Gerard Baker
Credit Munch
Get 20% off your bill at Pizza Express
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From
March 16, 2007
Great capital city. Shame about the awful BBC
For someone who has not lived in the city for more than a decade, the occasional trip to London is a reminder of how richly it deserves its new reputation as the world’s capital.
As my colleague James Harding wrote in times2 this week, there’s a vibrancy about London these days that easily eclipses New York or Paris or Tokyo. To many residents, perhaps, life in London may be a struggle against rising crime and a crowded Tube and overpriced housing, but from an international perspective, it is truly the world’s preeminent urban locale.
In fact, in anything other than the most literal, geographic expression of the term, London is really no longer an English city at all. Its great economic dynamo, the City, powers corporations from Shanghai to Seattle. Its labour force, drawn to it by the opportunities of its free markets, is much more polyglot and multinational than any other urban concentration in the world.
But there’s salt to this strawberry. London’s political culture has been uprooted from its English heritage. It is run — if you can call it that — by a sort of postmodern communist Mayor, whose political voice — minus the annoying nasal whine — would sound right at home in Paris, Bologna or San Francisco. It hosts a metropolitan elite that loftily gazes three ways: outward, at the supposed superiority of anything not British; inward, at its own ineffable genius; and down its elegantly pampered nose, at the provincial trivialities that consume the dreary lives of the rest of the population.
London is international: it treats its visitors as citizens, as players
But worst of all; much more, much more baleful than any of these irritations, is the political, cultural and intellectual hegemony exercised by the ultimate self-serving metropolitan monopoly, the BBC. Much worse because, unlike mayors and snobs, its domination of the rest of the country is so complete and so permanent.
On a recent trip back to Britain, I happened to hear on the BBC an interview with Helen Mirren, shortly before her Oscars triumph. Amid the usual probing sort of questioning that is the currency of celebrity journalism (“How do you manage to look so young? Is there anyone since Shakespeare who has come close to matching your talent?”) one particular gem caught my attention.
Dame Helen was asked how difficult it had been to play such an “unsympathetic character” as the Queen, the eponymous heroine of her recent film. She replied, quite tartly, that she didn’t find the Queen unsympathetic at all and launched into her now familiar riff about how she thought Elizabeth II really, surprisingly, quite agreeable.
It was a little incident, a small crystal in the battering hailstorm of drivel that pours daily through the airwaves. And yet to my mind it signified something so large. It had nothing to do with politics or Iraq or America. It was so telling in its revelation of prejudices and presumptions precisely because it was on such a slight matter as the sensibilities of an actress.
It betrayed an absolutely rock-solid assumption that the Queen is fundamentally unsympathetic, and that anyone who might still harbour some respect for the monarch — or indeed for that matter, the military or the Church, or the countryside or the joint stock company or any of the great English bequests to the world — must be some reactionary old buffer out in the sticks who has not had the benefit of the London media’s cultural enlightenment.
More than that, the question — all fawning and fraternal and friendly — contained within it an assumption that, of course, every thoughtful person shares the same view.
You really do have to leave the country to appreciate fully how pernicious the BBC’s grasp of the nation’s cultural and political soul has become. The groupthink and assumptions implicit in almost everything broadcast by BBC News, and even less explicitly by much else of the corporation’s output, lie like a suffocating blanket over the national consciousness.
This is the mindset that sees the effortless superiority, at every turn, of benign collectivism over selfish individualism, exploited worker over unscrupulous capitalist, enlightened European over brutish American, thoughtful atheist over dumb believer, persecuted Arab over callous Israeli; and that believes the West is the perpetrator of just about every ill that has ever befallen the world — from colonialism to global warming.
I’m often told, when I take on like this, that I’m ignoring the quality of BBC output. But I spent almost a decade in the employ of the BBC and I can say, without demeaning my gifted colleagues at The Times, that it has probably one of the highest concentrations of talent of any institution in the world. But that, of course, is the problem. It perpetuates its power by attracting and retaining an educated elite that is distinguished by its unstinting devotion to collectivist values. I’ve no doubt it does what it does very well. It is what it does I object to.
A necessary word here about our sponsor. Anything critical of the BBC written by an employee of Rupert Murdoch is instantly dismissed. It’s not an unreasonable instinct. Outside Murdochland it is solemnly assumed that each morning the drones of News Corporation are given their marching orders on how to interpret every event so that it conforms precisely to the commercial and political instincts of the proprietor.
In the real world, not only does the Murdoch media have only a fraction of the reach of the BBC, but a casual glance at its output demonstrates it is far less monolithic in its outlook than is the BBC.
Fortunately, in the US this week, I was struck by an article on the oped pages of The New York Times, the very citadel of leftish political correctness. Written by an apparently completely sane professor at a prestigious US university and entitled “Biased Broadcasting Corporation”, it assailed the BBC’s Middle Eastern services for their consistently antiWestern tone and content.
When the editorial pages of The New York Times accuse the BBC of anti-Western bias it is worth taking notice. It is a little like Osama bin Laden accusing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of being a bit harsh on the Jews. It suggests that in other, even pretty unlikely, parts of the world, people are waking up to the menace to our values represented by the BBC. The British sadly, seem curiously content to remain in thrall to it.
Well for my part, my eyes were opened in the 1990's when after much research and study of the problems besetting the former Yugoslavia, I discovered that the BBC were blatantly turning history on its head to promote a pernicious agenda of driving the Serbs from a province of their own country by the illegal (far more illegal than Iraq) actions of NATO (a defensive treaty) in attacking a sovereign state over internal problems with Muslims who had become the majority in the province over the years and who now had started committing acts of terrorism against the host nation. The EU agenda was clearly to destroy Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo and so the BBC manipulated facts as it saw fit so that the British public blindly supported it. This is partly to alienate a nation that was our ally in WW2 against a similar Nazi policy. Supporting every agenda that destroys the best interests of the English is the BBC's reason for being, because the EU has decided that England must be abolished.
J Mathers, Bristol, England
The BBC may be excellent value for money. So might extra large packets of Jaffa cakes. But if I don't like Jaffa cakes why should I have to pay for them? Likewise I don't like a lot of the BBC's out put and disagree with a lot of its editorial content so I don't tend to watch it but since I don't agree with censorship I don't expect the BBC to change to reflect my views. I think therefore the only logical and fair way to go is to scrap the licence fee.
Anyone who agrees with my arguement please consider sigining this e-petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BBCTAX/
George Bowling, London,
In part in response to both Steve Karmi and to Gerard Baker I tend to the belief that the more paranoid the political (and cultural) right becomes, the more hysterical the attacks on the BBC.
I do not think we need any lectures on bias from either a Murdoch owned conduit or from a country that is so insular in its paranoia that it continues the abomination of locking up people without trial. Don't get me wrong; I have great admiration for the United States and for those of its people I have met. I simply cannot understand why any, even mild, criticism, is seen as an assault on "Western", and hence, "American" values.
If I do listen to news stories I tend to listen to or watch the BBC above all else. If I want some intellectual stimulation I read the Times. I rarely confuse the two.
Finally, in reponse to Jan - the words "Maggie Thatcher" would be hilarious if they hadn't been so damaging to so many people and communities in the 1980s.
Jon Dews, Dudley, UK
The last time - not so long ago - that I listened to the "funny" programmes on BBC Radio 4, the comedians were still trying to get a laugh by using the hilarious words, "Maggie Thatcher". On the BBC1 TV programme, "Two Point Four Children" 1991 - 1999, the actress playing the mother did exactly the same thing. About time it stopped?
Jan, Tavistock,
For the past three years I have not pledged any money to my local audience-supported public radio and televison stations for one simple reason: they each continue to broadcast BBC world service news at various times during the overnight hours. I have communicated to them on several occasions that I will not support any media that promotes (as BBC does incessantly) antisemitic, indiscriminantly anti-Western, and smug pseudo-sophistication messages and values. Mr. Baker is right on the mark!
Steven Karmi , Norfolk, , Virginia USA
Bias at the BBC when dealing on matters in the Middle East, has now become an art form. It is perpetrated in various ways, some subtle, others quite blatant
1. Omission of facts as in the so called 'Jenin massacre'.
2. Highly tendentious camera angles to prove a point. Re: 'Jenin massacre'.
3. A derogatory tone when interviewing Israeli politicians while a deferential tone for Palestinians.
4. Making enormous publicity of alleged Israeli misdeeds, but when proved wrong, the retraction aired in as inconspicuous manner as possible.
5. Ignoring or justifying Palestininian terrorism.
This open duplicity, masquerading as honest and unbiased journalism is good enough now to be a subject for an educational course on Orwellian journalism.
DaveP, Beverley, UK
If the public don't agree with baker (and his ilk e.g. biased-bbc et al.) that US internationalism is good, the queen is a nice old lady and Israel's treatment of palesteninian refugees is perfectly fair and proper, then it must be the BBC's fault. People with Bakers world view, who think that colonialism was a good idea and still feel the weight of white man's burden are in the desendency, they don't like it much so seem to have decided that it is the fault of the BBC for mis informing the docile public.
I wonder if he considers the average american better or worse informed about international affairs as a result of the media there ?
sw, Edinburgh,
London was rated the unhappiest city in Britain in a poll last year. The likelihood of being a victim of crime is greater in London than any other EU capital, and is even greater than New York. The BBC license fee should be scrapped. Either the BBC's output should be encrypted and those who wish to watch pay to subscribe, or it can compete for advertising revenue with C4, Five etc.
(Aberdeen was rated Britain's happiest city).
John, London,
I Agree with every word. The real frustration lies with the fact that we have to pay for what is foisted upon us or else. We have to pay the licence fee. How would the British public feel if we were all made to subscribe to the Guardian/Telegraph/other newspaper or face a hefty fine if we did not?
S B Mellor, Crewe, Cheshire
I took the trouble to check Gerard Baker's reference to a New York Times op-ed piece on the "Biased Broadcasting Corporation". It quite specifically focusses on the BBC's Arabic-language service. The author goes out of his way to say that he respects the quality of the BBC World Service's English-lannguage programmes.
Rather lets the air out of Baker's balloon, doesn't it?
mark, Sydney, Australia
This strikes me as a ill-tempered rant with almost no facts to back up the assertions. Just one tiny snippet of a celebrity interview interpreted to death, plus a couple of references to people the author agrees with. Perhaps the author should demonstrate what he says he wants the BBC to deliver. Then again, perhaps he has demonstrated what he wants - a noisy echo chamber for his own preferred world view.
Johnnie Moore, London, UK
What monopoly? Are there no other radio or tv stations available in the UK? Or else where? Personally I would subscribe to the BBC for more than the current licence fee for the news alone when compared to the currently available alternatives.
Simon Marchese, London,
I just returned to Los Angeles, CA and am on the job hunt. I have been practicing my responses to the kind of remarks and assumptions that you describe but in the job interview and with potential employers in other settings. The groupthink here is truly amazing. My strategy will be to change the subject since I am horrible at blatantly lying.
I've always felt that the reason people here are so unimaginative in forming their own opinions is that although many would consider themselves very worldly and well traveled, it is always within a very closed circle. You can travel the world and never learn a thing.
All to get a job.
eb, los angeles, ca
The problem with the BBC is not that it should not have any bias but that it denies having any bias. This is clearly impossible, and conveys the assumption that the BBC is simply right. Not only 'right wing' viewers/listeners are becoming aware of this as alternative sources of information are opening up. The BBC News, from reporting events, has been transformed into a glossy showcase for trailers for their own programmes or simply the latest instalments in their own overarching world narratives. The coverage of Iraq is emblematic of this worldview. The BBC no longer provides a defence correspondent capable of giving viewers insight into the situation, while sporting events command a phalanx of half a dozen commentators. British casualties seldom rate even third item on the news, the exception being a recent case of a British serviceman killed by US 'friendly fire'. This contrasts starkly with the lack of interest in cases of service people being killed because of inadequate equipment.
Ann Farmer, Woodford Gree, UK
Of course Baker is undeniably right: the BBC is full of Guardian journalists and editors, for them the politically correct view is 'the' view of the world. And no discussion of impartiality is allowed, at least with public access. Rod Liddle left the BBC for this reason.
Of course the left of centre people like it and see it as 'central' and impartial - but it needs to become far more 'inclusive' of Telegraph and Mail type editorial policy to become fair and balanced.
Natasha, Abingdon, UK
There is a pretty simple solution. End the BBC's monopoly. The BBC does some really good stuff, but I really don't think there is a market for 95% if the they didn't have a captive audience. End the license fees and Monopoly and make the BBC compete in the marketplace of ideas, and within 5 years they'll be nothing more than a pleasant memory.
Kazinski, Issaquah, WA
Excellent article by Gerard Baker on the BBC and, as usual, spot on!
Jody Ormsby, Grand Rapids, Michigan USA
I understand that the BBC used to advertize for its broadcasting staff, producers, etc. only in The Guardian. Is this still the case? - if so, enough said!. But if you are able to allow for the bias, the BBC provides a world wide news service; what other body does that? The trouble is that in Britain there is a very powerful liberal-left establishment that is totally incapable of seeing any point of view other than its own.
Dave, Wrexham,
Just went to New York, great city by the way, shame though about the awful New York Post!
How about this one: Just went to Washington, wonderful city, shame about the awful Washington Times.
Or maybe: just went to London, absolutely fabulous city until I bumped into neocon Gerard Baker.
John Hynde, Leicester, UK
The irony is that people generally don't want balance in their news coverage. They want partiality. This is why Tories read the Times and Telegraph and lefties read the Guardian and Independent. Or has no one else noticed this trend?
Compared with the papers, all TV news (BBC, Sky, ITV, C4) is balanced and non-sensationalised. So the earlier poster, the "American conservative who listens to the BBC news each day" and who is "consistently appalled at the lack of balance" is probably really just appalled by the lack of a conservative slant on the news.
People are so accustomed to feeding their own prejudices in the newspapers they buy, that they tend to be "appalled" when a news broadcast shows both sides of the argument, as they tend to do.
A relatively small percentage of the BBC output is news. The rest is generally mesmerising and highly professional drama, comedy and documentaries. Why not focus on that when considering the licence fee? £2 a week is an absolute bargain.
Peter Bellamy, Lincoln, UK
As usual Baker tries to foist his neocon claptrap on the UK public as if we didn't know that Bush and Blair lied us into war. There is no left wing in UK politics, rather 3 broadly Thatcherite parties spinning furiously for power. The BBC is still the premier broadcaster despite its subservience to the establishment of the day. Murdoch and not the BBC is the curse of world media.
Chris Smith, Chesterfield, uk
utter rubbish mr Baker! BBC is one of the things you Brits should be proud of (well ok, bbc minus east enders perhaps).
Kyri, Reading, UK / Berks
If Britishers have just woken up to the fact that their premier news agency is biased, how can they possibly blame the Americans for trusting intelligence on Iraq that their media put out? Obviously, people on both sides of the pond are gullible and the "smarter/ more informed than thou" attitude of the British doesn't gel well with reality
cva murthy, denver,
Couldn't agree more. There is an avalanche of websites complaining against the BBC, such as Beeb watch and Biased BBC and 18 Doughty Street. What's going on? A citizen's revolution?
M Clyde, Edinburgh, UK
I am sure that all your overseas correspondents have a view on the BBC, but they all seem to forget that if the British people wish to watch television, they are compelled to fund the BBC - no choice - no democracy
Peter Weston, Tamworth, England
I was born and grew up in the UK and, like my contemporaries, believed that the BBC always told the truth.
Since moving to Israel I have had quite an education. I have learned that you do not have to lie in order to push forward your agenda which, in the case of the BBC, can be summed up as Palestinians Good, Israel Bad.
Lets face it, the BBC are professionals. By selective reporting, emphasing words in a sentence, judicious pauses for effect, they can sell any story in the way they want.
A simple for instance, when the BBC quote an Israeli response to something its always " The Israelis, they say,..." with a sarcastic emphasis on the 'they say' implying that the Israeli repsonse is suspect.
Am I being paranoid? No, the BBC is actively encouraging those forces that are working towards another genocide of the Jews. Its a pity that they are so effective.
david heny, Haifa, Israel
It is interesting to note that while Britons despair BBC's continuing existence on the grounds of left-wing bias, they seem to have completely missed the point, which only sparingly non-brits have raised above. That is, unlike Guardian or Independent (which are left wing but most people will not be losing sleep over them), BBC has come to lying in its reporting and twisting facts and, horrifyingly, call those twisted stories as representive of a nation. The hounding of the US (and even leftie Americans see that) is a prime example amongst many other. BBC can choose to be left or right wing but for the sake of proper journalism do not lie.I read all four broadsheets every day and invariably I still don't agree with the content of left-wing newspapers but their articles represent reason and intellectual arguments. The despair is because of BBC's collective incompetence and failure to be intellectual (save for Radio 4 & proms). Thank you Sky News for being an alternative.
Prabhat, UK,
BBC World has a 30 minute segment on America's leftish BBC clone known as PBS. Its lead news reader is Katty Kay, who has never had a good word about our President or the accomplishments of his administration, our economy(growing), our unemployment rate(very low), stock market(booming), Saddam and the Taliban out with the help of faithful allies or almost anything American. Every opportunity is taken to have anti-American critics featured It is hard to believe that she can stand to live here.
E. Patrick Mosman, Pleasantville, New York USA
A lot of what Gerard writes is accurate. But it's never quite so simple in terms of anti-western bias. Of course it depends on where you are 'listening' or 'viewing' as this blogger points out: http://unstrung-larapawson.blogspot.com/2007/03/west-continues-to-narrate-us-to-death.html
Bola Johnson, Lagos,
I concur completely with your views. It is such a relief to hear someone express how I have felt for some time now. I have a sleep problem and five years ago found myself listenning to the BBC every night for several hours. I too instictively had the 'thank god for the BBC' attitude (that I believe John Lennon also had) Over the 5 years I became at first disenchanted and then disgusted with the bias and purile reporting. No more. I only hope that others will refuse to have this enemy of free thought in their homes. I have cut the now disgustingly bad BBC loose to drift who knows where.
G Sheridan, Perth, Western Australia
I agree with the following from Chris.
The BBC licence tax is pernicious.
"Could not agree more. The sooner this dinosaur of a collectivistic past is broken up, the better it is. It would actually be quite simple - abolish the license fee and let the BBC compete in an open, democratic information society.
John , Norwich,
In Hong Kong we have a wide choice of news organisations. The BBC is on an altogether higher plane than the competition. The quality of their news correspondents, editorial impartiality and excellent radio output set them apart from their dismal and robotic American rivals.
David, Hong Kong,
In these times of media capitulation, the BBC remains an important voice that gives no more than fair play to anti-establishment voices. It does so by following some basic principles of good journalism and by asking questions that many others choose not to.
Murdochland cannot compare to the BBC. Not even with the NYT, which admittedly failed its readers in the run up to the US invasion of Iraq and then looked back and sought to correct course.
And about daily rituals and manuals for journos in Murdochland: Why would you be asked to bow when you know how and when to bend?
Jagdish, Mumbai, INDIA
Silly, silly, silly Gerard.
For instance (and we have a spectrum of for instances...). The excellent India Rising radio season on BBC World Service last month.
Some documentaries exploring India now. Eyes open. For instance one episode celebrates "the entrepreneurial miracle" with presenter and contributors using phrases like "make the government get out of the way", "how far is the shadow of socialism looming over..." business progress, reporting on consumers delighting in having a choice: spend, spend, spend or save save save.
It does not shirk either from examining challenges, the bad news, those people as yet untouched by the progress (and accompanying difficulties) seen in some of India's cities. Have a listen. With your eyes, and ears open. Try it. Judge on the evidence. You may be surprised.
Dominic Cameron, London, UK
Your analysis of the BBC is spot on. The real question is<" How do we change it?" because what it is doing to the core values of western civilisation is as pernicious as the appeasement of the 1930s that led to the Second World War and the appalling lies told about the successes of the Soviet Union and East Germany, China under Mao, Cuba under Castro, and so on.
Keith Bryer, Cape Town, South Africa
Could not agree more. The sooner this dinosaur of a collectivistic past is broken up, the better it is. It would actually be quite simple - abolish the license fee and let the BBC compete in an open, democratic information society.
Chris, London,
No other news agency compares to the excellence of BBC with the exception of, perhaps, Canada's CBC. Full stop. Interesting the read the number of Americans on this, a British website, who are so unconcerned by the monarchy of The Commonwealth they, as ever, find it impossible not to comment on how archaic it all is. Their never-ending and futile attempts to invent the Kennedy family as a half-price royal-replacement aside, Americans remain deeply envious of the fact The Commonwealth has a head of state who is the epitome of dignity and class. What an alien concept that must be for them. And as for saving us in WWII? How arrogant, tiresome and, bluntly, untrue. Do you remind Japanese people how you heroically and selflessly bombed two of their cities to dust? Long live The Queen and The BBC.
R. Chuck Western III, Harpenden, Herts.
Ofcourse the BBC is biased.Let's look at the laguages it chooses to broadcast in and therefore the audience it chooses to attract.
Just search the internet and read direct from the BBC about their new Arab TV channel ,built to rival Al Jezeera,and,the 2005 reorginisationation of the world service ,slashing the number of languagesit broadcasts in and massively increasing its focus on arabic.
The West panders to corrupt,reprehsive,Muslim regimes throughout the oil producing world.
Countries where there are no religious freedoms and other religions and peoples are second class citizens.
The BBC ( a Quango) behaves no differently to all Western governments and media organisations apart from those in USA,in pandering to them,and their people,as,that's where the money is and that's where an willing, audience wanting to listen ,fervently,to biased news spoken in ,ever so,dead-pan,unbiased tones.Ho!Ho!
richard gee, London, England
Occasionally, very occasionally, someone hits the nail squarely on the head. Good job Gerard! I take issue with just one claim - it's not necessary to leave the country to understand where the BBC is coming from. I live in Scotland and it's plainly obvious this side of Hadrians Wall. Oh, ok I take your point.
Joe, Inverness, Scotland, Englandshire
My only contact with Aunty (I beg her pardon - Ms Beeb, of course) is Radio 4. The News is hopelessly biased, and the Today programme is so God-awful I have to switch it off. On the other hand, the drama and philosophy programmes are outstanding. Perhaps the solution would be to surgically remove any political content, and leave the rest alone?
Jim Curry, Wheaton Aston,
The media is the means by which a totalitarian regime, wholly certain of its righteousness, suppresses its people.
The Labour party may not quite yet be as totalitarian as the Chinese Communist Party but it knows its right. A ruling multiculturalist and PC elite has been created over the last 30 years in the UK through such public bodies as the BBC.
Leftwing sympathesiers are recruited to the BBC, become managers, recruit clones to replace them and a new culture is born.
I am surprised just how many of the rich and powerful who are Labour party card carrying members. I seems that "serving the party" in the BBC or other media is one route to promotion.
The BBC needs to be dismantled and its licence fee abolished!
Geraldine mandering, London, UK
I live in the Midddle East and I have always been a listner of BBC but never felt that it is baised and favour Arabs over Israel. The problem with you in the West that you are so accustmed to ever praising Israel and overlooking its wrongdoings. You even believe that no harm can come from there. Please use your wisdom,good judgement and your advancement to see the other side of the coine. After all, we really seek peace and the betterment of our children's lives and future. We hate no one, please try to see us as human beings. Also try to understand that hatred is caused by injustice. I can not understand why any one who may believe in the Arab's rights is accused as being communist?isnt he entitled to his own opinion? should he be attacked if he expresses one that does not mach what you think right?What I am going to say may seem obsolete, but Mr.Harding, It was us Palestinians, who were driven from our lands back in 1948 and 1967, and now we want peace so we want the 67 land
iman, Amman, Jordan
Yes, yes, yes. The BBC has come a long way, unfortunately, from the time when the german population came to rely on the BBC for a reasonably accurate update on how the war was going. Yes, THAT war.
The extraordinary, and in the long term destructive, mindset the BBC has now acquired must be plainly obvious to anyone who has not been indoctrinated by it daily for most of their lives.
As a result I understand now much better than I used to, the dangers inherent in government domination of the media.
Rodney Nicholson, Toronto, Canada
These days your average household has access to literally 100's of TV channels, dozens of radio stations and the ever growing power of the Internet, so the paranoia about the BBC 'monolith' seems a little absurd. Most people, especially the young, I suspect have little contact with the BBC when compared with 10 years ago. Compare the media in the UK with any other country and it is clear that the BBC raises the standards of other broadcasters no end.
Thankyou, Oxford, UK
Why is it that the British feel the need to put their own country and Institutions down all the time. It would never happen in north America, and you would not get a forum in the paper do so either. I know I have lived here for forty years
michael elbourne , Victoria.BC, Canada
As an American former-journalist, it has always been obvious that the BBC has attracted a certain type individual. It is a person of great learning, excellent education, and left leaning politics.
That does not mean that we cannot learn something new about things in parts of the globe that the US media doesn't cover well, it merely means that we need to realize that there is a political lens through which all stories seem to be covered.
Mark McMackin, Alexandria,
Thank God for the BBC. For us in Pakistan the BBC has been the only authentic source of accurate news and analysis for the last 60 years.
Just today, the thugs of General Musharraf's security forces smashed the offices of Pakistan's leading tv channel. And who is the entire population turning to for the latest? The BBC.
Instead of whining about the BBC not following an American agenda, Mr Baker should think about the millions of people living under tyrranical, US-UK backed dictatorships who have only the BBC to inform them of what is happening in the world.
Nausherwan Lahori, Lahore, Pakistan
Miami - What with its beautiful weather, people and vibrant culture - World city, no chance!! We like our cities to include a bit of misery and despair thanks for the suggestion though...
Tongue in Cheek, Sarf London, UK
I used to listen to the BBC Home Service and World Service at every opportunity during a 30 yea period. However I switched off permanently a few years ago because I could no longer bear to listen. Still, I would like to thank everybody who was responsible for the BBC language series broadcast by the World Service for teaching me English. They inspired me to start studying English which then enabled me to become an English teacher.
Wilma Prins, Nieuw Vossemeer, the Netherlands
What planet are you on? I live in Jamaica and have to watch the USA networks + cable shows, boy they stink. How many times does Fox (and others) have to interrupt real news with police chasing car, some celeb. going into rehab etc. I now have BBC World, bliss. I can hear about the world, Zimbabwe, Europe, Asia. The British will lose a lot if they get rid of the BBC, the BBC allows them to punch above their weight.
Doug, Montego Bay, Jamaica
BBC World has a 30 minute segment on America's leftish BBC clone known as PBS. Its lead news reader is Katty Kay, who has never had a good word about our President or the accomplishments of his administration, our economy(growing), our unemployment rate(very low), stock market(booming), Saddam and the Taliban out with the help of faithful allies or almost anything American. Every opportunity is taken to have anti-American critics featured It is hard to believe that she can stand to live here.
E. Patrick Mosman, Pleasantville , NY USA
yeah, i hate it when people blame the West for colonialism.....by the way, where did colonialism come from?
rowan, london, uk
I very rarely watch the BBC news now. There's a nasty bug going round - the BBC has it quite bad. It's the "We hate good old England" bug - but it’s mutated slightly as it has an additional strain to it called “We also hate the USA”.
The licence fee should be scrapped & the BBC left to compete with the rest. The money saved could build a decent military hospital for our troops AND enable everyone in the country to have FREE, yes free, dental care.
Hero, Preston,
Can't comment on NYT but 100% spot on with BBC
As a 54 yr old I can say with confidence that a large circle of family, friends and neighbours across all generations would agree with sentiments expressed. The anti-American slant is a disgrace on every channel except the one remaining I patronise - Radio 3 - the news briefings are as earlier postings have referred - facts presented clearly & concisely without slant in any direction
Bryan Hewson, Northumberland - real England, UK
London virbrant? "The world’s capital"? I think Miami deserves that title. London? That is for to laugh. My time in London was spent trying to find a bar that didn't close before midnight! Or to find anyone who was remotely kind! Only the snoots in New York City who are borderline white supremacists would bequeath such a title to such a, in many ways, backward town. If you care to see REAL international, mutliculturual flaire--all while enjoying sunny, warm weather--head to Miami. This is not London; This is Miami....
Mario Sanchez, Miami, FL, USA
Please, Please fund the BBC out of general taxation and allow us pensioners freedom from its annual tithe. I can afford Sky but I can't stand paying for the sanctimonious patronising content which is the BBC's hallmark. I would willingly forgo all this so called quality which I am forced to pay for and readily pay for my Sky box which has brought us freedom of choice.
The licence fee is an abomination and sums the whole ethos at the BBC to the ordinary people - like or lump it. Dave would get my vote if he scrapped it and the Tory party would do itself a favour.
A.Mactaggart, Cromarty, U.K
That's interesting about the US coverage of Hurricane Katrina. I was in Chicago that weekend, and was rivetted by the spectacle of news organization after news organization--network and cable--airing the most damning footage possible over and over as anchor people could hardly contain their rage at the treatment of the citizens of New Orleans. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, hell even Fox News had all their reporters out with cameras at the ready and vengeance for what had happened to New Orleans in their hearts, and we saw a bunch of stuff that Bush and Brownie would have preferred we did not see.
The difference between the Beeb and US news channels is that the Beeb is a huge and cumbersome being with a single tiny mindset which could be expressed as poor=victim=good. Rich=oppressor=bad. They have a party line and they cling to it like a shipwreck victim to a mast. It's much easier and probably cheaper to handle the news that way. LIfe is nuanced. The BBC isn't.
Isabella Reyes, Toronto,
The BBC does covers more of the world than American news organizations becauce Britain has more an interst in the world based on its imperialist past. In other words, Brits are interested in parts of the world in which they colonized--Africa being a large part of it. America is a nation born from immigration. We seek not from without (as the British imperialist do), but we seek from within (as your grandmother from Poland did). In an age of multiculturalism, I'm surprised more people don't take culture into consideration when we bash each other.
Tonio, Nashville, United States
By the way, the unsympathetic queen stereotype was conjured during the reactive tabloid days following the death of Princess Diana, when they were baying for blood and desperate to sentamentalize the death story, pitting evil queenie against persecuted princess. Where were all these anti-BBC evangelists then? Some of them, no doubt, were consuming these papers, which are anything but left-leaning, and beholden to the agendas of the private buck. Smacks of hypocrisy if you ask me. In an organisation as big as the BBC it seems profoundly disingenuous to seize on the lone question of a celeb journalist whose view of the queen was at least in part formed during those heady days of tabloid scalp-hunting. All part of the great schema though-- Al BBC bin Bias (peace be upon it) as the propaganda arm of the left wing conspiracy. That's not to say that change isn't long overdue. But seriously?
kennedy connolly, London,
I would be embarrassed to live in a country where tax payers still have to support the media. That's pretty archaic, is it not? But then again so is the concept of monarchs.
Michael, Seattle, WA
I happily accept the political bias and see it for what it is, as any intelligent observer should. Most broadcasters and publishers of news come with some political baggage. But until commercial operations, particularly in radio, come up with anything near the quality and breadth as that produced by the BBC (I exclude BBC 1 news from this praise), hands off!!! I am happy to be shown otherwise but where is commercial radio's equivalent to Radio 4 - everything you'll ever wish for in entertainment and information and with a very real feel for the nuances of life in this wonderful colourful country.
John, London, UK
BBC is the mirror of the international society. It is absolutely impossible to support western countries nowadays. For this reason the choice of BBC is right, besides being shareable. In addition, it Demonstrates to be indipendent from various western governments. We discovered some scandals like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc also thanks to the readiness of BBC. If it had depended on other Tv or newspapers everything would have been hidden. Democracy is democracy and BBC contributes to keep the highest level of press freedom.
Alessandro, Rome, Italy
Sometimes I actually think they believe what they are saying.....It troubles me deeply.
Taff, Stoke-on-trent, UK
Fortunately though, the BBC doesn't just do news!
We are extremely fortunate in this country to have a publicly funded broadcaster, and we will only realise what a positive contribution they make if the complainers get their way and the license fee is scrapped - if you don't like the way they report the news (and I don't think they're significantly better or worse than any other mainstream media outlet in the UK - including the much heralded Channel 4 news which generally has a similar 'anti-Western' - to use this article's naive terminology - bias) make that your focus, but don't abuse the whole institution.
Dan Harding, LONDON, UK
Perhaps just unsympathetic in that she is private and unknown?
Also, I don't think you're fair to the BBC, it's news is often tabloidy and there is more than a hint of conservatism from Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr etc. As for the 'metropolitan elitism', half the programmes seems expressly for Daily Mail readers: My Family, Eastenders, Weakest Link etc...
With the exception of Radio4, the BBC is not a liberal-left conspiracy in the slightest.
Francis Joyce, exeter, uk
BBC America is one of the few useable broadcast news sources available in the United States. Sure it has a left-wing slant, but hopefully the viewership is intelligent enough to discern any bias in the editorial content of the reporting. After all, what it the alternative, FOX?
Subjects of universal import, such as the plight of the entire continent of Africa, and which receive no coverage in the United States,are properly reported by the BBC.
Robert Schumacher, Louisville, USA
God save us from the awful BBC America, nothing by "cash in the attic" and dated home improvement repeats. Even their news is awful. What I'd give to catch an old episode of Panorama!
shay, boston, usa
I'm not sure the BBC is as bad as it's painted here if the entirety of its output is considered, and it's probably less a question of deliberate bias than of recruiting people who share a certain set of metropolitan assumptions, but this is a real problem. Anyone who doesn't watch it regularly will refuse to believe this but it is true; these days, Fox News probably has more diversity of views than the Beeb.
What the BBC really needs in the area of news is stiff competition to keep it healthy. Sadly, ITV has given up, and Sky News, which deservedly established itself as the clear leader in this area, has been lost from cable and looks as though it will be withdrawn as a free to air channnel from terrestrial TV. Please put this right, Mr Murdoch.
David Wilkins, Ely, UK
Quite simply, the BBC's reporting of news and analysis of it, specially on the World Service, is the best that there is. The best way of checking this is after events have died down in some part of the world and one contacts te local population - almost invariably they suggest that the BBC was closest to what happened. Ideal reporting should be as detached as possible and the BBC is the closest approximation that we have. There is not a single newspaper or other news source in North America that even comes close!
B.K. Mukherjee, Kingston, Canada/Ontario
I have a relative who recently spent a month in the Middle East. There were only two news channels for him to watch every evening, the BBC and Al Jazeer. Al Jazeer, while certainly not pro-American, at least tried to present the news from an objective perspective. He found the BBC to be grossly prejudiced and manipulative.
Susan Widdowson, Atlanta, United States
Me, I love BBC World [which is the best I can get here] . It helps add to what I hear on CBC and gives me a way of reaching some level of balance; which is hard in a place where opinions emanating from Fox News and even CNN have their own even clearer and more pernicious biases.
Vivien, Vancouver,
I am British, but living near Washington. I read the NYT article and was shocked by it. I had believed the line that the BBC World Service was outstanding and respected all over the world. It sounds as if at least the Arabic Service could do with an outside audit.
Generally I miss the BBC and I still believe that it is worth preserving though I agree that it has a complacent 'inside' culture. I think its analysis of recent wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq has frequently been superficial. But those who clamour to be freed of the licence fee need to think of the alternatives.
In the US we have NPR, ( not clearly superior to the BBC) which means every 10 minutes or so we have to listen to advertisements. Surely any privatised radio will have this awful (to me) downside.
If the BBC has gone downmarket that's partly because the UK public as a whole has become less discerning. The BBC is a victim of market forces, but privatising it would make things worse still.
Geoff, Rockville, MD
The BBC is still - by far - the most neutral and unbiased news agency in existance. Regardless of what an opinion writer from the New York Times newspaper might think. I read and listen to the BBC to get impartial news. You can't get that from any American news agency.
Norm, Guelph, Canada
No media outlet is ever going to satisfy everyone. Doubtless the BBC has its faults. But it is vastly better than the competition. Here in the United States, we have a market dominated CNN and Fox News. Neither comes close to the objectivity, or the depth, of the BBC. In fact, they are both mindless if you watch for more than ten minutes. Furthermore, all American media outlets are united in an absolute determination to avoid telling the truth about the occupation of the Palestinian territories.
James Warren, Washington, DC, United States
I disagree. And I also disagree that if the New York Times accuses the BBC of bias, we should listen. Why, exactly?
Thanks to John Reid of New Zealand (commenting here) who actually read the same article and came to very different conclusions.
Jessica, Reading, UK
The BBC while producing some of the best programmes overall it's rather sad to say, that its international content is not only anti western it is anti British and paid for by the British public whether they like it or not.
It is long over due for a clean sweep of its biased left wing views, which it sadly mistakes for being avant-garde and smart.
Stephen Smuts, Winchester, England
I'm a listener to BBC World Service, and what strikes me is not so much political or social bias as a fundamental hostility towards business, science and technology. In BBC-world business is a conspiracy dedicated to churning out a noxious substance called profit. The notion that profit is what grows a business and creates jobs is simply absent.
And science and technology, unless safely in the distant past, are un-British. Whenever there is a scientific or technological advance to be explained the BBC will haul in a foreign expert, usually an American, to do the explaining. A British academic may appear to talk about social or psychological issues, but a scientific breakthrough is always presented by an American, even when it's a British achievement. A visitor from Mars would be forced to conclude that the world has agreed that Britain can been exempted from thinking about Science and Technology, perhaps so that it can concentrate on Shakespeare.
jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA
Let those who think the BBC is marvellous pay a subscription for the service, but do away with the licence fee, so that the rest of us are not obliged to fund an organisation, whose ethos, programming and cultural fascism we are not interested in or dislike or even despise.
Ian Logan, Oxford, UK
As one who used to listen to the BBC when I was stationed in a diplomatic post in the Middle East, I remember a lucid, well-spoken and balanced viewpoint on both ME and world news.
But that was in the '70s, and now I occasionally watch the BBC news in Florida [no hearing-impaired help available as in US broadcasts] and the generational decline of BBC news values has been precipitous.
FoxNEWS is fair and balanced compared to the Bolshie rubbish that is standard fare on this state-supported news network.
daveinboca, Boca Raton, Florida
Hear! Hear! At last some sanity - what a breath of fresh air!
Someone knock out a wall & let some more in please.
Simon Ferguson, Llanelli,
Agree completely - have only the half-wit little brother of the BBC, the CBC to listen to over the air in Canada. We have lived in both countries and find the bias of our peers (age, education, wealth), to be the same in both countries. Thank you for your article.
L. Beeson, Ottawa, Canada
So, this is from the New York Times (or the New York Slime, as its former readers term it). Well, well, just goes to show what suffering an 8% drop in your shares price on the stock exchange will do for a newspaper's view of the world. Now if they could just turn some of that analysis of the BBC into some intelligent introspection on their own crazed left-wing, anti-American, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism attitude, they might actually be able to save the NYT from a total crash (although they'll still have to find someone to take the Boston Glib off their hands, especially after the BG's 10% drop in advertising revenue since January). Self-hatred really doesn't sell a lot of newspapers and if the Brits ever find their national pride and refuse to pay the jizya tax of the BBC, you may turn events around in your own land, too.
Interested Reader, london, england
It's worth noticing that nearly all english speaking medias supported the war in Iraq and were vilifying countries who were asking correct questions .Maybe it was the proof of some conspiracy and those medias were just propaganda tools ,maybe it was the proof of intellectual lazziness of english-speaking peoples ;anyways there's a sad tendency for the english world to gobble lies and act as a roaring crowd (if not hatefull) of ....... lemmings eager to follow whatever "strong leader"! In such conditions any dissenting voice is welcome to try to wake up those cohorts of sleep-walkers (in their dream they're warriors but they haven't even the guts to fight for their civil rights !)
Jean-Robert, Paris, France
London the world capital? What a joke. A filthy city filled with people whining that everything is not in their job description.
alfred bommel, newport beach, california
Gerard, I find you often edifying & interesting, but this piece today of yours is really not you at your best, is it now ? I spent 10 years producing BBC news & current affairs shows in the 80s & 90s. I was and am a Conservative voter and merrily argued issues out with the teams working for me, with me, or my bosses, of various political hues. No pressure, ever, to follow any line... Only pressure to try and get the facts right, convey smart opinion.
Yup, the BBC is way too big. Does too much. Sprawls. Must change.
Yup, there are a lot more left-of-centre souls in the BBC than right of centre. Well boo hoo...
Yup, there is a similar imbalance in schools, hospitals, local authorities, civil service. "Shock Horror Bias". So?
There is (perhaps) an opposite imbalance in other places.
Yup, 24 hour TV news (especially), too much TV, 'junk food' newspapers mean consumers have a real choice: read or watch rubbish, read or watch quality. So ? Choice...
Lets lobby for a Greater, Smaller BBC?
Dominic Cameron, London, UK
Come now Gerard, presumption is a terrible English trait, it's hardly a monopoly of the BBC - just listen to any football match commentary and tell me I'm not wrong - it just reflects who we are, the good and the irritatingly bad. What do you want instead? Fox news? Now there's a bastion of impartial comment and attitude. As for the NYTimes editorial (?), goodness me, as much as I admire the paper, it does have a large Jewish readership and responds accordingly. On the other hand it may just highlight our increasing divergent views on the middle-east. In that respect I'd go with the maligned BBC anytime.
Paul McCloskey, London, England
I find all UK media incredibly biased in the ways decribed, not just the BBC.
Channel4 is rabidly anti-American and anti-Israeli, so much so I sometimes wonder if I'd tuned into Al-Jazeera by mistake.
Bry Barnes, Somerset, Uk
I sympathize with my British friends. We in the US have PBS. Same sort of slant. It is at least partially/majority funded from federal taxes. Some good programming for children but the "news" is always predictable and completely biased. Thinking people, however, generally recognize this and generally get their news from other sources. We're still forced to pay for it though.
Craig, Birmingham, USA/Alabama
I think I detected a contradiction in this article. If indeed the BBC has such a high concentration of capable journalists, how come they all seem to think alike? As far as journalists are concerned , 'capable' must be synonymous with 'independently thinking '. It follows logically therefore that BBC journalists are either incapable or else, they do not think independently.
Marin, London, England
No. Most Britons despise the BBC's bias, but there is little we can do. I'd sack all the lefties if I had my way
anthony, London, , UK
Why on earth should we pay £2.5 billion, or something like that, for any public broadcasting service ? Especially one so bad, so biased, so anti-British and anti-middle class, and so powerful that the British media world is swamped in its fetid, politicaly correct, socialist, alien atmosphere!
The BBC can produce wonderful programmes. But how many do we see in a year ? One or two with luck. Night after night it is repeats of repeats of repeats. I love Open All Hours and could see every episode a hundred times. And thanks to the BBC I have!
Surely any sane poliitical party with the slightest sympathy for the British taxpayer should advocate selling the organisation ? One imagines that the Russians or the Iranians would pay a fortune. In six years we would have saved enough to pay for the Olympics! But there isn't any sane political party of course in Britain today. Why pay for Trident ? Let the bombs come.
Robert Sebag-Montefiore, Geneva, Switzerland
Worryingly they are now being paid by the E.U to
'Promote positive feeling'
SOUNDS LIKE GOOD OLD PROPAGANDA TO ME!
I and many like me are sick too death of the Liberal ruling Elite, and their social engineering.
THIS (England) is a conservative country in its character.
How dare you tax us for you to peddle your own agenda against us
Ben Moss, London, England
Thank God (although the BBC would censor me for saying that) for the proliferation of digital TV and radio channels. I would rather sit through Celebrity Paint Drying on Channel X than sit through a second of any of the narrow world view and social-engineering output that the smug BBC offers by way of entertainment. It lost me with the outrageous Question Time after 7/11 and they've never been invited in my house since. Can't we get this license scrapped...?
Paul, Bath, Avon
This was an extraordinary piece and reflective of the same kind of elite media journalism snobbism we have here in the U.S. The liberal media, here in any event, is so pervasive as to completely obliterate the conservative viewpoint. I and my colleagues are amazed that Republican politicians can be elected to ANY office given the reach of the partisan media. It is most assuredly likely, however, that the traditional ("old"media) is no longer as influential as it was even a few short years ago; it's decline has been and continues to be precipitous.
John de Carville, Pottstown, USA
You're all mad. Left-wing? Right-wing? Anti-whatever? And there I was thinking that it was just the news. These comments suggest the country is worryingly full of paranoid conspiracy theorists who read far too much into things. To analyse that 'unsympathetic queen' comment so much is just mental. I do remember the journalist making it because it was a strange choice of word - that's all! I thought it was just one person speaking - not a reason enough to condemn a whole corporation for everything I could dream up! And paying the licence fee is worth if just to get tv and radio that isn't interrupted every three minutes by adverts trying to sell me something I will never want. Even if the BBC is left-wing occasionally - who cares?
Joseph Sullivan, London,
Scott in Birmingham, I just read the New York Times op-ed piece that Gerard Baker refers to. Contrary to the implication you drew, no mention in it of coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The BBC's Arabic Service - funded directly by the British Foregn Office! - is taken to task for its its anti-UK and anti-US bias, its pro-dictatorship bias (previously pro-Saddam and pro-Assad the First) and for tending to avoid topics that Arab states "might find embarrassing: human rights, the role of military and security forces, corruption, discrimination against minorities, censorship, poverty and unemployment." Amazingly, of other World Service output it comments, "Many of us pick up BBC broadcasts in English, and we respect their quality." It will be a relief to most of those who have posted here to know that there is something very much worse than what they receive from the BBC, namely its Arabic Service (which is not paid for by their licencs fees, but only (?) from their taxes).
Martin, New York City, USA
The BBC is an absolute disgrace inasmuch that the self satisfied mandarins at the top blatantly woo the admass audience and neglect those who used to be their captive audience.
Arrogant assumptions, newsslanted to the effect that America becomes the great satan in the world ,and can never be portrayed other than pig ignorant,callous and evil.
Sound effects drowning scripts, primitive drum beat rythms,and gimmicky pursuit of the commercial channels
audiences. In short, What role does it have?
Answer None.
ron reece, ingatestone, uk
"Perhaps you could come up with a single example of the BBC's bias? Your speculative anecdote from a celebrity interviewer isn't exactly consequential"
Nick, London, UK
Plenty of examples here
www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com
Bob, Bradford, UK
Every now an again the Wall St. Journal on line will give examples of bias. Read it and make up your own mind.
As an American, and, worse, a mid-westerner, and worse yet, Army veteran, and even (gasp!) a Christian, I have to agree that the BBC really seems to be pushing a collectivist and, hence, very primitive agenda.
When I was a child, about half a century ago, my family used to listen to the BBC world service on short wave radio. Now I do not bother even to read their stuff on the internet.
Regards from across the pond.
John Brand, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
I saw the Helen Mirren interview and I too was surprised by the interviewers comments. Helen Mirren was pretty taken aback by it too. Even for the BBC that was a bit of a shocker.
The problem is that the BBC has about 10 times as many people working in journalism as any other media outlet in the UK and therefore can dwarf other outlets by its sheer volume. In fact it has become an international phenomena that threatens to overpower the MSM of other countries by the sheer scale of its output.
Sadly it has become hopelessly biased by a liberal-left view. It is not that it tells outright lies, it is too clever for that. It is the way it carefully selects which stories it will tell but bury others. The one that made me laugh this week was the BBC websites tacit support of incest.
You are, however, rather late to this discussion. There are many documenting the bias of the BBC - try the Biased BBC website to get a clearer picture.
ryan stephenson, Swindon, UK
It's pretty silly to claim, as a previous poster did, that we Americans don't know the world because we don't leave America. You Europeans can't walk down the street without entering a foreign country. If a European drives five hundred miles, he might cross three countries. If an American drives five hundred miles, he may not have left Texas yet. You can travel thousands of miles from your American home without a passport. Comparing the European and American travel experience is comparing apples and oranges, an intellectual sleight of hand to facilitate an anti-American prejudice.
Probably equal portions of Americans and British visit each other's country. However, lots of Americans travel and live in Europe in the military and the world beyond. Most of the males in my family have served overseas. By contrast, Europeans have no such institution which serves as a conveyor belt to deliver their young en masse to foreign countries and expose them to the ways of the world.
Steve Gregg, Washington, DC
I can't speak to the television California viewers receive but in Ohio we would love to have more BBC broadcasting. As a Ukranian classmate of mine pointed out she and her husband play a game during "World News Tonight" on CBS where they try to count the number of stories not about the US or the War in Iraq. Usually then end up with a solid zero. Yes we may get plenty of bias from the left or bias from the right but the only place I can receive actual news, biased or not, about the rest of the world here in the states is from the London Times or BBC.
Andy, Cleveland, USA, Ohio
Socialism is the most evil doctrine conceived by man. In Britain its beating heart is the BBC which spreads its poison into every home and school. Destroy it now and this country has a fighting chance to be what it once was. If not, Britain will be dead inside a decade.
Steve, birmingham,
The problem with accusations of bias is that they tend to be made by those who disagree. I for one would be worried if the BBC were not accused of it because then we would know that its journalists were no longer free to speak as they find. The problem with a free liberal media is that it's free and liberal. Some people just cant stand the idea.
Jonathan Kamm, Hampshire, UK
As an American conservative who listens to the BBC news each day on our local classical music station, I am consistently appalled at the lack of balance of the BBC. Each broadcast begins with something slamming America or George Bush, usually both. And that's just the beginning. If it hadn't been for a large number of brave American farm boys and other largely unprepared young American soldiers during WW II, the BBC would not be broadcasting. England, have you forgotten? (No space to mention WW I...)(or the Cold War...)
Ann Donnelly, Vancouver, USA, Washington
Speaking as a Brit who loves America and Americans, I was amused to drag my leftist ex-Times journalist mother to the US for a month recently.
Dripfed by decades of BBC anti-US poison, she was prepared utterly to hate the place. I greatly enjoyed watching her astonishment at how polite, thoughtful and helpful many Americans are, and particularly at how good their public service broadcasting is. Compared to the nannying tone of the Beeb, NPR is a breath of fresh air.
charlotte, London UK,
Surely the most worrying aspect of the BBC's left wing bias is that it has become so pervasive that the perpetrators dont even realise that they ARE biased!
Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU
The Washington Post might be right wing, but for certain, their readers comments on the reported actions of the Bush administration are by far showing that the majority of the readers totally reject that bias. Unlike The Times where often we are left with a mere four comments, (even though we can often see from the fact that one of them will be answering a comment made by an unseen contributor, that there must be many more), the Washington Post lets their readers rip full blast with hundreds of contributions from all walks of life. I suggest someone from the Times needs to become brave enough to accept that the UK Paper of Record, has a duty to record its readers views in all their unbiased glory. Until then, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Chris Coles, Medstead, Alton, UK
For years I was a regular listener to the BBC. No longer. Predictable Orwellian groupthink is not news. Nor is eagerly and shamelessly pandering to every real or imaginary "victim" group on the horizon.
James, Jacksonville, Illinois U. S.
George Orwell, who worked for the BBC during World War II, said that it was the inspiration for the Ministry of Truth in "1984." If that was the case then, why should it be different now?
howard kissel, New York, NY, USA
Regardless of its flaws, I would like to thank the people of Britain for making the BBC World Service possible. There is simply no better source available of advertisement-free, around the clock news available in the English language (or in any language, really). Yes, I am sure there is a bias that creeps in occassionally. But there is also a competent global reach that simply cannot be matched by our US broadcasters.
Sorry about the license fee. If I could receive the same range of programming that you folks in the UK get, I would be happy to make a voluntary contribution. As it is, I do buy BBC programs on DVD on a regular basis, so they are getting some money from me that way.
Stefan Stackhouse, Black MOuntain, NC/USA
So the NYT thinks the BBC is biased. so rich coming from one of the most influential of the American papers. i have respect for its output but none for the way it conducted itself during the past few years. Starting from Iraq it allowed itself to be giuded by US propaganda from the White House and slavishly supported the US govt. Only when things started to go wrong they started to even criticise.
the hallmark of any news organisation is to question the status quo and perceived wisdom of the day not out of bias but out of the responsibility to question policies just to give balance to views. it doenot immediately make an organisationa as leftie out of control.
The conservatives wherever they are use this term pejoratively just to justify themselves. Fox News in the US is a glaring example.
No The BBC is very much required just to balance the partisan US media who do not seem to doing their job very well and it shows in their politics and society.
Srikanth Gollamudi, brighton,
I loathe the 'lefty' BBC and watch hardly any of its programmes. Why then do I have to pay its out-dated licence fee in order to watch the SCiFi channel or any of the other excellent alternatives offered by Sky?
Adrian, Tonbridge, England
"Let's scrap the last nationalised industry and let the free market produce similar rubbish at no cost to the taxpayer.."
No cost to the tax-payer?! How's about dancing to the tune of advertisers?! Let me shatter the illusion right now that the perfect broadcaster exists and remind everyone that different perspectives are a GOOD thing!
Stu, Wirral,
Hmm. Bias and the Beeb? All media outlets have positions. Is Mr Baker trying to pretend he is nuetral, or is this piece, in itself, not a-not-so-subtle attack on the BBC?
I happened to be in New York when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. All the US TV networks I tuned into were showing and saying what a great job Michael Brown and Mr Bush were doing in responding to the disaster. It was only on my return to London was I apprised of the full scale of the devastation. I subsequently found out that there were sections of the US media who didn't like the BBC showing or mentioning that there were any deaths.
JGar, London,
I have also worked for the BBC (albeit for only 3 years compared with your 10), and I thought that one of it's best qualities was it tried to do it's best, which is more than can be said for a lot of 'media outlets'. Like any other human endeavour, it isn't perfect, but is certainly a good deal better than most.
To pick a interview with an actress as an example of how awful it is, and why it's biased, is just silly.
I don't know why people love to knock one of the few things that is still worthy of the term 'great' in Great Britain. Why not scorn tabloid journalism or lazy 'opinion' pieces...
Oliver Freke, London, UK
While any media organisation has its faults I'm not sure you could find a better one for the people of the country elsewhere. The licence fee and the cultural meme it supports are important images of our national identity. I prefer it to the idiosyncratic dictates of a mogul's ego or the relentless commercialisation of American TV which seemed to be caught in a manic eating disorder. Binge ordering and puking/cancelling shows of shows is not interesting to watch. I prefer 'Nation shall speak unto Nation' than a bipolar obsessive compulsive who just wants your attention.
Chris, Coventry,
What an uninfirmed man you seem to be, Mr. Baker.
The New York Times is the opposite to what you say. It is not liberal, except in the fetid imagination of America's extreme right wing. It is usually on the wrong side of great issues.
It beat the drums for the disastrous Iraq war. It never saw a war it didn't like, being a supporter of the horrors of Vietnam until that war became so unpopular. It conducted a long vendetta against a scientist it wrongly viewed as a spy.
I find your citing the New York Times in this case especially odd. Some years back, during the height of the Diana Troubles, the Times printed an ugly editorial about the Royal Family, questioning their competence to rule.
I wrote back that for a country where Lyndon Johnson used to bark orders from the stall while relieving himself and where John Kennedy used to have prostitutes into the White House swimming pool while Jackie was away, they had little business pointing fingers at the Royal Family
John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada
What gets me about the BBC is its hypocrisy. Its documentary programme "Saddam's Bomb", broadcast at 1815 GMT on 3 March 2001 (a summary of which can still be found on the internet) chilled me to the marrow. The programme was absolutely "slam dunk" in its certainty that Saddam already had nuclear weapons. Yet when Bush and Blair subsequently tried to do something about it, who whinged loudest ? Yes, you've guessed it, the BBC.
Charles Turpin, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
I entirely endorse Mr Baker's comments. The BBC nowadays has become a law unto itself and passes social and pooital commetns that it has no right to do, irresepective of whether these views are of the right or the left. It is time that the whole running of the BBC's infrastructure and its terms of reference etc. were examined and if neccessary the present corporation should be replaced with something more in keeping with present times.
M.S.Stewart, Bushey Heath, UK
What a shame
Seemed like a decent article that I could identify with .... until the givaway agenda item : "persecuted Arab over callous Israeli";
Hmmm, must be why I had to sit through Maureen Lipman, Esther Rantzen, Edwina Currie et al regaling us with typical pro-Israeli rants (when they were being paid to entertain) on the BBC, at the time of the Lebanon conflict.
John Maynard, Cranbrook,
I had been an ardent BBC World Service fan for 20 years tuning in from the USSR, Yugoslavia , Canada the United States. However, only when I moved to Israel did the discrepancy between what I heard on the BBC and what I experienced myself became clear. The magnitude of distortion is troubling.
Trevor Asserson has three reports with the details. The BBC never emphasizes the deliberate targeting of noncombatants by the Palestinians . The Israeli Army may unintentionally kill the innocent, or intentionally kill the guilty, but it does not intentionally kill the innocent. Imad Faluji, the PA Communications Minister admitted the Palestinians had planned violence in July 2001 , far in advance of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. No mention of it on the BBC.
Historians of the future will surely be puzzled how this persistent collective lying about Israel by the vast majority of humankind, and led by the BBC, could have gone on for decades without end, and with no shame
Mladen Andrijasevic, Be’er Sheva , Israel
I don't believe BBC News reporting to be deliberately biased. However, there is an ever-increasing tendency to confuse fact, speculation, comment & gossip & present them as being interchangeable. Infotainment rules!
More generally in the BBC's output, there seems to be a perceived need to communicate in the terms of the lowest common denominator & a terrible editorial policy of presenting one side of an argument while casually ignoring anything that doesn't fit in with a programme's fundamental editorial premise. Some of the reporting from the Middle East displays these traits quite clearly & a few examples would seem to go as far as to undermine British forces in Iraq even if not intentionally so. But then problems are so much more newsworthy than anything else...
The reasons for this situation are probably many & varied, but one obvious one has been the perceived need at the BBC to compete for ratings & therefore grab attention in recent years. This is hugely regrettable.
DC, London,
The BBC is recognized throughout the world as one of the leading, if not the leading, news network, especially for its impartiality. Many complain about the license fee, without realizing that a fee is present in many countries. Here in Germany, the fee (higher than in the UK) gets divided to the many local stations, with the result of endless quizzes and brainless drivel. TV in the UK is wonderful in comparison.
Peter Simms, Mannheim, Germany
The BBC is a smug and self-congratulatory organisation. The "This is what we do" self-promotion campaign has to be one of the most pretentious bits of PR ever, and very adequately sums up the corporation's self-satisfied and seemingly uncritical view of itself. It has almost entirely lost sight of its obligations as a unique public service, funded by the tax payer. It is not the BBC's job to tell us what to think nor to set the news agenda - merely to report as carefully, accurately and objectively as it is possible to do and leave us to make up our own minds. If we want to reinforce our own prejudices we can then turn to the wide range of opinion available in our print media - which is what we have always traditionally done.
Tim, Teddington,
John Reid don't be silly. The NYT would never criticise anyone for criticising George W. That's the point of the article! I have to agree with what Mr. Baker says - the BBC is entirely unaware of its own bias because it believes everyone who doesn't share its views to be racist, fascist or worse, and therefore it places their views beyond consideration. If there is no other view, then the BBC cannot be biased. This is the problem with the modern Left - it can no longer engage in a debate on any subject. Instead it relies on stifling argument (global warming in particular), insults (Livingstone calling Trevor Phillips a member of the BNP) or simply hectoring (look at the website). I would be willing to bet that there is not a single member of the Conservative Party in the top echelons of the BBC nor in the news editorial teams.
Tim, London,
As usual this article hits the nail on the head. As a regular victim as a direct result of the anti semitic rhetoric that the BBC claims is unbiased reporting, I can fully endorse what Mr Baker says.
I once challenged an Islamic anti semite (Leeds University please note) about where he got his information from. In this order he said 1.The Koran 2.The BBC and 3. The infamous forgery 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' which he said was freely availble at any Mosque.
Enough said!
Jay, London,
Baker, Phillips et al hate the BBC because it dares to question their world view. Fox News anyone?
MCC, London,
Interestingly a cross-party sub-committee in the House of Commons set up to look at supposed BBC bias in the Middle East came to the conclusion that the BBC was slightly biased towards the Israeli view due largely to the superior funding of Israeli lobbyists.
Ferris Alors, London, UK
I have lived in New York for 17 years and until fairly recently watched the BBC World News service here on Public Television. I couldn't agree more with Mr. Baker's comments regarding bias--I thought it was just me being cranky but apparently not. Those underlying assumptions he talks of are indeed the heart of the matter--those assumptions of moral and intellectual superiority are resulting in a constant stream of editorialising, not news. I remember the coverage of the abuse scandal within the Catholic Church over here and while not wishing to downplay the harm caused by the Hierarchy the BBC talking heads were positively licking their chops in glee at having to report this story. A sneering anti-Americanism has also become a staple of their coverage, regardless it seems of the actual story. Since I stopped watching I have to say I feel a lot better.
Noddy Box, New York, USA
It's not only the BBC. In today's Times 2 (TV Viewing Guide) it is stated that cohabiting couples are not likely to be given the same rights as married couples because Blair is unduly influenced by (Shock! Horror!) 'the faith lobby'. More metropolitan elitism?
Dave, Wrexham,
To me, it's impossible to report on a topics as politically loaded as Bush and Iraq without allowing some sort of perspective to creep in. However, like David Holler above, as an American I'm consistently astonished and infuriated by the absurd portrait the BBC paints of life in the US and Americans in general. The bias is obvious in most any news item concerning the US. To me, however, more insidious is the subtle anti-Americanism inherent in even BBC entertainment programing. Take Top Gear's recent trip to Alabama as an example. Careful editing, provocation and rampant generalization make it seem as if the residents of the American South are all violent, homophobic, racist caveman. As a person with a sizable amount of family in the South I was amazed and insulted watching that program. Ah, you say, it's just a joke, don't take it so seriously. But when the British populace is constantly bombarded by these skewed perspectives, surely it starts to sink in and be taken as fact.
david, Chicago, Illinois
Greetings fom the American Kingdom,
The American Phylosophy is a mixture of Bastardism and Multiculturalism, and is by nature very liberal (Although strangly enough, very mindfull of spiritualism). So to an American the New York Times Article has strength, but to a core British value it is a nuisance. You can not match 500 + years of knowing who you are and where your roots are to a country that lives for today and still finds liberty and spirituality. The 500+ years becomes nonsense to someone who simply does nothing but live for the day and minds their own. Although The New York Times article could be accussed for not being multi-cultural enough, by it's anti-British attitude. Multi-cultural is everyone including Britain, even if the British Culture is anti-bastardism. Not-withstanding I know my geneology into several cultures, American Indian, Italian, And not least even of England, in and of a Family that by all reason would hold the Kingship in America. For that I am hatted.
Paul Harmon, Farmers Branch, USA
I fail to see how the ideas contained in this artical can be a suprise to any one. During Radio 5's coverage of the Hutton enquiry I heard one memorable BBC journalist say that
"...all right minded people should read the Guardian".
The self perpetuating bias of an organization that only recruits those similar to it's self wouldn't normally be a problem however; in the case of the BBC if you make a stand and choose not to fund it you end up in prison (curiously a fate most convicted burglers manage to escape).
Martin Carnaffin, Nottingham, England
Quite right about the BBC. Try listening to that intellectual powerhouse Radio 5 for any length of time as a series of smugs desperately fill in time between ridiculously frequent news bulletins - it's possible to hear the same news/sport headline every 15 minutes for virually the whole day. Chief among those to be mocked has to Nicky 'Me' Campbell and the appallingly self-righteous Jane Garvey. At least Victoria Derbyshire has the good grace to go on maternity leave and spare us her world view for the time being......
Pete, HEREFORD, UK
You're dead right Mr. Baker.
What's really creepy about the BBC has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong, it's the way everyone relentlessly sings off the same hymn sheet. You get the feeling that a modern day Luther or Galileo would face the same threat of excommunication as did the originals. And don't we know in our bones that group-think and dogma are almost always wrong. Mind you, the other broadcasters in Britain (including Sky) are nearly as bad.
Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.
I have to agree with Richard Marriott in fact all the poll's I've seen over the last 5 years show 65/75% of the British public want an end to the forced BBC subscription fee (TV Licence). I found it strange the only one which didn't show this was government commisioned & by the Work Foundation (also used by the BBC) which happens to be run by an ex BBC employee!
John, Salford, England
John Reid,
I agree that collectivist liberals should have their voice. However, not at my expense. If their so confident that their view of the world sells why cant they just stop having the licence fee and sell direct to the public?
Patrick White, London,
I agree with the author 100%. I am a nurse, born in the UK and now living in the US. I used to look forward to listening to the BBC every night on my way home from work.Not any more, thank you.I want balanced reporting, both sides of the issues please. I now try to read as many different opinions/articles as possible, on any items of news that interest me, this way I can come to a conclusion myself.
I dont need to be spoon fed propaganda/bias or hear derision in the voice of a broadcaster
Christine, Boston, USA
I am reminded of a comment made to me by a friend when once I commented that the op/ed page of the Wall Street Journal was so predictably right wing and so reflexive in support of the Bush administration that I had quit reading it. He replied that it was fulfilling its rightful role. How so? I inquired. He retorted that the role of an op/ed page was to remind readers that the world was as they thought it was.
I might add that, all too often, letters to the editor are presented as the lone dissenting, if demented voice.
Jim Walton, Washington , DC
How can a state funded News Service be anything other than a Ministry of Truth?
In our case PC truth.
The criticisms of the BBC are largely valid, especially the compulsory fee.
Holding up the NYT as a bastion of objective reporting is stupid. It and other mainstream US media are incontestibly pro-Jewish.
Nice to see a couple of commentators pointing out Mr B's own disinformation.
The BBC should be broken up and semi-privatised. They could use the money to re-nationalise the Rail Network. As should the NHS. Neither of them work. Why are people so proud of dated institutions that don't deliver?
Clements, Prague, Czech Rep.
Quite right, Gerard.
The only thing you didn't mention was that the BBC FORCES, through statute, the UK's owners of receiving equipment to fund its hegemony.
Cf. the mediaeval Roman Catholic Church.
Joe Jones, London, UK
As long as I'm paying my taxes to an unelected freeloader, the BBC can call her anything they like. At least I'm getting my money's worth with the BBC.
Calum, Egham, Surrey
Glyn Roberts seems a bit complacent. Last year the state-funded Beeb spent £4.2 billion.
Too much of its output comes from a point of view which is anti-enterprise and anti-profit, believes that state must provide with few exceptions, is quick to defend and extend rights but makes no demands that people take responsibility for outcomes.
The BBC is too big and does not represent the whole spectrum of views fairly.
Phil Taylor, London,
What is bizarre is that the B