There’s Fiona Fox’s outrageous claim that the way the BBC could really improve its science coverage is to have fewer sceptics. She says:
“To have a sceptic or contrarian in every interview is really misleading the public.”
Luckily, she enthuses, the BBC is doing a fine job of correcting this grotesque imbalance.
“With Climate Science there’s been a real change with people like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin fighting internally to say ‘We don’t have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate scientist.'”

The routine challenging of claims, an essential part of science, is largely absent from the BBC’s science reporting.

On ‘false balance’….. balanced reporting is ‘extremely rare’ in routine science reporting by the BBC….there is little evidence of the use of balance in BBC science reports.

The BBC has long shut out climate sceptics from the debate about climate change…such a policy becoming ‘official’ after its review into its science reporting by Professor Steve Jones….the ‘false balance’ of having allegedly inexpert, unqualified, ‘marginal’ speakers to be guarded against…as the science is of course settled.

The choice of the fanatical pro-climate change Jones as the reviewer showed that the BBC had no intention of an honest debate about its science coverage.

The BBC Trust tells us that ‘Professor Jones makes clear it that, overall, BBC science content is of a very high calibre, has improved over the past decade and outstrips that of other broadcasters both in the UK and internationally. ‘

Just how true is that and just how much ‘false balance’ did the BBC indulge in anyway before the Jones review?

It would seem that Jones’ conclusions were based upon his own prejudices and not the research upon which his report was supposedly based.

Here, via Bishop Hill, we can hear Felicity Mellor from Imperial College London, who did the legwork in analysing the BBC’s science reporting, telling a different story about the BBC’s balance, the quality of its science coverage and the damage such reporting does to the public interest and even ‘democracy’.

These are some selected points about the BBC from the 40 minute speech:

Two main points:

1.  Too much science journalism…produces ‘media noise’ not enlightenment.

2.  Science journalism underuses balance

The journalistic norm of balance is underused.

The media noise masks significant silences.

She says she is looking mainly at routine science journalism rather than controversial areas such as the badger cull or climate change.

 [I would actually disagree with that…..when you listen to what she says you can apply it all to the BBC’s reporting on climate change]

But she does qualify that….. looking at how routine science journalism works informs us as to how the more controversial areas are covered….it establishes the norms and standard practices that then become problematic in the reporting of controversies.

There is too much dependence on press releases..the BBC’s broadcast news depends on press releases for 50% of its coverage, rising to 75% when covering scientific research.

Nigel Hawkes from the Times said that ‘knowing enough is no longer important‘ for science reporters as much material is handed to them on a plate by scientists themselves.

Toby Murcott from the BBC’s World Service said that ‘we reported without significant analysis, depth or critical comment…we just translated what scientists said.’

 David Whitehouse talking about the embargo system when reporters hold back news and then broadcast the press release….‘it encourages lazy journalism and poor correspondents.’

Such journalism fails to address the Public interest…there is a lack of democratic accountability…serving instead those who wish to promote the science and the institutions that hand out the press releases.

The ‘media noise’ from these institutions makes other voices inaudible through intensive PR campaigns, which have the effect of cocooning the power adventure, shielding it from rigorous public scrutiny by fabricating positive stories of its performance within media saturated settings.

The absence of counter voices means science journalism does not serve the public interest.

On ‘false balance’ she states that balanced reporting is ‘extremely rare’ in routine science reporting….there is little evidence of the use of balance in BBC science reports.

There were only 6% of reports that had independent critical voices in them making comments demonstrating the limitations of the research or uncertainties.

The BBC’s science correspondents were the least likely to include ‘uncertainty’ about anything they were reporting upon as ‘fact’.

The lack of balance was encouraged by the sources of the press releases and the BBC’s failure to move beyond these.

Far from ‘false balance’ being the norm as suggested by the likes of Steve Jones and those who wish to silence all climate change critics for instance,  any balance is rarely seen in BBC science journalism.

The routine challenging of claims, an essential part of science, is largely absent from the BBC’s science reporting.

Who finances the research is an important issue…research shows that who funds research often affects the outcome.

Only 3% of BBC news broadcasts mentioned who funded research….Steve Jones ‘shrugged off’ such suggestions when challenged on this claiming that much research was publicly funded.

[However…publicly funded organisations are often just as biased as any commercial one…look at the BBC…or the University of East Anglia..the government’s Climate Change Committee…or charities and other NGO’s….commercial interests are not the only ones that have to be guarded against.   Harrabin, and Black when at the BBC, often targeted sceptics and tried to examine their sources of finance…..without a similar attempt to do the same for the pro AGW lobby]

The way Felicity Mellor tells it you might have a completely different view of the BBC’s science reporting than that of the BBC Trust:

The Trust welcomes the clear finding that BBC science coverage is generally of a very high quality. Given the Trust’s duty to ensure that the interests of licence fee payers are served, together with the public expectation of the highest of standards from the BBC and the organisation’s role in informing the public about science, this is an important conclusion.

Spot what’s missing from this report about Nicolas Anelka making what is reported to be a re-invention of the Nazi salute:

Nicolas Anelka: West Brom striker ‘surprised by celebration criticism’

Anelka converted to Islam in 2004. It’s not in the BBC report.

Why would the BBC not report that?

What was it that Mehdi Hasan said?  The Muslim community’s dirty little secret…… Anti-Semitism.

Can’t imagine the BBC being so coy if it was a ‘Rightwing’ footballer….will the BBC get around to asking Anelka if he has, er, ‘Fascist’ beliefs?

Paolo Di Canio, Sunderland and Italian fascism

How about….Anelka, West Brom and Muslim Anti-Semitism?  No?

The BBC reports that French comedian Dieudonne, who invented the ‘salute’,  has threatened to sue the groups for calling it a Nazi salute. He calls it “la quenelle” – a word for a fish dumpling – and says it stands for his anti-Zionist and anti-establishment views, rather than anti-Semitism.

What the BBC doesn’t bother with is examining those claims of ‘innocent’ anti-Zionism……

Controversial French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala is facing a ban by French authorities, who say he has gone “too far” in promoting anti-Semitism and holocaust denial.

Dieudonné has a long history of anti-Semitic comments and performances – from branding “the Jews” as “a sect, a fraud”, and referring to Holocaust commemorations as “memorial pornography”; to appearing on stage dressed as a hareidi Jew making a Nazi salute. He has also popularized the “quenelle” gesture – sometimes referred to as a “reverse Nazi salute” – which consists of a lowered straight arm salute with the other arm folded across the shoulder.

Although his supporters say it is merely “anti-establishment”, it is frequently used by French anti-Semites, many of whom photograph themselves making the “modified” Nazi salute in front of Jewish establishments, holocaust memorial sites and even with unsuspecting Jewish passersby.

Dieudonné of course falls into a category the BBC has itself long exploited to pass off political comment and propaganda as mere ‘comedy’ or satire and therefore does not have the same restrictions or standards of taste applied as would be for news or current affairs programmes.

By coincidence, and perhaps ironically as Labour is the main beneficiary of BBC ‘satire’, Labour’s David Blunkett, in the Times, has commented on this very subject recently:

Via ‘Is the BBC biased?’:

Blunkett calls for new rules on TV satire of politicians (The Times)

David Blunkett has suggested that comedy shows such as Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You should be reclassified as current affairs programmes in order to face tougher scrutiny from libel lawyers.The former Home Secretary said that the line between what is considered comedy and what is targeted abuse towards politicians has become blurred and may now require tougher regulation.Mr Blunkett said: “The protection that broadcasters in particular have is ‘Well, everybody knows this is comedy don’t they?’ So it’s not libellous, it’s not dangerous in the sense that it’s targeted and therefore vicious towards an individual. And I think we need to watch that.”The Labour MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough told the Radio 4 documentary, When Comedy and Politics Collide:

“Sometimes actually it isn’t comedy, it’s comment and current affairs in the middle of what is supposed to be a comedy programme. There’s a bit more of that going on at the moment.”

Biased BBC contributor Daniel Pycock writes…

“Just because the BBC has to report the CEBR; doesn’t mean they like it… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25519110

You can almost sense the desperation and despair dripping from this BBC News page – as the BBC had to report that a respected think-tank is of the opinion that the UK, scheduled to become Europe’s ‘Largest’ Economy on current politico-economic trajectories, would be better off out of the European Union.

Or at least that’s what one would assume. Even in reporting this, however, the BBC cannot help emphasising some things over others. The first sentences in the article – and clauses in summarising sentences – regard the “UK’s population growth”. The CEBR report (which I urge everyone to read: http://www.cebr.com/reports/cebr-world-economic-league-table/), however, cites population growth as one of many factors, and not even as the most important. (The most important factor cited are supply-side policies that support long-term growth, such as low taxes and the freedom to trade outside of Europe).

The over-emphasis on demographic dynamics aside (which of course means calling for a more relaxed immigration policy); the BBC cannot bring itself to admit what the results of a paper such as this mean. It means that the UK should consider leaving the European Union, and that the UK should lower tax-rates across the board – things that the BBC would never publish articles in favour of.

(See, for instance, this embarrassing piece in favour of the Euro from 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18672568)

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the intellectual knots the BBC willingly ties itself in to.”

Right, that’s Christmas boxed off for another year so normal service has been resumed! Here’s a new Open Thread for your attention and the floor is yours!

Biased BBC contributor Daniel Pycock writes…

“I don’t know if any of you have come across the BBC Echo Chambers blog. I certainly hadn’t until this week. The column itself is unremarkable, though one or two things there are worth reading. The complaint I have, however, is on this week’s post as regards the criticism of ’60 Minutes’ (which like Newsnight has faced a serious reputation crisis of late).

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25500751

A perfectly reasonable argument to start off with, as to why this news programme faced a reputation crisis, yielded to the following throwaway comment: “it’s hard not to detect a certain amount of glee from conservatives[sic] on this topic as they’ve long viewed 60 Minutes as having a left-leaning bias (of course, they feel that way about most of the mainstream media, but that’s beside the point)”.

There is, of course, no evidence for either assertion. The conservatives who allegedly see 60 minutes as left-leaning and biased remain unnamed and, if the bold turned around to say anything other than ‘conservatives’, it would probably provoke howls of derision from the wronged party.

In my experience, Conservatives feel neither schadenfreude for a fallen reputation, nor victimisation from an allegedly unrepresentative mainstream media. In the UK, Conservatives read The Spectator, The Daily Telegraph, and The Times (which is probably the most establishment, mainstream news-outlet – loss-making notwithstanding), and might even watch BBC news programmes where Jeremy Paxman or Andrew Neil make politicians squirm under the weight of their own hypocrisy. In the US Conservatives have the National Review and The Wall Street Journal, among others.

It is unfair to claim Conservatives feel a victimisation they neither suffer nor recognise. It implies as used above that Conservatives hold an illogical position (because they disagree with a majority of “mainstream” media outlets), and that Conservatives thus criticise mainstream media outlets (such as the BBC) because of a psychology of victimisation and on disagreeing with the outcome of objective and impartial, evidence-based debates. This is not true.

The criticisms levelled at the BBC by blogs such as this and others, are based on fact where a state-broadcaster is abusing its position by, for example, presenting one-sided arguments without reply, or asymmetrically criticising positions, or not/asymmetrically citing their sources. The BBC, as a state-broadcaster, has stated objectives by which it should be judged. If it falls short of these, it should be pointed-out without a counter-accusation that critics hold illogical beliefs, and are thus beyond the pale of consideration.”

The BBC all hate Fox News…don’t they?

It seems that that old adage that you say you hate what you really love might come into play.

5Live was discussing LBC(39 mins) and Shock Radio where they all ‘froth at the mouth‘…..but listen on….

Jane Garvey states that ‘LBC do popular politics really, really well.’

Geoff Lloyd, the other presenter,  says that if you listen to Nick Ferrari you’re not in any doubt as to what he thinks on any subject.

The Guardian’s (oh..yes, there’s always a Guardian journalist somewhere on the BBC) David Hepworth, claims that Fox News types wouldn’t go down well in the UK…it’s all based on resentment, a nation highly divided politically, feeding an agenda…..that must explain why we in the UK  don’t have numerous political parties…because we’re all one big happy family agreeing on everything…‘one nation’ perhaps…..Hepworth talks out of his backside….It’s the Guardian and the BBC that continually tells us that Thatcher was ‘divisive’….but that’s what Democracy and politics is all about…it’s not just going along with what someone at the Guardian thinks is the way forward.

Jane Garvey then pipes up again:

‘If you’re institutionalised like me within the BBC I can see the other side of every story…and I’m sick of it…I want to be foaming at the mouth and getting all worked up about something…but it’s been beaten out of me.’

If only we could see ourselves as others see us.

Continue listening and you will hear BBC TV presenters getting stuffed for Christmas by the radio people…apparently they are too wooden, too packaged, too uninteresting when compared with radio presenters who have to be more creative and original to keep the listeners onboard.

Sure that will go down well.

May I take this opportunity to wish ALL at Biased BBC a very Happy Christmas. Thank you for sticking with the site in 2013 and most of all for your fantastic contributions to the issue at hand – BBC bias. It has been my pleasure to help provide this forum for you and so I hope you all have a great Christmas and trust the BBC does not ruin it for you! 🙂

Biased BBC reader Derek provides us the 12 rules of the BBC!

1. The BBC is an institution that must always be part of the public sector & funded by the licence fee,
2. Any criticism of the BBC is simply the result of politicians attempting improper influence,
3. High public expenditure is good: the public sector is preferable to the private sector, which by seeking the profit motive, is inherently evil,
4. Margaret Thatcher was an evil woman whose policies ruined Britain: BBC spokesmen should, wherever possible, use the word “Thatcherite” disparagingly and contemptuously,
5. The Murdoch empire is inherently evil and must be shown to be such at every opportunity, The Guardian, Observer and Independent are fine newspapers, whereas the others are beyond the pale.
6. Left wing comedians such as Jeremy Hardy, Mark Steele, David Mitchell and Jo Brand are to be hired as much as possible by the BBC: the more obscene and offensive their output, the better the BBC likes it,
7. Christians who openly wear a cross are suspect (Israelis are similarly suspect) whereas Muslims must always be granted craven levels of deference,
8. High levels of immigration are good, and anyone seeking to limit uncontrolled mass immigration is racist,
9. The EU is ” A GOOD THING” and people opposing it should have their views ridiculed and disparaged,
10. Global warming due to man’s activities is a fact: it cannot be disputed,
11. Public and Grammar schools are inherently bad whereas comprehensive schools are inherently good. Failing comprehensive schools do so because of lack of funding, political interference or being located in areas of deprivation: however their failings can never be blamed on the teaching profession,
12. The state must always protect all people from any harm or misfortune irrespective of cost to the taxpayer, or their behaviour.

Biased BBC contributor Daniel Pycock writes……

“The BBC were only too delighted to report the comments of Sir Michael Wilshaw (Head of Ofsted), who told The Observer: “Grammar schools are stuffed full of middle class kids. A tiny percentage of pupils are on Free School Meals (3%). That is a nonsense … Anyone who thinks Grammar Schools are going to increase social mobility needs to look at those figures. I don’t think they work”.

Firstly, where else but the Guardian Media Group would the BBC take its line from on education? – and Secondly, why is this opinion being reported without reply? The BBC allows an assumption that Free School Meals are an appropriate measurement of working class pupils, whilst then concluding (based on said assumption) that Grammar Schools would not increase social mobility (they evidently did, and still do where they are readily available)*

To my knowledge, grammar schools have not been proposed by the Conservatives or Labour (indeed only UKIP promise them), and they have, at best, been the subject of a columnist bitch-fight between Peter Hitchens (Mail on Sunday) and Owen Jones (The Independent). I am thus intrigued as to why this unprovoked attack on schools – that will neither be built nor supported by a prominent political party – should merit a prominent position in the headline reviews – and top-10 headline positions on the BBC News ‘England’ and ‘Politics’ pages.

*BBC Headlines: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-25386217

The BBC’s anti-grammar bias, combined with its anti-free schools bias (as exposed by Toby Young at The Telegraph), means that its editorial position resembles the Churchillian quip about democracy: that “comprehensive schooling is the worst form of education except for all the others that have been tried”. The problem with this argument, however, is that it is not true – and it certainly is not close to being “balanced” or “impartial”

*You are, for instance, 33% more likely to attend a university from a working class background in selective Northern Ireland (39.1%) than in Comprehensive Scotland or Wales (26.6% and 29.1%).

Things you may want to reference, in order:

BBC Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25386784

Observer Article: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/ofsted-chief-war-grammar-schools

Peter Hitchens’ Blog: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/12/owen-jones-doesnt-want-helathcare-distributed-on-the-basis-of-wealth-and-cunning-why-then-does-he-de.html

Owen Jones’ Blog: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/anachronistic-and-iniquitous-grammar-schools-area-blot-on-the-british-education-system-9013626.html

Toby Young’s Exposés: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100250088/the-bbcs-anti-free-schools-bias-is-becoming-laughable/ and http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100128060/bbc-news-online-publishes-grossly-misleading-anti-free-schools-article/

Hi everyone and welcome to the new Open Thread for this festive week. Over you to you…tell us about the bias!