Skip to main content

Bias in the BBC and other Broadcasters.

Media bias is often defined as the publication of positive information that favours a particular viewpoint and negative information that criticises the viewpoint of opponents.  

A clearer view of bias is that it is the suppression of negative news about a favoured viewpoint and suppression of positive news about the contrary viewpoint.  The suppression of information is the heart of bias.

In the UK it is Ofcom that polices bias in Channel 4 and the BBC.  Ofcom always diverts the investigation of bias into whether or not a particular article was fair or truthful.  In doing this they are scarcely performing a fraction of their job because they are missing out any investigation of the suppression of news.

In the past the political parties have had sufficient influence to push back against extreme bias but in the EU Referendum the issue cut across party lines.  During the Referendum the fight against bias was totally dependent on the sense of duty of broadcasters and Ofcom.  However, it seems on the basis of the Referendum coverage, that both the broadcasters and Ofcom had an implicit agreement that the omission of news was reasonable and did not constitute bias (See Is the BBC biased about Brexit?).  

The continued, bitter support in the media for certain cross party issues is seriously damaging the UK.

Sir David Attenborough was recently interviewed on BBC Breakfast.  He stated in no uncertain terms that population growth had caused the damage to the global ecosystem.  The BBC has a substantial bias against population control, it suppresses data from studies that blame population growth for global warming, species extinction, ecosystem destruction etc. and always talks in terms of local opposition to "much needed" development and "racist" opposition to population growth through migration etc. The BBC even insulted David Attenborough, who was absolutely clear about overpopulation, by diverting the issue from human overpopulation to what "we" can do now.  The BBC and Channel 4 fail to mention that studies of the relationship between population growth and global warming have determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. The failure of the BBC and Channel 4 to mention the effect of overpopulation in the UK and globally is deadly.  This news suppression seems to be fully supported by Ofcom.

The BBC and Channel 4 have particularly excelled themselves for bias in their use of "Historical Presentism".  This is where those who support a particular political viewpoint browse all of history and use those events that most support their cause as if these events are the current responsibility of their political opponents.  Historical Presentism is an intellectual sham.  Past events cannot be judged according to current mores and the selection of those events that support a modern cause whilst suppressing the historical context and any mention of events from history that do not support the cause is naked bias.  The recent coverage of slavery is an example, as was the coverage of the anniversary of Hiroshima.

On the EU, the fact that the UK would need to fulfill the terms of the Copenhagen Criteria to rejoin the EU is suppressed.  These state clearly that the desire for "political, economic and monetary union" is required for a country to apply for EU membership.  The huge expenditure of Remain relative to Leave in the Referendum is never mentioned. The true story of how the large Leave majority in the opinion polls in 2012 was whittled down so that the Referendum was nearly a draw is not mentioned.  The massive trade and current account deficits between the UK and EU are suppressed.  The Role of the shady "European Movement" in the EU Referendum was almost entirely suppressed.

Opinion polls showed Remain had a chance after 2015.

The failure to mention these things is calculated to keep membership of the EU open as an issue even though it has been resolved by Referendum and two elections.  No doubt the Remain faction at the BBC believe that in 10 or 20 years time there might be another chance at EU membership but this is not good enough. The BBC and Channel 4 are supposed to provide impartial news coverage and suppressing these stories shows huge bias.  The effect of this bias is that we all meet people who believe that Leave massively outspent Remain and that the population favoured Remain but were cheated out of EU membership by the Russians at the last moment in the campaign.  There are many people who feel cheated simply because the BBC etc. have been suppressing the truth.  That the truth is not generally known is hugely divisive and damaging to the UK.  The leading BBC presenter, John Humphrys, gave a clear report that the BBC was biased during the Referendum but Ofcom has just covered the issue up.

News suppression creates conspiracy theories.  The BBC and Channel 4 have occasionally reviewed The Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Davos (WEF) but have concluded such articles with as much reassurance for the viewer or listener as possible.  What do they suppress?  In the case of Bilderberg they suppress that it was set up by the European Movement (cf: Jozef Retinger) to support the formation of an EU, they suppress any mention of the affiliated groups that lobby the EU and the fact that the BBC attends Bilderberg meetings.  Even discussion of the desirability of such groups is dismissed.  They have also suppressed the fact that Keir Starmer is a member of the Trilateral Commission and what that means. This suppression of the reality of international cooperation between Multinational Companies, International Banks and Governments is an attack on democracy.  In the absence of honest coverage it should be no surprise that these various groups have given rise to conspiracy theories.  The suppression of news is often the source of conspiracy theories.

Outside of bias by suppression the BBC and Channel 4 also use anecdotal reporting to produce bias by selection.  We can all remember interviews during the Referendum debate when an erudite academic was invited to explain a Remain point and then a couple of drunk, old age pensioner supporters of Leave were interviewed in a pub to address the Leave view.  Where there is anecdotal reporting it should always be followed by a fair summary that does not suppress the truth.  The same is true of group discussions which have the same flaws as anecdotal reporting.

Part of the problem with the BBC is that it has merged its global and UK newsrooms.  This means that the UK audience is being exposed to US news as if they were Americans which is especially dubious when it relates to the police and racism.  UK viewers get far more on Trump than on Macron and Merkel and I know many people who understand the US Constitution better than our own. This bias is utterly unacceptable for the UK's National Broadcaster. 

When David Clementi, Chairman of the BBC, steps down in February the replacement must be committed to ending news suppression and tackling bias.  The Ofcom committee that overseas the BBC Charter should be largely replaced and the number of ex BBC staff on the committee limited to two members.

When the BBC Charter is renewed it must include a real definition of bias such as "the suppression of negative news or history about a particular viewpoint, the suppression of positive news or history about the contrary viewpoint and the use of anecdotal reporting to favour the viewpoint.  Whilst always ensuring that the information it provides is truthful". The BBC World Service should be transferred to the Foreign Office and other BBC global activities sold off.

28/9/2020


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b

The Report on Racism

The " Report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities " has just been published.  The Commissioners were nearly all from BAME backgrounds and have produced a robust and fair Report. The Report identified a class divide in which the cycle of advantage maintains a section of the population in wealth and leaves the large bulk of the population in relative poverty.   The wealthy class is largely white British but the poorer class consists of large numbers of white British and other ethnic groups.  This class divide causes a bias in the crude statistics on disadvantage so that majority, poor white British are labelled as "white supremacists" etc. when it is the small wealthy class that actually creates the disparity that causes this analysis. The most striking finding is that different ethnic groups had very different experiences and outcomes.  Educational outcomes demonstrate this at a glance: Red text added for this article Most ethnic groups had better outcome