The Bias of the BBC....

Status
Not open for further replies.

fallingblock

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,574
Location
Between Georgia and Antarctica
Orwell's Warning
The BBC is blind to its own biases.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110003844

BY MICHAEL GONZALEZ
Wednesday, August 6, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

The BBC has been described as Orwellian, because of its unequaled role in shaping perceptions in Britain. This is one reason the government of Tony Blair has taken the broadcaster to task over its biased coverage of the Iraq war and its aftermath. But George Orwell also warned us about the dangers the BBC presents in other important ways.

Orwell recognized that Britain's chattering classes have a suicidal habit of flirting with appeasement. Other great British thinkers have also seen this--not least those who, despite having a healthy mistrust of nationalism, realized that an elite estranged from feelings of patriotism represented a threat.

That the BBC has become the home to this elite today is a tough judgment to pass, and the BBC does many great things. Its non-news documentaries are excellent and its comedies--from "Fawlty Towers" through "Blackadder" to, most recently, "The Office"--are brilliant in a way that few American sitcoms dare to be.

Still, it is important not to close one's eyes to what else the BBC has become, particularly since the corporation and its journalists are themselves blind to it. The BBC refuses to admit that its coverage of the lead-up to war, of the conflict and its aftermath, has been tendentious; that it has relentlessly pushed the agenda that the war was wrong. The last straw was its claim that, against the wishes of the intelligence agencies, the government had inserted into a dossier on Iraq the assertion that Saddam Hussein had the ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes.
The BBC's Andrew Gilligan quoted a source--who turned out to be the scientist David Kelly--as criticizing the government. Kelly later refuted how his comments had been portrayed by Mr. Gilligan to a parliamentary committee. Then Kelly committed suicide. Now the BBC has to either admit that it misquoted a mourned scientist or call him a liar.

That's the scandal in a nutshell. What led to it is the BBC's all-out campaign to validate its world view. Because the mass graves and accounts of torture by Saddam's regime are too real, the BBC has grabbed onto the fact that WMDs have not yet been found to justify its animosity toward the liberation of Iraq. And this animus sprang from the consensus that the West is always wrong.

As Conrad Black, owner of the Telegraph newspapers, wrote in a letter in the July 26 Daily Telegraph: "The BBC is pathologically hostile to the government and official opposition, most British institutions, American policy in almost every field, Israel, moderation in Ireland, all Western religions, and most manifestations of the free market economy."

Lord Black added: "Though its best programming in non-political areas is distinguished, sadly it has become the greatest menace facing the country it was founded to serve and inform."

This is not hyperbole. The BBC can be a formidable foe. It has, in its own words, "the most widely watched national news bulletins in the UK." Thus when the BBC decides to manufacture a story, or ignore another, it forms reality for millions in Britain and world-wide. It gave a demonstration of its muscle July 25, when it ran (and ran) with a scoop that Mr. Blair's director of communications, Alastair Campbell, was about to quit because of the Kelly scandal. That dominated headlines for days.

Mr. Campbell is a powerful man, and his imminent departure would be news. But his resignation (still to be confirmed) also validated the BBC's position. Also news, however, was the fact that the same day as the Campbell scoop the BBC had changed its mind and requested that Parliament not reveal testimony Mr. Gilligan had given on the scandal. In telling contrast, the evening's bulletin did not report these facts.

Quite how the BBC's news department got to this juncture is difficult to parse. Journalists are overwhelmingly left of center to begin with. But there's more to it than that. BBC journalists are part of the self-appointed elite. In London, home of the global avant-garde, they imbibe the latest anti-Western ideologies and platitudes at the dinner parties where they sup.
No man was better than Orwell at diagnosing the ills that have led to the state of affairs that Lord Black so eloquently describes. In "Notes," Orwell wrote: "In societies such as ours, it is unusual for anyone describable as an intellectual to feel a very deep attachment to his own country. Public opinion--that is, the section of public opinion of which he as an intellectual is aware--will not allow him to do so. Most of the people surrounding him are skeptical and disaffected, and he may adopt the same attitude from imitativeness or sheer cowardice."

Through its declarations the BBC reveals itself to be unaware that some people think of it in this manner, let alone that it might be true. It is a testament to Britain's genius that time and again heroes have emerged from unlikely places to slay the nihilism of the intelligentsia. Whether there are any out there to battle with it today remains to be seen.
************************************************************
Of course, the U.S. has corrupt media as well...but most of them are not directly supported by the taxpayers:scrutiny:
 
That's another Annoyance for me with living here, you have to pay (now around £100 per yr) for a Licanse to Watch TV or own a Computer, because the TV/Computer has the abillity to Recive BBC Channels...:cuss:

WHY arent people allowed to choose if they want to watch BBC & pay for a dumb licanse or not bother with the BBC and save a dicent cunk of cash?:confused:

The Residents of Isle of Man Have the Choice, Why dosn't everyone else?:scrutiny:
 
zedicus,

you dont need a tv licence for a computer.

fallingblock,

HMG lied and helped start a war which has cost lives. The BBC reported a story which its increasingly clear is true (not only the less-reported "second story" on Newsnight which fundamentally supported the Gilligan story, which has not been challenged by the Government. You also have the official spokesman of the PM now calling Dr. Kelly, and on the eve of his funeral no less, a "Walter Mitty" character.

Why call him that?
 
Mornin', Agricola

I saw this item yesterday but didn't bother to post it since I knew whay your response would be, and you know mine. Nonetheless, it must be pointed out that despite your claims to the contrary, no one has shown that HMG lied, and it is in no way increasingly clear that the BBC did not. Whether HMG has specifically challenged any particular claim of the BBC tells us nothing about its truth, unless we believe a priori that HMG lies and BBC always tells the truth.

As I said, I don't expect you to agree, and I'm certainly not foolish enough to think either of us can persuade the other. It's just that I can't let a statement of opinion pose as verified truth.
 
khornet,

point taken. either HMG lied or its so terminally imbecilic that it allowed such sloppy information into the first dossier, allowed a university dissertation to form the second dossier (lets hope they never go after WMD along the campaign routes of the Agricolan invasion of the North of Britain - I dont want blood on my hands :D ), got caught lying over the deaths of the two "executed" servicemen, and now get caught smearing the dead whistleblowers name.

The smear in itself suggests that Kelly might not have been totally open with the Committee - why suggest he was a fantasist if they agree that his evidence was truthful?

Lord knows the BBC isnt perfect - for one, Keeley Hawes isnt on television nearly enough - but the whole way they have dealt with this story has brought them nothing but credit; especially as we now find that several items on Sky News (our version of FOX) were complete and total fabrications. If Kelly made those allegations, repeated to two journalists and apparently recorded by one of them, the BBC was correct to report it. They were correct (and proven so) in their protection of their source. They are correct to state that the Hutton Inquiry be televised - this is our Watergate and the people must see the evidence without spin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top