# Is the impartiality of the BBC (news) a myth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381 "2004-12-17T17:54:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/1 "2004-12-17T17:54:30Z")
I’ve seen the phrase “Brits Broadcasting Communism”. I’ve also been ‘reminded’ that the BBC is no different from other networks in the world and it’s broadcasts are favourable to the people of Britain and/or the govornment. I happen to believe it is impartial and covers news objectively. Am I wrong? Not that I pay close attention but I never detect any kind of favourability in the news coverage I see on it. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/2 "2004-12-17T18:23:01Z")
Noone is perfect. BBC does strive to present an objective view of events. However, since objective sometimes means telling multiple sides of a story (sarcasm) many people find them to be biased. Much the same way CNN is seen as biased for daring to suggest that \*maybe \* the President has his facts wrong, or \*maybe \* civilians actually get killed in a war, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/3 "2004-12-17T19:06:27Z")
The EU has in the past loaned the BBC money. From [http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2003/pdf/report\_full.pdf](http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2003/pdf/report_full.pdf) > [@](#): > > The European Investment Bank has made two loan facilities available to BBC Commercial Holdings. The first, for an amount of £66million, is available for drawing until March 2005 and must either be repaid in full as a single repayment by March 2013 or on an amortising basis by March 2015.The second, for £25million, is available for drawing until November 2003 and is repayable in one single instalment by November 2007.The interest rate applicable on both facilities is determined with reference to the European Investment Bank’s own funding cost and carries no margin above this funding rate. At 31 March 2003 nothing was drawn down under either of these facilities. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/4 "2004-12-17T19:09:51Z")
Well at least, when they do no better job than CBS when checking their sources, as has occurred here – they don’t seem to continue to cover it up by calling the source “unimpeachable” – they seem to fess up with “elaborate deception” – even though their source wasn’t even an employee - so how “elaborate” the “deception” was is still out there somewhere. Here’s the latest BBC overstep of which I’m aware - From ABC NEWS – > [@](#): > > BBC World said on Friday that an interview it ran with a man it identified as a spokesman for Dow Chemical Co, in which he said the U.S. company accepted responsibility for India’s Bhopal disaster, was wrong and part of an “elaborate deception.” > > A spokeswoman for Dow Chemical in Switzerland also confirmed that the report was wrong. > > The BBC had earlier twice run an interview with a man it identified as Dow Chemical spokesman Jude Finisterra, who said the company accepted full responsibility for the disaster 20 years ago in the central Indian city of Bhopal…. > > “Dow confirms there was no basis whatsoever for this report,” Marina Ashanin said. “We also confirm Jude Finisterra is neither an employee nor a spokesperson for Dow.”… [http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=299657](http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=299657) ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/5 "2004-12-17T19:32:08Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > Well at least, when they do no better job than CBS when checking their sources, as has occurred here – they don’t seem to continue to cover it up by calling the source “unimpeachable” – they seem to fess up with “elaborate deception” – even though their source wasn’t even an employee - so how “elaborate” the “deception” was is still out there somewhere. Here’s the latest BBC overstep of which I’m aware - > > From ABC NEWS – > > [http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=299657](http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=299657) It appears that when the BBC used _“elaborate deception”_ in this context, the BBC means they talked to him on the telephone and “Finisterra” (a false name and not one even appearing at Dow) told BBC he represented Dow – nothing more, nothing less – Not very “elaborate” or “deceptive” as I see this - But again, sloppy or not, this doesn’t compare to CBS / Dan Rather - > [@](#): > > …The problem? Jude Finisterra is indeed a spokesman, but for a guerilla-media group called the Yes Men and his name is probably Andy Bichlbaum. He has absolutely no affiliation with Dow – and the BBC made no attempt, despite the magnitude of the story, to corroborate his credentials. > > Indeed, according to the Washington Post, the BBC said only, and only in a written statement, that it had been contacted by a man who “during a series of phone calls, claimed that there would be a significant announcement to be made on behalf of the Dow Chemical company.” > > “He gave no further detail until the live interview, broadcast from the BBC’s Paris bureau this morning,” the BBC said. > > In “explaining” the broadcast, the BBC has called that simple ruse an “elaborate deception.”… [http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column\_article.asp?id=10870&cid=1&cname=Media](http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=10870&cid=1&cname=Media) ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/6 "2004-12-17T20:34:36Z")
Well this thread hasn’t moved — Anyway - I’ll also add the BBC biggie from last year, the Hutton Report, indicating at least BBC negligence and leading to the “resignations” of two senior BBC executives and BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan. According to the Hutton Report, BBC’s internal inquiry into the accuracy of Gilligan’s story consisted of asking him whether the story was accurate - to which he replyed “yes.” According to the Report, this was passed on as a ‘satisfactory internal inquiry’ - > [@](#): > > …the report placed a great deal of emphasis on evidence of the failings of Gilligan and the BBC, many of which had been explicitly acknowledged during the course of the Inquiry. In particular, it specifically criticised the chain of management that caused the BBC to defend its story. The BBC Director of News, Richard Sambrook, the report said, had merely asked Gilligan whether his story was accurate, rather than check Gilligan’s records more thoroughly. When Gilligan replied “Yes”, Sambrook passed this on to Dyke and so on to Davies. > > Davies had then told the BBC Board of Governors that he was happy with the story, and told the Prime Minister that a satisfactory internal inquiry had taken place. The Board of Governors, under Davies’ guidance, accepted that further investigation of the Government’s complaints were unnecessary. In his report Hutton wrote of this: > > _The Governors should have recognised more fully than they did that their duty to protect the independence of the BBC was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the Government’s complaints, no matter how strongly worded by Mr Campbell, that the allegations against its integrity reported in Mr Gilligan’s broadcasts were unfounded and the Governors failed to give this issue proper consideration._ > > It was because of the report’s criticism of his actions that Davies resigned on the day of publication, January 28. Reporters from rival news organisation ITN described the day of publication as _“one of the worst in the BBC’s history”._ Greg Dyke resigned two days after the publication of the report, following a meeting of BBC Governors where it is reported he only retained the support of one third of the board. However, after announcing his resignation, Dyke stated: > > I do not necessarily accept the findings of Lord Hutton. [1] ([BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | BBC apologises as Dyke quits](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3441181.stm)) > > Andrew Gilligan resigned because of his part in the affair on January 30, making three BBC resignations in three days. However, in his resignation statement he questioned the value of Hutton’s report… > **[Hutton Inquiry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry)** > > The Hutton Inquiry was a 2003 judicial inquiry in the UK chaired by Lord Hutton, who was appointed by the Labour government to investigate the controversial circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, a biological warfare expert and former UN weapons inspector in Iraq. > On 18 July 2003, Kelly, an employee of the Ministry of Defence, was found dead after he had been named as the source of quotations used by BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan. These quotations had formed the basis of media... ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/7 "2004-12-18T06:15:31Z")
There are two separate questions here. Is the BBC “objective”? No- it’s absolutely biased toward the left. On the other hand, are they generally accurate? Yes- and that’s more important. That is, they undoubtedly seek out news that will discredit the Right, which is regrettable. But if they find such news and report it, it’s almost always true. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/8 "2004-12-18T11:02:58Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Is the BBC “objective”? No- it’s absolutely biased toward the left. Mearured against what? Sure, compared to American outlets, it’s way to the left. But compared to other British media, it’s slap in the middle. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/9 "2004-12-18T11:54:58Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > There are two separate questions here. > > Is the BBC “objective”? No- it’s absolutely biased toward the left. > > On the other hand, are they generally accurate? Yes- and that’s more important. That is, they undoubtedly seek out news that will discredit the Right, which is regrettable. But if they find such news and report it, it’s almost always true. Hmm many cites required. If you even know what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/10 "2004-12-18T14:20:30Z")
**Avenger** - Just curious, how do you account for BBC’s ‘systemic lapses’ - like the ones mention above? Please look again at BBC’s “elaborate deception” - which is really a telephone conversation and a false name. Look at BBC’s ‘satisfactory internal inquiry’ - which according to the Hutton Report amounts to asking a reporter if a report is accurate - to which he answer “yes.” Now, if you account for these ‘errors’ as simple innocent, non-gung ho biaed negligence on the part of BBC - hopefully you will show similar ‘systemic lapses,’ involving similarly weighed issues and players, which initially find _‘for’_ those similarly situated companies and governments. Once you do please post 'em and link 'em here - ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/11 "2004-12-18T16:17:22Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > Hmm many cites required. If you even know what you mean. I know exactly what I mean, and so should you. But if you tell me what wasn’t clear, I’ll repeat myself using very small words. Fair enough? ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/12 "2004-12-18T17:26:16Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > **Avenger** - Just curious, how do you account for BBC’s ‘systemic lapses’ - like the ones mention above? Please look again at BBC’s “elaborate deception” - which is really a telephone conversation and a false name. Look at BBC’s ‘satisfactory internal inquiry’ - which according to the Hutton Report amounts to asking a reporter if a report is accurate - to which he answer “yes.” > > Now, if you account for these ‘errors’ as simple innocent, non-gung ho biaed negligence on the part of BBC - hopefully you will show similar ‘systemic lapses,’ involving similarly weighed issues and players, which initially find _‘for’_ those similarly situated companies and governments. Once you do please post 'em and link 'em here - The Hutton report is widely regarded as deeply deeply flawed as you are probably aware. The actual evidence presented to the enquiry (as opposed to the conclusions of the honourable judge) showed that Gilligans report on the BBC radio 4 Today programme was correct in its assertions. The allegation that is less supported by actual evidence (although probably true), namely that Alistair Campbell was personally responsible for altering details of the ‘intelligence’ (and I use the word loosely) dossier was not carried by the BBC at all, but in a subsequent Mail on Sunday article also authored by Gilligan. The other thing is clearly a piece of extremely poor journalism and must have been extremely embarrasing, but I don’t really see the agenda? ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/13 "2004-12-18T17:28:46Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > I know exactly what I mean, and so should you. > > But if you tell me what wasn’t clear, I’ll repeat myself using very small words. Fair enough? You assert that the BBC is ‘absolutely biased towards the left’. No, it’s not really clear what you mean, that is an entirely arbitrary statement. I mean, for a start, your location is in the US, where they think John Kerry is a leftie, so you might want to start by defining what you mean by ‘left’. ---
**Author:** ![Aagramn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Aagramn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aagramn)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/14 "2004-12-18T18:01:39Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Is the BBC “objective”? No- it’s absolutely biased toward the left. I also can’t see the bias towards the left. Could you give us a concrete example to discuss please? As others have said, UK politics are some way to the left of the US, and this could be the reason for your perception of the BBC as left-wing. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/15 "2004-12-19T00:56:46Z")
See Liz Curtis’s book _Ireland the Propaganda War_ for evidence - LOTS of evidence - that the BBC’s “impartiality” was certainly a myth when it came to reporting events in the north of Ireland. ---
**Author:** ![Aagramn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Aagramn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aagramn)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/16 "2004-12-19T01:28:54Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > See Liz Curtis’s book _Ireland the Propaganda War_ for evidence - LOTS of evidence - that the BBC’s “impartiality” was certainly a myth when it came to reporting events in the north of Ireland. I’ve always felt that the BBC was pro-Government biased, and thats it’s become stedily less so over the years. Northern Ireland, the Falklands conflict and the Gulf War being the most clear examples of this. Do you think the BBC’s reporting currently shows a clear bias? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/17 "2004-12-19T01:37:48Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > There are two separate questions here. > > Is the BBC “objective”? No- it’s absolutely biased toward the left. I think you’re wrong here; like the others have said; most of UK politics is somewhat to the left of the USA. I’ve heard the BBC criticised as being ‘too conservative’ by socialists and ‘too liberal’ by Tories - I think this is probably a fair indication that it Isn’t exactly in bed with anyone. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/18 "2004-12-19T01:40:29Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’ve heard the BBC criticised as being ‘too conservative’ by socialists and ‘too liberal’ by Tories - I think this is probably a fair indication that it Isn’t exactly in bed with anyone. Fully agreed - as with CNN for American politics, I feel that if all the major parties worry that the BBC are out to get them, then it suggests they’ve got the balance right. ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/19 "2004-12-19T03:32:17Z")
For those who would like specific cites of bias, see below. Archives go back over two years. [Biased BBC weblog](http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/) ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/20 "2004-12-19T03:46:34Z")
> [@Plan B](#): > > For those who would like specific cites of bias, see below. Archives go back over two years. > > [Biased BBC weblog](http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/) Well, apart from falling into the mindless trap of endless selective quotation, there’s also immense factual inaccuracies. They suggest that the whole Bhopal fiasco was ‘covered up’, by it being at the bottom of the BBC News front page. Sadly, I think they may have just not got there early enough - when I looked (after being prompted by this board 😉 ) it was the top story. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381.md?page=2)