So much for impartiality
The Mail on Sunday carries leaks from an “impartiality summit” at the BBC that purports to reveal various biases:
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. . . .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.
I don’t get the “dominated by homosexuals” part.
: UPDATE: Don’t miss the response of the BBC on their editors’ blog. As pointed out in the comments, the “secret” meeting was webcast.
Tags: bbc
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I guess that secret meeting in London wasn’t so secretive. Promoting multiculturalism is not a bad thing, provided that it is fair and balanced toward all religions. Apparently, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Multiculturalism has caused the rot in France and Britain as young muslim youths continue to rampage against society that is afraid to criticize them…it’s not politically correct to do that…leftist law.
This report tells me nothing I didn’t already know. Except for the dominated by homosexuals part. Now if only American media can follow in the footsteps of the BBC and admit the same–come on, CNN, ABC, NBC,CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, LA times, admit it.
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Seriously? What are the chances of a young, urban, gay professional holding worldviews that could even be considered centrist, let alone conservative? Yes, it is stereotyping, and I am sure someone could point out an exception, but it would be anecdotal at best.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:07 pm
I guess NYT is admitting bias in that they disclosed secret info to terrorists because they hate Bush. I know they are biased–seeing them admit it is news.
http://www.dailypundit.com/2006/10/nyt_buffoon_chokes_out_apology.php
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Promoting multiculturalism is not a bad thing, provided that it is fair and balanced toward all religions.
Balanced? Are you saying that fatwas, dhimmitude, jihad, polgamy, stoning adulterers, hanging gays, women as chattel without civil rights as Islamic dogma are as morally equivalent and should be presented in as “balanced” a light as secular Judeo-Christian values.
So, sockpuppet, got an answer? An answer as to why a religion that intolerant would be awarded equal moral status by anyone not lame enough to still be parroting the muti-culti garbage?
October 23rd, 2006 at 2:08 am
The Mail newspapers are on the right and are always bashing the BBC.
‘Anti countryside’? One of the BBC’s most popular and longest-running shows is CountryFile.
So they shouldn’t show an interview with Osama Bin Laden? Who else should they put on the list of people who are not allowed to be interviewed?
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:33 am
Interesting that most of the studies of the BBC’s coverage of the miner’s strike suggested it was bias in favour of the Conservative government at the time. Also interesting to note that for corporation “dominated by homosexuals” that the BBC often comes under fire for it’s portrayal of homosexuals in it’s content.
Still makes a change to hear it being criticised for being run by gays and blacks rather than an old boys network of Oxbridge poshos as it usually is.
Surely the BBC can only be product of the people who produce it? It’s naiive in the extreme to suggest the BBC be placed on a moral pedestal because it’s publically funded.
Penny - have you read the Mail on Sunday piece? How do you feel about the Muslim Council of Britains response to it being OK to bin the Bible but not the Koran?
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:52 am
None of this would matter if not for the thuggish way the BBC is funded: Under threat of violence, anyone who wishes to own a TV - regardless of whether they watch BBC programmes - must finance the corporation.
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:19 am
Hmm - not the case, Jackie - the BBC would still take flack from all sides even if it were advertising or voluntary subscription funded, because it occupies scarce, licensed airspace, and so is expected to be impartial and balanced. I don’t see the national networks in the US, all ad funded, being immune from claims of bias.
The BBC is skewered, of course, on that need to be impartial. It’s in the same sticky position as US newspapers. I don’t think it does a bad job - no worse than anyone else - but it’s never going to get special interests, like the Mail, onside. (BTW, Jeff - the “dominated by homosexuals” reference is only really understandable when viewed though the lens of the Mail’s often unpleasant worldview. But I guess, at least, that it’s not trying to be impartial).
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:57 am
Penny, I think your beef is with PoliticalCritic, not me. Being tolerant of intolerance is oxymoronic and ultimately self-defeating for those who propose to uphold liberal values.
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:57 am
Actually, Neil, I was serious: I don’t think the accusations of bias against commercial news organisations (in the US, for example) matter. Say what you like, just don’t force me to pay for it under threat of violence. This doesn’t mean I won’t be the first one to heap scorn on, say, CNN for kow-towing to Hizbollah (for example), but at least I’m not bankrolling it (or being thrown in jail fo refusing to do so).
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:59 am
NB It’s ridiculous to claim impartiality anyway; much better is the way the British newspapers work, where everyone knows where the Torygraph is coming from, everyone knows where the Grauniad is coming from, and people read their output with that in mind. The BBC is fighting a losing game in attemping to be impartial; it’s about a specific worldview (we all have them) and how one views events through our own filters. Only a fantasist would deny the existence of those filters, and yet we have the BBC, straining to - at once - eliminate them and prove they don’t possess them.
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:54 am
Bit of context here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/peter_horrocks/
This all appears to stem from a governors meeting on various hypotheticals.
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:57 am
This was all in mediaguardian about a month ago but I can’t find the link. Needless to say the MoS have written it up in the sexiest, most anti-BBC way possible. Christ help us if we are depending on execs at Associated Newspapers to define the BBC’s mission.
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Penny, perhaps you are not familiar with the definition of multiculturalism. Here it is in case you were wondering.
“the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.”
On the religious aspect, there are fanatics in every faith. I’m no fan of the BBC or any mainstream media outlet, but that does not escape the fact that extremism is not exclusive to one religion.
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Yeah, but I don’t see any other religion gutblowing worldwide. I just see people like you and the BBC sugar coating muslim terrorism by excusing it because there may be a few fanatics in other religions–who by the way aren’t martyrized and given hero status and billboards and special mention in Friday prayers.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:43 am
You’ve a pretty myopic world view don’t you Kat. Is the gutblowing of gutblowers by a by US and UK troops more OK because it’s not in the name of religion? Are the deaths of Iraqi children from cancer caused by the US and UK using depleted uranium munitions in Southern Iraq acceptable because it’s one less potential gutblower to worry about?
Jackie - i can understand your argument that you shouldn’t have to pay a forced subscription for the BBC, but at £10 a month isn’t a huge tax. Do you never use any BBC service?
October 24th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Now you know why we gays stay in the closet: We keep our secret meetings secret. You weren’t supposed to find out that the Vast Gay Conspiracy dominates the
worldBBC.It’s as likely as depleted uranium causing cancer. It’s called “depleted” because the dangerous radioactive bits have been removed to make bombs. It’s used for armour (sorry, couldn’t resist). Don’t worry, though, our troops are safe: Their helmets have a tin-foil lining.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:59 am
This was hardly a secret… as somebody else says, it was reported by MediaGuardian;
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1884583,00.html
October 25th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
More on that ’secret meeting’ - so secret in fact that it was attended by hacks from outside the BBC…and streamed live on the web.
Is this really the best that the MoS can come up with. Jesus wept.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/helen_boaden/