BBC admits: We are biased on religion and politics

[Phx_Dem]

LONDON – The British Broadcasting Corporation has been struggling for several years against criticisms and claims of biased reporting concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and distorted coverage of the global fight against terror.

Following a diplomatic incident with Israel, the BBC appointed an editor known for his objective reporting, however, the true stance of the corporation’s editors remained the same.

An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

Most executives admitted that the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582,00.ht...

[CJCRANE]

This is out of date.

The BBC has gone so far to the other side it's not funny. Their headline news pretty much follows the Blairite agenda.

[maxsolomon]

1. so?

god help us if the BBC becomes CNN.

[mazzarro]

2. How would one classify ynetnews.com

It seem to be an Isreali right-wing, nationalistic news medium - IMHO.

[Phx_Dem]

3. it's middle of the road

in the oped section they publish all viewpoints.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Who the hell are ynetnews?

The BBC (often known as Auntie Beeb) are an old-fashioned, relatively independent and responsible organization; only 'left-wing' when compared with the Murdoch-owned media outlets. If anything, they kowtow a bit too much to the government, especially nowadays - the increased government pressures that they've come under since the David Kelly scandal are showing.

This demonization of them is utterly crazy. Who are 'most executives'? I seriously doubt that 'most BBC executives', even if they thought such things, would say so to a rival news organization, especially one as nutty as this seems to be.

[Phx_Dem]

7. It's Israels largest daily.

[Zhade]

22. ...that quotes the Washington Times.

Go back to your megaphone, pal, this shit isn't flying. We're not idiots.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Name-calling is so unnecessary.

It is all over the place. Just run "BBC admits bias" in google and see what pops up! This was actually discussed earlier as well. BTW, take a look throughout the thread, there are plenty of people here saying that the BBC is biased, the problem is some say it is liberal, others say it a "government sympathizer." So before you go pounding around on a thread calling people names, you might want to see what is actually being said!

[struggle4progress]

25. What pops up by googling is ..

WorldNetDaily, Christian Broadcasting Network, RedState, Power Line, NewsBusters, and V Crisis, all rightwing noise blogger sites, pretending to be news.

If you track back, you'll find Ynetnews is quoting Moon's Washington Times which is in turn quoting The Daily Mail. The Daily Mail piece is a breathless gossipy thing with lots of sensational claims (for example, that the BBC is dominated by homosexuals and immigrants).

As far as I can tell, this is huff-n-puff

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Sensationalism aside.

I think it is pretty obvious that the BBC is indeed biased toward the left. In some cases, they go far-left and that is their own admission. I didn't think this article was all that 'earth-shattering' other than the BBC talked about its own bias. I don't see how it would be any different than if FOX news admitted it was biased, but the reports came from The New York Times or the Washington Post. Would that revelation be dismissed outright because it was written about in liberal-leaning papers about a right-wing source? I don't think so.

[struggle4progress]

27. So you're saying the claim is credible because you already believed it.

At least, that's how I read your "I think it is pretty obvious that the BBC is indeed biased toward the left." While your view and my view, of what constitutes a left perspective, must differ significantly, there are more important issues.

Go read The Daily Mail piece critically -- that is, with an eye for any evidence The Mail actually presents. As I look at the claims, it seems to me that The Mail claims to have some sort of "leaked" account, but what was actually leaked is completely unclear. By the time the story is told third-hand by Ynet, this "account" has metamorphosed into a "memo," which sounds much more official. But nobody is handing out the supposed memo, which seems odd: in this internet age, noithing would be easier than to post the whole thing in its entirety and let people see what the memo actually claims. Until I have better information, The Mail's giddy assertion, that the BBC admits it is dominated by homosexuals and immigrants, seems to me a good diagnostic indication that we are witnessing wingnut blowhardism.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. You say the same thing about "The Daily Mail."

So, if it was written, in a liberal paper, that it was a right-wing paper, you'd already believe it. As I said, there are many here who say it has a left-lean, and a few here that says it has a right-lean, especially in regards to internal matter of the UK. However, their reporting of events outside of the UK does seem to have a liberal-slant. Perhaps the issue is that it is not "liberal" enough for you, thus, not fitting into your definition of 'liberal' it must, therefore, be a right-leaning paper?

[struggle4progress]

29. Don't recall making any general comments about The Mail though ..

.. I have repeatedly commented in this thread on the article under discussion.

To clarify matters, I provide again which I consider a diagnostic quote from the article: " ..At the secret meeting in London last month .. BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities .."

For clarity, let us parse this more closely: unnamed "BBC executives," not directly quoted, are described as having "admitted" that they are "dominated by homosexuals." Pfew! As reporting, that stinks.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. What you said...

"Don't recall making any general comments about The Mail though.."

You said: The Daily Mail piece is a breathless gossipy thing with lots of sensational claims (for example, that the BBC is dominated by homosexuals and immigrants). post #25

I am not saying they are a bastion of journalistic integrity, however, it does seem that the possibility that these "charges" could easily ring true. As for "unnamed sources," well, that seems to be acceptable when it is in left-leaning papers and media. Is the "The Mail" biased? Without a doubt. I also believe it to true of the BBC also, and they have admitted as such before, usually after being charged with bias.

[struggle4progress]

5. "According to the Washington Times"? So Ynet recycles Moonie poo.

Where's the frickin memo? Who are these unnamed executives?

[warrens]

6. Bullshit.

If anything, the BBC has been anti-Muslim. As for liberal, the BBC has consistently for many, many decades supported conservative governments. True, it's not right-wing, but solidly conservative establishment.

[0rganism]

8. "An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media,"

Let's see the memo, first.

I haven't noticed much "left-wing bias", but then again, I don't watch BBC much -- the Moonie Times might be telling the truth about the memo, they might be spinning it way beyond context, or just plain lying.

[Lexingtonian]

9. The BBC is "biased"

to the intelligent northern/western European consensus views. Which happen to be post-Christian, non-Zionist, and anti-colonialist.

Whether that stance is "anti-American" depends on how invested you are in Christianity, naive Zionism, and colonialism. That it doesn't agree with the reactionary-paranoid and strongly colonialist variety of Zionism that is still the accepted consensus among the leadership elites of Israel and among elderly Jewish-Americans should hardly be a surprise.

[sugapablo]

10. Whatever, ALL news is biased.

Democracy Now is the one of the most biased news source in the world...but I like it.

Just read a variety of news sources, from the left and the right, and you'll be able to find the commonalities. There you'll find the news.


Edit: misspelling. Can't wait till Firefox 2.0 and in-form spellcheck!

[damntexdem]

11. "Overt promotion of multiculturalism"!

Ooh, how intolerant can they get?

[bloom]

34. Multiculturalism - a "sin" according to Republicans.

How dare people consider others cultures to be valid !! People might think that the Muslims (and/or Lebanon) should be respected or something (instead of bombed).

Gadzooks!!

[Ghost Dog]

12. The BBC still does relatively OK. Everybody knows this is nowhere.

Even post-Thatcher (eg. Belgrano), (almost) post-BLiar/Bu*h, post- Dr. David Kelly apparent murder: somehow, sometimes, messages still get through.

¿What more can you hope for these days?

(And everybody knows where Ynetnews stands)...

[Glib Acumen]

13. The BBC is a government mouthpiece

The BBC is run by the British government.
The queen of England appoints 12 BBC governors after advice from government ministers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running /

[Ghost Dog]

14. You're right. And the World Service is UK Foreign Office

mouthpiece.

Mostly shit, worse than ever, sure.

But a few authentic, credible voices, amateur or professional, still make it to air...

¿Or no?

[Glib Acumen]

15. BBC has redeeming values

Yes, Ghost Dog. The BBC does air some valuable information. Even though it is is run by the brit government, I listen to the BBC often and enjoy its Africa Report. Certainly the BBC is biased in favor of murdering Arabs to steal their lands and oils, but they also have some programs of superior quality compared to many American mainstream media outlets.

The BBC has a charter that spells out the tight control the Secretary of State has over its actions.

[Ghost Dog]

16. Going through a very bad patch. I am very sorry.

Hopefully, although I do not feel very optimistic right now, things will soon improve.

I would say you may be very right about the anti-Arab/Moslem attitude. Sadly. Tragically.

Peace. Life. Love. Understood (ed. Especially Africa Service).

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. How much of the BBC have you heard?

Remember the bulk of the output, and what was being discussed in this 'impartiality' summit, is the domestic broadcasting. Since 1982, the British government, whether Tory or Labour, has been consistently complaining that the BBC is biased against it - and has rarely been able to affect the output. Thatcher managed to suppress a report or two on spurious-looking 'security grounds', and Blair won a significant victory against it when the Hutton Report was published - and it has been less critical since then. But politicians don't run it. There is nothing you could call 'tight control'.

The BBC probably does have a 'liberal' bias - in terms of human rights - compared to the British population. For instance, it would never get near advocating the death penalty, although a significant amount of the population do. But I think it is an 'educated' outlook - the vast majority of MPs also oppose the death penalty, far more so than the electorate - but MPs are better educated than average. Similarly, those working in the BBC are better educated. Overall, I'd rather that a broadcaster financed by a compulsory fee has a liberal bias rather than an authoritarian one. And neither do I want it to dumb down to the level of the tabloid newspapers (who are, of course, the ones who have snapped up this story - they compete against the BBC, and always trash it whenever they can - it makes commercial sense for them).

The accusation that minorities are over-represented on the BBC just doesn't look true, to me (apart from the technical minority of 'men', who are still more common on it than women, but somehow I don't think that's the minority they were referring to). Having just looked at the named presenters on tonight's 2 main channels in the listings, out of about 20 I can't see one name I know as being from an ethnic minority. There's one man who's gay.

The 'anti-Christian' accusation seems to come from the thought experiment of "what would you show being binned?", because there are still regular programmes on TV and radio showing church services, but not any other religious service. That's a strange attitude for an 'anti-Christian' organisation to have.

[Ghost Dog]

18. Check out BBC World Service Radio (I give no time to TV),

Volestrangler. What you have to say sounds right, UK-domestically-speaking.

But there is, or used to be, a relatively-respected international voice. A voice, no doubt interested, but not at all stupid.

International listeners will have observed, in recent years, increasingly partisan attitudes creeping in. Certain well-known truths suppressed, but not entirely, and according to what regional/cultural contexts are involved... One can perhaps still read between the lines...

Nevertheless, as I commented above, somehow some important authentic information still gets through quite clearly to air.

We would all be the poorer without the (unfortunately compromised) international BBC, in my humble opinion.

[Vidar]

31. Still far superior to our American networks.

[Odin2005]

19. BS, if anything the BBC is biased towards Neo-Liberal Corporatism.

They act shocked if someone attacks the sacred cow of "free trade."

[Tanner_B.]

20. I Had To Double Check

to see if this was Don Davis' doing!

(Substitute "Faux News" for BBC, and it's a riot!)

[Zhade]

21. More bullshit spin from the megaphonies?

The world knows about Israel's war crimes in Lebanon (and elsewhere). That won't be forgotten.

[struggle4progress]

23. The Moonie Times is based on a story in The Daily Mail:

" .. The Mail on Sunday reported .. The Mail reported .. "
BBC admits to bias
Oct. 22, 2006 at 9:25PM
(google for the link yerself: my tummy's feelin queasy)

So the Mail "reports", the Moonie Times provides its summary of the Mail story, and then Ynet quotes the Moonies. I'm guessing when Ynet cites the ‘Daily Express’ they really mean the 'Daily Mail' and just can't be bothered to get their story straight. Or maybe Ynet really is quoting the Daily Express, where today's top story seems to be "New hitches in hunt for truth over Diana."

Amongst the wingnuts, I guess this counts as cutting-edge reporting. And the usual suspects are spreading the story far and wide.

The actual "source" of this "information" is described in the Mail as "A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit'" which might be an altogether different thing than the supposedly secret BBC memo which the derivative versions of this tale supposedly cite. There is no indication about who wrote the account (if it has actually been written) or if the author was actually witnessed any of the events directly. And the text of the "leaked account" itself is not provided.

A single quote from the Daily Mail story may provide the savour of that article: " ..At the secret meeting in London last month .. BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities .."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...

[LeftishBrit]

32. The Daily Mail is notoriously right-wing and unreliable...

as compared even with the "Daily Telegraph" (Torygraph) which is notoriously right-wing, but at least tends to report news accurately.

The Daily Mail has a hate-crusade against immigrants and asylum-seekers in particular, and also has a 'thing' about single mothers, gays, and any unconventional group. It tends to be very sensational in its reporting. Some call it the "Daily Hate" or "Hate-Mail".

Chris Applegate devised a "Daily-Mail-o-Matic' headline generator, which does give the flavour:

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

[struggle4progress]

33. Thanks for clarifying that.

And the ersatz headline generator is fun: WILL THE BBC INFECT HOMEOWNERS WITH AIDS?

<edit:> COULD GAYS KILL THE QUEEN? is another gem