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

Watch this http://tinyurl.com/2drouu and tell me if you think that is good reporting.

The story basically says, aren't Labour's school building plans wonderful.
No analysis of whether it is necessary to rebuild or refurbish every single secondary school in England. No analysis of whether the PFI involved is good value [or] that the schools will still [be] being paid for long after Labour has gone. No analysis of whether the money would be better spent elsewhere (e.g. teacher training, teacher pay, better equipment, school vouchers etc.). No analysis of whether school buildings truly affect teaching quality (as opposed to good teaching).

As ever an underlying BBC assumption that public expenditure is always justified. The only note of controversy touched on in the article is whether the money is being spent fast enough.

In fact, there needs to be quite a few examples. It's entirely possible that the BBC has overstepped the bounds with the McCann case but still reports within it's normal leftish but towards the middle position most of the time.

That link doesn't work. If you just put a normal link h2g2 will manage the length.


>>tell me if you think that is good reporting.<<

Well, I think the BBC is appalling in its online reporting. But then so are most of the other mainstream medias that get linked to from here.


I'm sure for every example of bad reporting from the BBC you find I can find one from the right *shrug*. What I'm saying is that all mainstream media has editorial policy set by agendas that aren't to do with the public good. I just don't understand why you're so upset about the BBC (I get the tax funded thing, but it seems like more than that).

You want more?

Recently the BBC ran a main story on their web page about the CIA editing Wikipedia. It concentrated on the CIA aspect but also included a number of others who had been editing. It quoted extensively from one source. But the report *totally* ignored the fact that the source also highlighted that staff at the BBC had been editing Wikipedia too.

Compare:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6983704.stm

with

http://www.thestar.co.uk/rotherham/Rotherham-man-faces-terror-trial.3140992.jp
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?name=roddis&place=&courts=0

What little snippet did the BBC leave out?

Are you suggesting that the BBC should have reported on itself?

How about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6279416.stm

Photos and eye-witness reports put the number at 500 and also pointed out the focus wasn't "Not in our name", but berating Blair & Bush as war criminals.

>>
What little snippet did the BBC leave out?
<<

That the man was white?

What I find shocking about your example is that mainstream media would use the term 'white' to describe someone facing prosecution

Kea - the BBC deliberately edited the Wiki source to avoid being implicated.

The source actually pointed out clearly that just because a CIA computer was used, this didn't mean the CIA were officially responsible. The line taken in the BBC report was to imply heavily that the CIA were editing Wiki as a matter of policy. If that train of thought had been followed through and the BBCs own editing revealed, it would therefore imply that the BBC has a policy of editing Wiki.

http://news1.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/hutton_inquiry/documents/pdf/appendix14.pdf

"I do not want 12 pages of weasel words, sophistry and a defence of unethical journalism. Far better would be a 12 word apology that says "the BBC allegations were wholly false and we apologise sincerely for them."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3441181.stm

That's all very interesting SWL, but it doens't strike me as unusual. All media do that shit. I'm sure you can whip up a frenzy of hatred for the BBC, but honestly I can't see the point.

As a long time activist I can tell you the mainstream media rarely reports well on protests.

>>
Kea - the BBC deliberately edited the Wiki source to avoid being implicated.
<<

Yes, but my question still is - do you think that the BBC should have reported on themselves? i.e. run a story on THEIR actions and involvement in that broader wiki story. I just want to know what you think they should be doing to get it right?

The point is that the BBC shouldn't be doing this 'shit'. It doesn't have to compete for audience share - its funding is guaranteed. It is actually expressly forbidden from doing this 'shit' by the Charter.

The BBC should have run the full Wiki story - it selectively edited it for effect. In the process it fundamentally changed the story.

Not reporting news - making it.

Another example, if not a political one. The Panorama programme "The truth about Wi-Fi" was basically just a scare-story about wireless network routers in schools. It totally misrepresented the facts, ignored all the evidence against its case, and very blatantly used unnecessarily alarming terms. As for bias, the main "expert" involved in the investigation turned out to be the head of a company that manufactures shielding paint, tinfoil hats and the like for the terminally worried.

Tabloid journalism at its worst: inventing a scare story where no damger exists, pandering to parents' irrational fears for their childrens' safety, and disregarding technical accuracy and impartiality in equal measure.

Not everyone agrees the BBC has a left-wing bias
Take http://www.gla.ac.uk/centres/mediagroup/reviews.htm for example
The Glasgow Media Unit has been accusing the BBC of a right-wing bias for 20+ years, Norman Tebbit of a left-wing bias. Tony Benn claims it has a centrist bias. Total objectivity is impossible but the BBC comes closer (IMO) than any other mainstream British media outlet

I think it's rare for a media organisation to report on itself when it's in the news. I'm not sure how they can do that effectively. Isn't it up to other media outlets to cover that story?


>>
The point is that the BBC shouldn't be doing this 'shit'. It doesn't have to compete for audience share - its funding is guaranteed. It is actually expressly forbidden from doing this 'shit' by the Charter.
<<

This from wiki:

>> In order to justify the licence fee, the BBC is expected to produce a number of high-rating shows in addition to programmes that commercial broadcasters would not normally broadcast.<< wiki

>>
Tabloid journalism at its worst: inventing a scare story where no damger exists, pandering to parents' irrational fears for their childrens' safety, and disregarding technical accuracy and impartiality in equal measure.
<<

So that would be a decrease in journalistic quality rather than a bias. I think in some ways that is easier to address than political bias, but it seems to be part of the general culture, this slipping of standards.

You're confusing the BBC as a general broadcaster and the BBC as a news outlet kea. The licence fee allows the BBC to do high-budget costume dramas that are prohibitively expensive for smaller broadcasters. The budget also allows them to send celebrities across the globe to feature in charity appeals.

For the BBC to operate a news channel funded by the taxpayer, it must be impartial. I object to my taxes being used to propogate political spin.