BBC on FOX

[Johnny_L.A]

During the Democratic National Convention someone said that Al Jazeera meets BBC journalistic standards and FOX News does not.

Does anyone have a cite for this?

[Johnny_L.A]

Not only no answer, but no views!

Can anyone corroborate this?

[griffin1977]

Nearest I could find is this a report by OFCOM (British FCC equivalent, which unlike the FCC actually has standards regarding journalistic standards) about a piece on Fox News concerning the BBC (which the complaints about Fox News were upheld):

The Big Story: My Word
Fox News, 28 January, 22:00
Issue

My Word is a personal comment section at the end of an hour-long news programme called The Big Story. On the day of the publication of the Hutton Inquiry Report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly (which contained criticism of the BBC), John Gibson, the programme anchor, delivered his regular editorial opinion piece. In the course of which, John Gibson claimed:

1. that the BBC had “a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest”;
2. that the BBC “felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives”;
3. that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the American invasion, had “insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military”;
4. that “the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie – exaggerate – because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right”.

24 viewers complained to Ofcom that that the item was “misleading”, “went far beyond reasoned criticism” and “misrepresented the truth”.

In light of such a damaging critique, we asked Fox News whether it had offered the BBC an opportunity to respond.
Response

1. As for the factual basis of John Gibson’s piece, Fox News said that the BBC had appointed a special executive to monitor ‘pro-Arab’ bias at the network; that tapping the phrase “BBC anti-American” into Google resulted in 47,200 hits; that the BBC “continually bashed” American policy and ridiculed the American President; and persecuted Tony Blair because he was pro-American. These facts justified the phrase “frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest”.
2. The BBC “felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives” was a summation of the BBC’s response to the complaint against Andrew Gilligan’s embellishment of his interview with Dr David Kelly.
3. Fox News accepted that Andrew Gilligan had not actually said the words that John Gibson appeared to attribute to him. However, Gibson was paraphrasing Gilligan’s words on April 5 2003 when, as US troops moved towards Baghdad, he said “I’m at the centre of Baghdad … and I don’t see anything, but the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements”. The Iraqi Minister of Information said that the Iraqis had recaptured the airport, which Gilligan and the BBC, Fox News contended, accepted at face value.
4. When it became clear that Gilligan’s source, Dr David Kelly, was not as highly placed in the Government as Gilligan had claimed, BBC executives did not relay their concerns to editorial staff as quickly as they should have done, with the result that Gilligan’s story gained currency. BBC executives at the highest level “argued that the higher form of journalism practised by the BBC required their vigorous defence of Gilligan”. This supported Gibson’s statement that “the BBC … insisted its reporter had a right to lie”. It was clear from their reporting of the war, argued Fox News, that the BBC took a position that the war was wrong.

Fox News did not contact the BBC for a reaction or response to John Gibson’s comments since this “segment is reserved for his opinion only”. But it pointed to an earlier news report that day from London about the Hutton Inquiry
Decision

The Programme Code requires that all factually-based programmes should be characterised by “a respect for truth”; that in Personal View programmes the opinions expressed, however partial, should “not rest upon false evidence” and the “facts should be respected”. To ensure fairness, programmes which contain a damaging critique of any individual or organisation should normally offer those criticised an opportunity to respond.

1. Ofcom does not accept that Fox News’s claim that an appointment of a monitor to detect ‘pro-Arab’ bias is proof of an “anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest” within the BBC. Similarly, we do not believe that a simple Internet search for the words “BBC” and “anti-American” is sufficient evidence to back-up such a statement. (An Internet search will only identify those sites which contain those words, it will not make any editorial judgement over how those words are used). Fox News stated that the BBC’s approach was “irrational” and “dishonest”. However, it did not provide any evidence other than to say the BBC bashed American policy; or that it ridiculed the US President without any analysis; and that it persecuted Tony Blair.

2. We do not accept that the Hutton Inquiry supported the statement that the “BBC felt entitled to lie and when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying”. The Inquiry stated that BBC editorial system was “defective”. At no stage did Hutton accuse the BBC management of lying.

3. Fox News argue that the presenter was not directly quoting Gilligan when he claimed that the reporter “insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military”. However, the manner in which John Gibson delivered these lines and the fact that he indicated that Gilligan said it “on-air” gave the distinct impression that he was quoting Gilligan directly. It did not appear that he was summarising Gilligan’s reporting. Furthermore, Fox News failed to provide any evidence, except that it felt that Gilligan’s reporting of the US advance into Baghdad was incorrect, that supported this statement.

4. As previously stated the Hutton Inquiry concluded that the BBC editorial system was “defective”. There is no evidence, and Fox News did not provide any, that the BBC “insisted its reporter had a right to lie”. Fox News argue that from its “study of BBC reporting” it could claim that the “BBC knew that the war was wrong”. Fox News’s “study” appears to be based on its own viewing and listening of BBC services. It could provide nothing more than this statement to back up this assertion.

We recognise how important freedom of expression is within the media. This item was part of a well-established spot, in which the presenter put forwards his own opinion in an uncompromising manner. However, such items should not make false statements by undermining facts. Fox News was unable to provide any substantial evidence to support the overall allegation that the BBC management had lied and the BBC had an anti-American obsession. It had also incorrectly attributed quotes to the reporter Andrew Gilligan.

Even taking into account that this was a ‘personal view’ item, the strength and number of allegations that John Gibson made against the BBC meant that Fox News should have offered the BBC an opportunity to respond.

Fox News was therefore in breach of Sections 2.1 (respect for truth), 2.7 (opportunity to take part), and 3.5(b) (personal view programmes - opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence) of the Programme Code.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases

[griffin1977]

@griffin1977

Nearest I could find is this a report by OFCOM (British FCC equivalent, which unlike the FCC actually has standards regarding journalistic standards) about a piece on Fox News concerning the BBC (which the complaints about Fox News were upheld):
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases

I suspect this (and similar cases like it) IS what the OP is referring to according to thislink:

the official British television regulatory watchdog, Ofcom, has consistently criticized Fox News more often than Al Jazeera

[Johnny_L.A]

Thank you.

[rowrrbazzle]

You have to ask if those standards are any good, since the BBC has posted stories such as calling Ray Nagin genuinely heroic and reporting a gang of squirrels attacking, killing, and eating a dog.

[jjimm]

Al Jazeera was originally set up by BBC news as its Arabic TV station, but failed. Whether one agrees with the BBC’s standards, AJ’s reporters were at least trained in their context.

(rowrrbazzle, the BBC is a vast entity and your two cites aren’t necessarily representative of the organisation, or its news arm, as a while - the first link you have is an op-ed, and the second is a trivial news site filler, which most news websites carry; furthermore, since the BBC provides entertainment too, you could also pick any number of trivial nonsense as its output, such as Dr Who.)

[chrisk]

@jjimm

(furthermore, since the BBC provides entertainment too, you could also pick any number of trivial nonsense as its output, such as Dr Who.)

I realize that this is GQ and not CS, but still - calling the adventures of the good Doctor ‘trivial nonsense’ is close to pittin’ words on this board.

Okay, undeniably some of it is nonsense, but sublime nonsense.

[rowrrbazzle]

@jjimm

(rowrrbazzle, the BBC is a vast entity and your two cites aren’t necessarily representative of the organisation, or its news arm, as a while - the first link you have is an op-ed, and the second is a trivial news site filler, which most news websites carry; furthermore, since the BBC provides entertainment too, you could also pick any number of trivial nonsense as its output, such as Dr Who.)

Dr. Who is labeled entertainment, not news. The squirrel item is not labeled entertainment. The latter belongs in the National Enquirer. And if the BBC puts its name on it, they’re responsible.

So if it’s ridiculous, it’s not representative of the BBC? But if Fox does it, it’s representative of all Fox?

As far as I’m concerned, if the BBC allows crap like that on its, it’s not reliable.

And at the very least, they themselves have admitted they’re biased. We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | Daily Mail Online

[Ximenean]

Your cite is the Daily Mail? You must now roll D100 and take that off your credibility score for the next three turns.

You’re being ridiculous if you’re saying that serious news organisations can never run frivolous items. The squirrel story was a light-hearted “and finally” story. It was expected that the readers would appreciate that. It was not a lead story on BBC news bulletins or any of their manifold websites on that day.

[PaulParkhead]

There was a certain irony in that Daily Mail link. The poster was complaining about frivolous news on the BBC, and apparently didn’t look at the sidebar in his/her chosen source of “credible news”.

[Cerowyn]

In defense of rowrrbazzle, as an American he/she is probably not aware of the Daily Mail’s unfamiliarity with reality.

[TV_time]

I can’t find the quote, but I remember Bill O’Reilly last spring referring to the BBC as a well known to be a left wing group (or someting to that effect). I remember my reaction at the time was —“Huh, the BBC??”

But after a few comments like that, I can understand why the Beeb might not hold FOX in the highest regard.

[PaulParkhead]

@Cerowyn

In defense of rowrrbazzle, as an American he/she is probably not aware of the Daily Mail’s unfamiliarity with reality.

Well, I can understand that. I wouldn’t inflict the Mail on my worst enemy. But for heaven’s sake, the multitude of stories about entirely vacuous topics, well, they were listed in a neat column on the right hand side of the page. Stuff like:
The Perfect Arse?

X-Factor Judge needs to gain weight
Amy Winehouse lives and learns, apparently

As anyone can see, this is a serious and credible news source.

[PaulParkhead]

Oops. The first link I provided above may be NSFW.

And the third should be this.

[jjimm]

@rowrrbazzle

As far as I’m concerned, if the BBC allows crap like that on its, it’s not reliable.

I am fairly sure I could find crap like dog-eating squirrels on every single news site out there. Even Reuters has news of the weird on a daily basis. Can you provide me an example of a news outlet that never runs 'and finally’s?

[GorillaMan]

@jjimm

I am fairly sure I could find crap like dog-eating squirrels on every single news site out there. Even Reuters has news of the weird on a daily basis. Can you provide me an example of a news outlet that never runs 'and finally’s?

I can’t say I recall seeing any on Al Jazeera, nor can I find them on their website…

[AK84]

Al-Jazeera English is everything that Fox is not, Fair, balanced, articulate and professional. They did a documentary on the Israeli Merkava Tank a few years back, made with the support of the Israeli Army. If Fox makes a documentary of Hamas Kasams with support from Hamas, I’ll change my mind.

[Lust4Life]

I watch Al Jazeera quite often as I find it to be informative and interesting.
I’ve watched Fox news in the past,more out of curiousity then anything else and have found it to be unbalanced tripe.

[Baron_Greenback]

@rowrrbazzle

reporting a gang of squirrels attacking, killing, and eating a dog.

If you don’t understand why this was a story, then you utterly, fundamentally misunderstand us British.