I laughed when I read Craig at Is the BBC biased? (Yes it is) saying he didn’t trust the cherry-picking Cardiff Uni-style mass of distorting quirks…..I had just been reading some of their work and one of the august journals that gives them a platform to spread their particular brand of bunk….The Conversation.
This is what ‘The Conversation’ says about itself….
The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community and delivered direct to the public.
Access to independent, high quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversations.
We aim to help rebuild trust in journalism.
They are different from other, less trustworthy media organisations because…
The Conversation provides readers with a free high-grade and trusted information service.
We are quite different to anything else in the media for the following reasons:
In a world of misinformation and spin, The Conversation contributes to healthy democratic discourse by injecting facts and evidence into the public arena.
Who said that? Stephen Khan, Editor.
That’ll be Stephen Khan from the Guardian, Observer and the lefty Independent. Thank heavens he, and his team of inky superhero’s in search of truth and justice, are there to protect us from all that Murdochian misinformation and spin!
When ‘The Conversation’ looks at The controversial business of researching BBC impartiality who does it go to for its research?…..
-
-
Professor of Communication at Cardiff University
-
Professor; Director of Research Development and Environment, School of Journalism at Cardiff University
-
Lecturer of journalism, media and cultural studies at Cardiff University
-
Professor of Journalism at Cardiff University
-
Professor of Journalism at Cardiff Universi
Let’s think...Mike Berry…pro-BBC but likes to spin it that the BBC is right-wing…his famous conclusion…’So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda.‘, and he is of course an anti-Israeli lefty; Sambrook, ex-BBC; Tait, ex-BBC; Moore, Hmmm…her choice of subject matter...’Kerry Moore’s research explores media and political discourses surrounding migration, racism and cultural identity. Her most recent publications explore asylum and refugee issues in journalism and government policy, ‘crisis’ narratives in media representations of migration and cultural difference, media constructions of young black men, and Islam in the news.’ ; and Karin Wahl-Jorgensen who has very close ties to the EU and their purse strings….just one example...’she has been Principal UK Investigator on a €4 million European Commission funded project on the European Public Sphere.’….and she also writes for the far left rag Red Pepper.
And of course the omnipresent Justin Lewis, also from Cardfiff Uni, who has long, long had a thing for the BBC. and is clear that…‘ the accusation of BBC anti-war bias fails to stand up to any serious or sustained analysis. ‘ He also peddles the usual line about the BBC’s critics…’ Leading the charge are conservative media owners and their press outlets.’ He is also the author of this….‘A monster threatens UK broadcasting? It’s Sky, not the BBC.’
Hardly independent of the BBC nor of the values of the BBC and its favourite hobby horses. It seems unlikely, and has proven so in fact, that they will criticise the BBC in any meaningful way.
For example here is Richard Sambrook giving us his recent appraisal of the BBC’s future…
Now is the time to decide: what kind of BBC do you want?
There is now a clear choice following the publication of the British government’s green paper into the future of the BBC.
A good start….seems like he is giving us a choice.
You’d be wrong.
We get a long homily to the glory of the BBC and its benefits to society…
[One view of the BBC] believes there is an increasing role for a trusted voice in the increasingly crowded digital market – one that is accountable, focused on the public – as opposed to commercial or political – interests; that seeks to bind the country together through shared experience and national debate; that seeks to offer a diversity of views to challenge the homophily of our other media habits; that contributes to supporting and developing the creative sector in the UK and which ties the UK together to the rest of the world through international programming and services. It recognises the BBC as the UK’s only global media brand – and one which has to have the resource and remit to continue to innovate in a dynamic, international marketplace.
And ‘In the other corner is a view’ that hands over the media sphere to the commercial companies...’ it doesn’t believe the BBC can or should try to compete with the global behemoths starting to dominate our media consumption.’ That sums up Sambrook’s idea of the other view…essentially Murdoch, the enemy, will emerge triumphant…oh no!!!
He paints one side as negative the other as positive…
One view is inclusive and outward focused, recognising a UK role in a global market.
The other is driven by more insular concerns about the UK market and exclusive in its approach to programming.
Here’s a less than subtle criticism of the Charter review panel….
Whittingdale [is] assisted by an expert panel of largely commercial media experts most of whom have been critical of some aspect of the current arrangements.
Then there’s this…
And of course this follows a licence fee deal once again rushed through behind closed doors with significant extra costs imposed on the BBC under the threat of worse if it didn’t agree.
It’s the way governments hobble public broadcasters the world over.
Back to the ideological or political rather than just good housekeeping when restructuring the BBC and the government isn’t here to improve the BBC but to do a hatchet job on it.
Here he is even more blatant in suggesting this is political…
In Australia, a government-sponsored efficiency review has led to significant cuts in the budget of the ABC following politicians’ complaints about bias and insufficient support “for the home team”.
Now in Britain a similar assault is underway.
According to Sambrook it’s ‘right-wing politicians and newspapers, ideologically opposed to large public intervention in the market, that fuel discontent about the BBC.’
What he is saying of course is that any criticism of the BBC is unjustified and purely driven by right-wing ideology and prejudice….which is a comment that is somewhat prejudiced and ill-informed itself….and all the more funny when you read a following sentence...’Most discussion is governed by a triumph of opinion over fact.’ Well yes, certainly when concerned with any ‘facts’ and ‘research’ we get from Cardiff.
Oh and that choice he was keen to offer us in his position as impartial observer at an academic institution?
As a senior manager there [at the BBC] I used to tell staff who felt under siege with wave after wave of newspaper and political criticism that it meant we still mattered. And that is the point. Its critics, for ideological or commercial reasons [that old chestnut yet again], want it diminished and to matter less.
If the people of Britain do not want to see the erosion and dismantling of one of the country’s most successful public institutions, they need to make it unambiguously clear now. So what kind of BBC do you want?
I guess he’s not that impartial after all.
Here is my usual question: what is meant by the term right wing, because I haven’t a clue what it means. I know that communists use the term to blacken the reputation of those who disagree with them, so I regard non-communists as normal. Therefore unless there is a clearer definition for the term right wing, to me it seems to refer to those who have normal, healthy views and beliefs as opposed to the warped ideology of communism/ socialism.
Hi John. Right-wing, although incessantly misunderstood and misused by socialists, Marxists and communists, is a broad umbrella term that denotes persons who are typically conservative and who hold traditional and patriotic values whilst supporting free capitalist markets that place agency on the individual who is centre of their own destiny; this is in contrast to the Leftists, also a broad term that encompasses many people. A Leftist, or progressive, will not be more progressive and inclined to find shared values in patriotism and traditions; rather they look to inspiration outwith their own culture and do not support the individual’s complete agency within the economic system. A Leftist wishes to have more government and public ownership/control of markets and national infrastructure and believes in a worldwide movement of the proletariat (poor person) fighting back against those with control of production. Look at classic Marx socialism. However, the New Left is about gender and minority equality and so eschews patriotism and love of one’s country in place of a desire to belong to a one world utopia. The latter shunning of national pride and identity is what most disgusts those on the right.
Sorry, John. I wrote the above very quickly so apologies for poor sentence structure/meaning and grammar. I meant a Leftist will not be inclined to support patriotism and traditional conservative values but rather radical cultural practices (such as gay marriage and new age religion).
They will support less free market activity, more government control of infrastructure and equality through distribution of wealth.
I highly recommend Heywood’s excellent and accessible book Political Ideologies. It provides a comprehensive overview of all political shades on the spectrum in a clear and succinct manner. It’s essential for debating with Lefties and makes for easy referencing!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Ideologies-Introduction-Andrew-Heywood/dp/0230367259/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437243194&sr=1-1&keywords=political+ideologies
I should add that this desire for a ‘one world utopia’ has been shown to be completely unrealistic and incompatible with reality, as Islamic immigration has shown us. On the one hand, you have a modern and democratic state with complex economic systems, advanced technologies and industries and liberalised social values whilst on the other you have third world and highly impoverished countries that adopt practices shunned centuries ago by the west; obviously, these two cannot live side by side. However, rather than accept that this one world utopia isn’t possible, or possible yet, the Left turn a blind eye to these cultural imbalances and ignore the plight of the host culture that is expected to assimilate/absorb these cultural discrepancies through mass immigration.
Alex, thank you for your reply, it’s detailed and very informative. I’m relieved that someone has taken the time to put some intelligent thought into the subject and I I’ll be looking to investigate the book you have referenced. My first thought from reading your reply is that us non-communists will maybe have to embrace the term right wing just as the word gay has been claimed by homosexuals for their exclusive use, and proudly proclaim that we are right wing.
Yep, an excellent book…particularly read the chapter on Fascism……how similar to other ideologies...well one in particular despite loud denials….there is also a chapter on religious fundamentalism….describing a religio-poliical movement or project…which is essentially what Fascism was giving the cross-over between Fascism and religion….faith and belief being an essential ingredient in Hitler’s narrative.
Fundamentalist is probably the best way to describe people such as Islamists….inflexible, dogmatic, authoritarian. ‘Fundamentalism’ encompasses the political element of the religion as well whereas ‘conservative’ may not.
Worryingly the book suggests a possible future where religious fundamentalism offers us a glimpse of the ‘post modern’ future….and a clash of civilizations.
No kidding. I think it’s here already.
“progressive”
Lots of Stalinist, Maoist, Pol Pot ist, Ho Chi Minh ist, Kim Il Sung ist, Leninist, Hoxhaist, Brozist, etc ist “progress” for the left to be proud of.
Just as they are proud of the BBC, the Pravda of the UK.
“progressive”
Hmm every SS man who threw civilians on a train to send them to their deaths and every NKVD man who shot some poor innocent by a ditch in Poland absolutely believed they were being “progressive”
They also talked a lot about the future and how those that rejected their vision of same were living in the past
The makeup of that bunch of twits is yet more evidence of the wellspring of juvenile Marxism constantly spewing into the professions.
Until a government gets to grips with our universities and stops funding the self-perpetuating appointment of Leftist ideologues to positions of influence and authority (especially in fields about which they know little) we won’t solve this problem.
Journalism, the law, medicine – even science is now being nibbled away at (hence the ‘climate change’ fraud). It has to stop.
Universities are flooded with leftists; they are everywhere and have got into positions of power. As Marshall McLuhan pointed out many years ago if you are in control of the education system, the media and political systems, then you wield exceptional political power.
You only have to peruse a wide range of academic journals to appreciate the leftist brain washing that has emerged. Gender diversity and minority/ethnic equality is at the heart of even the most traditional of subjects like medicine, law and psychology!
Alex
The reds were doing this in the 1920s, if not earlier.
A Red professor, having been appointed, promoted other Reds, regardless of merit.
If a Red was so obviously intellectually inadequate that promotion was unthinkable other positions were found for them.
See Cambridge Spy Ring.
Superheroes not superhero’s. You let yourself down there a bit.
The BBC’s ‘Garry Lavin’?
Have to say I prefer Guy Martin but your not bad.
You’re. Bloody hell.
S’o’r’r’y a’b’o’u’t m’y p’u’n’c’t’u’a’t’i’o’n but WTF is Garry Lavin?
Seriously? Still prefer Guy Martin…he cant spell either….but he’s got a sense of humour.
Found myself flicking through todays Daily Mirror-in readiness for the Tolpuddle sheep dip to come.
Even my casual look showed that at least THREE so called “columnists”/reporters chose to spend paragraphs-separately-on why the BBC must be preserved, and the Tories dealt with for their impertinence in daring to open a prospect of “discussion”.
How very dare they?
That convinced me that the zombie left are desperate for the State funded crutch of their lefty viewpoints getting free airing sine die.
Imagine if they ever had to think again-let alone reason and argue as their forefathers(and mothers of course) had to do.
They`d die like slugs in salt-which needs to happen-and fast.
To hear the likes of Maguire squeal and bitch about the BBC getting neutered will be worth it…
Saw that Jean Seaton is sucking up at Tolpuddle. lecturing the damp socks on the BBCs radical 80s output-that graham Norton wants the BBC to shut up for a two months so we`ll all beg for it back.
Desperate hollowed-out cartoons who crave our money to flop out their guilt and niceness all over our fat Tory faces.
Geed Times ahead-if only the Tories would get the secateurs out and settle up with the hated BBC.
Too many nanny wetnurses there though-a bit of Coulter or Steyn is needed this side of the water.
My son is at Cardiff Uni. He absolutely loves baiting the leftards there. His quote to me: “It’s just like shooting fish in barrels, Dad. They have no coherent argument and never think through the consequences of their position. It’s too easy.”
Love my son. Only wish there were more like him at Cardiff.
I have lots of respect for any kid who is still able to think for himself who was educated through the Blair Era and is still in the maw of the State compliance industry.
Universities are particularly nasty these days towards any show of independent thought…so well done dad, well done lad.
It`ll change-but more in spite of dolts like Nicky Morgan and Cameron…