Customer Reviews

Can We Trust the BBC?

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The Beeb's Bias

WSJ Online Journal

By ROBIN AITKEN
June 29, 2007

I experienced a sense of vindication recently when I read that the BBC was about to publish a document admitting a pervasive liberal-left bias in its output. As this was the theme of my recent book, "Can We Trust the BBC?," it seemed I would be able to indulge in a spectacular bout of I-told-you-so-ing. Alas, that brief, heady moment proved premature. For while the report is a careful piece of research, it pulls its punches when it comes to bias within its own News and Current Affairs department -- where it matters most. Richard Tait, chairman of the BBC's "Impartiality Steering Group," point-blank denied that there is any bias in its news output. The Beeb has never been distinguished by a culture of robust self-criticism.

I know this from experience: Toward the end of my 25 years as a BBC reporter I began writing a series of internal memos, first to senior news executives and finally to the BBC's Board of Governors, detailing an entrenched liberal-left bias that seriously undermined the BBC's claim to be an impartial news provider. Referring to well-documented incidents, I posed several questions: Why did we keep hiring established left-wing pundits, but never any journalists with right-wing credentials? Why did we use "right wing" as a yah-boo term to mean "anything we don't like"? Why did we never give U.S. actions the benefit of the doubt -- in contrast to our strenuous efforts to be "fair" to Britain's avowed enemies?

The reaction was a studied indifference from everyone up the command chain. In a way, the BBC's attitude makes sense. The most important asset for any news organization is credibility. It is the mortal fear of "brand contamination" which in the past persuaded BBC executives to keep a lid on any discussion of the organization's failure to live up to its obligations to fairness and impartiality.

And there has been wide-scale failure. On every issue of public policy and political controversy, the BBC's instincts are to side with the progressive, liberal wing of politics.
...

The Beeb's reaction to my own book was telling: Not a single BBC outlet has seen fit to interview me, even though the accusations it contains are serious, detailed and sober. As a publicly funded body, the BBC has a duty to engage with its critics, especially on the vitally important issue of impartiality and overall fairness. Until it does so, it will not be prudent to trust the BBC.

Mr. Aitken's "Can We Trust the BBC?" was published by Continuum this year.

Aitken tells the following story. After a bombing incident in which Prime Minister Thatcher was nearly killed by the IRA he heard this not untypical comment in the BBC newsroom, "Pity they missed the bitch". One remark does not of course make for a picture of a whole newsroom, but Aitken provides plenty of evidence here that the BEEB is indeed less than patriotic, very biased to the Left in promoting its own agenda. For instance its enthusiastic stance for Great Britain joining the European Union, or its very soft non Cold War-ish attitude towards the former Soviet Union prevented it from treating fairly opponents of its views.
As one who has listened to the BBC for years on the Middle East I can attest to its almost total lack of balance and objectivity in relating to the Israeli- Arab conflict. Time and again there are interviews in which the spokesmen for the Arab position would blame everything on Israel, and the spokesman supposedly for Israel would be chosen from the extreme left wing of the Israeli political spectrum and so also blame Israel. The fundamental idea was always that the poor Palestinian Arabs were innocent victims and the Israelis cruel oppressors.
This is what Aitken has to say on this issue.
""My view is that the Palestinians and the Palestinian leadership is the architect of its own misfortune in many ways. Whereas, what comes across from the BBC's presentation of events in Palestine and the Middle East generally, is that in some ways, the Palestinians are a put-upon victim minority, and it's the beastly Israelis who are doing the dirty to them.
"And you know, that is not a fair presentation of the position. Because the Israelis are militarily strong and successful, and the Palestinians aren't, I think the BBC allows that too much to play at its judgment, so that what comes across is too much sympathy, if you will, for the Palestinians, too little appreciation of the rights of Israel, and also too little recognition of the fact that Israel is a functioning democracy in a way that Palestine isn't, and nor is any Arab-dominated Middle Eastern state, and not enough credit is given for that in my view."
But Aitken does not confine himself to the Middle East. He writes about the anti- American of the BBC especially in regard to the current Bush Administration. He discusses the British undermining of the current US-British effort in Iraq.
Aitken contends that an institution which should be defending the values of the free world actually works to undermine them.
This book will certainly not make them happy in London's Bush House but for the many many listeners throughout the world who have been subject to this bias for many years it raises the slim hope that some reconsideration and correction might come in the future from this still major source of news to the world.

I've seen public television and heard public radio on more than one continent. And there are some good and bad aspects to them. On one occasion, I was shocked to hear exit interviews on the radio with voters in a democracy. Although the race was close, the more than one dozen interviewees all were strongly for the same candidate! There was no attempt to show the other side at all! I realized at once that this was both bad and biased reporting. On top of that, the other candidate won!

Recently, I read a book called "The Voyage of the Matthew." It was produced by the BBC. And, of course, the book was recreated on public television. It all seemed pretty good to me, as the BBC often does fine work, although I have to wonder about anything it has a hand in.

According to Robert Aitken, the BBC has a strong political bias. One person Aitken mentions wrote that if it could submit a slate of candidates, their platform would be anti-racist, pro-abortion, pro-women's and gay rights, pro-UN and EU, pro-union and anti-big business, pro-high taxes, pro-government spending and intervention in industry, anti-private education, anti-private health care, pro-local democracy and local councils, pro-multiculturalism and ethnic minorities in general, pro-foreigner and foreign governments, especially if they are left-wing, anti-monarchist, anti-prison, and anti-American.

If this is true, it's not good. Yes, I am a liberal, and I have many of the same political positions. But the BBC is supposed to represent the taxpayers in Great Britain, and those taxpayers deserve coverage of their views. I'd say the same thing about any biased media. As a matter of fact, one only has to look at what the media were like in some Communist nations three decades ago to see how political bias can wreck credibility.

As near as I can tell, the BBC is a participant in a war against Israel. One person is quoted in this book as saying that at the BBC "that America is bad and Israel is evil are two of the assumptions that just can't be questioned."

Let's consider the ramifications of this. I'm an American, and I see plenty of very positive things about the United States: it is a great land of opportunity, it is reasonably prosperous, and relatively free. But what about Israel?

Israel is one of the great success stories of the past century. There was a successful revolt against a wicked colonial occupier (which happened to be Great Britain, although I'm not sure what the BBC thinks of that). There were successful defenses in wartime against a variety of racist and bigoted aggressors. It has improved itself even when under attack. It has shown great concern for the environment, being the only nation on this planet to have more trees in the year 2000 than it did in 1900. And whether its people have wanted to be meek and humble or not, it has been content with a small amount of land: at less than 11,000 square miles, it is very land-poor. If every nation were as greedy as Israel for land, there would be no wars over land! It's a democracy, and its people are reasonably free. There is much about Israel we all ought to try to copy if we want human civilization to survive and prosper. And the BBC is failing us if it makes it so difficult for us to hold Israel up as such a positive example.

In addition, the BBC is failing even in its role to display liberal politics when it comes to Israel. After all, it openly sides with the aggressors against Israel. And those aggressors are primarily racists, bigots, right-wing and reactionary extremists, anti-abortion religious fanatics, anti-women's and gay rights, and anti-ethnic minorities in general. I think that the BBC's opposition to Israel is not so grave a moral error as its support for some of Israel's most seriously felonious attackers.

Given how counterproductive the BBC is when it comes to Israel, one would think that there must be many other places where the BBC perverts journalistic standards. And this book points out a number of them. One interesting program it came up with was called "Sex and the Holy City." No, it's not about Jerusalem, it's about the Vatican, or more precisely, the Catholic Church. There's a chapter about the BBC pro-EU bias. And there is a section on the BBC response to the war in Iraq, as well as one on "the despised tribes." Yes, there are other groups besides the Israelis that the BBC shows special contempt for, including, of course, the Orangemen. And that means giving more support to the politics of the Irish Republican Army. I think it can be argued that in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland, the BBC has worked against peace.

We see in this book just how difficult it is for anyone to get the BBC to apologize for outright misstatements. As Aitken says, "the BBC doesn't feel the need for validation from others; it shrugs off strictures, whether from church, politicians or judge, taking the view that its critics are either mad, bad, or stupid." That appears to be true, and I am one of the many critics who aren't mad, bad, or stupid.

Aitken quotes someone who says that the BBC is not a "mouthpiece for the nation," but "a foghorn bellowing at a nation." But whatever it is, the nation is listening to it. It has a huge TV market share, and most British subjects view it at least occasionally. And it is watched by many folks all over the world. Its bias represents a violation of journalistic standards that is hurting plenty of people.

I recommend this book.

With its national TV and radio networks, regional and local stations, the BBC is massively influential in the UK and also worldwide through the BBC World Service, ten international TV networks plus international radio services in more than 40 languages as well as its Internet news site.

Robin Aitken, having spent 25 years at the organization, provides well-documented proof of its leftist bias, chronicles his struggle against this partisanship and puts forth suggestions for reform. Important elements of the BBC's world-view include unquestioning support for the European Union and the United Nations, guilt about Britain's imperial past, and an anti-capitalist, anti-religious (except when it comes to Islam), anti-American and anti-Israel stance.

The first chapter covers the broadcaster's history from its establishment to the radical change that took place in the late 1960s and subsequent developments, whilst in the second Aitken recounts his career history at the BBC. A significant change took place in 1987 when the ideological agenda took an even sharper turn to the left. The concerns he raised about ideological bias were contemptuously dismissed, he was falsely accused and even threatened.

Chapter four provides profiles of the broadcaster's senior management, almost all of whom have long-standing connections with leftwing media like The Guardian and with the Labour Party. The BBC's overwhelming support for the European Union is dissected in chapter five that reveals a record of purges and suppression of anti-EU opinion, including that of Eurosceptics in the Labour Party.

The "despised tribes" of the BBC are discussed next. They are Ulster Protestants, Conservative Christians and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, most Americans and all those that the organization considers to be "right-wing." There was also a strong bias in favour of the IRA while balanced debate on immigration, the Middle East, Islam and other uncomfortable issues are avoided. There is no doubt that the BBC is contributing to the alarming spread of antisemitism worldwide, as also documented in The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism by Bernard Harrison.

Like all leftists, those at the BBC believe that their moral values are superior and not to be questioned. Chapter eight provides detailed evidence of how far they will go to twist, lie and distort in order to mislead the public. More evidence from current and previous employees - in their own words and anonymously - is provided in the following chapter.

Aitken concludes that one cannot trust the BBC, especially not on issues relating to Israel, the Iraq war, the European Union, Ulster, the USA or Islam. See also The Other War by Stephanie Gutmann for an analysis of reporting from the Middle East. He provides proposals for change by suggesting for example the introduction of a wider spectrum of balanced views and the redirection of funds to other broadcast media.

The BBC is a national institution in the UK so complete abolition is not even considered. It is still hard to understand why opposition parties and civil society did not more vigorously oppose the use of taxpayers' money to subsidize a self-perpetuating class of ideologues promoting such one-sided views. More information on this matter is available in What's Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way by Nick Cohen.

What a pity that broadcast deregulation wasn't thoroughly effected in the 1980s. It's the one important area where Margaret Thatcher did not succeed. If she had, the UK and a significant part of the global public would have been better informed and less brainwashed than they are today. I also recommend Scrap the BBC! by Richard D North, whilst Propaganda by Jacques Ellul remains a classic on how people's attitudes are shaped by the media.

Everyone who I have mentioned the title of this useful book to has immediately come up with "NO WE CAN'T" And usually they say they prefer, not CNN but AlJezeera. What can I say? I checked it out and they are probably right. There's more balance there.

So, the guy who wrote this book worked in the BEEP for a thousand years and he noticed that if you wanted to get on you had to tow the party line. The party line line being PC-ism and multiculturalism. Both of which are well discredited but still inform the status quo in academia and the political establishment in the liberal democracies. This is tyrany under which we all suffer, whether we realise it or not. It's dreadful, everyone is expected to have the same opinions. What is that? When I grew up in post war Britain it was all about thinking for yourself. WE were encouraged to think for ourselves. Now, if you dare do so, you won't pass your exams. It only goes to show that a higher education can be very damaging and will leave most victims of it with useless life skills and a diminished common sense. And common sense is indeed what forms the basis of life stills. Right?

So definitely a very useful book for people who want to question the given patitude that the BBC is neutral. Anyone who still entertains such a ridiculous notion should be seriously worried about their chances of making it in life.

Aitken appears to be Scottish and to have worked about 25 years for the BBC. The BBC had a training scheme; it also had something like a monopoly on equipment, which was far more expensive then than now. The result was that anyone with unpopular views could be shut out of the industry for life; the civil service and academia are similar. Aitken therefore was part of this 'elite'. Parts of Aitken's book are about him, parts about his views on the BBC, parts about others' views of the BBC, and parts about topics he feels the BBC treated less than fairly. An intro added in 2008 for the paperback edition is more of the same.

Chapters 1 and 10 (The Best Broadcaster in the World? and Conclusion) repeat the claims about trust which are often made: '.. the BBC is trusted at home and abroad. No other nation has anything much like it..' (p. 8). Another claim is that it investigates: 'No power in the land, be it Church or monarch, parliament or the police, is exempt from its relentless, probing gaze.' (p. 8). Yet another claim is the golden age idea inaugurated by Reith, dated 1939-1960 by Aitken, that it was wonderful: 'the corporation acquitted itself heroically during the war, and afterwards enjoyed near universal esteem' (p. 11).

Let's look at these points...

*** BBC trusted at home and abroad. Aitken gives no supporting evidence. I remember in about 1970 listening to BBC people despairing at the lies told about the Vietnam War by the BBC. He quotes (p 195) 'a distinguished former public servant' (unnamed - i'd guess Sir Andrew Green) who 'wanted to know why the BBC steadfastly refused to publicize his findings' - that the BBC deliberately lied about the extent of immigration into Britain. These are just two examples; I leave it to the reader to decide what measure of truth there is in Aitken.

*** Investigates relentlessly. In fact, to take the Second World War, the BBC followed the Holocaust industry in puppy-like mode, playing it up in the 1960s. The post-war events in Germany, revealed by James Bacque and others, have never been aired by the BBC. The BBC never covered the Vietnam War - I can recall the Russell tribunal being blanked out. The Kennedy assassination of course was never examined in detail. 'The War Game' about one nuclear bomb was aired decades after it was made. Biafra, Islam, any number of topics - including 14 years at the last count of EU corruption - have never been examined. Aitken's claim is nonsense. His own book reflects the BBC's slack incompetence - his four factual chapters are skinny in the extreme - Kelly's death is his main concern about Iraq, for example.

*** Golden Age idea, followed by modern dumbing down: I have in effect looked at this already. it simply isn't true. The BBC is trash now, and always has been.

*** BBC's in-house mentality as described by Aitken: Chapter 9 has extracts from six interviewees, anonymous, but all with portentous BBC job titles - 'senior duty editor', 'senior BBC political correspondent', and the like. And pages 39-40 have 16 'core beliefs' jotted down in 1997 by a BBC hack. Between these, and other comments in the book, it's obvious Aitken has the usual confusion of thought over so-called 'left' and so-called 'right'. E.g. 'core belief 9' is 'anti-private education' which can only mean for others! 'Core belief 6' is 'pro-union and anti-big business' - impossible to square with the support for PFI schemes and selling industries. 'Core belief 3' is 'pro-women's and gay rights' which is inconsistent with support for Muslims.

*** BBC employee are well-educated. The latter paragraph shows the claim of Aitken and many others that BBC employees are 'well-educated' is unsound. It's worth adding that technical ignorance of BBC people is astounding: issues such as lead in petrol, nuclear power, AIDS, medicine, climate, world Trade Centre 7, are dealt with by actors whose understanding is at a child's level.

Aitken is like a rather stupid child of a huge wealthy family which happens to own the Augean Stables. Daringly, he peeps at a few bits of mud, pipes up, and wonders if his relatives will admire his comments. His book is trash.