The BBC is not an arm of the government. In fact the government has been threatening to look strongly into changing the charter if the BBC are not good boys and girls. We pay a licence fee. It is owned by us. The quality of BBC programming means that rival channels have to try and match the quality.
I think this argument is one of those often unquestioned bits of British exceptionalism that obscures and infantilises debate around the BBC. There is nothing to enforce any particular reading of the BBC charter other than unwritten norms -- and as Barnabas rightly points out we are in an era of norms being ignored.
The history of the BBC is one of siding with the government against the public during the General Strike - including preferring to broadcast the address of the then Archishop of Westminster (over the Archbishop of Canterbury) because he would condemn the strike as a sin against God - a long history of interference by the security services, the more recent revolving door between the BBC and the Conservative Party and fairly hamfisted attempts at boosterism that would be condemned as propaganda were any other organisation to do it. The kindest reading would be AJP Taylor's quote:
"(Reith) managed to preserve the technical independence of the BBC. By suppressing news which the government did not want published. This set a pattern for the future; the vaunted independence of the BBC was secure so long as it was not exercised"
The BBC claims it is Independent in news, trying to be equal to both sides. Both side of the political debate claim is he BBC is pro the other side so it seems they are doing something right.
Or that one side is much better at complaining than the other (given the premise that the BBC is unbiased there is every incentive to complain that it's biased against your own side, even if it isn't).
I think it's not much monolithic.
The news dept on screen are pretty much exclusively former leaders of local Tory parties, and it shows enough to get complaints from the left (if Boris gets his deserved win)
The comedy dept is pretty much all more left-lib. If those sort of people on tv triggers you you have a lot to whine at (even Dr who is a woman now, blah, blah)
I mean, if the complaint is that 'Dr Who is a woman', then you probably also rabidly against the consequences of labour market reforms, while being very much for their causes.
It should be read into the record that people who are active fans of the CBC(and I would guess the BBC as well) are often given to statements such as "The CBC reflects our values as Canadians", which could lead one to assume that the network is operating on a daily basis according to orders from the government. (Otherwise, how do you ensure that it consistently reflects Canadian values?)
That's a hell of a leap.
How do you get the idea that the only way of "ensuring" that a broadcaster reflects your community values is to have your government dictate to it? Can you not imagine a sense of community that exists outside of government?
Well, my question was MOSTLY meant to represent the thinking of someone who would assume that community values in state broadcaster are enforced by government. Not neccessarily agreeing with that idea myself.
That said, there is s bit of a question as to how, in the absence of government diktat, the people who produce public broadcasting know they are reflecting the values of the community. If indeed, such reflection is a part of the stated mandate of any given broadcaster.
To show my hand a bit, my own best guess is that public broadcasting tends to draw its workforce from the sorts of people who are drawn to state-supported artistic and media enterprises generally, ie. urban, university-educated, with a vaguely centre-left disposition on things. Those among the general public who share that worldview assume it to be the cultural consensus, whereas those on the far-right and far-left regard it as evidence of bolshevik or fascist domination, respectively.
How can the BBC be ordered to ban songs during wartime, if the broadcaster operates independently of the government?
I assume the first part proceeds via a kind of fudge that allows people to pretend that the latter is still true.
Thanks for that.
It's not clear to me from that article if those Notices were the precise method used to ban songs on the BBC. Ìt seems that the Notices are issued to all media, but as far as I know, the wartime music-bans are specific to the BBC.
How can the BBC be ordered to ban songs during wartime, if the broadcaster operates independently of the government?
Governments exercise all kinds of controls in wartime over various organizations within their countries. Sometimes compliance is a legal requirement, sometimes there's a suggestion, and an understanding that legal requirements might be forthcoming if the suggestion isn't followed. I don't think this says anything about independence, any more than, for example, the imposition of rationing makes Mr. Jones the butcher an arm of the government.
But rationing would be regarded as a rather extreme action, for extreme circumstances, and would, I assume, be something requiring the passing of special legislation, or at least the formal invocation of existing legislation waiting dormant on the books.
Is that how it works with bans on the BBC?
And if the bans are analagous to Jones the neighbourhood butcher having to feed the army, why aren't they also applied to privately owned radio?
How can the BBC be ordered to ban songs during wartime, if the broadcaster operates independently of the government?
In the series Yes Minister going out on the BBC in the eighties it was a regular plot point that newspaper proprietors could be persuaded to kill stories by being offered mentions in the end of year honours list. (This usually worked until one particular proprietor had accumulated all the honours going.)
If the government wants the BBC to do something I believe the general method is for a minister or someone to sit down with the director-general and make stirring remarks about patriotism and the national interest. Remarks about the government's inability to defend the license fee should the people of the country feel the BBC no longer reflects British values may follow if the director-general is not moved and the government feels itself in a strong position.
But the government has no formal ability to tell the BBC what to do.
Thanks. That's a little informal, but more specific than almost anything else I can find about this topic on the internet. Most articles(including several on the BBC itself) just say that such-and-such a song was banned on the beeb, without giving any indication as to the process.
Thanks. That's a little informal, but more specific than almost anything else I can find about this topic on the internet. Most articles(including several on the BBC itself) just say that such-and-such a song was banned on the beeb, without giving any indication as to the process.
This phrasing needn't imply Government action in any form. For example, after Gary Glitter's paedophilic tourism was exposed, BBC radio banned his songs. This wasn't the result of Government action - this was BBC management telling individual DJs "don't play him".
I'm told, for example, that the BBC banned the playing of the Cure's "Killing an Arab" during the Gulf War - probably about 30 seconds after some racist called up to request it.
How can the BBC be ordered to ban songs during wartime, if the broadcaster operates independently of the government?
In the series Yes Minister going out on the BBC in the eighties it was a regular plot point that newspaper proprietors could be persuaded to kill stories by being offered mentions in the end of year honours list. (This usually worked until one particular proprietor had accumulated all the honours going.)
There is also the converse in one episode where the BBC is "persuaded" to drop something, all the while declaring that they "would not bow to government pressure".
It's quite helpful in my opinion to also get news from non-English countries' public broadcasters, many of which provide English language news and programming. E.g. Deutsche Welle (https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097).
It's both cross cultural and informative with different perspectives even when there's good editorial independence of your country's public broadcaster.
(I grew up on shortwave, pre-internet. It's kinda sorry that I have all of these rather expensive radios which have relatively little to receive. We do get SABC (South Africa), the Australian ABC broadcasting to the Pacific quite well in the winter (long nights) and various Spanish stations from the south.)
In the same way, our Special Broadcasting Service, a government-funded service which also sells advertising space and caters to migrant communities, broadcast news services from around the world both in English and in the languages of the various communities. This is less important now, with most things being available on the internet, but they also run community radio services in various other languages.
The best thing SBS ever did for me was create English subtitles for the TV series The Accursed Kings, which I will always try to watch when it is shown.
Thanks. That's a little informal, but more specific than almost anything else I can find about this topic on the internet. Most articles(including several on the BBC itself) just say that such-and-such a song was banned on the beeb, without giving any indication as to the process.
This phrasing needn't imply Government action in any form. For example, after Gary Glitter's paedophilic tourism was exposed, BBC radio banned his songs. This wasn't the result of Government action - this was BBC management telling individual DJs "don't play him".
I'm told, for example, that the BBC banned the playing of the Cure's "Killing an Arab" during the Gulf War - probably about 30 seconds after some racist called up to request it.
Correct on Killing An Arab. You can find a whole list on wikipedia of songs banned by the BBC during various conflicts.
Thing is, though, I can see a media bureaucrat thinking a song by a convicted pedophile played right after his conviction, or about killing an arab played during a mideast war, would be something likely to provoke public outrage or racist requests, respectively.
Less certain that they would think that about, say, John Lennon's Imagine. In the case of that particular song, it seems to me the agenda would be more to prevent pacifistic sentiments among the general public. We can speculate if this is something the BBC mandarins would worry about in the absence of implied government oversight.
(Overall, though, I suspect the political bias of state-employed journalists reflects the viewpoint of the chattering class itself, rather than the government. The CBC went slightly gaga over the election of Barack Obama in 2008, even though it was well-known that PM Harper didn't much care for the guy.)
Certainly true, not just a suspicion, of the BBC and the ABC. I can't comment on the CBC or NZBC.
(Overall, though, I suspect the political bias of state-employed journalists reflects the viewpoint of the chattering class itself, rather than the government. The CBC went slightly gaga over the election of Barack Obama in 2008, even though it was well-known that PM Harper didn't much care for the guy.)
Certainly true, not just a suspicion, of the BBC and the ABC. I can't comment on the CBC or NZBC.
My knowledge of public broadcasting is confined largely to the CBC, PBS, and to a lesser extent BBC. And yes, I would say there is a general "sameness" to the worldviews expounded on all three.
If you watch Sunday morning political telly on the BBC then all the guests from which ever party are given a hard time. It is totally impossible to absolutely un biased.
The BBC has many other good things going for it. As it is does not need to bother about chasing ratings to an extent, series can grow and breath. We over here hear about series being taken off after two or three episodes in the States because they don’t get the ratings. The BBC also has the ability to take more risks as its money is not tied to ratings.
If you watch Sunday morning political telly on the BBC then all the guests from which ever party are given a hard time. It is totally impossible to absolutely un biased.
The BBC has many other good things going for it. As it is does not need to bother about chasing ratings to an extent, series can grow and breath. We over here hear about series being taken off after two or three episodes in the States because they don’t get the ratings. The BBC also has the ability to take more risks as its money is not tied to ratings.
Your second sentence was more accurate than your last; short term ratings don't affect funding in the sense that this isn't tied to adverts shown in the slot of a particular program, however it's licence fee is partly justified by providing something that is compelling and that drives all sorts of internal benchmarks. Similarly if its reach fell, then it would be accused of being elitist or out of touch.
While it is true that series are often taken off in the US (usually after a single *season* rather than two or three episodes), series seasons also tend to be rather longer in the US than the UK (it's not unusual for a BBC 'season' to consist of 6-8 shows, rather than the 12+ marathons that comprise many US shows). Additionally, with 20-25% of the BBCs revenue coming from sales of programmes via other channels there is still a reasonable commercial imperative here (you could argue that in some ways Amazon/Netflix can take more risks with certain types of programming, given the nature of their platforms and their budgets).
@Lamb Chopped Perhaps my perception is more a reflection of my surprise at their opinions than anything else. I've known Americans "who should know better" who assume that the relationship between government and the state broadcaster is much more intimate than it is in fact. (In fact, I'd characterise it as a relationship based on suspicion and resentment on both sides.) As soon as they hear "state broadcaster" they assume "Echo of Moscow", or a watered down version. Again, this isn't based on a statistically valid sample, but my own surprise at some of the sources of some variety of this opinion, all the more surprising for its usual insouciance toward corporate ownership and its increasing concentration.
Most of the Americans I know are unlikely to think of the BBC as anything other than "British Television". If they thought about funding, their comparison would likely be PBS. And I have yet to run into anyone who thinks PBS is a state organ.
IME, those Americans likely to assume the BBC are a state organ are also likely to distrust PBS because they think it is communist propaganda.
Your "unbiased" hotlink isn't working for me. All I can tell is that it's some website called The National, seemingly based in Scotland.
The BBC put out a laudatory video about the current governments financial support program for Covid, they illustrated it by portraying the Finance Minister as a superhero - they later pulled the video after receiving complaints.
@Lamb Chopped Perhaps my perception is more a reflection of my surprise at their opinions than anything else. I've known Americans "who should know better" who assume that the relationship between government and the state broadcaster is much more intimate than it is in fact. (In fact, I'd characterise it as a relationship based on suspicion and resentment on both sides.) As soon as they hear "state broadcaster" they assume "Echo of Moscow", or a watered down version. Again, this isn't based on a statistically valid sample, but my own surprise at some of the sources of some variety of this opinion, all the more surprising for its usual insouciance toward corporate ownership and its increasing concentration.
Most of the Americans I know are unlikely to think of the BBC as anything other than "British Television". If they thought about funding, their comparison would likely be PBS. And I have yet to run into anyone who thinks PBS is a state organ.
IME, those Americans likely to assume the BBC are a state organ are also likely to distrust PBS because they think it is communist propaganda.
In Canada, people who think the CBC is too left-wing would also usually think it is biased in favour of the Liberal Party. When the Liberals are in power, some of these right-wingers might assume that the government is actually giving orders to the CBC, though I think the more common idea would be that CBC just reflects the viewpoint of a left-wing permanent ruling-class sorta thing.
Left-wingers who dislike the CBC tend to think that it represents the viewpoint of a right-wing oligarchy, which essentially controls both the Liberals and Conservatives and(depending on who you're talking to) the NDP as well.
If you watch Sunday morning political telly on the BBC then all the guests from which ever party are given a hard time. It is totally impossible to absolutely un biased.
The BBC has many other good things going for it. As it is does not need to bother about chasing ratings to an extent, series can grow and breath. We over here hear about series being taken off after two or three episodes in the States because they don’t get the ratings. The BBC also has the ability to take more risks as its money is not tied to ratings.
Your second sentence was more accurate than your last; short term ratings don't affect funding in the sense that this isn't tied to adverts shown in the slot of a particular program, however it's licence fee is partly justified by providing something that is compelling and that drives all sorts of internal benchmarks. Similarly if its reach fell, then it would be accused of being elitist or out of touch.
While it is true that series are often taken off in the US (usually after a single *season* rather than two or three episodes), series seasons also tend to be rather longer in the US than the UK (it's not unusual for a BBC 'season' to consist of 6-8 shows, rather than the 12+ marathons that comprise many US shows). Additionally, with 20-25% of the BBCs revenue coming from sales of programmes via other channels there is still a reasonable commercial imperative here (you could argue that in some ways Amazon/Netflix can take more risks with certain types of programming, given the nature of their platforms and their budgets).
You seemed to have missed two important parts of my post. I said that Sunday morning Political TV programme treat all politicians the same, that is unbiased. I also said that the BBC doesn’t need to be too bothered about rating that doesn’t mean it is not bothered about them at all.
We do hear of programmes on US TV being pulled after a few episodes. Ok it may not be the norm I will give you that. Answering some point further up thread. If the BBC is criticised by all sides of the political landscape, how can that not mean there is at least a level unbiased behaviour? If it was biased that would not be the case. In the Brexit vote they gave all sides a chance to speak and the discussions were run on a pretty even basis.
You seemed to have missed two important parts of my post. I said that Sunday morning Political TV programme treat all politicians the same, that is unbiased.
You'll have to be more precise than that, what show(s) are you referring to?
I also said that the BBC doesn’t need to be too bothered about rating that doesn’t mean it is not bothered about them at all.
Of course, and as I said your first statement 'that it didn't need to be bothered .. to an extent' was the more correct formulation of the two. The question is to what extent the remaining commercial imperative matters in how shows are commissioned, chosen and structured. Given that the BBC often contracts out and staff move in and out of the BBC (to places where commercial success *is* what you are judged on directly) I suspect the effect is less than it might have been in the past.
Answering some point further up thread. If the BBC is criticised by all sides of the political landscape, how can that not mean there is at least a level unbiased behaviour? If it was biased that would not be the case.
If I have two children and they both complain equally about the other, then they could either be as bad as one another or one might be simply better at complaining. In a setup where a broadcaster is ostensibly supposed to be un-biased once a particular party has been favoured -- either accidentally or deliberately - it's in their interest to complain - after all the other side is going to do so for perfectly legitimate reasons anyway, so matching the volume of complaints can help preserve the - favourable - status quo.
In the Brexit vote they gave all sides a chance to speak and the discussions were run on a pretty even basis.
There was a number of issues with the Brexit coverage; Farage was never far from the TV, the coverage centered on personalities rather than issues, claims and counter claims were frequently covered in a 'he said, she said' manner, regardless of the factual content of those claims. I think @Alan Cresswell has posted on this in the past.
I find in Australia that people who view the ABC through a partisan, critical lens are pretty quick to spot bias. It doesn't matter what their politics are, though the people who support the party in power are usually the first to ark up. I like that the ABC cops bias allegations from all points on the compass. It suggests that they do a pretty good job.
What I have gleaned about the BBC from comments made on satirical shows, panel shows and British comedy generally, is that the political bias tends to be in favor of the Government of the day. So right now, they are copping it from people who oppose the Govt. That is worrying it seems to me, and suggests there are different attitudes to government operating in the boardroom of Broadcasting House than there is in the equivalent building in Sydney. (Of course it is in Sydney. Why else would they put the Rugby scores on the Melbourne news?)
Is my picture of BBC bias accurate, or has it been warped by the wicked wiles of the likes of Andy Zaltzman?
Oh, the government complains the BBC is biased against them here too. Independent analysts find the BBC, at least the news departments, lean right and towards the government if anything, but the right complains anyway.
The underlying problem as identified by Stephen Colbert IIRC is that reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Oh, the government complains the BBC is biased against them here too. Independent analysts find the BBC, at least the news departments, lean right and towards the government if anything, but the right complains anyway.
"The Inquisitor only pulled the nails from the right hand, clearly showing a bias towards the accused."
I looked at those links Chris. I think it is obvious that tweeting in support of political movements like BLM and trans rights is evidence of bias in an environment where the BBC is supposed to be non-partisan.
The article and interview about the wedding DJ looks to me like a British version of the kind of reporting that was happening in Australia in around 2008, when asylum seeker boats were in the news. I expected to see some push back in the article about the positions that the subject was putting, especially about the mysterious blokes in the car, and even something about the plight of asylum seekers. Perhaps the tone of the radio show is light, fluffy, in which case you would question why this subject was chosen. It seems inappropriate for light entertainment with a newsy edge.
OZBC has a show called Mediawatch, which looks for stuff the media does poorly and seeks responses. Much of their work involves identifying advertising designed as content, or situations where journos are being lazy by plagiarizing stuff, or by just parroting press releases. It also covers stuff that OZBC broadcasts, including stuff which seems to breach their standards. This story might well appear on a show like Mediawatch.
On its own, this story is not evidence of bias, unless each story must be balanced to comply with the BBC's charter. The bans on BBC personnel tweeting in support of BLM or trans rights does not represent a counterpoint to me. The Wedding DJ piece fails to criticise the mad statements made by the subject or his right wing views. That is entirely different. That's arguably bad journalism.
Tweeting out political support seems to have obvious ramifications on a Journo's impartiality. Tweeting out a story is not. There might be a valid reason for the Journo tagging the right wingers. The question has to be asked though.
My experience with the OZBC during the period of time when asylum seeker boats were being extensively reported in Australia was that apart from the reporting itself, there were few pieces like this. In part its because the boats were by and large not reaching Australia's mainland. Their aim, coming from Indonesia was to get to the closest Australian territory, Christmas Island. You would occasionally hear interviews with Christmas Islanders, but that was in the context of much broader reporting on the conditions in detention centres, refugee experiences, and the tragedy of lives lost at sea.
As time went on though, it became apparent that my views on asylum seekers were markedly different from most Australians, who wanted the boats stopped and that was about it. How does a national broadcaster deal with that? My views are shared by a substantial minority of Australians who want to end detention of asylum seekers all together and to expand the ways that refugees can apply for protection overseas and be bought to this country, but both our major political parties support detention overseas. So what does fair and balanced reporting look like in story selection? I think it looks like selecting a range of stories from a range of different views, interviewing people connected to the issue, staging debates on telly, and presenting all this for people to inform themselves. The wedding DJ article could merely represent the presentation of those views, which you and I would consider right wing, if not far right. But my worry is that many more Britons would agree with the DJ and disagree with me, calling me a crazy radical.
I looked at those links Chris. I think it is obvious that tweeting in support of political movements like BLM and trans rights is evidence of bias in an environment where the BBC is supposed to be non-partisan.
You could narrowly argue that BLM the movement is political, I would suggest the same cannot be applied to trans-right as a whole (in the same way as the same argument wouldn't apply to black rights as a whole).
Tweeting out political support seems to have obvious ramifications on a Journo's impartiality. Tweeting out a story is not. There might be a valid reason for the Journo tagging the right wingers. The question has to be asked though.
The guidelines specifically ban: “retweets, likes or joining online campaigns to indicate a personal view”. I suspect the author of that tweet realised it was likely to be questionable by the fact that they later deleted it.
More generally; the BBCs most high profile political reporter was for a long time employed as a freelancer, which gave him the ability to continue to chair the Spectator and take pops at 'political correctness' from his twitter account. Since leaving the BBC he announced he was to be part of a rival broadcaster with a different political slant, his current profile picture is an article attacking the BBC. So of course they chose him to front their coverage of the US election.
[As an aside; imagine the same position with the political orientations reversed - bear in mind that in the near past the Spectator has printed articles praising the Wermacht and Golden Dawn, and also - curiously - defending death threats on social media].
I think with issues like this, a detailed knowledge of the media culture and the rules is needed. I don't have that regarding Britain and the BBC. It looks like our OZBC is a different kettle of fish.
I do think though that minority rights are political positions, however much you and I might wish that they were settled. The fear of anything different has always been the guiding light for Australia's attitude to immigrants. I'd be surprised if it were different in Britain. Given Brexit, and Nigel Farrage, inter alia, I'd be gobsmacked.
That said, I bow to your lived experience of the British media regarding the question of bias.
I do think though that minority rights are political positions, however much you and I might wish that they were settled.
Basically, my rule of thumb is that if it's something that would be debated by opposing sides in parliament, it's a political issue, and should be treated as such by a public broadcaster.
A few years back, there was some controversy about BBC's Africa service asking their readers what they thought about the Ugandan government's anti-gay legislation, which included the death-penalty for "extreme" cases, and of course people were like "How can the BBC treat this as up for debate?" Well, it seemed to me that the complaints should have been directed against the Ugandan government, not the BBC, since it was the government who made it into a political issue in the first place.
I do think though that minority rights are political positions, however much you and I might wish that they were settled.
Basically, my rule of thumb is that if it's something that would be debated by opposing sides in parliament, it's a political issue, and should be treated as such by a public broadcaster.
Deciding that some minority rights should be debated and others should not is itself a political position.
I do think though that minority rights are political positions, however much you and I might wish that they were settled.
Basically, my rule of thumb is that if it's something that would be debated by opposing sides in parliament, it's a political issue, and should be treated as such by a public broadcaster.
Deciding that some minority rights should be debated and others should not is itself a political position.
Well, let's do a timeline here.
A. Someone starts a fringe political party in the UK that advocates becoming the 51st state of the USA, and announces that they'll run half a dozen candidates in the next election.
B. On election day, the State Of Britannia Party unexpectedly wins their half a dozen constituencies.
C. A few days later, the Conservatives, facing a minority situation, agree to strike up a panel to explore the possibility of joining the USA, in exchange for State Of Britannia's support during confidence votes.
I would say that in the period of time up to B, the media would be justified in treating annexation by the US as fringe issue, warranting bemused, peripheral coverage at best.
AFTER C, I would say that the media is justified in giving the annexationist equal or at least near-equal coverage and respect as the anti-annexationists. People who find that outrageous should direct their fire against the government.
I would say that in the period of time up to B, the media would be justified in treating annexation by the US as fringe issue, warranting bemused, peripheral coverage at best.
Pre Brexit UKIP never won an seat in Westminster, but Farage was one of the most invited guests to question time.
I would say that in the period of time up to B, the media would be justified in treating annexation by the US as fringe issue, warranting bemused, peripheral coverage at best.
Pre Brexit UKIP never won an seat in Westminster, but Farage was one of the most invited guests to question time.
Well, two points...
If Farage truly was a fringe character, I'd say the beeb woulda been justified in not having him on. (I say this irrespective of what they actually did in real life.)
Secondly, was the UKIP really that fringe? Maybe the party itself was, but their general worldview certainly had a following in the Tory party, to the point where Cameron thought it advisable to pander to and/or neutralize them by holding a referendum.
. Secondly, was the UKIP really that fringe? Maybe the party itself was, but their general worldview certainly had a following in the Tory party, to the point where Cameron thought it advisable to pander to and/or neutralize them by holding a referendum.
I think a following wider than the Tories to include many workers in the old industrial seats - jobs at risk or gone, blame the EU, it's an easy target.
Secondly, was the UKIP really that fringe? Maybe the party itself was, but their general worldview certainly had a following in the Tory party, to the point where Cameron thought it advisable to pander to and/or neutralize them by holding a referendum.
After years of him being platformed repeatedly -- which per your reasoning above, is hard to argue wasn't a political choice.
You could narrowly argue that BLM the movement is political, I would suggest the same cannot be applied to trans-right as a whole (in the same way as the same argument wouldn't apply to black rights as a whole).
Of course it can. The "trans rights" movement as a whole aims to have trans people fully treated as members of the gender with which they identify. This is not the status that trans people currently enjoy. Getting to that point requires, amongst other things, laws and public policy to be changed.
That's rather the definition of a political movement.
A. Someone starts a fringe political party in the UK that advocates becoming the 51st state of the USA, and announces that they'll run half a dozen candidates in the next election.
B. On election day, the State Of Britannia Party unexpectedly wins their half a dozen constituencies.
C. A few days later, the Conservatives, facing a minority situation, agree to strike up a panel to explore the possibility of joining the USA, in exchange for State Of Britannia's support during confidence votes.
I would say that in the period of time up to B, the media would be justified in treating annexation by the US as fringe issue, warranting bemused, peripheral coverage at best.
AFTER C, I would say that the media is justified in giving the annexationist equal or at least near-equal coverage and respect as the anti-annexationists. People who find that outrageous should direct their fire against the government.
Advocating that the UK should join the USA (with ~90 electoral votes vs California's current 55) is by construction a political movement. It's a fringe movement at best, but it's a political movement.
Environmentalism is a political movement. The Green Party could be viewed as a banner carrier for that movement, and currently has 1 MP (Caroline Lucas) and attracts a modest, but usually not deposit-saving, vote nationwide.
Following your argument, are we to treat environmental concerns with "bemused peripheral coverage" because the Greens only have one MP?
In reality, of course, lots of people have concerns about the environment, although most of them don't vote for the Green Party. Almost nobody realistically suggests that the UK should become the next state or three of the USA, and this is what makes the latter a fringe idea, whereas worrying about the environment is mainstream.
You could narrowly argue that BLM the movement is political, I would suggest the same cannot be applied to trans-right as a whole (in the same way as the same argument wouldn't apply to black rights as a whole).
Of course it can. The "trans rights" movement as a whole aims to have trans people fully treated as members of the gender with which they identify.
The 'trans rights' movement 'as a whole' will encompass a range things from pushing for full recognition in the way you describe that to various forms of equality, some of these may be expressed in terms of political change and others in terms of enacting existing legislation.
It is clear that the BBC is not comfortable with banning expressions of support for the 'trans rights movement as a whole' given their backpeddling on the issue employees attending the Pride march (and similarly I expect that the BBC will continue to put out LGBTQ+ works during Pride month).
Just saw footage of an RTE news broadcast in which they wrapped it up by describing Joe Biden as a "proud Irish-American", and then showing a montage of images of the president-elect, overlaid by audio of Biden reading a poem by Seamus Heaney. All scored to high-flown music.
You seemed to have missed two important parts of my post. I said that Sunday morning Political TV programme treat all politicians the same, that is unbiased.
You'll have to be more precise than that, what show(s) are you referring to?
I also said that the BBC doesn’t need to be too bothered about rating that doesn’t mean it is not bothered about them at all.
Of course, and as I said your first statement 'that it didn't need to be bothered .. to an extent' was the more correct formulation of the two. The question is to what extent the remaining commercial imperative matters in how shows are commissioned, chosen and structured. Given that the BBC often contracts out and staff move in and out of the BBC (to places where commercial success *is* what you are judged on directly) I suspect the effect is less than it might have been in the past.
Answering some point further up thread. If the BBC is criticised by all sides of the political landscape, how can that not mean there is at least a level unbiased behaviour? If it was biased that would not be the case.
If I have two children and they both complain equally about the other, then they could either be as bad as one another or one might be simply better at complaining. In a setup where a broadcaster is ostensibly supposed to be un-biased once a particular party has been favoured -- either accidentally or deliberately - it's in their interest to complain - after all the other side is going to do so for perfectly legitimate reasons anyway, so matching the volume of complaints can help preserve the - favourable - status quo.
In the Brexit vote they gave all sides a chance to speak and the discussions were run on a pretty even basis.
There was a number of issues with the Brexit coverage; Farage was never far from the TV, the coverage centered on personalities rather than issues, claims and counter claims were frequently covered in a 'he said, she said' manner, regardless of the factual content of those claims. I think @Alan Cresswell has posted on this in the past.
I can’t remember at the moment (dyslexia) but the programme that has news paper reviews and interviews with politicians. The host can be quite direct with all sides
Comments
Or that one side is much better at complaining than the other (given the premise that the BBC is unbiased there is every incentive to complain that it's biased against your own side, even if it isn't).
The news dept on screen are pretty much exclusively former leaders of local Tory parties, and it shows enough to get complaints from the left (if Boris gets his deserved win)
The comedy dept is pretty much all more left-lib. If those sort of people on tv triggers you you have a lot to whine at (even Dr who is a woman now, blah, blah)
I mean, if the complaint is that 'Dr Who is a woman', then you probably also rabidly against the consequences of labour market reforms, while being very much for their causes.
Well, my question was MOSTLY meant to represent the thinking of someone who would assume that community values in state broadcaster are enforced by government. Not neccessarily agreeing with that idea myself.
That said, there is s bit of a question as to how, in the absence of government diktat, the people who produce public broadcasting know they are reflecting the values of the community. If indeed, such reflection is a part of the stated mandate of any given broadcaster.
To show my hand a bit, my own best guess is that public broadcasting tends to draw its workforce from the sorts of people who are drawn to state-supported artistic and media enterprises generally, ie. urban, university-educated, with a vaguely centre-left disposition on things. Those among the general public who share that worldview assume it to be the cultural consensus, whereas those on the far-right and far-left regard it as evidence of bolshevik or fascist domination, respectively.
How can the BBC be ordered to ban songs during wartime, if the broadcaster operates independently of the government?
I assume the first part proceeds via a kind of fudge that allows people to pretend that the latter is still true.
Thanks for that.
It's not clear to me from that article if those Notices were the precise method used to ban songs on the BBC. Ìt seems that the Notices are issued to all media, but as far as I know, the wartime music-bans are specific to the BBC.
Governments exercise all kinds of controls in wartime over various organizations within their countries. Sometimes compliance is a legal requirement, sometimes there's a suggestion, and an understanding that legal requirements might be forthcoming if the suggestion isn't followed. I don't think this says anything about independence, any more than, for example, the imposition of rationing makes Mr. Jones the butcher an arm of the government.
But rationing would be regarded as a rather extreme action, for extreme circumstances, and would, I assume, be something requiring the passing of special legislation, or at least the formal invocation of existing legislation waiting dormant on the books.
Is that how it works with bans on the BBC?
And if the bans are analagous to Jones the neighbourhood butcher having to feed the army, why aren't they also applied to privately owned radio?
If the government wants the BBC to do something I believe the general method is for a minister or someone to sit down with the director-general and make stirring remarks about patriotism and the national interest. Remarks about the government's inability to defend the license fee should the people of the country feel the BBC no longer reflects British values may follow if the director-general is not moved and the government feels itself in a strong position.
But the government has no formal ability to tell the BBC what to do.
Thanks. That's a little informal, but more specific than almost anything else I can find about this topic on the internet. Most articles(including several on the BBC itself) just say that such-and-such a song was banned on the beeb, without giving any indication as to the process.
This phrasing needn't imply Government action in any form. For example, after Gary Glitter's paedophilic tourism was exposed, BBC radio banned his songs. This wasn't the result of Government action - this was BBC management telling individual DJs "don't play him".
I'm told, for example, that the BBC banned the playing of the Cure's "Killing an Arab" during the Gulf War - probably about 30 seconds after some racist called up to request it.
There is also the converse in one episode where the BBC is "persuaded" to drop something, all the while declaring that they "would not bow to government pressure".
It's both cross cultural and informative with different perspectives even when there's good editorial independence of your country's public broadcaster.
(I grew up on shortwave, pre-internet. It's kinda sorry that I have all of these rather expensive radios which have relatively little to receive. We do get SABC (South Africa), the Australian ABC broadcasting to the Pacific quite well in the winter (long nights) and various Spanish stations from the south.)
The best thing SBS ever did for me was create English subtitles for the TV series The Accursed Kings, which I will always try to watch when it is shown.
Correct on Killing An Arab. You can find a whole list on wikipedia of songs banned by the BBC during various conflicts.
Thing is, though, I can see a media bureaucrat thinking a song by a convicted pedophile played right after his conviction, or about killing an arab played during a mideast war, would be something likely to provoke public outrage or racist requests, respectively.
Less certain that they would think that about, say, John Lennon's Imagine. In the case of that particular song, it seems to me the agenda would be more to prevent pacifistic sentiments among the general public. We can speculate if this is something the BBC mandarins would worry about in the absence of implied government oversight.
Certainly true, not just a suspicion, of the BBC and the ABC. I can't comment on the CBC or NZBC.
My knowledge of public broadcasting is confined largely to the CBC, PBS, and to a lesser extent BBC. And yes, I would say there is a general "sameness" to the worldviews expounded on all three.
The BBC has many other good things going for it. As it is does not need to bother about chasing ratings to an extent, series can grow and breath. We over here hear about series being taken off after two or three episodes in the States because they don’t get the ratings. The BBC also has the ability to take more risks as its money is not tied to ratings.
Yes, it's totally impossible to be unbiased.
Your second sentence was more accurate than your last; short term ratings don't affect funding in the sense that this isn't tied to adverts shown in the slot of a particular program, however it's licence fee is partly justified by providing something that is compelling and that drives all sorts of internal benchmarks. Similarly if its reach fell, then it would be accused of being elitist or out of touch.
While it is true that series are often taken off in the US (usually after a single *season* rather than two or three episodes), series seasons also tend to be rather longer in the US than the UK (it's not unusual for a BBC 'season' to consist of 6-8 shows, rather than the 12+ marathons that comprise many US shows). Additionally, with 20-25% of the BBCs revenue coming from sales of programmes via other channels there is still a reasonable commercial imperative here (you could argue that in some ways Amazon/Netflix can take more risks with certain types of programming, given the nature of their platforms and their budgets).
Your "unbiased" hotlink isn't working for me. All I can tell is that it's some website called The National, seemingly based in Scotland.
Care to offer a summary?
IME, those Americans likely to assume the BBC are a state organ are also likely to distrust PBS because they think it is communist propaganda.
The BBC put out a laudatory video about the current governments financial support program for Covid, they illustrated it by portraying the Finance Minister as a superhero - they later pulled the video after receiving complaints.
In Canada, people who think the CBC is too left-wing would also usually think it is biased in favour of the Liberal Party. When the Liberals are in power, some of these right-wingers might assume that the government is actually giving orders to the CBC, though I think the more common idea would be that CBC just reflects the viewpoint of a left-wing permanent ruling-class sorta thing.
Left-wingers who dislike the CBC tend to think that it represents the viewpoint of a right-wing oligarchy, which essentially controls both the Liberals and Conservatives and(depending on who you're talking to) the NDP as well.
You seemed to have missed two important parts of my post. I said that Sunday morning Political TV programme treat all politicians the same, that is unbiased. I also said that the BBC doesn’t need to be too bothered about rating that doesn’t mean it is not bothered about them at all.
We do hear of programmes on US TV being pulled after a few episodes. Ok it may not be the norm I will give you that. Answering some point further up thread. If the BBC is criticised by all sides of the political landscape, how can that not mean there is at least a level unbiased behaviour? If it was biased that would not be the case. In the Brexit vote they gave all sides a chance to speak and the discussions were run on a pretty even basis.
You'll have to be more precise than that, what show(s) are you referring to?
Of course, and as I said your first statement 'that it didn't need to be bothered .. to an extent' was the more correct formulation of the two. The question is to what extent the remaining commercial imperative matters in how shows are commissioned, chosen and structured. Given that the BBC often contracts out and staff move in and out of the BBC (to places where commercial success *is* what you are judged on directly) I suspect the effect is less than it might have been in the past.
If I have two children and they both complain equally about the other, then they could either be as bad as one another or one might be simply better at complaining. In a setup where a broadcaster is ostensibly supposed to be un-biased once a particular party has been favoured -- either accidentally or deliberately - it's in their interest to complain - after all the other side is going to do so for perfectly legitimate reasons anyway, so matching the volume of complaints can help preserve the - favourable - status quo.
There was a number of issues with the Brexit coverage; Farage was never far from the TV, the coverage centered on personalities rather than issues, claims and counter claims were frequently covered in a 'he said, she said' manner, regardless of the factual content of those claims. I think @Alan Cresswell has posted on this in the past.
What I have gleaned about the BBC from comments made on satirical shows, panel shows and British comedy generally, is that the political bias tends to be in favor of the Government of the day. So right now, they are copping it from people who oppose the Govt. That is worrying it seems to me, and suggests there are different attitudes to government operating in the boardroom of Broadcasting House than there is in the equivalent building in Sydney. (Of course it is in Sydney. Why else would they put the Rugby scores on the Melbourne news?)
Is my picture of BBC bias accurate, or has it been warped by the wicked wiles of the likes of Andy Zaltzman?
The underlying problem as identified by Stephen Colbert IIRC is that reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Amen.
The article and interview about the wedding DJ looks to me like a British version of the kind of reporting that was happening in Australia in around 2008, when asylum seeker boats were in the news. I expected to see some push back in the article about the positions that the subject was putting, especially about the mysterious blokes in the car, and even something about the plight of asylum seekers. Perhaps the tone of the radio show is light, fluffy, in which case you would question why this subject was chosen. It seems inappropriate for light entertainment with a newsy edge.
OZBC has a show called Mediawatch, which looks for stuff the media does poorly and seeks responses. Much of their work involves identifying advertising designed as content, or situations where journos are being lazy by plagiarizing stuff, or by just parroting press releases. It also covers stuff that OZBC broadcasts, including stuff which seems to breach their standards. This story might well appear on a show like Mediawatch.
On its own, this story is not evidence of bias, unless each story must be balanced to comply with the BBC's charter. The bans on BBC personnel tweeting in support of BLM or trans rights does not represent a counterpoint to me. The Wedding DJ piece fails to criticise the mad statements made by the subject or his right wing views. That is entirely different. That's arguably bad journalism.
Tweeting out political support seems to have obvious ramifications on a Journo's impartiality. Tweeting out a story is not. There might be a valid reason for the Journo tagging the right wingers. The question has to be asked though.
My experience with the OZBC during the period of time when asylum seeker boats were being extensively reported in Australia was that apart from the reporting itself, there were few pieces like this. In part its because the boats were by and large not reaching Australia's mainland. Their aim, coming from Indonesia was to get to the closest Australian territory, Christmas Island. You would occasionally hear interviews with Christmas Islanders, but that was in the context of much broader reporting on the conditions in detention centres, refugee experiences, and the tragedy of lives lost at sea.
As time went on though, it became apparent that my views on asylum seekers were markedly different from most Australians, who wanted the boats stopped and that was about it. How does a national broadcaster deal with that? My views are shared by a substantial minority of Australians who want to end detention of asylum seekers all together and to expand the ways that refugees can apply for protection overseas and be bought to this country, but both our major political parties support detention overseas. So what does fair and balanced reporting look like in story selection? I think it looks like selecting a range of stories from a range of different views, interviewing people connected to the issue, staging debates on telly, and presenting all this for people to inform themselves. The wedding DJ article could merely represent the presentation of those views, which you and I would consider right wing, if not far right. But my worry is that many more Britons would agree with the DJ and disagree with me, calling me a crazy radical.
You could narrowly argue that BLM the movement is political, I would suggest the same cannot be applied to trans-right as a whole (in the same way as the same argument wouldn't apply to black rights as a whole).
The guidelines specifically ban: “retweets, likes or joining online campaigns to indicate a personal view”. I suspect the author of that tweet realised it was likely to be questionable by the fact that they later deleted it.
[As an aside; imagine the same position with the political orientations reversed - bear in mind that in the near past the Spectator has printed articles praising the Wermacht and Golden Dawn, and also - curiously - defending death threats on social media].
I do think though that minority rights are political positions, however much you and I might wish that they were settled. The fear of anything different has always been the guiding light for Australia's attitude to immigrants. I'd be surprised if it were different in Britain. Given Brexit, and Nigel Farrage, inter alia, I'd be gobsmacked.
That said, I bow to your lived experience of the British media regarding the question of bias.
Basically, my rule of thumb is that if it's something that would be debated by opposing sides in parliament, it's a political issue, and should be treated as such by a public broadcaster.
A few years back, there was some controversy about BBC's Africa service asking their readers what they thought about the Ugandan government's anti-gay legislation, which included the death-penalty for "extreme" cases, and of course people were like "How can the BBC treat this as up for debate?" Well, it seemed to me that the complaints should have been directed against the Ugandan government, not the BBC, since it was the government who made it into a political issue in the first place.
Deciding that some minority rights should be debated and others should not is itself a political position.
Well, let's do a timeline here.
A. Someone starts a fringe political party in the UK that advocates becoming the 51st state of the USA, and announces that they'll run half a dozen candidates in the next election.
B. On election day, the State Of Britannia Party unexpectedly wins their half a dozen constituencies.
C. A few days later, the Conservatives, facing a minority situation, agree to strike up a panel to explore the possibility of joining the USA, in exchange for State Of Britannia's support during confidence votes.
I would say that in the period of time up to B, the media would be justified in treating annexation by the US as fringe issue, warranting bemused, peripheral coverage at best.
AFTER C, I would say that the media is justified in giving the annexationist equal or at least near-equal coverage and respect as the anti-annexationists. People who find that outrageous should direct their fire against the government.
Pre Brexit UKIP never won an seat in Westminster, but Farage was one of the most invited guests to question time.
Well, two points...
If Farage truly was a fringe character, I'd say the beeb woulda been justified in not having him on. (I say this irrespective of what they actually did in real life.)
Secondly, was the UKIP really that fringe? Maybe the party itself was, but their general worldview certainly had a following in the Tory party, to the point where Cameron thought it advisable to pander to and/or neutralize them by holding a referendum.
I think a following wider than the Tories to include many workers in the old industrial seats - jobs at risk or gone, blame the EU, it's an easy target.
After years of him being platformed repeatedly -- which per your reasoning above, is hard to argue wasn't a political choice.
Of course it can. The "trans rights" movement as a whole aims to have trans people fully treated as members of the gender with which they identify. This is not the status that trans people currently enjoy. Getting to that point requires, amongst other things, laws and public policy to be changed.
That's rather the definition of a political movement.
Advocating that the UK should join the USA (with ~90 electoral votes vs California's current 55) is by construction a political movement. It's a fringe movement at best, but it's a political movement.
Environmentalism is a political movement. The Green Party could be viewed as a banner carrier for that movement, and currently has 1 MP (Caroline Lucas) and attracts a modest, but usually not deposit-saving, vote nationwide.
Following your argument, are we to treat environmental concerns with "bemused peripheral coverage" because the Greens only have one MP?
In reality, of course, lots of people have concerns about the environment, although most of them don't vote for the Green Party. Almost nobody realistically suggests that the UK should become the next state or three of the USA, and this is what makes the latter a fringe idea, whereas worrying about the environment is mainstream.
The 'trans rights' movement 'as a whole' will encompass a range things from pushing for full recognition in the way you describe that to various forms of equality, some of these may be expressed in terms of political change and others in terms of enacting existing legislation.
It is clear that the BBC is not comfortable with banning expressions of support for the 'trans rights movement as a whole' given their backpeddling on the issue employees attending the Pride march (and similarly I expect that the BBC will continue to put out LGBTQ+ works during Pride month).
So, RTE. Who did you vote for?
Something tells me that Uncle Joe's usual forays into his ancestral heritage are more along the lines of Too-Ra-Loo-Ra-Loo-Ral,
I can’t remember at the moment (dyslexia) but the programme that has news paper reviews and interviews with politicians. The host can be quite direct with all sides
Farage had a voice long before he was an MEP, he was also present far more often than other parties which also had MEPs (Greens for instance).