UKC

So it's offical .The national propoganda service is run by pinko lefties:

http://tinyurl.com/2teklk

I'd like to give Matt Frei a good kicking in the capuccinos .Smug,bouffant haired prat.

Rant over.

In reply to Postmanpat: Research in the review also found that even ethnic minorities felt that political correctness had gone to far...

At least the BBC has editors who passed their English language GCSE.

In reply to Postmanpat: A better article that discusses the same report is here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/media_net/journalism_war/africa_bad_good

In reply to TobyA:

It's a good article but I think he lets the journalists off too lightly .

If the BBC consistently (as it does) gives barely questioned support to the NGOs or to Bob Geldorf or,as another report commented,took the consumer view of business issues in preference to others, then they are either reflecting their own political views,or being lazy,or being ignorant.

The polical stance that the mass of the organisation's output reflects is simply too consistent to reflect a lack of resources as this article suggests.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Should it reflect the views of the people, or impose upon the people the views of the liberal educated elite and keep the people quite with a blanket of mindless soap operas and talent shows?

I think the later is probably marginally better as the views of some of the people are quite coarse and some of them probably don't even know how to spell fettucini let alone make their own pasta

In reply to trevor simpson:

>some of them probably don't even know how to spell fettucini let alone make their own pasta

LOL, one of your better comments with no edge to it.

In reply to trevor simpson:
If it is to exist at all it's news and current affairts should at least reflect the breadth of views amongst the educated,not just the liberal elite. How often do you think the average BBC journo actually goes to dinner parties or discusses issues with a bunch of city accountants,or oil engineers,or small businessmen,or country solicitors,or software developers or the host of other educated types who would in many cases not share the BBC's assumptions at all.

Very seldom I would think and probably looks down on them when they do .Instead the liberal elite talks to it's own and reinforces it's own views.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Typical conversation at a BBC journo dinner party is how much nicer their house in Islington is, compared to all those Channel 4 types living in Stoke Newington.

In reply to Postmanpat: they even employ darkies like that Rageh Omar, I mean, what is the world coming to? It`s political correctness gone mad, I tell you.

In reply to lummox:
Are you going to to answer my question of yesterday?
Apart from being gratuitously unpleasant you seem to have got me mixed up with somebody else.Or are you just dim ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Very true. I've been strongly against Bob Geldof and his "anti-poverty" millionaire mates for a long time, but it's been very hard to get anyone to listen because he's routinely portrayed as little short of a saint day in and day out by the BBC.

Changing that perception isn't just desirable, it's essential to save the lives of millions of starving people in third-world countries.

In reply to niggle:

Can't you say something I strongly disagree with niggle? This kind of stuff is making me feel uncomfortable

In reply to Postmanpat:

I wonder to what extent the issue has become exacerbated by the way the BBC has moved away from simply being a news-gathering and reporting operation to one which feels the need to analyse and speculate on every last breath issued by anyone of note. I get very tired listening to interviews with politicians on the Today programme instantly being followed by 'and what do you think that, Nick Robinson' and then it's over to Nick for his interpretation of whatever has just been said (and it's ironic that when Robinson joined the BBC, he was seen as a bit of a Tory). The same happens on the 10 O'Clock News on TV, so the role of the correspondent has become much more important than simply acting as a conduit for newsworthy events - analysis is now seen to be an essential part of the correspondents job.

And I then wonder how much of this is driven by ratings - the BBC chases ratings like any other TV station, so when ITV news devotes time to analysis and speculation, the BBC feels the need to do the same, for fear of losing ratings. But the BBC should be protected from the need to chase ratings because of its position as a public service broadcaster.

Here's a thought. If the BBC spent less time on its analysis, it would be able to report more news in a purely factual way (in as much as such a thing is possible). Would we then feel better informed because we 'know' of more events, or would we suffer because we have less depth, albeit of fewer issues?

In reply to Postmanpat:

it could be worse they could be biased and right wing instead of left wing 8)

In reply to tony:

Nick Robinson's credibility went down with me when Blair was just going to do a conference in one of the middle east trouble spots and he was asked about some trivia like Tessa Jowell's husbands cock ups. A definite lowspot, think I said 'you c*nt', or similar.

In reply to sutty:

Good example of the notion of the 'Westminster village' which seems to fascinate the pundits and which seems to get in the way of more important issues.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Funny, I thought the two tended to be synonymous.

To be honest, its the capitalists' own fault - they're smart cookies as well but they are too busy setting up private equity firms and paying themselves a million a year to take a job as BBC local reporter on twenty grand.

In reply to Postmanpat:

A simple way to broaden the BBC's range of staff would be to widen its recruiitment ads to include media other than the Guardian!

In reply to Postmanpat:
How often do you think the average BBC journo actually goes to dinner parties or discusses issues with a bunch of city accountants,or oil engineers,or small businessmen,or country solicitors,or software developers or the host of other educated types who would in many cases not share the BBC's assumptions at all.
Depending upon their specialism, quite a lot.

They certainly spend a fair bit of time meeting with PR representatives of big business.

In reply to Rob Naylor: Except that the people doing the interviewing would still be Guardianistas, so their selection policies would not change. In any case, the organisational culture is so instinctive and prevalent that newcomers would be forced into the groupthink or forced to leave.

In reply to Simon4:

BBC is so much more Times than Guardian.

In reply to lummox:

That really is a deeply stupid comment.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

You don't honestly think that would make the slightest difference do you?

In reply to silhouette:

I thought it was in rather good company, given the rant that prompted the thread.

In reply to Simon4:

I bet the Guardian wishes it had the circulation and influence to make your statement true.

In reply to lummox:

I can only think that is because you make the (I'll be polite and call it "simplistic") assumption that if someone believes in a market forces within a democracy to be the best way to run a country thay are liable to termed be "Tory". Your mind then goes "Ah,Tory,must be a racist" and comes up with your silly comments.

Or is there something more subtle I have missed?

In reply to Anonymous:

I suspect that that they treat this rather like a crime reporter meeting with a memeber of the criminal fraternity.An important part of the job but it doesn't mean you take their justifications seriously.

Anyway,it's not actually the business reporters ( nowadays-they've got better) that are the problem. It is that they are about the only part of the BBC that do understand business or have any sympathy for it ..

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well, we've never really had much of a problem getting our stories onto the BBC, in any of it's formats. They're as receptive as any of the other journos we deal with. And much, much more so than the Guardian and the Mirror.

In reply to Anonymous:

The Guardian and the Mirror are private entities so it's really up to them.

As for your stories ,I don't know what they are so I can't really comment - you're not Ronnie Kray are you ? He gets a sympathetic press.

In reply to Postmanpat: lol ! The BBC is run by "lefto pinkies" and my response is simplistic.


Do keep `em coming, old boy : )

In reply to Postmanpat:

Big business.

I'm just sharing with you my experience of BBC journos. Not trying to contradict. There may well be a core of soft left conspirators, pulling the strings. I have just yet to meet them. As I said, more Times than Guardian IMO.

In reply to lummox:
Sheesh-clearly the ironical use of tabloid cliche has flashed past your off stump(use the dictionary if necessary)

Keep up boy ,keep up

In reply to Postmanpat:

I've skip read those articles and it seems that the primary criticism is the BBC's treatment of NGOs and 'Make poverty history' campaigns as sort of untouchable holy cows. I think that is a very valid critisism but I don't think on it's own is evidence and institutional bias. It also appears that the BBC Trust are now aware of this and hopefully they will address the issue.

As for the other comments in the 'Case against the BBC', if those are a the best they can come up with, then we really are lucky - I was expecting far worse revelations. Especially as This is London has its own bias.

I seem to be defending the BBC which I'm not particularly comfortable with. Tony makes some very good points. To be honest though, my concerns about BBC News (particularly television) are less that it is biased and more that it is crap.

In reply to El Greyo: I would consider myself liberal and I think the Make Poverty History campaign deserved much criticism. If anything the criticism could be that they allowed certain members within the BBC community to influence their approach to the campaign (such as the Vicar of Dibley case), but I fail to see how it betrays any sense of "liberal bias".

The whole affair sounds creepily familiar to the type of bias-hunts that are common place in the US media (driven by men such as Ruport Murdoch). Balance my foot.

In reply to El Greyo:
The full report does not appear to available on the net but other key criticisms appear to have been that both Euroscepticism and the US in general were consistently treated with scorn and that multiculturalism,rather than integration, was considered the only acceptable policy within a multiracial society.

These surely show a failure to reflect broad and important debates going on across the country and indeed the world.

I though the following comment (together with those you can find elsewhere by self confessed liberal Andrew Marr) illuminating ;

At a seminar on impartiality last September, Jeff Randall, editor-at-large of The Daily Telegraph and the former BBC business editor, described his time at the corporation: "They discuss issues from the point of view that the earth is flat."
"If someone says the earth is round, they think this person is an extremist. That's what it's like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC."

Oddly reminiscent of UKC.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ya dont say.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's funny, Mr Hooker of this parish thinks we're all a bunch of Conservatives.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

In reply to DougG:
Mr.Hooker has his own special brand of logic.


I suspect the problem maybe,as ever,that the "right wingers" (whatever that means) tend to have jobs that preclude wasting hours on here

In reply to Postmanpat:


You'd think they'd have learned to touch type by now. I've tried to tpuye this using only my lefto pinkie and it's bloody hard work.

I believe the term is leftie pinko.

From listening to the bbc my main concern is that they seem to hate everybody, regardless of which side of the political divide they come from. Interviewers seem to have taken the Paxman agressive style to heart when dealing with everyone. sometimes it makes particularly distasteful listening and viewing.

Andy

In reply to Postmanpat:

By your own admition you are making a lot of assumptions on this thread.

In reply to andrew whincup: My main concern would be the depressing 'Most Emailed/Read' section on the BBC News website. The top item is almost always something totally trivial and silly even on days when something quite important might be happening in the world at large.

In reply to Postmanpat:

There's a link to it at the foot of this page:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061802.html

In reply to Postmanpat:

But that comment has to be taken while bearing in mind that he has a rightwing view. If you turned that comment around - so that the BBC are the round-earthers, you could say it was reasonable that they thought his flat earth views are odd.

I'm not saying that the BBC is not left-of-centre biased, but I've not seen any strong evidence to support that view.


I am sure you are perfectly able to argue your point of view without resorting to a persecution complex.

In reply to El Greyo:
Not when over half of those who voted in england voted for a right of centre party-be they round or flat earthers.Their views may be wrong but it would be difficlut to classify them as "extreme"


When the former lead political journalist and long time BBC journalist ,Andrew Marr, quite openly confirms the view (and he is of the liberla left) the onus begins to land on the BBC's defenders to demonstrate it has no prejudice.

It's quite possibly not a deliberate bias.Because they are all of a type it just comes naturally.

Correct.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ah, I love a good rant session about the BBC. As someone of faintly centre right leanings who worked in BBC Newsgathering for several years without being detected and eliminated by the liberal clan who supposedly run the place, perhaps I can offer a touch of balance, which is obviously the last thing associated with the BBC, if you believe the Evening Standard or its website.

As ever, there is a grain of truth about the 'liberal' jibe. BBC News is London - the nations and regions are thoroughly irrelevant in day-to-day news planning. That means that decisions are taken by the London workforce which is a cross section, politically, of the capital. That means liberal leftism. Journalists generally, though not exclusively, have a background in softer degrees, and this again means a higher prevalence of left-thinking, in my experience.

The majority of journalists working in all publications such as daily newspapers, news channels, are of exactly the same composition, it's just that some of the others are able to impose a contrary editorial slant (Mail, Standard) via a small number of editors and sub-editors.

In my opinion, the problem the BBC has is that it does not have enough experience at the middle levels of news planning and editing to apply a filter to the tone and content of news. There are simply too many channels, too many programmes, doing more or less exactly the same thing, and the experience is spread thinly across the board. This means you can have a 25-year-old controlling the output of the Today Programme, or News 24 on any particular day. This means they do not have the confidence to challenge a 'line' put forward by a journalist, or to shake off their own political beliefs in the interests of complete balance.

Having said that, I think the overall left-lean is very slight, and has manifested itself badly only a few times in recent years. Firstly, the make poverty history/G8 content - which, it should be pointed out, was not entirely News' fault (if you let Programmes get involved, the problem goes stratospheric) - and then the coverage of the Iraq War, where the strident anti-war views of a few managed to get stories on air that were not sufficiently journalistically robust. The BBC let down the public at that point by not applying scrutiny to its reporting.

The real scandal is what I mentioned earlier - the London-centric coverage of the corporation. The views of half the population are patronised, to be honest. You generally only get the North on your news if there has been a horrific murder, or half of it is underwater.

It all comes down to trustworthiness in the end. I think most people would look to the BBC for the least biased reporting of most issues, particularly in World reporting. It's a damn sight better than relying on the This is London website.

However, there were at least seven cappuccino bars at Television Centre in 2004. I suspect there may be even more now. But this just suggests they're paying their staff too much.

In reply to hutchm:

Actually ,although the news is clearly a major issue (as is dumbing down of the news) it's much broader than that.

Do you think that a drama the plot of which involved the dastardly NGO's sabotaging the activities of a wealth creating multinational would make it through the prodction committee?

Do you think a documentary about how supermarkets aremaking millions of people rich would get voted through ?

How often do you get a programme or an interview asking not "Why doesn't the government do something about this" but "Why doesn't the government do less about this"?

I suspect the problem is more deeply ingrained outside the newsroom because the drama and culture types never even have their prejudices confronted.

And I agree on the Londoncentric thing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I haven't seen the Andrew Marr quote you are referring to so I'm afraid I can't comment. If you can provide a link then I'd be interested to read it.

I've had a wee search and I found this attributed to Andrew Marr (OK, it was from the Guardian):

"You're taken down into a dank basement to have your trousers pulled down and your organs of opinion removed with a pair of secateurs by the director general and popped in a formaldehyde bottle."

Which sounds very much like BBC News strives extremely hard to be as unbiased as possible.

In reply to El Greyo:

This is the quote The BBC..."is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people". It has, he added, "a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

Hello Hutch

Good to hear from someone who actually has experience of the BBC. I can confirm that "faintly centre right leanings" describes you well. Unless you've turned into a crypto-maoist-thatcherite since we last met.

In reply to Postmanpat:


BBC: Buggers Broadcasting Communism eh?

Marr was Political Editor at the BBC and now writes a column for the Daily Telegraph.

Yesterday it was headlined:

"If Pakistan is so angry, give back our aid"

About the Rushdie affair he said

"Last year, Tony Blair went to Lahore to praise its "enlightened moderation" and to announce a rise in our aid budget to Pakistan from £236 million to £480 million. If this is tainted money, it can presumably be returned."

Is this inexorably 'liberal left'


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/06/20/do200...

In reply to winhill:

Yes I know,but since he acknowledges he was gloriously pissed the day before he was obviously writing through the fog of a hangover and therefore off message.Anyway,he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Maybe he's just matured like a fine wine ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Good post.

It's worth also adding that this problem of being unrepresentative is exacerbated further by the biggest problem the BBC has: it is guaranteed its money by law, so it has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to produce anything other than whatever it can be bothered to toss together with the absolute minimum of effort at maximum possible cost.

Certainly the people involved are biased. And why not? You have to pay them no matter what they say and do because if you don't you'll be put in prison.

Why should they care what you think or want?

In reply to niggle:

>Why should they care what you think or want?

Ever listen to feedback?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/feedback.shtml

Nearly every week there is some producer justifying their programme and in effect saying all the writers in are wrong, and they are going their own sweet way. Intelligent or ignorant?

In reply to sutty:


Unfortunately, being heandstrong and wilful is reserved only for those who actually produce decent results.

Let's look at tonight's schedule for BBC one, shall we?

6:30 pm BBC London News
Government approved plebcast

7:00 pm Trawlermen
"Riveting" documentary about fishing in Peterhead.

7:30 pm EastEnders
20 year old undead concrete and piss soap.

8:00 pm Holby City
8 year old spin off soap from 16 year old soap.

9:00 pm Dalziel and Pascoe
15 year old police drama series

10:00 pm BBC Ten O'Clock News
Repeat

10:35 pm Question Time
25 year old political comment show from a TV channel whose own leading lights admit its biased

11:35 pm This Week
Same again.


I'll be honest, I only just looked this up because I almost never watch the BBC, but even I was fairly appalled. In over 6 hours of programming, only 30 minutes is a format less than 15 years old.

And in my book, claiming that that's okay is definitely ignorance.

In reply to El Greyo:


I read his autobiography and blogged a few quotes from it: http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/search?q=marr. A quote very similar to the one Postmanpat alludes to is in there and I meant to copy it out before I gave the book back to my mate, but clearly forgot to.

If I remember it correctly though, he didn't write it as a complaint, but rather an explanation. That the BBC average employee is more urban, younger, multicultural, educated etc. than the UK average and unsurprisingly this is reflected in the output.

I can see why people moan but I'm not sure what they want to do about it. Isn't it a bit like suggesting your average police officer is more inclined toward law and order than your average citizen, or that the average soldier is more likely to be supportive of the military? Bureaucracies attract a certain type of person.

In reply to TobyA: p.s. If Andrew Marr happens to be reading this, I suspect I hold a record for trying to read his book in the most ridiculous conditions. See: http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7674/266/1600/223599/170_7059.jpg
or http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2007/01/ice-climbing-at-helvetinjrvi.... it was -18 and my sleeping bag is pretty tight to try and read a book inside.

In reply to TobyA:

I think you're right about the context in the book .However,why should that make it OK ?

If the BBC wants to claim impartiality and that it represents a cross section of viewpoints it should be going out of its way to achieve this.Hiring a bunch of liberal arts graduate clones from Oxbridge and the Redbricks is not they way to do this unless they are then going to give them a real education in diversity ie.there are lots of people who think completely differently to you,have different priorities to you be they white black or purple and maybe they are right so you'd better start producing some programmes that reflect their points of view.

You should send him the photo by the way.I think he'd appreciate it

In reply to El Greyo:

I still look down on Mansfield folk, naturally. The only difference is that my breadth of experience now allows me to provide a rationale for what was previously simply gut instinct prejudice. (Tries to remember which symbols denote 'ironic smiley', but can't due to age and fatigue).

In reply to niggle:
Since you seem to think that 15 year old or older formats are unacceptable, perhaps you could suggest ways in which, say, Question Time could be improved by being modernised. Perhaps Hazel Blears should be judged on a performance of a musical number instead of being grilled by a panel?

And how can you accuse the BBC of broadcasting news approved by a right-of-centre government in the same breath with which you accuse it of having a liberal bais?

In reply to niggle:


Yup, Niggle. There is an obvious and simple correlation between novelty and quality. I mean, look at Doctor Who. 44 years old and it's obviously dying on it's tired and sorry arse, isn't it?

Niggle; you're a moron.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Nobody appears to have mentioned the fact that BBC news is increasingly falling back on interviewing *other* journalists in order to get some kind of 'expert' view on something. This is really bloody annoying, and is total crap in terms of journalism as far as I'm concerned (although I'm sure it keeps them all employed by each other).

In reply to Bokonon: Or simply riding hobby-horses, out of all proportion to their significance. Part of the ever-increasing tabloidisation of the BBC.

The obsessive attention given to Glastonbury this week, in the most gushing of tone, is a classic example of this. Can't remember them going quite so overboard on a topic since the bizzare "Africa-overload" episode. Hard to see that Glastonbury overload does much harm, or has any particular political spin, but has nothing to do with impartiality or balance and certainly not importance.

Being tabloid may be OK for tabloids - everybody knows what to expect and you don't have to buy them. But the BBC is publicly funded, by a tax on a piece of electronic equipment they didn't invent, don't produce and are not responsible for the majority of programing for. If the BBC are not both high-quality and as independent as it is possible to be, there is no justification for their subsidised existence.

At the moment, though it clearly has a slightly leftist political slant, Channel 4 is distinctly ahead in the "quality programing" stakes (Big Brother excepted obviously).

In reply to Simon4:
I'd be interested to see what, in your opinion, how a non-lefty BBC would be different.

In reply to Simon4:

he other thing that annoys me is the way they use news programes to advertise other news programs - i.e. Panorama I tend not to listen to the Today program on a Monday so that I can avoid being told at the top of the news whatever story is in Panorama that evening no matter how irrelevant to the news of *today* it is.

In terms of political bias, I personally don't have any issues with any organisation being politically biased thats the nature of the beast, and it's something that can easily be filtered out are taken into account or in fact balanced by reading more than one source of information - the tabloidisation is something that one can avoid, but it is becoming quite all encompassing to BBC news output - I like to avoid adverts as well, so I have very few other choices.

On a positive note - the BBC has the highest quality of children's TV output, and not having adverts is a very good thing for kids TV.