Category Archives: Uncategorized

according to Guardian blogger and media commentator Roy Greenslade, blogging about a new broadcast monitoring service called Newswatch that:

has emerged from a research body founded in 1999 that famously carried out an analysis of the BBC’s coverage of the European Union and found it unduly biased in favour of the EU.

…and undertakes to:

use a range of robust analytical tools to study the British broadcast media. Our methodology is firmly based on established academic principles utilising core quantitative and qualitative research techniques.

An interesting approach indeed, because there are lots of different types of bias, ranging from the obvious to the subtle (but nonetheless insidious) that is much harder to pin down and expose, particularly where the BBC doesn’t realise it is being biased (institutional bias anyone?).

One of the problems with keeping tabs on the BBC is that there is just so much of it – the BBC news factory churns out upwards of forty-eight hours worth of stuff every day – far beyond the ability of any individual, or even a group like Biased BBC, to keep track of, which often leads to complaints about bias being brushed aside with the smug reassurance that:

If only you’d listened to everything on that topic you’d find there’s nothing to worry about…

Sound familiar? Enter Newswatch!

Newswatch spent fourteen weeks prior to the European Council meeting in June monitoring Radio 4’s Today programme for balance in their coverage of the run up to the EU reform treaty (i.e. the revised EU constitution after the application of spin) – a daunting task involving minute by minute analysis of over 240 hours of material.

You’d expect that Today, a daily three-hour long flagship BBC news programme, would provide comprehensive coverage of a topic as important as the EU reform treaty – they probably even think they did – but reading the summary version of Newswatch’s first report (the full report apparently contains over eighty pages of analysis) it turns out that Today’s coverage of the EU Reform Treaty was far from comprehensive, and that what coverage there was was biased, unimaginative and plain sloppy.

Some highlights from the Newswatch summary:

• This was a period of major EU activity, But coverage of EU affairs on the Today programme
  slumped to a record low of 2.7% of available airtime for most of the 14 weeks, despite high profile
  promises by BBC news management in the wake of the Wilson report that EU-related
  output would be boosted, and claims by the Director General that it has been;

   

• On June 23, the day that agreement was reached, Today devoted four times more airtime to
  the Glastonbury Rock Festival than to coverage of the eurosceptic case against the revised
  working arrangements. Coverage of the eurosceptic case amounted to only seven interviews (22
  minutes and 40 seconds of airtime) over the entire 14 weeks;

   

• UKIP, a main conduit of views about withdrawal and further growth of EU powers, was not
  asked any questions at all during the survey about the revised working arrangements. Remarks
  by UKIP spokesmen in four appearances by the party occupied only around five minutes out of
  238 hours of programming. On the sole occasion when there was a debate about UKIP concerns
  – relating to whether the EU brought benefits to the UK – the UKIP spokesman was treated
  unfairly;

   

• BBC correspondents, in their reporting of the moves towards the new treaty, regularly
  articulated the negative sentiment within the EU about Britain’s reservations, but very rarely
  explained or even mentioned eurosceptic concerns. On some occasions, BBC Europe
  correspondent Jonny Dymond, the biggest contributor to Today’s coverage of the revised treaty
  document, appeared to push the EU perspective on events disproportionately, to the point of
  bias;

   

• The case for a referendum on the new working arrangements – which, according to polls was
  supported by 80% of the UK electorate – was handled sparsely, unfairly and ineptly. There
  were only two dedicated interviews on the topic. In each, there were elements that
  contravened BBC editorial guidelines. James Naughtie treated Ruth Lea, the guest who put the
  case for a referendum, more toughly than Professor Jo Shaw, who argued against one being
  held.

   

• Coverage of EU affairs in general in the 14 weeks of the survey was mainly outside peak programme listening hours, with evidence that negative EU stories were regularly placed in the 6am-7am slot.

There’s more good stuff in the Newswatch summary report, and I expect a great deal more in the full report. It will be interesting to see how this rigorous approach to analysing the BBC’s output develops, and how well the BBC and other news outlets report the findings of such meticulous analysis of our national broadcaster’s flagship radio programme.

In the days before 7/7, when the BBC were still worrying about a post-9/11 backlash, someone had the idea of a programme depicting ordinary Muslims coping with other people’s prejudices. “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic“, went out on 12th June 2005, to mixed reaction.

What must the odds be against the footage inadvertantly including alleged British jihadists?

Mohammed Hamid, 50, who called himself “Osama bin London” and ran a religious book stall in Oxford Street, London, described the 7/7 tube and bus bombings, in which 52 people died, as “not even a breakfast for me”, the court heard. Many of the paintball sessions, indoctrination meetings and combat drills he organised across England were attended by a number of those who later carried out the failed 21/7 London bombings, it was said …

A paintballing combat trip was held at the Springwood Centre in Tonbridge, Kent. The visit was even filmed by a BBC documentary crew and later broadcast in a programme entitled Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic.

on the BBC Editors Blog to recent criticism here and elsewhere of Andrew Marr’s “the election is off” interview of Gordon Brown last Saturday.

What Barney labels the ‘fourth charge’, that Marr and the BBC were used by Brown and co. as part of their spin operation, comes closest to my own view, that Marr and the BBC were used by the Brownies as the least painful (as distinct from painless) way of getting their bad news out – with the issue being that of Barney’s ‘first charge’, whether or not the BBC should have participated in such a journalistic ‘scoop’ or ‘abuse’ (depending on your point of view). Unsurprisingly Barney is in the ‘scoop’ camp.

There are a number of interesting comments worth reading, for and against, on Barney’s post too.

Thank you to Biased BBC reader Ritter for the link.

at the end of Stephen Fry’s second HIV & Me programme on Tuesday viewers were directed to a new BBC website, G.I. Jonny (caution: not safe for work or children), “a viral information campaign produced by the BBC to raise awareness about HIV in the UK”, aimed at 16-24 year olds, running from October 1st until World AIDS day on December 1st 2007.

Advising people about the risks of HIV and AIDS and how to protect themselves is reasonable enough, but the G.I. Jonny site, designed to appeal to youngsters, and indeed children, is crass and tasteless and open to all without any age advisories or warnings about the site content.

Clicking on the appealing ‘Sketch Show’ link from the home page loads a page that immediately starts to play “the first of several specially commissioned comedy sketches available for download” featuring:

…action-figure Jonny using his ‘protector shield’ to deflect the foam from Captain Bareback’s crotch cannon, laying his foe low with his powerful fisting action, and spying the Commando Bandits through his magic brass eye.

…complete with graphic action-figure animation and a loud voice over (at full volume until you turn it down) blaring rapid-fire sexual innuendo.

Good old BBC. Naturally, were it not for the unique way the BBC is funded and the absence of advertisers with a reputation to maintain, this sort of explicit rubbish wouldn’t see the light of day.

More details in Metro, BBC’s sex video is branded filthy.

Hat tip to my Biased BBC colleague Laban Tall for the Metro link.

Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

. A previously unseen document found in a skip outside Narrowcasting House gives a unique insight into the years of dedicated training that have gone in to producing some of the Corporation’s brightest stars.

Comrades Jim & John: well known Radio 4 Toady presenters

An excerpt from the full Handbook of the BBC’s Young Pioneers:

“After years of training, John and Jim are finally allowed to run Toady – the most important radio propaganda broadcast.

Jim is so enthusiastic about The Party he sometimes says “we” – meaning him, The Party and all right-minded folk everywhere. But of course he’s a trained BBC Pioneer so he’s never biased.

John thinks it would be good if The Party took more money from everyone so that everything in the country could be perfect. The Party agrees and helps John to make lots of money for himself in return.”

We the undeserving proletarian masses offer our grateful thanks to Comrades Jim, John, Sarah, Carolyn & Ed for their heroic struggle in the service of the People’s Democratic Committee for State Broadcasting and IndoctrinEducation (The BBC-CCCP). We salute you!

Update (11.30pm): Further pages in the Handbook of the BBC’s Young Pioneers have come to light, including Comrade Paxochev and capitalist running-dog-eat-dog smears about Comrade Commissar Mark Thompson.

Update (Friday): More newly discovered information has appeared…

Click the link for full version. Thank you to Bob and another reader for the original link.

a leader article in the Daily Telegraph, Winds of competition:

Not entirely unlike the Royal Mail farrago is the crisis that looms at the BBC. Again, a public sector organisation faces threats of strike action from its unions that could weaken the future of the entire enterprise. But in this case, the decisions of the management seem to be dictated by an irrational bureaucratic mindset.

The corporation has set its face against closing down the little-watched digital channels BBC3 and BBC4, preferring to cut the most distinguished of the BBC’s core services: news and current affairs, and factual programming. To attack the most publicly esteemed areas of its production — rather than admit defeat in its failed experimental ventures — reveals a bizarre system of priorities that takes no account of the logic of market forces. But neither the BBC nor Royal Mail exists in a non-competitive vacuum any longer. They will need disciplined realism if they are to survive among the choices that new technologies offer.

My own view is that there’s a lot of managerial girth at the BBC that should be addressed first – almost two years ago Media Guardian reported Surge in BBC’s top earners, with the news that, at that time, 262 BBC staff took home more than £100,000 per annum as salary – more than 1% of those on the corporation’s payroll, not to mention the large numbers of highly paid individuals hovering below £100,000pa. Needless to say, the BBC defended itself at the time with this old chestnut:

The BBC said that it needs to pay big salaries to attract the best staff and also attributed much of the rise to inflation.

– the same specious argument that was put forward to justify the utterly ridiculous sum of £18m over three years paid to Jonathan Ross. If he can get that much from ITV or anyone else then good luck to him. There are plenty of talented people who’d be honoured to replace Woss for a fraction of that amount.

BBC Three probably should go – the few good bits can easily find new homes, the rest, mostly race-to-the-bottom dross (I love the C-word anyone?) that does nothing for our nation deserves to disappear – certainly from the tellytaxpayer teat. BBC Four should probably stay – it is much closer to the BBC’s public service remit (and is half the cost of BBC Three).

Today’s Daily Mail covers this story at greater length, BBC News and Top Gear face cuts as corporation is forced to axe 3,000 staff:

BBC insiders are mystified that their bosses appear to be targeting areas which are the cornerstone of the corporation’s public service remit.

John Humphrys, among others, has said Mr Thompson should kill off less popular services such as BBC3, rather than slash news and current affairs.

But the BBC seems determined to hold on to the controversial channel, which costs licence fee payers £116million a year.

BBC3, aimed at younger audiences, spends almost £180,000 an hour on its programmes, double what BBC1 spends.

Yet it gets just two per cent of viewers or a tenth of BBC1’s figures.

The channel has also been criticised for lurid programme titles like F*** Off I’m a Hairy Woman and Sex Talk With Mum and Dad.

The Mail also quotes Conservative MP John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, accusing Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, of contradicting his previous statements about wanting to protect quality programming: “He is cutting jobs in the precise areas where there is the greatest need for public service content and where the BBC’s strength lies. They are doing precisely what Mark Thompson said they would not do”.

I have no sympathy for the BBC’s pleas of poverty – a guaranteed £3.5 billion pounds annual income is a lavish amount for any broadcaster, but it is ridiculous that the BBC’s management are threatening genuine public service aspects of the BBC whilst busily expanding the BBC in all sorts of non-core areas, producing all sorts of tosh that could and should be produced more economically by commercial broadcasters.

It’s unusual for Biased BBC to defend (some parts of) the BBC, but it looks as if we’re set to end up with the worst of both worlds – more ratings chasing dross and less quality public service broadcasting – and this from Mark Thompson, who as chief executive of Channel 4 described the BBC as “basking in a Jacuzzi of spare public cash“, claiming that he would produce a stronger BBC that “spent less on process and more on content”.

See also yesterday’s ongoing complaint and comments about the selectivity of what counts as BBC in the news on the BBC Editors Blog.

Sorry that I haven’t been posting for a while. Unfortunately my circumstances aren’t likely to change any time soon, so it is not a good idea to write to me with examples of BBC bias for the present. The odds of me posting your observation, however scandalous it is, are small. Best use the comments instead.

That said, here I am today, home unexpectedly. And Fausta writes, “If you guys thought the Beeb’s adoration of Che in English was bad, wait until you see it in Spanish” – see this post on Fausta’s blog.

UPDATE FROM TELFORD: More appalling hagiographies of Che (in addition to the one we posted on recently) from the BBC this week here, here and here (the last includes a sentence from his critics, which makes it unusually balanced by the BBC’s standards) (via Matthew in comments).

: Having ignored former BBC Governor Dame Pauline Neville-Jones’ devastating broadside in last week’s Mail on Sunday, this week they managed to include Jeff Randall’s article from the Sunday Telegraph, All the BBC needs is proper management, and then ignored an article from Monday’s Daily Mail, Faked footage, rigged votes and a culture of bias. No wonder we’ve lost faith in the BBC, where Melanie Phillips goes to town on a number of BBC issues.

What is the point of BBC in the news if it’s dishonest and partial in reporting genuine cases of BBC in the news?

And again we must ask, why has the option for the public (the people who pay for the BBC) to comment on BBC in the news been removed?

What are The Editors so afraid of that justifies such evasiveness?

there was a report about the North West Passage being free of ice for, according to Sneerboy, “the first time ever” – which of course sounds a lot more dramatic than “the first time in recorded history”, though even that is debatable.

But the thing that really irked was this, in the Stupid BBC category, David Shukman (who of course just had to go to Resolute Bay in Canada to report on a view of the seashore) informed us that a ship travelling from the UK to Japan via the Panama Canal “travels 14,000 miles”, whereas, via the North West Passage “it could save a fortnight”.

How the hell are we supposed to compare 14,000 miles on the one hand with two weeks on the other? It’s apples and pears – it’s meaningless without knowing the mileage or duration of both routes! Clowns!

P.S. David, how many thousand miles was your trip, and how many BBC working hours did it count as? A bit more than a report from White City with some locally supplied footage would have been I expect, and no more informative for all that.