It’s been a long time coming, but worth it. I mean the report on BBC bias,
unveiled by Richard Tait, a corporation trustee and former ITN
editor-in-chief. Mr Tait makes general points about a “groupthink” culture
and too easy an assumption of “right” liberal values. He also writes that
the public “both recognises impartiality and appreciates it . . . 84 per
cent of people agreed that impartiality was difficult to achieve but
broadcasters must try very hard to do so. According to 83 per cent, all
views and opinions however unpopular or extreme should be reported.” He says
impartiality must go beyond news, even unto comedy.
The report also refers to the moment when coverage of Bob Geldof’s Make
Poverty History event filled the schedules with unquestioning adulation and
endorsement of the cause (a political cause, remember, not a fundraiser).
This was amplified by a Richard Curtis play and an episode of The Vicar of
Dibley showing the campaign’s video. Tait writes plaintively: “In a world
where pop stars are holding press conferences at G8 summits . . . the BBC
cannot allow its output to be taken over by campaigning groups.”
Well, it did, that week. And the conclusion of the report, by senior BBC
figures, including the head of news, the deputy D-G and the “creative
director”, is that a way must be found to be fair-minded without insipidity,
and to balance passionate polemic with fair-mindedness.
It’s a good start, and a welcome acceptance of criticisms that often get
brushed off. Personally, I applaud the nerve and passion of Geldof and
Curtis, but not the BBC’s massive loss of perspective over Live 8. Carried
by the vastness and suddenness of the enterprise (and perhaps a sneaking
fear that Channel 4 might nick it) senior management rolled over whenever
the campaigners – backed by Gordon Brown – pushed. Valid scepticism about
Live 8’s demands was ignored. Even when Geldof arrogantly told Paul Martin,
the Canadian Prime Minister, he was “not welcome” at the G8 summit unless he
obeyed, the BBC continued presenting the event as uncritically as a Prom. It
was all very uncomfortable and clearly won’t be allowed to happen again.
Applaud the BBC Trust for recognising that.
But the wider question of culture – what critics call the Guardianista mindset
– remains. Myself, I think that case is often overstated: but it is true
that tribes of colleagues develop a coherent world view, and that when a
staff is brutally shrunk by budget cuts and recruitment freezes, this gets
worse. It is like reducing a sauce to make it stronger, or driving a sect
underground. It is true also that a generation of wise editors, reared in a
tradition of eyewateringly strict impartiality, got “shaken out” in the
miserable Birt years.
Probably the Countryside Alliance and Migration Watch do find it harder to get
a hearing than Amnesty and Liberty. But the BBC is visibly trying. Things
are improving.
Take multiculturalism, once a sacred cow: note that it was BBC News, not any
other medium, that blew the whistle on the millions spent on excessive
public translation services, and led to Ruth Kelly’s present line.
BBC News itself is the most impartial news service that we have (certainly the
Beeb never let a newscaster wear a Live 8 wristband, as Channel 4 did). In
current affairs and features, Guardianistas increasingly watch their backs:
even the most bien-pensant wet liberal presenters know they should
automatically discard prejudice when it is necessary to put the detested,
hostile points in an interview. Because argument is essential; because this
is the BBC. Listen fairly, and improvement is audible.
As for entertainment, by and large the “political correctness” that the BBC
demands goes no further than simple courtesy. You should not be gratuitously
rude to any minority. Nobody should. It is true that Ben Elton, Billy Bragg
and the Dibley tendency get a shockingly easy ride, but fun is harder to
regulate than fact (even if you want to). Ideally some rumbustiously
right-wing entertainers would barge through and become beloved: I suggest
that Boris Johnson start a training school.
What is less forgivable is the attitude to big decisions. You get a sense of
men in suits desperately clawing for youthful edginess, for membership of
any hip minority rather than horrid old “Middle England”. During that week
of Live 8 craziness, another huge BBC presence was down at Glastonbury
straining to be cool. Meanwhile, there was the Trafalgar Fleet Review – tall
ships and fireworks, a unique assembly of international vessels, a powerful
message about the continuing importance of the maritime sector to everything
we do. It was spectacular: it drew 750,000 people to the banks of the Solent
(six times as many as Glastonbury, three times as many as Live 8). Yet the
BBC would not carry it on terrestrial television, even though cameras were
there for News 24. People without satellite or Freeview (who are legion, and
often fond of ships) were dismayed, betrayed at a national hour by the
national broadcaster.
The snub was plainly a matter of policy, not resources: it would have been
possible to simulcast News 24 on BBC1 for the crucial hour, replacing (for
God’s sake!) an Antiques Roadshow and a tennis recording. But no: the
message was: “Ugh, ships, so retro! And ugh, imperialistic! Who cares?
Everyone, like, prefers Madonna and Geldof and Primal Scream.” The evidence
that plenty of people think otherwise was ignored. That, to me, showed a
more potent and dangerous BBC bias problem than any self-serving grumble by
a politician. That is the cultural blindness that after the Tait report must
be tackled.
And it won’t be easy. The BBC hasn’t yet said sorry for 2005, or admitted it
screwed up. Which is why, loyal as I am to the essential and eternal concept
of the BBC, I keep on mentioning it . . .
The BBC is biased and the problem is that the people working there don't realise it. I have worked with people from the BBC and tried my best to help them in areas where I am quite knowledgable, but their hierarchies are rigid and they can be unbelieveably snobbish and contemptuous, both in writing and to your face. Plus, their attention to accuracy leaves a great deal to be desired. They are a branch of the entertainment business, which does not always marry well with objectivity. They also have a tendency to follow the loudest voice, which is not always the voice of truth. Bearing in mind their Middle East policy, I have tried in vain to get them to do a programme on multiculuralism in Haifa, where Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze and Bahais live and work together in harmony and celebrate each others' festivals. Not interested.
Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA, Haifa, Israel
Anyone who doubts this report on BBC bias only has to watch BBC World to see that it is true. I wonder if the British taxpayer realises that their money is being spent on propaganda passed off as news? If I wasn't British, currently based abroad, I wouldn't recognise the Britain that the BBC portrays nor realise that the world view held by them - anti US, anti anything in the UK that doesn't fit in with their chattering classes viewpoint - is not reflective of the ordinary person in the British street.
Cass Watson, Malaysia,
Of corse a mild rebuke is the furthest I would expect Ms Purves to give on such a tax funded monopoly as the BBC. Its obvious when you complain to the BBC that they like Ms Puves know best. The parts of the news story that they deliberately leave on the cutting room floor, the questions that should be proffered, the continual interuption when the celebratory interviewer does not like the answer, the blatant dislike shown by the editorial staff of the views of the National Front or UKIP or anyone who has a view other than the 'right on' generation that its news Guardanista believe we should be given. Somehow, with all the BBC's tax funded resources in producing the report that led to this mild critisicim, no one has pointed out that Gobbels felt he too was being Liberal in his censorship of the news. Free speech means more than sending a view to a message board, but even thats censored in case you upset someone.
Sam Mitchell, Castle Douglas, Scotland
The BBC isn't attempting to be hip when it favours Live8 over Trafalgar day; it is reflecting its own prejudices. Ethnic=good. Anything English=bad.
Libby is being far too generous to them. They may be trying to less biassed and improving but it is far too little too late. Comparing them with the also nationalised Channel 4 News is setting the bar incredibly low.
Perhaps impartiality is a false god anyway. Perhaps true impartiality comes not from a single organisation but from multiple ones, as is developing on the web.
Another alternative is that the BBC should be broken up with Radio 1 and 2 and local radio and TV being sold off. A smaller organisation would also be much easier to manage and perhaps would come closer to being less biassed and producing more of the ground breaking high quality stuff the licence fee is supposed to produce but doesn't really at the moment.
Scary, Windsor, Berks
It's kind of up the individual to get a rounded view of the truth by consuming different points of view I think. Best no to rely on one source and best to have your own views than swallow someone elses.
Perce, london,
De-criminalise the TV licence and get the criminal law out of TV subscriptions
CCTV, Cambridge, England
The BBC news is more about style than substance, more concerned with visual effect and pretty presenters, than News.
We have ludicrous images each night of presenters talking "live" to reporters outside empty buildings asking for the reporters "opinions".
The disastrously famous quote, "What do you think is happening inside?"
Rarely do we get interviews with those concerned in the stories, whether they be Politicians or victims, instead a sanitised sound bite from one of the "Multi-cultral cast of aspiring reporters/presenters".
We have reached style our News presenters aren't people reporting factual news stories, they interpret, in between pursuing minor celebrity careers, on other BBC programmes.
Channel 4 News, is just that.
Tom Edwards, Berrow,
As an American that appreciates other viewpoints from countries that I respect, it is a disappointment to encounter bias in the fabled BBC. When I recognize it, I just quit whatever reading or viewing I may be doing where it (bias) may be present.
BillSanford, Grand Rapids,
The only reform the BBC is likely to adopt with respect to its laughably obvious leftish partiality, is the painless morphing from the Blair to the Brown Broadcasting Corporation. The degree and nature of the organisation’s bias has become so blatant that it clearly doesn’t care what its critics think, or give a monkey for its charter obligations. In what is supposed to be a democracy, the existence of a state broadcaster of any bias, funded by a compulsory and regressive tax, is indefensible and the only acceptable solution is to make the BBC a subscription service.
David Foulkes, Abinger Hammer, Surrey
I have always wondered why Liberty always get first option to respond to crime or terror initiatives, yet the victims or their representatives never get a mention. It shows whose side the BBC is on.
kerry livermore, London, England,
An excellent article on the excellent Tait report. Those of us on the right who have been complaining of BBC built in bias for many a year are gratified that it is being recognized at last for what it is. I look forward to a broad based media where the nostrums of the liberal left can be challenged. Who knows, if genuine political debate can be engaged once more in a variety of forums, it might even get people interested and willing to take the trouble to vote in elections once more.
Richard, Kidderminster, England
I remember not seeing the Tall Ships, I was very disappointed because it was spectacular or so I understand. People have been saying for years that the Beeb is biased lets hope this time they do pay attention and put their house in order.
Susan, Barry, S Wales
The report understates the case against the BBC. It is not merely that the BBC has a liberal bias, but that the BBC's definition of liberal has more in common with the parties of Karl Marx, Michael Foot and Tony Benn than the party of William Gladstone and Lloyd George.
Cynosarges, London, UK
I think that the only way to find the truth is to have an INDEPENDENT INQUIRY. To find left wing/socialist bias will be very easy but it will be difficult to find out who did what and why! Which managers and journalists were to blame and whether there is a direct link to any political agenda or party. For the BBC to get away with a bit of very mild self critisism in a clearly "media managed" way is a cop out! The British people deserve nothing less than a FULL accounting of the facts however painful that might be!
stephanie clague, Larnaca,
I seem to recall from her many writings and broadcasts that Libby and her husband have a particular fondness for the sea and sailing. And why not? But there couldn't be a little bit of her own bias in the last three paragraphs, could there?
Barry, Wallington, UK
BBC anti-Israel and anti-Hindu bias is unbelievable. There is rarely a correlation between reality and their newscasts (and editorials disguised as news).
They have completely failed to cover the recent violence in Gaza by Hamas.
They were throwing people off the buildings and executing patients in Hospitals.
Imagine the outcry if Israel was to execute someone on the street like Hamas did.
However -- no peep from the beeb -- only some anti-Western Fiskian Guardinista rant about how it was all Western fault by Jeremy Bowen.
Alan, Montreal, Canada
There has been a downgrading of programmes which investigate real issues of concern to the general public for more mundane,cheaper options.There has also been a serious loss of balance in some reporting(even on the Today radio programme where the number of times I hear the words "there was no government spokesman available to comment"),so one side is never taken to task.This is never commented on,but it drives me mad,as it lets them of the hook.
When I read via the internet reports of things around the world but nothing here,I really wonder what we are being told is right.Part of the bbc's remit was always to educate,this seems to have been forgotten,as the beeb has tried to be more popular.
It has to get back to it's tried and tested dispassionate reporting ,not only here in the UK but worldwide.
Nigel Wheatcroft, Wimbledon, UK
Libby says "certainly the Beeb never let a newscaster wear a Live 8 wristband, as Channel 4 did".
Perhaps not, but it is still practically compulsory for BBC newscasters to wear poppies for several days either side of Remembrance Sunday - hardly a liberal cause.
Neil Bennett, Luxembourg,
I'm in agreement with Libby Purves except for her cop-out on the BBC's light entertainment policy. Are there really no talented entertainers in Britain who don't concur with the 'Guardianista' mindset? Assuming by the law of averages alone that there must be, why are there never any on the BBC?
Libby says that the likes of Ben Elton and Richard Curtis get a shockingly easy ride, but it goes further than that. The opinions of such as Elton and Curtis (the latter's via the scripts of Dibley, etc.) are broadcast with no alternative viewpoint offered. How is that different to biased news reports if the BBC are to move away from a culture of 'right' liberal thinking?
Libby also states no one should be gratuitously rude to minorities. Fair enough, but no person or group should be so thin-skinned that they can't ever be made fun of. The current climate where comments must be scrupulously vetted lest they offend someone somewhere isn't the sign of a healthy BBC or a healthy society.
Stephen Massey, Glasgow,
Libby biting the hand that gives her the odd snack or two? Since the dawn of time (it seems) the BBC's allowed her to spout her smug, upper middle class certainties every Wednesday morning on Radio 4! Simulcasting ships for people who can't be bothered to go digital? Humbug!
Brian Hughes, Cheltenham, UK
If young people are over represented on the BBC one area they could change would be to use Grannies and Grandads to present the programmes for tiny tots. Clearly little children would love this much more and it might keep the volume down to more normal levels and stop the rather over sensational style adopted by younger presenters "oh its a BEETLE!!!!!!!!" . I'm sure they would be better at the job.
rebecca, hathaway, london
Libby Purves' article seems commendably accurate and raises the question 'why does the BBC recruit Guardianistas?' I suspect the answer is that it's difficult not to because the UK education system is dominated by those intent on producing young people with the 'correct' Guardianista thinking. University Arts and Humanities courses, in particular, are entirely devoted to teaching through the lenses of 'post-colonialism', Marxist Theory, gender theory, etc. The canon of English literature is scorned much in the same way as Libby's tall ships. The much derided 'Middle England' TV Licence payer should also be asking why their taxes are used to fund a totally politically biased (against them) education system.
Frederick, Bordon, England
Left-wingers are by nature unpatriotic (it establises their superiority) and the Guardianistas who have monopoly control of the BBC are simply unaware that they are unpatriotic. With such a mind-set it is no use hoping for the BBC to mend its ways. As long as the taxpayers have to foot the bill we will continue to get unadulterated Bono and Bob Geldoff and all the other left-wing hobby horses so beloved of the liberal intellectuals. Remove the state subsidy and we might get an improvement - otherwise we are all wasting our breath.
Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England
Liberal in this country used to mean something very different. Unfortunately, due to iinstances such as the bias of the BBC, the word 'liberal' is taking on more of an American meaning (i.e. very Left wing) - as in America, this usage is bringing about a situation where various people on the very Left/very Right are itching to have their very own Culture War in this country - this is not the way to return to an impartial BBC. Sure - force the BBC to restrain it's 'liberal' instincts, but don't cut your nose of to spite your face by harking on about culture wars. I can respect the beliefs and values of both Left and Right - both have their uses - however, lets not be divisive. Instead, lets reform the BBC in a constructive way by supporting the management/governors in their current efforts and not go on about cancelling our TV Licences or some other such rubbish.
Nick, Brighton, UK,
oldasiahand - there are actually five, yes five whole themes the BBC does relentlessly. The other two are anything to do with obesity and the second's HIV/AIDS, pref in Africa and with children. I think they're new virtual studio's got a virtal rehasher that just changes the heads on the fatties/ children and thye dub over the thing.
What's missing? I'd add the Middle East but I think that's just like canned music now and not really worthy of being called a "theme" - "Crisis in Middle East Shock"?! Other missing themes are Female Presenter Who Isn't A Posh Nippy Number from Oxbridge (or could be mistaken for one) and oh yes, anything to do with business not involving the high street.
Gavin, London,
The only thing anyone could reasonably expect from a publicly funded broadcaster is its partiality toward its funders.
In the BBC's case, Britain's liberal politicians provide the funding. So the BBC is, naturally enough, partial to the liberal ethos and antagonistic to the conservative ethos.
The BBC is the world's largest broadcaster, with an on annual operating budget exceeding $8 billion. The BBC's legal stranglehold on the British TV-viewing public seems particularly harsh, If a Briton want to watch any TV broadcaster, private or public, I understand he must first pay the BBC $22 a month even if he despises BBC and violently disagrees with its viewpoint.
National public radio and TV in the U.S. are similarly biased. All taxpayers at large (whether or not they even operate radios or TVs) fund these liberal media dinosaurs, and they are reliably partial to the ethos of the liberal politicians who year after year foil every conservative political attempt to defund them. Ditto with the publicly funded U.S. arts and humanities efforts.
I can only imagine the BBC's report about its own "drift toward a liberal-minded approach" must be in the nature of a minor self-inflicted wound designed to whitewash its virtually feral liberal bias and preempt any more serious mayhem from a British public which may be growing tired of being forced to pay $22 a month for its own indoctrination.
There's an immense amount of money and power at stake in this egregious form of Etatism.
Michael Grable, Silver Spring, MD/USA
It would be interesting to know how much LP makes out of her contributions to the BBC. Maybe enough that she is only prepared to go so far as to criticise them for their coverage of Trafalgar 2 years ago by way of counterpoint to the soft soaping handed out in the rest of the article.
Redcliffe, London,
The problem with the BBC (and almost all UK newspapers) is that they mix fact and comment in the same piece of reporting. They also often "frame" larger issues within the context of a "human interest" story about an individual case. I'm sure they do this in the belief it makes the news more accessible to the "masses", but it usually just muddles the true picture.
If they just reported the facts (all the facts) on a particular topic, I think they would be surprised how intelligent the UK population are at arriving at their own conclusions.
Simon Wright, Derby, UK
I worked at the BBC as an accountant. Among the Finance team I read The Times and another guy read the Telegraph, that was it out of a group of about 30 everything the FD's PA , the Accounts Payable clerk to the FD himself read the Guardian and could be said to hold traditional liberal chattering class views. At an induction for Finance employees from all over the BBC we were told of the terror of the Daily Mail. When I raised my hand and suggested that while I didn't usually agree with the Daily Mail after all I one of those terrible creatures a woman who works I suggested they did have a perspective. He looked horrified that someone employed by the BBC did not hold exactly the same beliefs as him. I now work for a Financial Institution and have come across a greater variety of opinion there, some of more left wing than those looking in from outside might expect. If even the accountants hold predominantly centre left views no wonder the BBC has a problem!
S.Pearce, London,
The BBC is a tax funded organisation providing a job creation scheme for this counry's Tristans and Fionas who do not fancy a stint in the Brigade of Guards or are too thick for the City.
When, two weeks ago, the 'national' broadcaster couldn't afford to show the 'national' football team in a qualifying match, it became, in my opinion, not fit for purpose.
Time it was flogged off.
michael murphy, brightlingsea, england
All news outlets are biased in some form, which is why (as any researcher knows) you should never rely on one source for all your information. Read or listen to as many sources you can find, and then you can piece together a more accurate picture.
Hilary, Birmingham,
The problem with the Beeb is the terrible fear that emanates from it. Fear of rigorously demanding answers from the politicians it answers; fear of investing in vibrant and challenging new dramas; fear of presenting anything more than Diet News and Lite Drama. Channel 4 might wear the 'wrong' wristbands, but at least they present sober and thought-provoking news programmes, which is really what you'd expect from the BBC's mandate to inform.
Jo, Cambridgeshire, UK
Live 8 was a terrible bit of coverage, the reporters were totally star struck while the audience was mostly un-impressed by poor sound and atmosphere. The Live Earth concert this summer will be the same, a huge waste of resources, featuring stars whose private jets and mansions use up more than their share of CO2. It has been rubbished even by Geldof, and yet the BBC will go along with the party and not criticize it
There is a wider tendency to be completely uncritical of any 'artist' trying to sell their wares. All channels do it but the BBC is most enthusiastic. New films, tv shows and music are never criticized, unless by the token critic who doesn't care about getting 'access' to the celebs
Andy, London,
The uncontrolled dash for jouvenile banter, pop music background and daftness in general is as worrying as the frequent bias at the BBC.
Wladyslaw Cichorz, Leeds,
I Think this is absolutly true, except that when they talk about BBC's biased towards minority it is towards Islam..sometimes I wonder if BBC is paid by us the tax payer, Hindus, Christians, secularist, and por muslims of uk or by Saudi Arabia, or palestine?
Yesterday and todays' news is a claer example of BBC's biased towards Muslims, biggeste demonstration for Sir Salman's knighthood is hapeeing in Pakistan where they are burning our flags (yes BRitish flags) yet there is no headline on this on BBC's front page. Yet on South Asia's news they want to talk about old article on how Hindus's were apparantly involved in killing muslims..Is this a trick to divert public attention to what people in Pakistan and IRan are saying about suiside bombing?
Ajay, Manchester, UK
The BBC is not the worst offender, as far as the term media stretches, though I agree that it takes "the right side".
Every media outlet, these days is telling us we are going to die one way or the other, right after the polar bear, or some worm or moth some place in this vast and beautiful, and ever changing planet we inhabit.
And, if you belong to a minority, the BBC is no stranger to offending you for no aparent reason, aside from getting a laugh. Idiotic attempts at self censorship, like the favoured P.C. terminology, do not have to be replaced with fascism, just sensibility when required and above all, common sense.
Jondi , London,
Incredible as it may seem Sky News, is now less biased than the BBC. The BBC seems to have three themes: the NHS, global warming - where counter views are virtually never aired -and education. Overseas reporting on domestic TV has declined sharply even though BBC World is available everywhere except the UK. Even Al Jazeera English can someties beat the BBC when reporting on events in the Middle East. It is a travesty that we have to pay so much for the beeb when we no longer use it.
oldasiahand, Manila, Philippines
I have discarded the BBC long ago as an impartial reporting agent.
After witnessing first hand the bias against Rhodesia, South Africa and white Africans in general, I was appalled.
Regards
K Hyett.
kevan, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Well done for harping on the Trafalgar 200 debacle. I was stuck at work 2 miles from the show and was relying on the BBC to show a proper programme in the evening. No such luck.
Andrew Fanner, Cowplain, UK
anyone who thinks the BBC is impoartial hasn't worked for it. I was criticvisd on air for making a programme which gave a gun club the chance to puit its case after the Dunblane legislation .
The repeat of the programme was pulled
skidmore, march, cambs
Unfortunately, nearly every example of the british media (print, audio and visual) has forgotten the difference betweem News, and Views.
In this age of spin, we need the facts. Balanced analysis needs to be given, presenting more than one view. Unfortunately, due to commercial pressure, (even the BBC is under commercial pressure) in the world of news, being first is everything, and often comes at the cost of accuracy. Time, schedules, and pages are then filled with poor quality journalism (often because the journalists don't have any real facts, as they are trying to get the story out before the other journalists) we get Views thinly disguised as News. The BBC like the other visual media are very bad at this, and the liberal agenda of many journalists and commentators clearly show through, as demonstrated in this BBC report.
Luckily some of the broadsheets do try and keep up their standards and do know the difference between news and views.
Jon Turner, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Never mind Live 8, what about the Beeb's position as chief prophet of global warming?
Andy, dundee,
A BBC reporter on Today (Angus Stickler I think) when reporting on 'demonic child possession' in London's African churches said '' .. many of them actually belive in ghosts and demons..'' he quickly added ''not that there's anything wrong with that''.
In his touchy-feely right-on relativism he was obviously fearful of retribution from these stone-age trogs.
It is the BBC writ large. No balls.
Castro Spendlove, Brighton. Queens Park.,
Bingo, You have raised a very pertinent and germane issue.....whether Beebs (BBC) is impartial and non partisan in putting out its reportage' and airing the programmes , or the quality of contents at times show some passionate polemics. Well, let us accept this bare and basic fact that BBC is no more a national broadcaster, it has grown over the years to the strature of being termed as "Global broadcaster" Being so, it beholds an extra responsibility and onus to be very judicious ,very impartial...but in doing so it should not loose the sheen and class of it. Being impartial doesn't imply that the reports and news coverage should be banal, vapid and dispassionate.One has to draw a fine line. Content, quality and fact-o-file should be preserved, but the journos should make the presentation with a touch of liveliness and vivacity.It is not a lion's task, if done without a right-or-left wing approach.The subtle change is visible, but at times journos out of zeal and passion, over do it.
Sanjeev Dheer, New Delhi, India