Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
My view is that the BBC keeps all other news media in the UK relatively honest.

Ooh, no. When I was in Tunisia I got to watch some TV news, and BBC News 24 was particularly good at presenting Atlanticist received wisdom.

Which is why we have Justin 'WTF?' Webb telling everyone that Christianist wingnuts are really quite harmless; and Zainab Badawi wondering out loud on air in tones of utter perplexity how it can be that a tiny minority of misfits might actually not like America; and an interviewer asking a fair trade proponent to justify their ideas in the face of criticism from "the Cato Institute, a respected economic think tank."

The BBC has often been notably sniffy about France and (somewhat less so) Germany too.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 10:34:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yet you quoted my watchword "relatively".

Of course the BBC has biases towards a western anglo-aemrican economic viewpoint. That's unescapable. But let's admit that the reason Sky is not Fox is because of the Beeb.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 10:40:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you think Sky would work if it were more like Fox, though?  Fox plays to the most hardcore of the crazy Republican elements -- a group that I never ran into in Britain.  Yes, I know the BNP types are out there, but they're a very small group (about 1% of the British public), according to the election results I've seen, whereas I'd pin the hardcore Fox crowd at about 15% of the American voting population.  (They're smaller taken within the entire population.  Non-voters tend to sit decidedly to the left in America, which is why, I suspect, polling on issues reveals America to be much more liberal than its recent voting record would suggest.)

I'm not sure the number of people with an appetite for Fox-level journamalism are sufficient for a profitable channel in Britain.  And only a small chunk of that 1% would likely watch.

And, despite the other news organizations getting us the real story on (say) the lack of WMD and al-Qaeda links in Iraq, Fox is still Fox.  I think it probably goes more to profitability than the BBC's influence.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 11:23:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Prince Rupert already has The Sun and the The Times, so a TV channel with the same values might be overkill.

I half agree with Helen about the BBC, but I think it's based more on a fictitious and rather nostalgic view of the BBC from a few decades ago than the BBC we have today, which is a strange mutant hybrid of establishment noise machine, engine of confused private enterprise, and public service channel.

My point was really that the BBC is considered far more objective than it really is, especially in the US.

It's no Fox, but while Fox is nakedly and hysterically a pure propaganda outlet, the BBC is more dangerous still. It shifted noticeably rightwards after Kelly/Gilligan, and you can find it repeating many of the same talking points uncritically, while relying on its international reputation to give them credibility.

But I think what we still have some of is the idea of the BBC, even if the real organisation is only loosely related to that ideal.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 12:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this; except that I think the rightward shift happened a fair while back,  people only noticed it after Kelly/Gilligan.

When John Birt was first in charge I think he wanted to return to the era of Weekend World with Peter Jay and the "Mission to Explain". However, I felt that this was already running counter to the infiltration of CNN 24-hour news standards of infotainment: First with news and bugger context.

Editors are notoriously "industry-fashion conscious" and all want to be seen to be the first to do things. eg, within months of Kirsty Young standing up on channel 5 news, practically every news programme featured correspondents marching around studios pointing at graphs on walls. So the idea that BBC News were going to do something dated and laughably 70s like explaining things was a total non-starter.

This is what is meant by dumbing down, and why News resists the idea so strongly. Yes, they feature correspondents reporting from all over the world, they get the best stories (ie sexy blood-soaked action of real-life people dying), but they would never dare depart from the conventional wisdom. Never explain something and allow the viewer a different viewpoint.

That's why they have the "Big Beast" interviews on News programmes. You allow a politician in to say his thing, you have another politican to say they're talking rubbish and then you tell everybody what they said. At no point will the BBC challenge the paradigm of their thinking. Don't confuse the audience, they're too stupid to think.

That's why Channel 4 News is the best on the box. They almost never do big beast interviews, but get knowledgeable experts in to discuss, dissect and ridicule the politicians lies and mis-directions. The BBC no longer has the courage to do that.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 08:13:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
when I still watched news on TV in hotels while travelling, was that BBC and CNN (International version) were undistinguishable. They talked about the same topics for the same amount of time with the same info.

Some Israel/Palestine (or, nowadays, Iraq), i.e. US ME entanglements, the big summit or weather crisis or shooting war du jour, and sports and fluff.

No actual news.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 6th, 2007 at 11:49:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In many respects, the BBC tries to copy Sky News in too many ways. The helicopter during the election is one example. I have another. I live on the river near Greenwich just under the point where helicopters have to wait to get Air Traffic Control authority to move because of the flightpath into London City Airport. The day after the fire on the Cutty Sark we had BBC and Sky helicopters swapping places to take the same aerial pictures of the now extinguished ship.

A similar thing happened when Blair announced his resignation. That time the BBC was lucky they were covering Downing Street from the north whereas Sky was further south so their helicopter missed Blair leaving via the back gates and Horseguards rather than the front and Whitehall. The BBC helicopter was tracking his car for a long time while Sky was still covering the front. We will see the same thing revisited when Brown goes to the Palace to "kiss hands".

by Londonbear on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 10:04:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Non-voters tend to sit decidedly to the left in America

That's probably true of many other countries. It is true of Spain, clearly.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 10:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this supposed to be an example of the high standards of reporting to which the BBC should aspire -  a few selected reports of alleged comments, out of context ? :-)

I don't believe the bit about "Zainab" - it's Zeinab by the way - Badawi - a very smart woman - perhaps being ironic, playing devil's disciple, etc. ?

One of the things I do miss is BBC TV - especially the docs and major series. Having spent a bit of time in the US I can understand the Americans who appreciate the BBC more than many Brits. For all its faults it's one of the major achievements of British culture, is admired around the world and still highly trusted in the UK.


"Twelve months after the damning verdict of Lord Hutton, a Press Gazette poll has
shown that the BBC is still the first place most of the public turn to when they want to
find news reports they can trust. Press Gazette commissioned YouGov to poll a representative sample of more than 2,000 members of the public. We asked them to name one newspaper, magazine,
broadcast news programme or news web site that they considered to be trustworthy. The BBC, with 624 mentions, polled more than five times its nearest rivals."

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/OMI050101003_2.pdf

 




Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 02:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They're not 'alleged comments' - they're clearly remembered, and doubtless on the record.

Maybe it's because I don't usually do TV that they stayed in my mind so clearly.

As for being trusted - I'm sure a few years ago Fox's trust rating would have been comparably high in the US.

Being trusted isn't the same as being trustworthy, obviously.

A few years ago I might have agreed with your rating of the BBC. It's only since I've been spending time on here and on dKos that it's obvious how slanted the angles from the BBC really are.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 04:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"They're not 'alleged comments' - they're clearly remembered, and doubtless on the record."

But you didn't cite the record, so they remain alleged.

"Maybe it's because I don't usually do TV that they stayed in my mind so clearly."

You believing that you remember them accurately isn't the same as being accurate, obviously.

AS I said I'm sure you're wrong about Badawi - but without more information we can't establish the truth.

"As for being trusted - I'm sure a few years ago Fox's trust rating would have been comparably high in the US."

No comparison: "Asked which news source they most trusted, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/6/122755.shtml

"Being trusted isn't the same as being trustworthy, obviously."

No but it is SOME evidence - more than you provide - and on the other side we have - YOUR opinion. Somehow I didn't think you'd take any notice of a representative selection of other opinions. Do you have any evidence, apart from a few scattered memories of things you objected to, that in general isn't trustworthy? It is one of the most carefully monitored institutions, both internally and externally.

"A few years ago I might have agreed with your rating of the BBC. It's only since I've been spending time on here and on dKos that it's obvious how slanted the angles from the BBC really are."

Sometimes are.

Obviously people don't tend to use here and Dkos to say "the BBC did a pretty accurate set of reports today", any more than the BBC news says "Most cities in the UK were quite peaceful today."

Also of course, the Right and the Government claim the BBC is "obviously" slanted the other way.

 I'm very aware of problems with some of the BBC's reporting. Years ago I read and discussed with students the many careful research reports about and criticim of the BBC by the Glasgow University Media Group. I also think medialens make some valid criticisms, but they too over-generalize; from their site one would think the BBC was Fox news.  

I think the impression most people have in the UK that the BBC is one of the most trustworthy sources is, in general, well-founded. But they tend to get it in the neck from one side or the other whatever they say.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 07:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Tonight (4th June 2007) I saw a snippet of BBC's Newsnight.  In the snippet I saw, the overall tone was that Vladimir Putin was becoming more aggressive (scary!)  Why?  A map was displayed which showed Europe, Russia, and various borders including those of Iran and North Korea.

"The Americans wish to place defensive missiles in the Czech Republic" said the reporter "against missile attacks from Iran and North Korea", which grew bolder on the screen.

No comment WHATSOEVER about the likelihood or the political logic or ANYTHING about this statement.

"In response," continued the journalist, "Russia tested missiles along its border"--followed by pictures of missiles springing up on the now highlighted border between Russia and...us!  Because the next comment was, "Russia has now decided it needs to target european cities with nuclear warheads."

And up they sprouted, malicious mushrooms.

And no, I have nothing but anecdotal evidence.  But maybe you could watch the Newsnight broadcast from their web page?

The national BBC is sick.  Regionally, they seem to be doing okay (from where I get to listen), but their news teams have NO ANCHOR WHATSOEVER.  We're doing torture.  Are they supposed to be outraged?  Hey, they're supposed to be BALANCED.  And the historic webs of intrigue that support ALL stories...are too complicated.  Where be the balance?  In the mouths of spokespeople X, Y, and Z.  It's a joke.  It's like the old story about "When your name gets in the paper, you'll realise how wrong they are."  I've been named in a paper once, when I was fourteen and came twenty fourth (maybe) in a cross-country race.  I was "Raplph".

You can guess that here lay the first moment in my life when I became Ralph.  Such is the news from uninformed journalists.  And the BBC journalists live, it seems, in their Ivory Tower with their political mates, and some know full well what's happening, so the good programmes are still out there, and serious wires can be buzzed...

...but, pace DoDo's excellent diary, there's nothing complicated here.  Nothing you wouldn't expect from a second year student if you were the marking professor.  Historical knowledge; connecting statement to statement, looking for holes.

It's as if the BBC understands there's a wind a-blowing, but it can't get the idea into its news service.

They had a story this evening about how Tyrannosaurus Rex wasn't, maybe, the evil killer it seemed because new research into its weight showed that...hey!...it could only turn in a couple of seconds.

Luckily it had a lot of other slow-turning mammoth reptiles it could eat.  Wow!  News!

The complex analysis of who Putin is and what he is responding to...pffff.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 09:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did watch the Newsnight programme - and thought perhaps I will have to admit that this was one of their poorer performances.

But the poor performance was yours - in fact appalling; had you been one of my students I would have suggested that a university education clearly wasn't for you.

You caricature the programme and launch into a general attack on the BBC - having admitted that you only watched a "snippet" ! In fact the intro was an obviously non-serious montage of clips from the cold war period - over a song to try to make it clear it wasn't serious.

NO wonder some BBC execs find it hard to take some criticism seriously, and why I get exasperated at some of the "criticism" here - almost blind prejudice would be more accurate.

Let me emphasize again that I AM aware of years of serious academic criticism of the BBC, and other media institutions, as well as having my own criticisms. But I try to make sure that at least I watch a whole programme before attacking it.

After the brief montage the serious part began - all 22 minutes of it ! - starting with an overview by the very smart Mark Urban, who has been doing excellent reports for years, as was this.

Then they had a report from their correspondent in Moscow on how Putin saw things and the changes in Russia which have made it more confident, even aggressive, etc.

Then they had a studio discussion with someone from the US embassy, a Russian journalist, and British historian expert on Russia, and on a link from Moscow an opponent of Putin. Kirsty Wark, also very smart, chaired it and it was an informative discussion.

It concluded with Robert Service the historian, saying that politically Putin had been brilliant; his threat had provided a smokescreen, so there had been no mention of Chechnya, press freedom in Russia, etc.

You certainly DID get complex analysis of who Putin is and what he is responding to - but you chose not to watch it.

As to your point about the T. Rex story tonight, in the rest of the Newsnight which you didn't watch, they had a piece on the loss of the rainforests and a scheme to sell acres of them to individuals who could fly in to see them - but only via Google Earth. As the organizer said, at least it's a start and it has drawn attention to the problem again. Wark was probing, but this allowed the guy to explain his scheme and the scale of the problem.

Then they had a major piece on the anniversary of the 6 Day War by the also excellent and very experienced Jeremy Bowen (I think the Israelis have complained about him, as they have about most BBC correspondents and refused to co-operate with some for a time).

 Had you watched the first "snippet" you might have thought it a bit favourable to the Israelis - but of course nobody in a serious forum like Eurotrib would judge a programme on a "snippet" - would they ?

But he then went on to say that the view of little David Israel defeating the Goliath Arabs was a myth - British and US intelligence services had predicted a quick victory, given the Israeli weaponry etc; and they ensured victory on the first day by a surprise attack destroying most of the Arab planes on the ground - not generally referred to as a day that will live in infamy, etc.  

He then had a Palestinian give their point of view particularly about Jerusalem. Then an Israeli historian, critical of Israel trying to hold on to the territory conquered: "Some sobered up in a few days, some after weeks, some took 36 years before admitting they couldn't hold on to them."

 They had an Israeli ex soldier and settler who hardly came over as sympatheic in the bit shown, when he said: "When one side wins they tell the weaker side what to do."

Then a Palestinian writer who's written a book about the effects of the settlements on his area, followed by a UN guy who's monitored the growth of the settlements and related military bases, the restricted roads, the Wall and the problems this creates for the Palestinians. Then more informed, quite critical analysis from Bowen. This was pretty typical of a lot of the Newsnight's, good, critical, thorough (about 20 minutes) reports on a major issue.

I'm sure there will be complaints from the pro-Israel lobby - but I think they will at least have watched the whole programme. Try it next time. I suggest you apologize to the BBC.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 06:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Did they have a section on why exactly the U.S. wants bases in Europe, given the on-the-face-of-it ridiculous story about nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 09:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmmm instead of apologising for attacking the programme without having watched it, you try to find something that might justify your over-the top criticism. Though even if this point wasn't covered it wouldn't invalidate all of the rest of the points covered in the 22 minutes.

The justification for siting the programme and Russian objections and the suggestion that the US wouldn't be happy if Russia or another country tried to establish such sites in Mexico were covered in the discussion - as you would have known if you had watched it.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Jun 6th, 2007 at 04:29:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ted, what can I say?  I apologise for attacking the programme without having watched it.  Sorry Newsnight!  I unfairly besmirched you, sez Ted!

May I ask what reason was given for the siting and how that was dealt with by the journalists?  Would it be rude if I asked how much time, as a percentage of the complete item, this took up?  You see my starting point--the reason I didn't continue watching; I mean I actively turned it off so as not to watch any more--was an underlying assumption (which maybe wasn't there and only demonstrates my prejudices) that the worst a U.S. base in Europe could be for us europeans was "neutral"; whereas the worst thing we might get from the russians was nuclear oblivion.  Which seemed so painfully slanted...I wanted to know: Why are those bases being placed there?  And I didn't just want to hear the "official" reasons.  I mean, how would I understand Putin's statements without a clear idea of what the story is behind this it-seemed-to-me nonsense about Iran and North Korea?  And from my recent experiences with Newsnight I felt...nah, they won't get into that...so if I was wrong about that, I apologise and good for them and good for me because BBC news is more interesting than I gave it credit for: I'll watch more next time maybe.

So, I apologise and would like to know what you discovered from the programme about the "U.S. places missiles in Europe" side of the story.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Jun 6th, 2007 at 05:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 Well, respect man, as I believe the kids say these days :-)Don't you feel better now ? :-)

To tell you the truth I think they could have gone into that a bit more - but now I'm going on MY memory of the piece and brief notes I made. But they did cover a LOT of issues in a serious way. Try to get beyond intro snippets, in this case an obviously jokey montage of clips to illustrate the Cold War, and give the whole programme a chance.

The piece in the same Newsnight on the anniversary of the 6 Day war was very impressive for mainstream media (of course one could pick holes in even this and I'm sure Medialens did) but, as I said, the pro-Israeli lobby won't have liked it at all. Personally I'm glad I don' work for the BBC, the pressures form all sides are enormous.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Jun 6th, 2007 at 11:12:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't watch the edition of Newsnight you mention, but I wish I had. Generally I find NN to be a very good programme on european and far east affairs, moderate on the middle east, patchy on the US and invariably dire on UK.

They have a strong team of foreign experts, but their westminster group is traditionally poor and I wish they'd give it up to the Millbank (UK politics focussed) team. But I think that it's the "BBC-way" of doing UK politics that lets them down. Too much deference to big beast interviews and getting soundbites from significant players which dilute the inciveness of any report.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Jun 6th, 2007 at 08:29:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series