: Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated
General BBC-related comment thread
Bookmark the permalink.
On the Editors page of the BBC website is the most disgraceful piece of advertising for the Guardian, Kevin Marsh the head of the BBC college of journalists thinks it is fine to give free advertising to a Guardian article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/02/journalism_not_churnalism.html#commentsanchor
And this is the same man who keeps telling us that the BBC is impartial.
Why oh why did he not ask a journalist from a more mainstream paper the right of reply?.
Yes, the best bit is where he quotes the part about journalists now being “forced to shovel unchecked drivel” from PR firms straight onto the page or onto the airwaves – “passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by PR to serve some political or commercial interest. Not journalists, but churnalists.”
Remind me, was it the 1997 or 2001 election where broadcasters, including the BBC, were shown to be simply repeating Labour party press briefings unchecked? Except they didn’t have to be forced to do it.
Hillhunt: I was specifically referring to the comments made by the Washington Post journalist who “claimed” that McCain stood no chance against Hillary.
This is clearly not true. Current polls show McCain close or ahead against Hillary. Hillary is hated by plenty of Americans (you agree with me there)
The fact is the Beeboid should have challenged the Washington Post reporter for what was clearly a biased view.
Trawling around the BBC news website going “it’s here, it’s here” is pointless in relation to the discussion about comments against specific BBC programming going out now.
Divisive is also a rather tame statement. Hillary is detested by millions of Americans, in particular Conservative Republicans.
However, I suspect you are simply another Beeboid lurking who hasn’t got the balls to out him or herself.
pounce:
Once again, missing the big story. Davies’s main fire is reserved for newspapers, but he’s also critical of BBC News Online for its obsession with speed.
He quotes an internal memo which says that within five minutes of getting a breaking story, staff should: “publish a one-line version of the story on the ‘ticker’ which runs across the top of the BBC website; possibly send an email to the news desk to warn them about the story; write a four-paragraph version of the story and post it on Ceefax as well as on the website; and, at the same time, do ‘checking’. The next target was then to write a full story of at least ten paragraphs within the following 15 minutes.”
Davies writes that this is: “churnalism at its most manic, not merely recycling but doing so at a speed which must jeopardise the BBC’s chances of running accurate stories. Five minutes would never be enough to track down and speak to enough people to check any story, let alone while simultaneously writing tickers, emails and a four-paragraph summary.”
Now, this is far more interesting stuff that worrying about the alleged snobbishness of BBC blogs, as pounce does, and it helps explain why Online is so much weaker a service than TV and radio.
Davies engages with the reasons why so much modern news – of all shades and from many directions – is losing its way. It’s a far more important debate than the narrow-minded mud-slinging that goes on here.
As typified by Joe (Netherlands) above… apparently the BBC is carrying disgraceful advertising by mentioning Davies’s book.
Biased BBC: The Goal Is Open, But We Shoot For The Corner Flag
AJax: “news programmes…should be information only.”
So if someone gives their opinion, does that count as information or comment? And if the journalist wants to explain where that person is coming from is that information or comment? And do we allow analysis? Furthermore, even if you could put all comment into separate programmes, if that comment was all one-sided it would still be a problem. I agree that the BBC goes too far by providing opinion pieces much of the time, but to try and restrict news to “information” is futile. The best you can aim for is balance.
Hillhunt,
Thanks for your response, could I just point out that you missed my points.
1. Mr Marsh gives free advertising to the Guardian and one of it’s journalists.
2. Mr Marsh failed to get an opinion from a mainstream newspaper.
I am sorry Hillman but your the one engaged in “narrow minded mud-slinging”, I feel that I made two perfectly good points, points you failed to address, please attempt to address them or the main thrust of your response is worthless.
Hillhunt: “…it helps explain why Online is so much weaker a service than TV and radio.”
No, because even after several hours the online team seem to retain utterly bizarre takes on some stories. Davies’s fire seems more to be aimed at providing an excuse for the fact that the BBC still can’t seem to match Sky when it comes to breaking stories – it develops an excuse I think Marr came up with a while back when he suggested Sky slapdash with the facts. A more likely explanation for the faults of the online service is that the it employs large numbers of journalists with very little experience, and that’s down to another rather obvious fault of the BBC: overreach. Which is quite an achievement for an organisation with a budget of £3.5 billion.
Sorry about the typos. Off to bed.
There was a rumour that in the BBC News offices they have Sky News on for breaking news.
Can’t validate that, but perhaps someone can.
Hugh:
Davies’s fire seems more to be aimed at providing an excuse for the fact that the BBC still can’t seem to match Sky when it comes to breaking stories
Er, no. Davies is not interested in excusing the BBC or comparing it with Sky. He’s berating it for failing to match its own standards.
Joe (Dutch):
Mr Marsh gives free advertising to the Guardian
An interesting take, but:
Marsh is addressing a book that takes a flame-thrower to the standards of modern journalism. It’s got nothing to do with plugging the Guardian, whose sister paper the Observer is also savaged by Davies. Obtaining a quote from a “mainstream” paper would be pointless. Davies offers root and branch criticism, backed by evidence, against them all…
Hillhunt,
Thanks for your more lucid response, I guess on this topic we will have to disagree.
Now I must take my leave of you as it is the last night of Carnival and wearing my Pink Panther costume makes it difficult to write.
Tot straks.
‘There was a rumour that in the BBC News offices they have Sky News on for breaking news.’
Or maybe to watch the competition, to see what stories have been missed, etc?
Do you think the The Mail’s shift, say, doesn’t read that day’s Express. Grauniad, etc?
This site’s degenerated into bizarre anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, requests for supression of debate and declaration of ‘dubious interests’ (in all journos?), and a total lack of understanding about how modern news – of any persuasion/ political viewpoint – is produced.
BBC can do some unbiased, non-patronizing and informative reporting when it chooses to do so:
Alan | 05.02.08 – 5:15 pm
Yes, it can.
A few days ago I was switching from the World Service to the Israel Broadcasting Authority and back on the Gaza situation. The contrast was marked, with IBA simply reporting the facts – calling terrorists who fire Kassams at Sderot terrorists and reporting straight on the IDF’s elimination of the Kassam firing terrorists. The BBC, of course, was using the usual militants copout and distancing itself from Israel with the old tactic of, Israel says its attack was aimed at countering the rocket fire. Which makes me wonder if nobody at the BBC sees the incongruity of reporting time after time on those who fire the rockets and plan the firing of rockets being targeted and killed by the IDF, but continuing to report this as a claim by the IDF that it is trying to fight the launching of the rockets. This is simply blind bias on the part of the BBC. It’s ridiculous.
Yesterday, however, the World Service seemed to have been transformed into a responsible broadcaster – at least regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It simply reported what was going on, without shoving its agenda in our faces. It even mentioned that Hamas had smuggled long range missiles and other weaponry into Gaza. And while it still couldn’t break the Israel claims habit, it immediately followed it up by mentioning that a number of rockets had indeed been fired at Sderot.
So I’m wondering if someone with a considerable amount of clout is kicking butt at the BBC. Because I simply can’t see the current motley crew of BBC Middle East reporters and editors dealing fairly with this conflict without somebody senior brandishing a very large stick at them.
I guess time will tell.
…a total lack of understanding about how modern news – of any persuasion/ political viewpoint – is produced.
Steve Jones | 05.02.08 – 11:04 pm
Overstating your case a bit there, I think.
Steve Jones,
Pointing out the inherent bias of BBC reporting is hardly being part of an anti-Muslim conspiracy. What’s the problem, can’t we call a terrorist a terrorist without the cat getting your tongue. Bias comes in many colours and this site will continue to point it out. Get over it, it’s not a tea party.
“There was a rumour that in the BBC News offices they have Sky News on for breaking news.”
I cannot speak for the BBC but I have been to the office of another well known news organisation and they had big plasma screens with Sky news on. Also a lot of the journalists had mini-tvs on their desks.
on air and online as of february 17th – lifting the veil on the islamic sex life
am i the only one just about fed up with islamic this and islamic that?
so much seems to be little more these days than a suffix for ‘islamic’ in beeb-land – of course, all things remotely positive or neutral, at least
we know the words that dare not be uttered in the same breath as islamic, even though nothing like the effort expended by the beeb to find the (exclusively) positive islamic angle to so much of its output, would be required to make the connection in many cases of ‘islamic XXX’ the bbc seems totally unaware of (putting it kindly, at that!)
I just enjoyed Matt Frei picking his jaw up off the floor after he got done letting Peggy Noonan (former speech writer for Ronald Reagan – pronounced “Miss-us That-cher” in Britain) basically speak her mind on the entire election scene. Old Matty was asking the usual tired questions, cliché after cliché, typically lazy journo stuff, and was absolutely gobsmacked by Noonan’s blunt answers. Nearly every point to which his questions were leading was solidly refuted. On a couple occasions I could hear his surprised gasps.
Noonan basically said out loud what so many of us are thinking about Obama and Hillary. Nothing unusual, nothing untoward, nothing shocking – that is, if you’ve actually deigned to listen to any United Statesian voice other than the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, and the odd politco drinking establishment in DC. Matty was beside himself, simply unable to believe that people thought this way. He so does not have his finger on the pulse of America. He could not believe what he was hearing. When the camera cut back to him in the studio thanking Ms. Noonan for her frankness, he was red-faced and nearly in tears from hysterics. I could hear him huffing and puffing during much of her commentary (sloppy work by the production crew there), and his face looked like it when they cut back to him.
Somebody who makes such a big deal about how many years he has spent getting to know America and couldn’t wait to present his voice to us should not be surprised at anything Peggy Noonan said.
OR…
Matty simply looked at her as the tiny-minded, caveman-conservative, shallow, slightly bigoted if we’re honest, Republican he thinks so many of us are. Hence the hysterical laughter. Laughing at us, not with us.
Welcome to America, you silly little man. Now piss off.
David Preiser (USA) | 06.02.08 – 1:39 am |
Where can I see Peggy Noonan dressing down a gasping Matt Frei?
It was earlier this evening on Frei’s election night special on BBC America. I don’t know if that is going to be made available anywhere else. Although I wonder if News 24 won’t have something from it.
In any case, it wasn’t exactly a dressing down. Noonan was very cordial and professional. It was more the content of her statements that stunned old Matty. He was truly flabbergasted at both what she said and the fact that she actually said it. It wasn’t directed at him really, but several of her answers began with, “No.” You could really hear the Frei burbling – in disbelief rather than offense. The look on his beet-red face, and the fact that he was just about out of breath when she was done said it all.
David, yes News 24 is mostly Frei and his nonsense. The coverage is slanted maybe 70/30 towards the Democrats, and at the start of every segment they are mentioned first.
I’ll tell you what else, it’s only Republicans saying “I’m going to vote Democrat if X happens” that the BBC manage to find to interview, or read e-mails from. I appriciate that a lot of Republicans might be unhappy with McCain, but we’ve not had a single Democrat who might be swayed by him – of which there are no doubt plenty – put front and centre.
Yes but what did she say that was so jaw dropping?
Dispatches job on Red Ken here: Die Ken, Die.
WoAD,
For example, that Hillary’s problem is not, in fact, that she is a woman, but that too many think the Clintons are corrupt and bad news. Frei and his cohorts have to mention the “Clinton Factor” on occasion, as they do have a very basic grasp of the fact that they are support to report on events and not the “story that needs to be told”, but it is always couched in a devil’s advocate formation.
On one hand, I accept that the Democrats are the lead story the vast majority of the time because the identity politics involved – the championing of which is standard fare at the mother ship – are newsworthy in and of themselves. Up to a point. Once they switch to the Republicans, though, it often seems like whichever talking BBC head is on air at the moment is merely holding his or her nose, as if they are required to cover the conservative side, but they won’t win and it’s not what everybody wants. Especially when they get into the details of a given candidate, at which time the White City world view kicks in and we get to hear about “change” or “what the world wants”.
Hillhunt: ” Davies is not interested in excusing the BBC or comparing it with Sky. He’s berating it for failing to match its own standards.”
Yes, fair enough. It was a stupid comment.
Back to Marsh, though, it’s interesting that he does mention the fact that, as he puts it, “some political journalists connived at becoming little more than the publishing arm of No 10 in the Campbell era”. Typically, though, there is no suggestion the BBC was ever at fault – it’s all those “newspaper journalists” who are to blame (apart from those at the Guardian), which made me smile at the last paragraph:
“The trouble is, though, the British newspaper journalist has no history of taking criticism well… or working out what it is that needs to be done to turn a dysfunctional, distrusted press into something that performs a useful public purpose.”
Remind you of anyone?
Sir,
may I turn Your attention to apology of the Commie China? “Black gold”, “efficiency”, guiding words of president Hu, “enthusiasm” – all the hype one can see in old Soviet papers. And not a single word about global warming in an article about coal! Apparently, only evil Capitalists can cause it.
“There was a rumour that in the BBC News offices they have Sky News on for breaking news.”
Of course they do – this is normal practice. More evidence of how little some posters understand journalism. At Sky, every desk pretty much has a TV and people can tune into what they want. Many don’t choose Sky News because they know what Sky is running.
The nature of breaking news is that it has to break somewhere and even if, for example, the BBC broke it they’d still be interested in what other channels were running, what they are leading with etc.
“More evidence of how little some posters understand journalism…”
Ah another Beeboid joins us here.
Welcome p and a tale of one chip. Which part of the BBC do you work for?
I see the vile Nikki Campbell had to let his “true” feelings out on 5 lite just now.
Referring to how well Mike Huckerbee did last night Campbell belched “how could someone who believes in creationism do so well”
Hmm. I though that Catholics, Moozlums and plenty of other religious followers believed in creationism, not just Baptists?
The comrades on the Corporation’s Editorial Complaints Unit defend the BBC against almost all transgressions – except when there’s an alleged racist slur involved. Then it’s all hands to the pumps to declare ‘mea culpa!’
The latest example of this is a ruling over an edition of Gardeners’ Question Time on Radio 4, in which the plant sometimes known as Black Man’s Willy was discussed. Naturally, there were a few ribald remarks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2008/02/05/52612.shtml
This is what the clowns in the unit observed:
…the view was taken that the name and the exchanges it prompted (in which the phallic, not the racial, connotations of the name were in play) was not likely to give unjustified offence. However, having reviewed the matter in the light of the complaint, the management of Radio 4 said this:
Potential for racial offence is not always an easy thing to gauge. In this case, there was nothing derogatory of black people in the language used. There is no evidence that any of the participants were exploiting, or even had in mind, the “outdated and patronising stereotype” about black males to which the complainant refers.
Nevertheless,it is clear that some listeners did infer a derogatory intention in the words used, and did feel offended. We regret this. With hindsight, we believe it would have been preferable to omit the item from the programme, because of the risk that it could be misconstrued in this way.
So there was no racism, but because a few people decided that they didn’t like the fact that the subject had been raised, it was wrong!
What utter tosh and craven stupidity.
Let’s see if the same rules apply when someone complains about the barage of offensive (and to some, especially older members of the audience, blasphemous) swear words that are routinely included in BBC drama.
David Vance, how about YOU being sent to Guantanamo instead of Matt Frei? After all, you deserve it more than he does.
Oh and I have something for you: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5317609803633089194/?a=32863#383361
Try answering that one in coherent sentences. See if you can spin that one into a paeon of praise for freedom.
A nice balanced discussion on the Toady programme this morning from around 09:45 – “What has changed after this night of drama in US politics?” The two people chosen to speak were Jonathan Friedland of the Guardian and someone from the San Francisco Chronicle who happily discuss the US elections from a left of centre Democrat position with references to how hated George Bush is.
Aussie
Are you John Reith or a cohort of his by any chance? You sound a lot like him.
“Welcome p and a tale of one chip. Which part of the BBC do you work for?”
I don’t. Sorry to disappoint.
David Preiser
Thanks for your perceptive comments on the ridiculous Matt Frei.
I do hope you are using whatever influence and powers of persuasion you have to alert as many Americans as possible to the pernicious and bigoted agenda of the vile BBC.
Sometimes I wonder if I’m watching or listening to the same BBC as you lot.
Every super-Tuesday segment I watched/heard yesterday started with (and majored upon) the Republican race.
The general line seemed to be that the day (especially California) would most likely settle it for McCain/Romney, while the Obama/Clinton race would remain open.
Seemed fair enough.
Once again the BBBC’ers have it wrong.
The BBC is not Pro Pally!
BREAKING NEWS: Public Outraged at Blatant BBC pro-Israel Bias.
MPACUK issued an Action Alert about shocking BBC bias in reporting on Israel-Palestine. Alhamdulillah, many members of the public are taking up their Islamic obligation to help their brothers and sisters and making the effort to take just 5 minutes to complain to the BBC and demand fair and balanced reporting.
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4374/34/
Posters on the Biased BBC blog that end many of their posts with an insult at Biased BBC as a whole (though there is no such thing), and in bold, should consider their position as to whether they should post at all.
If they continue to post they must be considered for banning, it is trolling and unacceptable.
The BBC would not allow such behaviour on their own site.
Perhaps the individual could go to the Wonderful-BBC blog instead.
Mick in the UK
Are you a Muslim with extremist views? If so, I am sure you are very pro BBC.
Actually I encourage readers of this blog to look at the MPACUK message board. It does provide a useful insight into the mindset of many “British” muslims, something you will not discern from the vacuous and treacherous BBC.
mick in the uk: obviously anyone accusing the BBC of bias might be open to the accusation that they have an agenda. However, an organisation with the aim of “empowering Muslims to focus on non-violent Jihad and political activism” would seem to be more open to that accusation than most.
It’s quite funny to read people’s comments about Kevin Marsh and how they perceive him and compare that to how he actually is in real life. Many here would find much they agree with.
Yes, he is a snob about BBC Journalism vis other areas of it. Given a) that we must all pay for it and b) his job is this a bad thing?
You would think not…
However, given the current cuts and huge number of multimedia outlets, I think the Beeb is just as much at the risk of ‘churnalism’ as any other news provider.
Sarah-Jane: I’m sorry if you misunderstood – I’m sure he’s a lovely bloke. I just think his comments suggest he is as entirely blind to the BBC’s faults when it comes to bias as others in senior positions there.
Hugh | 06.02.08 – 11:23 am
During the dark days of the Alastair Campbell terror, Kevin Marsh was always being accused of bias….. pro-Tory bias.
In fact, the Nulab spinmeister once annointed the Marsh/Nick Clarke double act on the World at One as ‘the real leaders of the opposition’.
Even Conservative Central Office began to believe this. On the day Stephen Byers ‘nationalized’ Railtrack a startled World at One producer received a call from a Tory researcher asking what line the shadow transport secretary ought to take!
Robin 9:23am
Even on ‘Gardeners’ Question Time’, the BBC refuses to be down to earth but weedily exhibits timorous ‘political correctness’.
And to do this was not a wrench for the BBC:-
“BBC racism apology ‘over the top'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/06/nbbc106.xml
he is as entirely blind to the BBC’s faults when it comes to bias as others in senior positions there.
Hugh | 06.02.08 – 11:23 am | #
Well I’m not entirely sure about the ‘lovely bloke’ bit to be honest but I can assure you that your last point is not the case.
While I might be more inclined to think it of some other senior managers, if there were a few more Marshs at the BBC then we might all be a lot happier with it.
He might also be fishing for a few high-profile commentators on the blog, it wouldn’t be the first time.
(People inclined to bring up Hutton/Gilligan see my comment on ‘other senior managers’.)
During the dark days of the Alastair Campbell terror, Kevin Marsh was always being accused of bias….. pro-Tory bias.
John Reith | 06.02.08 – 11:31 am | #
JR what do you think the chances of any of them buying this are?
I guess they DON’T know him, and we do, so they must know better 😉
I don’t think that this story is on BBC national news yet, but ex-BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, has this today:-
“Livingstone ‘allies paid thousands from the public purse'”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23435771-details/Livingstone+%27allies+paid+thousands+from+the+public+purse%27/article.do
mick in the uk:
Once again the BBBC’ers have it wrong.
The BBC is not Pro Pally!
Do you think the Balen report is suppressed because it concludes that the BBC’s reporting is biased towards Israel? I doubt it. Maybe if we got to see the Balen report then we would know that we have it wrong.
SJ,
I take it you have actually read his blog?
Unlike yourself I have never met the man but having read what he has written in the blog, and I have read them all, he appears to personify an awful lot of what I dislike about the BBC.
Sometimes I think he is just winding people up. He comes across as arrogant, paternalistic and a real true believer that the BBC is on the middle ground and is on a mission to improve standards in journalism. He cannot see the groupthink or will not admit it exists.
Maybe this is wrong because I am not an insider and was not there myself, but I heard he was the senior manager who famously said that the BBC was not neutral on multiculturalism but actively promoted it.
I am concerned he is in charge of training new BBC journos.
but I heard he was the senior manager who famously said that the BBC was not neutral on multiculturalism but actively promoted it.
you heard wrong.
Oops!
My sarcasm was not transparent enough.
My view is that the BBC is definately PRO PALLY, but if you read the MPACUK site it is their view (and many commenters) that the Beeb is a Zionist run CIA/Mossad controlled entity which NEVER reports favourably towards Palys.
Dr R | 06.02.08 – 10:57 am |
“Actually I encourage readers of this blog to look at the MPACUK message board. It does provide a useful insight into the mindset of many “British” muslims, something you will not discern from the vacuous and treacherous BBC.”
The message boards are indeed an eye-opener, and MPAC must work hard to delete the daily hatred posted there by Muslims, but the comments on the main stories are quite enlightening for …
——————————
“I for one however have emailed and called the BBC to show my utter disgust at their racist policy of highlighting Jewish life over the Muslim one. Disgusting!”
—————-
“What we have all got to realise that the BBC has been infiltrated by Israelis. It wouldn’t surprise me if people with dual Israeli/British nationalities actually work for the BBC.
Thus in the guise of the ‘British’ Broadcasting Corporation, they carry out their Tel Aviv masters’ bidding.
Zionism is a virus that has so infested the British establishment that it will take years for it to be eradicated. Fortunately, now that British Muslims are getting more articulate and media-savvy (thanks to people such as MPAC), the Zionists’ days in the limelight and their grip on the levers of influence, are numbered.”
——————–
“I watched BBC 10 o’clock news last night and I was OUTRAGED by the blatant bias and double standards. I’ve been listening to the deafening silence from the BBC on the reality of the suffering caused by the collective punishment of 1.5 million Muslims in Gaza – thanks to this Action Alert I’ve now sent in a complaint via the BBC website. I’m sure if enough of you bother to complain they’ll take it seriously. Thanks MPACUK for kicking me into action on this!”