The Daily Mail reports that the ‘New Cultural Forum’ has brought out a report on BBC bias authored by Ed West ….no link to it yet unfortunately:
The BBC gives too much weight to pro-immigration voices and ‘almost totally ignores’ the negative social impact of multiculturalism, a new study has claimed.
The corporation suffers from left wing ‘groupthink’ that prevents its journalists from challenging institutional bias and results in pro-immigration ‘propaganda’, according to the research published yesterday.
It was also accused of ‘downplaying’ violence by Islamists while being happy to criticise Christianity and report on the activities of other violent extremists.
Sounds all too familiar
That report is from May 2012.
I am referring to the one in the link.
Yep..thanks…updated post….no link to new report yet.
From “The New Cultural Forum”:
“At a time of civilisational threat from extremists, the West finds itself besieged from within and without. Too often our enemies and our opinion formers appear to agree that Western culture is an indefensible horror, that we are, in Susan Sontag’s words, ‘the cancer of human history.’
Clearly this is one reason for Alan to believe everything they will say in the (yet to be published) report but based on the above and their stated aims they are hardly an unbiased source.
http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/home/?q=node/3
Is there any source that you can think of that disagrees with your relativist theology that you don’t consider unbiased?
Are they any more or less unbiased than the scores of left wing advocacy groups that the BBC panders to on a daily ,if not hourly basis
Surely the point is that the BBC (remember them) does not give a fair hearing to dissenting voices
Your objection then, seems to be, that any would find fault in that. Otherwise what is your point?
Peter Whittle (Founder and Director) of The New Culture Forum is a journalist and broadcaster. He is a regular guest on BBC Newsnight Review, Sky News, Radio 2 and Radio 4, and has appeared recently on BBC’s Daily Politics, The One Show, ITV Tonight Extra and Channel Five News.
Seems that this “dissenting voice” is often to be heard on the BBC.
Putting aside your version of ‘often’ and the relevance of ITV and C5
You object to that then? Or again what is your point?
An instance of ‘getting your retaliation in first’ from Albaman. “[The New Cultural Forum] … they are hardly an unbiased source” – so, just like the BBC then … except we don’t all have to pay for the NCF.
No civilisation has a right to exist .The reality is that if you believe it is the best then you must defend it. It will always be under attack from outside. This is how the world works. The Sontags of this world live in the shelter of what they affect to despise. The most dishonest of positions.
Quite! The BBC in general plays the Lefty student politics game from the comfort zone of well paid State-subsidised jobs and virtual unaccountability for the consequences. Talk about biting the hand that feeds! How can the BBC fail to appreciate that it is seriously damaging the very Western culture upon which it depends for its funding and freedom to criticise?
It is a favourite tactic of the BBC to deploy a “report” by a think tank as a lead story, and use this to ‘start a debate’ – ie define the news agenda – on policies or social attitudes that the BBC editorial staff fee strongly about. It is lazy and pernicious journalism and the BBC ‘allows’ itself to become a propaganda arm for single interest pressure groups. But only those groups that tick the right boxes.
There are examples every week but here is a single example from a couple of weeks ago that left me intrigued by what the BBC didn’t say in its “report” (re-printed press release). The BBC used a report by “Curriculum for Cohesion” to rubbish the proposed changes to the National Curriculum – basically a Gove bating story that appeared under the statement “Draft history curriculum ‘list-like and too narrow'”. Hm, noting like setting the tone is there? Link and extract below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22072703
A draft history curriculum for England is “list-like”, “prescriptive” and omits “the histories of Britons who are not white Anglo-Saxons”, says a report.
The group, Curriculum for Cohesion, of teachers, academics and employers calls the draft “unteachable, unlearnable and un-British”
Thanks BBC, but who and what are “curriculum for cohesion”? Perhaps the BBC could explain this and what they hope to achieve? You can read about the group here:
http://curriculumforcohesion.org/
They are a sound well resourced academic grouping of primarily islamic acacdemics fronted by Jack Straw and Sidiq Khan
http://curriculumforcohesion.org/what/national-curriculum-modules/
And further, the BBC didn’t provide any detail of what CfC thought their objevctives were in commenting on the curriculum.
“National Curriculum for History
Our recent research has shown that one key to making compulsory History more interesting and useful for all British pupils is for them to be given an understanding of the historical relationship between Britain and other civilisations in a range of historical periods.
We believe that there are three areas of knowledge that will help all young people understand the role of Islam and Muslims in the 21st century” (link gives full details)
To paraphrase Rolf “Can you se what it is yet?”
Now I am sure that hundreds of organisations responded to this consultation. Was there one from an orgnisation that thought that the propose curriculum was a fantastic idea? Was there one who thought that a return to traditional historical education based on the ‘national story’ was the way forward? I will never find out from the BBC will I.
As I said one example amongst a multitude. These ‘reports’ are the mainstary of “Today” and “Newsnight” and all carefully selected. In its artless advocacy of ‘reports by independent groups’ the BBC has abandoned impartiality and actively collaborates with selected organisations to achieve ITS social and political objectives. This was made clear in 28 Gate
In my granddaughter’s GCSE history they are currently being taught about terrorism – specifically the IRA, the PLO and Al Q’ Aeda.
This Island Story it definitely isn’t.
No?
One that is very aware of what’s going on inside the BBC.
A Question of Attitude
The BBC and bias beyond news
Dennis Sewell
About the author
Dennis Sewell is an author, broadcaster and contributing editor of the Spectator. He spent more than twenty years on the staff of BBC News, where he presented Radio 4’s Talking Politics, BBC World Service’s Politics UK, worked as a reporter for BBC 2’s Newsnight and was an award-winning documentary maker.
His latest book is The Political Gene (Picador, 2010).
BBC political bias is longstanding, and seems to be getting worse.
BBC, in general, is:
-pro-Islam;
-pro-mass immigration;
-pro-E.U;
-pro-Labour Party;
-pro-U.S Democrat Party;
-pro-man made global warming agenda;
-anti-Christian;
-anti-Tory.
Etc.
This is hardly news. The BBC is incapable of putting forward other than a left of centre view. It has recruited the like minded to fill the hive for going on two generations. It must be the jewel in the crown of the Gramscians.
If Edmund Burke had applied for a job do you honestly think he would have got one?
I take no notice of a word it says. I suppose it can’t spin the cricket scores or football results but you never know.
I suppose it can’t spin the cricket scores or football results but you never know.
Oh yes they can. Have never heard the disparity between;
England struggled to a 10 run win over Australia.
and
Australia triumphant in 10 run win over struggling England.
They do the same for England football and rugby. England’s wins are underplayed and quickly forgotten, England’s losses are dissected with glee.
Yes. Any England sporting defeat fits in well with the BBC narrative of the inevitable post-war decline of Britain as a force in the world and the need for integration with Europe, the UN, etc. An upsurge in nationalist sentiment after an England victory, or rowdiness by flag-waving football fans abroad, can be used to show the dangers of nationalism, although the latter is of course ok if it Welsh or Scottish nationalism after a rugby win over England.
I recall the era of the very strong West Indies cricket team in the ’70s and ’80s (no series defeats v England after 1969 and up to 2000) and the relish with which it and the celebrations of the British West Indian crowds were reported, but the results have gone the other way since 2000 so it is of less interest.
Yes,
I noticed that as well.
On issues relating to Israel and the Arab world, one is more likely to get fairer assessment from al Jazeera then the BBC..
Amazing, isn’t it, and certainly going to be difficult for people to believe until they see it for themselves and make the comparison?
Of course, just providing more factual and in-depth coverage than the BBC does not mean that al Jazeera isn’t furthering their own agenda, but I know that and I’m not obliged to pay al Jazeera when I watch other news sources.
The al Jazeera coverage on its Newshour of the Russian S-300s tactical capabilities, the draining away of fighters and (very relevant for any UK-sourced arms) resources from the FSA (vague Hague’s fav) to other rebel groups (some for an Islamic state, some also linked to al Qaeda), and the Israeli options was very interesting. And
streets ahead ofliterally in a different country from the Beeb.Three quotes from yesterday’s BBC News channel:
1. The riots which marred the last soccer match between England and Ireland was started by a group of ‘far-right’ hooligans.
2. I don’t have much time for Cameron.
3. The Daily Mail is the worst newspaper in the world.(cue giggles all round)
All within twenty-five minutes.
Funny how they never go as far as picking a particular article in The Mail and actually accuse the paper of lying.
Funny they should be so non-specific. Funny, that, from The Left.
BBC always there to rubbish the armed forces and give comfort to their enemies. The HYS discussion on Afghan’s held in captivity did not last. Only seven comments and then removed.
I wonder why. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22691655
INBBC’s ‘anti-British troops’ lead political story of the day.
The hateful BBC are traitors and should be shut down.
Has INBBC reported this violent attack in North West England?:-
No trace now online.
“MUSLIM GANG HACK TWO MEN IN MACHETE ATTACK HORROR AT BARBER SHOP”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/05/muslim-gang-hack-two-men-in-machete-attack-horror-at-barber-shop.html
If this wasn’t reported by the BBC it is truly disgraceful even by their own standards, which are appalling. It seems to me that the problems in the country that are caused by Islam, or Islamists in BBC speak , are stretching the BBC’s cover up of the truth to breaking point.
Note how BBC-NUJ criticises English football fans, but NOT Irish ones.
And this is a politically biased article by one Finlo Rohrer.
BBC-NUJ:-
“Why do England fans sing No Surrender?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22688494
Where does BBC-NUJ publicise Irish requests for their fans to behave in a friendly way towards English ones?
New Cultural Forum’s last report cites Ben Stephenson’s ‘left field’ comment as evidence.
Credibility down the tube.
How does anyone measure bias on BBC TV, radio and online over 15 years anyway? The answer in this case seems to be to scour this website and the Daily Mail.
If you are going to be snide please get provide an accurate and complete quotation. Whatever he claimed he claimed he said (“left-field thinking” – what the **** does that mean?) he actually said
“We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, postcodes, my class only stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”
What do you think ‘my class only left-of-centre thinking’ is? Is it the sort of thinking that commissions a TV series about how delighted the artisan class in the UK was to be able to buy its own homes in the 1980′ or s it a marxist dogma strait from the Frankfurt text book?
For some light relief I have adapted the famous Arthur meets the anarco-syndicalists scene from the Holy Grail… Sorry it is a bit long.
BEN: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
MARIA: Well, I AM Secretary of State…
BEN: Oh Secretary of State, eh, very nice. An’ how’d you get that, eh? By exploitin’ the workers — by ‘angin’ on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an’ social differences in our society! If there’s ever going to be any progress–
TONY: Ben, there’s some lovely filth from Wossie and Brand down here. Oh — how d’you do?
MARIA: How do you do, Director General. I am Maria, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. Who’s Broadcasting Centre is that?
TONY: Secretary of State – which party?
MARIA: The Conservatives.
TONY: Who are the Conservatives?
MARIA: Well, most of us in the Cabinet are. We’re all elected Cabinet Ministers and I am your Secretary of State.
TONY: I didn’t know we had a Secretary of State. I thought the BBC was an autonomous collective.
BEN: You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes–
TONY: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
BEN: That’s what it’s all about if only people would–
MARIA: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who works in the three billion pound headquarters building in Manchester?
TONY: No one works there.
MARIA: Then who is in charge?
TONY: No one is in charge
MARIA: What?
BEN: I told you. The BBC is an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
MARIA: Yes.
BEN: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
MARIA: Yes, I see.
BEN: By a simple majority in the case of purely editorial affairs,–
MARIA: Be quiet!
BEN: –but by a two-thirds majority in the case of Climate Change–
MARIA: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
TONY: Order, eh — get her, who does she think she is?
MARIA: I am the Secretary of State!
TONY: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
DangerMouse, I look forward to your posting this comment over at the New Cultural Forum website. Surely that’s where your insight is most needed. You’ll post the link to it here once you do, won’t you?
The New Culture Forum report is available at http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/home/pdf/BBC_Report_FINAL.pdf
Thanks, Sir Arthur. A fascinating read. I couldn’t find anything directly lifted from this blog, but the majority of topics reflect a lot of what’s been said here. And I mean a lot. So I fully expect our defenders of the indefensible to rush over to the New Culture Forum website and tell them how wrong they are. After all, you’re really here to tell us how we’re wrong about the BBC and not just to fight with Right-wingers, aren’t you?
Alan, please add this to your post so it doesn’t get lost in the thread.
The link is to a 2012 report (great read) but not to the report pubished today. I guess the report will be up on the web page later
My mistake on that. I got caught up in all the left-wing groupthink stuff and didn’t notice. It’s still a good read.
Since it’s been up for some time, could defenders of the indefensible please show us copies of the corrective letters you’ve sent to NCF about this? Surely you’ve told them how wrong they are and haven’t wasted all your time on this little blog.
Well, this post was the first time I’d heard about the New Culture Forum, so sorry for not posting a comment on their site a couple of years ago.
Seems an odd position to take though, that I should have to have commented there first in order to be able to pass any comment here on this Blog, when Alan has raised the subject and invited comment.
I guess thats one way to deflect criticism.
“The Shabby Deceit of BBC Journalism.”
By NICK COHEN.
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/5036/full
Very interesting. Lots to think about there.