Well, not exactly, but it is alleged that the BBC is 'institutionally left wing' (in the same way that the Met police was said to be institutionally racist). Does the old defence still hold true? (That both as Labour & Tories both claim bias the BBC must be getting its coverage about right.)
JP has certainly mentioned spotting anti-war bias on the Beeb. Anyone else agree with ex-Today journalist Robin Aitken?
17 comments:
Meanwhile anti-war groups are complaining that the BBC is too pro-war and too dismissive of anti-war voices such as Galloway:
Here's medialens on the subject: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php (it also includes a link to a transcript and clip of the Paxman ? Galloway encounter.)
Here's the BBC story about the complaints they've received about Paxo (as well as their response.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2005/05/13/19280.shtml
And here's the link to our own impdec Galloway thread which again includes the BBC interview clip: http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/05/who-will-rid-me-of-this-turbulent.html
Yes, I read that interview on the weekend, very interesting, wanted to blog it, but for some reason it doesn't seem to be online. The interviewer was Damian Thompson, the subject Robin Aitken, the headline "It's not easy being a Tory at the BBC". I'm going to keep scanning Google for it, maybe other interested parties can too, perhaps it'll show up some day.
In extremis, I'll scan the bugger in.
For non-Brits, who don't know about the vicious thuggery used to fund the BBC, a post here.
Following W.C.Varones' link, you can find the Telegraph interview at:
http://blitheringbunny.com/archives/2005/05/15/the-annual-political-tax/
Thank Christ, no scanning for me!
;-)
Worth having a look here: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
As posted above, the whole text of the Aitken interview is at: http://blitheringbunny.com/archives/2005/05/15/the-annual-political-tax/. Parts of it are directly relevant to some of Wembley's comments, eg:
WEMBLEY
I have never, not once, not never, heard of anyone - being recruited because of their opinions... - being asked to follow a partiular line... - having a story edited to change the line... - having any pressure put on them to reflect a particular perspective.
AITKEN
There were no secret instructions to distort stories. Reporters did not set out to be unfair - far from it.
WEMBLEY
The process of newsgathering ... is not in any sense ... a value-free process.
AITKEN
What we are talking about ... is a sort of unconscious, institutionalised Leftism. And when so many people working together share a particular world view, groups who do not share it are bound to be marginalised. ... It doesn’t bother me that so many BBC journalists do hold political views. The scandal is that Left-wing voices are not balanced by Right-wing voices.
As I muse on this issue, a question (not to be seen as a direct answer to the above) occurs to me:
If you removed the Comment pages from the Guardian, would it still be possible to perceive a political slant purely from its news coverage? If so, how would it manifest itself?
What do people think?
Obviously comment pages and leader articles are the main source of 'slant'. I think you'd still get some idea of the political leanings of a paper from what they choose to give prominence to and the language they use to express it.
Re: wembley's comments. I don't really disagree with your scepticism, but I'm not sure your demand for policy documents is entirely fair. When the Met was accused of being 'institutionally racist' it wasn't a question of documents - it was about a shared set of assumptions to do with race, thqat underpinned the institution. Aitken argues (rightly or wrongly) that there is a similarly a set of political assumptions at the BBC. Although I don't work in news I can attest to a general perception that the media 'culture' generally is left of centre. Again, this is anecdotal, but I have seen many people discuss their support Labour, the Greens or the Lib Dems. I have never heard anyone in any of my media jobs extoll the virtues of the Tory party. I know this is far from conclusive, but I don't think Aitken's impression is completely unreasonable.
I think you're right. Of course one needs evidence to back up the claim. Nonethless I find Aitken's point of view an interesting one. It can feel stifling if one feels that one's opinions are out of sync with those of our colleagues. I would be interested to see more studies on the subject of bias. (I extend your sceptisism over Aitken to the brace of journalistic Johns' autobiographies.)
Anyway, (as I said in the original post) the fascinating thing about the BBC is that successive governments have ALL felt that they were the victims of bias. (By the way, if we go too far down the 'what is impartiality?' route we'll be rubbing up against JP's old friends the relativists again. Which might be fun actually.)
Just had a quick skim here, but the reports certainly look relevant to this discussion:
http://www.bbcwatch.com/
Wembley's point about the opinions you start with is an important one. There is, of course, no such thing as a tabula rasa to start from.
Turning to the links provided to counter the bbcwatch claims, it seems to me that not all of them have even a basic credibility.
1. http://www.illuminati-news.com/
Should not even have to argue this one, I hope.
2. http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/edavidsson.htm
The tone and assumptions of the article are, shall we say, distant from the academic, and the content is a stream of assertions, not argument. The tone is set by this from the intro: "[the BBC should not let] itself be bullied by the oppressors of my Palestinian brothers and sisters, whom the world should regard as the 'Jews of the Jews'".
While it is legitimate to be wary of accepting 'facts' eg those presented in http://www.bbcwatch.com/july04.html at face value, Davidson hardly puts a convincing case or even attempts to address the issues raised.
-----------
These two are more interesting:
3. http://www.inminds.co.uk/case-study-of-bias.html
Although it attempts no rebuttal of bbcwatch, its analyses of the BBC Newsround web pages are interesting and worthy of a more detailed analysis. My initial opinion, FWIW, is that most of the inminds comments cannot be made to stick, whereas one or two (eg about the Romans expelling Jews, not the Arabs) can.
4. http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/01-15Aug04-Print-Edition/011508200435.htm
Book Review: Bad News From Israel by Greg Philo & Mike Berry
This Philo guy is also worth more research. 2 mins on Google got:
http://www.corkpsc.org/piwp/php/authors.php?auid=2004
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/BBC_Radio_Farce.asp
Haven't come across www.honestreporting.com before, must try and find the time to trawl their site, find out who they are and where they come from.
-----------
In conclusion, as far as the bbcwatch reports go, the inminds page and Philo's book are worthy of further investigation. If we were to start on this, I'd suggest inminds first, as both the material and their treatment of it is much more accessible.
In addition, we have a new site, honestreporting, which seems to make a similar analysis to bbcwatch.
It's the same old story isn't it... bias detected in quite subtle things, seemingly innocuous words betraying certain prejudices: that old chestnut about 'unions demand' and 'management offer' (remember that one from A level Politics Wemb?)
If you want another bias watching site try http://www.medialens.org (cited earlier in relation to Galloway). They tend to think the Beeb has a right wing or at least Establishment bias.
I suppose part of the BBc's job is to scrutinise the government of the day so it's not surprising that relationship feels adversarial (be it a Labour or Tory government.)
Anyway, I'm still interested in this notion of 'institutionally' left wing - what do we all understand by that? Wemb is right that in order to prove it one needs evidence (that's what those various websites set out to provide and I agree with JP that a little digging is in order.)
Personally I suspect that there is bias but it's more complicated than simple left/right. I think it's to do with the broad values of the viewership. A bias of consensus if you will. e.g. there's certainly a bias in favour of democracy.
By the way, I was completely shocked when Radio 2's news bulletin the other day began with coverage of Kylie's breast cancer. I wish the lady well, but by what stretch of the imagination is that the top story? Presumably there was a feeling that it was important to R2 listeners but I thought the news was slightly demarcated off from the rest of the station.
Boris weighs in...
;-)
http://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/05/26/do2602.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/26/ixportal.html
I won't pay to be abused by the BBC
By Boris Johnson
Telegraph
26/05/2005
Wemb I think your last comment said it all. I have nothing to add and am only drawing attention to what a good post I thought it was.
I have also just read the Boris Johnson article which I thought was very entertaining and contains a couple of truths. In many ways it brings us back to where we started - an individual impression, rather than a verifiable policy. That being said I thought his suggestion that the BBC, given its own funding, was culturally biased in favour of state funding an interesting one and the closest we've come yet to an idea of what 'institutionally' left wing might mean. As it happens I think Boris comment maybe doesn't completely stand up - byt that logic the Royal Family should be a bunch of socialists - but I thought it was amusing nonetheless.
Not a new story, but what is new for me is revealed in the last paragraph here, that the sample of BBC news that was analysed for the report was very unlikely to have been typical.
The BBC shrugs off criticism of its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Economist
Jun 22nd 2006
AS A sick Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestinians, was helicoptered out of his compound in Ramallah in 2004, a BBC correspondent, Barbara Plett, broadcast her reaction to the event in a radio programme called “From Our Own Correspondent”. She described how she had wept as she contemplated the “frail old man” who had dedicated his life to his people's cause. Many seized on her account as further evidence that the BBC has been biased against Israel for years. But according to a report on its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, paid for by the corporation's governors, the BBC may in fact give too much voice to Israel. This week the BBC's bosses responded to the study, rejecting its main recommendations. One of its authors promptly complained.
The governors' independent panel found little to suggest “deliberate or systematic bias” towards the Palestinians or the Israelis. But it also said that the BBC does not always give a full and fair account. It does not include enough history and context, for instance, and it reports too little on the daily difficulties of the Palestinians under occupation. Examining programmes from 2005 until January 2006, the panel found that the BBC gave more airtime to Israelis and paid more attention to Israeli deaths. On the other hand, it said that the BBC should use the words “terrorism” and “terrorists”, rather than the more neutral “bomber” or “militant”, when covering deliberate attacks against civilians during the conflict—as it did in its reports on the bombings in London last July. That would soothe Israel's supporters, who argue that the BBC's usual language risks legitimising terrorism.
To report better on the Palestinians, the BBC will open a bureau in the West Bank. A new section on its website will try to provide history. The BBC will not, however, start referring to “terrorism” and “terrorists”. After the London bombings it decided to adopt its international vocabulary at home, to be more consistent. As for the extra time given to Israeli politicians and commentators, the BBC argues that there is no reason to give equal airtime to the two sides. Neither will the BBC appoint an editorial “guiding hand” to oversee coverage of the conflict, as the report requests; it already has a firm structure in place, it says.
That the BBC dares to ignore the report's recommendations shows its confidence. In 2003 the Beeb appointed a Middle East editorial adviser to ensure fair reporting. And as for its alleged tilt towards Israel, the panel's work may be misleading. Much of its analysis of the BBC's coverage looked at stories in the aftermath of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, when positive stories were more likely. The Palestinian Authority's inability to control Gaza, meanwhile, attracted negative attention. Pro-Israeli critics of the governors' report argue that the period was not representative of the conflict as a whole. A report on the reporting, it seems, is just as vulnerable to attack.
BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’
The Sunday Times
June 17, 2007
THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion. It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.
...
The report points to the danger of BBC programmes being undermined by the liberal culture of its staff, who need to challenge their own assumptions more. “There is a tendency to ‘group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone,” says the report. It goes on to highlight a “Roneo mentality” where staff ape each other’s common liberal values.
The report has been approved by a steering group led by Richard Tait, a BBC trustee and former editor-in-chief at ITN. Its members also include Mark Byford, the BBC’s deputy director-general, Helen Boaden, head of BBC News, and Alan Yentob, the creative director.
Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.
...
The document, jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors, now replaced by the BBC Trust, includes details of a staff impartiality seminar at which senior figures criticised the corporation for being antiAmerican and pandering to Islam.
Criticisms highlighted from the seminar include: A senior BBC reporter attacking the corporation for giving “no moral weight” to America. Executives admitting they would broadcast images of a Bible being thrown away – but not the Koran for fear of offending Muslims. The BBC deliberately championing multiculturalism and ethnic minorities, while betraying an anticountryside bias.
Mary Fitzpatrick, the BBC’s “diversity czar”, told the seminar Muslim women newsreaders should be allowed to wear the hijab, or headscarf, on screen. Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism over Fiona Bruce’s decision to wear a necklace with a cross while reading the news.
The report’s findings come in the wake of a separate independent review of the BBC’s business coverage which two weeks ago accused the broadcaster of lapses in impartiality because of its desire to popularise corporate stories. It singled out an interview with Bill Gates on the 10 O’Clock News as “sycophantic”.
Bias at the Beeb - official
The Sunday Times
Comment
June 17, 2007
There are some things you do not need an official report to tell you - that John Prescott thinks he is a babe magnet, that President Mugabe is not entirely in favour of white farmers and that Al-Qaeda takes a pretty dim view of the West. The report commissioned by the BBC into itself concluded with something equally blindingly obvious. It said that the organisation is institutionally biased and especially gullible to the blandishments of politically driven celebrities, such as Bono and Bob Geldof. Almost anyone in Britain could have told the BBC that for free, but maybe it’s better to have it in an official report.
All media organisations are biased and that applies especially to newspapers. But our bias is openly declared. If readers want different views they have no compulsion to pay and can go elsewhere. The BBC is in a different category; everyone has to pay for it and it is in the tricky position of being founded to be free from bias. It is meant to be a beacon of objective truth in a wildly polarised world. A tall order. In theory even rabid rightwingers and demented leftists can listen or watch (and increasingly read online) the BBC without discerning any tilt. But what emerges from the report is a picture of an organisation with a liberal, anti-American bias and an almost teenage fascination with fashionable causes. The report singles out the BBC’s overwhelming and uncritical backing for the campaign over Live Aid and now the Live Earth concerts on global warming.
That the BBC should investigate itself is perhaps admirable, but only if it acts on the conclusions. The likelihood is that it will lament its shortcomings, pledge to do something and carry on much as before. Changing its cosy culture will take more than a report; some who have worked there say it would require a small neutron bomb. The BBC is a self-perpetuating liberal arts club. Recruitment is the key. It needs to employ more nonconformist journalists whose paper of choice is not The Guardian.
BBC mounts court fight to keep 'critical' report secret
Telegraph
15/10/2006
The BBC has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers' money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage.
-----------
Terror victims are BBC licence-payers, too
Telegraph Comment
20/08/2007
Over the weekend, the BBC was forced to remove a highly offensive message about Jesus from its website. All websites run the risk of being defaced by extremists, but why had this message been allowed to remain there for a week, despite complaints?
Anti-Muslim comments vanish instantly. Meanwhile, it emerged yesterday that the BBC has refused to allow Casualty to carry a storyline featuring a terrorist attack by a Muslim suicide bomber. The editorial guidelines department decreed that, instead, the terrorists should be animal rights extremists.
The BBC's coverage of Islamic affairs has been unsatisfactory for many years.
In its international and domestic news reporting, the corporation has consistently come across as naïve and partial, rather than sensitive and unbiased. Its reporting of Israel and Palestine, in particular, tends to underplay the hate-filled Islamist ideology that inspires Hamas and other factions, while never giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. (Disgracefully, the BBC is still refusing to publish the Balen Report, which it commissioned to investigate allegations of anti-Israel bias.)
In its coverage of British Muslims, the BBC has been inspired by two laudable aims: to treat their beliefs respectfully; and to avoid stereotyping ordinary Muslims as terrorist supporters. In the process, however, it has done two rather different things.
First, it has presented Islam on its own terms, as if only Muslims had the authority to describe their religion. Mohammed remains an intensely controversial figure. Yet the BBC shies away from proper historical investigation of "the Prophet", as it insists on calling him.
Second, the BBC has only scratched the surface of one of the biggest news stories of the decade: the penetration of Muslim youth by Islamic supremacist groups. Indeed, the corporation has even helped this to happen. Again and again, it has wheeled on Islamic "moderates" who belong to hard-line sects that real moderate Muslims are desperate to stop their children joining.
It has been left to Channel 4 to conduct undercover investigations in radical mosques and to commission a 2007 GFK/NOP opinion poll revealing that almost a quarter of British Muslims believe that the Government helped stage the London bombings of July 7, 2005.
We live in a world in which, although the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim. Younger BBC programme-makers are aware of this awkward fact; the problem lies with an older generation of executives stuck in a PC timewarp. Casualty is fiction, but that is no excuse for constructing a politically acceptable parallel universe.
To ban a storyline featuring Islamic terrorists not only misrepresents reality; it is also an insult to licence-payers whose family, friends or colleagues were blown to pieces on July 7 - and not by animal rights activists.
Post a Comment