# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/41 "2004-12-19T18:54:33Z")
I don’t see where I have anything to apologize for in my assessment of the BBC. Are they “objective”? No- they have an agenda. When they report on President Bush, for instance, are they “objective”? No- they plainly despise the man, and love digging for stories that will embarrass him. That said, when they FIND such stories and report them, they’re almost always 100% accurate. Which means that my fellow American conservatives may gripe all they like that the Beeb is not objective, but they CAN’T claim seriously that the Beeb doesn’t generally get the story right. ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/42 "2004-12-19T19:04:51Z")
I’m not really sure how you can make broad sweeping statements like “they plainly despise the man, and love digging for stories that will embarrass him” about an organisation employing tens of thousands of people. Though a pretty hefty percentage of the UK population do despise that bloke who keeps telling you that you elected him, so statistically there’s probably a point there. No particular stories about Bush spring to mind though that have only been run by the BBC and not other international media outlets though. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/43 "2004-12-20T00:01:38Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > When they report on President Bush, for instance, are they “objective”? No- they plainly despise the man, and love digging for stories that will embarrass him. …cite? > [@](#): > > No- it’s absolutely biased toward the left. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/44 "2004-12-20T03:06:47Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > The Falklands gives a classic case of anti-Tory bias by the BBC… Here’s an article related to a “formal complaint” from the Tory leader to the BBC alleging just that - > [@](#): > > Iain Duncan Smith is to make a formal complaint to the BBC, accusing the corporation of deliberately discriminating against the Conservative Party “all the damn time”. > > The Tory leader will send a dossier of alleged examples of bias to the corporation’s director-general, Greg Dyke. His action follows outrage within the party over the BBC’s coverage of recent local election results…. > > ….senior Conservatives were infuriated when the BBC incorrectly reported that the party was enjoying only marginal success on May 1. In fact it gained 565 seats…. > [@](#): > > …The BBC’s election-night coverage “wasn’t just an aberration”, he said, citing criticism of the corporation’s treatment voiced by Rod Liddle, a former editor of its flagship Today radio programme. > > “He says it is not just by accident, it happens all the damn time,” said Mr Duncan Smith. “They set their mind about how they perceive you and report you and do nothing but report in that light. They should be news-led.”… > **[News](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F11%2Fnbeeb11.xml&sSheet=%2Fportal%2F2003%2F05%2F11%2Fixportal.html)** > > Latest breaking news, including politics, crime and celebrity. Find stories, updates and expert opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/45 "2004-12-20T03:28:11Z")
**Avenger** – again, do you plan on supporting your assertion that the Hutton report was _“deeply, deeply flawed”_ – or plan on retracting that assertion - or, neither? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/46 "2004-12-20T04:28:50Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 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. It’s not a shame; it’s just common sense. Blogs _in some countries_ may be liable for libel, but in reality there are so damn many of them that they could intentionally spread malicious lies without any fear of reprisal. Suing them all would never be practical. Many have done exactly that. The reality of the situation is that the mainstream news sources care about their reputations, so too many errors can’t be tolerated. Blogs, on the other hand, cater to a self-selecting audience that often wants bias, and doesn’t care about truthfulness, only about whether its prejudices are catered to. So just linking to a blog and expecting us all to automatically treat it the same as a mainstream source just won’t float. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/47 "2004-12-20T07:08:50Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > Here’s an article related to a “formal complaint” from the Tory leader to the BBC alleging just that Was the complaint upheld? I can’t find anything referring to it. ---
**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 20, 2004, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/48 "2004-12-20T08:05:04Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > It’s not a shame; it’s just common sense. Blogs _in some countries_ may be liable for libel, but in reality there are so damn many of them that they could intentionally spread malicious lies without any fear of reprisal. I don’t believe you. Sue one and people soon get the message. You don’t seem to have a problem with the papers getting sued, do you? ---
**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 20, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/49 "2004-12-20T08:29:08Z")
Lets not forget Jayson Blair and Dan Rather, eh? ---
**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 20, 2004, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/50 "2004-12-20T08:33:10Z")
Hmm… hit Submit too soon. A blog, just like a newspaper is just another source of information. What the better blogs have in their articles is something that is made possible only by the Web - a wealth of links to sources which they tie together. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/51 "2004-12-20T16:42:41Z")
“Impartial” and “objective” are never terms that should be used in reference to journalism. It is impossible to expect objectivity. There will always be points of view when human beings are involved. Professionalism does demand _fairness_ (best defined by the reaction “Hmmm, I wonder what the reporter’s opinion on this is?”). The only truly objective people are dead. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/52 "2004-12-20T17:35:48Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I don’t believe you. Sue one and people soon get the message. You don’t seem to have a problem with the papers getting sued, do you? Well then how many examples of blogs getting a legal whacking for their lies have you actually seen. I know I read at least half a dozen blogs which parroted the line about John Kerry faking his war injuries. None of them have gotten sued, at least not to my knowledge. Besides, the debate started on the assertion of whether blogs are as accurate a source for citations as the real media. Not all the lies that blogs tell would make them vulnerable to libel suits even if the victims wanted recompense. For instance, I doubt that Saddam Hussein would have much luck chasing down all the bloggers who spread malicious lies about him. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/53 "2004-12-20T18:38:59Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Was the complaint upheld? I can’t find anything referring to it. No wonder - you have to write to the BBC for the 2003 decisions (i.e. they don’t leave their decisions up at their website for whatever reasons.) That said - You can go to this BBC site (linked below) and take a look at BBC procedures for formal complaint processing, with a .pdf graph showing the number and types of complaints and BBC decisions. You can also open .pdf files showing this year’s formal complaints to the BBC alleging biased programming – submitted for BBCs unbiased decision. Note again - these cover formal complaints in 2004 only, prior year formal complaints and BBC decisions are available by writing to BBC. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/programmecomplaints/](http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/programmecomplaints/) Regarding the self-policing “complaints” process used by the BBC - Here’s an article from _The Economist_ suggesting problems at the BBC may be caused by this lack of independent oversite - with suggestions. The entire article can be read at the link below - > [@](#): > > WHO should regulate the BBC? And who should pay for it? Until recently, the status quo looked unshakeable. On important questions, like whether its journalists were biased, the BBC would regulate itself, just as it always has. And when its charter comes up for renewal in 2006, few doubted that it would gain another juicy increase in the licence fee, the annual tax paid by every television-owning household in Britain, which currently stands at £116 ($186). > > Since the row over Iraq’s arsenal, those questions look more interesting and open. The BBC has never managed complaints well: robust self-scrutiny is not a strong point of its bureaucratic, inward-looking culture. The final court of appeal is the 11-strong board of governors. But the governors also appoint the BBC’s director-general, which critics say makes them too close to the organisation to be able to regulate it properly…. > **[Poor reception](https://www.economist.com/britain/2003/07/24/poor-reception)** > > The BBC faces an uncertain future. Good ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/54 "2004-12-20T18:42:48Z")
Make that “independent oversight” - ---
**Author:** ![Aagramn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Aagramn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aagramn)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/55 "2004-12-20T19:05:04Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > Here’s an article related to a “formal complaint” from the Tory leader to the BBC alleging just that - > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/11/nbeeb11.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/05/11/ixportal.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/11/nbeeb11.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/05/11/ixportal.html) This isn’t much in the way of evidence. The Labour party also regularly complain about bias against them. [http://www.barrysheerman.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=8378](http://www.barrysheerman.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=8378) ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/56 "2004-12-20T20:16:19Z")
Granted, a mere allegation never is – an allegation of bias itself is just that – an allegation. Yet, in a ‘normal’ system the opposing party answers that complaint and then a different, neutral decision maker renders a decision. But that’s what we have here and I think one of the problems regarding the BBC ---- How can any outsider know that it’s _“not much in the way of evidence”_ – as you put this? Do you just count up the number of formal complaints and divide them into different political parties, or races, or businesses, or complainant body types? Then - if more formal complaints fall into one race category, or political party, or business type more than any others - that’s evidence of bias. If not - that’s evidence of being non-biased? Is that right? If so, maybe you’ll produce something, a link or a paste w/ link, that shows formal complaints to the BBC are roughly even by political party. Yet again - there seems to be a problem with statements like that one considering BBC is a self-policing organization. Who really knows how fair the process is after the initial allegation ---- The BBC, as the final arbiter regarding its own bias, seems to EVEN have the power to answer questions regarding the BBC’s inclination (or disinclination) to find the BBC “guilty” of bias - if that general systemic issue were to come up. Weird, isn’t it? It does make BBC’s decision process sort of suspect – no? I mean – hell – if they are biased, just how unbiased are their decisions regarding that bias — or anything else for that matter? And that was just the problem if you buy the assertion in _The Economist_ article linked above – a problem also noted in the independent Hutton report. Self-oversight is essentially no oversight IF and WHEN the BBC brass decide to lean that way - Maybe an independet body assigned to oversee the BBC’s complaint process and decision making regarding allegations of BBC bias is needed. If this is ‘unacceptable’ to the BBBC, maybe the BBC and tax money should part ways - ---
**Author:** ![Aagramn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Aagramn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aagramn)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/57 "2004-12-20T23:12:25Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > How can any outsider know that it’s “not much in the way of evidence” – as you put this? Do you just count up the number of formal complaints and divide them into different political parties, or races, or businesses, or complainant body types? Then - if more formal complaints fall into one race category, or political party, or business type more than any others - that’s evidence of bias. If not - that’s evidence of being non-biased? Is that right? If so, maybe you’ll produce something, a link or a paste w/ link, that shows formal complaints to the BBC are roughly even by political party. If both left and right complain regularly about bias, and they do, citing one side’s complaints is not good evidence of a leftward bias. Quantifying the complaints as you suggest would be a better approach, but might not be much help either. You might just find one side is more vocal than the other, which could be nothing more than a tactical approach. A party could decide to either compain at any opportunity to put pressure on a news organisation, or that throwing accusations of bias is counter-productive, leading to bad publicity. > [@Tigers2B1](#): > > Yet again - there seems to be a problem with statements like that one considering BBC is a self-policing organization. I can see some sense in what you are saying **Tigers2B1** , but why does that just apply to the BBC? Where is the independant oversight for any other news organisation? Also, why would an independant review body be less biased than the BBC? Wouldn’t it just apply it’s own prejudices and politics to the decisions it makes? Why would the BBC be fundamentally more biased than a privately owned news empire? Finally, can anyone offer me a plausible explanation of why the BBC would be biased towards the left. The employees of the BBC are mostly citizens of the UK. As such, their opinions will on the whole reflect those of the entire country, or you should get a similar balance of left and right wing supporters inside the organisation. How and when did the BBC become a haven for left wingers? Remember, UK politics as a whole are some way to the left of the US. The BBC is the **British** Broadcasting Corporation, if the BBC is genuinely trying to be impartial it will adopt a centralist position in terms of UK politics. To US residents this will inevitably seem leftwing. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/58 "2004-12-20T23:46:24Z")
> [@Aagramn](#): > > Where is the independant oversight for any other news organisation? Errrr, [here](http://www.ofcom.org.uk/), at least for other broadcast media. ---
**Author:** ![Aagramn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Aagramn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aagramn)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/59 "2004-12-21T00:12:38Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Errrr, [here](http://www.ofcom.org.uk/), at least for other broadcast media. Yes, but doesn’t Ofcom’s remit end with factual accuracy and ensuring that opposing views are represented as far as politics are concerned? Or am I showing my ignorance of the regulatory procedures? I always thought journalism was largely self-regulating in the UK. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/60 "2004-12-21T00:43:14Z")
> [@Aagramn](#): > > Yes, but doesn’t Ofcom’s remit end with factual accuracy and ensuring that opposing views are represented as far as politics are concerned? Aren’t they exactly the issues being talked about here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381.md?page=4)