Showing posts with label BBC bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC bias. Show all posts

Thursday, 28 May 2020

Oh, Aunty!

This morning I heard the news that the BBC Promenade Concerts will go ahead in virtual form with the last few days and especially the world renowned Last Night, live at the Albert Hall. The British Broadcasting Corporation has been part of British soft power for generations, spreading the news, informing the world and presenting an image of the United Kingdom as a bastion of tradition, morals, culture and statesmanship; something to be admired; something to aspire to.

But what must the world think now of the Britain the BBC portrays? Constant attacks on government when they should be bolstering the government's measures against the viral threat. Embracing the largely unwanted phenomenon of multiculturalism and repeatedly rubbing our noses in diversity. And in the case of the Proms, over the last few years using the last night as an occasion to indulge in EU propaganda with a sea of blue and gold flags where once only the red white and blue flew.

There is a rising tide of patriotism and nationalism which the BBC believes must be ignored, derided and side-lined. In the face of growing disquiet at what appears to be favourable embrace of islamic culture, the national broadcaster chooses to have a muslim as head of its religious programming. They have exercised discriminatory employment practices, rejecting applicants from white Britons in favour of brown people, regardless of competence. And it bangs the drum for every minority cause going.

Watch any political programme and you will see it stuffed with commentators who toe the approved line introduced as authoritative voices while those whose views veer even slightly away from leftist doctrine are invariably introduced with qualifiers such as ‘right wing activist’, or ‘hard right campaigner’, thus prejudicing the audience from the off. The left-wing talking heads are given respectful free reign to put across their point but woe betide the ‘Nazi’ who tries to complete a sentence.

 George Orwell’s statue at Broadcasting House stands next to an inscription of his words: “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” No doubt this is what the BBC thinks it is doing but it is about time the BBC itself faced up to some uncomfortable truths. The mealy-mouthed non apology following Emily Maitlis’s blatantly biased and judgmental introduction to Newsnight on Tuesday is indicative of an organ which, while pretending it is showing contrition, showed nothing of the kind.

I grew up with the BBC and until very recently I would defend its quality, its reach and, to some extent, its impartiality because no matter what it looks like the Beeb does believe it is impartial and frequently points to the fact that it receives flak from both left and right and so must be doing the right thing. The trouble is, though, it judges itself, it marks its own homework, and when people refer to the media bubble, that description practically defines the culture of the BBC. Orwell himself was critical of their groupthink even back then.


The Corporation is supposed to serve the country, not just those it believes hold the correct opinions. The licence fee is seen as an unfair tax on those who feel unfairly browbeaten by its agenda prone programming and especially unfair on those who have stopped watching altogether. In the light of some quite blatant ignoring of its guiding mission to inform, educate and entertain, maybe it is finally time to let the market decide.

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

A Few Good Men

In a follow-up to yesterday's housing benefit story I offer another view, from The Daily Mail's Stephen Glover. Of course there's a problem right there. As soon as I cite the Daily Mail, there will be a visceral reaction from certain quarters that the DM is only capable of biased reporting which, ironically enough, is exactly what that article is complaining about.

I got into a small twitter-spat last night on similar lines; that from one perspective another's viewpoint will be biased. In this case I was 'chatting' to a lawyer, in my opinion a profession with no more sense of right and wrong than many of the villains it often represents. (Nothing personal, Jane.) It came down to a simple choice - given a vote would you put to the sword all the tradesmen (such as electricians) or could you suffer to live without lawyers?

Survey: Given a choice, who would you put up against the wall?

          A) Bent, scum-sucking, parasitic lawyers, or
          B)  Good, honest, down to earth tradesmen

Do you see what I did there? I deftly employed a certain amount of barely discernible spin to influence your vote, just like the politicos do. (Although in this case there was no need; the lawyers every time, right?)

In the movie, Colonel Jessup said "You can't handle the truth!" But what IS the truth? I know what I think - and so do you - but there is always more than one way of looking at any issue, to wit:

  • Did the government just generously increase pensions or viciously slash them?
  • Did they cut their wealthy chums a nice tax break, or will the 45% rate actually increase the overall tax take, which is far more important for the country? (The reaction of wealthy Français to proposals to increase theirs to 45% suggests the latter but only time will tell.)
  • Have we actually had any real cuts in public spending yet, or is everybody just reacting the way The Guardian and the BBC tells them they should?
  • Living standards falling is not the same thing as true, harsh austerity - many people live beyond their real means anyway. For the greater majority, life continues pretty much the same with a bit of added thrift. Sounds sensible to me, but to some it's like stamping on the heads of babies.

Both sides let their political affiliations affect their judgement, which makes rational discussion and debate almost impossible. To the left any reductions in public spending are a calculated assault on the very poor. To the right, those in work cannot be expected to forever pay for more and more poor - they breed, you know.

But worse than that, it makes it nigh-on impossible to even know what the truth is because those who deliver this important information may often be biased themselves. (Take a bow, the popular news media.) Then it all comes down to perception and acceptability. While the last government were spending every penny they could to buy acceptance, riding the wave of worldwide fiscal madness and impropriety, nobody cared because the world looked like they thought it ought to look.

Truth or Beauty?

I have a feeling that what we are experiencing right now is nothing more or less than naked reality. And while the truth doesn't have to be ugly, it often falls short of what you might want to be told. But, as Paloma Faith asks, "Do you want the truth or something beautiful?"

Please feel free to vote on the lawyer thing by casting your vote in comments, below.