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

Are you saying that the wiki bit I quoted doesn't apply to news shows?


I think you are being incredibly naive if you think that any media organisation, left right or upside down, could be impartial to the degree you want in today's media climate.

In NZ there are laws to prohibit excessive bias. If a news item isn't presented in a balanced way then anyone can make a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Don't you have that in the UK?

Yes we do. And the BBC is frequently the subject of complaints. But it shows absolutely no intention of changing.

Take this example:

"BBC governors yesterday upheld a complaint of bias against Radio 4 reporter Barbara Plett for a description of her tearful response to dying Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's final departure from the West Bank. The corporation's head of editorial complaints originally cleared the controversial edition of From Our Own Correspondent of breaching BBC impartiality guidelines, but the governors' programme complaints committee yesterday overturned the decision."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1651260,00.html

The editor initially brushed off complaints and had to be forced into making an apology.

But he was made to make an apology by the BBC. A sign of bias on his part but not the organisation as a whole

But look how far that particular example of bias reached. I don't know how many management levels there are in the BBC, but I expect there are quite a few between a foreign correspondent and the Board of Governers. At each stage of management, her blatant bias was allowed. This shows a culture of bias throughout BBC management.

I'm sure I saw a report on BBC NI this morning criticising recent school spending here - maybe local BBCs are more impartial.

BBC scraps climate change special: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm

This is good news overall, I think. The BBC needs to present the science to inform the public, rather than the opinions of 'celebrities' (). I'm interested as to why climate activists see it as a negative thing. I would have thought they would have welcomed a clear presentation of scientific evidence rather than just telling people 'Wow, this is bad, but you don't need to know the details, now how about we have a 'mass switch-off' gimmick to save energy.'

<>

Not really. Unwillingness to admit mistakes is something common to most organisations. To show a culture of bias you would have to show that there was a pattern of bias across BBC reporting of the Isreali-Palastinian conflict. Interestingly enough the Glasgow Media Unit claims to have done just that but the bias it claims the BBC displays is pro-Isreali.

“But the BBC is the only one funded by the taxpayer and should thus represent the middle ground”

My question is who decides what the middle ground is? From what standpoint? For example the BBC position is a long way the “right” of my standpoint. But I don’t accuse it of “right wing bias”. I presume that it is to the left of you SWL, so between just you and I it is in the middle.

As Kea said there can be no real thing as absolute impartiality. Our language for example just isn’t capable of expressing things in those ways. Words and phrases carry meanings, subtexts, and bias. For example

“Thatcher was authoritative and principled”
“Thatcher was authoritarian and dogmatic”

In truth both of these statements are not inaccurate, but both carry hugely different inflections and impressions.

Even deciding what is and isn’t newsworthy is going to be biased, the whole way in which all humans think is affected and biased by the way we think.

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

Correction some of their own staff say this. Come on SWL you can do much better than that. Just because Andy Marr says it is so

a) Doesn’t mean he is necessarily right
b) Does not mean these opinions are widespread.

God damn another whole two dots. Been busy since I started writing that post at lunch time.

Andrew Marr, much as I love the way he looks a bit strange, could be said to be guilty of a little bias himself. He was rather too nice about Thatcher in his 'A History of Modern Britain' for my liking. So I think he has a right-wing bias. But it's likely that's the case because I am looking at him *relative* to my own left-leaning views.

I personally think Andy Marr is pretty straight down the line.

I *hate* Thatcher with a venom. I look forward to my "Maggies dead" party which hopefully will be soon....

But I cannot deny that what Marr said about her was true. He was on the money. She was a political collosus that chaged Britain. And I for one hate her for the way she did it.

Jeremy Paxman? Jeff Randell? Tales of champagne parties in Broadcasting House the night Labour won in 97? Staff having to attend compulsory ethics classes?

Anyone remember the first Question Time after 9/11 when the US Foreign Ambassador was reduced to tears after a barrage of anti-American abuse from an audience hand-picked for the occasion and in no way representative of the British public?

"Jeremy Paxman?"
Paxo biased?!?!?!

In the sense that he has a massive bias against authority figures possibly. Butr he seems to hate everone equally.

"Tales of champagne parties in Broadcasting House the night Labour won in 97?"

So what "tales" were these and what is the authenticity of this? Is this not basically a "My mate down the pub said...." argument?

And there are bound to be some people who would celebrate such a thing. The BBC employs a massive amount of people. Many of whom will hold deeply held political convictions. This surely does not automtically mean the organisation is biased.

I jumped for joy in work when I heard the Tories had come third in two recent elections. Does that make Royal Mail "liberally biased"?

"Anyone remember the first Question Time after 9/11 when the US Foreign Ambassador was reduced to tears after a barrage of anti-American abuse from an audience hand-picked for the occasion and in no way representative of the British public?"

I remeber this. It was not nice. But I do not think it is that much of a minority view that part of the current Al Quaida situation is as a result of US foreign policy over the last 20-30 years surely? The BBC investigates this and publically apologised.

Martin Bell, Jeremy Paxman, Andrew Marr, Jeff Randell and John Simpson have all spoken out against BBC bias. How many senior figures do you need to be saying the same thing time and again before you accept that they may be in a better position than you or I to judge?

And yes, they have been accused of right wing bias too. This is all because they simply cannot bear to merely report facts. Every story is given a spin. I am not interested in the opinions of some journalist quaffing wine whilst holed up in a hotel during a conflict.

How many times during the recent Lebanon conflict did the BBC swallow Hezbollah propaganda hook, line and sinker? How many times did they show the same Lebanese woman wailing outside different houses (three). How many times did they show deliberately staged recoveries of miraculously clean bodies from rubble? They showed an ambulance allegedly attacked by an Israeli missile. Real journalists discovered the ambulance had been scrapped two years earlier and the hole in the roof was from where the flashing blue light had been removed.

The BBC is guilty of piss-poor reporting at times and the inherent bias of a large part of the staff ensures that there are no checks and balances being placed on third party information.

AS kea has said over and over no -one is unbiased politically we all have our own agendas which will influence our judgements.

The a thirty minute news programme can only pack so much in. It also has to connect with a wide range of viewers and explain some of the background for people who arent as clued up as others might be.



I cant watch *any* TV news aside from Newsnight. I find the bias I have trouble with is that in favour of those so blitheringly stupid that they cant imagine where Gloucester is and what a flooded house might look like or any nimber of other things that are explained in a wy that i would have foun patronising when I wsa about 12.

The BBC is not institutionally left wing it is simply to the left of the predominant media pack. Relatively it can look Trotskyist but the ITN network and SKY news have to set a news agenda that is sympathetic to the sensibilities of its advertisers.

Most people who are remotely interested in politics will see SKY's and the BBC's opposite leanings for what they are.

I dont see a problem. If people are simple enough to accept every word as unadulterated gospel then they will be just as easily beguiled by the poster campaigns of political parties reagardless of radio and TV views output being tainted or not.

The BBC has a duty to attempt to be unbiased but it is made by people people who for their own reasons might be moved to tears by the death of Yasser Arafat. I think its wrong to get emotionally involved in a story but where do you draw the line? Michael Burke was clearly emotinal when he reported back form Ethopia during the early 80s. Was that wrong?

Now you SWL have no duty to be unbiased and Id suggest that your own right wing bias leaves you with the impression that your compass is true and that everyone else has the problem of not seeing things straight. Ferrettbro said he sees the BBC as being slightly to the right in their presentation

What can we make of this?...Well you, judging by the number of posts you've made, seem to have gotten very excited about it, to the point that you have been unwilling to acknowledge the many years upto the early 80s when the BBC was seen as stuffy and establishment in its presentation of just about everything except for the odd landmark drama or documetary that focused on the hardships of the working classes. The early 80s, high unemployment, miners strikes and race riots marked a turning point in social political awareness. Since then the bias of news organisations owned by corporations which are concerned with keeping themselves and their wealthy friends wealthy has been much more apparent. The simple fact is that you are more inclined to assume their output to be unbiased and hate the fact that by dint of a law passed before your time you are effectively taxed to pay for a news outlet which presents the news in a way you dont agree with.

Tough titty, really.

Nope. I have made absolutely no comment about other news organisations. They aren't under discussion here. It says BBC in the title.

In times of crises or disaster, it has repeatedly been shown that people tune into the BBC in far greater numbers than any other organisation. This is because the public in general trusted the BBC to report the facts. That trust has been eroded by reporters injecting their own prejudices and political leanings into reports. Every time the BBC is caught propogating a lie, that trust is eroded further.

The only body keeping the BBC in line would appear to be the Board of Governers. Their repeated rebukes and instructions to issue apologies, allied with the voiced concerns of senior news staff is surely cause for concern?

"And yes, they have been accused of right wing bias too. This is all because they simply cannot bear to merely report facts. Every story is given a spin. I am not interested in the opinions of some journalist quaffing wine whilst holed up in a hotel during a conflict. "



My lord.... SWL it is a pernicious fantasy that it is possible to "just report the facts" without any spin or editorialising. It cannot happen. Otherwise ever news story would have to happen in real time reporting every little thing as it happened. *Even* you would still get bias because the way people see things and remember them in itself is subject to bias.

Any and all news reporting will have a situation where someone has to decide what goes in and what doesn't. This is always going to produce a "spin" of some sort. Surely you must see this?

So both of you are saying that you're happy for the news to be filtered through the 'liberal' lens of the BBC?

What do you have to say about the reporting of the miner's strike, when the police charged and the miners responded but the BBC showed the footage in the reverse order?

Funny you should say the SWL as I had been pondering how I could work that one into the convo at some point.

I odn't know what exactly I am saying to be honest.... other than

a) It is completely impossible for news to be unbiased

and

b) If instead of that we are going to say "down the middle" who gets to decide what the middle is?

Put differently I cannot see anything that is wrong with the BBC as it stands that has a "right" answer. Like I said in the first post what is bias to one person is a sensible centrist viewpoint to another.

"Nope. I have made absolutely no comment about other news organisations. They aren't under discussion here. It says BBC in the title."

You havent and that's fine but lets not pretend that we can establish whether or not something is leaning without comapring it to some sort of plumb line.

On any given day you can get several newspapaers all saying these are the facts and invariably they will vary. Facts are something subjective once someone chooses to tell you what *they* saw. I dont see overall any attempt to inject leftwing ideas to the ommission of rightwing ideas in the BBCs reporting either online, in primetime (when Im unfortunate enough to se the pretty goons they have on in the mornings or at teatime) on the radio or on Newsnight.



"In times of crises or disaster, it has repeatedly been shown that people tune into the BBC in far greater numbers than any other organisation.

This is a fact...but then out comes an opinon...


"This is because the public in general trusted the BBC to report the facts."

Or is it simply a relfex. It is the channel numbered one by default on most set top boxes and TVs.

"That trust has been eroded by reporters injecting their own prejudices and political leanings into reports.

Well tat is the case for you certanly but not for me, Ferretbro, Della is a keen listener to the world service. Being a rabid right winger you might like to confuse bad reporting or telephone scams or just dumbing down, my own personal bugbear with the left wing mindset but that doesnt mean other people conflate them or think there is a left wing bias at all.



"Every time the BBC is caught propogating a lie, that trust is eroded further.

True but not all the lies are *left biased* are they?



"The only body keeping the BBC in line would appear to be the Board of Governers. Their repeated rebukes and instructions to issue apologies, allied with the voiced concerns of senior news staff is surely cause for concern?

Well it depends what you mean by concern? Id be more concerned with a news broadcaster that used its allied print outlets to promote itself as the best news broadcaster but stayed tightlipped about problems. Id be more concerned if there was a regulator that said nothing and there wasnt to my ind a healthy measure of dissent from within the ranks which might suggest a more ominous culture of suppression or cosy collusion.