# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/21 "2004-12-19T04:23:35Z")
Here’s yet another example – Interpret this as you wish – since I know you will. Here is Barbara Plett’s, BBC’s correspondent in the West Bank, report on Arafat’s departure for medical attention - > [@](#): > > …The world watches the unfolding drama as the man who has become the symbol for Palestinian nationalism seems to hover between life and death. Though full of uncertainties, Mr Arafat’s life has been one of sheer dedication and resilience…. > > Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry… without warning. > In quieter moments since I have asked myself, why the sudden surge of emotion? > Waves of emotion > > For me, it was probably the siege. > > I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr Arafat’s headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. > > I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: “Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.” > And so was I…. OK – she openly wept for Arafat ---- and then decides it’s important to tell the world about it. Appears like a lapse, maybe, in objective journalism — an ‘unintentional’ display to the world of emotional attachment, a possible identification with a side of a story? Ummm – And least you think this BBC reporter is oblivious to Arafat’s atrocities – well she ain’t – but that seems to be wiped away by Arafat’s lack of “cowardice.” > [@](#): > > …Despite his obvious failings - his use of corruption, his ambivalence towards violence, his autocratic way of ruling - no one could accuse him of cowardice…. “No one could accuse him of cowardice”?? I’m sure it really does take balls of reinforced titanium to break into a house while the occupants sleep ------- or steal millions of dollars from ‘your people’ - Linked directly to the BBC report – A masterpiece of objective reporting. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from\_our\_own\_correspondent/3966139.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3966139.stm) ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/22 "2004-12-19T04:34:55Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > 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? What? You mean three BBC officials were unjustly forced to “resign” by the BBC? Three BBC forced “resignations” all within three days of the publication of deeply flawed Hutton Report? It’s worse than I thought at the BBC! ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/23 "2004-12-19T07:57:24Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > What? You mean three BBC officials were unjustly forced to “resign” by the BBC? Three BBC forced “resignations” all within three days of the publication of deeply flawed Hutton Report? It’s worse than I thought at the BBC! Excuse me? You understand that, when you have those kind of jobs where you are in the public spotlight, a resignation may be necessary if you feel that your ability to do your job has been compromised, or even if you feel that there is a perception that your ability to do your job has been compromised. [Greg Dyke](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3895135.stm) and [Andrew Gilligan](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3607996.stm) have both made statements since their resignations defending their actual record and the original story itself. [Here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3090681.stm) is a link to a transcript of Gilligan’s original Today report by the way. As I said previously, the language used could certainly be a bit tighter (it was an unscripted and live report), but the allegations contained have all been proven, either in evidence to Hutton, by the Butler report, or subsequent statements, to be entirely accurate. Are you disagreeing with that? ---
**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, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/24 "2004-12-19T10:07:28Z")
> [@Aagramn](#): > > 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? I can’t really say. I don’t have BBC except at work, and then I rarely watch it. And Liz Curtis’s book was last published in 1998. ---
**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, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/25 "2004-12-19T11:53:20Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > OK – she openly wept for Arafat ---- and then decides it’s important to tell the world about it. Appears like a lapse, maybe, in objective journalism — an ‘unintentional’ display to the world of emotional attachment, a possible identification with a side of a story? Ummm – Of course it isn’t an objective piece. It’s someone writing about their feelings on Arafat’s death, and the mood in the West Bank. There is nothing wrong with publishing opinion pieces. A good example of this was the US election coverage. The BBC asked 6 Americans to comment on the debates and issues around the election - 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats and 2 Neutrals. Arafat’s obituary on the BBC is a much more balanced piece. [BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Obituary: Yasser Arafat](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/890161.stm) > [@](#): > > To his supporters he was the only man capable of keeping Palestinian hopes alive and at the forefront of global consciousness. > > To critics he was an inveterate terrorist who failed his people. > > He was in equal measures national treasure and national liability for many Palestinians. Personally, I tend to think he was a liability to the Palestinian people. ---
**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, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/26 "2004-12-19T13:01:14Z")
> [@Aagramn](#): > > Of course it isn’t an objective piece. It’s someone writing about their feelings on Arafat’s death, and the mood in the West Bank. There is nothing wrong with publishing opinion pieces. Precisely - it’s not her ‘report’ at all. It’s her article for _From Our Own Correspondent_: an **opinion** slot. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/27 "2004-12-19T13:03:52Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Precisely - it’s not her ‘report’ at all. It’s her article for _From Our Own Correspondent_: an **opinion** slot. But if that’s the case, surely they should put something like “From Our Own Correspondent. Personal reflections by BBC correspondents around the world” at the top of the page?? ---
**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, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/28 "2004-12-19T13:06:38Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > But if that’s the case, surely they should put something like “From Our Own Correspondent. Personal reflections by BBC correspondents around the world” at the top of the page?? Personally, I read it as an opinion piece without having to hunt for a title. But it does say in big letters top right. “From Our Own Correspondant” “Personal reflections by BBC correspondents around the world” Thats pretty clear. ---
**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, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/29 "2004-12-19T13:20:32Z")
Sorry Avenger, missed the sarcasm. :smack: Got your username mixed up with Tigers for a moment. ---
**Author:** ![Planet\_of\_the\_Shapes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b77776/32.png) [@Planet\_of\_the\_Shapes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Planet_of_the_Shapes)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/30 "2004-12-19T14:32:38Z")
A google search reveals a fair amount of blogs alleging anti Israeli bias. It also reveals some sites alleging pro Israeli bias, including, interestingly enough, a [study from Glasgow University](http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/sociology/units/media/israel.htm). According to this Guardian article, [The anti-war movement accuses the BBC of having had a pro-war bias; the government says it was too Baghdad-friendly.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,940770,00.html) Its impossible for any broadcasting organisation to be free of bias. Individual jounalists, editors etc have their own biases and this will be reflected in their output, however hard they try to not show it. All you can hope for it that the organisation involved tries not to show systematic bias, bu reporting both points of view etc. The fact that the BBCs output is viewed as pro war, anti war, pro israeli, anti israeli etc at the same time, by different people, shows it must be getting it about right. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/31 "2004-12-19T14:37:48Z")
Where are all those deep flaws **Avenger**? Those deep flaws that the BBC ignored when subsequently forcing the resignations of three top employees? The deep flaws that lead to the “resignation” of the BBC’s own Chairman and then lead the BBC’s own Director General to issue this BBC apology for the false coverage – _“The BBC does accept that certain key allegations reported by Andrew Gilligan on the Today program on May 29 last year were wrong and we apologize for them.”_ Again, the _primary point_ here the BBC’s alleged _internal inquiry_ (which was no actual inquiry at all) is evidence of procedural problems at BBC – procedural problems that seem not to have been fully corrected even as late as this month (see the BBC _Case of the “Elaborate Deception”_ – described in a post above). Forb those interested - here’s a link to the Hutton Inquiry itself — [http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/](http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/) Or - here’s a pretty good outline of the affair described in the Hutton Report — show me what you’re talking about – as it applies to the subject at issue - > [@](#): > > \*\*…The Hutton Report was, to read the British media, the Night of the Long Knives, the bonfire of the vanities, and the Cultural Revolution all rolled into one hideous assault on cherished press liberty. > > If you live in the fantasy world of self-adulation and preening pomposity of high-powered liberal journalists, I suppose the aftermath of the Hutton Report might seem like that. But for those who have to toil in the less sensational world of reality, the unassuming 72-year-old peer may just have done the world one of the greatest services in the history of journalism and public broadcasting…. > > …The details are these: Gilligan, an investigative reporter for the BBC, last May interviewed Dr. Kelly about the preparation of a document outlining Iraq’s WMD capabilities produced by the British government in September 2002, as the Iraq debate was reaching its climax. > > Gilligan subsequently reported that a senior British official closely involved in the drafting of the WMD document had told him the intelligence services were unhappy at the way Downing Street had exploited their intelligence for political purposes. Most explosively, this official is said to have told the reporter that Blair’s official spokesman had insisted on inserting–against the wishes of the intelligence services–a finding that Saddam Hussein could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. > > We now know, however, thanks to Lord Hutton’s inquiry, that (a) Kelly did not tell Gilligan the government deliberately conveyed false information about Iraq; (b) the intelligence service chiefs had themselves inserted the 45-minute claim, not Downing Street; © Kelly, though a genuine expert on Iraq’s weapons, had no connection with the compiling of the WMD document; and (d) Kelly, far from being an opponent of the war, as was commonly inferred, was actually a fervent supporter of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. > > None of that, sadly, was known at the time Gilligan aired his explosive report on May 29. Within a matter of days, this misrepresented allegation from an unreliable witness had metamorphosed into the conventional wisdom about the prime minister. > > Tony Blair’s reputation fell swiftly from that of co-liberator of the Iraqi people to liar and lackey of George Bush who could not persuade his country or his party to go to war against Iraq on honest grounds and so had resorted instead to a wicked distortion. Tens of thousands of British troops had been sent into battle on a falsehood. > > As Blair himself told the Hutton inquiry last August, the report amounted to an “extraordinarily serious allegation which, if it were true, would mean we had behaved in the most disgraceful way and I would have to resign as prime minister.” > > Blair’s approval rating plummeted. When Dr. Kelly committed suicide on July 17, the public verdict seemed to be that a man who had been valiantly trying to expose government wrongdoing and had been unmasked for his efforts had taken his own life. > > The BBC, meanwhile, despite some qualms about the story, stood by it. Without bothering to check in detail with the reporter on his source, and without demanding to see his notes, the BBC launched a vigorous defense of the allegations. Even as the Hutton inquiry began its work, the fighting went on. The BBC insisted its story was right, and the government’s problems mounted. Only last month, as Hutton’s report sparked the crisis, did the BBC apologize for its errors. Probably too late to repair the damage to Blair…. > > …THE KELLY STORY was not an isolated incident. It was merely the most infamous example of a left-liberal bias that refracts all news coverage through the prism of the BBC’s own distinctive worldview. > > The BBC’s coverage of the Iraq war itself marked a new low point in the history of the self-loathing British prestige-media’s capacity to side with the nation’s enemies. > > Its Middle East coverage is notoriously one-sided. Its pro-Palestinian bias is so marked that recently the London bureau chief of the Jerusalem Post refused to take part in any more BBC news programs because he believed the corporation was actually fomenting anti-Semitism. If anti-Americanism is on the rise in the world, the BBC can take a fair share of the credit; much of its U.S. coverage depicts a cartoonish image of a nation of obese, Bible-wielding halfwits, blissfully dedicated to shooting or suing each other. > > Its suppositions are recognizable as those of self-appointed liberal elites everywhere: American power is bad; European multilateralism is good; organized religion is a weird vestige of unenlightened barbarism; atheism is rational man’s highest intellectual achievement; Israel (especially Ariel Sharon) is evil; Palestinians (especially Yasser Arafat) are innocent victims; business is essentially corrupt, or at best simply boring; poverty is the result of government failure; economic success is the product of exploitation or crookedness. And so on. > > This will be familiar to consumers of news in much of the United States. Liberal media bias is by now, fortunately, increasingly widely recognized. But the difference is that BBC bias is so much more powerful and much more pernicious because the BBC is still seen by viewers and listeners, in Britain and around the world, as objective. And when the BBC conveys its slanted views of the world, there is very little means of checking and correcting it. > > I worked at the BBC for six years. I never saw a BBC journalist actively promote his own political agenda. Almost all were honest, hardworking men and women dedicated to reporting the truth as they saw it. The problem was that it was the truth as they saw it…. > > …The great virtue of Lord Hutton’s devastating indictment is that it represented for the first time an independent verdict. The editorial failings it criticized, the tendentious reporting it identified, the massive bureaucracy it exposed, and the troubling strategic vision that underlay it all demand a radical change at the BBC, if the organization’s reputation is to be restored…. > > _Gerard Baker is an associate editor at the Financial Times._\*\* [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/710rcvzt.asp?pg=2](http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/710rcvzt.asp?pg=2) ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/32 "2004-12-19T14:54:23Z")
Ah ha ha! The Weekly Standard! Murdoch-owned press in anti-BBC agenda shocker! > [@](#): > > Where are all those deep flaws Avenger? If there were no flaws in the Hutton report, how would you explain it’s widely-held status as a government whitewash? A report that is so universally ridiculed must have something wrong with it surely? > [@](#): > > Again, the primary point here the BBC’s alleged internal inquiry (which was no actual inquiry at all) is evidence of procedural problems at BBC – procedural problems that seem not to have been fully corrected even as late as this month (see the BBC Case of the “Elaborate Deception” – described in a post above). I’m not sure that sentence actually makes sense. But the subject we are discussing is the impartiality of the BBC. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/33 "2004-12-19T15:08:28Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > Ah ha ha! The Weekly Standard! Murdoch-owned press in anti-BBC agenda shocker! ‘Nice’ _ad hominem_ argument - > [@](#): > > If there were no flaws in the Hutton report, how would you explain it’s widely-held status as a government whitewash? A report that is so universally ridiculed must have something wrong with it surely? Sweet _ad populum_ argument – But abject failure at discussing the merits of your assertions - ---
**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, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/34 "2004-12-19T15:26:27Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > ‘Nice’ _ad hominem_ argument - No it’s not. The Murdoch press cannot be claimed to be objective when discussing the BBC. ---
**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 19, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/35 "2004-12-19T16:14:38Z")
> [@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/) It’s a shame but some people don’t count blogs as as citable as the mainstream media, even when the blogger gives their name. Bloggers are just as liable for libel as anyone else. ---
**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 19, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/36 "2004-12-19T16:24:08Z")
> [@Aagramn](#): > > 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. The Falklands gives a classic case of anti-Tory bias by the BBC: an author, Ian Curteis, had written a play and it was blocked because it was pro-government. It was finally broadcast many years later. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/the\_falklands\_play\_four\_facts.shtml](http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/the_falklands_play_four_facts.shtml) > **[News](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F11%2F29%2Fnfalk29.xml)** > > Latest breaking news, including politics, crime and celebrity. Find stories, updates and expert opinion. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv\_and\_radio/1925836.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1925836.stm) > **[Falklands drama gives fledgling BBC4 a boost](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/apr/13/falklands.uknews)** > > The BBC's new culture channel, BBC4, has finally begun to make a mark in the ratings with the screening of Ian Curteis's controversial play about the Falklands war. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/37 "2004-12-19T16:30:52Z")
> [@](#): > > The Falklands gives a classic case of anti-Tory bias by the BBC I haven’t seen the work in question, but all of your cites say that the play was initially shelved because it was felt to have a pro-tory bias and was due to be shown in the run-up to a General Election. If we are defining not showing something that is judged to be biased as bias against the entity that the bias was in favour of, then there’s not much hope for anything to ever be considered unbiased! ---
**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 19, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/38 "2004-12-19T16:38:25Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > I haven’t seen the work in question, but all of your cites say that the play was initially shelved because it was felt to have a pro-tory bias and was due to be shown in the run-up to a General Election. If we are defining not showing something that is judged to be biased as bias against the entity that the bias was in favour of, then there’s not much hope for anything to ever be considered unbiased! They could have shown it after the election, not the thick end of 20 years later. One of the cites also states: > [@](#): > > the BBC told him it would axe the £1 million drama **unless he rewrote parts to show Mrs Thatcher, the Prime Minister, in a less flattering light.** (bolding mine) I think that this shows that at the time at least one part of the BBC was biased. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/39 "2004-12-19T16:57:44Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I think that this shows that at the time at least one part of the BBC was biased. No it doesn’t. If the play was as lopsided as your cites suggest, it would be perfectly unbiased to demand it be moderated if they wanted it played. Or would you consider a network adaptation of Coulter’s works to be unbiased? ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/40 "2004-12-19T17:32:20Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I think that this shows that at the time at least one part of the BBC was biased. Not necessarily. Depends if they would have also shelved a play they felt was too pro-Labour. The BBC is supposed to be impartial, so I can understand them being wary of putting out anything too controversial near to an election. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381.md?page=3)