British Biased Corporation
BBC’s Bias
As a European conservative, one of the most frustrating networks around is, in my opinion, the BBC. The BBC’s reporting is quite obviously left. Its favorite pet: multiculturalism. Not just multiculturalism though, the BBC is also anti-American and constantly trying not to offend Muslims while giving jack about the opinions of Christians at the same time.
Well, what else is new, right? Anyone who watches the BBC every now and then will most likely be convinced of all the above as well. So what’s new? Well, this: We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News.
When you read the article in the Daily Mail please remember that the BBC is publicly funded. It is a propaganda piece for ‘liberal’ anti-American, political-correct multiculturalists, yet paid for by the British people.
Some excerpts:
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.A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.
[...]
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.
Anti-America:
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’, it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it ‘no moral weight’.
Pro-multicultural stance:
Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a ‘very senior news executive’, about the BBC’s pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: ‘The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.’
Read the whole thing.
This is a damning article. The BBC did not have a lot of credibility with me as it was and it has now lost that very little bit of credibility it had left.
Also read:
Sister Toldjah on this
USS Neverdock
Natalie at Biased BBC
37 Responses to “British Biased Corporation”
My main complaint is the BBC’s anti-Israel bias.
Who is less biased than the BBC?
Can you recommend any American, British, Dutch, German or other news channel that is more fair and balanced than the BBC?
I’m not sure I understand what the term multiculturalism means in this context.
Also, in what way are they claiming to be dominated by homosexuals?
The main bias that I sense with the BBC from an American perspective, is that it is not totally centered on the US with its reporting, if you want to call that bias fine, but sometimes it is useful to remember that there are a lot of other people with a lot of different viewpoints on alot of different issues that aren’t Americans.
The treatment of Muslim sensibilities with much more care than Christian sensibilities is hardly a monopoly of the BBC. I have my own take on this. The preferential treatment of Muslims over Christians does not, in fact, reflect a wish for Islamism to “win”. Far from it, all liberals who don’t have they’re heads up they’re rear ends (and yes Tommy, they do exist
) know that Islamism, if it became dominant, would go after them first and foremost.
The treatment of Muslims with more deference than Christians obeys two rules IMHO. One of them is easy; fear. You can say just about anything about Christians and Christian faith and reasonably not expect to be killed for it, not so with Islam. The other reason is a maddening condescending habit that many far-left liberals have. The premise is that there is no one single “right” way to live, that “everyone deserves respect” yadayadayada, you know the drill. The problem is that most hippy dippy liberals like the ones I had for teachers come from the privileged White-middle class-first world country group and no matter how hard they try, they can’t get rid of the conditioning that they are the ones on top. Instead of doing things the hard way, and trying to get those bellow to raise themselves up, they take the semantic road. All lesser races/religions/political ideologies get placed in the “good” box and are treated with the patience afforded to a mentally disabled child. This is not respect, respect is treatment of other as equals, and therefore holding them to the same standards as you hold yourself.
Christians are the “winners” they’re strong, they’re adults, so you can insult and question them, but the poor Muslims can’t be expected to take criticism, poor little medieval guys, they get a gold star and a lollipop!
Disclaimer: there are a plethora of reasonable liberals who don’t, in fact, hold this belief, I just used this extreme view to explain why the media is so soft on Islam. I hope I made some semblance of sense.
Very true. Combined with fear, that is why they do what they do. I have said for years now, that the real arrogant people are the the leaders of the left who believe that those who are not rich right now, cannot possibly overcome it themselves, they are not to blame for that: they simply are not as ‘priviliged’ as you and I. Nonsense of course.
Muslims same thing: not out of respect, but because the Muslims cannot handle it and we cannot expect of them to handle it. We should be there for them, support them, try to explain things to them and provide for them. Oversimplification, but that is the living arrogance on the left.
Berlin Bear: the BBC is much worse than any other European network. In the Netherlands, Nova, for instance, is very left as well: but the BBC is even more extreme.
Holly I agree and they should have taken that into account.
Chuut: nonsense. They are not just ‘not centering’ on the US, they are opposed to the US in their reporting. They even admit that themselves, including the Washington correspondent if you took the time to read the article. They even edit what he reports to make it more anti-American. Don’t give me that nonsense about ‘not centering on US’. That is not the problem.
Gary: very simple. The BBC criticizes anyone who dares criticizes multiculturalism and – as they admit themselves – try to make multiculture look as positive as possible. In the article, for isntance, they quote about immigrant youths causing problems. More quotes from the article:
and:
And:
and:
OMG the liberal conspiracy of the MSM is now going international. We will all soon be reading from Mao’s Red book and singing the “International”.
Rudi: you can joke about it as much as you would like, but with the BBC it is – quite clearly – real. Laugh about it, joke about it all you want, but fact is and remains that the BBC has a so-called ‘liberal’ agenda and actively trying to influence public opinion.
This is a problem. Talkshows can be as biased as someone wants, but when they try to pass it off as objective news, it is a problem.
Call it anti US if you wish I think its simply anti-unilateralism and I can’t blame them for this view considering how much danger US policies have placed the rest of the West in in recent decades whether thos policies were good or bad. America hs rolled the dice a bit with Europe on the table like a wager.
As a conservative you can let the market forces push them out. Speak out if you must, maybe R Murdock will be a Fox in the henhouse of media and save the day. The anti-US bias is strong amongst the world (see polls). It is good copy to attack the “Giant Hegemon” and Bush. Attacking the bully….
Rudi:
That could work quite well if the BBC was actually forced to be dependent on the market. Sadly, this is not so.
Chuut: I find it hilarious that the BBC itself seems to disagree with your defense
From Wiki:
Your article is from a paper that is “more extreme to the right” than the BBC, yet you don’t tell anyone that the Daily Mail is a “right wing tabloid”.
That is because the Daily Mail is not one: publicly funded and two: the Daily Mail does not pretend to be what the BBC pretends to be.
Also, Rudi: I find it funny how you always choose the offensive when someone criticizes someone or something on the left.
Difficult, dealing in an honest way with criticism isn’t it?
I think what Rudi is pointing out is that you attack the BBC for being biased and yet your source is massively biased.
In other words, your evidence of bias is in fact biased.
CSS: again, the difference is that the Daily Mail is not making a secret out of being biased or not. The BBC is.
The BBC brings news as if it is unbiased. As should be obvious it is not. The BBC is funded by taxpayers. Taxpayers pay to get confronted with uberleft propaganda.
I am biased myself towards the BBC: the BBC represents my political mainstream opponents’s views.
You all have to decide for yourself what you think of it, my opinion is quite clear. I am a blogger, not a scientist.
Thank you CSS, if a tabloid hadn’t been a source I wouldn’t bring up the Wiki info. Tabloids put topless women and accident scenes on their pages to illicit a response. To use one as a source and not acknowlege the source as “yellow piss journalism” is disengenus. MvdG as a frnotpager you have a responsibility to follow “good journalism” practices. As a commentor, like a editorial feedback letter, I have less of a responsibilty to practice an unbiased response. Whats wrong with using the National Enquirer as a source, maybe Tony Blair is really an ALIEN TRANSSEXUAL.
Rudi: you are making the Daily Mail far worse than it really is which is – of course – fine. Secondly, what you consider to be my responsibility is irrelevant.
You should consider starting a blog of your own: you could live up to your own liberal standards instead of constantly attacking someone who actually takes the time to write something every day for readers of this blog without getting paid for it, but purely for the love of it.
May I ask you something: do you actually ever watch the BBC so that you actually have an opinion on the BBC yourself, or is the only thing you do go to blogs to criticize bloggers?
Michael, I think that the point being made is not that “well THEY’RE biased too, it’s not just the BBC”. The point is not that the BBC is not the only biased newsource, but that affirmations made about the left by the extreme right need to be suspect. The Daily Mail is baised, and their bias is going to shine through more so when reporting on people on the other side of the spectrum.
Would you trust a Fox News documentary about the Human Rights Campaign (Gay and Lesbian rights)?
Would you trust a Michael Moore documentary about free market capitalism?
Mind you, that doesn’t mean that the reporting is necessarily a LIE, but that it has to be suspect.
Lynx: again: do you actually watch the BBC yourself and if so what is your opinion of it?
Of course I understand your reasoning, but I also know Rudi and am well aware of his ‘tactics’ in threads. You must have noticed a certain patern yourself as well.
I don’t have BBC on my basic cable service, but watched in Germany for months as the only English TV available. I watch CBC in Michigan and adit to it’s left ;eaning bias.
From http://www.world-newspapers.com/uk.html:
Daily Telegraph
Well written conservative broadsheet.
Economist
In-depth coverage of political and economic events throughout the world.
Click Here to subscribe.
Financial Times
One of the world’s leading business and politics newspapers with a global outlook.
Get The Financial Times RISK FREE for 4 weeks.
Guardian
Left of centre top quality daily.
Independent
Daily liberal broadsheet with a wide international coverage.
Mirror
Tabloid, traditionally supportive of the Labour party.
Sun
Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid known for its sensational headlines and pictures of topless girls.
MvdG – When you attack a biased newssource with a tabloid I challege your bias for not telling about the slant of your post.
If your post was a contrast between the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian I would welcome the debate. You are attacking the BBC with the National Enquirer to validate your bias using a tabloid. What would JG do if your costume post featured a topless woman in leather or latex? I think as your editor he would have “read you the riot act”.
Joe is not my ‘editor’ and personally I do not see what’s wrong with a topless woman in leather or latex if it serves a purpose.
Well, even when it doesn’t really….
Michael I have watched the BBC though I’ll freely admit that I haven’t in quite some time and when I did I wasn’t the political junkie I am today. From what I remember it was most certainly liberal leaning, and I can’t imagine that’s gotten much better with the current administration. I guess I’m a little numbed to anti-american slanting, a great majority of the media here in Spain slants anti-American. The only exceptions are some conservative publications, that don’t really slant Pro-American so much as they slam severely anti-left and everything it represents, including anti-American sentiment. Truly neutral or objective media is non-existant. I just read different sources and come up with my own conclusions. Reading both sides is fun, sometimes you find it hard to believe you’re reading the same story.
In the US those topless pictures would draw the wrath of the RR Social Conservatives. I did a local search of the UK Telegraph and found a good up front and honest OPINION piece about the BBC bias. If you used similar agruments instead of yellow mud and shit I wouldn’t challenge your bias.
“>UK Telegraph OPINION
Ah, it is interesting again to see the hypocrisy of the left exposed. They whine and scream about the right/Republican tactic of attcking the messenger, but when THEY don’t like the message, they use the exact same tool.
As for bias, of course the BBC is biased, and the point of the article is the BBC itself aknowlges it. When the other shoe drops (the report), they will have to face it, so this was likely a ‘trial balloon’ floated out, see what the reactions is, and allow for the ‘we have already covered this topic’ defense.
As for the multiculturism issue, I would take further than anyone has expressed here. Multiculturism, as practices by academia and the intellegensia press, is not just driven by ‘Christians won’t kill us if we critisize them, but Muslims (and others) might’.
It is their underlying belief that Westernism and Capitalism are inherently evil, that Socialism and/or Enlightened Despots are the preferred form of rule, that the masses are truly ignorant sheep that need to be led, that all strife in the world and all injustice can ALWAYS be traced to some act of Imperialism by Western powers, and self-hatred of their own country’s wealth, power, religious tendancies, and political structure.
IMHO.
Is the BBC really anti-American, or is it just opposed to the the Bush Administration? I ask because the two are not equivalent, in spite of what the Bush Administration would like us all to believe.
Also–The Daily Mail? For goodness’ sake!
I wouldn’t describe The Guardian as “top-quality” – it’s more biased than the BBC!
“CSS: again, the difference is that the Daily Mail is not making a secret out of being biased or not.”
So? It’s like taking the advice of the KKK on race relations. It doesn’t matter that they admit that they are biased, it only matters that they are.
If your evidence that the BBC is biased is an artical that is biased, do you really have any evidence to back up the claim that they are biased?
Think of it this way, you are having a debate with someone with regards to Creationism. The person you are debating with says scientists are biased against religion and for proof they quote a ID think tank. Is this really evidence of bias? Or, as you stated, just evidenece that scientists, “represents my … opponents’s views?”
Reality is usually biased against one point of view or another. The NIE states that the war in Iraq has made America less safe, are they baised against George Bush or are they simply stating what the evidence says? If it is the latter, wouldn’t it be more bias to give both side equal weight?
The BBC is so biased that they are even trying to suppress a report that investigated the BBC’s bias towards Israel.
Yet, so many left-wing British maroons, still display a button that reads “I Believe in the BBC” on their blogs. Of course, they believe in the BBC. Why wouldn’t they?
Rudi’s tact on this is very typical. The same leftists who claim everything the right does is pernicious, fascistic, and Nazi-like, are also the same leftists who dismiss as trivial any complaints the right has about left-wing bias even as multiculturalism is slowing causing civilization to slouch in the direction of the most Orwellian political correctness and demanding public tolerance and even acceptance of the Stone Age values of so many Muslims. The former of which may ultimately lead Europe to the very sort of conservative, theocratic government that liberals supposedly despise. Feminism, gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democratic governance, no cause is too great to sacrifice before the idol of multiculturalism for the modern left.
I think Rudi would be crying foul if FOX News were a publicly-funded TV station in the United States. He certainly wouldn’t accept his criticisms being shot done by people making sarcastic remarks about how we are all “going to be reading ‘Mein Kampf’ and singing ‘Deutschland über alles.’”
Tommy–
It’s not very sporting to make up a dopey argument and put it someone else’s mouth so you can mock them for making a dopey argument.
It’s also pretty noticable when you do that kind of thing.
It’s not very nice to make dopey accusations, either, BYG. So give it a rest.
Tommy–
: )
Tommy You aren’t old enough to remember FiringLine on PBS. I remember watching Buckley when I was far Left, today I am more Libertarian.
Buckley gave both sides an opportunity to debate.
The Reagan Whitehouse guttted the Fairness Doctrine to allow the IDIOTS at AEI to gain power. In the pre-Reagan days even the likes of you could present an opposing view when a bleeding heart Librul made a comment on local TV. I have no problem with Mein Kampf, Mao’s Little Red book or Hary Potter being in a library. The grandfathers of your paleoconservative movement (Goldwater and Buckley) had a forum at PBS, go listen to Limpbaugh and Charles at LGF for another recipe for KoolAid.
Don’t wory BeYourGuest,
You nailed me on my Truth Out/Think Progress error on the other thread.
Ha! I LOVE BBC News. LOVE IT!!! I am sure much like a lot of Right leaning people LOVE Fox News! Its nice to find a source SOMEWHERE in the world that is unabashedly left leaning. Oh, you say, but its DIFFERENT. Unlike Fox News, which is unabashedly Conservative, this company is GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED! So? Seems to me that if enough folks in Britain were unhappy with the coverage, they would have done something about it. But it is still there, still publicly supported, and has been so for decades. So complain all you will. Just as I will complain about Fox News. That is your right and I salute you for it. Don’t expect to get any points for your comments, however.
Well, if they are as popular as you think, Tony, they shouldn’t need any government support. They ought to thrive in a free market given their tremendous popularity. Set them free, cut off their taxpayer subsidy, and see how well they do in Britain.
SHOULD they now? Because you say so? As I said, its been going strong supported by the British Government for decades. If they SHOULD be on their own, why AREN’T they?
In my opinion, Fox news SHOULD be more honest about their right leaning bias. But they aren’t, are they? They still claim to be FAIR AND BALANCED. So whatever magic wand that you wave to make the BBC cut off taxpayers money SHOULD then force Fox to admit to their bias. Frankly, I don’t see it happening.
PING:
TITLE: BBC Bias
BLOG NAME: Gay Orbit
Well, now they’re admitting it, at least!
A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslim…
PING:
TITLE: BBC Blatant Bias Blurted
BLOG NAME: UNCoRRELATED
The BBC is possible rivaled only by the New York Times for having an unambiguous left-wing agenda, but like all left-wing media, they maintain the pretense of playing it up the middle. No more. 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….