One of the biggest failings of the BBC is bias by omission. That is, they conveniently ignore the issues that really matter because they don’t accord with the BBC mindset. An organisation that spends £800m a year on newsgathering – probably the biggest operation of its kind anywhere in the world – fritters the money away.

Take coverage of the EU, for example. Five years ago, the Wilson report damned the corporation’s analysis of EU affairs as narrow, boring annd unchallenging. The BBC responded by saying – as it always does when criticised – that it’s coverage was actually OK, but even so it would do better.

Spool forward to today. The Lisbon Treaty remains a matter of massive controversy which millions of people in England – as the recent EU poll showed – think is a major step towards a tyranny that they don’t want. So how does the BBC cover steps towards its ratification? By providing measured, in depth debate, as it promised? Not a bit of it.

On BBC1 Breakfast Time this morning an item on the Irish vote on Lisbon was sandwiched between coverage of the cervical cancer scare and – far more important – a lengthy item on the importance of dog-tagging. The Irish piece boiled down to a soundbite from a fish and chip shop owner who was intending to vote ‘yes’ and a fisherman who would say’no’. In between, a bland BBC reporter told us that the reason that Ireland was voting yes was because of the recession. And that was it.

Nothing about the implications of the vote, the claims of vote-rigging by Brussels, or the lies being told about the Treaty. No attempt to show the importance to people’s lives, or to do anything but the bare minimum.

This is what the BBC’s £800m news operation now routinely does. Items of major importance are reduced to their lowest, most simplistic, denomininator, while other matters its judges closer to people’s lives (like dog-tagging) are elevated to inflated over-importance. The BBC sold its soul to the EU years ago, and while Britain moves inexorably towards being a satellite vassal state of Brussels, its journalists sit on their hands refusing to analyse the issues that matter. “Bias by ommission” indeed.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Marky says:

    That’s why I don’t ever use the BBC as a way of finding out what is going on in the news. To me the BBC not relevant, biased, omits much and trundles out its favourite ‘whipping boys’ often as a way of filling holes in its news coverage.

    As for the BBC’s coverage of EU ‘sceptics’ and anti-EU stories the less the better as the BBC has decided that its all settled.

    Have the BBC shared this little nugget of news?

    “Patricia McKenna, chairperson of the People’s Movement, has described a 16-page propaganda supplement paid for by the EU Commission which was published in today’s Sunday newspapers, as ‘an unlawful use of European taxpayers’ money’ and as a breach of Irish law in relation to the conduct of referendums. Read the full statement here.”


  2. George R says:

     Yes, when the BBC  is not providing its pro-EU reports, there are its huge omissions of coverage.

     Two current example of BBC omissions of EU issues which are important to British people because of the consequential impact:

    1.) the Irish referendum;

    2.) German elections and EU.

    On 1.), the BBC omits:

    “Commission breaks European law – shock”

    On 2.) -from ‘Stop Turkey’


  3. Fat Face Penguin Seal says:

    You’re basing that post Robin on watching the breakfast news? How about also listening to R4 and fivelive, watching the news channel. The Lisbon treaty gets plenty of coverage. Judging that it is being ignored from a lack of interest on the breakfast news, which tends to cover personal interest stories more, is poor analysis on your part.


  4. Norton Folgate says:

    They will do their best to not mention the ignored NO votes from France, Holland and Ireland. 
    They will do their best not to mention the broken promises and lies from the Govt regarding our promised referendum. 
    They will do their best to paint anyone campaigning against Lisbon as an extremist crackpot and a racist. 
    So yes they mention it but it is always with a bias towards the pro EU agenda.


  5. George R says:

    How the BBC reports on Irish referendum campaign today:

     4 paragraphs supporting ‘yes’;

     1 paragraph supporting ‘no’:


    • Fat Face Penguin Seal says:

      Actually George R, he of often incorrect facts, that BBC article you linked to has 4 paragraphs under yes, and 4 under no as well.


      • Wally Greeninker says:

        I make it 6-4 in favour of a yes vote, going by indentations alone. There follows, however, an entire new section of the text explaining why the financial sector in Ireland wants a yes vote. You trolls really are timewasters – I suppose the idea is to give the casual reader the impression of an unreliable site, if only by posting complete codswallop.


  6. George R says:


     Anyone (except yourself ?) can see that the article by BBC’s Russell Padmore, Business reporter, of the BBC World Service  (the BBC is using British taxpayerts funds too  in supplementing its pro-EU mission) is predominantly biased towards the ‘Yes’ campaign:


    • Bob says:

      1) the world service is commercial, and 2) there were four views in that article – 2 were yes, 2 were no – and there was certainly more than 1 ‘no’ paragraph

      I found it balanced, and a bit of a strange choice


    • Fat Face Penguin Seal says:

      So I take it then that you agree that rather than there being 1 paragraph against the treaty, there are 4. That’s always the way here; someone points out an error and there’s a deadly silence. An inability to admit that a mistake has been made. Reminds me of the PM….

      That article is not predominantly biased towards the yes campaign; more opinion dressed up as fact.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Hello Bob and Fat Face Penguin Seal.  Long time no see.  What has brought you both here so suddenly?  I thought you were satisfied with laughing at us over at Hillhunt’s little blog.

        That’s always the way with you lot; you find one bit of low-hanging fruit and crow about it, while completely hiding from hundreds of other comments and main posts, yet still pat yourselves on the back for a job well done, convinced that you’ve discredited the entire site and its history.


  7. George R says:


     The BBC article is approx : 4 parts ‘Yes’, 1 part ‘No’ in total, in its

     political bias.  You cannot admit your error in being unable to see

    this. Typical of the BBC.

     Yes, much BBC reporting is “opinion dressed up as fact”. And in this

    case this favours the ‘yes’ campaign, obviously. And we BBC

    licencepayers , and in this case, British taxpayers, subsidise this BBC

     political propaganda:


    • Bob says:

      you keep posting, let’s have a proper look then

      first block: setting up the scene, you could perhaps argue one line is biased

      “Businesses – both home-grown and foreign – are lining up to educate voters on the benefits, as they see it, of voting “Yes”.

      could be selective, but could also be seen as critical

      second block: 6 paras, from the pro-side (intel)

      third block: four paras given to anti-treaty businessman

      fouth block: five paras on investment, could be argued it is support for ‘yes’

      fifth block: seven paras, given to background on unpopularity of government, finishing with anti-treaty camapigner, the final words are: “In this Lisbon Treaty there’s nothing to create jobs, there’s nothing to help recovery, it is spin.”

      that’s eleven v eleven by my count, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt here and count the opening as pro-treaty it’s at best 14 v 11 – a bit of a way off 4 to 1

      ..I am not doing word counts


  8. George R says:


    Section by section then:

    1) Introductory section is pro-‘Yes’; no mention  of ‘no’ campaign;

    2.) ‘Intel urges ‘yes” -title of section,  sets the tone;

    3.) ‘No’ campaign introduced;

    4.)foreign investment, linked to ‘yes’;

    5.)Only Cowen quoted, ‘yes’, no complacency.

     That’s a ratio of about 4-1 in favour of ‘yes’.

    Of course, BBC and EU supporters will go into denial on the bias of

    the article:


    • Bob says:

      Hang on – cowen wasn’t quoted at all, he was mentioned – Declan Ganley (anti-lisbon camapigner) is the only one quoted


  9. Marky says:

    “Of course, BBC and EU supporters will go into denial on the bias of the article”

    They will also deny that the BBC has a long history (which I can remember from the mid 70’s onwards) of Pro-EU bias especially in the form of omission. The BBC hardly ever dig behind the headlines to let us know who really is running this country, where all the government’s rules come from, how far down the road the EU we are travelling etc. Watch the BBC and you will not understand anything much about the union of snakes.


  10. dave s says:

    My definition of a pro EU argument is one which concentrates on economics to the exclusion of other matters. The pro EU camp is always anxious to keep talking about money, to appeal to our greed and to play on our fears. This is exactly the line being taken in Ireland and were Cameron forced, unwillingly in my view, to hold a referendum this is what would happen here.
    This treaty is about the creation of a state which will take power from us and enforce it’s will over us.
    It is in defiance of all our rights and traditions.
    We are freemen here not given rights by the state but possessing the inalienable rights of freemen the expression of which is found in Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and in the words of Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine. Europe does not understand this. Never has and never will.
    The BBC should but won’t give a platform to those who implacably oppose the Lisbon Treaty because it is the start of something that may end in our enslavement.


  11. Umbongo says:

    Testing not commenting!


  12. George R says:

     In all the words which the BBC uses on the result of the German election on its ‘Europe’ pages, e.g.:

    “Merkel pledges speedy transition”

    -the BBC omits to see that THE ELEPHANT IS FALLING DOWN IN THE ROOM, but, the ‘Daily Telegraph’ doesn’t miss it:

    “Angela Merkel’s win ends Turkey’s EU hopes.”  (for now).


  13. Grant says:

    Leaving aside the nit-picking, can anyone seriously believe that the BBC is anything but biased on favour of the EU ? 


    • Gus Haynes says:

      On the contary, no one here has actually produced any evidence that the BBC presents pro-EU coverage.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        And Gus Haynes as well!  Did Hillhunt close his blog?  Is he on vacation or something?


  14. John Horne Tooke says:

    “Graeme Wilson and Tara Conlan Daily Mail – 28 January 2005
    THE BBC has a ‘serious problem’ with its news coverage of the European Union because of its failure to be impartial, a damning report revealed yesterday.
    The report – commissioned by the Corporation itself – found there was a ‘cultural bias’ in favour of the EU and a ‘reluctance to question pro-EU assumptions’.”


  15. cassandra king says:

    The today show carried a report by Johnny Dymond on the Irish vote this AM and it was a pictute of BBC bias in action!

    Of all the people interviewd only one was going to vote NO the others ranged from a YES to undecided but probably yes, the reasons are made clear by the reporter and consisted of ‘we voted NO last time because we didnt know anything about the constitution but now we now a lot more we may well vote YES this time’. The issue is linked by the economic problems of Ireland by the BBC report, ony a YES vote will help the Irish economic recovery and that message has been the mainstay of the YES campaign throughout, if the BBC were not taking a political stand then why is their editorial policy so similar to one side, why does the BBC insist on representing the NO campaign in the exact same way as the YES campaign wants the NO campaign to be seen in? If the means and methods of the BBC and the EU/YES campaign are nearly identical then does it not follow that their aims are identical?

    Does anyone else find it strange that the BBC has not yet allowed the NO campaign an equal platform with equal airtime? The truth is that the BBC has campaigned hard for a YES vote, they desire the constitution because it lays the groundwork for the new EUSSR dictatorship and the BBC would love to exist in a Cuban/soviet style dictatorship, it would be their version of heaven, who can doubt that in the new world in the making they would thrive and prosper as never before!

    See the narrative here? When the voter is informed of the reality of the constitution they will vote YES.
    The report exposes the corruption at the heart of the BBC where the EU is concerned, we see that the BBC is taking a political stand on a political issue, the BBC is supposed to be impartial and yet we see hard evidence that in fact they are nothing of the kind


  16. George R says:

    BBC (and most of MSM) present an uncritical view of new

     UK ‘Supreme Court’ –

    BBC: “UK Supreme Court judges sworn in”

    But as ‘EU referendum’ points out, this court is not ‘supreme’ at all:

    “Elaborate deception”


    • cassandra king says:

      I wonder just what was wrong with the old court?

      Could it be that it was an emblem of a sovereign and independent nation?

      The new court is in fact a sub/regional court under the direct control of our new sub/regional masters, it would make sense to destroy our old legal system and replace it with a…amnenable structure, one that could be relied upon to look to the new EU consititution/EU legal structure in every judgement it makes.

      So there you have the end of the UK as an independent nation with its own laws, the beginning of every colonisation starts with the act of replacing the target nations system of law, first by means of making it subservient to the coloniser and then the dismantling of the whole structure and a new one put in its place.

      The newlabour traitors had a plan and they stuck to it didnt they? We as subjects and citizens no longer have a sovereign high court system of justice based on our nations historic laws and justice system, we now enjoy a local branch of a foreign empires legal system, we are governed by foreigners and in the interests of foreigners.