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

"You do not embody "the left" and you don't get to decide what is left and what is right."

Hmmm giving thought to this this surely in an abstract sense applies to everyone. Whether there is bias or not, and if so where it is pitched is an incredibly subjective thing.

However there is a degree to which there are some things which there is at least an academic consensus as to where they would stand within the strands of political philosophy.

"However there is a degree to which there are some things which there is at least an academic consensus as to where they would stand within the strands of political philosophy."

I agree but few people seem to understand the political spectrum (largely because few people bother reading history, political or otherwise, any more).

FB - no, I haven't been posting links - largely because of the ongoing debate about discussions turning into link ping-pong. However, I don't expect you to automatically take me at face value and have therefore included enough information that a few seconds spent on Google will provide the references you want.

I'm not arguing from a "cos I say so" perspective

The BBC has a bias imo, in the opinion of some on this thread and in the opinion of some senior staff. Whether it is left/right/liberal is actually irrelevant to a large degree. The question is, is it acceptable for a State-funded organisation in the shape of a relative few unelected and unacountable individuals to warp, twist and distort reportage of world events?

Here's two of my takes on it which I think describe the political spectrum quite well:

First a simplistic version of the spectrum itself:

EXTREMELEFT-Communist-socialist-socialdemocrat-leftliberal-liberalCENTRErightliberal-conservative-rightconservative-fascist-naziEXTREMERIGHT

Here's a little story that demonstrates the way the we move along the spectrum.

A socialist, a liberal, a conservative and a fascist are having a race along a different streets. On each of their routes they pass another racer who has passed-out from exhaustion.

The socialist stops, picks the other racer up and they both carry on. But the socialist doesn't let go of the racer even when the other racer wants to carry on himself. He thinks the other racer might collapse again and wants to make sure he doesn't. As a result he slows himself and maybe the other racer down.

The liberal sees the fallen racer and picks him up. He helps him for a while but when the other racer is clearly well-enough to run himself he lets him go and sprints ahead. If he sees another fallen racer he will help him up again but he'd rather run the race himself and he thinks the other racer would too.

The conservative sees the fallen racer and feels sorry for him. Maybe he shouts some words of ecouragement but he doesn't want to help him up. He hopes he does get up, of course, but thinks he needs to run this race himself as he does.

The fascist sees the fallen racer and sneers at his weakness. He spits on him as he runs by. He is the stronger, superior person and deserves to win the race.

"The question is, is it acceptable for a State-funded organisation in the shape of a relative few unelected and unacountable individuals to warp, twist and distort reportage of world events?"

The question should surely be is it possible for a news broadcaster not to do this if they make mistakes or if one reporter takes things into their own hands. Too many attacks on the BBC shouting "bias" are essentially crankery about the wording of headlines or the order news is reported in or something like that. If people want to see bias they get it every time. Obviously, examples of actual bias should be dealt with (and often are) but I think we should keep level heads. Largely not by using terms like "warp, twist and distort".

Bias only exists because people look for it?

A link, as links seem to be required:

http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/orla-guerin-busted.html

"The question is, is it acceptable for a State-funded organisation in the shape of a relative few unelected and unacountable individuals to warp, twist and distort reportage of world events?"

No, no, no, no, no....

That isnt the question at all. Once again with in bold *** IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REPORT NEWS WITHOUT SOME SELECTION OF WHAT GOES IN AND WHAT DOES NOT *** inevitably this selection will end up being seen by some as bias.

The questyion is how does the organisation pitch its choices in such a way as to

a) Minimise the people who feel there is bias
b) Deal with the problem when they get it wrong.

I think the BBC does both of these as well as can be expected, even though they often pitch it at a level I think is a bit wrong.

It take the grauniad, choosing "lies I like" but I see it is clearly partizan. For me the Beeb does allrigth...

http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/08/orla-guerin-busted.html

Yes, all very well but then he decends into the usual BBC-supports-teh-arabs-and-hates-Israel crankery. He quotes a few pieces and then demands she be sacked. Sorry, but there's very little wrong with the pieces he quotes. The bloggers objection seemed to be that she was saying Israel had blown up part of Lebanon. Well.. it had (notice he doesn't challenge her "7,000 people used to live here" claim). As for his point about "she doesn't ask if these guns were Iranian" no, of course she doesn't because SHE'S REPORTING ON THE WAR AND NOT THE WHERE THE GUNS CAME FROM YOU IDIOT! Of course, it'd be nice to have some details about Iranian support for Hezbollah (who are essentially an Iranian proxy) but to demand it and then shout bias if you don't get it is crankery, pure and simple.

And I'm afraid her reporting on how Hezbollah ended up looking good in the Arab world was spot on, despite clearly not being what this bloke wants to hear. Ditto how Israel needed to explain to the world community about the action it took collectively-punishing Lebanon to defeat a non-state army within it's borders (I'm a moderate supporter of Israel and I thought it behaved idiotically and cruelly).

Has some bad reporting/bias been uncovered here? Yes. Is is uncovered by someone interested in imparitality? No. It's reported by someone interested in proving the BBC "hates" Israel (and probably Jews too, these days) and it stinks of it.

Bias is hard to avoid because of the personal opinions of those involved, but what really should be nailed is the *accuracy* of the reporting. Often when watching the TV news I have to pay very close attention to everything in order to ensure they are not giving the wrong impression through lazy, inaccurate, emotive reporting. I suppose this is a 'bias' towards putting together a 'news story' rather than reporting the news. People seem to expect some kind of drama rather than what really happens.

To extend this (semi-relevant) argument, the current McCann saga could be seen as the current-affairs equivalent of the soap opera-cum-legal drama in the way it is reported.

"Bias is hard to avoid because of the personal opinions of those involved, but what really should be nailed is the *accuracy* of the reporting."

Oh, I agree. The BBC report mentioed above is both biased and innaccurate. It's just a shame it was picked-up by the more extreme pro-Israeli crank bloggers.

The BBC has its charter extended and defined by the Government, the BBC therefore tends to have a pro-goverment bias - whichever government is in power.

The Dr Kelly saga someone claimed wasn't news reporting but deliberately smearing the government. I think presenting false evidence to the House of Commons is very real news and should have been reported in far greater depth.

I certainly think the BBC has been totally taken over by the cult of celebrity - look at the fuss over David Backham moving to America - how is that news ?

"I certainly think the BBC has been totally taken over by the cult of celebrity - look at the fuss over David Backham moving to America - how is that news ?:

It shouldn't be news for the BBC. They don't need to pander to that kind of public, because they have a public service and education obligation and no need to go looking for maximum viewer numbers. The kind of news they should concentrate on is, I feel, the kind of stuff that's on 'World News Tonight' on BBC4. Or Newsnight.

And why wasn't it picked up more widely? Is it because, as we see here, there are many who either refuse to see bias or who think it is inevitable and thus unimportant?

I used to believe the BBC was above Damien Day "Drop the Dead Donkey" reporting. Just by virtue of being the BBC, reports carried more gravitas.

It was really brought home to me how biased the BBC is by a) the initial reports from the Glasgow Airport bombings - where the viewer could see what was happening live, a BBC reporter half a mile away tried to put his interpretation on things and b) a week later when the BBC reported hugely inflated numbers at a "Not in our Name" rally which was no such thing.

While not directly connected, the scam phone lines issue, biased reporting and dumbing down of the media are symptomatic of a deep malaise within the BBC specifically and the broadcast media in general.

"And why wasn't it picked up more widely?"

There was a recent investigation into BBC impartiality which concluded that there were instances of bias in BBC reporting including (I should imagine) its reporting of the Middle East.

Besides, most BBC reporting on the Middle East is excellent. It depends who your reporters are. I heard some reporting by the Beeb on the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip and it was excellent with interviews with Palestinians, Israelis, Israeli settlers etc. It was on the radio news and they did "stagger" it a bit with some reports focusing on the Israelis and settlers and some half an hour later focusing on the Palestinians but they definitely covered their remit.

"It shouldn't be news for the BBC. They don't need to pander to that kind of public, because they have a public service and education obligation and no need to go looking for maximum viewer numbers. The kind of news they should concentrate on is, I feel, the kind of stuff that's on 'World News Tonight' on BBC4. Or Newsnight."

What elitist bollocks... god damn....

The BBC is paid for by *EVERYONE* (who has a tv licence) and therefore has to "pander" to us all.

"The Dr Kelly saga someone claimed wasn't news reporting but deliberately smearing the government. I think presenting false evidence to the House of Commons is very real news and should have been reported in far greater depth. "

But that is a bit of a conflation of issues. Wasn't the problem with the Gilligen report that the facts had not been properly checked and independantly verified? Isn't that what everone here says should happen more often?

"It was really brought home to me how biased the BBC is by a) the initial reports from the Glasgow Airport bombings - where the viewer could see what was happening live, a BBC reporter half a mile away tried to put his interpretation on things and b) a week later when the BBC reported hugely inflated numbers at a "Not in our Name" rally which was no such thing. "

Hmmmm.. getting something wrong does not indicate deliberate institutional bias. All news organisations get it wron, always have, always will. How they deal with that is important.

"And why wasn't it picked up more widely? Is it because, as we see here, there are many who either refuse to see bias or who think it is inevitable and thus unimportant?"

hmmm I think I will repeat that

I have already explained what I think aobut this and why. So what is it SWL do you

a) Disagree and think that impartial reporting is possible? In which case care to rebutt my arguments?
b) It is just that the bias isn't yours and that is the beef?
c) Something else? If so what.

Because IMHO pretending a "fantasy narnia" where impartial reporting on Broadcast news is possible aint a legitimate criticism of a body like the BBC.

Criticisms of where they get it wrong are on the money and necessary.

Crikey I would hate to have been off hootoo for a couple of days and have to trawl through this backlog

By what I was saying about the 'pandering' I meant that the BBC did not need to inject drama or warp news to make them more interesting to the short attention spans of many viewers. BBC news needs only to be clear, factual and informative.

You say it is impossible to present news without being biased FB. What's wrong with the Ian McDonald brand of reporting? Factual, concise and unsensational. Suits me. Have a news programme to report the facts - an analysis programme like Newsnight to expand upon it, alongside documentaries, Question Time & the like. Instead BBC news (and all other media news channels to be fair), try to roll the whole lot together.

Radio 4 news is great imo. It sticks to the known *FACTS* and doesn't tend to speculate.

"By what I was saying about the 'pandering' I meant that the BBC did not need to inject drama or warp news to make them more interesting to the short attention spans of many viewers. BBC news needs only to be clear, factual and informative."

I agree. There are numerous problems with BBC news reporting. The main one is that it has been dumbed-down and rendered populist (thanks to the BBC's deliberate misinterpreting of its public service remit as "give the majority what they want"), another is bias on the part of some of its journalists (as typified by the story about the report from Lebanon SWL mentioned, although I'd ignore most of the conclusions and general crankery from the blogger who seems to be a bit of a revolving-eyeball type). The latter, thankfully, is something that is being taken seriously. The former, I fear, something we won't see the back of. I can't tell you how sick I am at the state of the guests on Question Time some weeks or the "have your say" texts on major news stories the BBC insists on scrolling along the bottom of the screen so we can see yards of boilerplate from "Darren, Cambridgeshire" and "Martha, Leeds".

What all the facts? Surely not, that would take *ages*, to report "just the facts" would mean you reported them all. The minute you start deciding what is and isnt important and make choices about what facts you give and how you are editorialising and using bias.