I have a very short paper (3-5 pages) for my Crusades & Jihad class due soon. Normally, this “critique” would involve reading a single book and discussing the historian’s arguments, bias, methods, etc. But since this is a topic that is always in the news (Iran, Israel, War on Terror, etc), I can use things like political commentary blogs and such.
My teacher recommended that, if taking this route, to try to find a couple different perspectives: Israeli vs. Palestinian; conservative, moderate, liberal. I’d like to discuss the way the way the Middle East is portrayed on say, Fox News (conservative American perspective) vs. Al Jazeera English (obviously more of a ME perspective) and one other source.
I like the BBC. In fact, BBC News is my homepage. FWIW I’m an American and generally disgusted by the state of our 24-hour news channels, and always found better, less biased information through BBC News.
Would this be a good third source to discuss? And isn’t Al Jazeera English connected to the BBC somehow?
Sir David Frost (and some other British media types who I can’t recall) has joined the English-speaking Al Jazeera channel - http://www.ameinfo.com/69504.html .
On a slightly unrelated note – if you want to get the news and commentary (and biases) from both of the horses’ mouths, so to speak, then – **alongside **Al-Jazeera – you might want to try The Jerusalem Post (fairly right-wing) and Yedioth Aharonot(English-language version of highest-circulation Hebrew language daily newspaper; relatively middle-of-the-road in Israeli terms)
Many senior Al Jazeera people were trained at the BBC and began their careers on the BBC World Service (radio), so the AJ culture is heavily infused by what can perhaps be termed’ traditional BBC values’.
Personally, I don’t view the BBC as the independent organisation it used to be, but I’ve long since stopped watching it so what do I know.
I know AJ is available (if you have broadband) for around $10 a month, and you get a lot of output for that - it’s more like the BBC used to be, imo.
As for the BBC News and Current Affiars department - what you seem to be talking about - recent keys have been the centralisation of the department under John Birt’s reforms, and the hugely significant Hutton Enquiry.
Slight hijack, and it doesn’t help with your homework but…
I am currently reading a book called Sea of Faith which seems like it would be right on the money for this class. He’s a good writer too. It’s a pretty thick book though - not something you could read easily and then summarize.
Unless your class is more modern focussed. Then I got nothin’.
As an aside, in the School of Politics here at the uni’, the lecturers were casually discussing the news before a meeting and the general consensus was that in the UK at least, the BBC was a neutered source when it came to tackling the government.
Hutton pretty much saw the end to any presumption of that.
I didn’t really make my point on AJ very clear; I mention $10 a month for the tv because the (English language) web site doesn’t have very much editorial, it’s mainly Agency stuff that’s cut and pasted.
To avoid accusations of bias The B.BC. generally maintains a slightly anti Britain/Western slant ,it consistently backs the members of our armed forces (as do all the British Media and 90% of the public) but not the policies that put them there.
In general it is liberal leftwing and has adopted the American practice of having to blame even natural disasters on somebody,again in line with the rest of mainstream media over here but has not yet descended to distorting the news purely to boost a presenters/reporters individual image .
Political interviewers here are always a lot more savage in their treatment of political figures then their American counterparts who appear to us foreigners to be promoting one or other of the political positions ,having a little duel with other commentators and trying to show everyone else how smart and well informed they are.
There were accusations that governmental pressure was being applied to theB.B.C.s coverage of certain items a little while ago but I didnt notice it myself and I find it hard to believe.
Not being P.C. Im not the Beebs greatest fan but for all that I still consider them to have the most honest and impartial news coverage in the world.
I wouldnt take as gospel all the opinions of your lecturers,during the troubles Queens college had quite a lot of not always obvious political activism going on and as you yourself must know even today political bias of the members of both communities is still a very real thing.
Though English I spent quite a lot of time in the Province during the troubles in Republican and loyalist pubs,clubs and neighbourhoods .
Indeed at your Uni. I knew a member of the I.N.L.A. who was studying there for a while.
(Before you ask I am not a republican sympathiser)
Nationalists slated the BeeB as a propaganda organ of the British state working to some sort of a secret agenda for the intelligence services
and Loyalists condemned the BeeB as having sold out to the Nationalists ,
going easy on reporting Republican acts and organisations ,
and having the secret agenda of hurrying through the existence of a united Ireland .
Maybe Im being over skeptical of your lecturers opinions or maybe I am right to be so .