The BBC - Impartial or not?

Scroll to see replies

Vienna

Oh, forgive me, I thought we were discussing all forms of impartiality. Let me think, one where 121 Labour backbenchers and the Lib Dems opposed the war?

Well I'm not saying the BBC is impartial. Impartiality is nigh on impossible. Even if the BBC were to present all the views of the major parties in Britain in an impassioned manner, you could still claim it was bias against Communists, fascists, anarachists, satanists, cannibals so on and so forth. The reason the BBC is different however is that it is not merely a tool of the British government, it is a news company that is regulated by statue specifically not to be so. That Britain is politically mature enough to have such an insitituion whereas it has failed in all other countries that have attempted it should be a matter of national pride, that is all I am saying.

Reply 61

Beekeeper

Vienna

Yes, it is impartial or yes, its not impartial?

He claims IN THE EDITORIAL that as a BBC news reporter he has (at OTHER times, in OTHER capacities. Thats right, not in the SAME editorial) portrayed the US in such a manner.

You have ignored the second part of my post, which addressed this.

Reply 62

Atomik

Definitely not an impartial news outlet. All you have to do is look at their treatment of race relations to see this. ("OMGZ, whites are evil racists; look at the poor minorities who cannot be racist because they're always being attacked by us big, bad white people...")

Reply 63

Nightowl

atomik

I have to admit despite being a regular watcher of BBC news I've never heard Hew Edwards say that..

Reply 64

Vienna

Beekeeper

You have ignored the second part of my post, which addressed this.

I left it unanswered to give you the chance to understand what the word impartial means.

"It is[impartial] yes, but as I have already made quite clear, it is an editorial and nothing more."

"He claims that by reporting on newsworthy events he has 'done his bit' in creating this image."

"This comment therefore is not evidence of impartiality."

Im glad you agree, it certainly isnt evidence of impartiality.

Reply 65

Vienna

Johnny

Haha you can't understand it. He means that the Internet will be used by News Corprations to present their populist slant on the news (in the chase for ratings), in an attempt to avpoid regulation as it is harder to regulate what is published on the Internet.

Nowhere does he say that the Internet per se will restrict choice as you claim he does.

"The Internet, global broadcasting and more intense commercial pressures will make regulation less effective."

Is this bad? It seems so, "What is needed is ‘a positive force’..as the guarantor of quality and widens choice"

Regulation = quality and choice?

To lower the tone even more, compare programs on BBC to channel 4 say or ITN if you want a measure of quality.

I believe that adaptations of Bleak House are better quality TV than "Big Brother", or "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here"

In your and Mr.Graham's opinion. I can't speak for the rest of the country.

Reply 66

thorondor

Johnny

Following an enlightening discussion with several BNP supporters in the thread: 'UK whites will be minority by 2100' , it emerged that any material I quoted from the BBC was branded as being worthless since "the BBC is not impartial". Now this really puzzled me because it is an independently funded news source, and one of the most reliable and respected I find.

So just out of interest what do you think of the BBC and why...

There is no person or organisation in the world that is completely impartial, it's not in the nature of a person to be completely impartial afterall. However, given this, i think the BBC is by far the most impartial news organisation, certainly in this country and quite possibly the world.

I mean, what else have we got, ITV news, making jokes about Cheney shooting that guy (although i'll admit they did them quite well :rolleyes:

).
The Daily Mail newspaper, need i say more.
And in the USA the most popular news organisation is Fox, which to put it mildly is rather good friends with Mr. Bush.

Reply 67

Beekeeper

Vienna

I explained in here how making the comment in question does not neccessarily represent impartiality in his reporting:

He claims that by reporting on newsworthy events he has 'done his bit' in creating this image.

Iran is generally thought of as a backward and disturbed place, and a BBC, CNN, ITN, ABC reporter could help penetrate this image merely by reporting on it and raising awareness of the issue in question.

This comment therefore is not evidence of impartiality.

He thinks he has contributed to penetrating this generally accepted view by reporting on issues that concern America.
I doubt very much that he himself is "free of bias" or "preconceived opinions", but you have failed to show me any evidence whatsoever that he has reported in a such a way.

Reply 68

Vienna

Beekeeper

I explained in here how making the comment in question does not neccessarily represent impartiality in his reporting:

And I agree, its not evidence of impartiality, it is evidence of preconceived opinions.

im·par·tial adj.
1: Not partial or biased; unprejudiced.
2: free from undue bias or preconceived opinions;

Him telling us he has seems to be conclusive, unless of course you believe this to be accurate?

America "as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge."

Reply 69

Beekeeper

Vienna

And I agree, its not evidence of impartiality, it is evidence of preconceived opinions.

im·par·tial adj.
1: Not partial or biased; unprejudiced.
2: free from undue bias or preconceived opinions;

So what? Are reporters not allowed to have opinions on some things? Just be grateful they keep it in the editorials, and not the headlines.

I don't know how you can claim a news corporation is 'impartial' or 'bias' because you fear some of it's reporters have "opinions".

Him telling us he has seems to be conclusive, unless of course you believe this to be accurate?

It can be interpreted in different ways. He is not neccessaily stating that he has reported in a bias way.

America "as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge."

Seems quite accurate really... :rolleyes:

Reply 70

Did anyone listen to Five Live this morning?

One journalist delivered a report on Hamas and it can only be described as glorification. He said, paraphrasing, that the Hamas leaders had been forced into hiding by Israel, that many of their comrades (sic) had been killed by Israel but now they are able to form a government. It mentioned absolutely nothing about what sort of organisation Hamas itself is nor what atrocities it has committed. From listening to the report alone you'd think that the Hamas leaders were presecuted Mandela or Gandhi-like figures, not terrorists.

Reply 71

Atomik

JaDaAu

The Daily Mail newspaper, need i say more.

I hope you realise that papers like the Guardian are not completely impartial either. I don't particularly read the Daily Mail - more of a Times reader myself - but I'm sick of poofter Guardian readers slagging it off.

Reply 72

Vienna

Beekeeper

So what?

So you said that his comment was NOT evidence of impartiality,

"This comment therefore is not evidence of impartiality."

I agree. Its not evidence of an opinion free from prejudicial bias. Which is the point. If he did his bit to portray(and no, not just in the very same column) this biased image in his capacity as a BBC journalist, then there is evidence of impartial journalism.

What's more, the BBC Charter, which encompasses all output, including your 'editorials', states,

"Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth... [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world...."

Because its publicly funded, they are obliged to show a respect for truth in their editorial pieces. They cant wander off on a personal rant. Newspaper columnists and private media corporations are not restricted in the same way.

He is not neccessaily stating that he has reported in a bias way.

So doing his bit to portray that image in the media, doesnt suggest that he reported to portray that image in the media?

Reply 73

Vienna

They dont refer to Palestinian terrorists as terrorists either, they are "militants", despite the recognised difference between the two. The same definition stretches to soccer moms from Texas who support Bush and were labelled "Conservative militants" by the BBC.

Reply 74

aiman

Although BBC is biased, it is less biased than most news channels.

Reply 75

MB__

From bbcwatch.com

".......The BBC’s Charter and its Producers Guidelines state that the BBC shall…

• '…contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world…'

• '…treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality… and…not contain any material expressing the opinion of the corporation…'

• …'Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth…The BBC applies due impartiality to all its broadcasting and services, both to domestic and international audiences…'"

"The British public continues to pay for this unfair, partial and inaccurate news service through the licence fee. We wonder whether it is healthy for Britain’s democracy that such huge public funds should be provided to what is an essentially monopolistic and unaccountable body. If the BBC cannot provide impartial news coverage it has no legitimate call on public funds simply to promote its own prejudices."

Reply 76

Johnny

Vienna

Regulation = quality and choice?

Oh dear... you still can't grasp this "simplistic nonsense". If I had the time and inclination I would explain the point again in even more banal terms, but I fear that this still wouldn't be enough. This is a pity but I hope that you are comforted by your considerable negative repping power.

I really, really can't be bothered to debate an important issue with someone who cannot understand the basics. I mean if you can't even get a handle on this "simplistic nonsense" (as published by an economics fellow at Oxford and a member of the Channel 4 board of directors - yeh, he really sounds like someone who would push simplistic nonsense!), then what is the point of taking the debate any further and using more complicated arguments?

Pourtant, je me demande si vous etes francais? Si c'est vrai, je veut faire comprendre a vous que j'aurais ete donc plus patiente, parce que bien que vous aviez deja ecrit de tres bon anglais, il peut quelquefois etre tres dificile a compredre tout qui est ecrit dans une langue etrangere. Moi - Je ne le pourrais pas faire! Alors je suis desolee que je me mettais en rogne contre vous! Mais malhereusement, je doute enfin que vous etes francais, a cause de la qualite de votre anglais, qui est toujours simplement parfait...

Reply 77

Vienna

Johnny

Oh dear....

Hehe, indeed.

Reply 78

Johnny

Vienna

Hehe, indeed.

Et vous, vous etes francaise ou non?

Reply 79

Zakaz

no, certainly not.

They're controlled by the Labour party, of course they're not!

One only needs to look at the recent Griffin trial and the thing that caused it to see how absurd it is to suggest that they are impartial. The BBC put together their silly little documentary on the BNP using undercover filming. This portrayed the party in very bad light, and was aired just before the general election. ie. so the BNP would look bad and get less votes.

However, they came out with rather a lot of votes. Far too many for Labour's liking. So what do they do? Charge an innocent man with 'inciting racial hatred' (against a religion!!! NOT a race) for saying that islam is an evil cult and that muslims will eventually blow up london. THe fact that Griffin was right means nothing evidently! How was the evidence for this obtained? secret BBC filming of a private members meeting without any muslims in the room.

Not only this, but what about the fact the bloke who did the documentary was a former member of UAF (a group that exists solely to destroy the BNP)? The bloke was a marxist! Impartial documentary? no, I don't think so either.

Then what about how they brush over white murders but devote evenngs to black ones? Or how we know exactly what race a criminal is if the race is not mentioned on BBC?

THE BBC ARE THE LABOUR PARTY'S LITTLE TOOL. THEY ARE TRYING TO SHOW HOW 'INCREDIBLY WONDERFUL' MULTICULTURALISM IS AT EVERY WAKING MOMENT THEY CAN. THEY ARE NOT AFRAID TO DO THIS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TRUTH!

Impartial? ^o)

My ****!