The BBC Trust has just published its ‘Breadth of Opinion’ review into impartiality.
Not had time to look at it but you can see it here.
A taster from the press release:
As part of the study, the BBC’s coverage of immigration, religion and the EU was analysed through content analysis by Cardiff University. While the findings of this were largely positive and indicated that the breadth of opinion on all three subjects is comprehensive, the research also found that information and opinions provided in stories tended to focus on the specific case, with the larger story of how immigration may affect British society for better or worse covered much less often.
That’s classic BBC tactic…the ‘personal’ story of an immigrant…designed to make the viewer ‘connect’ and ignore that ‘big picture’.
The big picture is still being ignored….Miliband talked of the crisis in primary school places today…..the BBC made absolutely no mention of the real cause of that…immigration and the surge in births that resulted.
And another couple of lines from the press release that might make you laugh:
BBC Trustee David Liddiment said:
“Ensuring that a wide range of views are seen and heard on the BBC is at the heart of the BBC’s enviable reputation for impartial journalism.”
Presumably climate change coverage wasn’t so ‘impartial‘ then due to the lack of a wide range of voices?
Just searched the PDF for ‘climate’…result….’0’…how can you have a report into BBC impartiality when one of the most controversial, and important, subjects hasn’t been covered?
The BBC science review by Steve Jones can be completely discounted as he is a BBC stooge who is rabidly pro-man made climate change.
“We deliberately chose some complex and controversial subject areas for the review in immigration, religion, and the EU, and our generally positive findings are testament to programme-makers across the corporation.”
‘Positive findings’ on immigration, religion and the EU?
I’ve got to read that.
Never trust self commissioned research as the university in question knows fine well if they don’t do as they are expected to they won’t get further funded research.
It is like public enquiries – you always appoint the judge who will come to the “correct” conclusion.
Or when the head of the CPS is a mate of yours the odd coincidence between money paid to your party and titles being handed out will prove unworthy of further action.
Or like when employees of an organisation enjoy the mass-rape of minors over decades, sharing vulnerable people with their friends on premise, systematically covered up by everyone associated, then you get to investigate and report back on yourself!!
Ah, yes, BBC impartiality:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10157478/BBC-did-not-reflect-public-view-on-immigration-because-of-deep-liberal-bias-says-review.html#disqus_thread
“The BBC was slow to reflect the weight of concern in the wider community about issues arising from immigration.
Pretty much the exact same admission made by the Labour Party. BBC and Labour in sync – who would have thought ?
Blimey, some journos are lazy.
Looking at the ‘reports’ of this ‘story’, most are identical 90% cut and paste jobs from the BBC press release.
Wasn’t there a website that captured such efforts?
However, this nugget did leap out as one now alert to the BBC/Bill Clinton School of Semantics…
‘However the report provides some interesting insights. We agree it is always vital to guard against unconscious bias or ‘group think”
Anyone else I’d have passed, but as it’s the BBC I’m guessing that this means the ongoing deliberate policies of bias and group think will therefore be rockin’ on regardless.
Interesting headline on the BBC’s item on this.
I’ve just done a search of the PDF of the report. The word ‘extreme’ occurs just once, in this sentence (p. 11).
“It is inevitable that in covering the effects of radical Islamism all media outlets will report on extreme views about Islam. These lie behind a number of terrorist attacks around the world and they are, and should be, fully reported.”
So, in the report’s view, the extreme views are those of the Islamists, not those critical of them or of any other policy of position that the BBC holds dear. But you wouldn’t know that from the BBC’s own reporting o n it.
Sorry, Beeb link should be http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23159035
Anyone got any guesses why it’s been hidden under Entertainments and Arts rather than News?
They always put anything about the BBC under ‘entertainment and arts’, showing us what they think their role is.
‘BBC should reflect more ‘extreme’ views’
It’s a trap!!!!
Noting my favourite ‘reporting’ word of the moment…. ‘suggests’… I’d be interested in just who is and how many are seeking… ‘extreme’ views.
I’m not.
Partly because, outside of a very odd protective bubble occupied by a very select group, from the BBC tweeting hordes to Ms. Teresa May, having an ‘extreme’ view label dumped on you seems a short route to a banning. From blogs, sites, complaints systems… or the entire UK.
Something I recall BBBC management get smugly ‘reminded’ on occasion here by the currently absent without credibility Flying Circus of Flokkers.
So no, I don’t want ‘the BBC’ to be more ‘extreme’.
However, it would be nice if it had a stab at not stuffing up, genuine objectivity and reining in the blatant censorship in defence of PR propaganda.
If it’s not too much trouble… between every 5 minutes adding £300kpa a pop non-jobsworths who can’t be fired thanks to the contract their BFF magic’d up from HR.
On reporting religion, it found a wide range of views but said there was a feeling among journalists that they were ill informed about religion.
No kidding. Although they all seem to be pretty well informed about Mohammed’s religion and a couple of cherry-picked quotes from Deuteronomy, don’t they?
But very large red flags should be raised by everyone over the recommended solutions:
The appointment of “story champions” for important and long-running news stories aimed at creating more space for editors to consider whether all relevant opinions have been included
In case they weren’t doing enough of that already.
Ensuring that audience views gathered by the BBC’s audience response team are more widely and systematically shared across the corporation
In case not enough Beeboids are aware when the natives get restless and needed to be re-educated.
Cross-promoting a wider range of BBC services
In case they weren’t already promoting this stuff enough. Never mind that this seems irrelevant to the issue at hand.
The creation of a pan-BBC forum on religion and ethics
In other words, a kind of 28-Gate for religion.
Your license fee hard at work.
You really think they’re well informed about Islam? I don’t ! I think they trot out the same old line that the Muslims they know are nice people, they know nothing of the religion itself, and worse they don’t want to know. Quotations from the Koran are met with stock responses that they are ‘out of context’ or that they refer to a historical past. Ask them what the correct context is and they can’t answer. Sometimes the quotes from the Koran are met with flat denial – they simply cannot believe that it says the things quoted.
To illustrate this is the three party leaders plus others on the Lee Rigby murder that there is nothing in Islam to justify these killings. Now either all these people are blatant liars, or they are completely ignorant of Islam.
Of course that ignores that they might be being kept in the dark by their advisors.
We should keep in mind that most ‘Moslems’ don’t fully follow their religion, the issue is the ones who do.
The following earlier ‘Comments have been duplicated from ‘Open Thread’ for ease of reference:-
George R says:
“Report tells the BBC to listen to public more than politicians”
By Jonathan Prynn.
[Opening excerpt]:-
“The BBC ‘missed’ the rise of widespread public concern about immigration because it was too reliant on interviews with mainstream Westminster politicians, a major report concluded today.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/report-tells-the-bbc-to-listen-to-public-more-than-politicians-8685453.ht
Guest Who says:
‘“Report tells the BBC to listen to public more than politicians””
B…but… they do!
It says so at the end of blogs and tweets and broadcasts.
OK, the only views they seek are from any ‘public’ whose mobile is pre-programmed into producer iPhones (‘Single mother needed for cuts story on Today’!), or if actually fielding the great unwashed live and interactive it’s through a battery of filter researchers to ensure the message is ‘on’, but that couldn’t skew their world view, surely?
George R says:
Supplementary.
“BBC’s ‘deep liberal bias’ prevents it from reflecting public views on immigration, says former corporation news director”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354713/BBCs-deep-liberal-bias-prevents-reflecting-public-views-immigration-says-corporation-news-director.htm
George R says:
Note how Beeboids use misleading headine in their biased approach to latest Report on BBC political bias!:-
“BBC should reflect more ‘extreme’ views”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23159035
Supplementary.
“BBC did not reflect public view on immigration because of ‘deep liberal bias’, says review”
By Rowena Mason.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10157478/BBC-did-not-reflect-public-view-on-immigration-because-of-deep-liberal-bias-says-review.html
Helen Boaden admits that she was aware of the bias back in 2004? Defenders of the indefensible who said there was no bias except in our imaginations will remain silent, especially those who claimed that only racist Little Englanders thought the BBC was biased on this issue.
Plus this:
The review also identified problems with so many BBC journalists working in a big building and reinforcing each other’s prejudices.
“A large group of people working together are in danger of becoming more homogenous in their thinking, not less, and so less able to see when the output reflects a narrow outlook,” he said.
The “In Their Own Tweets Page” is prima facie evidence of this as well. Like I keep saying, there’s no need for a conspiracy or directive from the top for the groupthink to occur. If they all think the same way, the institutional bias occurs naturally. And yet they keep hiring Leftoids without shame.
Groupthink = ‘political correctness’, which the bBBC keeps imposing on us every day.
‘in danger of becoming more homogenous in their thinking’
Pretty sure hiring policies and plausibly forgettable corridor conversation (do market rate executives at the BBC have any other kind) career advancement parameters may play a part in such thinking, too.
Quoting from the Telegraph article about what the report said….
“It said Helen Boaden, the former director of BBC News, “accepts that when she came into her role in September 2004 there had been a problem in the BBC’s coverage of immigration. She was aware, she told us, of a ‘deep liberal bias’ in the way that the BBC approached the topic”
Now, there’s a nice little punt into the long grass of history if ever I’ve seen one….much like that of the former DG, mark Thompson, who also looked back to 2004 when he admitted that “There was massive left-wing bias at the BBC…”
Strange, though, that no-one has been able to spell out how that former state (i.e. a massively left-biased BBC) has been changed since that time – you know, such as the specific recruitment of those with a different political bias, on a massive scale, to re-adjust the balance; re-education classes for the masses of left-wing-biased journalists at the BBC since that time; a massive focus on views other than those of left-wing commentators, journalists, comedians, etc. to create a more even-handed government-subsidised broadcaster; …..what…..just what has been done on a scale commensurate with such a ‘massive’ problem, which was clearly identified at the top of the BBC in 2004 apparently (but always denied, never admitted) at the time…. ?
Was that some tumbleweed I just saw rolling over the barren landscape that is the BBC’s answer to any question like that ?
Notice how the centre of the BBC’s bias is that talking about immigration or the EU is “extreme.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354713/BBCs-deep-liberal-bias-prevents-reflecting-public-views-immigration-says-corporation-news-director.html,….we knew this already and you called us racist for saying it you hypocrites
bBC is also the bBCT. The trust is as corrupt as the beeb. The whole stinking cesspit of an organisation will have to be eradicated. It is like peritonitis, once fully established, always fatal. The infection is too deep and all invading to have any cure.
…And it looks like this ‘impartiality’ report is just more of the same meaningless, self-congratulatory drivel and propaganda the BBC thrives on. It’s a classic example of the hateful Corporation giving itself a pat on the back whilst telling itself it’s ‘getting it about right’. ‘Hugs’ Boaden and Co will be chortling all the way to the bank – next year’s £3.5billion safely in the bank, then!
Absolutely staggered, btw, that there is no mention at all of the BBC’s vehement, consistent, politically-motivated bias in matters related to CAGW… *facepalm.jpg*
The prognosis isn’t good: time to switch off the patient’s life support..?
For BBC-NUJ: IMMIGRATION.
“Liberal posturing and the price of migration”
By DAILY MAIL COMMENT
[Excerpt]:-
“Two startling sets of figures this week expose the phenomenal impact of mass, unrestricted immigration on the social fabric of Britain.
“The first, from the Department for Education, showed more than a million schoolchildren – up by 250,000 in the past five years alone – speak a language other than English as their mother tongue, while nearly three in 10 primary school pupils belong to ethnic minorities.
“Now the Office for National Statistics reports that immigrants make up a quarter of the population of Britain’s biggest cities (well over a third in London), while in nine per cent of homes, nobody speaks English as a main language.
“Meanwhile, the proportion of non-white residents of our four largest conurbations has officially risen above 30 per cent – almost certainly an underestimate, since the figures come from the 2011 census, which many illegal immigrants will not have returned.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2354078/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Liberal-posturing-price-migration.html
From the BBC’s review published today (emphasis mine):
Helen Boaden, Director, Radio and until recently Director, BBC News, accepts that when she came into her role in September 2004 there had been a problem in the BBC’s coverage of immigration. She was aware, she told us, of a “deep liberal bias” in the way that the BBC approached the topic, and specifically that press releases coming from Migration Watch were not always taken as seriously as they might have been.
A “deep liberal bias”. Funny, she never mentioned that in October 2006 when she responded to press reports about the seminar that led to the BBC’s last impartiality review, “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel” (again, my emphasis):
I am not surprised that some readers of the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and the Express are furious with the BBC. If I had paid my licence fee in good faith for an organisation which claims it is passionately committed to impartiality, only to discover – according to the Mail on Sunday – that the organisation itself has admitted it is biased, I would be pretty livid.
According to the Mail on Sunday, and other recent press reports, we have admitted that we are an organisation of trendy, left-leaning liberals who are anti-American, biased against Christianity, in favour of multiculturalism, and staffed by people who wouldn’t know an unbiased fact if it hit them on the head.
The Mail on Sunday based its story on a leak from what it called a “secret” meeting of BBC executives and governors, and claims that it was our former political editor, Andrew Marr himself, who confessed to the liberal bias of the organisation. His take was reinforced by Jeff Randall, who until recently was our business editor. “If they say it, then it must be true” was the thrust of the story.
Well I was one of the people who was at the “secret” meeting. and I have to say the reality was somewhat different to the way the press are reporting it…
Andrew Marr made some comments about BBC culture being more liberal than the rest of the country – points he makes in his book on journalism.
The main thing is, however, they were both giving their personal opinions. That is entirely their right and what they had been asked to do in the interests of discussion. I disagree with them. I found their claim of liberal bias unconvincing – based on anecdote and attitude rather than evidence.
She admits now that when she took over in 2004 there was “deep liberal bias” over coverage of immigration (as if it was limited to that topic!) but neglected to mention this fact when dismissing claims of bias in 2006. I guess she must have forgotten about it back then and suddenly remembered it now. Or something.
Just about the only thing I believe Boaden on any more is when she said that there were too many Beeboids who were so stupid as to think the BBC’s commitment to diversity meant that they couldn’t report instances where minorities were the wrong-doers.
DB – excellent post Sir!
Welll that is misdesceription. The BBC ‘liberal’? The BBC is a totalitarian Globalist organisation that tolerates no views other than its own.
It is an INSULT to historical liberalism to describe the BBC as such.
Where is Dez etc..
They keep telling us there is no Bias…
oh .. not reported in the Indy, Guardian or Mirror so far…., I wonder why
Dez? He does the nightshift at the albeeba.
Let`s not be harsh.
Surely there`s an app we can upload to entice the “dove from above” that is Dez De Moaner.
Let me try this one….bloody BBC are going to call us all to prayer for Eid at 3p.m every afternoon next week.
(I count four errors there Dez-do tell me if there`s any more!)
Coo eee!
Not seen Dezzy for ages.
If he’s not arguing with the general thoughts of this blog, then he’s in agreement with what we say…
Yaaaay….Allah akuuuuubar, we got us a convert!
Is he is Egypt, IN DENIAL, over everything that’s bringing his political world up against the truth?
(But watch out for his night-time venomous strikes at the person..)
If he’s in Egypt, he is gonna be on the sharp end of an Islamic protestors penis…
I almost feel sorry for him.
Anybody else remember Stuart Prebble then?
Apart from his “Grumpy Old Man” books and TV programmes, that the BBC seem to like?
Well, he was Mike Neviles bagman when I lived up in the North East in the late 70s/early 80s…so a BBC sock puppet….but we don`t get to have THAT put our way to show independence.
Maybe we`ll be getting the Stuart Hall enquiry into whether the “It`s A Knockout” giant hammers were made of sustainably-sourced polystyrere…or made of nasty non-recycleabe stuff that now torments the Arctic Fox all these years later.
If I want an independent enquiry into the BBC, I`ll not ask Mike Neviles teaboy to tell me what it says.
Stuart Hall? Worst bloody day of my life, writing to Jim’ll fix it for him to help get me onto It’s a Knockout.!
‘the BBC’s enviable reputation for impartial journalism.”
One of the site monitor kapos might like to pass this via PR to senior management with a wee note that saying it long ago ceased to make it so.
Especially when it’s the BBC saying it.
Saying it via cookie cutter template over and over now simply makes it even less credible than it wasn’t already, and the person saying it just gets highlighted as an overpaid market rate parrot.
No one believed it when Mark Thompson said it.
No one believes it when Lord Patten says it.
No one believes it when Hugs still says it.
No one believes it when Lord Hall says it.
No one believes it when any ‘Editor’ on ‘The Editors’ trots it out by rote on one of their now not infrequent navel gazing exercises.
And when folk say that don’t believe it, they get modded out or the thread is closed.
It’s the BBC’s unique way of inspiring transparency and trust at work.
Only it isn’t, and hasn’t for a fair while.
Supplementary.
‘Express:-
“‘Deep liberal bias’ stopped BBC from properly reporting on immigration and EU”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/412205/Deep-liberal-bias-stopped-BBC-from-properly-reporting-on-immigration-and-EU
“He also states that the overwhelming number of journalists within the BBC ̶t̶a̶k̶e̶ leave their personal politics ̶t̶o̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ at home.
…just like Eddie “You’re a nasty piece of work, aren’t you?” Mair.
Toxteth mosque ‘suspect’ suitcase: Danish man cautioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-23142432
Police confirm man cautioned after bomb alert at Liverpool mosque is Somalian NOT Danish .
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/man-cautioned-following-bomb-security-4803983
The BBC have not corrected?
A somalian with Danish citizenship?
The BBC always thinking….how to avoid uncomfortable facts.
In this case, it was the initial police report that the suspect was Danish. Only later did the local paper correct the error. The BBC, of course, has yet to update it to reflect an uncomfortable reality, even though the new information has been available to them for at least 24 hours. If they don’t, we’ll know why.
Yes….BBC’s last update…09:22
A sudden lack of interest in the story?
Yes the BBC will not be correcting their story even though they are now expected to report “extreme” views.
However it may well be that the suspect now confirmed as Somali is also Danish.
Most recent Somali immigrants are from other EU countries particularly Holland. Once they have Dutch nationality they are heading for the UK. One good question is just how rapidly other EU countries are handing out nationality to asylum seekers in the sure and certain knowledge they will make their way rapidly here, once Dutch, Danish or Swedish citizens.
And about the other “far right revenge attacks”?
Anything?
Except it’s too late now, the damage is done. During 13 years of labour there was more immigration into the UK than in the previous 1000 years. The result is plain to see in all our towns and cities, changed for ever.
All the time the BBC cheered this on, condemning anyone who disagreed as racist, adopting labour smear tactics whenever the Tories raised the subject, remember Michael Howard and how the BBC echoed labours accusations of “lurching to the right”.
Arguably the greatest change ever in our nation’s history, and the BBC at best sat on the sidelines, at worst close down debate. A national disgrace, a betrayal of the country. Never a better example of just how poisonous and destructive the BBC has become to the welfare of Britain and its population.
And where are they now? Those senior managers who oversaw this travesty? Busy awarding each other multi-million pound severance deals and no doubt escapingto their Italian or French house in the country and leaving the ghettoised multicultural mess they so eagerly helped create behind.
Exactly right. And for this there can be no forgiveness. To betray your country is the most horrendous of crimes. It affects those generations yet to be born and casts a shadow over all our lives.
Refuse to argue with them. Turn your back. The liberals , and the BBC is the queen bee of the media hives of them, have bought upon my country a nightmare to come.
That they could have been so stupid is a testament to what an education rooted in unreality can accomplish. They have corrupted my country and I will never forgive.
We are losing England. What it will become I do not know but those untold generations that preceded me have been betrayed.
These 68ers are the dregs of a civilisation. They have nothing to say which I will hear.. Their words mean nothing.
Turns out that cannabis farms are nicking loads of electricity from the suppliers…apparently one third of electricity theft is due to these “professionals”…but who may well injure themselves in so doing,and so will need to be encouraged not so to do.
Ah bless-there`s Sarah Montague this morning, worrying (yet again) about the poor hard-pressed farmer after all.
There was me thinking that the BBC hated farmers, and all things rural and (frankly) dirty and cruel to animals and foxes, badgers etc.
The two Energy toadies brought on spent a lot of time talking of game changers, going forward etc…but the honest citizen will be paying for the thefts; so the studio seemed delightfully unconcerned…after all, cannabis will yet turn out to be another growth industry once we`ve all embraced our inner Russell, and given in to legalisation of cannabis.
One of the toadies was on the bridge when the banks tanked(Angela Knight)…a veritable fat bird flying high on liberal draughts, but is a mealy-mouthed albatross with a Tory tinge…a Patten`ted Tory if ever I heard one.
Oh-and the answer to these scamp professionals?-fine the electric companies, after all druggies can`t help their petty thefts to support their habits can they?
Only business or Tories ever get in the dock…all other crims are only vulnerable state supporters that need love and excuses from the BBC…the BBC obliges 24/7.
Offal in a tube…that`s our BBC.
Blanket coverage of the Egyptian ‘coup’ which is serving to bury yet more bad news about the BBC – how convenient !
You mean it’s even knocked St Nelson off the top of the news agenda?
Impartiality stems from a ruthless professional commitment to truth and accuracy.
Last night I watched a new series launch of a show based in a broadcast studio: ‘The Newsroom’.
Very exciting, Jeff Bridges pulling a Peter Finch and initially paying the price, but redemption beckons as his plea for integrity and honesty wins support from grizzled vets (well, one) and a bevvy of young West Wing extras.
It was notable by the core story for a fictional network being a very real event.
All done & sorted in 2 hrs.
So… an interesting mix of reality and… utter fiction.
Hence a pretty accurate reflection of most news media today, with the only difference being hardly anyone in the current news world has any commitment to professional standards they were portraying in the show.
The sad thing is how many in studios here will be deluding themselves they are already they like.
“BBC treats gay marriage opponents as ‘throwbacks’”
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/bbc-treats-gay-marriage-opponents-as-throwbacks/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+christianinstitute+%28The+Christian+Institute%29
EGYPT.
INBBC: impartially supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).
Typically, Beeboid Gardner today illustrates this.
In his piece, Gardner is biased in three key elements:-
1.) he refers to ‘democracy’ as merely signifying majority rule, regardless of the plight of minorities, such as, in this case, Christians.
2.) he puts the MB case without indicating the repressive nature of its plans to impose Sharia law.
3.) he narrows down his political case on Egypt’s future to either being Muslim Brotherhood, or Al Qaeda.
“Egypt crisis: A dangerous moment for the Middle East”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23184605
What Gardner misses on Muslim Brotherhood:-
“The Muslim Brotherhood”
Ed by Barry Rubin.
‘Look inside’ above book here:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23184605
For INBBC:-
“Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood: What is the difference?”
by Mark Durie.
http://www.meforum.org/3541/salafis-muslim-brotherhood
What has happened to INBBC’s broadcasting chum in Egypt:
“Egypt Takes Al Jazeera Off the Air”
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/egypt-takes-al-jazeera-off-the-air/