BBC Director General: BBC "Massive Bias To The Left"

[William Rea]

Have you considered that this zeal to label everything as "dogma" is . . . your dogma?

No, because dogma is your enemy.

 

[Apocalypse]

The BBC is strongly biased to the left?
Why I am so surprised.
Next thing we'd learn that Russia Now is biased against the US, and that al-Jazeera is biased for the Islamic nations.
What has this world come to!

 

[PeteEU]

The BBC is not perfect, but it by far the most unbiased world wide news organisation out there. The BBC has Ofcom rules to follow and if you dont like what they are saying, then complain. Considering the amount of complaints by critics, it is amazing non of these critics have not been able to make any of the accusations stick with Ofcom, or even attempted to complain over it.

Just because you dont agree with a news station, then it does not mean it is biased. If the station promotes certain views over others, then we can talk bias. I have yet to see the BBC out right promote a left wing agenda on a daily basis over long periods of time. On the other hand, at the moment there is a left wing discussion on Sky News... labour leadership debate... damn commie Murdoch news!

In this day and age, most American's would not know an unbiased news source if it hit them in the head... they can thank Murdoch, an Aussie, for that.

 

[Andalublue]

What is he actually saying when dogma is dropped and the critical thinking head is put on...

1. His opinion is that when he joined the BBC 30 years ago, the "personal politics" of most of the journalists in BBC current affairs was to the left.
2. His opinion is that this group of journalists with left leaning "personal politics" was vocal within the organisation and were mystified by the politics of a right wing PM.
3. His opinion is that the BBC struggled to be impartial with this dominant "left leaning" grouping BUT it doesn't say that their news output was partial.

Having discussed this with a BBC employee many years ago this is something that I can offer similar opinion/anecdotal evidence for. It is likely that he was referring to the group as "vocal" because the BBC has a lot of painful editorial meetings when they discuss the content of their output in great detail. I can imagine that that would be a very "vocal" meeting.

Dogma is your enemy.

Good points, all three. You have to remember, the period of which he's talking, the early-80s (I'm sure you know this Mr Rea, but some posters might not) was a period of immense political upheaval, with politics polarised to a degree way beyond how it is in Britain today. I think journalism, as an occupation, attracted far more progressives than conservatives, possibly because of the explosion of progressive and radical publishing in the late-60s and seventies which trained so many ambitious, radical writers.

Into that environment came the demands of political events. The Falklands War, the Miners' Strike, recession and mass unemployment all polarised and radicalised middle class as well as working class people, en masse. That's the context of which Thompson's speaking. The BBC has a far more plural intake of journalists these days, hence the presence of characters like Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr, Declan Currie, Nick Witchell et al, all more than capable of ensuring more conservative opinions are taken into account.

What a lot of posters can't seem to get their heads around is that fair and balanced reporting does not imply objective and unbiased reporting. It means that a plurality of opinions are allowed to emerge and that there are checks and balances in place that ensure accountability and the right of individual licence fee payers to challenge perceived heavy bias towards one or another position on whatever issue is being discussed. I reiterate that I'm not aware of any other media industry in the World where such rigorous care is taken in ensuring such balance and accountability.

 

[PeteEU]

Good points, all three. You have to remember, the period of which he's talking, the early-80s (I'm sure you know this Mr Rea, but some posters might not) was a period of immense political upheaval, with politics polarised to a degree way beyond how it is in Britain today. I think journalism, as an occupation, attracted far more progressives than conservatives, possibly because of the explosion of progressive and radical publishing in the late-60s and seventies which trained so many ambitious, radical writers.

Into that environment came the demands of political events. The Falklands War, the Miners' Strike, recession and mass unemployment all polarised and radicalised middle class as well as working class people, en masse. That's the context of which Thompson's speaking. The BBC has a far more plural intake of journalists these days, hence the presence of characters like Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr, Declan Currie, Nick Witchell et al, all more than capable of ensuring more conservative opinions are taken into account.

What a lot of posters can't seem to get their heads around is that fair and balanced reporting does not imply objective and unbiased reporting. It means that a plurality of opinions are allowed to emerge and that there are checks and balances in place that ensure accountability and the right of individual licence fee payers to challenge perceived heavy bias towards one or another position on whatever issue is being discussed. I reiterate that I'm not aware of any other media industry in the World where such rigorous care is taken in ensuring such balance and accountability.

And I believe also that it was before we had Ofcom or one of its predecessors that required TV news media to be unbiased as much as possible. Did Ofcom and its predecessors come into force during the later part of the 1980s?

 

[Andalublue]

And I believe also that it was before we had Ofcom or one of its predecessors that required TV news media to be unbiased as much as possible. Did Ofcom and its predecessors come into force during the later part of the 1980s?

No, not quite. Media regulation in the UK has a bit of a schizophrenic history. The print media has always been very lightly regulated. It is currently entirely self-regulated, because it was always highly pluralistic in ownership, which it is no longer, it was thought that many voices would produce many different opinions. Now 6 coprorations own all national newspapers and over half the regional press, yet no government feels willing to impose any control and there is less and less plurality of opinions expressed.

Conversely, broadcasting has always been highly regulated and currently is less regulated than it used to be, but still with the statutory controls we've been discussing. There have been many cases where government has tried to intervene to stifle broadcasting freedom in very direct ways they've never attempted with the press (with the possible exception of Spycatcher in the 80s). At the Edge of the Union, Death on the Rock and the ban on the appearance of any Sinn Fein spokespeople are just a few examples of overt attempts at government censorship. There are many more.

British broadcasting is more lightly regulated than it used to be, but still more regulated than most western media industries.

 

[mpg]

Actually, I think that's called "fair and balanced".

FNC is obviously biased because they have more conservative commentary than liberal commentary, but they seem to do a good job of keeping the news and the commentary separated.

 

[PeteEU]

FNC is obviously biased because they have more conservative commentary than liberal commentary, but they seem to do a good job of keeping the news and the commentary separated.

Good one.. not true, but a good one. FNC bias bleeds into the few minutes of actual news they have during the day. It may be a personal comment, or leading question by the journalist, but it is there. Some are of course worse than others.

 

[PeteEU]

No, not quite. Media regulation in the UK has a bit of a schizophrenic history. The print media has always been very lightly regulated. It is currently entirely self-regulated, because it was always highly pluralistic in ownership, which it is no longer, it was thought that many voices would produce many different opinions. Now 6 coprorations own all national newspapers and over half the regional press, yet no government feels willing to impose any control and there is less and less plurality of opinions expressed.

Conversely, broadcasting has always been highly regulated and currently is less regulated than it used to be, but still with the statutory controls we've been discussing. There have been many cases where government has tried to intervene to stifle broadcasting freedom in very direct ways they've never attempted with the press (with the possible exception of Spycatcher in the 80s). At the Edge of the Union, Death on the Rock and the ban on the appearance of any Sinn Fein spokespeople are just a few examples of overt attempts at government censorship. There are many more.

British broadcasting is more lightly regulated than it used to be, but still more regulated than most western media industries.

Was actually thinking more in line of present day rules under Ofcom.. Ofcom is only from 2003 but there were similar organisations before that and I believe it started with the same rules (pretty much) around the late 1980s.

 

[Andalublue]

Was actually thinking more in line of present day rules under Ofcom.. Ofcom is only from 2003 but there were similar organisations before that and I believe it started with the same rules (pretty much) around the late 1980s.

Yes, prior to Ofcom there were two bodies regulating TV, the ITC and the BSC. There were two radio authorities and a telecommunications regulator. All 5 were consolidated into Ofcom. As a TV executive before the consolidation it was often very complicated to ensure that you complied with the codes of the various bodies. Most broadcasters had a whole army of compliance personnel, a very thankless job as everybody hated them. The regulators thought they were like tricky defence lawyers, while the programme makers referred to them as 'The Thought Police'. In truth they were neither, but a necessary buffer between the regulator and the regulated. My contact with colleagues still in the TV industry leads me to believe that things are a little less bureaucratic these days, but with less wiggle room around the simplified set of regulations.

 

[Boo Radley]

And you're doing exactly what I said you'd do; you didn't even bother to read anything, much less respond to them substantively. The last article gives you numerous examples of exactly what you asked for. And the first article is FROM the BBC, admitting to its bias, not some individual talking to some other group.

Seriously . . . if the BBC ITSELF admits that it's biased, why can't YOU?

I've read it many, many times. And you continue to skip the point, repeating the same irrelevant information. Read what I wrote before and try to answer it. Do more than repeat the same silliness. No one can admit. Such admissions are no more credible than declarations of innocence or being fair and balanced. Evidence has to be produced.

Again, read and try to address what is being said.

 

[Harshaw]

I've read it many, many times. And you continue to skip the point, repeating the same irrelevant information. Read what I wrote before and try to answer it. Do more than repeat the same silliness. No one can admit. Such admissions are no more credible than declarations of innocence or being fair and balanced. Evidence has to be produced.

Again, read and try to address what is being said.

So you say, Boo. So you say.

 

[Boo Radley]

So you say, Boo. So you say.

Well, always good to see a well thoughtout response. :lamo :lamo :lamo

 

[Harshaw]

If you want one, you should provide me with same.

 

[Andalublue]

Seriously . . . if the BBC ITSELF admits that it's biased, why can't YOU?

The DG of the BBC admitted that the staff (not the output) of the BBC WAS massively biased in favour of the left, 30 YEARS AGO! It was right there in the OP, but you prefer your version of it, because it serves your partisan agenda.

 

[Harshaw]

The DG of the BBC admitted that the staff (not the output) of the BBC WAS massively biased in favour of the left, 30 YEARS AGO! It was right there in the OP, but you prefer your version of it, because it serves your partisan agenda.

You obviously missed my links. (And PeteEU, true to form in thanking you, simply ignored them.)

 

[PeteEU]

You obviously missed my links. (And PeteEU, true to form in thanking you, simply ignored them.)

Did YOU read the link?

Let me quote it..

The director general of the BBC admitted Thursday that his organisation had been guilty of a "massive bias to the left" but said "a completely different generation" of journalists now works at the broadcaster.

Had as in past tense. He even states it was 30 years ago.. Andalublue is 1000000000% correct. This whole thread is a typical propaganda piece against the BBC, based on twisted words, half truths and out right lies. Nothing new there.

 

[Harshaw]

Did YOU read the link?

Let me quote it..



Had as in past tense. He even states it was 30 years ago.. Andalublue is 1000000000% correct. This whole thread is a typical propaganda piece against the BBC, based on twisted words, half truths and out right lies. Nothing new there.

Yeah, good for you. I posted links, too. You ignored them. And they didn't concern "30 years ago."

 

[Boo Radley]

If you want one, you should provide me with same.

You know I have gone into great detail to explain my position. And no, you have not addressed my points. Merely reposting the article I take issue with is not a rebuttal.

 

[Harshaw]

You know I have gone into great detail to explain my position. And no, you have not addressed my points. Merely reposting the article I take issue with is not a rebuttal.

You keep saying you did, but you didn't. And I posted several articles which you simply brushed aside without reading, not just one.

 

[Laila]

Seems like people haven't even read the link in OP.

The director general of the BBC admitted Thursday that his organisation had been guilty of a "massive bias to the left" but said "a completely different generation" of journalists now works at the broadcaster.

You know ... just in case people missed the past tense :roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

You keep saying you did, but you didn't. And I posted several articles which you simply brushed aside without reading, not just one.

I've read them before. They are not new. So, yes, I have read them. And I explain why they don't prove bias. no one can admit it to it. Anyone's admission has no more credence than anyone's denial. You need objective evidence. It's a mistake your side makes often.

 

[Harshaw]

I've read them before. They are not new. So, yes, I have read them. And I explain why they don't prove bias. no one can admit it to it. Anyone's admission has no more credence than anyone's denial. You need objective evidence. It's a mistake your side makes often.

You explained nothing. You simply waved your hand, like you're doing right now. No detail. No substantive rebuttal.

As usual, if you could have done so, you would have done so by now.

 

[Boo Radley]

You explained nothing. You simply waved your hand, like you're doing right now. No detail. No substantive rebuttal.

As usual, if you could have done so, you would have done so by now.

It isn't complicated. There is NO ONE who can admit to this. One can only admit to their own bias. They cannot speak to other reporters. What detail could you possibly need to understand something so simple? There has to be objective proof, spelled out for you as language and inaccuracy without consequneces (detail), and not opinions.

Again, it is you who are not addressing the point.

 

[Harshaw]

It isn't complicated. There is NO ONE who can admit to this. One can only admit to their own bias.

Except that the BBC did, institutionally, which you simply will not address.

OK; that's at least four times now that you've refused to answer substantively about what I posted. I really don't know why it matters so much to you that the BBC not be biased, that's enough for me. Toodles.

:rofl