The BBC will go to any lengths to say it is not biased, as Mark Thompson has graphically shown this week with his faux confession that the corporation was guilty of bias in the past but not now. The Leviathan wriggles, it bends, it contorts, it grimaces in pursuit of that central tenet. We on this site know that such defensiveness is a load of hogwash, but it’s nevertheless very rare for anyone who has held a senior position to break ranks and come clean on the record.
September 5 is therefore a red letter day, because former Today editor Rod Liddle, writing in the Sunday Times (frustratingly, I can’t link to the article because of the site paywall),lays bare the pressures he was under in the early noughties. He tells how every week, he was summoned to the office of his boss to be lectured on the need for impartiality on topics such as the US election – by a man who had posters on his wall supporting the Democrats. He also relates a story about something I know something about, having been to some extent involved.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch – back in 2001, a Conservative peer, now of course, soon-to-be ex-leader of UKIP – commissioned a series of independent reports into the BBC’s coverage of the EU. This work, stretching back to 1999, is very detailed, systematic analysis of a range of BBC programmes, and has found – as readers of this site will know – that the BBC’s coverage of the EU seriously under-represents the eurosceptic perspective (to put it mildly).
Mr Liddle recounts how he was persuaded that what the reports said had substance, and he raised this at his weekly meeting with his Democrat-supporting boss. The response? He was told that Lord Pearson and “these people” (behind the report) were “mad”.
Adds Mr Liddle:
“Ah, that’s the BBC. Desperate to be fair, according to its charter, but never truly fair. its editorial staff are convinced that they are not remotely biased, just rational and civil and decent, and that those who oppose their congenial, educated, middle-class poiint of view are not merely right-wing, but deranged. They will not for a second accept that they are in fact biased at all…”
What Mr Liddle does not say is that when he was editor of Today, he was just as guilty of stonewalling complaints as his colleagues. He met Lord Pearson to discuss the issues raised by the reports about the EU back in 2001. Then, exactly like his boss, he resolutely defended his programme’s output and accused Lord Pearson in print of trying to define bias by stopwatch. This was a classic BBC diversionary riposte that conveniently glossed over that the reports were far more than measurement of the time devoted to the eurosceptic perspective. But at least our Roger has at last seen the light.
Peter Hitchens also looks today at BBC bias in the wake of Mark Thompson’s remarks this week. Relevant to what Rod Liddle says, he notes the recent admission by BBC reporter Jonathan Charles about the blind new-era excitement he and his colleagues felt when the euro was launched almost a decade ago. Lord Pearson also complained about that, and he backed it up with solid analysis of how biased the coverage had been. Like everything else, the document was pooh-poohed by BBC top brass as xenophobic fanatasy.
Update: I have been told that one of Rod Liddle’s bosses resorted to libelling the author of the Lord Pearson-commissioned EU reports as part of the BBC anything-goes approach to attacking its enemies. The then chief political advisor told Lord Pearson that the report writer was not to be trusted because he had been sacked by the BBC. This was an outright untruth which she was forced to retract following a lawyer’s letter.
Don’t forget that when Liddle was editor of Toady, it was grotesquely biased against against the nacent Countryside Alliance movement and regurgetated misleading rubbish about hunting and country sports as a matter of course.
Shame his concience didn’t trouble him before he was forced out into the real world – I still have a collection of beeboid complaint responses from the period which uphold the old beeboid tradition of never admitting they were in the wrong.
It’s almost upsetting that the BBC narrative is so biased that they can’t understand the opportunity cost of holding an opinion. I’ve just walked out of running a Tory office (due to going slightly mental) and one of my mantras was that it took 3 decisions to do nothing.
I worked with some lovely and intelligent people but at no point was it my job to attenuate any dischordant messages; geez, that’s what I thought politics was about – reaching compromise based on all information available. If one of my Cllrs had just gone off and done something strategic which involved the others it would have been a 20 minute vigourous rebuke in caucus and rightly so.
The BBC have absolutely no democratic mandate so God alone knows what they’re playing at. Disgusting perhaps, rather than upsetting.
Cheers Robin.
Well, it seems there is a lot of ‘concern’ about BBC bias:
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/05/is-the-bbc-working-with-the-government-on-cuts-coverage/
Albeit a tad selective on what direction, and when this is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
One reason I frequent, and occasionally contribute here is the sense that owners, authors and most contributors merely seek fair and balanced objectivity from our national broadcaster. That, and a degree of competence that £3.6B might afford.
A bit like wot the Charter says we enforced funders should expect and get.
As one recent valued contributor postscripted… ‘Sheesh’.
I have to commend one hardy and devastatingly reasoned and reasonable poster, who has, amongst many, this superb piece of calm logic to offer:
Unfortunately the problem with just reporting both sides is that there are so many facts to choose from – too many to cover in the space of an article or two minutes of video. Who selects what makes it in? Why, that would be the journalist and editor. Bingo, there’s your bias.
They have the power to frame the discussion, and that’s all that is necessary.
Why is it so difficult to believe that Channel 4, Al-Jazeera, Sky and Fox all have biased news output, but (uniquely amongst all news organisations) the BBC is completely free of bias?
Sadly, logic seems not to be a strong point in some quarters.
I await the luvvies to rally on twitter and then descend to accuse him of being a ‘Daily Mail reader’ or some other skilled argument.
In answer to his question, to believe it they are either thick or venal.
The BBC is like Islam in a couple ways I can think of
1. It practices Taqqiya
2. It is a parasite – embeds itself in the body of the host, and is very difficult to remove.
The BBC is not a terrorist organisation, but it does give propaganda space as well as justification to terrorist causes, therefore it acts like a ‘moderate’ Muslim.
How’s that hoping that people won’t notice and it’ll all blow over strategy going, Aunty?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100052434/the-bbc-officially-regards-eurosceptics-as-mad/
DP111
Don’t forget the bbc’s licence fee is not that dissimilar to the muslims jizya tax .
The way the b**b & their tvl thugs treat those who don’t pay the b**b’s jizya tax mirrors the muslin idea of the world being made up of believers & non believers .
“The BBC is not a terrorist organisation”
Utter rubbish the b**b fit the definition of terrorism perfectly .
Definition of TERRORISM: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
They rely totally on terror (threatening letters & visits from their goons) ,to coerce our people into funding them .
Yes, Islam Not BBC (INBBC) is following the example of its Muslim chum, Gaddafi:
After calling Europe to Islam, Gaddafi demands jizya
Anthony
I take your point that they do have enforcers, but they havnt yet taken to blowing us up, license fee paid or not.
Anyway, it was just a lighthearted parallel.
I have followed BBBC for some years, and while some articles here get a bit shrill, this one really nails the spot, leaving the BBC no wiggle room. I did not know that such a thorough analysis of BBC output had been done. Its results do not surprise me. I read Robin Aitken’s book on the BBC, which illustrated the sanctimonious hubris that has permeated the BBC.
Eric Hoffer said that it is hatred that binds social movements together, and the BBC considers itself, without reference to its customers, a social movement, and yes, it hates certain groups. Aitken enumerates Whites in Africa, Likud, Serb nationalists, the Italian Northern League, Le Pen and his supporters, Christian fundamentalists and UKIP. I would add the current coalition government, which curiously seems to have attracted more BBC ire than might a pure Tory one. No doubt, Auntie considers the LibDems to be traitors to their … hmmm, it can’t be class, well, whatever appelation you might apply to the infantilised 68ers.
As a matter of interest, I am pretty well convinced by the science behind AGW, but don’t make a fuss about your attacks on it because I know the world will do nothing to stop it, so we shall find out in the fullness of time who is right.
Does anyone know if a monitoring study such as Pearson’s has been done into other aspects of BBC bias, such as pro-Labour, pro-Green and Aitken’s hated tribes? Then there is the Balen Report, which I doubt Thompson wants anyone to bring up.
This blog is probably the only continuing effort to document most areas of BBC bias. The archives are full of evidence, and the quotes on the sidebar are good examples.
As for your opinion on AGW/ACC, I think you’ll find that there is actually a wide variety of opinions here on all the big issues that come up. Nearly any topic will bring up opposing views to some extent. But Biased-BBC is a big tent. (Cue rolling of eyes from defenders of the indefensible) The only topic on which there is unanimous agreement is that there is a certain kind of endemic bias at the BBC.
Excellent post, Robin. Mark Thompson has really driven the BBC into a wall, hasn’t he?
But David it will make no difference. We do not live in the days where people who broke an agreement retire in disgrace. Blair introduced the concept of apologising for past mistakes and moving on to do exacltly the same. He got away with it. Mandleson got away with it and Thompson will get away with it. There is no honour amongst rouges
JHT, that’s only with Leftoids. People who aren’t accepted on the Left do not get second chances. Hell, they often don’t get the first one (see any Tory Government or Sarah Palin) . How can you say that Mark Thompson won’t….oh, sorry, I’ve answered my own question already, haven’t I?
Seriously, though, the reason I said is is that I wonder if he hasn’t brought too much negative attention to the BBC to hold onto his job? As Martin has pointed out on another thread, the BBC’s primary mission is to maintain that gravy train (sorry about the rhyme). As Mr. Spock famously said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” Could Thompson go out like Greg Dyke?
This could NEVER happen on the BBC. An eminent economist/banker states the case against Muslim immigration, the social and economic damage.
Others argue against him. Fair enough – except for the kneejerk accusations of racism, when what the guy is arguing is fundamental CULTURAL differences.
But BOTH SIDES present their arguments.
I do not know if this appeared on any German TV channel.
But never would the BBC allow such a sharp – and balanced – debate take place.
( live near a mosque. It Ramadan, there are hundreds of cars parked nearby. Fine – we all must have freedom of religion.
But why are so many of them wearing nightshirts ? Why do they all scowl when I walk past the mosque ? I am not a Christian, but at Eastertime people say “Happy Easter”, often they say “Christ is risen”. I have never ever been told by any Muslim nearby “This is our Ramadan”.
What are we doing ?
John,
A fascinating video. Anything on this subject is hyper-sensitised by being said in Germany. You have to screen every generalisation about Muslims through a filter of hindsight and relate it to pre-war delegitimising generalisations about Jews, which must have been pretty convincing to have seduced so many so well.
The instinctive wish to sympathise with Sarrazin has to be scrutinised for similarities with anti- Jew tropes, or one could question whether ‘racism’ needs to be a taboo concept. I mean certain physical racial characteristics are undeniable, and surely generalisation in politics is unavoidable.
Can Sarrazin be an antisemite?
But I came upon this article by Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield and was reassured. About Sarrazin, not about Muslim immigration.