# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/61 "2004-12-21T11:41:14Z")
It probably won’t surprise you to know that I think that there is an institutional bias towards what I would call the “soft left” by the BBC. This is just my feeling – I’m happy to discuss specifics but it’s more the pervading attitude that gets my goat. However I think that this is always going to be the case. Here’s why: Firstly the BBC is a public body and as such straight away has a slightly different take on things like the city (which is simply doesn’t understand, at the most basic level), than those who would have to work alongside bankers etc to make their organisation run. However I am in favour of the BBC staying a public broadcaster – so we’re pretty much stuck with it’s anti-business stance (It REALLY hates multi-nationals). Secondly; given that there is a prevailing soft left attitude in the organisation it surely is no surprise that the people responsible for recruitment etc are going to (if only subconsciously) pick people who share their worldview. It is no coincidence that the only national newspaper that the BBC recruitment ads are in is The Guardian. If we look at the main movers and shakers in the BBCs political team it soon becomes obvious where their sympathies lie: Paxman – hates Tories – think about his famous interview with Michael Howard. He may try to be impartial (and I think he does try) but he can’t help letting his prejudices slip out. John Humphries – Nuff said. Andrew Marr: recruited from the Indy - hardly a right wing paper (he’s very good though). The only supposedly impartial presenter with any weight I can thin of with an obvious right-wing view is Andrew Neil. However once one is aware of the slant that the BBC puts on things one can make the appropriate mental adjustments, and it is still much better than the alternatives. ---
**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, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/62 "2004-12-21T11:49:10Z")
> [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > It is no coincidence that the only national newspaper that the BBC recruitment ads are in is The Guardian. This is irrelevant - all media recruitment tends to be focused in that paper. It’s nothing to do with political alignment, and everything to do with a tradition that’s grown up over decades. For example, the Telegraph is the main paper for jobs in the arts - does that make the Tate Modern or the Philharmonia right-wing? ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/63 "2004-12-21T19:24:08Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Aren’t they exactly the issues being talked about here? I was under the impression (wrongly) that Ofcom had a very limited remit when dealing with political matters. I suppose I shouldn’t be suprised that broadcasting is more tightly regulated than the newspapers. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/64 "2004-12-21T20:05:29Z")
For those interested - here is a website created by two individuals who have collected pretty extensive information which, they propose, indicates BBC bias as it relates to the Middle East and specifically Israel and her enemies. They provide four ‘reports’ – starting in March 2002 and going forward. [http://www.bbcwatch.com/](http://www.bbcwatch.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/65 "2004-12-21T20:25:20Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > For those interested - here is a website created by two individuals who have collected pretty extensive information which, they propose, indicates BBC bias as it relates to the Middle East and specifically Israel and her enemies. They provide four ‘reports’ – starting in March 2002 and going forward. > > [http://www.bbcwatch.com/](http://www.bbcwatch.com/) Not got time now for more than a quick one, but I’ve seen this before and it really doesn’t contribute much of any usefulness. Basically any descriptive language of any kind can be attributed to ‘bias’ apparantly. Doesn’t prove much. And the ‘study’ of BBC output only measures the BBC against some mythical standards of impartiality apparantly known only to the authors. A comparison of the BBC against other comparable news organisations would be far more useful but, of course wouldn’t be so favourable to the prejudices of the authors. ---
**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 21, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/66 "2004-12-21T20:57:19Z")
With regard to online articles and being sued, there are precedents in the U.K., but my searching skills are evidently lacking. At least one major ISP has been sued (I think it was CIX or Demon). BTW **ITR Champion** , politicians are presumed to give considerable leeway, else the mods would close every thread in which Bush was called stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/67 "2004-12-21T21:01:06Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > Not got time now for more than a quick one, but I’ve seen this before and it really doesn’t contribute much of any usefulness. Basically any descriptive language of any kind can be attributed to ‘bias’ apparantly. Doesn’t prove much. And the ‘study’ of BBC output only measures the BBC against some mythical standards of impartiality apparantly known only to the authors. A comparison of the BBC against other comparable news organisations would be far more useful but, of course wouldn’t be so favourable to the prejudices of the authors. I don’t follow that — simply citing another way to do something doesn’t mean that the website authors way is misleading or doesn’t offer much. Anyway, the Israeli government seems to take a position similar to those of the website authors, at least according to this 2003 article – > [@](#): > > …Israel has severed ties with the British Broadcasting Corporation to protest what it calls the repeated ‘demonization’ of the country and today’s showing of a documentary on Israel’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons arsenal, according to a report by the London Times. > > Israel says interviews with official spokesmen will no longer be made available to BBC staff and visa restrictions will be put in place to force the BBC to rotate its bureau chief every few months. Israel will also no longer cooperate with requests for assistance with restrictions such as military road blocks in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. A discussion is still underway as to whether or not to expel all BBC correspondents. > > ‘‘The BBC will discover that bureaucracy can be applied with goodwill or without it. And after the way that they have repeatedly tried to delegitimize the state of Israel, we, as hosts, have none left for them,’’ Daniel Seaman, director of the government press office, told the Times. > > ''We see the well-known pro-Arab touch of the Foreign Office and the traditional anti-Semitism of parts of Britain’s Establishment in the way they are acting against us, " Seaman added. > > The first test comes today when the BBC asks Israeli officials to comment on the weekend visit of U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice who is in the Middle East to talk to Israeli and Palestinian leaders about the ‘road map’ to peace. > > ‘‘We decided that we had to draw a red line rather than just complain about a consistent attitude in which successive BBC programs attempt to place us in the same context as totalitarian, axis-of-evil countries such as Iraq and Iran,’’ Seaman told the Times. > > Seaman says the attitude of the BBC is dangerous to the existence of the state of Israel because it demonizes the Israelis and gives terrorists reasons to attack. He says the sanctions were put in place due to what was seen as an overall BBC attitude towards Israel ''verging on the anti-Semitic." > > The final straw was the BBC’s promotion of the program ‘‘Israel’s Secret Weapon’’, first shown in Britain in March…. [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=33315](http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33315) ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/68 "2004-12-21T21:04:41Z")
What do you think? Independent oversight starting to sound like a good idea for the BBC in 2006? ---
**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 21, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/69 "2004-12-21T21:36:26Z")
Given the proliferation of channels, I think the next government should give very careful consideration as to the need for there to be a BBC in its current form. We definitely need a World Service - which I understand is actually funded by the Foreign Office. Americans might consider it Voice of Britain. Do we really _need_ BBC TV? For 10 years - until a few months ago - I didn’t have a TV, and I’ve yet to see anything that immediately persuades me that we actually need BBC TV in its present form. However, I would like to see a BBC broadcasting proceedings in Parliament, news, documentaries and current affairs. Similarly with radio. You could easily - but not necessarily rightly - chuck everything apart from Radio 4 Long Wave and devote that to Parliament, current affairs, documentaries, and news. Don’t get me wrong - I enjoy films, comedies etc, but should the British taxpayer really be funding them? I have yet to be persuaded one way or the other, but I simply don’t have enough understanding or experience of the subject to make a decision. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/70 "2004-12-23T10:24:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Independent oversight starting to sound like a good idea for the BBC in 2006? Like it [already has](http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/), you mean? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/71 "2004-12-23T10:28:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*owl:The only supposedly impartial presenter with any weight I can thin of with an obvious right-wing view is Andrew Neil. Funny, I’m used to seeing him occupying a position on the ([http://www.private-eye.co.uk/content/showitem.cfm/issue.1120/section.brillo](http://www.private-eye.co.uk/content/showitem.cfm/issue.1120/section.brillo)). ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/72 "2004-12-23T12:29:37Z")
Instead of anecdotal evidence (e.g. about BBC news presenters like Paxman winning awards for questioning Government Ministers like Howard properly), let’s look at who runs the BBC: Twelve Governors ensure the BBC is run in the interests of viewers and listeners. They act as trustees of the public interest and ensure that it fulfils its obligations. They are appointed by the Queen on the advice of Government ministers. Governors agree the BBC’s strategy and monitor its performance. They appoint the Director-General and, with him/her, senior management. They publish an Annual Report to licence payers and Parliament which assesses the BBC’s performance against its objectives. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/governors/](http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/governors/) ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381/73 "2004-12-23T21:44:43Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Like it [already has](http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/), you mean? Nope - not what I mean at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-impartiality-of-the-bbc-news-a-myth/280381.md?page=3)