And I am not being entirely sarcastic, either.
Oh, sorry, forgot to say that the “article” in question does seem to be more of a promotional spot, especially the link text from the main Scotland News page, than a report on MacAskill’s plan. Oops, more trainee sub-editor thoughtlessness. It probably is laziness and carelessness as much as being in favor of the idea. In all seriousness, if David Gregory manages to find anything out, I bet that’s what it will be.
Somewhere Helen Boaden is rolling her eyes again.
John Reith
The Guidelines, Charter, and everything else that supposedly affirms the BBC’s commitment to the vague notion of ‘impartiality’ are so full of weasel words and woolly-minded phraseology as to be essentially vacuous.
The guidelines you linked are entirely consistent with the kind of systematic bias of which the BBC is accused:
“Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences.”
Audiences plural? Is this making a distinction between the BBC’s domestic and overseas audiences? Or is this a reference to the multi-culti madness so beloved of NuBeeb? Nit-picking, perhaps, but this document is supposedly a statement of policy, so such terms should be defined unambiguously.
“It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines …”
Whoa! I thought BBCW’s commercial activities were entirely independent of the BBC? So BBCW is bound by the same guidelines/charter/nonsense as the BBC? Do, for example, informed climate sceptics get to write articles for BBCW’s various environmentalist magazines? Does the BBC’s History magazine reflect all the controversies in that highly emotive subject? Methinks your task just became a lot harder…
“… and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion.”
Oh, so it’s only a diversity of opinion, is it? Not the diversity of opinion or a wholly representative diversity of opinion? The BBC is accused of systematic selective bias, and this statement is consistent with that notion, as are the rest of the ‘guidelines’.
Ah, here’s a gem:
“Our reporting of crime and anti-social behaviour aims to give audiences the facts in their context. It must not add to people’s fears of becoming victims of crime when statistically they are very unlikely to be so.”
In what sense is statistical likelihood being used here? Is this statement supported by research?
This statement is consistent with the accusation that the BBC downplays the impact of petty crime and anti-social behaviour, and implicitly advocates a soft-touch, ‘progressive’ approach to punishment, as exemplified by the subject of this thread.
“No, the Conservatives and Lib Dems would also have a right to be heard. And maybe the Greens too (if they still have any MSPs)”
“Balance is normally achieved over time.”
Which is Beebish for,”When the issue is dead and can no longer damage the Government”.
“And maybe the Greens too (if they still have any MSPs).” John Reith
Greens have two MSPs left who are now part of the SNP coalition. One is Robin Harper their leader renowned for his colourful (ie tacky) ties. A former member of my school, he is both ridiculous and wildly ill informed on most things.
In short: “yer loon Harper’s en arse”
The other is a strange chap called Patrick Harvie who spends all his time demanding extra privileges for gay people and bugger the rest of us….. 😎
*dives for cover!*
Its just straight forward ,brilliant viewing.Now I wonder if the BBC has anything like this planned?
jeffD | 31.01.08 – 6:46 pm | #
Did you see the Panorama from Afghanistan Jeff? I thought it was ‘straight forward, brilliant”. Would be interested what davet or pounce thought of it.
I think Ross* has done those programmes well, the BBC should do more stuff like that. We could do a lot more to support the forces without comprising impartiality.
*They even seem to have forgiven him for Ultimate Force at ARRSE 🙂
*They even seem to have forgiven him for Ultimate Force at ARRSE
But only if he promises not to do another series….. 8D
Sarah wrote;
“Would be interested what davet or pounce thought of it.”
Sarah to be honest I watch very little TV. I listen to the Radio (Virgin and BFBS) The TV I do watch is mainly DVDs we have bought.
Frasier, The Unit, Reba, Firefly etc.. But even at that I get bored very quickly and end up getting up and walking out. To that end Most of the Video collections we own I have watched only half of them. I do however read. I subscribe to numerous mags but my fav has to be the Economist. However my choice of reading material doesn’t go down well with the troops who on seeing me reading the Guardian presume that I am some leftwing pink who likes to hug trees. (try leaving your old copies of the Economist in the Mess and watch how they never get read)
So in answer to your question. No I haven’t seen Russ (whatever) on the telly. BTW I am forbidden from speaking during any of the soaps. (why are there so many?)
NI = Northern Ireland? Or somewhere else?
pounce/davet
Fortunately some kind soul has split it up into 6 bits on put it on youtube (what was the point of iplayer again?)
Here is the first bit:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ePg9BRWfXTk
It’s a bit much to ask you to watch it to comment on here, but you might like it…
I thought it was a great film – really opened up my eyes to the fact that the Army have to exterminate the Taliban to achieve what we want them to. That is a big big ask, to ask them to do so much killing on top of risking getting shot/blownup.
I presume it’s this one (which I thoroughly enjoyed)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7071859.stm
(available in full to the right)
yes it’s that one. Informative that I look for it on youtube first, and if it’s on the Panorama site why do we need iPlayer again?
Anyone would think Highfield wanted his own TV channel 😉
S-J
I will try and watch it again – missed the larger part of it due to having to mark my students’ prelims….think I’d have rather gone on patrol with Ross!
Merci buckets.
Horrocks has his heart in the right place, but I think he worries too much about what people are going to think as a result of what the beeb says – now that it is visible due to the joy of HYS etc.
They are going to think what they are going to think – we just have to let them think it and ride it.
(see Horrocks most recent contribution to the Editors)
Sarah-Jane | 31.01.08 – 5:56 pm
Re Horrocks, I read his lengthy Values of citizen journalism with interest. This was the piece where he expressed dismay at the highly-anti-Islam comments that flooded HYS after the murder of Benazir Bhutto and revealed that the BBC had considered turning off the comment recommendation facility on that story on the BBC News website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/value_of_citizen_journalism.html
I wrote a lenthy comment in two parts and tried to send it to the site over a weekend but it wouldn’t go through. I tried again on a Monday and it went through but they didn’t publish it.
This is the latest in a long history of difficulties that I and apparently others have had trying to get a comment published on The Editors.
I don’t think I’ll be trying to send them any citizen journalism for a long time.
I like the part at the beginning where Horrocks breezily dismisses the views of over 2,000 people and an argument that is in fact made to a greater or lesser extent by any number of commentators – Mark Steyn, Martin Amis, Christopher Hitchens, Rod Liddle – ie that “Its time the rest of the world stopped making excuses for this barbaric, dark ages way of life and completely condemned the casual brutality continually perpetrated by so many of the religion’s supporters.”
Horrocks simply asks, what is “the editorial value of the comments and how far they should influence our coverage more widely. And the answers to that were: very little and hardly at all.”
I’m no real fan of the anti religious brigade, but to simply decide these views are beyond the pale; to consider censoring them; and then to conclude that “those views were not truly representative of the BBC’s audiences at home and abroad”, on the basis of zero evidence, strikes me as a little arrogant.
Hugh | 01.02.08 – 7:59 pm,
That’s precisely the point Horrocks made that grabbed my attention and led me to write to him.
They say that comments will not appear on the site until they have been approved by the author. In this connection, Martin Belam wrote a piece about his frustration at being unable to get an anti-Semitic comment removed from The Editors blog:
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b_4.php
He had this to say on moderation of BBC blogs:
For a start, the Editor’s Blog, and the other BBC blogs using the same system, should adjust the disclaimer that “Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.” to more realisticly reflect who actually does the moderation.
Secondly, they should more generally be up-front about who is actually doing the moderating on the site in the BBC’s name. The DNA powered message boards, the blogs, the various pseudo-blogs dotted around bbc.co.uk, and the BBC News Have Your Say boards are all moderated by different groups of people, leading to a difference in quality and consistency.
Sarah Kane:
“The ones who made their minds up that we are all gay Marxists will not be persuaded whatever we say, but this site must attract plenty of less certain lurkers by now”
Perhaps I’m just being paranoid but I find this comment a little troubling. It certainly suggests a great amount of insincerity on your part.
Taking a quantum leap perhaps but I sometimes wonder if your “softly,softly” approach is in some way a desperate attempt to inspire the ‘lurkers’ here (or even some posters) that BBC staff are not all bad, and jolly nice people. And that will somehow disperse the crowds and leave the BBC to go about their duty of dictating bullshit to us for another 50 years or so.
Or are you suggesting that Reith’s sledgehammer postings may possibly – just a teensy bit – make people even MORE opposed to the BBC and it’s employees.
In which case, I’m starting to wonder if you aren’t the BBC plant here and Reith is just a cleaner at the BBC with a P.C in his broom cupboard.
Joke Sarah Jane. Joke.
Re Martin Belam’s blog post on having the anti-semitic comment on the BBC website taken down this time last year.
I think that ignorance was the principal reason for the slowness of the response. At 4pm on the Friday I rang the BBC complaints department direct and spoke to the young woman whose ultimate responsibility it was to remove offensive posts. Not only was she unaware of the complaints which had been flooding in since the previous afternoon, but she did not know what the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (referenced in the offending comment) were. She had never heard of them.
I explained what they were, and we followed the horrible links from the comment too (to white supremacist, anti-semitic organsiations). She then said that as it was so late, nothing would be done until Monday morning. I responded that, given the nature of the comment and the links -and the fact that the BBC was now officially aware of the problem – unless the comment was removed by 5pm I would be obliged to make an official complaint to the police.
I received a call from the BBC 15 minutes later to say that the comment had been removed.
Fran | 02.02.08 – 10:33 am
Good going.
Since The Editors blog goes into hibernation early on a Friday afternoon till around Tuesday, they probably had to drag someone away from his drinks at the BBC bar to remove the comment.
Fran:-
Hat off to you for that. Brilliant.
Another 100,000 like you in this lazy nation of ours and the BBC would be no more.
Fran,
Brilliant! You have my total admiration.
Bryan/Hugh – Horrock’s heart is in the right place in terms of understanding that the audience’s views are more diverse than and varied than those covered by eg the political consensus that is starting to form in the UK. And these views need representation in output through suitable commentators, and literally via HYS etc
Having let the cat out of the bag however, he has to go with the flow, and let people think what they think, and not worry that it is not what he thinks they should think.
Yes, I agree with you. His post suggests he is not the man to see it happen, though.
Consider this bit: “The top 20 or 30 recommended posts all had variations on the theme, attacking Islam in comprehensive terms… Should we have given over a significant part of our website or our analysis programmes on Radio 4 to consideration of whether Islam is a religion that is inherently skewed towards violence?”… to which we could add, or any part of any show, to be honest… “Or were we right to concentrate our journalism on reporting and analysing the life on Benazir, how she came to die and the political consequences? I hope that most people would agree with the choices that we made.”
In other words, radical impartiality in practice here meant Horrocks thinking, ‘Hmm, we’ve got a few thousand people saying they reckon Islam is inherently violent. Oh well, I’m sure they’re just racist loons. Carry on.”
He also maps out how to approach it in future – “Of course a small proportion could be indicative of a wider population, but we can’t be sure. Rather than playing a numbers game to drive our agenda I instead encourage our teams to look for thoughtful or surprising views and opinions…”
They could, of course, be reasonably sure by just running a few MORI polls at a few thousand a throw, but instead the editors are going to look for “thoughtful” or “surprising” views. I can’t be alone in suspecting “thoughtful” and “surprising” views are likely to end up being those the editors happen to sympathise with.
His heart may be in the right place but I suspect that he is not too aware of what actually goes on in these HYS forums. I’ve tried to complain about the bias on a couple of occasions and got absolutely nowhere. The BBC appears to be content to let inexperienced and frankly not too bright “moderators” handle HYS. There appears to be a distinct lack of competent hands on management right across the BBC. It seems that very junior people can do pretty much whatever they like.
I find it quite revealing that Horrocks was so concerned about the flood of anti-Islam comments. Would Horrocks or any other BBC-ite ever express similar concern about the far more poisonous stuff spouted about Jews and Israelis on HYS on a regular basis – especially the vile comparison frequently drawn between Israelis and Nazis? Of course not.
I know you object to me harping on about this point but it’s an important aspect of BBC bias.
I know you object to me harping on about this point but it’s an important aspect of BBC bias.
Bryan | 03.02.08 – 10:44 pm | #
I don’t object to it per se, if people feel they are being portrayed negatively than they are going to react strongly to that. Particularly if they feel the same standards of objectivity are not beig applied to the other side.
It’s just there are lots of other things we could also dicuss if this board accurately represented the broad church of anti-BBC opinion.
Whatever we think of his ability to hone in on the detail of eg how HYS is executed Horrocks has moved BBC News a long long way towards being more audience focussed. He is a senior strategy guy who should set the tone for how things are going to be. People further down the chain need to be sorting some of the thins out that you mention.
The main point is that if the BBC is going to court audience opinion it needs to be careful not to overly censor, direct or editorialise it.
Bryan I do sympathise when all the New World Order garbage gets left up there, I think it is because people working for whoever moderates it are just a bit dumb and dont really know what it means. On the other hand there has been enough of it that you think they would know by now.
Sarah-Jane | 04.02.08 – 4:09 pm |
It’s just there are lots of other things we could also dicuss if this board accurately represented the broad church of anti-BBC opinion.
You mean like how 9/11 was an inside job? Every time there is an HYS or an Editor’s Blog having anything remotely to do with trusting the BBC, a good chunk of the comments are from troofers screaming that the BBC ought to do a “real” report and stop hiding the troof. Other trust issues tend to involve the same stuff discussed here most of the time. Sure, there has been an overabundance of Islam and Israel lately, but whose fault is that?