- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 23,955
- Reaction score
- 16,586
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Frankly I had no idea that such rule existed, considering the heavy bias of the majority of the British media networks.
Watched the regular news review on Saturday BBC Breakfast which had a feature on the yearly media seminar at Edinburgh.
One of the main subjects was about lifting the requirement for impartial and balanced TV news reporting that affects all domestic TV channels - three journalists were interviewed for their views including Trevor Kavanagh who obviously works for Murdoch's empire and could be seen as a mouthpiece.
I wanted to ask a couple of questions to European posters -
- Would you watch news that had obvious partial views?
- Currently, journalists are scrutinised by Ofcom but they are free to write and post very partial internet blogs where their personal views can be expressed - should we allow TV journalists put their personal views more openly on news programmes?
Personally, I think it is important that impartiality is maintained in the major outlets - I do think Murdoch is trying to push for differentiation and more openess as he wants to make money from news and if everyone is doing impartial news then the viewer simply picks the most qualitative source.
An "editorial" slot or a more personal and separate news slot could work - the journalists all felt we wouldn't go down the US route where you find some of the more colourful characters - but I would want to see two opposing editiorials / journalists present the programme. I also think any such programme should be as close to prime time viewing as possible.
There is a very late slot with Michael Portillo and Dianne Abbot which is presented by ex Times editor Andrew Neill: I don't get to watch "This Week" very often and it's primarily UK Politics so I think this format could be the basis where a wider news remit could be allowed.
Frankly I had no idea that such rule existed, considering the heavy bias of the majority of the British media networks.
I would have thought print news would survive in the niche of more in depth coverage and informed opinion - do you think the papers are missing a trick here? Print by nature is a frozen moment in time so (I think) there is greater opportunity for in depth coverage.I think that the statutory requirement for news TV to be presented with due impartiality (not complete, but 'due') is what ensures that TV news in the UK is the communication medium of choice for the vast majority, and the reason why the print news media is in decline.
-- I know Murdoch would love Sky to more closely resemble Fox. I hope he never gets his wish.
Shows you how much you know about what bias is... there is very little bias in UK tv media. Newspapers is another matter.
I would have thought print news would survive in the niche of more in depth coverage and informed opinion - do you think the papers are missing a trick here? Print by nature is a frozen moment in time so (I think) there is greater opportunity for in depth coverage.
It was interesting that it was two Murdoch employees who specifically said they couldn't foresee any "Rush Limbaugh" or "Fox News" type programmes here. Were they simply allaying fears?
I just personally wonder that some journalists have to set up private blogs where their private opinions can be expressed.
I'm speaking generally, but that includes UK TV media networks.
BBC news, Channel 4 news, etc.
I find them to be quite biased on their own right.
There is a very late slot with Michael Portillo and Dianne Abbot which is presented by ex Times editor Andrew Neill: I don't get to watch "This Week" very often and it's primarily UK Politics so I think this format could be the basis where a wider news remit could be allowed.
Elephants in the room must be mentioned if we were to bother with a full-on editorial department at the likes of the BBC.
Only those who are slaves to the BBC would ever claim they are "fair and balanced". In fact their bias is so widespread that there are several web sites devoted solely to BBC bias.
I debated on the BBC for several years before they did away with their Great Debate boards and soon most North Americans came to realize not just how bias they were but how they played down news, or even hid it, to maintain their left wing agenda. Or perhaps an agenda isn't the right word. The fact is that they hire people almost exclusively from the left, and the BBC hierarchy, leftists themselves, believes this to be a sensible thing. Now, as we can see by this post, anything that is not left should be opposed, that alternative points of few are too scary and disruptive and could negatively effect British sensibilities.
It was soon quite easy to spot the Brits and Americans on their Debate Boards.. Not only were the Americans more worldly aware than their British counterparts, they were much more articulate. There were exceptions of course, but as a general rule this held true. That any self respecting Brit would want to maintain this status quo says more about the Britain of today than I ever could.
Here's one Canadian commentators view on a recent BBC program in regard to a similar situation in Canada.
"A couple of weeks ago, the BBC’s so-called “Ethical Man” Justin Rowlatt presented an analysis of professor James Lovelock’s assertion that “climate change” is so serious a crisis that it “may be necessary to put democracy on hold.” As a BBC host, Mr. Rowlatt is scrupulous not to have any views of his own; he merely presents those of others—and, as he put it, “there is a growing view that mitigating climate change means we have to change our view of democracy.”
Really? That view is “growing”? Certainly in the BBC green room. Six of the seven experts interviewed by Justin Rowlatt were in favour of suspending democracy—i.e., fascism. But don’t worry: it’s to save the environment, so it’s eco-fascism, which has a nicer ring, doesn’t it? The show concluded with Mayer Hillman of the Policy Studies Institute insisting that “the condition of the planet for future generations is more important than the retention of democratic principles.” The BBC, paid for by the citizenry, has just broadcast a lavishly produced advertorial for totalitarianism.
Imagine how the non-hyperventilating Dornan and Newman would react were Fox News to do such a thing for one of its pet causes. Yet, when the BBC does it, the entire, extraordinary enterprise is cloaked in the state broadcaster’s garb of dispassionate impartiality. The conceit of objectivity is vital to the mission—which is why the urge to rule dissenting views beyond the pale comes so naturally to supposed “liberals,” to the point where, for example, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Canada’s chief censor, and “Journalism Doctor” John Miller of Ryerson University, support the criminalization of unacceptable opinions. I expect we’ll get used to a lot more of that once democracy’s been suspended to save the planet, right?"
SteynOnline - YOUR HYPERVENTILATION STATION
Most of the print media is already owned by very few, and mostly by Murdoch. They rely on sensationalism more than actual fact and news. Look at the cricket scandal presently haunting the Pakistani cricket team.. it now seems after the sensational crap News of the World (Murdoch owned) brought out that, the actual evidence against the supposed crooked cricket players is weak as hell.
One has to wonder if you have actually watched the BBC in the last decade. This is the same old tired drivel cast against any government controlled news organisation by the right wing since the dawn of time.. and only when the right wing was not in power. Got any actual proof of continuous bias? And remember, bias is not "stuff that you dont agree with", but the station actually hiding facts to benefit someone and openly promoting one point of view without any response.
We're fully aware of your anti-BBC agenda, having been all around the houses with you on many occasions. You've never substantiated your complaints with any hard, verifiable facts from unbiased sources, and Mark Steyn is certainly not that.Only those who are slaves to the BBC would ever claim they are "fair and balanced". In fact their bias is so widespread that there are several web sites devoted solely to BBC bias.
'Elephant in the room' is a figure of speech, whilst a full-on editorial department would doubtless take the BBC form of extra rooms full of trendy talking heads, guffing about the entire day to decide what some newscaster's point of view would be for 30 seconds.
This is the same old tired drivel cast against any government controlled news organisation by the right wing since the dawn of time
Just to correct you, the BBC is not government controlled. It is controlled by the BBC Trust, whose members are appointed by the government, but are not accountable to the government and cannot be removed by the government, only by the other members of the board, a bit like, apart from the last bit, the US Supreme Court.
There are many ways to determine bias, but only if the person making the determination isn't.
The mere fact that a news media has been so successful in shaping public opinion that a well-conditioned public is convinced their sharing the same point of view proves a lack of bias really only proves the thoroughness of the conditioning rather than the actual objectivity of the reporting. Unanimity of opinion is NOT the litmus test for an unbiased news, but rather, an indication of the degree of bias.
There is no such thing as objectivity when human events are involved. Any of those who claim they are unbiased are either deluded or lying in order to create the impression that THEIR point of view is the only correct one.
BBC editorial policy is decided by the editorial board and approved by the BBC Trust. It is enacted by the various BBC editors, with the Director General, Mark Thompson acting as Editor-in-Chief. If you want to examine the BBC's attitude to impartiality, here is a good place to start.
We're fully aware of your anti-BBC agenda, having been all around the houses with you on many occasions. You've never substantiated your complaints with any hard, verifiable facts from unbiased sources, and Mark Steyn is certainly not that.
As I've pointed out, the BBC operates a system of statutory internal and external accountability the like of which, I believe, no other broadcaster can surpass. If you have an issue then complain to either Ofcom or the BBC Trust and, if you are a licence fee payer, you have a legal right to have your complaint taken seriously. Does Fox, or even CNN offer that guarantee of impartiality?
I notice that you didn't have anything to say either in support of or against the BBC's broadcast of the Mavi Marmara Panorama programme which many posters (not me, I hasten to add) found to be biased in favour of Israel. Was it that you found that programme to be well-balanced and objective, or that you're okay with biased and partisan provided the bias is in the direction of which you approve?
There are plenty of people who perceive the BBC to have a pro-Conservative bias too. Just shows, you can't win, but what you can do is stick your principles, and the BBC has a fine record in doing that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?