BBC biased? Say It Ain't So!

The BBC has changed greatly in my 30+ yrs olf listening and watching it.
It must sadden them to know I’m an American.
Now they are admitting their agenda.

[quote]We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
By SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday Last updated at 21:11pm on 21st October 2006

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

‘Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’

In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show’s actual producer and the BBC’s head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.

And the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils.

Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross.

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: ‘The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.’

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’, it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it ‘no moral weight’.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a ‘very senior news executive’, about the BBC’s pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: ‘The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.’

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: ‘You can’t do that, that’s like the National Front!’

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who ‘would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King’.

There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders’, institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to ‘contextualise’ why black youngsters behaved in such a way.

Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: ‘The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.’
[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770#StartComments[ Daily Mail[/url][/quote]

Sorta reminds me of NPR, National Peoples Radio, in the States. :unamused:
added:
A good cover of this story at Powerline blog.
Our enemy the BBC
“The BBC provides a perfect example of how Western countries are working to promote their own dissolution through multiculturalism and slavish obeisance to those who seek to destroy them.”

Jut for fun,
biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Does not being biased towards the United States make one biased these days? :laughing:

Since when is Christianity the opposite of multiculturalism?

Given the current atmosphere would it not be wise to refrain from throwing Korans in dustbins?

Would it not perhaps be worthwhile to hear what Osama Bin Laden has to say?

Why should Muslim newsreaders not be allowed to wear veils?

Dominated by homosexuals? How on earth does it make any difference whther or not a newscaster is homosexual?

Are they promoting multiculturalism ahead of the core values of democracy or only ahead of a western bias towards evertything? Makes a big difference.

[quote]In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show’s actual producer and the BBC’s head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.[/quote]

Again, in the current atmosphere that makes sense. Go ahead and throw in the Dali Lama’s Ethics for the New Millenium though. The public I believe is free to make up it’s mind about how funny that is.

Wouldn’t that make sense? The man is worshipped by millions. Why not drag him out in the open and debate what he has to say point by point? Afraid that he might be right about something?

So it is not yet permisable for a muslim to wear a veil but wearing a cross results in a discussion, and yet the bias is where?

Believes in it over and above the core democratic principles? I doubt it. How many BBC employees speaking out in favor of Sharia Law I wonder.

Perhaps that is because the monarchy, any monarchy, is about as far from democratic as you can get. Perhaps it is because the monarchy to them has come to represent the class divisions they loathe.

Very wise. Understand the context and you might be able to solve the problem.

Whereas Fox is promoting the dissolution of Western society by encouraging us to keep acting like arrogant bastards thereby building up as much hatred as possible towards us.

Surely the BBC’s bias is recognized even within the UK Stray Dog? Is it not?

It’s an honest question, as I have no idea whether the BBC is perceived as being as left leaning in the UK as it is abroad. But certainly on issues regarding the role of the state, for example taking money from every citizen to create programming that “we stongly (in our intellectually superior judgment) think you [peons] ought to have – but which you are not smart enough to know that you should pay for yourself” would find support among most rank and file BBC broadcasters?

Again, don’t take this as an affirmative argument. If you think the BBC really is unbiased when it comes to issues not involving the United States, I’m happy to take your word for it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a BBC broadcast, so I am in no position to have an opinion myself. It’s just that if it [the suggestion of lack of bias] were true it would seem to be an unusual occurance among a group of people that make their livelihood off of the notion that a privileged elite ought to make decisions (in this case regarding what media people should be compelled to buy) for those who are not viewed as being so intelligent as themselves. Generally that type of elitist thinking leads to a bias toward government policy that substitutes the judgment of the elite for those over whom they have power (i.e. a bias generally in favor of the left). Does the BBC buck the trend in that regard? :idunno:

-H

You are talking about the advertisers right? Anyway, yes that is exactly how it works. Advertisers have been making use of the same stupid trick for years and they have been rewarded handsomely for it. Basically what they do is convince people that the world is a dangerous place and that their viewers will feel safer, more self confident, heck, even sexier, if only the purchase the right products. Life will take on an added dimension of meaning and you will be a winner driving down the road to global warming, air pollution, rising sea levels, traffic jams, automobile accidents. It’s a strange and somehow oddly pathetic adventure really.

No surprise to see the Daily Heil whining about homosexuals’ supposed domination of the BBC. Last time round the Heil and its owner Lord Rothermere were complaining about Jewish control of the media in Germany while cheering on Adolf Hitler and Oswald Mosely:

[quote]Lord Rothermere disposed of his shares in the Daily Mirror in 1931. He now concentrated on the Evening News and the Daily Mail. In the 1930s Rothermere moved further to the right and gave support to Oswald Mosley and the National Union of Fascists. He wrote an article, Hurrah for the Blackshirts, in January, 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”.

Rothermere also had several meetings with Adolf Hitler and argued that the Nazi leader desired peace. In one article written in March, 1934 he called for Hitler to be given back land in Africa that had been taken as a result of the Versailles Treaty.

Rothermere and his newspapers supported Neville Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement. He was therefore devastated when war broke out between Britain and Germany in 1939. Lord Rothermere died on 27th November, 1940.


Lord Rothermere with Adolf Hitler

[quote=“Lord Rothermere, writing in The Daily Mail, 10th July 1933”]I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful distracters of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia.

They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call “Nazi atrocities” which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny.

The German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministers only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew.[/quote][/quote]Source

Note what they wrote: “The German nation…was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements.” (Jews). That’s right - according to the Daily Heil the National Socialists were just defending Germany against multiculturalism.

By asking the question, you have given us the answer all too clearly. Bob… Please … This is embarrassing… Just go to sleep…

Uhhh…Juba, Bob, et al -
Its a story about the BBC admitting its biased.

It has nothing to do with the Daily Mail, a completely irrelevant post, its covered by many outlets:

BBC Admits Bias in Reporting

Results 1 - 10 of about 372,000 for BBC admits bias. (0.23 seconds)

Interesting remarks. I’ve just finished reading Fareed Zakaria: The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, which makes a strong argument in favour of liberalism over democracy–or more precisely, of liberalism as a precondition for a functional democracy–and of the respect accorded undemocratic institutions (the Supreme Court, Federal Reserve, Army Forces). Zakaria (editor of Newsweek International and former managing editor of Foreign Affairs) argues that the democratic, anti-elite bias merely obscures the reality of elites, to the detriment of societies which fail to impose higher standards on elites they no longer recognize. On the cultural front, he briefly reviews the history of the Book of the Month Club, which initially offered works selected by five judges on the biases of excellence–to great success–but later abandoned such standards in order to make selections on the basis of popularity and marketability–to its detriment.

If liberalism remains a necessary condition and crucial pillar of a proper democratic order, of how much (and of what sort) of concern should the first-blush popularity of such policy biases be?

No kidding? After the arrogance and unilateralism of Bush Jr. and Reagan, the US is treated with scorn? How terribly biased! :unamused:

No kidding? After the arrogance and unilateralism of Bush Jr. and Reagan, the US is treated with scorn? How terribly biased! :unamused:[/quote]DB -
Wanna talk about Mexico?
Huh?..Wanna do that?
Roll your eyes about that one a while.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Wanna talk about Mexico?
Huh?..Wanna do that?
Roll your eyes about that one a while.[/quote]

I have no problem with criticism of Mexico for its failures, which are many and grave. Unlike you, I wouldn’t blindly write it off as some kind of media bias. :unamused:

[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]Wanna talk about Mexico?
Huh?..Wanna do that?
Roll your eyes about that one a while.[/quote]

I have no problem with criticism of Mexico for its failures, which are many and grave. Unlike you, I wouldn’t blindly write it off as some kind of media bias. :unamused:[/quote]

I like this response. Honesty is rare in the IP forum. :notworthy: :bravo: :slight_smile:

[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]Wanna talk about Mexico?
Huh?..Wanna do that?
Roll your eyes about that one a while.[/quote]I have no problem with criticism of Mexico for its failures, which are many and grave. Unlike you, I wouldn’t blindly write it off as some kind of media bias. :unamused:[/quote]DB -
Whats with the “unlike you” crap?

Again, read my earlier post. They are admitting a bias.
Can you understand that? Do you need a further translation?
But I guess its SOP to attack the messenger if you have no other response.
Its just an article about what they are admitting to.

[quote=“Jaboney”]Interesting remarks. I’ve just finished reading Fareed Zakaria: The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, which makes a strong argument in favour of liberalism over democracy…

If liberalism remains a necessary condition and crucial pillar of a proper democratic order, of how much (and of what sort) of concern should the first-blush popularity of such policy biases be?[/quote]

Well, I was laying it on a bit thick there with my remarks on the BBC wasn’t I? :wink:

In truth I am less opposed to certain manifestations of elite fiat than those comments would suggest. Still, I think it would be surprizing if the fact that the BBC owes its very existance to a political viewpoint that believes in government substituting their own judgment on what UK citizens should watch for the judgment of the citizens themselves were to have no impact on the political leanings of the organization. Whether that political viewpoint is commendable or not is a separate question.

It sounds like this second question is the one that Zakaria is writing about. I haven’t read much by him, but I seem to recall that the little that I have read was well thought-out. The blurb you linked about his book on Amazon seemed interesting as well.

As a first-cut answer to the question at the end of your post, I’d say: “very little” and “of the sort that a lack of popularity might risk a backlash against liberalism that would jeopardize its prospects even worse than a modest curtailing of it at the front end.”

Cheers,
H

How can an information and opinion source – other than me, of course – not be biased?

The best measure of how blatant that bias is is to what degree an information source is in denial about not having one – except, of course, me.

Before the age of the Internet when information was largely monopolized, news media bias was a big problem for anyone seeking the truth of a matter. Now that access to information has largely been democratized, the only people who have any need to raise the antiquated (though technically true) complaint of media bias are those whose ideas aren’t faring well in this brave new free marketplace of ideas.

[quote=“spook”]How can an information and opinion source – other than me, of course – not be biased?

The best measure of how blatant that bias is is to what degree an information source is in denial about not having one – except, of course, me.

Before the age of the Internet when information was largely monopolized, news media bias was a big problem for anyone seeking the truth of a matter. Now that access to information has largely been democratized, the only people who have any need to raise the antiquated (though technically true) complaint of media bias are those whose ideas aren’t faring well in this brave new free marketplace of ideas.[/quote]

Exactly!
Perhaps it’s time for other news organizations to step up to the altar and confess–Fox springs to mind.
But seriously, is there anyone here who still believes in news media objectivity?

Good point. I imagine Iraq will freeze over though before Fox News announces something along the lines of “you know that ‘fair and balanced’ thing? well, we’ve reconsidered it and we now think it’s not entirely the case. in fact, we deny ever having said it.”

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]But I guess its SOP to attack the messenger if you have no other response.
Its just an article about what they are admitting to.[/quote]

The articles you choose to post obviously reflect your agenda, TC. They’re hardly unbiased topics brought up innocently for discussion. You’re not fooling anyone here. :wink: