That this is just another load of weapons grade bullpucky is then given away in the first paragraph. “BBC audiences think the Corporation is not ‘sufficiently impartial’, the Culture Secretary says today as she announces tougher scrutiny of the broadcaster to deal with perceived bias”. Those quote marks are because there is no evidence to back up the claim.
You think I jest? It did not take much probing from concerned journalists during this morning’s media round for Lucy Frazer (for it was she) to be exposed simultaneously as both utter charlatan and busted flush. It did not help that her interview on ITV Good Morning Britain was conducted by Susanna Reid, who knows a little about working at the Beeb.
“What is the BBC not impartial on?” she asked Ms Frazer. Who stonewalled from the off. “A large part of that will be about its news, but also in its programming as a whole”. “What are people complaining that the BBC is not impartial about?” asked Ms Reid, possibly knowing her interviewee had no evidence. More flannelling. More waffle. But then came a specific.
Sort of. “What is BBC News getting wrong?” asked Ms Reid. “Take, for instance, the recent coverage … Gaza and Israel … What we saw there was that the BBC … a significant number of complaints … and what we’ve seen is that it did make an error”. Making an error is not bias, or lack of impartiality. And it got worse as Ms Frazer arrived at Sky News to talk to Kay Burley.
Come on Kay! “Do you think the BBC is biased?” What say Ms Frazer? “I do think that, on occasion, it has been biased, yes”. Ms Burley was not impressed. “In relation to what?” Out came the Israel - Gaza example and the Beeb saying sorry. There was a difference between a mistake and bias. “There is a perception among the public that the BBC is biased” she claimed.
Ms Burley continued to be unimpressed. “I’m talking about evidence of bias. Where’s the evidence?” Ms Frazer offered “The evidence of bias is what the audience believe …”. That, Ms Burley corrected her, was perception, not evidence. There was, though, evidence from Ofcom, who had done questionnaires and studies. So maybe someone could pony up the results?
Until then, all we have is the Tel whining “The BBC was last month accused of offering a ‘steady diet of woke bias’, with a review of its output suggesting prejudice in coverage of debates over race and gender”. Who made the accusation? What review? Why a mere “suggestion”? And while you’re at it, give a definition of “Woke”. And why you’re misusing the term.
But the claims of bias are given the full support of the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog. Who shill remorselessly for the Tories without having to face the inconvenience of questioning. This tells you that the Telegraph “story” was prompted by CCHQ. It also shows why the Tories are so frightened about the Tel changing hands.
No use peddling this drivel if ministers cannot defend it. Just a thought.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
12 comments:
Is that the same BBC who say "Hamas-controlled health authority" when "reporting" Palestinian mass genocide victims, but NEVER "West armed and funded Israel government" when "reporting" the perpetrators? The same BBC "News" of far right tories Kuenssberg, Robinson, editors and front men and women?..... That BBC?
Frazer is another shoddy product off the fee-paying school/Oxbridge production line.
The BBC impartial? I'm sorry, that's nonsense, and has been shown academically going back to the 1980s at least, by the Glasgow Media Groups "Bad News" reports, and more recently Media Lens and many, many others, including Declassified UK and The Grayzone.
All I can say is the right-wing media are worse, but not by very much.
So what the fuck is happening with the 87 invenstgations by offcom into gbeebies?
Not clear what you're trying to say, JJ.
Final sentence refers to 'the right-wing media' presumably in distinction from what the rest of the post is about, ie the BBC. You're claiming that the latest 'culture secretary' is right, are you? The BBC is 'left-wing biased', is it?
In which case, why was she unable to produce any evidence? And where, for that matter, is yours?
And what I remember most about the Glasgow group's report was their criticism of the BBC's slanted propagandising for Thatcher during the miners' strike.
Shurely shome mishtake.
Pass the sick bag, Malice.
I would have thought it was fairly obvious BB. So obvious in fact, that I'm gonna assume you were just typing to avoid the dishes or something
Just giving JJ the chance to extricate himself. But I think he's left the theatre.
No point trying to avoid the dishes in this house, EB. When Mrs Bertie throws 'em, they never miss.
But he has nothing to extricate himself from BB, surely everyone knows what he means?
I didn't think JJ had anything to extricate himself from in all truth. It seemed a perfectly understandable, some might say fair, comment.
So he, and apparently you, believe that the BBC has a left-wing bias then?
Sometimes it's not expression which hinders understanding but it's the improbability of the intended meaning.
No, you misunderstand. The BBC is seen as "neutral" - I believe it gets it wrong more often than is deserved but it is what it is- but it would not be categorised as the right wing press, reserved for publications such as The Telegraph, Mail, Express, Times etc.
Post a Comment