UK TV Media: should the requirement to impartiality be lifted?

[PeteEU]

I don't judge people by what they say about themselves, but by what they say. The same goes for the news medium.

How do they frame an issue? What adjectives do they use to describe a situation? How much effort do they place on telling both sides of a story? What nouns do they choose to describe something?

This is what provides a window for examining bias, and not a mission statement dressed up to provide appearances.

In other words.. if you agree with what they say then they are unbiased?

 

[Andalublue]

I know, but it use to be government controlled (like many European media) and that stigmata continues to be used against them by the right (more than the left) when said media outlets do stories that the right do not agree with.

The only parts of the BBC's output that have ever been government controlled have been its external services, such as the BBC External Services, which were under the control of the War Office 1940-1945. Since then, they have been independent of government control too. From wiki:

According to the World Service, its aims include being "the world's best-known and most-respected voice in international broadcasting, thereby bringing benefit to the UK, the BBC and to audiences around the world". The UK Government spent £241 million on the World Service in 2008/9.

The BBC is a Crown Corporation of the British Government, but operates independently of it. There is no direct control of the BBC by the British Government. The World Service is required to take a "balanced British view" of international developments.

During the Cold War the World Service was one of the leading international broadcasters in the Soviet Union. The fall of the Iron Curtain has led to a significant change in World Service activities in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe.

 

[Gardener]

In other words.. if you agree with what they say then they are unbiased?

No, that would not be an intelligent summation of my words by any means.

 

[Grant]

This is one of the most egregious examples of BBC anti American bias and one, I believe, that contributed most to the separation of Britain and the United States as good and loyal friends. Of course there are more examples of their attitudes to the Uniited States and its people but this was made at one of the more sensitive moments in American history.....

Question Time
(BBC) The bBC's flagship television political program is ‘Question Time’.

The show travels the country (and even the world) where it sets up a shop and invites a panel of politicians, political activists, jaded pop stars and even so called comedians to answer questions from a (by ticket) audience culled from the local populace.

 

[Andalublue]

I don't judge people by what they say about themselves, but by what they say. The same goes for the news medium.

How do they frame an issue? What adjectives do they use to describe a situation? How much effort do they place on telling both sides of a story? What nouns do they choose to describe something?

This is what provides a window for examining bias, and not a mission statement dressed up to provide appearances.

I said that that was a good place to start. Of course editorial policy is driven on the ground by the editorial board and the individual editors, but it is held to account through statutory regulation, and that's something that the BBC is controlled by and which ensures it's impartiality and balance. It is accountable to the people who fund it with their licence fees. How many other broadcasters can you say that about?

 

[Grant]

I said that that was a good place to start. Of course editorial policy is driven on the ground by the editorial board and the individual editors, but it is held to account through statutory regulation, and that's something that the BBC is controlled by and which ensures it's impartiality and balance. It is accountable to the people who fund it with their licence fees. How many other broadcasters can you say that about?

This "editorial board and the individual editors" are all left Wing. That is clear.

There is no 'impartiality and balance' and these licence fees are mandatory. You must pay to allow Big Brother into your home.

here is another great example of BBC unBias!

Bizarro Broadcasting Company by Denis Boyles

 

[Gardener]

I said that that was a good place to start. Of course editorial policy is driven on the ground by the editorial board and the individual editors, but it is held to account through statutory regulation, and that's something that the BBC is controlled by and which ensures it's impartiality and balance. It is accountable to the people who fund it with their licence fees. How many other broadcasters can you say that about?

I don't claim ANY broadcaster is impartial or balanced. What they choose to not tell you is so much more revealing than what they do, and the crafting of a set of regulations to be published for public consumption guarantees nothing. If they are accountable to the people who fund them, then the bias of such people certainly comes into play.

 

[Gardener]

Here are a few links to articles discussing bbc bias.

BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’ - Times Online

BBC confesses bias on religion, politics

BBC Chief Admits 'Massive' Left-wing Bias, Vows to Remedy Imbalance | NewsBusters.org

 

[Andalublue]

So this program about the favorable possibility of the suspension of democracy in Britain never happened? Mark Steyn is lying? I want to be sure you're making an accurate statement here before I complain to Steyn but, then again, I know how slaves to the Beeb can also deviate from the truth occasionally. So did this program happen or didn't it?

The programme happened, it was Analysis on Radio 4. Thing is, it was attacked from both sides of the climate debate, in quite vitriolic terms. Listen to the 7 minute segment from the Radio 4 Feedback show that aired listeners complaints about the report.
BBC - Ethical Man blog: Are we doomed by democracy?
The presenter is taken to task for not approaching the climate issue with an open mind, amusingly however, his starting point was the opposite of what Steyn claimed. He was arguing that the Green movement is being alarmist and that the solution to the climate change issue is through markets, not carbon regulation. He took the more right-wing stance.

I'm aware of the workings of the BBC and if you are happy with that then continue to believe in them. But they are certainly dumbing down the people who do depend on the BBC for their news, and that has become all too evident.

You seem blissfully unaware of the BBC's accountability systems. "Dumbing down" is a hoary old accusation that is easy to make but impossible to prove. "All too evident" is just a statement of hyperbole without any evidence to back it up.

In fact you could notice that I didn't include a great many programs. They have more programs than I have to to review them all. That should be clear. Give me a staff of 200 and I could probably cover it quite well. If it is newsworthy though, that the BBC gave an unbiased review of goings on in the Middle East, especially regarding Israel, then I think my point has been made.

You use one programme, using second-hand incorrect quotes from a right-wing blogger, to attempt to make the case for the BBC's left-wing bias. If it is newsworthy that a single BBC radio programme showed left-wing bias (which, in any case, it didn't) then my point has been made.

Yes, I agree, but only if those 'principles' are of the left. Those who feel the BBC are too right wing would have to be Communists still bitter about the Cold War and eager to give their favorite system anther shot. It won't take long for the BBC to start reminiscing about the Cold War days when Communism was thought to be a commendable alternative to democracy (or "capitalism" as the Beeb called it) Have they started on those good old days yet?

If you're the kind of person who sees reds under every bed, you'll probably dismiss these complaints of right-wing bias. But then, you probably think Obama's on the hard left too.

 

[Grant]

The programme happened, it was Analysis on Radio 4. Thing is, it was attacked from both sides of the climate debate, in quite vitriolic terms. Listen to the 7 minute segment from the Radio 4 Feedback show that aired listeners complaints about the report.
BBC - Ethical Man blog: Are we doomed by democracy?
The presenter is taken to task for not approaching the climate issue with an open mind, amusingly however, his starting point was the opposite of what Steyn claimed. He was arguing that the Green movement is being alarmist and that the solution to the climate change issue is through markets, not carbon regulation. He took the more right-wing stance.

He took the more right wing stance? What does that mean? That he is against totalitarianism and the suspension of democracy? Of course that is a 'right wing stance', which is why many more people are now proudly calling themselves right wing. But, in any case, there was no reason to have 6 out of 7 guests being for fascism. Perhaps three for fascism and three against might have made the BBC appear more impartial.

You seem blissfully unaware of the BBC's accountability systems.

in fact a few of us have been down that winding road that always leads to nowhere.

"Dumbing down" is a hoary old accusation that is easy to make but impossible to prove. "All too evident" is just a statement of hyperbole without any evidence to back it up.

I think it might be provable by Britain loss of stature in the world, loss of Allies, and loss of respect. Britain's reputation now is not based on their brainpower.

This is one their beknighted rock stars, apparenty a BBC listener as well.

Former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney takes cheap shot at President George W. Bush at White House event. - HUMAN EVENTS

You use one programme, using second-hand incorrect quotes from a right-wing blogger, to attempt to make the case for the BBC's left-wing bias. If it is newsworthy that a single BBC radio programme showed left-wing bias (which, in any case, it didn't) then my point has been made.

Where was the error in that piece? Did or did not that occur? Why did th host bring out fascists to recommend totalitarianism in Britain? This idea is so ludicrous that it wouldn't even get air time in any responsible country yet the BBC feels this is a valid question to be asked! Don't you get that? Even the left wing CBC n Canada wouldn't go that far.

If you're the kind of person who sees reds under every bed, you'll probably dismiss these complaints of right-wing bias. But then, you probably think Obama's on the hard left too.

When the Left is losing the debate, as they always do, deflect, deflect, deflect! That just comes naturally. If you learn that what you've been listening to for so many years is crap. and that you once believed it, then your head will really start to hurt. So it's deflection time.

 

[Andalublue]

This "editorial board and the individual editors" are all left Wing. That is clear.

That is stupid, and demonstrably so.

The BBC's Political Editor, it's most senior domestic correspondent and analyst, was President of Oxford University's Conservative Association and remains a Tory supporter. If you want to make such claims, why don't you provide some evidence?

There is no 'impartiality and balance' and these licence fees are mandatory. You must pay to allow Big Brother into your home.

Through its 90-year history, through 59 years of Conservative government and 31 of Labour government, neither the right-wing, nor the left-wing have been able to suggest a better method of funding public service broadcasting in Britain. Is this proof of the BBC's left-wing bias? Why not ask Mrs Thatcher? She didn't abolish the licence fee. Or is she too left-wing for you too?

here is another great example of BBC unBias!

Bizarro Broadcasting Company by Denis Boyles

Is that the best proof you can provide? A National Review staff blogger? Would you classify him as unbiased? And one's whose central BBC figure of ridicule, Andrew Gilligan, was sacked by the BBC as a result of the coverage quoted. Your blogger didn't mention that fact, did he? He just said that the BBC was unresponsive to complaints.

 

[PeteEU]

This "editorial board and the individual editors" are all left Wing. That is clear.

There is no 'impartiality and balance' and these licence fees are mandatory. You must pay to allow Big Brother into your home.

here is another great example of BBC unBias!

Bizarro Broadcasting Company by Denis Boyles

In other words you have no proof and because it is not a private company funded via commercials, then it must be corrupted.. a total idiotic view.

 

[Grant]

That is stupid, and demonstrably so.

The BBC's Political Editor, it's most senior domestic correspondent and analyst, was President of Oxford University's Conservative Association and remains a Tory supporter. If you want to make such claims, why don't you provide some evidence?

l

In fact plenty of inks have been provided which clearly demonstrate BBC Bias and you've not countered any of the evidence.. That you won't read them only demonstrates how closed your closed mind is in this matter.

Through its 90-year history, through 59 years of Conservative government and 31 of Labour government, neither the right-wing, nor the left-wing have been able to suggest a better method of funding public service broadcasting in Britain. Is this proof of the BBC's left-wing bias? Why not ask Mrs Thatcher? She didn't abolish the licence fee. Or is she too left-wing for you too?

The BBC was at one time a trustworthy organization but that ended soon after WWII. Who is in power at the moment hardly matters to the BBC bureaucracy. They will always be more powerful than any government of the day. Governments come and go but the BBC trudges on.

Is that the best proof you can provide? A National Review staff blogger? Would you classify him as unbiased? And one's whose central BBC figure of ridicule, Andrew Gilligan, was sacked by the BBC as a result of the coverage quoted. Your blogger didn't mention that fact, did he? He just said that the BBC was unresponsive to complaints.

No, it's not necessarily the best proof I can provide but it is a small part of the proof. The proof is extensive and covers many years. There have been several others posted already contributed that do paint a rather unflattering picture of poor Aunty.. Andrew Gilligan, btw, would only say what he did about Americans if he knew that his bosses at the BBC, and his listeners, were sympathetic to his views.

But of course Gilligan was also only a part of the story. During this period Americans were watching US troops march through Baghdad, courtesy of Fox News, while the Brits were arguing that it was all American propaganda, that the BBC had it right. Laughable!

 

[Grant]

In other words you have no proof and because it is not a private company funded via commercials, then it must be corrupted.. a total idiotic view.

Don't use your words to describe what I've posted, PeteEU.

My post will speak for itself and needs no interpretation by you.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

The BBC ITSELF admits its bias, further to above:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online

Yes, BBC was biased: Mark Thompson admits a 'massive' lean to Left | Mail Online


But all too soon comes the 'holocaust denial': http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article1968952.ece




More great portals of counter-info:

http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm - HUGE archive of just some examples,

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/







Andrew Marr's take on the inate 'good' of political correctness for the Guardian, just as he's lulled you into a false sense of security about the inanity of middle class liberals:

It may be my Presbyterian background, but I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too.

So it should.

Poor? Stupid? Racist? Then don't listen to a pampered white liberal like me… | UK news | guardian.co.uk


Which tosspots out there claimed PC was just about the equality and good manners?!




The license fee should be abolished. If we're going to have left wing propaganda across the board, not just news, then at least let it be paid for by advertising.

And the reason politicians don't abolish the fee themselves? It's better for them to have some influence over the BBC when its paid for through a tax than none at all!

 

[Andalublue]

Here are a few links to articles discussing bbc bias.

BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’ - Times Online

BBC confesses bias on religion, politics

BBC Chief Admits 'Massive' Left-wing Bias, Vows to Remedy Imbalance | NewsBusters.org

Hey, it makes mistakes, but you'll also note, it admits to them and seeks to rectify them. When was the last time a major US network admitted to bias in its output and sought to correct it? Perhaps you have examples. Frankly, for every one of those right-wing sources claiming BBC left-wing bias there is an equal and opposite reaction:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-yes-the-bbc-is-biased--but-to-the-right-443954.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/18/liberalsabandonthebbc

Is the BBC institutionally biased?

Actually, this last link isn't arguing that the BBC has any bias in the left-right spectrum. It reframes the argument and show the redundancy of simply thinking in out-dated ideas of a clear left-right political spectrum I really recommend reading it.

 

[PeteEU]

l

In fact plenty of inks have been provided which clearly demonstrate BBC Bias and you've not countered any of the evidence.. That you won't read them only demonstrates how closed your closed mind is in this matter.

You have provided right wing links and blogs that (as Andablue showed) do not tell the whole story because it does not fit into the little world they are in. Yes there are many webpages claiming bias, and they are all run by the same type of people. People who have a political grudge against the BBC based on old time ideas of what the BBC is, and of course the usual rable of what we are not allowed to talk about in these sub-forums anymore.

The BBC was at one time a trustworthy organization but that ended soon after WWII.

LOL how did it end? You do know that the BBC is still the biggest news organisation on the planet right? You do know that a huge part of the world still use the BBC to get the real news instead of their local controlled media right? And you do know that almost all international media surveys show that the BBC is by far the most trusted international media out let on the planet right?

Who is in power at the moment hardly matters to the BBC bureaucracy.

So you admit that the BBC is not left or right wing, since it does not matter who is in government. And if it was so biased, do you really think it would have survived Thatcher? In fact it flourished under Thatcher.. go figure, or is Thatcher just another euro-socialist?

They will always be more powerful than any government of the day.

LOL powerful in what way? Does the BBC dictate policy? No lol, there are far too many competitors now days. Any stepping over the line is instantly pounced on by the competition and the critics. And unlike the media you like, you can complain over the BBC and the BBC has been busted a number of or not living up to its own rules. I would LOVE to have a similar system for the US media..

Governments come and go but the BBC trudges on.

Yea.. and so what? Are you saying we have to dismantle the BBC every 4 years?

No, it's not necessarily the best proof I can provide but it is a small part of the proof. The proof is extensive and covers many years. There have been several others posted already contributed that do paint a rather unflattering picture of poor Aunty.. Andrew Gilligan, btw, would only say what he did about Americans if he knew that his bosses at the BBC, and his listeners, were sympathetic to his views.

But of course Gilligan was also only a part of the story. During this period Americans were watching US troops march through Baghdad, courtesy of Fox News, while the Brits were arguing that it was all American propaganda, that the BBC had it right. Laughable!

LOL give me a break. You are seriously comparing Fox News and the way the US media handled the Iraq war, with how the BBC and UK media did? It is miles apart, because the US media did not do their freaking jobs and were nothing but lapdogs of the Bush administration. They were propaganda machines nothing more nothing less and they have admitted (minus Fox of course) that they dropped the ball in the months after 9/11 to the Iraq war.

In this time period, the BBC and UK news media in general, asked highly critical questions and demanded the truth. That Blair pissed on everyone and went ahead any ways, does not change the fact that the British media (minus some what the Murdoch newspapers) were not the lapdog propaganda machines of the Blair government as the US counterparts were. When Blair threw out the 45 min till nuclear Armageddon, the US media ate it up, where as the UK media treated the comment with high scepticism and guess what.. they were right. And in no way has the BBC or other UK media not supported the British troops once they were away overseas.. for one, the BBC almost always shows when troops comes home in body bags.. live often or slightly delayed. When was the last time that was shown on US TV?

 

[Grant]

The BBC ITSELF admits its bias, further to above:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online

Yes, BBC was biased: Mark Thompson admits a 'massive' lean to Left | Mail Online


But all too soon comes the 'holocaust denial': BBC tackles allegations that it has ‘an innate liberal bias’ - Times Online




More great portals of counter-info:

BBC Bias - HUGE archive of just some examples,

Biased BBC







Andrew Marr's take on the inate 'good' of political correctness for the Guardian, just as he's lulled you into a false sense of security about the inanity of middle class liberals:





Poor? Stupid? Racist? Then don't listen to a pampered white liberal like me… | UK news | guardian.co.uk


Which tosspots out there claimed PC was just about the equality and good manners?!




The license fee should be abolished. If we're going to have left wing propaganda across the board, not just news, then at least let it be paid for by advertising.

And the reason politicians don't abolish the fee themselves? It's better for them to have some influence over the BBC when its paid for through a tax than none at all!

Thanks for those links, Republic_Of_Public, and I enjoyed reading the BBC take on Sarah Palin. Anyone who isn't left wing must be of limited intelligence in their view, and will always be characterized as such. Of course this also reflects on the gullibility and lack of sophistication of the American public.

The ABC is Australia and the CBC here in Canada are quite similar to the BBC in outlook but they lack the international opportunities the BBC has and in Canada, of course, we have access to a great many other sources. Only 7% of Candians, I uunderstand, rely on the CBC for their information. You have to be drinking the Kool Aid to overly rely on the BBC, CBC, or ABC for your information.

 

[Andalublue]

The BBC ITSELF admits its bias, further to above:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online

Yes, BBC was biased: Mark Thompson admits a 'massive' lean to Left | Mail Online


But all too soon comes the 'holocaust denial': BBC tackles allegations that it has ‘an innate liberal bias’ - Times Online




More great portals of counter-info:

BBC Bias - HUGE archive of just some examples,

Biased BBC







Andrew Marr's take on the inate 'good' of political correctness for the Guardian, just as he's lulled you into a false sense of security about the inanity of middle class liberals:





Poor? Stupid? Racist? Then don't listen to a pampered white liberal like me… | UK news | guardian.co.uk


Which tosspots out there claimed PC was just about the equality and good manners?!




The license fee should be abolished. If we're going to have left wing propaganda across the board, not just news, then at least let it be paid for by advertising.

And the reason politicians don't abolish the fee themselves? It's better for them to have some influence over the BBC when its paid for through a tax than none at all!

And yet, and yet, who do the British people trust? The British media in general, or the BBC?

Ipsos MORI | Poll | BBC Survey on Trust Issues

Questions 15 and 16 seem relevant.

 

[Grant]

The BBC ITSELF admits its bias, further to above:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Mail Online

Yes, BBC was biased: Mark Thompson admits a 'massive' lean to Left | Mail Online


But all too soon comes the 'holocaust denial': BBC tackles allegations that it has ‘an innate liberal bias’ - Times Online




More great portals of counter-info:

BBC Bias - HUGE archive of just some examples,

Biased BBC







Andrew Marr's take on the inate 'good' of political correctness for the Guardian, just as he's lulled you into a false sense of security about the inanity of middle class liberals:





Poor? Stupid? Racist? Then don't listen to a pampered white liberal like me… | UK news | guardian.co.uk


Which tosspots out there claimed PC was just about the equality and good manners?!




The license fee should be abolished. If we're going to have left wing propaganda across the board, not just news, then at least let it be paid for by advertising.

And the reason politicians don't abolish the fee themselves? It's better for them to have some influence over the BBC when its paid for through a tax than none at all!

Thanks for those links, Republic_Of_Public, and I enjoyed reading the BBC take on Sarah Palin. Anyone who isn't left wing must be of limited intelligence in their view, and will always be characterized as such. Of course this also reflects on the gullibility and lack of sophistication of the American public.

The ABC is Australia and the CBC here in Canada are quite similar to the BBC in outlook but they lack the international opportunities the BBC has and in Canada, of course, we have access to a great many other sources. Only 7% of Canadians, I understand, rely on the CBC for their information. You have to be drinking the Kool Aid to overly rely on the BBC, CBC, or ABC for your information.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Nice to be appreciated as well as being there to annoy with unpalatable truths at times.

The BBC has a past reputation for quality, unbiased programme output and still banks on that. It's the state broadcaster, so therefore of some special credibilty apparently.

Many good documentaries are still made, especially with nature or history programmes, but contemporary issues are run through the fabricated cultural prism.

 

[Grant]

And yet, and yet, who do the British people trust? The British media in general, or the BBC?

Ipsos MORI | Poll | BBC Survey on Trust Issues

Questions 15 and 16 seem relevant.

That the British people ae forced to trust the BBC doesn't say much for other British media, Andalublue.

Why are you so defensive about the BBC? Surely if there is bias, and that seems to be demonstrably proven, even by their own admissions, why defend this expensive pile of propaganda? Do you not concern yourself about being lied to, even if they are lies which tend to support your political point of view?

Or did you get your POV from the BBC and an attack on the Beeb is now an attack on who you are and what you believe?

 

[Grant]

Nice to be appreciated as well as being there to annoy with unpalatable truths at times.

The BBC has a past reputation for quality, unbiased programme output and still banks on that. It's the state broadcaster, so therefore of some special credibilty apparently.

Many good documentaries are still made, especially with nature or history programmes, but contemporary issues are run through the fabricated cultural prism.

Yes, I agree. When the BBC stays out of politics they can produce some very good programming. But that's not to say others couldn't do just as well without the state supplying the funding. Or by distributing the public money through the use of grants, or tax breaks.

 

[Andalublue]

That the British people ae forced to trust the BBC doesn't say much for other British media, Andalublue.

Why are you so defensive about the BBC? Surely if there is bias, and that seems to be demonstrably proven, even by their own admissions, why defend this expensive pile of propaganda? Do you not concern yourself about being lied to, even if they are lies which tend to support your political point of view?

Or did you get your POV from the BBC and an attack on the Beeb is now an attack on who you are and what you believe?

I've never denied that there is bias in BBC coverage, with disatisfaction both from the left and the right. What is also clear is that the BBC does more than any other broadcaster to present a balance of opinions and to rectify problems in its reporting when they occur.

Why are you so aggressively antagonistic to the BBC? I can't imagine that it affects your life one iota whether Britain has a licence-fee funded broadcaster or not. What is your agenda?

 

[Grant]

I've never denied that there is bias in BBC coverage, with disatisfaction both from the left and the right.

Well let's see some of this Left Wing dissatisfaction then. Where are the links?

What is also clear is that the BBC does more than any other broadcaster to present a balance of opinions and to rectify problems in its reporting when they occur.

No, that is not clear at all. The same problem has been going on for years, and the BBC will always say mistakes were made, that they recognize these errors, that there will be changes, but everything stays much the same. There is a pattern here. The BBC is horsepucky and most everyone outside the UK and the third world understands that.

Why are you so aggressively antagonistic to the BBC? I can't imagine that it affects your life one iota whether Britain has a licence-fee funded broadcaster or not. What is your agenda?

I don't like the BBC because it has dumbed down British society to the point where they have lost the many friends they once had, as well as their Allies. Their anti Americanism, still going on today and still swallowed by much of the British public, has cost them dearly. I'm Canadian and grew up admiring all thing British, but no more. Of course I know more about the United States than most Brits do but those who have never been off the island insist they know all there is to know about the US, and they will always be BBC fans. All you need do is to ask the many expats who are now settled all over the world and they'll fill you in quickly enough on what crap the political arm of the BBC is.

And of course the BBC is mischievously spreading their propaganda throughout the third world, creating enemies for the democracies and thus making the world less safe. What is to admire about the BBC or Britain today? Can you think of anything?