BBC biased?

[Styles]

Recently i have been thinking the BBC are more and more biased and not impartial as they should be. For example this stuck out to me today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F2148564?thread=4341249

I also find on there discussion boards they try to put one side of an argument and then try to ban, hide or not include any discussion that goes against this.

The BBC news on tv also seems to me a complete joke, best news in my opinion is the channel 4 news.

[peeriebryan]

It's easy to have a pop at a news agency as, by definition, it is impossible to report impartially on an event

 

The agency must decide which information relating to an event to pass on and what to leave out. Therefore, reporting is subjective

 

I also find on there discussion boards they try to put one side of an argument and then try to ban, hide or not include any discussion that goes against this.

I've never witnessed an example of the BBC trying to inappropriately (a subjective view) censor its discussion boards

 

And the BBC is one of the few media organisations that doesn't rely on advertising revenue to exist, so it doesn't have to play ball in that respect

[Njugle]

I've had a rummage through that link.

Two things struck me.

 

1) The BBC allowed the link to the other message board, which would suggest that they are not entirely biased about the issue

 

2)

The Spanish shrivled up in the face off the Islamic scum. The Israelis are the only ones with the balls to face up to these motivless murderers.

Given that the BBC story was about the nice successful anti-terrorism demo, it would appear that they are not censoring the message board heavily to allow something as controversial as that post, are they?

 

But, surprisingly, i have to agree about Ch4 news, it is pretty good.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

But, surprisingly, i have to agree about Ch4 news, it is pretty good.

 

Yeah, if only they had the Ch5 weather forcast after.

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2237/1119679660906fantasyfooqt1.jpgLara Lewington, Channel 5 Weather

 

 

Although I dont think Shetland makes it on their map, so maybe not if you want the actual weather.

[Malachy]

Impartiality and being unbiased are actually two different things; the latter should be relatively simple to achieve, but the former is very difficult. The BBC is the only media organisation that comes even close.

 

Accusations of bias usually come from those who find that the BBC is not simply reciting their own views back at them.

 

Trying to be impartial can throw up all sorts of conundrums, which need to be dealt with. For instance, there was the well-publicised discussion about how the BBC dealt with the BNP a few years back. When discussing immigration issues you would expect to hear the fairly mainstream opinion that controlled immigration is good for the economy and good for the country; but the idea of impartiality suggests you should also have the opposing view: that immigration should be stopped and immigrants in this country sent back 'home'. So there was a period when the BBC was conducting interviews with the BNP on a reasonably regular basis, in the name of impartiality. But the BNP (as every election shows) represent only a very small minority of opinion in this country. And it has been suggested that the space and airtime they were given by the BBC actually allowed the party to gain some respectability and made them seem more mainstream. This may in turn have helped them to increase their vote in some parts of the country.

 

So was it right to give them so much airtime? Almost certainly not. And they have received less 'positive' airtime in recent years. The BBC has to take into account not only both sides of the argument, but also whether one side is worthy of being taken seriously, and the relative 'weights' of both sides. You wouldn't, for instance, expect them to give equal time to the idea of 'intelligent design' as opposed to evolution, simply because it is an opposing view. They have a very difficult job to do.

 

Here's an interesting piece on the subject: http://www.newstatesman.com/200706250015

[Gibber]

Its true no news agency can be unbiased, but to have an editorial process that green lights this kind of reporting and to retain the reporter's services (I think she is reporting from Africa now) while under Royal Charter to be unbiased is absurd.

 

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Weeping_for_Yassir.asp

[Malachy]

Those quotes seemed more over-emotional rather than biased. I don't think it's biased to have felt sorry about Arafat's illness and death. Many people had seen him as a focus of hope for the region, but as it turned out it wasn't to be.

 

Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a western journalist working in the occupied territories who didn't have a great deal of sympathy for the people that live there. Indeed, Alan Johnson, the recently released BBC reporter, who was the only western journalist who actually lived in the occupied territories, has been described as, and has described himself as 'a friend of the Palestinian people'. It is not biased to acknowledge and feel sorry about the suffering of a people.

 

The site to which your link took me is one called "Honest Reporting". And yet, in their history section they describe their aim as "to help Israel." A news organisation that has political aims can hardly start accusing others of being unbiased, and probably can't describe itself as honest either, if honesty involves telling both sides of the truth, which is that that is a particularly complicated conflict in which neither side is innocent.

 

Israel and Palestine probably proves the most difficult issue on which to report in an impartial way. Many journalists simply don't wish to go near the subject these days. Reporters who dare to mention the killing of Palestinians or the hardships they endure are regularly smeared as anti-semitic, and invariably receive death threats (though to my knowledge none of these threats has ever been carried out against a journalist, so perhaps the threats are not taken very seriously any more). Even the use of the words 'occupied territories' has become controversial, despite the fact that, under international law, the Gaza Strip and West Bank are exactly that. If there is a tendency to focus on the plight of the Palestinians rather than the Israelis (and to be honest I don't think there is - suicide bombings in Israel have always received much coverage wheras the everyday killings of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers is almost never mentioned) it is simply because many journalists who cover international stories will have a natural tendency to side with the oppressed group rather than the powerful state.

[Gibber]

Those quotes seemed more over-emotional rather than biased. I don't think it's biased to have felt sorry about Arafat's illness and death. Many people had seen him as a focus of hope for the region, but as it turned out it wasn't to be.

 

Yes thats the point, many people also saw him as not being a focus of hope . We are talking about bias, Plett bawling her eyes out puts across the opinion that Arafat was only a focus of hope (or however he was lauded); where in her reporting does she put across that to others, he was a focus of intransigence, dogma, belligerence, and stupidity?

 

You can bet your ass you won’t find a journalist in the occupied territories (especially now in Gaza) that doesn’t state they have sympathy for the Palestinians. Alan Johnston saying he was a friend of the Palestinian people didn’t stop him spending his summer tied to a radiator. You might want to ask yourself why he was, as you say the

 

"only western journalist who actually lived in the occupied territories"

 

…and then ask yourself if unbiased reporting is possible under such circumstances as those found there.

 

The site to which your link took me is one called "Honest Reporting". And yet, in their history section they describe their aim as "to help Israel."

 

Hang on a second Mal! It does indeed say ‘to help Israel’ in their history section. You might want to include the context this is mentioned in though…

 

“It was Yom Kippur, 2000. The Intifada had just broken out and a huge wave of terror had suddenly descended upon Israel. The media in Europe was twisting the story to brand Israel as a bad guy! Jews in the UK were in shock and felt under attack. A few idealists decided enough was enough.â€

 

Namely to counter bias against Israel. A cause the BBC should be subscribing to if it is to follow its own charter on bias and an aim for anyone who wants a grown up discussion on the subject. This of course is equally true for anti-Palestinian bias.

 

In this case selective de-contextualised quotation from the Honestreporting site reveals your bias I think!

 

And Honestreporting isn’t a news organisation, it doesn’t provide journalistic content, it monitors news organisations for biased reporting against Israel.

 

Reporters who dare to mention the killing of Palestinians or the hardships they endure are regularly smeared as anti-semitic, and invariably receive death threats

 

This I would like to see specific evidence of. Could you write more on this with sources perhaps? I take it you mean serious threats to life and not just internet trolls on message boards and the like.

 

There are many reporters who dare to mention the deaths of Palestinians and the hardships they suffer. Try Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post online.

[junior]

Here MPAC claim 2000+ people, perhaps they are trying to show the beeb how to be biased and exaggerate

 

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3840/34/

 

On the other side they didn't report (I couldn't find it) this apparently larger (3000 people) gathering in London last month calling, amongst other things, for an Islamic takeover of Britain.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56503

 

I don't think this necessarily indicates a bias, more of a worrying censorship.

 

C4 for me too.

[Malachy]

Reporters who dare to mention the killing of Palestinians or the hardships they endure are regularly smeared as anti-semitic, and invariably receive death threats

 

This I would like to see specific evidence of. Could you write more on this with sources perhaps? I take it you mean serious threats to life and not just internet trolls on message boards and the like.

 

Here is one report about it. Unfortunately, as is often the case with the internet, I can't vouch for the claims he makes, though I chose this piece because the writer is quite thorough, and some of the examples (for instance the one about Robert Fisk) could probably be verified with a bit more searching.

 

I can recall reading a similar piece in the Guardian a while back, detailing some of the threats that she (I think) and her colleagues had received. But try as I might I cannot find it online. (You may not consider that a reliable source either, but that is up to you.)

 

As I said, this is a very complicated subject where both sides are wrong on many levels. I feel unequipped to enter into a serious debate (and this is not really the thread for it either), so I'm not going to respond to more of your points from your last post as we could spiral endlessly into a whirlpool of disagreement. And I haven't the energy today.

[Gibber]

I feel unequipped to enter into a serious debate

 

We agree on something then

 

Remember Malachy we are talking about bias not the Israeli/Palestinian situation as a whole.

 

No, I don't see a link to a report and yes recalling reading stuff in the Guardian is a bit vague I think. Although now you mention it I too vaguely recall something about a Robert Fisk death threat that was emailed(?) to him.

 

I don't think you meant to say daring to report the situation leads to death threats and calls of anti-semitism. I find that continuously aggressive op-ed pieces, tone, agressive interviewing, manipulation of facts, imagery etc leads to calls of anti-semitism and in the case of some extremist cretins, death threats.

 

Feel free to address the other points in the post when you have enough energy though, I guarantee it won't be a spiral of disagreement from my side and I hope not from you; especially since you conceded that "both sides are wrong on many levels." This is a lot more than some people will concede.

[Malachy]

Oops. Here's the link. The section on Robert Fisk seems to suggest an ongoing campaign of threats rather than a single one (although he focused on a public comment by the actor John Malkovitch as a way of highlighting the trend).

 

http://www.doublestandards.org/bernstein1.html

[Gibber]

Are you seriously citing this website in a thread about bias?

 

Halfway down the page you have Mossad agents in a van acting strangely while watching the WTC explode.

 

Sweet fancy Moses!!

[Malachy]

Well that was a story that was widely published in newspapers in this country too. Here is a link to the abstract of the story published in the Herald (you have to pay for the full article from their site) http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/smgpubs/access/436702361.html?dids=436702361:436702361&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+2%2C+2003&author=Neil+Mackay&pub=Sunday+Herald&edition=&startpage=1&desc=Five+Israelis+were+seen+filming+from+the+van+on+the+right+as+jet+liners+ploughed+into+the+Twin+Towers+on+September+11%2C+2001.+Were+they+part+of+a+massive+spy+ring+which+shadowed+the+9%2F11+hijackers+and+knew+that+al-Qaeda+planned+a+devastating+terrorist+attack+on+the+USA%3F

And the full Herald article can be read (unofficially) here: http://911review.org/Wget/www.world-crisis.com/analysis_more/163_0_15_0_M/

 

I have no idea if the story was true or not, but the source given is a report by the Drugs Enforcement Administration and US immigration service, so I can understand why it was given credence.

[Gibber]

My point was I do think your choice of site in a thread in which we are discussing bias (and I imagine our shared disapproval of bias in either direction) and in which you’ve tried to take me up on the credibility of a link I’ve previously supplied is amusing. Is there anything in this site which is pro Israel or pro US or Europe? If there is does it give any balance to what seems to me like a site devoted to being anti these things to a point beyond reasonable discussion?

 

Annoyingly your right about that article though , it was published in the Sunday Herald, apologies, I just put this down to the usual WTC conspiracy stuff that doesn’t get past editorial control.

 

Oops. Here's the link. The section on Robert Fisk seems to suggest an ongoing campaign of threats rather than a single one (although he focused on a public comment by the actor John Malkovitch as a way of highlighting the trend).

 

I wouldn't put Robert Fisk into the category of; like you said;

 

“Reporters who dare to mention the killing of Palestinians or the hardships they endure are regularly smeared as anti-semitic, and invariably receive death threatsâ€

 

There are newspapers from Jerusalem to Alaska who have reporters doing that who are not labelled anti-jewish or in fear of their lives.

 

I would put him more into the category of; like I said;

 

“…continuously aggressive op-ed pieces, tone, agressive interviewing, manipulation of facts, imagery etc leads to calls of anti-semitism and in the case of some extremist cretins, death threats.â€

 

Although I imagine you wouldn't