We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
October 22nd, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |One veteran BBC executive said:
‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
‘Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’
…
Political pundit Andrew Marr said: ‘The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.’
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’, it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it ‘no moral weight’.
Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a ‘very senior news executive’, about the BBC’s pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: ‘The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.’
If only the American press would be so honest.
15 Responses to “We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News”
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
You mean like Fox ‘Fair and Balanced’ News, Craig?
I should point out that liberal means something different in the UK to America. It’s far more about civil liberties and far less about economics. And as all parties complain the BBC is baised against them, I think that’s probably the best you’re going to get in a body that consists of people, none of whom can be completely unbiased.
However, I still get several sources of news because I know the BBC is biased towards the views I agree with.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
I would include Fox in that indictment, yes, although their bias is obviously not Liberal, whether the American or British version of Liberal. The article did a fair job of detailing what they meant by Liberal.
By the way, this isn’t “all parties” complaining that the BBC is biased against them…this is BBC stars admitting their own biases. Hard to argue that this is just sour grapes from somebody that feels the BBC doesn’t understand them or give their viewpoint a fair shake.
I would welcome this kind of admission from the American press. Everyone would know (not that they don’t already) where the New York Times stands on issues and make allowances. It isn’t their obvious Liberality that bugs me about the NY or LA Times…it is that they profess to be unbiased. I mean to say that I believe them when they say that. They really believe that they are right down the middle, give all sides a fair shake, haven’t a biased bone in their bodies. It’s just that they don’t know anyone that doesn’t think exactly as they do and so they actually think they are middle of the road. They wouldn’t know an actual Conservative Christian (other than the big names like Robertson, the Moral Majority crew, Focus on the Family guys) if they bit them and they wouldn’t listen to them if they recognized them.
I agree that no one can be completely unbiased. Two points. One, the Times (NY or LA) doesn’t even try to be unbiased and two, they seem to think that no one notices.
One question, Paul. The article says:
What on earth does it mean, in Great Britain, to be anti-countryside? Is that like ‘Flyover country’ (i. e., Red State middle-America) here in the US?
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I wasn’t trying to say the BBC isn’t unbiased, on invalidate the criticism. It is know for being a metropolitan, middle class, liberal ogarnisation. Just that it isn’t party political and I think that’s the best you can really hope for. And as you say, it admits it’s bias and, sometimes, attempts to improve it.
It is anti-American and does tend to look at you as our coarser, slightly dumber, not as sophisticated cousin. The last six years have not helped this impression
Anti-countryside means it doesn’t report nicely on the problems of rural communities which in the UK tend to be very poor, mostly owned by people who don’t live in them, on low incomes or unemployed and consequently dealing with large amounts of alcohol and drug abuse. There’s also the hunting issue (which I’ll try to explain, but you’ll probably laugh if I do) which is seen as pitting country against town. Basically, the countryside has its own set of problems but they aren’t well covered by any of the media, except maybe Horse and Hound.
Can’t comment on the American media much, for obvious reasons, but Fox is internationally notorious, far more so than the print media. Similarly, the BBC is internationally known but few people have heard of the Sun (and you’re lucky, coincidentally also owned by Rupert Murdoch).
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
That would either be isn’t biased or is unbiased in the first line. D’oh!
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for the explanations. I appreciate it.
By Jersey McJones on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
You can’t compare the private American press with the BBC. PBS is the closest equivilant, and they’re not nearly as liberal as the BBC. As for the rest of the American media, it is biased alright - corporate biased. Only a moron would think it’s anything else.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
That’s me. #1 moron.
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
Picture the Times (either one) editorializing against late-term abortion…or any abortion for that matter. Picture them editorializing for limits on abortion, for parental notification, for the law to criminalize taking a minor across a state line to procure an abortion. Pciture NPR coming out against gay marriage. Picture the Times backing a Republican for President. Take any issue upon which Conservatives and Liberals are split and tell me which one the editors of the Times are for the Conservative point of view.
I’ll wait.
Take a poll of the Political affiliation and Liberal/Conservative self-identification of the straight news reporters and editors of all of the American press. Give a guess as to where the vast majority come down. Most reporters and columnists are, I’d bet, Democrats who self-identify as Liberal. Now I know it’s fashionable among liberals to boast that they can put aside their political and sociological leanings and play it straight down the middle but that’s hog-wash. We are political people. We are all biased and we can be no more apolitical or unbiased than we can long survive without breathing. Their bias shows in the stories they choose to pursue and the ones they reject. It shows in whom they choose to quote, which viewpoint dominates in the stories they choose to publish.
Of course, if you happen to also be Liberal and Democrat, it’s really hard to see because you agree with them. To you they’re just reporting. To me they’re slanting, focusing on Liberal issues, giving Conservative viewpoints short-schrift in the quotes and argumentation, playing up Democratic candidates and playing down Republican candidates.
All in a days work.
But then, I’m a moron, so what do you expect?
By Jersey McJones on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Uh, Craig, have you ever acually read the Times? Either one? (By that I assume you mean NY and LA?) They have plenty of conservative commentors. Ever hear of Bill Safire? The man was a GOP speechwriter, for Christ’s sake!
Yes, of course journalists are going to be liberal. Liberals are curious, inquisitive, and critical. They care more about knowledge and public service than money. That’s why teachers, writers, artists, and such tend to be liberal. But liberals are not running the media. The corporations that own the outlets and the advertisors are certainly not liberal, as a rule. The columnists they run are about 50/50.
You have a very simplistic view of this.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
I read the NY Times daily, the LA Times occasionally, the Washington Post routinely.
Both have token Conservative columnists and a slew of Liberal columnists. Surely you’ve noticed which outnumbers which and no, they are nowhere near 50/50. Sorry. Not even close.
You haven’t answered my question. I’ll repeat it.
I’m still waiting.
I mean, seriously…on the Conservative-Liberal issues the major dailies are, editorially, overwhelmingly Liberal and the Liberal slant isn’t just in the editorials…it can be routinely found in the “strait news” stories. Yes they are run by corporations but the editorial slant is overwhelmingly Liberal. I’m a daily consumer of some of the most Liberal news media in America. I have a pretty good grasp of what constitute Liberal vs. Conservative views on political and social issues and it jumps out at me, not in every article but often enough that I can’t imagine what you could show me that could change my mind on this.
I imagine we’ll have to content to disagree on this but I think I’m right.
By tos on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
To Paul’s remark about “Fox,Fair and Balanced”. They have 2 shows that are conservative and they also have liberal guests and let’s not forget Alan Colmes is also on one of those shows. Fair and balanced is when they report the news not O’Rielly and Hannity necessarily,although they do show both sides. Unlike CNN,MSNBC,ABC,CBS,BBC.
But compared to other news shows I would say it doesn’t compare to the liberal leanings of those other shows. Chris Matthews,Keith Olberman,Tim Russert. They have one show that gives the other view but in comparison,nowhere near the bias of the other media outlets. Notice how you can only pick out one show that has 2 conservative hosts compared to all the other news shows? It amazes me how one show can be so threatening just because it’s not completey liberal. Freedom of speech is a great thing isn’t it? And Murdoch put that show on the air because he knew it would get a large audience, not because he is conservative himself.
By Jersey McJones on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Token??? Safire’s been with the Times forever! Freidman is no liberal, believe me. Krugman sort of is. Dowd is. Herbert’s not. Face it. It’s about 50/50 at all the papers everywhere.
JMJ
By Jersey McJones on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
And Tos, you’d have to be an idiot to not ackowlegde Fox News as an arm of the GOP.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Krugman sort of is
Sort of?
Yeh. Like Ann Coulter is sort of Conservative.
By tos on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
So then JMJ what ’s the rest of the liberal media called? The D@#$’s and C@#$! of the DNC.
And so what if Fox is for the GOP At least they don’t deny it. Like I said previously amazing how one news outlet is soooo threatening to you compared to the rest of the left arm outlets of the DNC.