It seems from the Daily Mail today that Mark Thompson – perhaps stung by Jeremy Hunt’s comments earlier in the week – is accepting that the BBC may have been a tad biased in its past coverage of the EU and immigration. Of course, everything is perfect now, and he even has the temerity to claim that the corporation has played a role in making immigration policy tougher.
Over the six years that Mr Thompson has been director general of the BBC, I have been indirectly involved in a succession of very detailed reports that have chronicled in depth a sustained BBC bias in the coverage of (among other things)immigration and EU affairs. So I know a little bit about the background of his latest utterances. Each of these reports examined on a systematic, academic basis the ouput of hundreds of BBC news programmes (focusing esepcially on Today and other main news titles)and they have shown that:
***With the EU, there has been deliberate under-representation of those who oppose the EU project (so-called sceptics and withdrawalists)and an equally systematic ridiculing of those “sceptics” as being the equivalent of flat-earthers or BNP supporters. At the same time, there has been a massive under-reporting of the negative side of the EU, for example its budgetary waste and corruption, it’s manic drive to create new laws in every spehere of our lives, and its ecoloonery.
***With immigration, those who opposed unlimited immigration in line with new Labour zeal were regularly portrayed as BNP, foaming-in-the-mouth, right-wing nutcases. Their reasoned arguments for control of numbers were seriously under-reported, distorted or ignored. Dozens of detailed examples of this were provided.
Over the years, the BBC’s reponse to almost every one of these reports has been to stick its collective fingers in its ears, blow a massive raspberry and ignore the findings. Those who compiled the reports were called (usually behind their backs, but sometimes to their faces) right-wing zealots, incompetent bigots, anal retentive idiots, and on one occasion, one was the subject of an outright slanderous lie told in the Houses of Parliament by a senior BBC editorial figure. In short, the BBC mostly ignored the findings.
On one occasion, this did not happen. Michael Grade, when he was chairman of the BBC, got riled about the sustained criticism about EU coverage and he ordered a full inquiry. This was carried out by Lord Wilson of Dinton, the former cabinet secretary, and it was damning. It found systematic bias by ommission and warned that the corporation must ensure that all sides in the EU debate must be properly aired and treated with due respect. The response was predictable window-dressing; Mark Mardell was appointed EU editor (and promptly went native), but nothing changed. Exactly the same EU bias has remained to the present day.
Mr Thompson’s remarks yesterday therefore, have to be taken with a massive pinch of salt. Pressure is clearly being exerted from some quarter or another (Hunt’s lot?), and the director general is leading with his chin (to a very small extent) with the aim of batting the real issues involved well and truly into the long grass. Any idea that the BBC has any conception of the rotten, stinking morrass of bias in which it is mired, is easily dispelled by deputy DG Mark Byford’s latest interview with Ray Snoddy this morning on the ludicrously-mistitled Newswatch. Mr Byford tells us (with a very straight face)that every one of his BBC news staff works to his or her utmost in pursuit of “impartiality”. What utter tommyrot.
Robin
Very interesting and well argued piece, and the sort of article that needs posting occasionally just to remind people of the core problem, raher than get all hot and bothered over ephemeral issues.
I too was watching Newswatch this morning, and I thought that Mark Byford put a subtle slant on the issue of bias. Whilst claiming that any form of bias would be stamped out, he claimed that the benchmark position taken by its journalists must be to respect the “BBC’s core values”.
It goes without saying that any investigation of alleged bias will be undertaken against this benchmark, with its left-liberal, pro-diversity, pro-EU undertones etc etc.
So this implies it’s pretty much carte blanche to carry on doing what they’ve always done…
So this tosser thinks the bBC may have been a little biased in the past.
Here is a story from Yesterday. 1 is the bBC version, 2 is the nasty Daily Mail version make your own mind up which one gives you the full ugly facts and which one doesn’t:
1)A four-year-old girl has been found dead at an address on an east London housing estate.The child’s body was discovered at a property on Elderfield Road, Clapton, at about 1530 GMT on Thursday after reports of a knife incident.A woman, 36, believed to be the girl’s mother, has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act after being arrested on suspicion of the girl’s murder.
2)A mother has been arrested after a four year old girl was found stabbed to death with her heart and other organs cut out and strewn around her flat.Muslim mother Shayna Bharuchi, 35, was allegedly sitting in a her kitchen chanting verses of the Koran as her daughter Nusayba’s disembowelled corpse lay next to her.The little girl’s heart and other organs were found in different rooms around the flat in Clapton, east London.
The Mail headline and a live link to the article quoted by Pounce:
‘Mother cuts out the heart of her daughter, four, as she listens to recording of Koran in ritual killing’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339665/Mother-cuts-heart-daughter-4-listens-recording-Koran-ritual-killing.html#ixzz18StPXndu
It elucidates further on the possible motive for this horror:
Police suspect she she carried out the killing as a religious offering as she listened to the Muslim holy book on an MP3 player at full volume.
Why doesn’t the BBC inform, i.e. report the details and circumstances of this, rather than a calculated series of bland statements about “a woman” and “a knife incident”?
Further to my last the womans surname is Persian, shia Islam is the predominate faith in Iran and yesterday was the festival of Ashura where Shia Muslims cut themselves out of respect and honour iver the death of the son of their founder Ali. Here is a link to a few pictures of how Shia Muslims celebrate. Note very graphic and not for everybody.
I wonder how come the bBC hasn’t joined the dots yet. Or has it?
I flagged this article on the Open thread last night and highlighted some of Thompson’s more outlandish claims thus:
“One man’s unique approach to the burning question.
Sit back and laugh your socks off at these gems from the great Beeboid:
…Thompson said that the BBC News services would remain impartial…
[mwahahahahhaa]
…he added that views regarded as “extreme” could and should be broadcast by the BBC even within the current rules on impartiality…[They are; they are, except they are not called that]
… the public broadcaster had forced the main parties to discuss immigration during the 2010 election campaign. …
[Oh, my aching sides]
… He promised that there would be more space for “extreme and radical perspectives” on the BBC, which one day could become common views. …
[What? Even more nutters? But the Beeboid kind of nutters?]
“I don’t believe that necessarily means you get the dire consequences that some people see in America. …
[Having Matty Boy & Co there, you mean?]
“Impartiality is sovereign for the BBC. …
[Help! My sides are bursting.]
The premium on impartiality would grow. But I’m not convinced that the public service broadcasters need to have a monopoly over news for ever.”
[Ever so kind]
During the debate it was suggested the Daily Mail newspaper should be free to set up its own opinionated news station if it so wished.
[Does he know what opinionated means?]
Is this how Impartiality Thompson (It’s in his genes) convinced Jeremy Hunt he has a grip on the problem of Beeboid lefty bias:
ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/mark-thompson-bbc-fox-news
? “
Today, 00:49:29– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate===================================
So the BBC was found by Lord Wilson to be systematically biased by omission and warned that the corporation must ensure that all sides in the EU debate must be properly aired. I would suggest to Lord Wilson that has he examined the total BBC news output on Israel America, etc etc etc….. he would have found a consistent bias by omission across the board. And what was the purpose of enquiry if the BBC quite clearly to all ignored its conclusions Would someone please explain how they get away with it?
One political party benefits from it, one political party are so weak and scared of being branded ‘toxic’ that they spend all their time trying to get them on side, the other party…well, I don’t think anyone really knows!
Exerting pressure on the BBC will not solve the bias.
We should do exactly the opposite – set the BBC free by scrapping the licence fee. Then its minority opinions on the EU, immigration, Israel and the forthcoming climate apocalypse would be a private matter between the corporation and those who chose to subscribe to it.
The BBC news dept could survive the end of the licence fee. The Guardian newspaper pushes similar minority views which don’t interest many people. The corporation which publishes that loss making newspaper subsidises it by participating in the used car trade and doing property deals. The BBC could subsidise its news by flogging subscriptions for TV channels showing trash like Eastenders and Casualty to the underclass.
Post of the week for me!
Timothy (above) has largely hit the nail on the head. The government is weak, the opposition benefits from the BBC’s current leftist position and therefore nothing will change.
But the problem would still be difficult to tackle, even if the goverment were strong enough to try.
Employment law makes it difficult to change the backbone of the personnel. Once you have an ingrained political spine in an organisation, especially one which is heavily unionised it is increasingly difficult to shift.
In recruitment, unless the leftists are removed from management then they recruit from their own, and once a certain weight of balance is reached only wholesale dismantling will provide redress.
Employment law will not allow change because it is not legal to discriminate against individuals for political views, even when it is their job to be politically neutral.
“Employment law will not allow change because it is not legal to discriminate against individuals for political views”
Unless of course they belong to a certain party which has British as part of it’s name
It’ll be interesting to see how they get on with that type of discrimination after yesterday’s ruling.
All those poor MSM sock-puppets standing out in the cold for hours to get a story that their masters would then barely give a mention as the result was the wrong one for them.
@ DH .. And a good job to that a neo-Nazi Party that dishonours our nation’s flag is discriminated against. Just a pity it’s left-wing discrimination, not democratic discrimination. The BBC should also discriminate against the BNP’s ugly sisters on the extreme left, which would mean winnowing out its own newsroom quite a bit.
It has little to do with employment law: we have seen numerous times how the Beeboid Corporation flouts employment law, hiring and firing whom it pleases at will. The Beeboid Corporation is a law unto itself.
Aside from that, employment law does not prevent the Beeboid Corporation from adopting and implementing a policy of balance in its coverage, for example putting both sides of the pro- or anti-EU debate, and introducing methods of monitoring and measuring its coverage to see that this policy is being carried out.
So all that bias I have been observing lately is a figment of my imagination!
Nothing can change until the hive ,full of 68ers and their acolytes, is smoked out and destroyed. Then the BBC can start again although so flawed is it’s tax corrupted base that even this is dubious.
It is an organisation that has outlived it’s usefulness. Time to end it.
You would think with his £800,000+ package Thompson could afford a decent shave. Clearly, however, he’s proud of his stubble, rarely photographed without. Thinks it makes him look more “edgy”, less stuffy. It is actually a signpost of his false front. He knows the BBC is a cesspit of news reporting bias. In a post-modern world, telling lies pays much better than speaking the truth. And he is probably one of the highest paid liars in the land. Impartial my arse.
I don’t know about the stuffy part but he certainly looks scruffy.
It looks as if the latest gambit of the self-seeking Thompson is to suggest the setting up of a right-leaning news organisation like Fox, just so that he can carry on running a lefty political outfit lavishly funded by the public. Charming character, eh?
Thompson is just a lying leftie twat.
The car I was in yesterday evening had radio 4 on.
I wonder if Mark Byford and Mark Thompson listen to The Now show?
If they don’t think that demonstrates bias, they must be dafter than they look. I suppose they think it’s harmless, but Brigstocke and co typify the BBC’s political partiality, which indoctrinates the audience with its bullying sarcasm
I think this quote just goes to show what a joke the BBC is:
“He admitted it should not be the corporation’s role to start ‘censoring the public debate’ and said the BBC would give space for ‘extreme and radical perspectives”
Oh the irony. In an article where Marky boy is addressing their bias is evidence that they are as biased as ever. Why do they think that opposing unlimited immigration is extreme and radical? How many people have complained that they should give space to extreme and radical views? Presumably not as many that have complained on their reporting (or lack) of the ‘perfectly reasonable’ views of many people in this country.
Far from being the beginning of unbiased reporting, this article is proof of just how deep rooted the rotten bias is at the bBC.
Things will never change. They will always be biased. What I resent the most is that I have to pay for it.
Thompson’s reign as Director General has been marked politically by propagandist commitment to:
Labour Party;
European Union;
Mass immigration;
Islamisation;
Global warming, and higher energy taxes.
And it’s all done with a straight face in the name of ‘impartiality’, and paid for by us.
I noticed one thing the BBC doesn’t omit is reminding you that Gordon Brown saved you from the Euro. But when Cameron makes an announcement that a recent deal brokered in Brussels wouldn’t cede any authority to the EU or harm national sovereignty in any way, the Beeboid reporter intoned that his words were intended for the “euro-skpetic members of his party”, as if it was a sop to the whiners and no right-thinking people are really worried about ceding yet more national sovereignty to Brussels. Funny, that.
The reporter was probably right. When it comes to Eurosceptic rhetoric, nothing Dave says is to be trusted.
I haven’t listened to Mr Byford’s interview, but can I take it that when he said that staff work their utmost in pursuit of impartiality, he never said how or whether this was monitored? And wasn’t asked?
The BBC can no more see it’s own bias than the dung beetle can smell the shit.
Not that you’ll hear this from the impartial BBC’s global warming department but, as a matter of interest, today’s peak wind generation is forecast at 13.6% of installed capacity and currently (17:30) wind is contributing 0.8 % of total electricity generation. All shown here http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Wonderful. Richard Black must be hugging himself in (impartial) excitement at this news.
RH wrote: >>Any idea that the BBC has any conception of the rotten, stinking morrass of bias in which it is mired, is easily dispelled by […]<<
The BBC knows exactly how biased it is being. It’s incredibly naive to fall for this ‘wounded innocence’ routine. Just abusing someone as “right wing zealot” for accusing it of bias is in itself revealing of how pronounced the bias is.
The bottom line is they know they wield tremendous propaganda power and that people who can do something about there abuses are too afraid to.
‘Byford’s latest interview with Ray Snoddy this morning on the ludicrously-mistitled Newswatch.’
If I may port over and reprint from an earlier post, this Ray Snoddy…?
RaymondSnoddy Raymond Snoddy Expected competence from Cameron Government – instead lot of stupid decisions – latest plan to close Forensic Science Service – see Times.
Whatever one’s views personally, or the merits of the situation (quoting a paywall even if one does add the URL is a bit silly) that does rather smack of a rather partisan slant. It does, one supposes, explain much, if not excuse it. But good to know two such champions of impartiality had found each other, and mutual comfort.
Oh, larks… I just watched it!
That has to be the most egregious example of broadcast-only ‘I think we got it about right’… ‘I think it’s the right thing to do…’ (twice) delusional navel gazing I have ever witnessed.
What a total joke… the person, the interview… and the sorry shambles of a hypocritical, irony-free, uniquely funded ‘news’ medium that keeps them all in clover.
Well,what do you know. The head dhimmi at the bBC states that while they may have been biased a few years ago, under his mullahship ‘thing’s can (have) only get better. With that welcome change in direction towards a much more honest bBC here is the bBC’s analysis on boat people trying to get into Australia:
Analysis
Nick Bryant
BBC News, Sydney
Australia’s asylum seeker debate is often conducted as if the people heading for its shores were an abstraction, with the term “boat people” almost shorn of its human meaning. With such harrowing images from Christmas Island broadcast on early evening news shows, millions of Australians would have seen the anguished faces of those seeking to reach its shores, and witnessed the lengths to which they would go to get there. Put simply, it was shockingly real.
Tabloid sensationalism in Australia is normally turned against the asylum seekers. They are often regarded as “queue jumpers”, unwilling to go through the normal channels to seek asylum. Asylum seekers arriving by plane do not attract the same attention, nor what refugee groups would call the same paranoiac reaction.
Nah no bias in that story what so ever.
“…nor what refugee groups would call the same paranoiac reaction.”
Never mind the refugee groups, Bryant himself (ever so impartially) uses that exact word over and over again.
Here he is back in July:
Kevin Rudd was roundly criticised for coming up with make-shift policies on the hoof in the hope of garnering a few good headlines the following morning and a few good polls the following week. On the boat people question, the most paranoiac issue in Australian politics, is Julia Gillard doing the same?
And in June:
In language which echoes Bill Clinton, with conservatism tinged with progressivism, she says that she feels the concern of Australians over the arrival of asylum seekers, the most paranoiac issue in Australian politics.
Coyly in April:
So is this is a paranoiac overreaction or a proportionate response to protect Australia’s borders?
Back in October 2009:
From the sometimes paranoiac reaction to the arrival of relatively small numbers of boat people on its shores to employment surveys which show that job applicants with Anglo names fare better than Australians with Chinese or Middle Eastern bloodlines, a persuasive case can quickly be assembled.
And in April 2009:
You could make the argument that some of the commentary during the latest asylum seekers debate has been paranoiac and disproportionate.
He’s been making that argument for nearly two years now. He’s overdue a memo from Mark Thompson.
Bryant fails to mention that Australia is no where near sodding Iraq or Iran, asylum seekers are supposed to seek refuge at the first safe Country not choose which effing one they like.
Bryant is a mong like the rest of the beeboid twats.
If you want a laugh, go to the Archbishop Cranmer blog and check out the comments from someone called Twizzler in response to His Grace’s posting entitled :- BBC: The Freedom Association is a ‘Posher Version of the BNP’. I just wonder which bbc the person watches. Or is he actually a bogus poster.
Some may feel the DG is full of BS…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100068889/bbc-the-freedom-association-is-a-kind-of-sub-bnp/