Author Archives: Ed Thomas

An Experiment on the BBC

By | |
13 Comments

from a cynical one:

“I propose that the BBC is biased. No, no, hear me out. We all know the BBC is biased of course, but I propose specifically that it is biased in favour of the Democratic party of the USA. To test my theory, I will be keeping a count each day of how many stories it runs focussing on each of the two parties. If any third parties are focussed on, I will count those too. I will be excluding stories pertaining to the current regime, as obviously that will weight things in favour of the Republicans. Instead I shall only count stories on party politics, not government. I will be looking at the Americas section of BBC News to make the count and I will include video reports, ‘in pictures’ features etc. I will do this for one week, that’s 7 days including yesterday (23rd July).”

The result:


Whew! A week of BBC reporting and it seems the BBC cover the Democratic Party 1,300% more than the Republican Party. Something is not right there I think!

I think it would be better put “13 times more frequently”, but I’m no statistician. Certainly since there are campaigns running on both sides of the political spectrum, the observation is a significant one. But you just know the BBC love Obama-Hillary, don’t you?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Aunty Beeb’s Jam suspended

By | | ,
49 Comments

The close relationship between the BBC and the Government can be seen in this instance which the BBC has seen fit to report, which Tim Worstall has a laugh over.

Of course strictly I shouldn’t say between the BBC and “the Government”, but between the BBC and government generally. That the BBC was even running an online service “in support of the national curriculum” is something I would see problems with, though in fact it stemmed from the BBC’s Charter, which of course I also disapproved of. When can our children be free of this tedious integrated ideological training?

In addition we can see that the private sector suffers from the BBC’s interference- a lesson which ought to ring some bells all across media-land. That the EU intervened on this occasion- forcing a BBC re-think- is symptomatic of their assumed right to say that one country’s statism may not be their kind of statism. It is not at all indicative that the BBC has to regard the EU as a threat rather than an opportunity.

The relevance to bias here? Do we need one? Well, if so, it’s clear that an organisation whose raison d’etre depends on assisting public policy goals will be forever toeing the line on those goals. The fact that they agree with Nanny State almost goes without saying- Nanny is Aunty’s best friend.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Bias in the bones.

By | | , , ,
25 Comments

It was interesting, I thought, to listen to Helen Boaden’s comments in response to the comments of Robin Aitken and others on the Talking Politics show highlighted by Andrew below. Boaden’s comment about impartiality not being a “state of grace” I thought especially revealing. I mightn’t actually have to think too hard to think of a few apples which the BBC ought not to bite, or commandments they shouldn’t break.

For instance, one might be that “people sceptical of the political contruct of EU centralisation of national powers shalt not be referred to as being “in opposition to Europe” or any other such false witness be borne regarding their position.” It might be especially relevant when their concerns are purportedly being aired. Background here.
The idea of being “in opposition to Europe” is patently ridiculous, debasing language as well as ideas.

There is no question of treading on eggshells here, provided the BBC’s attitude is right.

Then again, another commandment might be: “thou shalt not consider the opinion of someone interesting purely out of concern for their racial background and in defiance of other factors”, as is highlighted here by Mr Dale for example regarding this article.

“”Black MPs spurn Boris for Mayor”.

It is actually a “story” about two Labour MPs, Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott both saying that they do not support Boris Johnson. I may be wrong but Labour politicians saying they will not be supporting a Conservative is as relevant as the announcement that David Cameron will not be voting for Gordon Brown. What is the BBC playing at?”

And those would be just two commandments. Very modest I think. I am sure others can think of more.

Update: As Jonathan in the comments points out, the article has been changed from
“Black MPs” to “Labour MPs”. Chalk one up for Mr Dale. Now we can see that the article has no sense whatsoever once the BBC’s racialist presumptions are taken out of it- it was prejudice appealing to prejudice and now it’s nonsense appealing to, well, hopefully not too many people.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Stupid, and rather evil…

By | |
15 Comments

This BBC article: “Obesity ‘contagious’, experts say”

Imagine what the kids in the playground might make of it, if they knew (and some certainly would) the meaning of the word “contagious”? Looking at this definition, only meanings one, two and three could be relevant in a medical context. The BBC’s report about fatties and whether they have the lurgy is totally irresponsible.

Bonus points for anyone who can find the word contagious in the scientific article to which the BBC refer.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

What more could they get wrong?

By | | ,
43 Comments


(this post in large part thanks to commenter “cheesed off”)

In a short article about a woman called Zoobia Hussein, the BBC get just about everything wrong that could be got wrong. What were they trying to do with this report?

For a start, Zoobia Hussein is described appearing in court in her niqab (or “full veil” as the BBC report it). In fact she finally submitted to showing her face to the judge she was facing, behind a screen to protect her from the rest of the court. The judge in this case was a woman. Point one of misrepresentation.

Point two, Zoobia Hussein and her five children were not “thrown out” of their accommodation, but subject to eviction according to due process. At least one of the local tabloids managed to represent this clearly, unlike the BBC.

Third, in her latest appearance in court Ms Hussein was found guilty as charged of causing £1,500 worth of criminal damage. The BBC say only that “Ms Hussain denies the charge and her case was adjourned until 24 July.”. In fact she will return to court for sentencing.

Fourth… well, enough- how much more can they get wrong? It’s difficult not to suspect that this misreporting was intended to foment wrong impressions and bias in the minds of readers. The focus of the BBC report is the “aggrieved” woman; the person under scrutiny the man who took charge of her original trial. It is not news but selective interpretative trendsetting.

Update: the BBC have corrected their erroneous report on the point of the conviction. Maybe John Reith alerted them.

Nb- John Reith. I do not accept your argument. The PA is a organisation not without its own bias and political persuasion- see here, for example, an analysis. Its report was rambling and in no way adequate to sustain an effective news update on the Z. Hussein case. The BBC reporter found it quite adequate, however, with its ignorance of the actual case in question and its focus on the man who originally handled the trial where the refusal to show her face became a cause of controversy. Still, the distillation would have taken some time. The BBC’s simplification enhanced rather than decreased the bias in the AP report. The local journalists did far better, and were a couple of clicks away at most- really, probably staring at the operative in question from a newsfeed. I never suggested that the BBC sat in some darkened room shaping a biased article, merely that the misreporting was not without reason. I stand by that.

I would add that I know that BBC journalists are not idiots who go out on a limb to lie to the public. Most of the time, anyway.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

“This House is concerned that the BBC’s new Charter…”

By | |
Comments Off on “This House is concerned that the BBC’s new Charter…”

“This House is concerned that the BBC’s new Charter, which took full effect from 1st January 2007, has so far failed to change both the perception of the Corporation’s bias and its editorial and policy directions; and calls on the BBC’s governing body to address these issues frankly and openly, particularly in respect of partiality on issues such as the European Union, and to publish a statement on how it intends to improve public trust in the BBC as a strictly impartial and much valued public service broadcaster.”

Conservative MP Bob Spink has tabled the above motion in the House of Commons recently and he is looking for examples of BBC bias from the general public. He can be contacted via email at this address. A noble cause. I hope, too, that whatever disagreements there have been between people at this site, we’ll work together in this overriding purpose. Even in the motion above, I would take issue with the “much valued” epithet – I haven’t valued the BBC overmuch for as long as I can remember, and nor do I consider that the BBC has a future as a unitary media organisation with its current means of funding. (Tip of the hat to EU Referendum for the news.)

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Bothering Boris.

By | |
25 Comments

The Beeb haven’t exactly taken kindly to the news that their oldest of old favourites, Red Ken, may have a challenger as Mayor of London.

They’ve quickly produced a little factfile of what they call “Boris Johnson’s Media Scrapes”. I don’t suppose it will affect Boris much, but the Livingstone profile given by the Beeb describes Ken flatteringly as an “outspoken anti-establishment figure known in Britain for introducing congestion charging to free up London’s traffic clogged streets” who “has never been afraid of controversy”.

Nick Assinder meanwhile, wonders whether Boris “is “appropriate” or, more pointedly, “safe enough” for a seriously heavyweight job – and London mayor is often said to be one of the four or five most important and powerful political jobs in the land.“.

So according to the Beeb that isn’t a question for Ken? Ken’s appropriateness in welcoming Sheikh Al Qaradawi who justified suicide bombing, or his chum Hugo Chavez, is just not, apparently, on the BBC’s radar as crunch-time for Ken approaches.

The post of London Mayor in this elected form is a relatively new one. Ken has been doing all sorts of things which a proper scrutiny might have found him condemned over. Ken’s real legacy for London is as yet unproven. Some balance over this would be welcome.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:

By | |
110 Comments


Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:

By | |
444 Comments


Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

This fondness will not do.

By | | , ,
8 Comments

It’s the rose-tinted spectacles of the BBC that give the Left a relatively easy task, a user-friendly task, in presenting themselves to the British public.

Currently on the BBC website is a goofy sort of article about Mrs Blair and Mr Blair’s proposal to her, many years ago. It’s actually a kind of advert, too, as there is a documentary coming out this week about the “first couple” as they might like to be styled (hat-tip to Iain Dale for pointing this out). So, instead of a sober reflection on a momentous period (for good or ill, depending on POV), we get a soppy take on the “human angle”.

This comes just as Gordon Brown is presenting he and his government as the defenders of the nation in the face of the fizzes and bangs of Islamic extremism (article here– defiance is easy when threats evaporate). Brown had the softest of soft interviews with the BBC’s Andrew Marr, who is something of a specialist in these, on Sunday morning. There could have been two lines of attack which dealt with the news agenda- one that the Government has never sold the war on terror to the public effectively (I would not expect this line from the BBC, though it might add a touch of impartiality), the other that the UK’s Iraq venture was the cause of strife at home. Neither emerged- the BBC incapable of making the former criticism (because they do not believe it) and unwilling to make the latter (mindful, no doubt, of Brown’s importance to their darling projects). What we had instead was a kind of sloppy drawing room chat, Brown intoning reassurance with every word, his accent a little softened, his hair short and dapper. Marr made a few wry remarks about Brown’s non-spin, Parliament-centered pitch- he knew it so well, he could barely bring himself to point out this, let alone give vent to what many viewers may think about Blair’s Presidential style or point out that Brown has many a crony in the wings of his new “administration”, ahem.

I remember the old days- the Thatcher hate- when “that woman” was routinely villified. Today no-one, especially not the BBC, speaks for those who loathe Blair. Much as I dislike hatred, the real feelings of many are utterly ignored by the BBC. Just put a lid on it, they seem to say.

The Blairs’ valedictory documentary brought to mind a rather more remarkable spouse, Dennis Thatcher, whose only interview was broadcast four years ago on Channel 4. Channel 4 vs BBC1. One week versus 13 years after the events. There is no balance to the BBC.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.