Full Version: BBC under fire
With the BBC taking recent fire for twisting their war coverage, and the emergence of the Fox News Channel, where do you think the media's bias leans the most these days?
The next regime change needs to happen at the BBC. When they promoted Bill Clinton sending Jimmy Carter to appease North Korea, it seemed a little biased, but no more than our own media outlets. When they perpetuated the idea that Saddam would draw the line at sponsoring Palestinian suicide bombers and trying
to have an American president assassinated, but would never give WMD to terrorists, it seemed they were denying the obvious to undermine a popular Republican president, but again, this is not uncommon. When their embedded correspondents had to be removed from the war due to their blatantly deceitful, slanted coverage, it became apparent that their bias was in a league of its
own. But the last straw for me was when they tried to report that Jessica Lynch's rescue was staged; that we knew there were no Iraqi forces in that hospital,
but wanted to manufacture support for the war, when they knew otherwise. The BBC's sleazy liberal agenda puts our Katie Couric and Dan Rather to shame, and
probably generates support for the Fox News Channel.
to have an American president assassinated, but would never give WMD to terrorists, it seemed they were denying the obvious to undermine a popular Republican president, but again, this is not uncommon. When their embedded correspondents had to be removed from the war due to their blatantly deceitful, slanted coverage, it became apparent that their bias was in a league of its
own. But the last straw for me was when they tried to report that Jessica Lynch's rescue was staged; that we knew there were no Iraqi forces in that hospital,
but wanted to manufacture support for the war, when they knew otherwise. The BBC's sleazy liberal agenda puts our Katie Couric and Dan Rather to shame, and
probably generates support for the Fox News Channel.
where they can get the most viewers.
i would say the media is moderate to conserveitive, and then liberal.
30% conservitive 40% moderate 25%liberal 5%other, this is my opinion. i dont watch very much t.v, i get most of my news from NPR being its global in view. Nothing like news from africa
i would say the media is moderate to conserveitive, and then liberal.
30% conservitive 40% moderate 25%liberal 5%other, this is my opinion. i dont watch very much t.v, i get most of my news from NPR being its global in view. Nothing like news from africa
QUOTE(aquapub @ Jul 21 2003, 09:56 PM)
The next regime change needs to happen at the BBC. When they promoted Bill Clinton sending Jimmy Carter to appease North Korea, it seemed a little biased, but no more than our own media outlets. When they perpetuated the idea that Saddam would draw the line at sponsoring Palestinian suicide bombers and trying
to have an American president assassinated, but would never give WMD to terrorists, it seemed they were denying the obvious to undermine a popular Republican president, but again, this is not uncommon. When their embedded correspondents had to be removed from the war due to their blatantly deceitful, slanted coverage, it became apparent that their bias was in a league of its
own. But the last straw for me was when they tried to report that Jessica Lynch's rescue was staged; that we knew there were no Iraqi forces in that hospital,
but wanted to manufacture support for the war, when they knew otherwise. The BBC's sleazy liberal agenda puts our Katie Couric and Dan Rather to shame, and
probably generates support for the Fox News Channel.
to have an American president assassinated, but would never give WMD to terrorists, it seemed they were denying the obvious to undermine a popular Republican president, but again, this is not uncommon. When their embedded correspondents had to be removed from the war due to their blatantly deceitful, slanted coverage, it became apparent that their bias was in a league of its
own. But the last straw for me was when they tried to report that Jessica Lynch's rescue was staged; that we knew there were no Iraqi forces in that hospital,
but wanted to manufacture support for the war, when they knew otherwise. The BBC's sleazy liberal agenda puts our Katie Couric and Dan Rather to shame, and
probably generates support for the Fox News Channel.
Sources, please.
Who is this mysterious "they"?
The BBC has taken on the role of opposition party in Britain. There is no such thing as fair and balanced reporting anywhere that I'm aware of. For a long time there was no conservative outlet to counter the liberal slant in the media. Now we do have some counters like Fox, but they are by no means balanced.
I seriously doubt if there will ever be a news outlet that is truly balanced. The best we can hope to do is read or see or listen between the lines and hope to find the truth in there somewhere.
I seriously doubt if there will ever be a news outlet that is truly balanced. The best we can hope to do is read or see or listen between the lines and hope to find the truth in there somewhere.
Well, I think that the BBC has always been an easy whipping post for accusations of liberalism. For starters, as a state-owned broadcaster funded from compulsory taxation (even if it is "hypothecated" in the jargon - you know that your TV licence money is only going to the BBC and not welfare), it is, in it's very essence, a liberal institution.
They have almost always been biased towards the soft left in UK terms - liberals in modern US parlance - but in the domestic UK context, they are broadly balanced in most of their coverage, in the sense that both sides of an argument are usually given an airing.
Indeed, I've heard it argued that the only people who believe that news coverage should even attempt to be unbiased are liberals - witness the paucity of liberal talk radio hosts and TV pundits in the US. Sure the audience figures justify that - the market is deciding, but I would say that this is mainly because most liberal listeners do not want to hear ANYONE cajoling them into thinking a particular way or ridiculing opponents, even if it's a liberal doing it. I'd say (and yes, I'm guessing!) most liberals would like coverage that appears balanced so they can make up their own mind, while Conservatives are just as happy (or happier) with hearing only the side that reinforces what they think already and makes fun of veryone else. And also, some liberals like to think of themselves of the underdog so get some kind of kick out of being on the defensive the whole time (which might explain why they seem to prefer being in opposition sometimes).
Conservatives have been more willing to express their conservatism on air - here and in the USA - because, rightly or wrongly, they believe their viewers and listeners can always switch off if they don't like it. In individual cases that is true, but when the overall balance is skewed in their favour, the market is not serving all comers.
I think in most of the cases where they are accused of specific bias, the bigger picture is that they are providing balance to the overall debate precisely by being biased - with the notable exception of the Guardian newspaper, and to a lesser extent the Mirror, the British media are broadly conservative in their views, so for the 18 years of conservative government, they were mostly supportive of the government view. Where the BBC did stray to the left, it has tended to be in areas where most of the rest of the UK media are in agreement with the government or establishment line.
I exclude the current BBC vs. Blair government spat over WMDs, as in this I think both sides are taking things too far - neither side seems interested in truth, only in winning the argument.
But, even then, Passion 51 is quite right to say that this does fit the traditional role of the British media as a whole, and the BBC in particular, of taking the place of the official opposition in the national debate at times when the official opposition cannot or will not do so, as now (and as in the 1980s and early 90s).
There is also a general and somewhat depressing trend of scepticism towards anything and everything said by any politician, which is pretty deeply ingrained in the British public at large, has been for a good 20 years, and is growing rather than subsiding. This is exacerbated by the feedback loop where the media want to reflect their audiences ideas, so they become more cynical, which in turn feed more public cynicism, and so on and so on. Our electoral system makes this even worse, since no government ever gets voted in by more than about 40% of the people that bother to vote, and our turnouts are on a downward trend. Any government therefore has a built in majority in the public that does not actively support them. The unusual thing about the Blair government is that they have had, and still have, an overall and consistent majority of public support.
But, to drag myself on topic again, in the light of what I've said, why is anyone surprised that:
1) the BBC has a bias at all
2) that bias is more often liberal than conservative?
And, why is it important to Americans that a British media outlet (with global standing, it's true) doesn't always agree with or support the US government, let alone the British one? Brits don't get steamed up about Fox News, because most of us don't watch it or seek it out on the net. And it's even more overtly biased than the BBC.
They have almost always been biased towards the soft left in UK terms - liberals in modern US parlance - but in the domestic UK context, they are broadly balanced in most of their coverage, in the sense that both sides of an argument are usually given an airing.
Indeed, I've heard it argued that the only people who believe that news coverage should even attempt to be unbiased are liberals - witness the paucity of liberal talk radio hosts and TV pundits in the US. Sure the audience figures justify that - the market is deciding, but I would say that this is mainly because most liberal listeners do not want to hear ANYONE cajoling them into thinking a particular way or ridiculing opponents, even if it's a liberal doing it. I'd say (and yes, I'm guessing!) most liberals would like coverage that appears balanced so they can make up their own mind, while Conservatives are just as happy (or happier) with hearing only the side that reinforces what they think already and makes fun of veryone else. And also, some liberals like to think of themselves of the underdog so get some kind of kick out of being on the defensive the whole time (which might explain why they seem to prefer being in opposition sometimes).
Conservatives have been more willing to express their conservatism on air - here and in the USA - because, rightly or wrongly, they believe their viewers and listeners can always switch off if they don't like it. In individual cases that is true, but when the overall balance is skewed in their favour, the market is not serving all comers.
I think in most of the cases where they are accused of specific bias, the bigger picture is that they are providing balance to the overall debate precisely by being biased - with the notable exception of the Guardian newspaper, and to a lesser extent the Mirror, the British media are broadly conservative in their views, so for the 18 years of conservative government, they were mostly supportive of the government view. Where the BBC did stray to the left, it has tended to be in areas where most of the rest of the UK media are in agreement with the government or establishment line.
I exclude the current BBC vs. Blair government spat over WMDs, as in this I think both sides are taking things too far - neither side seems interested in truth, only in winning the argument.
But, even then, Passion 51 is quite right to say that this does fit the traditional role of the British media as a whole, and the BBC in particular, of taking the place of the official opposition in the national debate at times when the official opposition cannot or will not do so, as now (and as in the 1980s and early 90s).
There is also a general and somewhat depressing trend of scepticism towards anything and everything said by any politician, which is pretty deeply ingrained in the British public at large, has been for a good 20 years, and is growing rather than subsiding. This is exacerbated by the feedback loop where the media want to reflect their audiences ideas, so they become more cynical, which in turn feed more public cynicism, and so on and so on. Our electoral system makes this even worse, since no government ever gets voted in by more than about 40% of the people that bother to vote, and our turnouts are on a downward trend. Any government therefore has a built in majority in the public that does not actively support them. The unusual thing about the Blair government is that they have had, and still have, an overall and consistent majority of public support.
But, to drag myself on topic again, in the light of what I've said, why is anyone surprised that:
1) the BBC has a bias at all
2) that bias is more often liberal than conservative?
And, why is it important to Americans that a British media outlet (with global standing, it's true) doesn't always agree with or support the US government, let alone the British one? Brits don't get steamed up about Fox News, because most of us don't watch it or seek it out on the net. And it's even more overtly biased than the BBC.
where does media bias lie? I would say it depends on whose media. in america it is clearly supportive of the right. these are the same media that tore clinton apart for oral sex, yet refuse to state the obvious fact bush lied (saying Iraq had tens of tonnes of botox is a lie) instead they use euphamisms like "misled", twisted", "spun" and what not. this story has basicly dissappeared from the news in fact. MSNBC fired liberal donahue, and hired extreme right wing shock jock, micheal "savage" weiner. (they have fired him for remarks he made on his show) of american news agencies, cnn is the least biased.
as to the BBC. they are doing the job the media is supposed to do. the media is meant to keep government in check (which is why the founding fathers wanted all people to be able to be the media if they wished) they are supposed to criticize government, they are supposed to expose fraud and corruption. if it weren't for the media, I doubt nixon wouldv'e been impeached. I wish our media had the guts the BBC does.
as to the BBC. they are doing the job the media is supposed to do. the media is meant to keep government in check (which is why the founding fathers wanted all people to be able to be the media if they wished) they are supposed to criticize government, they are supposed to expose fraud and corruption. if it weren't for the media, I doubt nixon wouldv'e been impeached. I wish our media had the guts the BBC does.
QUOTE(unabomber @ Jul 22 2003, 09:30 AM)
in america it is clearly supportive of the right.
To those on the left...
QUOTE
these are the same media that tore clinton apart for oral sex, yet refuse to state the obvious fact bush lied (saying Iraq had tens of tonnes of botox is a lie)
Restating what the UN has reported is not a lie (at least from any unbiased point of view).
QUOTE
MSNBC fired liberal donahue
Poor rating will do that to you...
QUOTE
hired extreme right wing shock jock, micheal "savage" weiner
Good rating will do that for you...
QUOTE
they have fired him for remarks he made on his show
being an idiot will do that for you...
QUOTE
of american news agencies, cnn is the least biased
To those on the left....
QUOTE
as to the BBC. they are doing the job the media is supposed to do. the media is meant to keep government in check
The media should report the facts of the news, and let the viewer figure out the "truth". There is a place for news and a place for commentary, and they are NOT in the same article.
QUOTE
(which is why the founding fathers wanted all people to be able to be the media if they wished)
I missed that in the Constitution, or the Federalist papers, but ok...
QUOTE
they are supposed to criticize government, they are supposed to expose fraud and corruption. if it weren't for the media, I doubt nixon wouldv'e been impeached. I wish our media had the guts the BBC does.
The media SHOULD be a watchdog, in some senses. However, unceasing criticism is never constructive (especially if the media pretends to be "objective") since after a time, no one listens to the criticism any longer.
It is clear to me that some people who criticize certain media outlets (such as Fox News) clearly do not watch them. Fox has been very critical of the President on many issues. They are NOT a rubber stamp network. Sure, they have more conservative commentators, but their news
reporting is balanced. I think people get confused between news and opinions, when both are on the same network.
Maybe the thing that disturbs many conservatives is that the BBC is actually reporting the truth, based on Real evidences (not the so called evidences that many quotes but that are in fact just opinions) and is objective.
Because the BBC is gov. funded, there is no need for it to follow the polls and the audience ratings, and so they can tell the truth, even if it disturbs the public opinion and the media corporation, without any fear of retaliation (like beeing fired, ...)
They have a tape of what Dr kelly said:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqdossieraff...1004213,00.html
Because the BBC is gov. funded, there is no need for it to follow the polls and the audience ratings, and so they can tell the truth, even if it disturbs the public opinion and the media corporation, without any fear of retaliation (like beeing fired, ...)
They have a tape of what Dr kelly said:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqdossieraff...1004213,00.html
QUOTE(boulou38 @ Jul 29 2003, 04:29 AM)
Maybe the thing that disturbs many conservatives is that the BBC is actually reporting the truth, based on Real evidences (not the so called evidences that many quotes but that are in fact just opinions) and is objective.
Because the BBC is gov. funded, there is no need for it to follow the polls and the audience ratings, and so they can tell the truth, even if it disturbs the public opinion and the media corporation, without any fear of retaliation (like beeing fired, ...)
They have a tape of what Dr kelly said:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqdossieraff...1004213,00.html
Because the BBC is gov. funded, there is no need for it to follow the polls and the audience ratings, and so they can tell the truth, even if it disturbs the public opinion and the media corporation, without any fear of retaliation (like beeing fired, ...)
They have a tape of what Dr kelly said:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqdossieraff...1004213,00.html
The truth? Such as Gilligan's reports from Baghdad? The BBC is on a mission. One that has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with politics.
Passion, could you please provide some evidence to back up your claims? We're just not going to accept your agruments just on the merits of your name, you have to prove them if you want to change anyone's mind.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.