BBC bias, join the fight to stop this blatant abuse

[Alistar7]

Ciar Byrne Friday March 7, 2003 BBC journalists have been instructed to reflect anti-war opinion in their reporting of the impending war in Iraq, under guidelines issued by the corporation.

But the Conservative culture spokesman, John Whittingdale, accused the BBC's management of allowing its own views on the war to affect coverage.

"People inside the BBC who are opposed to the conflict are imposing their own views," he told the Times.

"The BBC is our national broadcaster and it must make clear why we are asking British forces to risk their lives."

Welcome to the ?Stop the BBC Bias Campaign? Web site.

Resistance against BBC bias increases

apparently this has been a probelm within their own political community, no wonder they can't keep it out of their world reporting either.

A LEADING Eurosceptic published a report yesterday allegedly proving that the BBC is biased in favour of Brussels.

The survey, conducted by an independent media monitoring company, claimed that the BBC's Today programme was twice as likely to feature pro-Europeans as Eurosceptics. It also said that there were "clear grounds for concern" in the programme's handling of European issues.

The BBC has disputed the methodology used to compile the report. But Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a Tory, said it proved that the BBC was "endemically biased in favour of the euro". The Eurosceptic peer runs a think tank called Global Britain which commissioned the report from Minotaur Media Tracking.

So is the BBC actually a news source or part of a political media campaign? I thought it was publicly owned......

 

[Alistar7]

In its Statement of Promises, the BBC commits to impartiality and accuracy. On 15 September 1999, New Alliance researchers tested these claims. They visited BBC Online's Euro Home Page and checked twelve articles listed. Two less prominent articles were later analysed. The results are given below.

Here?s another textbook example of how to write a nakedly biased news report, at (where else?) the BBC: Israel 'threatens lives of UN workers.' This is how the BBC describes the killing of Iain Hook:

BBC's bias Your March 26 article that mentioned WUNC-FM carrying extended coverage by the BBC failed to mention that that source is disgracefully biased against Israel. Over the past few days the BBC has continually aired complaints of the so-called "double standard" practiced by the United States in regard to Security Council resolutions on Israel and Iraq. In fact these resolutions are not equivalent.

The BBC has received an unprecedented number of complaints at the alleged anti-war and anti-American tone of its coverage of the Iraqi crisis.


More than 400 viewers have rung the corporation in the past few weeks to complain that it has shown overwhelming bias. It is one of the largest reactions from viewers ever recorded.

I'm sure the recent poll they took was not biased though. that would ruin all the fun so many of you had making jokes about Americans. Guess what, the jokes on you, all you did was beleive everything you were told, by a source whose own country says is biased.....

 

[jahawkin]

From the first article (of first post):

The controller of editorial policy, Stephen Whittle, has told staff that even once a war is under way, opposition voices should be given airspace, provoking concern over an anti-war bias at the BBC.

So the BBC has the audacity to actually give opposition voices airtime?? When a majority of Britons support the opposition?? How dare they!!
More from the article:

BBC reporters have also been told to test the reliability of information from government press briefings

What commies!! They're refusing to tow the government line!!! They must be pro-Saddam!

Seriouly, when did a journalist doing their job (you know, the part about reporting what is going on in the world) become total liberal bias?? Do conservatives not care about the truth?

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
From the first article:
Seriouly, when did a journalist doing their job (you know, the part about reporting what is going on in the world) become total liberal bias?? Do conservatives not care about the truth?

when his reporting becomes a review of his left or right side of HIS personal views... in this case it happens to be left...

 

[Czar]

thanks for balacing the forum again since KAMAZON came

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

Interesting colation. I have had a quick look - and the bias of this thread seems to be a problem in the same way the alleged bias of the BBC is a problem:

1. The first article linked states:

"BBC journalists have been instructed to reflect anti-war opinion in their reporting of the impending war in Iraq, under guidelines issued by the corporation."

However, it goes on to say (but not in your first post Alistar7):

"The controller of editorial policy, Stephen Whittle, has told staff that even once a war is under way, opposition voices should be given airspace, provoking concern over an anti-war bias at the BBC."

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but to me it says "make sure that we show ALL points of view - and not just the government sponsored pro-war ones."

An interesting note is that you're using the Guardian as a source. I *guess* that's ok when it suits your views

2. With regard to the second linked article:

The author of the site is obviously not a euro-phile! More over he likens the BBC to Soviet propoganda! From reading his site - I'm not so sure that his real grievance is towards Europe and Brussels, with the BBC being some sort of symbol for him to indirectly attack/promote these views. I do not see the extremes promoted in his arguments. Maybe it's just me.

3. The 3rd linked article is from the BNP homepage - the BNP being the British racist party (ie Blacks go home). Don't really trust them as a source. They are constantly complaining that they do not get a fair say. Given all the race riots they've expertly fuelled to help get themselves into marginalised seats, and the fact that a lot of their members are thugs and idiots - I don't really care for their "analysis". Furthermore - I hope that if anyone reads your link they realise the scum whose website they're patronising.

4. The last linked article in the first post quotes the same sources as for the 2nd link. It is based back in 2000 and accuses the BBC of pro-europe bias. This is derived from the fact that out of 54 episodes of a particular BBC programme about twice as many pro-europe speakers got air time as opposed to anti-europe speakers. This shouls (and hopefully has been addressed). Furthermore I don't see it as "huge" bias. A worthy point to be made - hardly digging it's own grave with that though.

All in all, as compared to its peers, I still see the BBC as a relatively unbiassed source in the media sphere.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

So let me get this straight, Alistar7. You're upset that the BBC is going to give airtime to people who are opposed to the war, correct?

 

[burnedout]

Although I probably appear to most here as a rightwing conservative (truthfully, I'm moderate), I consider the BBC one of the most objective news organizations out there. They might seemingly project a more leftest slant from an American perspective. Still, they should be considered one of the fairest media organizations in the English-speaking world.

Just my 2 pence..., uh cents.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Although I probably appear to most here as a rightwing conservative (truthfully, I'm moderate), I consider the BBC one of the most objective news organizations out there. They might seemingly project a more leftest slant from an American perspective. Still, they should be considered one of the fairest media organizations in the English-speaking world.

Just my 2 pence..., uh cents.

That's just my view too I guess. They're not perfect (as illustrated in the "pro-euro analysis" - but then who is?) but they do generally do a good job and there are a lot more overly and blatantly biased "news" organisations out there.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[ConclamoLudus]

I'll defend the BBC as I will defend FOX news. If they have a bias, let them. Get your news from as many sources as possible. I don't care if the BBC gets tax-payer's dollars, the government can sort it out. There are no unbiased sources anywhere. They do not exist and cannot exist. Everything you see or hear is propaganda when it comes from a person with any kind of agenda, and most people want others to agree with them, so there's their agenda. That's the basics. We choose our propagandas to match whatever we hold to be important. The 100% truth is what you see with your eyes. And even that will be different for every observer. Everything else is heresay, pick and choose. Everyone has an opinion and it will filter its way down through any outlet. That's partly what makes us human.

In the future we will have flying robots record everything and we will all know the truth all the time.

 

[Alistar7]

No I don't care if they give time to those who opposethe war, that's what the op/ed section is for.

While I agree most private media sources do have editorial bias that slips over into their reporting, the BBC is publicly owned. For americans, imagine seing anything on PBS with political bias.

Fencer I took great care to find links of UK sources which felt the BBC was biased, not only towards America, but domestically as well as in certain instances within the EU. They promote one particualar agenda as opposed to just presenting the facts.

You keep saying in your opinion they are fair, at least 400 people in your country felt strongly they were not in the Iraq issue, it was the largest complaint they ever had in history, so it is relevant.

I agree totally ConclamoLudus, I do as much as I can to find 3-4 sources for my info to help verify and weed through the editorial BS you commonly find, although many here rely on the BBC wholly at times, while others will use 1 or 2 at most.

 

[Moonbeam]

Journalistic training, the unbiased seeking of truth always leads to a liberal bias. Ownership of media, on the other hand favors single minded fools of a naturally Republican bent. It'sa just how it is. You like ideas or you like money. You can't really serve two masters.

 

[LunarRay]

Yep... ya get bought by one and sold by the other.. no win scenerio.

 

[Alistar7]

my cable network just started offering FOx news maybe a week ago, so I have finally been able to see what everyone has been complaining about. Quite frankly they have far more coverage on Iraq than anyone else, most give it little time anymore. I have not noticed anythnig that was reported that was false. I can clearly see the right wing slant in their reporting as far as some of the topics they cover and the points they emphasize, but still factual, so far.

 

[Dari]

for those that are disgruntled about the BBC, why not go private when looking for worthy news? Even though it's geared towards economists and the business world, the Financial Times is one of the most impartial news services out there. It may cost about $300 a year to subscribe (there may be discounts available), but it's worth every cent. They have some very smart writers there.

link

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
From the first article (of first post):

The controller of editorial policy, Stephen Whittle, has told staff that even once a war is under way, opposition voices should be given airspace, provoking concern over an anti-war bias at the BBC.

So the BBC has the audacity to actually give opposition voices airtime?? When a majority of Britons support the opposition?? How dare they!!
More from the article:

BBC reporters have also been told to test the reliability of information from government press briefings

What commies!! They're refusing to tow the government line!!! They must be pro-Saddam!

Seriouly, when did a journalist doing their job (you know, the part about reporting what is going on in the world) become total liberal bias?? Do conservatives not care about the truth?

I can only imagine the uproar if foxnews put a similar demand on their news people.

 

[Dari]

despite the slant of the bbc and the guardian, the british still have, in my humble opinion, the best journalists in the world.

 

[flavio]

Fox News is certainly more biased then the BBC, what are we doing about them?

 

[Alistar7]

Where is the bias in fox news? The majority of the claims I linked came from within the UK. Find me similar claims and efforts made against Fox news. I honestly don't know, they have been available here for about one week.

Where are the polls like the BBC just created? The TV shows like the one they just aired. Where are the calls from US citizens? Don't forget Fox is private, the BBC is public, compare it to PBS if anything.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Where is the bias in fox news? The majority of the claims I linked came from within the UK. Find me similar claims and efforts made against Fox news. I honestly don't know, they have been available here for about one week.

Where are the polls like the BBC just created? The TV shows like the one they just aired. Where are the calls from US citizens? Don't forget Fox is private, the BBC is public, compare it to PBS if anything.

Try this real quick -> Fox

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Czar
thanks for balacing the forum again since KAMAZON came

LOL! Ain't that the truth...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Where is the bias in fox news? The majority of the claims I linked came from within the UK. Find me similar claims and efforts made against Fox news. I honestly don't know, they have been available here for about one week.

Where are the polls like the BBC just created? The TV shows like the one they just aired. Where are the calls from US citizens? Don't forget Fox is private, the BBC is public, compare it to PBS if anything.

Try this real quick -> Fox

You can do that with any news source...

 

[Alistar7]

that's your opinion, I notice those who cant refute the facts I present resort to personal attacks, very telling, too bad it adds nothing to your position.

I found a ton which detailed the right wing past of Fox news and claims of bias in their editorial showsm but nothing about the news or facts themselves being distorted intenionally. What have they ever reported as fact that was not and was not ocrrected or retracted later?

Found this though, have a question:



The Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel, whose determinedly patriotic stance during the Iraq conflict brought it critical notoriety but commercial success, is under investigation by television regulators in Britain for alleged bias

The independent television commission is investigating nine complaints by viewers of the channel, broadcast on Sky Digital satellite, also controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

If the network is found to have breached the ITC's "due impartiality" rules, it could be forced out.

Yes this is the same ITC who did the poll for the guardians parent, the BBC, interesting bedfellows all ready to trash the US. Is the ITC investigating the BBC after 400 calls, not nine like fox, more calls against the BBC than any other time in history?


sounds fair and balanced to me...

 

[Alistar7]

Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I?ve been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began.

Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of Pentagon propaganda. Iraq had "drones" that it could quickly dispatch to major U.S. metropolitan areas to spread biological agents. Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around Baghdad. Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing public backing for the war. The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact. My comments are in brackets [ ]s.

March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.


thats his first one, does he know Saddam did just that, much to the delight of the Marsh Arabs, at least the ones who were left after his genocidal campaign against them....

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
No I don't care if they give time to those who opposethe war, that's what the op/ed section is for.

While I agree most private media sources do have editorial bias that slips over into their reporting, the BBC is publicly owned. For americans, imagine seing anything on PBS with political bias.

Fencer I took great care to find links of UK sources which felt the BBC was biased, not only towards America, but domestically as well as in certain instances within the EU. They promote one particualar agenda as opposed to just presenting the facts.

You keep saying in your opinion they are fair, at least 400 people in your country felt strongly they were not in the Iraq issue, it was the largest complaint they ever had in history, so it is relevant.

I agree totally ConclamoLudus, I do as much as I can to find 3-4 sources for my info to help verify and weed through the editorial BS you commonly find, although many here rely on the BBC wholly at times, while others will use 1 or 2 at most.

Let me make sure I understand your position. You're upset that the BBC is giving opposition to the official government line actual airtime instead of shoving them down into an op/ed section (that most people would ignore), correct?