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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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 -
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 -
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.
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.
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.