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

I don't know how many people listen to Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent, but I think that could have a place on TV in some form or other. It would be more difficult because a correspondent with a voice recorder can be more 'mobile' than one with a camera crew. But I think the great thing about FOOC is that it uses correspondents properly (rather than going to them when something happens, asking them a really obvious and dull question, then going back to the studio - all for the low low price of maintaining them out there, paying their travel costs, etc.) and that is tends to report on things outside the mainstream media - like, I would imagine, Saudi.

So to summarize the critiscisms so far: if they critise a government that proports to be left wing the BBC has a left wing bias.

If they dont criticise the present UK government they are left wing biased and weak willed.

Whichever way we think they are leaning they are dumbing down.

Other news braodcasters are worse but the BBC should still be doing better.

Have I missed anything?



Jeremy Paxman and other prominent figures in the BBC publicly denounce the problems they see and the BBC goes "You're fired never darken our door again you dirty slanderous liar" No they keep their jobs and are allowed to continue speaking their minds. Infact we are to different degrees and for different reasons slagging it off right now on its own site.

The BBC could and should be doing better than the morning news shows, evening news and the ten o'clock slot and it does, has been for a long while and in all likelyhood will continue to do so.

It should be pointing to its rivals because if its rivalsare doing well at getting viewers by doing something it should at least consider the public demand for such things. Not slavishly folow trends, which rarely happens, but at the very least stop to consider giving the people who pay for it what they want.

I want news programmes that dont patronise me and to be fair though there are many that do there are enough that dont. I know people who will look at Newsnight and after 20 seconds of hearing words they cant understand and the names of people they think os as boring politicians will literally and figuratively switch off. Dont all the people that pay for it deserve news programmes that suit their tastes, interests and levels of background knowledge?

Ferretbro thinks the BBC is right leaning and SWL thinks its left leaning. Whose right?*

The BBC becaus its paid for by a wide range of people has to cater for a wide range of people and news is only one section of its output.

News papers are a media that have been arougd for hundreds of years with well establisehd ways of doing things Radio news is les than 100 years old and TV news a little over two generations of pople have had the opportunity to create and refine it. Then along comes the internet. The webs impact has seriously shok up other media and TV news and the BBC are no different. Look at some of the terrible hoaxes newspapers have fallen for or the way they still keep turning over the embers of Diana's death etc...etc...We are in a more pluralistic information gathering and disseminating era than has ever been known Im only suprised there arent more scndals of shoddy and deceitful reporting coming to light.

I could think of several improvements that the BBC could make and you could easily find someone else to say the changes are the opposite of improvements.

Though it is shocking we dot hear more scandals about the standard of BBC resporting it saddens me even more that the coporation most people agree is the best and something to be treasured isnt being upported and praised for the things it does well but being picked on for the things it gets wrong.

Just think, as bad as you think it is do you want the weight of the grumblllers and whingers to be utilised as leverage by *any* british government to ge rid of the licence fee funding for the BBC?

one love

Pretty accurate summary IMO blicky

Zagreb,

"I think that makes the modern mistake of thinking free-market = rightwing and authoritarian = rightwing."

OK that's a fair point. I'll revise and say just that I think that New Labour has a strong free-market ideology and authoritarian streak. Once you break down the concept of left/right wing you can't really talk about a bias to the left or a bias to the right. Perhaps this is why discussions of the BBC's bias tend to flounder?

"I think you're taking an easy pot-shot with the Panorama "Wi-Fi" thing. I think it was last night Newsnight reported on an investigation into a radical rightwing Islamist group (their name's a bit complex Ta'u Hut Dya or something nothing like that) and I saw a spot on it featuring an interview with a former member of the group who left it and now campaigns against it."

Assuming SWL is right and it was "Hizb ut Tahrir" - it's actually something there have been quite a lot of Newsnight reports on. I'm fairly sure I've seen two and I'm not even a particularly regular Newsnight watcher. I would actually disagree that this is good journalism on the part of the BBC, although with the caveat that I didn't see the programme, so maybe they really did reveal something new about them. Firstly, if memory serves HuT is a fairly minor but highly visible group due to all the media attention on them. Continuing to 'investigate' something you know all about already and have reported on multiple times before isn't good journalism, it's filler journalism. It's also not a position that is critical of power, because focussing attention on the dangers of Islamic extremism is supportive of the government. OTOH, the Guardian's investigation into the BNP (I didn't see the BBC's one) revealed something really quite disturbing about them: they have a strategy for gaining power which is not unrealistic, based on preparing for a potential catastrophe and exploiting it if it comes, and effective electoral tactics, based on targeting voters marginalised by NL and the Tories. But still, both HuT and the BNP are easy and highly visible targets.

I'd also like to point out that I'm in complete agreement with Honestlago's point of view:

"I get so angry because I expect so much better from them. It might be completely unrealistic but I genuinely think the Beeb is up to it."

I criticise the BBC as someone who is (in some sense) on their side. Certainly, we're much better off with the BBC than without it.

laconian,

"I don't know how many people listen to Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent, but I think that could have a place on TV in some form or other."

There's a programme on BBC News 24 that I think is probably similar, called 'Reporters' (or something like that). It usually has two or three slots, where a reporter from somewhere or other can do pretty much what they like with their 10-15 minute slot, which lets them go into quite a lot of detail. It's a regular programme, but I think it's on at an odd time (I used to watch it at 4am, but it has a daytime slot too). I haven't seen it for ages (it may not even exist any more), but I used to think it was the best news programme on the BBC.

'Reporters' is still on, as a quick check here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcnews24/listings/index.shtml?service_id=4352&day=saturday) reveals. That is exactly the kind of thing I would like to see more of, and something I feel News 24 could be used for. I'm sure people can go without their rolling news for half an hour sometime in the daylight hours.

"I don't know how many people listen to Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent, but I think that could have a place on TV in some form or other."

Would that be like the Private Eye column of the same name?

"Assuming SWL is right and it was "Hizb ut Tahrir" - it's actually something there have been quite a lot of Newsnight reports on. I'm fairly sure I've seen two and I'm not even a particularly regular Newsnight watcher. I would actually disagree that this is good journalism on the part of the BBC, although with the caveat that I didn't see the programme, so maybe they really did reveal something new about them. Firstly, if memory serves HuT is a fairly minor but highly visible group due to all the media attention on them. Continuing to 'investigate' something you know all about already and have reported on multiple times before isn't good journalism, it's filler journalism. It's also not a position that is critical of power, because focussing attention on the dangers of Islamic extremism is supportive of the government. OTOH, the Guardian's investigation into the BNP (I didn't see the BBC's one) revealed something really quite disturbing about them: they have a strategy for gaining power which is not unrealistic, based on preparing for a potential catastrophe and exploiting it if it comes, and effective electoral tactics, based on targeting voters marginalised by NL and the Tories. But still, both HuT and the BNP are easy and highly visible targets."

First I've not seen any news reports on the BBC or elsewhere about Hizb ut Tahrir which is why the Newsnight report about it stood out to me. Certainly, they've not had as much coverage as the BNP. I also think it's a little hypocritical to dismiss Hizb ut Tahrir as some sort of minor movement but then big-up the BNP as a major threat. Both the BNP and Hizb ut Tahrir are movements of the radical right that have little widespread support but are capable of far-reaching damage due to their ability to attach themselves to local concerns and play to ethnic tribalism. I don't think Britain is in any danger of becoming a fascist state or a province of an Islamic Caliphate but I do think the BNP and Hizb ut Tahrir are capable of polarising communities in an attempt to bring about the kulturekampf they both want and that could cause huge damage in the long run which would both fuel white nationalism and islamism. What I do think is that most people have a fairly good notion of what the BNP stand for whilst hardly anyone has heard of Hizb ut Tahrir and this is something that needs to be addressed. The former member they had on Newsnight certainly didn't seem to think they were a minor problem.

"It's also not a position that is critical of power, because focussing attention on the dangers of Islamic extremism is supportive of the government"

The BBC has no duty nor right to exclusively criticise "power" or the government. I think arguing that the media has some sort of duty to argue points contrary to that of the government of the day is ludicrous. That's simply an argument for propaganda.

Incidentally, since the BNP are an anti-establishment radical far-right movement then you're effectively arguing that they shouldn't be investigated since this is most certainly siding with the government.

For anyone a little curious as to the Newsnight programme : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm

"I also think it's a little hypocritical to dismiss Hizb ut Tahrir as some sort of minor movement but then big-up the BNP as a major threat."

Well shall we start by trying to estimate the numbers?

I couldn't find any precise numbers on HuT (perhaps for obvious reasons) but an article by Andrew Gilligan in the Evening Standard claimed less than 1000 members, although likely many more supporters than that.

Now let's turn to the BNP. In the 2005 election, according to wiki, they got almost 200,000 votes (perhaps interesting to compare this number to the total Muslim population of the country which is 1.6m). Again according to wiki, they have 56 council members in the UK. A BNP candidate (Robert Cottage) was caught with the largest single haul of explosives ever found in the country.

"The former member [of HuT] they had on Newsnight certainly didn't seem to think they were a minor problem."

Well he wouldn't would he?

"The BBC has no duty nor right to exclusively criticise "power" or the government. I think arguing that the media has some sort of duty to argue points contrary to that of the government of the day is ludicrous. That's simply an argument for propaganda."

No, I didn't say it had any "exclusive" duty or right - you quoted me out of context.

Hizb ut Tahrir dwindling?

http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3253&cid=3&sid=74

"I couldn't find any precise numbers on HuT (perhaps for obvious reasons) but an article by Andrew Gilligan in the Evening Standard claimed less than 1000 members, although likely many more supporters than that.

Now let's turn to the BNP. In the 2005 election, according to wiki, they got almost 200,000 votes (perhaps interesting to compare this number to the total Muslim population of the country which is 1.6m). Again according to wiki, they have 56 council members in the UK. A BNP candidate (Robert Cottage) was caught with the largest single haul of explosives ever found in the country."

That's misleading since the constituency the BNP targets is much, much larger than that targetted by HuT. Besides, my point was about the damage organisations like HuT can do which goes beyond their actual "operating numbers".

Additionally, HuT are an islamist organisation. And islamists in Britain (and abroad) have done a great deal more than simply horde explosives.

"No, I didn't say it had any "exclusive" duty or right - you quoted me out of context."

But you did say the BBC shouldn't investigate HuT since this was "siding with the government" which, as I said, is a ludicrious complaint and one tantamount to advocating propaganda. The BBC has a duty to be *balanced* as well as challenge the government's position it must also challenge the positions of those opposed to it. As well as investigate the workings of the government of the day it should investigate the workings of those opposed to it.

And, as I said, your objection to the BBC supporting the government's line should also extend to it leaving the BNP alone who deeply opposed to the current political concensus.

"For anyone a little curious as to the Newsnight programme : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm" Cheers. Well worth a read for anyone who wants to get an insight into these groups and what they actuall want.

HuT are only one group who, now they have been 'outed', may face difficulties in the future. Of far more import is the Deobani sect (closely linked to and sponsored by Saudi Wahhabis) who control over 600 of Britain's 1350 Mosques and an even higher proportion of Islamic Centres & bookshops. They are led by Riyadh ul Haq who is a *British-born, educated and trained Imam*. He is a product of the Government's drive to thwart the influence of foreign Imams preaching hatred. This appears to have backfired spectacularly as ul Haq is quoted in the Times as preaching “What are we willing to sacrifice?... When called upon we will consider it an honour and privilege to shed our blood.” And: “Muslims, Arabs going to the opera to listen to a Frenchman singing Italian? That’s the level we’ve stooped to imitating the kuffar.” Also “Some people will say ‘I was born here, British born and bred.’ That mentality is a love of the way of the kuffar.”

Ah. That'll be a message of love, tolerance and understanding being preached in the mosques then.

God damn that was some quick "modding"

Bleeding phantom yiksers....

Try googling "deobani" or "Riyadh ul Haq"

"... the constituency the BNP targets is much, much larger than that targetted by HuT."

Indeed. A significant point in deciding the relative importance of the stories. Thanks for making it.

"Additionally, HuT are an islamist organisation. And islamists in Britain (and abroad) have done a great deal more than simply horde explosives."

Well, I can't make the analogous point about the BNP I wanted to make here without falling foul of Godwin's law (which would mean I would automatically lose the argument). Can you guess what it is yet?

"But you did say the BBC shouldn't investigate HuT..."

Not quite. I didn't say that the BBC shouldn't investigate HuT, I said that the recent report wasn't good investigative journalism because they had already had many previous reports on them. As evidence, a few moments on Google reveals that my memory was correct about previous Newsnight programmes on HuT.

Newsnight August 2003: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm

Newsnight November 2006: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/11/investigating_hizb_uttahrir.html

Newsnight July 2007: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/07/wednesday_4_july_2007.html

Newsnight July 2007 again: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/07/wednesday_18_july_2007.html

Newsnight September 2007: linked to above by SWL

and elsewhere on the Beeb:

BBC website Q&A on HuT, August 2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4127688.stm

February 2006, Andrew Marr interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/4683164.stm

etc.

"But you did say the BBC shouldn't investigate HuT since this was "siding with the government" which, as I said, is a ludicrious complaint and one tantamount to advocating propaganda."

Yes it would be a ludicrous complaint if I actually made it. But I didn't.

I would also add that you have put quotation marks around something I didn't actually say, and which changed the meaning of what I said significantly, which you've done to me before on this site. Please don't do this.

Let's review. I originally made the point that the BBC doesn't do much in the way of good investigative journalism and that it did little in the way of criticising the government. You said it did do good investigative journalism, and gave the recent newsnight programme on HuT as an example. I said: that's not investigative journalism because it's easy to do programmes on stories you've covered before (as I've now shown), and that it was also not critical of power because elevating the significance of this minor group by repeatedly running stories on them supports the government's position on terrorism. This was in support of my previous statement that the BBC is not critical of power.

"And, as I said, your objection to the BBC supporting the government's line should also extend to it leaving the BNP alone who deeply opposed to the current political concensus."

Well, interesting that you should say that. When ex-BNP candidate Robert Cottage was caught with his enormous haul of explosives and other weaponry, there was no comment by a government apparently obsessed with terrorism, and bombs in particular. The BBC did almost no reporting of this. Compare with the saturation coverage of instances of Muslim individuals caught with such deadly items as 22 castor oil beans (the ricin plot) - an issue the government made a very big deal of. Notice any pattern in the BBC's behaviour?

Re Robert Cottage - The seriousness of his offence was reflected in the sentence - two & a half years. Out in a year.

The judge, who had access to the actual evidence instead of the media hype, didn't consider him to be as serious a threat as the Islamists.

I believe an explosives expert at the trial said the 'explosives' were of the "flash-bang" type and, if detonated in a crowd would cause little or no injuries.

Please note - I am not defending the actions of a deluded fantasist, nor the BNP, but this guy had no connections with the BNP at the time of his arrest and constantly referring to him as a BNP candidate is the equivalent of constantly referring to John Reid as a member of the Communist Party.

"this guy had no connections with the BNP at the time of his arrest and constantly referring to him as a BNP candidate is the equivalent of constantly referring to John Reid as a member of the Communist Party."

Fair point SWL. I made that mistake in my first post, but corrected it in my second one (where I called him an ex-BNP candidate). It's not quite the same as calling John Reid a member of the CP though, because he was caught with the explosives only a few months after he was a candidate. (He was a candidate in the 4 May 2006 elections and caught on the 28th September. Presumably, he began to acquire the stuff some time before he was caught.)

"I believe an explosives expert at the trial said the 'explosives' were of the "flash-bang" type and, if detonated in a crowd would cause little or no injuries."

Ah, that's interesting. I hadn't read anything on it recently. Still, I claim my point stands because (a) the same could be said about many of the Islamic plots, such as the 22 castor oil beans ricin plot, or the attempt to buy a fictional substance (red mercury), and (b) the media didn't have that information at the time, so their relative under-reaction to it (or equivalently, their relative over-reaction to cases involving Muslims) wasn't based on the fact that the threat was less serious.