BBC accused of institutional 'trendy left-wing bias'

The report singles out the way the BBC allowed itself to be used .

BBC bosses have been attacked for not reflecting a "broader range of views" and not thinking outside of its Left-leaning "comfort zone" in its programming.

The report, commissioned by the BBC, also attacks the way the corporation has pandered to politically motivated celebrities such as Bob Geldof and allowed schedules to be hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues.

As part of the report's investigations, senior figures at the corporation were forced to admit it was guilty of promoting Left-wing views

 continued

I hope they cannot see / The limitless potential / Building inside of me / To murder everything / I hope they cannot see / I am the great destroyer

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-details/BBC+accused+of+institutional+'trendy+left-wing+bias'/article.do

It is a report commissioned by the BBC !

Here is a little more:

The BBC is out of touch with large swathes of the public and is guity of self-censoring subjects that the corporation finds unpalatable, an official report has claimed.

As part of the report's research the BBC's own controller of editorial policy admitted that people felt that the corporation was guilty of a "bias of omission" by not covering their views.

Authors of the report called on the corporation to be more "open-minded" in the views it reflects and warned against "bias of elimination" which it branded "offensive".

The report is easily found if you want to read what it actually says.  Alternatively, one could always try ruminating on the objectivity, imparitality and lack of bias in media organisations they themselves prefer. Doing either of those will make this story seem a bit less exciting.

If you're able to find any other broadcasting corporations commissioning reports on their own objectivity and then reporting them warts and all, I'd love to peruse them.

The BBC takes impartiality seriously.  *Sigh*

The report is what it is .  I'll wait for your commissioned published report .

Widespread observation of left wing bias had been widely known ( suspected) by the population. It has been so blatantly obvious. I MO. And I'm not alone ! As you seem to be tonite about your beloved BBC. 

Side thought : If you require left wing bias so desperately, just say that is your position. Although ,I guess you have on many occasions. 

Rushdie can relax - we know from Hero that fatwas are completely meaniningless. He learned it at Muslim school.

Muslim world inflamed by Rushdie knighthood

Ben Hoyle

Sir Salman Rushdie celebrates his 60th birthday today in familiar circumstances: he is once again the subject of death threats across the Islamic world.

Eighteen years after the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill him, a government minister in Pakistan said yesterday that Rushdie’s recent knighthood justified suicide bombing.

The question of blasphemy in The Satanic Verses, Rushdie’s 1988 tale of a prophet misled by the devil, remains a deeply sensitive issue in much of the Muslim world and the author’s inclusion in the Queen’s Birthday Honours last week has inflamed anti-British sentiment.

Gerald Butt, editor of the authoritative Middle East Economic Survey, told The Times: “It will be interpreted as an action calculated to goad Muslims at a time when the atmosphere is already very tense and Britain’s standing in the region is very low because of its involvement in Iraq and its lack of action in tackling the Palestine issue.”

Expert View

For nine years Salman Rushdie lived as a virtual prisoner, changing addresses constantly, and protected around the clock by British security at an estimated cost of £10 million

Michael Binyon

• More

• Post a comment

Related Internet Links

• A symbol of free speech. Sign our petition in support of Sir Salman Rushdie

Hardliners in Iran revived calls for his murder yesterday. Mehdi Kuchakzadeh, a Tehran MP, declared: “Rushdie died the moment the late Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] issued the fatwa.”

The Organisation to Commemorate Martyrs of the Muslim World, a fringe hardline group, offered a reward of $150,000 (£75,000) to any successful assassin.

Forouz Rajaefar, the group’s secretary general, said: “The British and the supporters of the anti-Islam Salman Rushdie could rest assured that the writer’s nightmare will not end until the moment of his death and we will bestow kisses on the hands of whomsoever is able to execute this apostate.”

Effigies of Rushdie and the Queen were burnt in Pakistan, where presidential elections at the end of the year have destablised an already volatile political climate. Hundreds of protesters in Multan, Karachi and Lahore set fire to British flags and chanted “Death to Britain, death to Rushdie” and Islamist leaders called for nationwide protests after Friday prayers.

Ijaz-ul-Haq, the Religious Affairs Minister, told the assembly in Islamabad that the award of the knighthood excused suicide bombing. “If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified,” he said. {end}

Nice crew- they want to snuff the Queen too. So much for free speech and liberal principles, but that comes with the change in England to a gradual Sharia takeover. Beautiful. " Muticulturalism" is the goal after  all. Enjoy the years to come. Do what you can do to speed it up I quess?   Oh, don't forget NOT to sign any petitions in support of Rushdie. Mlticulturism -a buzz word that  translates to conversion to Sharia law .

'"Death to Britain" is a simple but nice direct phrase. My advise is to turn muslim and do it fast Britainia. Oh ah, all IMO.

Hey, kids, what time is it?

Flag burning time!

Effigie burning time!

That's right! It's not cartoons that enflamed the masses this time either. It's something far more serious. More offensive too. And it is that which severely impacts the daily quality of life of each and every Pakistani flag-effigy burner pictured above and then some. It is Knighthood for Salman Rushdie, a secular one-time Muslim born in India but longtime resident of England (and Hollywood) who is a self-proclaimed atheist, though early on in the fatwah years he attempted to fake his "reversion" to Islam. Lest we forget his offense -- he wrote a book. Die, motha-fatha, die! Burn, baby, burn!

Phew. I feel a lot better now!

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Salman Rushdie with his wife Padma. Rushdie was awarded an OBE this weekend, but Pakistan has demanded it be withdrawn.

 

Anyone know what caused the long scar on Padma's arm???

 

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I don't know, but I could go for some Kama Sutra 101 with her.

Ah but wait, Rushdie the atheist was blasphemous of Christ too, so I have no choice but to behead him and his apostate wife too.  

 ---------------                       --------------------------                      ---------------------

From above: 

" 

The report is easily found if you want to read what it actually says."   Say what ? Somekind of defense between the Far Left and Islamic fanatacism I'm guessing.     

Full credit to The Sun for the headline 'Pakistan Orders Smoked Salman'.

In on-topic matters, I've read the 81 page report Ray, and it was one of the most enjoyable things I've read in ages.  O yes.  I'm happy to discuss any part of it with you assuming you want to do the same.

Oh, no, by your lead my good man. 

In my opinion, it's a fantastic report, showing the BBC's uniqueness in agonising over the issue of impartiality in broadcasting.  Reading it only reinforced my respect for them.

Any specific things in it you'd like to discuss, feel free.

He should get a knighthood just for marrying that babe.

Sorry, back to topic.

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

I Googled "Padma's scar" yesterday and learned (is this not amazing that such information is so easily obtained???) that she was in a car accident at age 14. Some said age 17. Also found a gazquillion photos and she is one gorgeous woman. 36 years old. Has a cooking show these days.

I've been thinking about the BBC though. I've been thinking about the accusations of bias and what that really means and why Andrew is so protective of this news outfit's reputation. And how their modus operandi can feel so fair and rational to him but not so to others. Like to Raymond, the Israelis and me.

To try to translate this into other terms, I'm going to give an imaginary example of how any given news media might have covered slavery in early 19th-century USA.

One upstart news outfit has a journalist who pens a series of articles on the evils of slavery. He is able to interview runaway slaves, freed slaves, and even manages some highly secretive accounts from one house slave at the home of a Southern plantation he visits under false pretenses. The newspaper editorial staff is in basic agreement with this writer and hires on other writers with the same basic mindset. The paper becomes known for its abolitionist slant. It is not that they are agenda-driven necessarily but they see themselves as forthrightly and honestly covering -- and with pure clarity -- the evil of slavery. They believe they are operating from a position apart from the mere political and that anyone with a good moral conscience should be able to recognize the evil. Are they biased?

Another newspaper of the era is firmly situated in the more popular mindset of the era and believes that slavery is within the natural order. Always has been slavery. Slavery is endorsed by the Bible. Slaves should be treated with the same respect and kindness as you treat your farm animals. Those who willfully abuse their slaves are despicable and there are any number of laws that hold such scoundrels accountable. But most slave-owners feed and house their property well as can easily be observed. They do a series with illustrations showing the joyous childlike slave quarters with a myriad of activities during the down time. They sprinkle quotes from the slaves themselves describing their fidelity to their "massahs." The slaveholders, for their part, express their appreciation for their slaves and how they wish them to live and serve them for a long time to come. Maybe there's a story of how the little white children have formed close bonds to the little black slaves. Their stories focus on the joyful slaves and the kindly owners. Are they biased?

Well, yes to both questions. Each feels they are examining the facts with objectivity. Each distrusts the motivations of the other. And, in the case of slavery, there was a bloody civil war over those differences. (though even today left and right will argue over the REAL cause of that war. Which makes you wonder how the real causes of today's wars will be discussed a century or so hence.  Tee hee.  And was the Archduke Ferdinand's assassination really such a big deal anyhoo...)

I believe the BBC editorial staff THINKS they are operating within a highly moral framework and with utter objectivity in selecting which stories to cover and which aspects of those stories they should highlight. Same as the two imaginary newspapers above. What remains is any of our individual takes on those perceptions.

What's left and what's right when it comes to bias? Well, there exists a shadowy list of subjects upon which most of either group seem to agree. Are such topics left and right or is this too a function of the era and just an easy means for us to identify one another? Is the standard left = more government involvement versus right = less government involvement any accurate way to determine who is what?

Maybe we need to draw up some new qualifiers. If I asked Andrew what central premise would link his politics to the left, he might answer something like, "Concern for all humans anywhere but particularly the oppressed; needy; everyman."  Oddly enough, I would very likely agree with that answer but I'm quite certain we'd differ on how best to remedy the situation. It's probably safe to assume I would be more inclined toward believing that there is a greater good to be found in capitalism than in socialism, while Andrew might disagree.

Anyway, we could go on circling the globe on separate parallel circumferences with our reasons why. But those parallels will never intersect and soon we are back to the starting point, then off and running again.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Great post, Susan.  I doff my figurative hat.

Here are a few things from the BBC report to mull over - but bear in mind that not highlighting certain elements of a report can be evidence of bias, so if you don't trust me to put in the interesting bits, you'll have to read it yourself.  There are dozens of examples in the report where the BBC confronts and agonises over whether it has a 'comfort zone' of liberal bias (they seem to think they probably do).  BBC haters might like to start there but I really do recommend a more thorough read.

Impartiality is often not easy. There is no template of wisdom which will
eliminate fierce internal debate over difficult dilemmas. But the BBC’s journalistic
expertise is an invaluable resource for all departments to draw on.

Because impartiality is hard to pin down precisely, its application will sometimes be hotly
debated and disputed within the BBC. A Hypothetical exercise at the BBC seminar on

impartiality rehearsed a number of dilemmas. It was clear that there was no default position
on impartiality at a senior editorial level.

Impartiality requires the BBC to examine its own institutional values, and to
assess the effect they have on its audiences. page 71

As a broadcaster and programme maker the BBC is not impersonal: it cannot avoid having
both character and attitude. It now has a defined set of public purposes. The BBC’s
corporate behaviour and programming policy convey messages to its audiences, sometimes
quite unconsciously, and these may affect the judgment of impartiality.

WHAT IS IMPARTIALITY? 

Fortunately this Report is not required to provide an elaborate definition. That is best left to
philosophers1. Nor does it have to start at square one. Impartiality for the BBC is not in
question. It is a given – a legal requirement, just as it is for other broadcasters in Britain. It
is practised day in, day out, by BBC journalists, who have an impartiality gene implanted in
their earliest days at the Corporation. But, as Garret Fitzgerald, the former Taoiseach of the
Irish Republic, once famously said: ‘It’s all very well saying how it works in practice. But
how does it work in theory?’2 

In recent years, the BBC Editorial Guidelines, as well as the Neil Report of 20043, have
attempted an explanation and a description. But it remains an elusive, almost magical
substance, which is often more evident in its absence than in its presence. 

Imagine twelve bottles on the alchemist’s shelf, with the following labels: Accuracy, Balance,
Context, Distance, Evenhandedness, Fairness, Objectivity, Openmindedness, Rigour, Self-
Awareness, Transparency and Truth. None of these on its own could legitimately be re-
labelled Impartiality. But all the bottles are essential elements in the Impartiality compound,
and it is the task of the alchemist, the programme-maker, to mix them in a complex cocktail. 

Me again.  Anyway, there is much too much good stuff in this excellent report to cut 'n' paste and think you've gotten to the interesting bits.  It's extremely readable all the way through and very thought provoking, so I suggest everyone should have a go if they find themselves with a free hour.  Cynics beware.....it's as earnest as hell.
 

I like that twelve bottle analogy. It's even better than the 5 blind men and the elephant metaphor I like to employ for news coverage of Iraq. The "agonizing" part conjures up an amoozing boardroom imagery for me -- rather like a New Yorker cartoon.

But it is that IMPARTIALITY potion that I believe pinpoints the problem. First of all, it's a lie. Impartiality is not even desirable lest you become a greater evil for your reticence to draw any clear distinctions. Secondly, it assumes the purveyor is a free-floating automatic eye and ear -- a virtual robot. Otherwise, their "partiality" has to come through if only in the choice of terminology. Simplest example = the one we always discuss. Fighter, militant, insurgent, terrorist. Or, civilian, people, but never the "enemy." Calling someone or some group the "enemy" assumes the reporter has a dog in the fight. Which, of course, in international affairs he/she often does have whether he/she is willing to acknowledge it or not.

But let's say the conflict being covered is something more apart from the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation's home base and their British audience. No British involvement. Something like, uh... Darfur. Should they be impartial in describing the atrocities (how judgmental!) of the Janjaweed? See, we Westerners all know what our Darfur stance should be. One. Bono. Brad Pitt. George Clooney. Angelina Jolie. We all know it's probably GENOCIDE even if the UN doesn't want to be so condemnatory. (busy as they are condemning Israel) But on Darfur (today's Bangladesh in trendy conflicts for which to throw a rock concert) both Left and Right are in agreement that it is bad. But without showing some partiality, we don't really know WHY it's bad except that people are dying. Being killed. To the BBC, it's varying groups with different points of view and you the reader can sort through to determine which side has more value.

Here's an summing up from a recent article on Darfur that illustrates the BBC's POV:

Last week it finally caved in to pressure to admit 3,000 UN peacekeepers, a sixth of the deployment diplomats say is needed to help bring the violence under control.

Ultimately it will be a political solution, not a military one that seals Darfur's fate.

Peaceful solution versus counter-violence from some external force, eh? Well, yes, ultimately there's a point at which the fighting comes to a lower level and political solutions come to pass. So bloody what? So it is in every conflict known to mankind. But in stating it in the final sentence, it reiterates the BBC civilty. We deplore violence. It's icky. And the people -- all of them -- should be nice and civilized and stop it. With the help of the UN. The INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. As if communities can be "international." Anyway, there is an antiseptic quality to the coverage when a reporter cannot express partiality against genocide lest they be accused of choosing up sides and defying their journalistic credo. A more interesting study might be comparing WWII coverage by the BBC to today's impartiality study. Whaddaya think?

My point of departure with a BBC or any reportage that comes with a "Citizen of the World" perspective is they are by definition Leftist. So fine. I don't really care. Let's just not pretend it is otherwise. Set up little internal panels to dig deep into our problematic biases, agonizing about how much work has yet to be done in order for us to reach that vaunted peak of IMPARTIALITY.

I am interested in personal takes on situations especially when they are generated by those who have spent time in the regions they describe whether I agree with their analysis or not. But let's be real. There is no such thing as IMPARTIALITY and if there were, I'm pretty sure it is an undesirable quotient even for journalists. For my money I would like the press of the West to echo the values of the West and not pretend they are outside the loop -- neutral news-bots. By NOT drawing clear distinctions that should come from a news operation's greater civilizational philosophical position, the evil is minimized and the good is overlooked. Well, that is if it is even possible to draw any conclusion about good and bad. Unless it's the USA or Israel. Which are generally pretty reprehensible in their actions and we've got dead baby photos to prove it.

I wouldn't describe myself as a BBC hater, btw. It's just not my favorite news source. Certainly far from my least favorite though. But I know how to read it. I'm afraid that it is not read my way by those for whom the BBC (and its similar prototypes) is their main informational source.

I would like to read the 80-page report but couldn't find it from the link. Care to share?

Susan

PS I've been reading the BBC archives from WWII -- Battle of Britain, Nazi Invasion of Paris and Warsaw Ghetto Uprising -- and I find over and over and over this archaic word "enemy." See what I mean? BBC showed partiality back then.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Once again a great post, Susan.  I have to admit, that's left me something to chew over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf

QUOTE: Salman Rushdie with his wife Padma. Rushdie was awarded an OBE this weekend, but Pakistan has demanded it be withdrawn.   Anyone know what caused the long scar on Padma's arm???   Susan

The news comes two weeks after the author received a knighthood, sparking protests by Muslims in many parts of the world.

Sir Salman and Lakshmi married in a Hindu ceremony in New York in 2004.

The Satanic Verses, published in 1988, was condemned in the Islamic world because of its perceived blasphemy.

Respect plea

"Salman Rushdie has agreed to divorce his wife, Padma Lakshmi, because of her desire to end their marriage," Mr Rushdie's spokeswoman Jin Auh said in a statement, Reuters news agency reports.

"He asks that the media respect his privacy at this difficult time."

Lakshmi is Rushdie's fourth wife. It is her first marriage.

The author went into hiding in the 1980s after Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa for "insulting Islam" in The Satanic Verses.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Okay I know this isn't a BBC boycott of Israel. It's a trade union boycott of the British Transport and General Workers Union that has voted to boycott all products made in Israel. And hey, the universities didn't go through with their planned boycott of Israeli academics after much posturing and debate. 

I just didn't want to start an entire new thread on this action. Here's the article from the Jerusalem Post.

In the spirit of neutrality there may be some who overlook this obscene gesture. Some may believe that this is the right time to take a strong stand against Israel (and Israel alone) which the secretary of this union has compared to Nazi Germany. But I believe it's a tit for tat situation and much as I love the UK... much as I love the Brits and our common heritage... I'll be boycotting back in solidarity with Israel. Now, exactly what is it I buy from England??? Tea? Beatles albums? Oh well, if there is anything, I'll stop for the time being.

Insanity.

World turned upside-down.

Wrong-headedness.

I'm nauseated.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'm saddened to read this too. How embarrassing... IMO, it's certainly not representative of most Brits viewpoint, there are 60+ million of us after all.

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

X  - I look for hope in your reminder of 60 million Brits. Thanks for some hope .

Otherwise I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Some of those Union members must believe that if those pesky Jews are  taken care of all will be smooth. But Isreal is the little Satan, US the big Satan, Europe-hmmm much closer and therefor an easier target are the mid sized secularist Satan. In fact to Islamo fascists( is that term not allowed anymore ? ) ALL non Moslems are Satanic and deserving of death.

After Isreal goes, so does Lebanon,the other middle East countries and then...Europe-- all soon to be targetable by nuclear missiles from Teheran and Syria! It will take a few years, but the clock is ticking on the advance of the new caliphite. Revenge from hundred of years ago will be righted and the  ultimate goal of a Sharia world will be accomplished.

To tie in to the topic, Pro "militarist" bias over time does help the effort to some degree. Get those baby killing Isrealis.

Hey, did you hear the one about the BBC's Dan Rather moment with the Queen and Annie Liebowitz?  Unbelievable.  Strange.  But true.  Ah well, at least they corrected their mistake once caught.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin