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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.