What a great use of license payers money [modified]
-
Now now, I seem to recall that you were very specific in claiming that the News and Current Affairs arm ogf the corporation were consistently guilty of poor reporting and having an agenda, when presented with any report which differed with your ideal world views. The fact is that the many parts of the whole express many, many different agendas, and to single out only those that disagree with your own is hypocritcal at best. The BBC is not a news outlet, it is a broadcaster. It is the largest boradcaster in the world, and its news arm is also the largest news broadcaster in the world with BBC News Online one of the most visited web sites in the world. Controversial topics such as Israel (where anything remotely anti-Israel is anti-semitic and anything anti-Palestine is anti-arab) make up a fraction of a single percent of their output. I think you are confusing the BBC's 'free from commercial influence' with 'free from personal influence' of the reporters themselves. You can never achieve the latter, and to be honest why would you want to? That is the purpose of journalism. To end (as I am going to bed now) a recent review (not the Balen report in the FOI request) summarised from Wikipedia: In 2006, an independent inquiry set up to assess the impartiality of BBC news and current affairs coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with particular regard to accuracy, fairness, context, balance and bias has determined that there is no systematic bias, but that coverage sometimes gives an incomplete picture which may mislead viewers and affect their understanding of the situation. The commission's report suggested that the BBC's news reporting was not sufficiently covering the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and was too focussed on the Israeli perspective of events. http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews.html[^] Those are not internal reviews as Ryan suggested. Previously, the BBC's news coverage has been accused of 'systematic anti-Israel bias'. The majority of such accusations came from pro-Israeli groups. For instance, http://www.honestreporting.co.uk[^], a leading critic of the BBC is funded by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah. Similarly, Anglicans for Israel have berated the BBC f
David Wulff wrote:
You can never achieve the latter, and to be honest why would you want to? That is the purpose of journalism.
Agreed, but anyone who is to the right of anywhere perceives the BBC as a fundamentally left wing organisation. It's not just Israel, though that supplies many of the most egregious examples of bias. Such bias is of course considered perfectly normal within the guardian/independent mindset that is endemic at the BBC. A significant proportion of the population is forced to pay money to support an editorial line that drives them up the wall. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were forced to pay for Daily Express TV or Fox News, no?
David Wulff wrote:
The commission's report suggested that the BBC's news reporting was not sufficiently covering the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and was too focussed on the Israeli perspective of events.
Which demonstrates quite how blind the BBC and the establishment around them is to their own prejudices, because of course, being good lefties they don't have any. Doubtless both Robert Fisk and Osama bin Laden would agree. The BBC still reports that FATAH recognises the state of Israel, despite multiple on the record comments from Abbas and others to the contrary.
David Wulff wrote:
Previously, the BBC's news coverage has been accused of 'systematic anti-Israel bias'. The majority of such accusations came from pro-Israeli groups. For instance, http://www.honestreporting.co.uk[^], a leading critic of the BBC is funded by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah. Similarly, Anglicans for Israel have berated the BBC for apparent anti-Israel bias.
Oh no, an evil Zionist conspiracy! Why wouldn't pro Israeli groups be critical of BBC coverage? Aish HaTorah doesn't 'fund' honest reporting either, though it did provide start up money.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette