The Student Room Group

The BBC - Impartial or not?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100
djchak
I honestly don't know the full reason why it stereotypes the USA and americans, and it depends a lot on the reporter (obviously). But they stand to improve a lot when it come sto (sic) coverage. I would say it's on par (sic) with the Guardian. Perhaps they should consider a merger.


I read the Gaurdian on a daily basis and I can confidently say that the BBC is more pro-American than the Guardian by a long road, but if you insist yes, they're all out to get you. Sheeeesh have you never heard of Occam's razor?

djchak
How do you know that Al Jazeera wouldn't be popular in the US?
How do you know what "because a typically arrogant american opinion would be" (sic)
What is your point here? That any "typically arrogant american opinion" on the BBC is basically incorrect, as the BBC can only be impartial becuase they say so? (sic)


You said that Al-Jazeera would become more "responsible" if it went global. I took this to mean "impartial". However it would be typically American to assume that any channel which doesn't cast a favourable image of America is "irresponsible", as this is not palatable for Americans; they are the best after all.

Now you also claimed that the BBC has nothing to lose by pushing anti-American stereotypes (which it doesn't, by the by), because it has historically had low support in the US. So when Al-Jazeera goes global, why should it become more impartial as it will also have small support in the US? Yet you claimed that it would become more impartial. This is clearly a contradiction:

The BBC is unimpartial because it has a little support in the US, but when Al-Jazeera is broadcast in the US it will suddenly reform and become more impartial, despite having little support as well. So which is it? If news corporations have little support in one country, are they impartial or not? NB.This is as simple as I can make this argument. If you still can't understand it then tough.

Oh and I think that the Arab TV network that shows videos of US and UK captives being beheaded might just be a little unpopular in the West, don't you?

Edit: I just can't resist pointing out you're glaringly bad American-English.
Reply 101
"I took this to mean "impartial" "

Uh, no. It means that the more al jazerra extends it's audience, the more they have to show they are factual and objective.... not necessarily "impartial"

"However it would be typically American to assume that any channel which doesn't cast a favourable image of America is "irresponsible", as this is not palatable for Americans; they are the best after all."

That's prejudice talking. Assumption and not facts.

"The BBC is unimpartial because it has a little support in the US"

Nice strawman argument. Previous posters have already pointed out the BBC sets out to be impartial in it's charter...but it doesn't always end up that way, it takes constant effort. It has nothing to do with "having little support in the US" directly (the BBC's bias). It's just that the BBC is funded primarily by the UK public, so that is the only audience that can affect them directly in mass.

"but when Al-Jazeera is broadcast in the US it will suddenly reform and become more impartial"

Since Al Jezeera wants to branch out, and the government of Qatar has to help it out, it will gradually become more objective and less sensationalist. That's my "prediction". If you think it's incorrect, argue against it.

"I just can't resist pointing out you're glaringly bad American-English."

Yeah, I wouldn't make a great English teacher, my spelling is a bit reckless. Happy?
Reply 102
djchak
Nice strawman argument. Previous posters have already pointed out the BBC sets out to be impartial in it's charter...but it doesn't always end up that way, it takes constant effort. It has nothing to do with "having little support in the US" directly (the BBC's bias). It's just that the BBC is funded primarily by the UK public, so that is the only audience that can affect them directly in mass.

Since Al Jezeera wants to branch out, and the government of Qatar has to help it out, it will gradually become more objective and less sensationalist. That's my "prediction". If you think it's incorrect, argue against it.

Yeah, I wouldn't make a great English teacher, my spelling is a bit reckless. Happy?


Strawman argument my arse.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3946579&postcount=30

Here in post #30, you explicitly state that the BBC continues to push negative stereotypes of Americans because it has little to lose in the US, in terms of audience size. Thus the condradiciton you have made still stands, as does my question: 'f news corporations have little support in one country, are they impartial or not?'

I really doubt that Al-Jazeera will reform. Why would it want to win audiences in the West by becoming more impartial, at the expense of it's Arab audiences who appreciate the negative spin on the West?

You're grammar is just as bad I'm afraid, and I can't say it pleases me overly much to have to read the resulting mess.
I think channel 4 news is better on this count. ITV are the worst.
Reply 104
Johnny
Strawman argument my arse.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3946579&postcount=30

Here in post #30, you explicitly state that the BBC continues to push negative stereotypes of Americans because it has little to lose in the US, in terms of audience size. Thus the condradiciton you have made still stands, as does my question: 'f news corporations have little support in one country, are they impartial or not?'

I really doubt that Al-Jazeera will reform. Why would it want to win audiences in the West by becoming more impartial, at the expense of it's Arab audiences who appreciate the negative spin on the West?

You're grammar is just as bad I'm afraid, and I can't say it pleases me overly much to have to read the resulting mess.



I still don't see where any contradiction is. :confused:

"f news corporations have little support in one country, are they impartial or not"

missing "i" anyone?

One thing has nothing to do with the other. If MSNBC has no support in Nepal...it doesn't tell you anyting about thier impartiality. What MSNBC actually REPORTS does. And if it is factual, and free of any excess bias.

and " You're grammar " could use some work also. :biggrin:
digitalparadox
I think channel 4 news is better on this count. ITV are the worst.

Agreed.
Refused
So true. The coverage of Hurricane Katrina for example. Why such criticism for actually exposing the poor preparation and response of the authorities? Isn't that what journalism is about?


Why the zeal to look for incompetence and make that the focus of the story in the first place? An area the size of england was completely destroyed and you can't simply wave a magic wand and fix the problem.

In this article, Paul Reynolds admits to some of the BBC's failings in the coverage of the hurricane story. He concedes that the BBC failed to inform its audience that there was an evacuation plan in place that the mayor failed to implement. Why didn't the BBC report this part of the story? Was it an intentional omission so they could sell the "they had no plan" theme of the story or just shoddy journalism? Here is a photo of the parked busses that were supposed to be used to evacuate people

The republicans blamed the democrats at the local level for dropping the ball and failing to help people evacuate according to plan. The democrats think things could have been handled better on the federal level. My personal opinion is that the local government is more responsible for the city than the federal goverment, but, regardless of my opinion, they should have reported on the problems at both levels of government, not just the problems at the federal level. By focusing only on the reaction in Washinton, they turned the whole event into a Bush bashing exercise and portrayed a mayor that was in way over his head (figuratively and literally) as some kind of hero. There is more than enough blame to go around.

Another thing about the BBC's Katrina coverage (and, to a lesser degree, the American MSM's coverage) that bothered me was the way they turned the whole disaster into a racial issue. In New Orleans, most of the hurricane victims were white and more white people died as a result of hurricane Katrina.
Oh and lets not forget the hysterical reports about 'possibly 10,000 dead' and 'raping and murdering' going on in the Superdome. All shown to be a load of crap when the facts came out afterwards.
Reply 108
The Blair Broadcasting Cooperation.
Impartial my ass
Johnny
So just out of interest what do you think of the BBC and why...

First no one is impartial or fully objective.

The BBC is one of Britains greatest national assets, it acts in the furtherance of British national interests, though not always the governments interests.

It seeks to portray a sensible and seemingly balanced British perspective to the rest of the world, by behaving more objectively than FOX, CNN or Al Jeezera, but its main underlying purpose is to present Britain in a positive light (sometimes this is by showing that the British can attack their own government freely) and generate international goodwill and respect towards Britian while allowing us some moral voice in the world. The BBC does more for Britain internationally than the foriegn office or the British council a lot of the time. We must all pretend that it is objective and impartial of course :wink:
Ferrus
Only the British have the political maturity to have an independent state media, even in stable democracies like Italy the media has become dominated by party interests.

:yy: Thats quite true, they are of course biased but a lot less than other state finansed media, and even a lot of privately finansed media.
MB__
The bottom line is that they are not impartial. They are pushing a political agenda. I have two problems with that. First, they are doing it at the expense of those who pay the TV licence fee - who presumably expect an impartial source of information on politics and current affairs.

The license fee is nothing compared to the value the BBC provide in the national interest, they do more for us internationally than almost any other branch of the state. The fact that people all around the world listen to or watch the BBC, gives Britain continuing influence and respect far beyond our current status in international power politics. Not a single penny the BBC gets is a waste, we should give them a lot more. They are good for our image in the world, and benefit: our diplomacy, foriegn investment into the UK, the status of london as an international financial hub, and they are good for our economy.
djchak
Um, CNNI , MSNBC, and other use a combo of AP, AFP, And Rueters news feeds, as well as reporters on the ground....they can't play the same game the Daily Mail or the SUN would. Too many people watching on satalitte actually. Al Jazeera International (when it gets on the air) will find themselves not being more populist, but more objective....they know that they are responsible to a worlwide audience as a whole, not just Qatar and surrounding companies.... the more globalized the channel gets, the more responsible the channel has to be. But BBC can get away with anything, as long as no large group in the UK object...becuase guess who funds the whole thing.
Are you kidding? The whole world, including US media, not to mention "The daily show", calls these same issues into question every day.

The Daily Show is the only real news in America, which is ironic seeing as its a fake news show.

CNN and FOX produce the most biased news Ive ever seen in the western world, have you seen the American anchor who said "Am I biased and unobjective? You damn well bet I am"? (it was shown in Micheal Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, now he is just as bad if not worse as the mainstream US media, but he didnt fake the footage of several US newsreaders proclaiming their bias during the Iraq war).

Another thing that you have overlooked is that the Americans are a lot less objective about the British, than we are about them.
I'd love to live in Pendragon's little world where the BBC acts in the national interest by steadfastly sticking to a leftist agenda.
There you go again with talk of agendas. Why is it that anyone who doesn't share the views of those on the right is accused of either having a sinister agenda themselves, or of working for someone who does? Is it not conceivable that people have looked at the world and come independently and of their own accord to a leftist viewpoint?

God, now I'm in trouble.
Reply 115
"that the Americans are a lot less objective about the British, than we are about them."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. What's your experience here?

I agree with you on some points in post 110 , but have some differences with you in post 113. While I will admit that fox is highly biased ...there are 2 CNN channels. CNN International is not as biased. CNN america is myopic, but like MSNBC the good outwieghs the bad, overall.

Keep this in mind... I watch the BBC World news most mornings and evenings.
I just take everything about ceratin issues with a grain of salt...pretty much what Viena said earlier on in this thread.
The BBC are totally biased and looney if you're completely biased and looney in the opposite direction.

Bar a few linguistic blunders, the BBC aren't too bad. Rather the Beeb than the Daily Mail.
Reply 117
Agent Smith
Is it not conceivable that people have looked at the world and come independently and of their own accord to a leftist viewpoint?

God, now I'm in trouble.


The BBC do have a leftist "viewpoint", you are right. The problem is not that they have a leftist agenda. The problem is that they claim to be impartial and indeed receive huge amounts of public funding on the grounds that they are impartial. If they want to push their agenda at their own expense, that is fine. They should not, however, be able to push it at the expense of the British people - who presumably pay the licence fee in the expectation that the BBC will adhere to its Charter:


• '…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 BBC is not impartial. It should not be allowed to draw on public funds to push its own agenda. If people want to have an agenda, that is fine. They should be open about it, and promote it at their own expense. Take the Guardian as an example. People know what they're getting when they buy the Guardian. A Leftist knows they are getting a Leftist paper. I know I'd be getting something that might come in quite handy should I ever be caught short of toilet paper. What do people get when they pay their BBC licence fee? What do people get when they switch on BBC news in the evening?
Agent Smith
There you go again with talk of agendas. Why is it that anyone who doesn't share the views of those on the right is accused of either having a sinister agenda themselves, or of working for someone who does?
And there you go again with assuming that calls for impartiality are made because the media doesn't line up with the right, which is simply false. Calls for impartiality of the BBC overwhelmingly come from the right because the right feels that the BBC are not centre-ground, they are left. And viewing the general lack of complaints from the left, one would agree that they are very happy with the BBC because it's coming from their point of view.

Why do you think that those on the right demand compliance with their views, but don't hold the same opinion of the left? It's not true.

Agent Smith
Is it not conceivable that people have looked at the world and come independently and of their own accord to a leftist viewpoint?
Of course that's conceivable, but the BBC should not have done that, should they? The BBC should not have come to a leftist view and report from that angle as that fundamentally breaches their charter requirements of neutrality and impartiality.
Reply 119
What if, once all the evidence (and I do mean ALL), is collected on any given issue, the result is that it favours the left? Should the BBC strip it down so that both right and left are favoured equally? I don't think this is what they mean by balance and impartiality.

Quick Reply