“The truly globalized broadcaster remains the BBC,” which makes its strengths, and weaknesses, particularly important. “82% of people listen to it every week -- and that's just in Afghanistan. The BBC is the world's most popular Internet news site and the third most popular site in the U.S. … No other broadcaster has such a reach.” It has this range in part because it is tax-funded.

Almost two month ago I read an review of Can We Trust the BBC? by Robin Aitken, a Beeb journalist for 25 years. As you can surmise from the title, Aitken’s answer is no: “You cannot trust the BBC, at least not if you're of a broadly conservative disposition.”

I decided against posting it, for who can tell if Mr. Aitkin is merely a disgruntled ex-employee. So why post it now? We’ll, it seems the BBC has now issued its own internal study of whether it is objective, prompting Mr. Aitkin to comment. “I read that the BBC was about to publish a document admitting a pervasive liberal-left bias … Alas, …it pulls its punches …. Richard Tait, chairman of the BBC's ‘Impartiality Steering Group,’ point-blank denied that there is any bias in its news output.” Most of the editorial is just a bullet-point summary of the book (not as worth reading as the previous review) and is subject to the question, as before, of whether Mr. Aitken is objective.

But the final paragraph is not subject to that question, and it stuck me hard. Hence this post.

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.

(edited to add link to BBC's report. I don't find much self-criticism in it.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

Although I think the Beeb's programming is good and its reporting of a very high standard, I have found it to be less good when interacting with members of the public. I have written to the Beeb more than once and have not been answered. That's not good.

Although the Beeb runs TV programmes that answer viewers' and listeners' criticisms, only the select few get their questions answered. In a truly responsible organisation, all those who write would be answered.

As I said before (but can't seem to find now), the left accuse the BBC of right wing bias while the right accuse the BBC of left wing bias. I can't think of a better definition of "unbiased".

Richard, though, is absolutely on the money when it comes to correspondence with the BBC. I too have attempted on a number of occasions to contact them but never received the courtesy of a reply.

This contrasts with the opposite view regarding PBS by BBC employee Greg Palast: "I work for the BBC, which is not government funded (we have subscribers), nor does it take a dime from Archer Daniels Midland or British Petroleum (big NPR airlords). America doesn't need another oil-industry-government news network. NPR is Fox news with a Connecticut accent." (Quoted from a response to a letter to the editor in The Sun magazine of July 2007)

BBC may be liberal, but should be so only in the broad sense, presenting both sides of arguments equally and without "spin". So should NPR, but with NPR the foxes are guarding the chicken coop.

quote:

"I work for the BBC, which is not government funded (we have subscribers)

I listen to the BBC, I watch the BBC, I like the BBC, but I don't see how a mandatory license fee enforced by the government is a subscription. If the BBC gets out of line can't the British government always exert pressure by threatening to end the license fees that fund it?

quote:

I listen to the BBC, I watch the BBC, I like the BBC, but I don't see how a mandatory license fee enforced by the government is a subscription. If the BBC gets out of line can't the British government always exert pressure by threatening to end the license fees that fund it?

Two points. The licence fee is not mandatory; if you don't watch broadcast TV you don't need a licence. I researched this some years ago when I was in charge of 14 portable TV sets which we used to play back video-recorded training role plays. We were advised that we didn't need a licence providing we never used the sets to receive broadcast programmes and it was suggested that we might be well-advised to ensure that the sets couldn't be used for that purpose (just in case any trainer decided to enliven a training session by showing the group the latest "Big Brother" revelations). So we removed the aerials and that seemed to satisfy the authorities.

Secondly, although the Government could, in theory, threaten the BBC in the way you suggest, in practice the Corporation's structure is such that this would be very difficult to do, and any attempt would certainly be resisted by the public. That is not to say that Governments, throughout the years, haven't tried to influence the Beeb's output but rarely have they had much success. As you will have learnt from your watching and listening, the Beeb is often highly critical of the Government and other parts of the establishment; that would never happen if it were controlled to any significant degree.

When I worked for a high street bank several years ago, every branch was sent a video machine and a TV for showing training videos, like Richard. We were warned that if we were to watch broadcast TV we did so on pain of instant dismissal.

It should also be pointed out that nowadays you don't need a licence to receive BBC radio transmisions, only TV. The entire BBC is therefore funded by its TV output.

quote:

if we were to watch broadcast TV we did so on pain of instant dismissal

Wow: unauthorized television. The American mind reels. How much is this optional license? Is it a yearly thing or one-shot deal?

A colour TV Licence costs £135.50 ($270) and a black and white licence costs £45.50.($90). This is a per annum fee and it tends to increase every year. There are certain concessions and full details are here http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp#link2

For that fee we get TV and radio free from any commercial breaks and the inevitable effect that this has on programming. Not all agree but I think it's worth paying the fee for that freedom.

I attempted to find out from the BBC and from the Licensing Authority whether I will still need a license after the swichover to digital only transmission if I no longer have a set capable of receiving programmes and choose to use my existing set solely for watching DVDs.

It took several months for me to find the answer. That answer is that they don't really know. The impression that I got was that they'll be waiting for some test cases through the courts before agreeing that we don't have to pay for services we can't receive.

It seems that they are concerned that people will get their friends to tape their favourite shows and watch them on video. They will want, if you claim you have no digital capability, to inspect all equipment in your house and presumably search for illegally recorded programs as they do so.

I suspect that the crime, if crime there be, would be committed by the person recording off-air for other than personal use, without paying the appropriate fee to the Performing Rights Society.

Indeed. But is there likely to be anyone in the country who can, with hand on heart, say that they have never borrowed a video from a friend?

quote:

NPR is Fox news with a Connecticut accent

I don't agree with that. Even though I am liberal, I freely acknowledge that NPR has a liberal slant...just as the Wall Street Journal has a conservative slant.

quote:

Indeed. But is there likely to be anyone in the country who can, with hand on heart, say that they have never borrowed a video from a friend?

I didn't mean to suggest that it was a Law that anyone took notice of

I found it refreshing to see the reports about the BBC's apology for its misleading trailer about the Queen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6294472.stm

There have been a few instances recently where the Beeb has had to apologise for broadcasting misdemeanours. I have no standard of comparison with other broadcasters, of course, but it's good to see that a broadcaster as important as the Beeb is prepared to hold up its hands and admit that it was wrong.

From the BBC report:

quote:

The footage ... was not intended to be seen and was shown in error, the BBC said.

Interesting. The matter goes much deeper than this. How did the footage get edited to give this misleading impression? Presumably some BBC editor deliberately manipulated the film to show the queen in a bad light. Was the editor doing it for fun, because of a grudge, or because he or she had been told to do it?

quote:

Was the editor doing it for fun, because of a grudge, or because he or she had been told to do it?

It could have been a genuine mistake, of course - although that does make one wonder about the checking systems in place.

quote:

It could have been a genuine mistake, of course

And politicians always tell the truth ... Yeah. Right.

They say it was due to "human error", which of course can mean just about anything in this context.

quote:

And politicians always tell the truth ... Yeah. Right.

No - but they sometimes do - as organisations do sometimes genuinely make mistakes (or have "human errors").

I am lunching with our Mayor today . . . and it makes me nervous. I'm going to have to watch what I say and be careful and all that. Sigh.

There have been further developments in the Beeb saga, which have presently led to the suspension of phone-in competition programmes consequent upon accusations of cheating. It seems likely that heads will be rolling.

It is fully reported on the BBC site, here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6905810.stm