The Evening Standard reports on the views of BBC commissioning editor for documentaries, Richard Klein. (Hat tip to Jonathan Boyd Hunt. Read his comment here.)
Klein said: “By and large, people who work at the BBC think the same and it’s not the way the audience thinks. That’s not long term sustainable.”
“We pride ourselves on being ‘of the people’, and it’s pathetic…..Channel 4 tends to laugh at people, the BBC ignores them.”
His comments, reported in the corporation’s in-house magazine, come on the back of news earlier this week that a string of BBC executives and journalists have admitted that the corporation is institutionally biased.
And
Klein, who made his views known at an “audience festival” organised by the BBC last week to find out what its viewers think, admitted that the BBC’s liberal internal culture did not match that of the wider British public.
He said: “Most people at the BBC don’t live lives like this, but these are our licence payers. It’s our job to reflect and engage.”
And
Research conducted by the BBC showed that many viewers felt “gagged and alone” and also believed mainstream views were being driven underground.
Another reader reminded me that Nick Cohen had also covered the famous impartiality seminar in an article for the Observer on 7 October, discussed in this post by Laban Tall.
On another thread “Pete London” and “Maurice Green” state their failure to acquire a TV licence. So do I, making three of us.
Maurice Green said:
“Isn’t it time we applied real pressure on the BBC? I propose a campaign of civil disobedience in which we refuse to pay the licence fee …”
I have my own reasons not to subsidise the BBC – the effective destruction of my career in journalism thanks to its agenda-setting illegal political censorship of an important story I unearthed
with another journo.
In this last week alone we learn that the BBC’s own senior staff believe the corporation to be inherently biased. We hear that the BBC would broadcast the Bible being chucked in the trash, but not the Koran.
Now we have the BBC broadcasting Pearl and Dean jobs for the Taliban, for fuck’s sake, and a willingness to broadcast an interview with the world’s #1 terrorist (suspect), Osama Bin Laden.
Now really is the time for a campaign of civil disobedience over the TV licence. If anyone here is dragged before the courts for not having a TV licence, or knows of anyone, contact me.
I’ve a shed load of material to justify failure to pay on the basis of the BBC’s sustained unlawfulness and a whole string of BBC staff to subpeona.
“Klein, who made his views known at an “audience festival” organised by the BBC last week to find out what its viewers think, admitted that the BBC’s liberal internal culture did not match that of the wider British public.”
Ummm… don’t they read the “most recommended” sections of the (D)HYS?
It seems extraordinary that the moderators who run those boards shouldn’t have spotted the gaping disconnect before now….
PG
Jonathan Boyd Hunt
On another thread “Pete London” and “Maurice Green” state their failure to acquire a TV licence. So do I, making three of us.
Oh I rather look on it as a success. But I’ll take your tip, and if I ever find myself in the dock I shall indeed look as remorseful as possible and apologise for my failure. Or something. I suspect I’ll have a huge grin and ask for a week to go through the reasons why I don’t have one.
Anti Citizen One has also joined the ranks. That makes four. We’re growing.
I8 Doughty Street (and hopefully the Labour/Lib Dem and others to follow are the way forward IMO).The BBC is too easy to infiltrate by people ruthless enough to try it.Just shows that journalistic training isn’t up to much!?The trouble is with all this (apparent) soul searching,what on earth is their ‘solution’ going to look like??
Pete London
I’ve made quite a few friends in America. Maybe if we swell the ranks up to 100 the splendid chaps at Accuracy in Media might take another piece from me on why we’re all prepared to go to the slammer.
Indeed, maybe the day the first of us goes to court we’ll end up on Fox News or David Letterman. Except that the cowardly Beeb wouldn’t dare prosecute any of the B-BBC contributors precisely for that reason. They prefer single mothers on sink estates (Mark Byford and his famously impartial leftist chums have to get their £456,000 salaries paid somehow).
Re – mass licence boycott.
I don’t know whether this has been covered here already but there is a petition with around 8000 signatures at http://www.tvlicensing.biz
Also someone on there tried to get a mass boycott going in March, using a system called Pledgebank see :-http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB2/viewtopic.php? t=1375.
I for one would happily pledge next years licence fee to an organisation dedicated to campaigning against it.
Unfortunately I don’t really have the time or website skills to set it up.
JBH — Nothing wrong with a little civil disobedience, but why stop there?
What’s wrong with hatred, contempt, ridicule and social ostracism — leavened with a little ‘action directe’ as needed?
Can’t think why the hired liars who work at the BBC should be allowed to walk away unscathed. They’ve done too much harm for too long.
Choice: Reith et al flipping hamburgers and singing for soup vs. jailing the British middle-classes for not paying the licence fee.
What does it take to get you people to do something?
Unfortunately I don’t pay my own TV licence, so I can’t join. Wish I did pay it, so I could refuse to pay it, if that makes sense!
Foxgoose:
The TV Licence campaign is run by Times journo Jonathan Miller, who seems a nice enough chap but he rather blew things by pledging to go to gaol and then by coughing up when his case came to court.
I’ve chatted with him a few times and offered the Beeb’s censorship of the story M. Keith-Hill and I unearthed as an unsurpassable documented case study of deliberate, sustained, illegal, political censorship – i.e. a justifiable defence to a prosecution for non-possession of a TV licence.
However, despite the strength of the argument, Jonathan, like so many of the Beeb’s natural enemies, is hamstrung by an ambivolence towards Neil Hamilton.
Which is a bit near-sighted if you ask me. And a bit unfair. Vain he might be, but corrupt N.H. isn’t and honourable as an MP and minister he most certainly was.
Knacker
I’ve got the ammo, I just don’t have the means of delivery.
‘What does it take to get you people to do something?’
Probably a cost of more than £10 a month for starters. There must be a majority willing to accept that the licence fee is wrong but it’s all about the value that you put on your time and/or willingness to assume legal risk.
JB-H
Before you waste too much time and money on fruitless legal process, I suggest you have another word with your chum J Miller.
He tried a v. clever defence based on the Human Rights Act.
Didn’t get past first-base.
You’ll find that charges are brought under the 1949 Act – a strict liability affair that criminalizes installing/maintaing in place TV-receiving equipment without a licence.
The BBC doesn’t enter into it. It’s you versus the Crown. Theoretically, the BBC could go off air for a year without affecting our liability to pay.
You won’t be able to subpoena anyone. They’ll just strike out any non-defence-defences at Magistrate’s Court and get on with it.
Funny how Al-Beeb is right behind the Human Rights Act, if it applies to terrorists. If enough people get together in refusing to pay, it will be very hard for the licence fee to be continued. I, for one, am prepared to take the risk. Remember the Poll Tax riots, Reithy?
You’ll find that charges are brought under the 1949 Act – a strict liability affair that criminalizes installing/maintaing in place TV-receiving equipment without a licence.
Just wondering if the BBC sends its goons into Tower Hamlets on a dark night in which to check up to see if the faithful have bought their BBC TV licence.
Something tells me they don’t..
John Reith,
By God man, you’ve missed your calling. You’re about fifty years too late and about 1550 miles west of where you ought to be. It seems you actually relish the power the BBC possesses over the downtrodden proles.
Well, the law is a wonderful thing John, and even mighty drunk-with-power organisations like the BBC have to comply with it. And unfortunately for the BBC, for the last nine years solid it hasn’t complied with its Royal Charter, its Agreement to the Royal Charter, or the BBC’s rulebooks which have statutory force under the Royal Charter and the Agreement, namely, the Producers’ Guidelines and from June 1995 its Editorial Guidelines.
In fact, the BBC’s contravention of its solemn legal duty to report political controversies impartially is so grave and sustained it renders its right to collect the licence fee null and void.
Don’t believe me? The Charter is there to be adhered to, John. So is the Agreement and the BBC’s rulebooks. They’re not all there to be pissed on from a great height. The BBC’s right to collect a tax from the citizens of this country is conditional upon the BBC discharging its own strict duties under the Charter, Agreement, and rulebooks. And the thing is, John, the BBC has deliberately, repeat, deliberately and conciously failed so to do. So try your luck me old mucker and we’ll see who’s right.
If you think the BBC can cock a snoot at it’s own solemn legal obligations that effect the democratic function of this country while enjoying the right to demand payment so that it may continue said unlawful activity you’ve been sniffing the wrong brand of glue.
P.S. where did your recent seemingly reasonable fireside manner go John?
Dear Jonathan Boyd Hunt,
I do so like your style. 🙂
My best wishes to you.
Agreement accompanying Royal Charter:
3. PROGRAMME CONTENT
3.1 … the Corporation undertakes to provide and keep under review the Home Services with a view to the maintenance of high general
standards in all respects (and in particular in respect of their content, quality and editorial integrity) … meeting the needs and interests of audiences, in
accordance with the requirements specified in subclause 3.2.
3.2 The requirements referred to in subclause 3.1 are that the Home Services –
(c) contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world to support fair
and informed debate at local, regional and national levels;
CONSTITUTION
7( 1) It shall be the function of the Governors to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Corporation in accordance with this Our Charter and in particular (but without limitation)
to:-
f) monitor and supervise the Corporation’s fulfilment of its legal and contractual obligations and in particular (but without limitation) to:-
ensure that the Corporation and its employees and all programme makers engaged by the Corporation comply with the provisions of any code which the Corporation is required to draw up for the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality and comply with any other code or guidelines applicable to programme content and standards.
BBC, we had an agreement. You let me down. You let everyone down. This is just the beginning.
A minor correction. The Producers Guidelines were renamed Editorial Guidelines in June 2005 not 1995.
I would be interested to know how the BBC has “flagrantly” not complied with them, over the past nine years (why nine?).
Especially as they are “Guidelines” not a “rule book”.
(I work for the BBC).
I think you need a new pseudonym, ‘John.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reith
A biography, My Father — Reith of the BBC, written by his daughter Marista Leishman, was published on 29 September 2006. In it she claims that her father was a Nazi sympathiser who abhorred Jews. He banned the playing of jazz music on the BBC, and Leishman says that he wrote in his diary that “Germany has banned hot jazz and I’m sorry that we should be behind in dealing with this filthy product of modernity.” Leishman says that on 9 March 1933 Reith wrote “I am certain that the Nazis will clean things up and put Germany on the way to being a real power in Europe again . . . They are being ruthless and most determined”; and in March 1939, when Prague was occupied, he wrote: “Hitler continues his magnificent efficiency.”[1]
To all B-BBCers:
Please indulge me. I’ll go quiet again about my work for a few months after this post.
John Archer:
Thanks.
Nick Reynolds:
I stand corrected about the date of the Editorial Guidelines. Slip of the pen.
Here’s why the BBC has been acting provably and institutionally unlawfully:
There’s a major side of the CFQ affair that the BBC and other broadcasters have not yet aired: a criminal conspiracy by the Guardian and Fayed involving forgery and false witness that perverted the Downey Inquiry of Jan-July 1997.
Jonathan Sopel (i.e. Blair’s hagiographer) and Caroline Walker reported for BBC TV News and BBC Radio News respectively N.H.’s address to the Standards Committee of 14 Oct 1997, during which N.H. gave chapter and verse on the Guardian’s retrospective forgery of contemporaneous notes of an interview he had with Guardian hacks Mullin and Hencke the year before.
To put the forgery of the notes in context read this:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%202/page2.html
N.H. cited the evidence proving the forgery of the notes from a report that my colleague Malcolm Keith-Hill and I compiled following 6 months’ research into the affair. Our intervention in the affair undoubtedly contributed to the Standards Committee’s unexpected and historic rejection of Downey’s verdict on the central CFQ allegations.
However Sopel and Walker kept our investigation out of the bulletins, despite the endorsement and broadcast of our work at that time by the BBC NW political editor Jim Hancock. This was the first identifiable act of censorship of our investigation by the BBC in London, and it’s continued unabated ever since.
Over the last nine years I’ve executed several news events to force our story out into the mainstream arena, but the MSM, led by the BBC, has kept the lid shut tight, despite the endorsements of our work by journos and parliamentarians of standing.
See:
http://www.guardianlies.com/News%20Releases/index.html
and:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Pegs%20that%20stood%20up/index.html
If you want to know more Nick please communicate via the link in Section One of my website. Thanks for your interest.
Nick Reynolds:
I forgot.
Royal Charter:
“CONSTITUTION
7(1) It shall be the function of the Governors to…:
(f) monitor and supervise the Corporation’s fulfilment of its legal and contractual obligations and in particular (but without limitation) to:
• ensure that the Corporation and its employees and all programme makers engaged by the Corporation comply with the provisions of any code* which the Corporation is required to draw up for the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality and comply with any other code or guidelines applicable to programme content and standards.”
*That means the BBC’s rulebooks. The BBC can call them “guidelines” if it likes but they still have to be adhered to.
JBL et al
I know Jonathan Miller lost on the human rights argument (although he’s still helpng with the website and forum).
I suspect also that J Reith may be right (albeit a touch smug) about the Beeb having us all stitched up legally with the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act.
The point about a mass boycott however is that, if it gets big enough – politicians might get nervous, unpopular laws might get revisited and people like JR might get their P45’s in due course.
How about this scenario – somebody starts a pledge at this “Pledgebank” site offering to donate their next year’s fee to fund a campaign for repeal of the 1949 Act – providing that 10,000 others sign.
Everybody who signs on the pledge site can use a username for anonymity, if they prefer, but must quote their TV Licence reference no. to prove authenticity and send a private letter to their MP confirming thier pledge and stating their reasons.
We keep putting the pledge up till we get the 10,000 signatures. The pledge is conditional so costs nothing and can’t attract any legal repercussions until the point when the numbers are big enough to take the risk of starting a properly funded political PR campaign with a chance of success.
I imagine a fund of around £ 1 – £1.5M might well do the trick.
I know 10,000 may seem a lot of pledges but remember – there are many million licence payers and there’s no up front cash or risk required.
I was recently involved in an internet based petition against a very unpopular hotel development on a little Mediterranean island where we have a holiday home.
To everyone’s amazement – the petition topped 10,000 signatures from a total population of 400,000 citizens.
It can be done.
Noel Edmonds plays;
The bravest animals in the land are Captain BBC and his band
That’s Timid Taliban, Reckless Arafat, Artful Platt and Batty Bowen
They march through the woodlands singing songs
That tell how they have righted wrongs
Once Hissing Bush, an evil snake, kept the woodland folk awake
In fear and trembling every night
In case he gave someone a bite
Said Artful Platt, ‘We’ll lie in wait
And one of us will be the bait.”
Said Captain BBC, “Have no fear! For I alone will volunteer!”
“No, make it me!” Said Reckless Arafat
I’ll stand there in my reckless hat
When Hissing Bush picks up my trail,
I’ll just lasso him with my tail!”
“Oh, good idea” said Timid Taliban, “We’ll hide a long way down the road.
And when you’ve overcome resistance,
We’ll rush along to your assistance.”
Said Batty Bowen, “I’ve got a wheeze!
I’ll fly and hide up in the trees!
If Hissing Bush should slither by
I’ll drop a boulder from the sky!”
Said Artful Platt, “The idea sound…how will you lift it off the ground?”
Poor Batty Bowen just scratched his head,
“I hadn’t thought of that,” he said.
Said Platt, “The rest of us hold back. There’s only one that he’ll attack.”
Said Timid Taliban, “I like your plan.”
“Good luck,” said Platt, “For you’re the man!”
So Timid Taliban, his eyes a-popping,
Into the woodland night went hopping
Captain BBC waved his hand, followed by his trusty band
That’s Artful Platt and Reckless Arafat, and above the trees flew Batty Bowen.
Part 2
“Stop!” Said BBC, “I hear squeaking!”
“It’s Batty Bowen” said Platt, “He’s speaking!”
“It’s all in code,” said Reckless Arafat
Said Platt, “I’ll just decipher that.”
“A dash, a dot, two short, two long…
I rather think we’ve got it wrong.
It reads ‘can clearly see the road,
Hissing Bush has captured Taliban!'”
“Quick men!” said BBC, “No delay!
“You mustn’t let him get away!”
And leaping off, said “Follow me!”
And ran head first into a tree.
“Dot dot dot” squeaked Batty Bowen.
Said BBC, “Quick! Decipher that!”
Said Reckless Arafat, “Perhaps we’re gaining?”
“No,” said Platt. “He says…it’s raining”
Oh, how they ran to save poor Taliban,
For they must find that snake’s abode
Guided by old Batty Bowen
Dot dot go this way dash, go that!
Then Hissing Bush’s lair they spied
Were they too late? Was he inBushe?
Said Reckless Arafat, “I’ll get a pole
And stop him going down his hole!”
Then into sight the snake came hopping,
Right past his hole, no sign of stopping
Said Reckless Arafat, “That’s rather funny,
“There’s something jumping in his tummy.”
Part 3;
Said Captain BBC, “Well I’m blowed!
Hissing Bush has swallowed Taliban!”
And as the snake hopped out of sight,
Off they chased into the night.
At last they found him, tired and dizzy
And pulled out Taliban, who said “Where is he?
For left alone, I felt quite sick,
And hopped into a hollow stick
Said Platt, “A clever step to take!
You jumped into that slippery snake.”
“That was brave of Taliban”, said Arafat
“That’s just my sort of plan!” said Bowen
Said Captain BBC to his men,
“Well we’ll not see Hissing Bush again!”
And as they marched off down the road,
They sang in praise of Timid Taliban
Above them flew ol’ Batty Bowen,
With his wings stretched out, like that
Platt’s idea, the clever Shelia
To have a flying traitor.
Milesinfront:
I’m sorry I missed your post citing the crucial extract from the Royal Charter, which I then cited.
I guess you were, er, miles in front of me.
Pounce:
Nice one.
Foxgoose: Sounds like a good suggestion. I can currently pledge 19 TV licences for which I am currently paying.
Pounce: You rock!
Good article by Tom Leonard in Telegraph today. “Bias at the Beeb”
(sorry, dont know how to copy link!)
Well I’m truely sorry if poor old Hamilton was framed!I think his ‘sleaze story’ had a significant part in undermining the last Conservative Government.
I think you’ll find that it was more that the last Conservative Government was s*** than that one particular clown may or may not have been framed.
You recollection is different in certain particulars to mine.
Schoolboy Error, RB:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Hamilton_(politician)
“The media coverage surrounding Neil Hamilton and his refusal to stand aside, along with other allegations of sleaze levelled at the party, severely de-railed the Conservatives’ election campaign and contributed to the worst defeat the Conservative Party had suffered for 150 years”
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566793_2____12/Conservative_Party_(Great_Britain).html#s12
Encarta online encyclopedia: “The Conservative Party”
“In March 1997 Major called a general election for May 1. Conservative campaign strategy was thrown off course almost immediately by “sleaze” allegations concerning Neil Hamilton, MP for Tatton”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/573803.stm
“Neil Hamilton came to epitomise Tory sleaze”
Schoolboy Error 1
RB 0
What – some web links (including one probably written by yourself as it name checks you and I can’t imagine anyone else would still be interested)??!!! That’s proved it then.
Try this.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/1997_general_election.htm
Nick Reynolds:
A minor correction. The Producers Guidelines were renamed Editorial Guidelines in June 2005 not 1995.
I would be interested to know how the BBC has “flagrantly” not complied with them, over the past nine years (why nine?).
Especially as they are “Guidelines” not a “rule book”.
(I work for the BBC).
Nick Reynolds | 26.10.06 – 7:58 pm | #
——————
BBC admits it lies in its reporting in Iraq.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
BBC fabricates UK Army desertion story.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/05/uk-bbc-fabricates-army-desertion-story.html
BBC admits it deliberately paints a negative and false picture of America.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4400865.stm
BBC stacks auidence with 5 times as many Muslims as non Muslims in debate over Muslim terror attacks on 7/7.
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_biased-bbc_archive.html#112321150413191159
BBC lies in its reporting of the UN oil for food scandal.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/06/iraq-un-scandal-cover-up-continues.html
BBC caught red handed using well known anti war activist to fabricate a report alleging war crimes against US troops.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2004/04/formal-charges-against-bbc-formal.html
And again.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-exposed-using-anti-war-activist-as.html
Then there’s the BBC latest admission that they are anti American, anti British and pro Islamist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
And this..
Klein said: “By and large, people who work at the BBC think the same and it’s not the way the audience thinks. That’s not long term sustainable.”
“We pride ourselves on being ‘of the people’, and it’s pathetic…..Channel 4 tends to laugh at people, the BBC ignores them.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23372115-details/BBC++%27guilty%27+of+ignoring+public+opinion+says+senior+executive/article.do
Now, Nick and Reith, can we please cut the bullshit guys?
These are admissions by the BBC themselves as well as documented proof of the BBC’s lies. Further, these are just the tip of the iceberg. Much more here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
You guys and anyone else, anyone, who defends the BBC either work there or are willfully ignoring the truth. The items posted above are not opinions, they are undisputed facts.
PressWatch.10 left leaning and 10 rightward leaning journalists.Each group forms a panel that scrutinizes press output.The same kind of idea as the LabourSleazeometer.Set a thief to catch a thief.Each member would rate a contentious story according to what they perceived was its validity or doubtfulness.As a potential scandal or other story warranted multi day coverage,the rating panel(s)of journalists would be the ideal people to detect any likely inconsistentcies (or even deception) in a story and flag it up.Each panel having its own bias would make sure that any wrongdoers were aggresively brought to light.Perhaps their ‘noses’ for the validity of a story (whether it hangs together) could be aided by software,News Sniffer again.Their votes/ratings would remain confidential to prevent discrimination in later employment.Only the overall panel rating would be available and above a certain score the story/journalists involved are researched by a watchdog for political bias.
The BBC was only too ready to undermine Hamilton during the CFQ inquiry. I recall that some years earlier in a Panorama programme, Hamilton and a colleague of his were accused of being supporters of a far right group. Well they sued the BBC and if I remember correctly the BBC settled out of court, knives at the ready henceforth.
TJ:
Come come now. You’re not suggesting that the famously impartial BBC could be motivated by malice against someone who routed a few of their troopers previously are you?
“Panorama branded me a virulent racist but the programme was transparently false. I had been tried and found guilty but I was determined to fight back. It was the start of a three year battle to clear my name costing half a million pounds”
(N.H. writing in The Sunday Times, 26 October 1986)
“NEIL Hamilton is an engaging and witty rightwinger … One of the last true-believing Thatcherites, his progress beyond the ranks of backbench barrackers and the accolade of Parliamentary Wit of the Year in 1989 were possibly delayed by a prolonged legal action against the BBC, which in 1984 wrongly named him as having far-right links. … The corporation eventually stumped up £20,000 in a libel settlement in 1987 – used to provide an extension to the Hamilton family home – but the lengthy legal process made Mr Hamilton a confirmed enemy of the BBC and investigative journalists generally.”
(The Guardian, 21 October 1994)
A confirmed enemy of the BBC? The famously impartial BBC? I don’t believe it!
Remember that the license fee is VERY difficult and expense to collect.
It would only take a smallish rise in the number of people delaying and avoiding paying it in roder to starve our enemy, the BBC.
Before you attack a castle it’s best to siege it.
This might have been discussed before on this site but I’ve forgotten the answer! Is it legal to forego buying a license if you don’t plug the TV into an aerial and only use ot for watching DVDs?
Yup, that’s perfectly legal.
Just to be on the safe side you need to make sure that no channels are even partially tuned in on any decoding equipment (tuners).
Only legal, I think, if you don’t have a functioning aerial available. Have been in that situation myself.
And let’s not forget that TV licence inspectors do not have right of entry to private residences. You are well within your rights to refuse entry, if they come a-knockin’.
And that their visiting hours are 9 AM til 9 PM Monday til Saturday. You can watch in peace on a Sunday!
And that their visiting hours are 9 AM til 9 PM Monday til Saturday. You can watch in peace on a Sunday!
The triple entry above was definitely not caused by me publishing more than once (which I never do)!
Bug somewhere?
“And let’s not forget that TV licence inspectors do not have right of entry to private residences”
True, but when you refuse entry they then apply for a warrant. You end up with uniformed officers knocking on the door and demanding entry, not a very nice experience I can tell you.
The BBC aren`t alone when they discover they are out of touch with the rest of the country. The judiciary and chiefs of police are as well.
This excellent article from Mark Thompson in today’s Mail on Sunday is worth reading. It answers many of the points raised recently on this blog.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413190&in_page_id=1770
I’ve been looking at the links posted by Marc above in some detail.
The BBC is not a monolithical organisation where everyone thinks the same. Sometimes BBC journalists disagree about stories, tone and language. This is good because healthy debate makes the BBC’s journalism better. But when such differences are leaked to the press they often become “The BBC admits…” when they are just one person disagreeing with another. And of course BBC people sometimes make mistakes.
Bearing this in mind look at each of these links in turn.
1. “BBC admits it lies in its reporting in Iraq” http://media.guardian.co.uk/ broa…,922206,00.html
A BBC correspondent disagrees with the accuracy and tone of coverage of the Gulf War. Interesting and I’m sure as a result of his views our coverage got better. No evidence of bias or indeed “lies”.
2. “BBC fabricates UK Army desertion story.”http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com…tion- story.html
We didn’t “fabricate” the story. The numbers were true. But we didn’t do enough research so drew the wrong conclusions. Sloppy journalism.
3. “BBC admits it deliberately paints a negative and false picture of America.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr…ent/ 4400865.stm
Again the BBC is not “admitting” anything here. This is a personal piece from Justin Webb but rather than attacking the US he praises it. The key quote is not the one on biased bbc’s masthead but rather:
“The founding fathers must be watching from their heavenly perches and wondering at the power of the constitution they created… It is common to mock at American attempts to export Jeffersonian democracy, but after these two weeks the mocking should stop. ”
This is no evidence of bias. In fact it’s evidence of the BBC’s (and Justin’s) attempts to be evenhanded and impartial.
“BBC stacks audience with 5 times as many Muslims as non Muslims in debate over Muslim terror attacks on 7/7.”http://www.biased- bbc.blogspot.c…321150413191159
First of all your own headline is misleading. What you mean is 5 times as many Muslims as there are Muslims in the population in general.
Audiences to programmes like Question Time are looked at afresh for every single edition to find the best audience for a particular programme. This will depend on what the news happens to be. There’s no doubt that Muslim communities are more effected by issues around terrorism than other religious groups and therefore perfectly reasonable to include more of them as long as this isn’t disproportionate or unbalances the discussion. Whether it worked is another matter, but it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do. To describe this as “stacking” is absurd. There’s no bias here.
“BBC lies in its reporting of the UN oil for food scandal.”http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com…- continues.html
Having looked at the BBC stories linked to they don’t say that Annan was “cleared” (which is marc’s point). Here’s a quote from one of them:
“Mr Volcker’s panel found “significant” questions over the integrity of Kojo Annan’s dealings.
However, it found no evidence that the secretary general had made personal gain or influenced the Cotecna contract.”
Have these stories have been retrospectively edited? If these are the original stories then there’s no bias. Even if they were changed, that shows the BBC can learn from its mistakes.
“BBC caught red handed using well known anti war activist to fabricate a report alleging war crimes against US troops.”http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com…bbc- formal.html http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com…ctivist- as.html
The key point here is whether someone who has a known opinion on a subject can ever be a credible witness. This is a matter of judgement. I don’t know how much the journalists who wrote these stories knew about the people interviewed or how they made those judgements. But you can be an anti war activist and a humanitarian worker. If everyone who had views on a subject was automatically excluded as a source then you couldn’t report very much.
In the first story a right of reply is given so that readers can make up their own minds. In the second there’s a link to the CPT site so people can decide whether they are “humanitarian” or “anti War”. I would concede that “humanitarian” might be a bit imprecise as a description of them. But this is a matter of nuance, not evidence of bias.
And finally: “Then there’s the BBC latest admission that they are anti American, anti British and pro Islamist.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ pages…in_page_id=1770
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/ne…tive/ article.do
The points about the Impartiality seminar have been addressed by Helen Boaden on the Editors Blog:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/bias_at_the_bbc.html
The comments by Richard Klein were made at the BBC’s Audiences Festival, an attempt to get BBC people thinking about our audiences. Richard’s point is a good one; but it’s not exactly news that the BBC is by and large more middle class than it’s audiences. I came away from the festival with the strong impression that we need to serve working class audiences (what are known as C1s and C2s) better with content more in tune with their aspirations and attitudes. But this is a different issue from political bias. The fact that Richard Klein can work quite happily for the BBC, and that these things can be debated, proves the BBC is unbiased, or at least trying to be.
My apologies for the length of this comment but as I don’t have a blog this is the best place to post. And just a reminder that I work for the BBC.
‘There’s no doubt that Muslim communities are more effected by issues around terrorism than other religious groups and therefore perfectly reasonable to include more of them as long as this isn’t disproportionate or unbalances the discussion.’
Nick, I’m sorry but that is a fatuous statement.
Why is it fatuous?
Jews in Israel.
Hindus in India.
Christians in Indonesia.
It was fatuous.