A reader writes:
Wanted to draw your attention to another case of BBC bias on the Today Programme this morning. [Monday 8 November] In an interview with the Director of OFFA, Sir Martin Harris, the BBC presenter attacked OFFA from a left-wing point of view. No mention at all was made of the argument that favouring state school pupils might lead to a lowering of standards. The only criticism from the right was a mention that Chris Patten and Michael Beloff had said that this was a crude form of social engineering; note the implied position that Oxford is being elitist – others have made the same criticism of OFFA, but curiously were not mentioned. A transcript of the presenter’s questions is below. You can see how many questions were left wing attacks, compared with the one right wing criticism. Note that Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge, and Michael Beloff, President of Trinity College, Oxford, also appeared on the programme later on, and the same presenter let them say what they wanted to say.
Here are the presenter’s questions:
“You’ve said that you hope universities can be persuaded to spend £200 million a year on bursaries. Will that be enough to encourage a broader spread of admissions?”
“Wouldn’t it make more of a difference if you could actually control admissions? You can’t do that can you, you do have limited powers to control these bursaries but you’ve already been criticised because you don’t have enough powers.”
“But is there any real onus on the universities to increase and broaden the spread of admissions because if you can’t actually affect the admissions policy, if you can’t put quotas, for example, down, what is there to make the universities do what they should?”
“Well, do they, though?” [in response to Sir Martin’s point that universities respond to incentives and challenges]
“But how do you respond to the criticism that you’ve faced already so far. It’s like you’re damned before you even begin. For example, Michael Beloff, President of Trinity College Oxford, and Chris Patten, the new Chancellor of Oxford University, they say that this type of meddling is a shoddy attempt by the Government at social engineering”.
“Are you prepared to impose fines and at what point will you make that decision?”
“You’re sounding very reasonable [Sir Martin’s point that disadvantaged students will have a better change of getting to university], but that’s exactly why some people have criticised a softly softly approach, and they would like somebody like you to come down hard on the universities and say ‘you have to take in a certain number of students from poorer backgrounds.’”
“Are you a little too close, though, to the institutions that you’re supposed to be monitoring? You are a former Vice-Chancellor of the leading Russell Group universities.”
“You won’t find it too hard to impose your restrictions on your former colleagues?”
It’s a mistake to concentrate only on the answers given in an interview. The questions asked are often just as revealing. – NS
Indeed, the BBC often misrepresents the views of others in the questions they ask (or fail to ask). It is similar to the issue of which ‘specialists’ are selected for interviews (i.e. Madeline Albright can be trusted to blast Bush on every foreign policy issue without fail; Michael Moore is mainstream at the Beeb.) and how they are portrayed (Perle, the Prince of Darkness). The BBC was once, at its core, fundamentally fair. No more.
One of the favourite defence postures of the BBC is ‘look – we criticise both Labour and Conservative governments’.
Which is true. But the criticism is ‘always’ (95/5?) from the Left.
Very good, insightful post.
BBC questioning from the left – 2 recent cases re asylum
1st the intention to return some Kosovans.
BBC considers that govt harsh to send back Kosovans being treated for “post traumatic stress disorder” (a condition that the patient can maintain for as long as they want).
Questions could have been – When is the govt going to refuse asylum to those who have chosen to pass thru other safe countries before applying in the UK? – Why are any Kosovans still in the UK, 5 years after UK taxpayer paid a heavy price to secure their territory?
2nd is child of failed asylum seeker having study for public exams disrupted by being housed in detention centre.
BBC suggestion is that such families should be cosily housed whilst children’s education completed at UK taxpayer’s expense.
Question could have been – why can’t failed asylum cases be determined & applicants repatriated more quickly – to cut costs to UK taxpayer & prevent ties being established in UK?
& another thing –
The BBC always reports the Palestian militants as pursuing a “struggle”.
I’m sure the audience is left with the impression that the struggle is to achieve a 2 state solution. The BBC never point out that the struggle is actually for 1 state, with Jews becoming a minority. Given the known hatred of Israeli Jews, the audience could then ponder the consequences of such a “solution”.
Jonathon Dimpleby, in his 2 hour “personal view” recently broadcast on ITV, was similarly misleading. He referred to the Palestinian refugee camps but did not address the implications of an exercise of their right to return.
I do not see how Dimpleby remains the chairman of political programmes on ITV & Radio4 after that programme.
Natalie –
Excellent analysis. It is a v. useful technique.
Laban Tall –
Yes – this is the obvious riposte to what might be called “Marr’s gambit”. The BBC is always striking from the left. Hence both Blair and teh Tories are in their sights. But Karl Marx gets the “humorous, huggable” Mark Steel approach, whereas he should get the full “Warning from History” treatment.
Dan –
How right you are.
And of course the Palestinian code for this is “the right of return”.
No rational person would deny that the Palestinians have suffered. But one can say a good 70% of their suffering has been at their own hand, 20% at the hands of their Arab brothers and probably only 10% at the hands of Jews.
David
Can I bring this back to the issue of universities? It has been shown that students from state schools perform better at university than students getting the same A-level results from private schools.
As private schools are providing a better education than state schools so to get the same A-level results with a poorer education, the student from the state school is likely to have more natural ability. The trouble then is that universities (particularly those that interview) tend to pick more of the private school students over the state school students with the same raw A-level results.
I am not saying that universities are deliberately excluding students from poorer backgrounds. However if an admission policy excludes more talented candidates in favour of less talented but better trained candidates then it is in that university’s own interest to alter the policy so they can get better candidates. If OFFA can help universities with that process then so much the better.
You guys really hate the BBC don’t you? If you really want to see biased, indeed often patently misleading journalism, why not look at Fox News and the Sun? These News International conservative strongholds have no concept of the separation of news and comment.
As for you’re contention that the BBC gives Oxford University stick for being a conservative institution, I am amazed. As a former student at Oxford University, I can tell you that there is a very strong Left Wing consensus within the university. We are the liberal elite, why would the BBC want to criticise their brethren?
You guys take care. Don’t tire yourselves out too much with your unreasoned conservatism!
did you guys just remove my comment – goes to show, biased media exists everywhere. it is truly laughable that you guys try to blame only the left leaning media outlets.
those of us with intelligence understand that no reporting is unbiased – every piece of news reporting is coloured by the views of the reporter. this is in the nature of being human; we all seek to persuade others of the veracity of our deeply held convictions.
pluralism leaves us free to do this, while also protecting our right to reject these moral worldviews, the veracity of which others attempt to convince us. of course, i wouldn’t expect a bunch of reactionaries such as yourselves to face up to this fact.
gerran grimshaw you just don’t get it. The BBC IS BREAKING ITS CHARTER COMMITMENTS!
Bitching about Fox News is pathetic when a) It’s a cable news channel b) It’s a private company and can do whatever it wants.
The BBC is publically funded and has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to exhibit such overt bias to any political agenda. This is the fact that you should face up to.
Good morning Mr Grimshaw.
This comment of yours, the of which you ask has it been deleted. Would it be the one posted first, above? I would like to say how nice it is to have a ‘former student of Oxford University’, one of the ‘liberal elite’ and someone ‘with intelligence’ amongst us ‘unreasoned conservatives’ and ‘reactionaries’. join us again and please bring your grammar with you next time: in English the first letter of a sentence is, traditionally, a capital. Please also read the BBC’s Charter. It requires the BBC to be impartial. As a result, the pluralism which ‘leaves us free’ to ‘seek to persuade others of the veracity of our deeply held opinions’ must be set aside.
cont’d …
Its a shame that standards up at Oxford have, indeed, slipped. Maybe a bit more discrimination and a few less council estate undergrads would help to maintain standards. Grimshaw, I do concur that many in the BBC and academia as a whole may be described as ‘brethren’. My own limited experience of this at Newcastle, Cambridge, UCL and Rome Universities compels me to agree. It helps why the ‘brethren’ have been so wrong, so often about so much.
Pete: Our friend from the liberal elite makes a good point about oversubscription from public schools at university (although this only really applies to Oxbridge and a couple of other wannabe’s, Bristol etc.) and you respond with “Maybe a bit more discrimination and a few less council estate undergrads would help to maintain standards.” Are you serious or just trying to wind him up?
‘Oversubscription’.
Interesting. This implies some empirical scale showing ‘too many’ public school pupils at Oxbridge. But what is too many? Oxbridge is entitled to choose who attends. It is the essence of those institutions and has led directly to their reputations for excellence. The levellers hate excellence and know that an injection of chav culture amongst the towers of learning will bring them down from their perch. Of course I’m serious. Are you?
“The levellers hate excellence and know that an injection of chav culture amongst the towers of learning will bring them down from their perch.”
What are you on about? We’re not talking about ‘chavs’, we’re talking about students. If Oxbridge picked its students on qualifications/ intelligence alone then I wouldn’t have a problem with them. But they don’t.
I was talking about council estate applicantzzzz … never mind I cna’t be bothered.
News Flash: Oxbridge isn’t obliged to choose solely on qualifications. They can choose who they like. That’s why they hold interviews. They have the potential to discriminate.
Not everything in life can be controlled. Some things are not your business. If Oxbridge doesn’t want you then suck it up.
Pete, if our money is going to educate these students (which it is) then it is our duty to make sure that the selection process is as meritocratic as possible.
I’m not sure why you think it’s not taxpayer’s business?
“Pete, if our money is going to educate these students (which it is) then it is our duty to make sure that the selection process is as meritocratic as possible.”
Then make it your duty. And point out any founding charter stating Oxford must be meritocratic along the way. As I said above, Oxbridge (alongside all universities) should discriminate. In interviewing candidates they are choosing who they believe will best fit into their institutions for a number of years. A blanket approach based solely on qualifications would result in unsuitable institution/student match ups. It is a question of using taxpayer money most efficiently and the top institutions have good practice of that. Institutions which inevitably use their income innefficiently invariably fall down the league tables.
Pete, I don’t really understand your argument, are you really saying that you don’t want the brightest kids to go to the best universities? If so, why?
What would be an appropriate university for say a council estate kid from a bog-standard FE college with AAA at A-Level?
I’m saying something very simple. Each university should be free to choose which students they accept. It is for each university to decide if an applicant and that institution are ‘appropriate’ for each other.
Believe it or not, some things you cannot control, some things are not yours to control and some things are just none of your business.
Pete, lets just agree to disagree here. You’re not going to agree with me and I don’t even understand your point.