h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

BBC News: Rabidly partisan?

F135418?thread=4466213&skip=233&show=1

Inspired by this post where exactly should the BBC pitch its news?

I must confess I rarely watch the normal News bulletins, it is Newsnight for me. And personally I find this a pretty sensible and balanced programme. Despite what SWL says on that thread I do believe the BBC does have some compulsion to make its news entertaining and to follow viewers. If no one wants to watch the output how can the public service broadcaster justify having a news output?

I know some people claim a large bias in the BBC (Marr, Humphries) but how exactly does it manifest itself and is that necessarily a bad thing? Is it not the case that one mans impartiality is seen by another as seditious bias?

Some right wing commentators in the States for example will claim anything presented without a right wing spin shows institutional liberal bias. Who decides whether output is partisan or not? And how can they do it?

In the interests of a functional democracy it is necessary to have a pluralistic media (IMHO anyhow) I really do believe that the output I watch does that. In the bulletins it is going to be harder because they have less time than Newsnight, and frankly they are pandering to a different audience.

Lastly if BBC news has to change in what ways does it need to change and how will that affect the pluralism of our media?

"In the bulletins it is going to be harder because they have less time than Newsnight"

Because they keep telling you what's 'coming up' and rabbiting on about irrelevances (idle chat between co-hosts or weather presenter and news presenter). Plus the pointless interview questions: 'How do you feel about that?'

What's wrong with a news programme presenting facts only? When BBC news programmes start instigating polls and setting the agenda, it cannot be claimed to be reporting news but making it.

Newsnight discusses news stories - fine. Their choice of studio guest and their presentation of debates can clearly be biased, but that's no foul really.

What is utterly wrong is allowing people like Olga Guerin et al a platform for propaganda.

All media has a bias. The BBC having a leftish bias is only a problem if it's the only media outlet. As long as you have other media representing other parts of the political spectrum then I can't see the difficulty.

I think the important thing is that people are given the tools to make critical decisions about everything they read, see, hear. We need a culture that encourages people to question what the media is reporting.

My own opinion is that all mainstream media is now co-opted by capitalist pressures, so it's very hard to have a broad understanding of issues if one relies solely on the mainstream. I like the BBC (although it's web news coverage seems as appalling bad as other organisations), but I also don't believe everything it says

>>What's wrong with a news programme presenting facts only?<<

It's not possible, and never has been. There has always been interpretation of fact by the media. Even choosing what to cover is influenced by bias.

I do agree that there needs to be balance, but there are mechanisms in place to ensure that.

SWL you seem to be saying that the BBC in particular is doing all these terrible things, but I can't see them doing anything that other media outlets aren't doing as well.

But the BBC is the only one funded by the taxpayer and should thus represent the middle ground - without any bias. If it adopts an Editorial policy reflecting any particular bias it surely invalidates it's own charter?

Well I think its that we expect a bit more from the BBC. Since we pay its bills through TV licences, its ultimate responsibility is providing a service to the public rather tha profit.

The BBC’s Charter and its Producers Guidelines state that the BBC shall…


• “…contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world…”


• “…treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality… and…not contain any material expressing the opinion of the corporation…”

Can anyone say the BBC News abides by this? Their own staff say differently.

>>But the BBC is the only one funded by the taxpayer and should thus represent the middle ground - without any bias. If it adopts an Editorial policy reflecting any particular bias it surely invalidates it's own charter?
<<

Has it adopted leftish editorial policy though? Or is the leftish leanings a result of the culture of the organisation and the people working there?

In NZ at least the right want to privatise state broadcasting, so I think it's only fair that state broadcasting have a left bent, simply so it can survive - media evolutionary theory


I'm not sure what you mean by the middle ground. How long has the UK been voting in a left wing government?

I think many people would take issue with the idea that Tony Blair was in any way left wing

Fair point though about the difference between stated policy and the inclinations of the staff. But therein lies the problem.

>>Can anyone say the BBC News abides by this? Their own staff say differently.<<

Not sure how many ways I can say this: all media has bias.

The reason that it does is because it's made up of people, and all people have bias.

The idea of belief neutral media is a myth. It simply doesn't exist. But what does exist are rule put in place to prevent excess of bias eg the imperative to report impartially and not just one side of a story.


The only issue I can see here is the fact that the BBC uses tax money. But I don't think there is anything you can do about that apart from privatise it and let it be biased with all the other private media.

In NZ TVNZ, the commercial state broadcaster, has a right wing bias. It doesn't particularly matter though, because it's not excessive, and there are other networks here to balance things out.

Capitulation over Gilligan and the death of Dr. Kelly was the real test of its balance, which it failed. This was not a D-notice situation, it was a cull.

>>I think many people would take issue with the idea that Tony Blair was in any way left wing <<

Oh, yeah, my bad


>>
Fair point though about the difference between stated policy and the inclinations of the staff. But therein lies the problem.
<<

Can you say how you think it should be different then?

"Not sure how many ways I can say this: all media has bias."

I think the problem a lot of people have is that it's not even trying to be impartial. We know deep down that it can't be, but to openly take a particular stance on a topic is more grating than if it at least looks to try and remain impartial.

When I want cynical, left-leaning media I'll buy the Indie or the Guardian.

(When I want cynical, right-leaning media I'll give up entirely, but that's another matter )

Staff should be expected to adhere to Editorial Policy - end of.

>>
I think the problem a lot of people have is that it's not even trying to be impartial. We know deep down that it can't be, but to openly take a particular stance on a topic is more grating than if it at least looks to try and remain impartial.
<<

Are you referring to the McCann case?


>>
Staff should be expected to adhere to Editorial Policy - end of.
<<

Editorial policy is influenced by the people that make it. How can that not have bias?

Editorial Policy is clearly dictated by the Charter - as posted earlier.

If you're granted a licence to sell carrots, you can't suddenly decide to sell apples because you prefer them.

The BBC is the State Broadcaster and has a duty to be clearly impartial. Indeed, it has a legal obligation to do so. But the staff think they know better.

Ok, so give me an example of how they are impartial.

I'm referring to that case, yeah.

Facts: A child's gone missing.
BBC: A child's been kidnapped.

Facts: Nobody's sure who, if anyone, took the child, if she wandered off.
BBC: The parents can't possibly be to blame, it must be local nutter bloke A, as shown here.

Not really as impartial as it could be.
And don't even get me started on the bias in their sports reporting!

You haven't got another example have you? It'd be nice to not lose half the thread to the burmuda (moderator) triangle.