BBC accused of political bias...

...on the right, not the left

The BBC has been accused of yielding to political pressure since the last election and allowing a right-wing bias to emerge in its journalism.

The serious criticism by a distinguished media professor suggests that the BBC has compromised its impartiality by depending too heavily on sources from business, the media, law and order and politics.

By contrast, ITV and Channel 4 make much greater use of sources from academia, medicine, science and non-governmental organisations.

Professor Justin Lewis, Dean of Research at Cardiff University and an experienced analyst of the BBC’s output, suggested that the BBC Trust had “played down” the findings, which were presented to the governing body last year.

In an essay to be published next month, Professor Lewis states: “The available evidence on the BBC centre of gravity does not suggest a leftist tilt. On the contrary, its dependence on certain dominant institutions notably in the business world and the national print media – would appear to push it the other way.”

He concludes: “The most plausible hypothesis is that the BBC has, under pressure, been pushed to the right.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-accused-ofpolitical-bias--on-the-right-not-the-left-9129639.html

I knew it., just bloody well knew it and now it has been proved by an academic study to be the case. Licence payers deserve better than that.

Funny, I was talking to a liberal friend of mine the other day and she and I agree that a lot of the media leans to the right rather than to the left, as the old saw goes.

Being in the profession, I can say that I've seen so many journalists cowed by this constant barrage of accusations of liberal bias that they end up being the opposite.

It's something I have definitely noticed over the last year, and considering the BBC is supposed to be unbiased it really should be shouted about.

Well maybe if it hadnt been left biased in the first place it would not have had to swing the other way   

The right scream about left wing bias if another point of view to things has the audacity to raise it's head. This is simply not acceptable.

I have found the BBC to be reasonably neutral over the past few years. Dimbleby, Andrew Neill, Andrww Marr, Robert Peston all seem pretty switched on and level headed, unlike the rather more Fox News like Sky, which is often very rw biased.

I agree with you Andy...even though there has been talk of it for years.

Irn Bru wrote:...on the right, not the left

The BBC has been accused of yielding to political pressure since the last election and allowing a right-wing bias to emerge in its journalism.

The serious criticism by a distinguished media professor suggests that the BBC has compromised its impartiality by depending too heavily on sources from business, the media, law and order and politics.

By contrast, ITV and Channel 4 make much greater use of sources from academia, medicine, science and non-governmental organisations.

Professor Justin Lewis, Dean of Research at Cardiff University and an experienced analyst of the BBC’s output, suggested that the BBC Trust had “played down” the findings, which were presented to the governing body last year.

In an essay to be published next month, Professor Lewis states: “The available evidence on the BBC centre of gravity does not suggest a leftist tilt. On the contrary, its dependence on certain dominant institutions notably in the business world and the national print media – would appear to push it the other way.”

He concludes: “The most plausible hypothesis is that the BBC has, under pressure, been pushed to the right.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-accused-ofpolitical-bias--on-the-right-not-the-left-9129639.html

I knew it., just bloody well knew it and now it has been proved by an academic study to be the case. Licence payers deserve better than that.

if the purse is big enough any company is for sale.. :D 

It's not for sale, it's been pressurised by the government. It's a bloody disgrace.

i suppose it's quite difficult to remain unbiased, i guess most have an agenda of some sort..

The BBC has managed it for a long time and been reknowned all over the world for it. Until now. And that says everything.

Many retiring newsreaders have suggested in no uncertain terms that the editorial bias has been to the left. Indeed I would find it entirely implausible that the BBC were biased to the right it isn't in their interests full stop. They don't want Tory govt and why should they. The Tories would destroy the BBC given half a chance.

they must feel it is necessary, is it true or a perceived change ..

In an essay to be published next month, Professor Lewis states: “The available evidence on the BBC centre of gravity does not suggest a leftist tilt. On the contrary, its dependence on certain dominant institutions notably in the business world and the national print media – would appear to push it the other way.”

He concludes: “The most plausible hypothesis is that the BBC has, under pressure, been pushed to the right.”


And he is spot on.

I see is Professor Lewis unbiased himself??? Are his bona fides in order in relation to being able to make such a pronouncement. By that I mean is he known as a left wing academic? If he is then his pronouncement will be by definition biased. There are many left leaning academics as I'm sure you are aware. I know a few personally.

is there any bias on this essay, would it serve anyone else's agenda for this information to be tainted.

Justin Lewis is Professor of Communication and Head of the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University. He returned to Britain in 2000, having worked for 12 years in the United States at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

He has written widely about media, culture and politics. Recent books include Constructing Public Opinion (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), Citizens or Consumers: What the media tell us about political participation (Open University Press, 2005), and Shoot First and Ask Questions Later: Media Coverage of the War in Iraq (Peter Lang, in press). He is also the Series Editor for the list in Media and Culture for Peter Lang Publishers, and has produced edited collections for Blackwell’s and Westview Press.

He has written articles for The Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, and The Boston Globe, and is a regular commentator on media, politics and cultural issues for regional and national US and UK media, including BBC Radio 5 Live, the Today programme, BBC TV News, The Independent, The Washington Post, the NBC Today Show, and National Public Radio. He has written and presented two videos: Getting The Message Across and Constructing Public Opinion for the Media Education Foundation.

it is a very rare thing to find anyone without a bias of some sort and I would not for one minute assume this man is any different.

Phoenix wrote:I see is Professor Lewis unbiased himself???  Are his bona fides in order in relation to being able to make such a pronouncement. By that I mean is he known as a left wing academic? If he is then his pronouncement will be by definition biased. There are many left leaning academics as I'm sure you are aware. I know a few personally.

Prey tell....Why do you have a problem with LW academics?

Nothing says that this man is Phil, they just want him to be so they can say he is wrong.

Sassy wrote:Justin Lewis is Professor of Communication and Head of the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University. He returned to Britain in 2000, having worked for 12 years in the United States at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

He has written widely about media, culture and politics. Recent books include Constructing Public Opinion (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), Citizens or Consumers: What the media tell us about political participation (Open University Press, 2005), and Shoot First and Ask Questions Later: Media Coverage of the War in Iraq (Peter Lang, in press). He is also the Series Editor for the list in Media and Culture for Peter Lang Publishers, and has produced edited collections for Blackwell’s and Westview Press.

He has written articles for The Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, and The Boston Globe, and is a regular commentator on media, politics and cultural issues for regional and national US and UK media, including BBC Radio 5 Live, the Today programme, BBC TV News, The Independent, The Washington Post, the NBC Today Show, and National Public Radio. He has written and presented two videos: Getting The Message Across and Constructing Public Opinion for the Media Education Foundation.

A very telling short biography of a decent man producing the results of his study which showed bias to the right wing political agenda by the BBC.

There is no reason to doubt his findings and if anyone wants to dispute what he has produced then let them come up with an academic study that shows the opposite to be true.

Anyone got one for the period 2010 onwards?

I'd argue that journalism is itself a liberal pursuit. It's predicated on Enlightenment-era ideals that we can figure out the world on our own in a democratic fashion rather than having "the truth" dictated to us on high from authorities.

sphinx wrote:
Well maybe if it hadnt been left biased in the first place it would not have had to swing the other way  

 

  

BULLDUST !!!

Show us yer' evidence !!

Ya' silly old moo !

 ::dedhrs:: 

Phoenix wrote:
I see is Professor Lewis unbiased himself???  Are his bona fides in order in relation to being able to make such a pronouncement. By that I mean is he known as a left wing academic? If he is then his pronouncement will be by definition biased. There are many left leaning academics as I'm sure you are aware. I know a few personally.

  

WHAT a load of bull....

Shouldn't have any trouble fertilising those spuds this year, old chap..

 ::dedhrs:: 

He regularly publishes in The Guardian. Hmmm a clue there. If we had Rupert Murdoch doing a report about right wing bias in the printed media and he said there wasn't you would rightly be up in arms.

Just because something suits our agenda doesn't mean it cant be challenged ad the right could easily challenge this.

I have nothing against LW academics Catman I stated I had a few as friends why would I have them as friends if I did.

Sassy wrote:The right scream about left wing bias if another point of view to things has the audacity to raise it's head.   This is simply not acceptable.

It's not true either! Coming from a left wing author..... in fact it's so untrue it's laughable.

The BBC is extremely biased to the left.

Go and type biased in to google - as you type it "biased bbc" comes up lol

This is a funny thread though.

It's strange, but I can't remember any Left Wing histrionics when former BBC DG Greg Dyke once described the organisation as being "hideously white" and proudly proclaimed himself to be a "progressive liberal."

Or when the former head of  BBC News Helen Boaden talked about the corporation's "deep liberal bias" in its coverage of immigration issues.

Or former DG Mark Thompson's admission of a previous "massive bias to the left" and a strong anti-Thatcher sentiment.

Or indeed the revelation that as recently as 2012 the BBC was forced to admit, in response to a freedom of information request, that during the previous decade it had spent £335,000 with the Labour Party, £295,000 with the Liberal Democrats and just £96,000 with the Tories.

There is still a tendency in party political reporting for a certain amount of left wing bias to show through, in my opinion.

Coalition, and particularly Tory, interviewees are routinely subjected to hard interviews, sometimes bordering on the downright hostile, while Labour politicians seem all too often to be given soft, almost deferential questioning with Ed Balls and Chukka Ummana in particular frequently allowed to make what almost amount to uninterrupted party political broadcasts.

Another and quite blatant way in which left wing bias still shows through - again in my opinion - is that all too often whenever the Coalition is known to be about make an important policy statement (usually heralded in the newsroom by receipt of a time-embargoed ministerial news release), the Labour Opposition's reaction is treated as the main "angle" of the story while mention of the government's statement is introduced by something on the lines of "...the government has been forced to defend....."

That happens all the time.

I would agree that there has been a "swing" in coverage recently, but personally I would say that it has been a swing more towards the centre ground of party political coverage, which is where it should be under the terms of the BBC's own Royal Charter and Reith's establishing principles of news and current affairs coverage, rather than to the right.

Lewis cites, for example, a leaning towards business, the law and politics in the choice of news and current affairs subjects and the selection of interviewees rather than to, say, medicine, science and the generally left wing world of academia.

To my mind, the reasons are glaringly obvious: The former disciplines are the sources of many of the issues which are most likely to be covered in news reporting and commentary and current affairs, and that they also tend to be the source of the most expert and accomplished spokespeople to act as interviewees - if for no other reason than that they are better resourced and far more willing to invest in media training for their senior personnel.

Beekeeper wrote:

Phoenix wrote:
I see is Professor Lewis unbiased himself???  Are his bona fides in order in relation to being able to make such a pronouncement. By that I mean is he known as a left wing academic? If he is then his pronouncement will be by definition biased. There are many left leaning academics as I'm sure you are aware. I know a few personally.

  

WHAT a load of bull....

Shouldn't have any trouble fertilising those spuds this year, old chap..

 ::dedhrs:: 

The questions which Phoenix asks are perfectly reasonable; the fact that you failed completely to understand them and that you responded with yet another example of your predictably meaningless garbage comes as no surprise to me.

Lewis is, indeed, well known in media circles as being Left-leaning. He is, however, undoubtedly extremely capable, an internationally-acknowledged expert on the subject and a first rate teacher (as I know from one of his former students).

Having said that, he is without a doubt a man of the political Left and an exponent of Press regulation and the legally-enforced, if necessary, promotion of "equality and diversity" in the coverage of news and current affairs; in other words sanctions (he calls them "inventive incentives") in the form of a newspaper not being fined out of existence or an editor not being jailed for defying the establishment.

But just who decides what news item or feature article meets these requirements? The government of the day? The law courts? Academics such as himself sitting on an equality and diversity quango?

He doesn't say, but I can guess.

"While everyone claims to be for plurality, good journalism and equal treatment, without serious regulatory reform and inventive incentives for promoting diversity, this is so much hot air. There is an opportunity here to improve the quality and range of stories in our culture and ideas in public life. We should seize it."

Lewis's own words.

Thank you Fred for that most excellent contribution I was merely trying to point out that just saying something and backing it up are two different things. I dislike unthinking left wing commentary as much as I do some of the right wing drivel on Flaps.

"What a load of Bull" certainly is in that category, Very unimpressed.  

However, such good posts usually result in stunned silence.

lol

Phoenix wrote:Thank you Fred for that most excellent contribution I was merely trying to point out that just saying something and backing it up are two different things. I dislike unthinking left wing commentary as much as I do some of the right wing drivel on Flaps.    

"What a load of Bull" certainly is in that category, Very unimpressed.  

It's seems to be the response of choice for knuckle-dragging Neanderthals from the outback.

BigAndy9 wrote:However, such good posts usually result in stunned silence.

lol

Unlike certain far Left posters in this forum, who clearly want and expect a fawning and unquestioning endorsement from their peers on even their most fatuous of comments, I much prefer my opinions to be challenged intelligently.

I thought this thread would startle the herd and a few little tantrums along the way and I was right. What a shame that those that challenge the findings of this study should focus on the author who led the team rather than come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source to dispute their findings but that's just about par for the course.

Irn Bru wrote:I thought this thread would startle the herd and a few little tantrums along the way and I was right. What a shame that those that challenge the findings of this study should focus on the author who led the team rather than come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source to dispute their findings but that's just about par for the course.

Hmmm well Fred did point to every single person who has worked at the BBC for the past 30 years confirming that it has a left wing bias.

That on top of what I've seen over the past 39 years does it for me.

And I haven't seen a change over the past 3 years!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:However, such good posts usually result in stunned silence.

lol

Unlike certain far Left posters in this forum, who clearly want and expect a fawning and unquestioning endorsement from their peers on even their most fatuous of comments, I much prefer my opinions to be challenged intelligently.

So do I Fred and I would think that Professor Justin Lewis would also expect that as well. Let's face it though, your post prior to the one I'm replying to now hardly qualifies as an intelligent response,,,,,does it?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:I thought this thread would startle the herd and a few little tantrums along the way and I was right. What a shame that those that challenge the findings of this study should focus on the author who led the team rather than come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source to dispute their findings but that's just about par for the course.

Hmmm well Fred did point to every single person who has worked at the BBC for the past 30 years confirming that it has a left wing bias.

That on top of what I've seen over the past 39 years does it for me.

And I haven't seen a change over the past 3 years!

Your record on any research that you have carried out to form opinions is as far as I can see to go round looking at posters on lamposts so I really need a wee bit more than that Andy.

Sorry

Now that did make me giggle. Wonder if he gets any good telephone numbers, not many phone boxes anymore!

I see my point about Murdoch was invalid then. Professor Lewis is a left leaning academic that has been established.

I can't see your problem.

Where has it been established? Making it up as you go along it seems.

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Hmmm well Fred did point to every single person who has worked at the BBC for the past 30 years confirming that it has a left wing bias.

That on top of what I've seen over the past 39 years does it for me.

And I haven't seen a change over the past 3 years!

Your record on any research that you have carried out to form opinions is as far as I can see to go round looking at posters on lamposts so I really need a wee bit more than that Andy.

Sorry  

Quite.

Phoenix wrote:I see my point about Murdoch was invalid then. Professor Lewis is a left leaning academic that has been established.

I can't see your problem.

Where does Murdoch fit into the discussion about BBC bias towards the right - the subject of the debate?

Please see above for context.

Phoenix wrote:Please see above for context.

I read what you said but I still can't see how Murdoch would in any way influence the findings of this study.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Unlike certain far Left posters in this forum, who clearly want and expect a fawning and unquestioning endorsement from their peers on even their most fatuous of comments, I much prefer my opinions to be challenged intelligently.

So do I Fred and I would think that Professor Justin Lewis would also expect that as  well. Let's face it though, your post prior to the one I'm replying to now hardly qualifies as an intelligent response,,,,,does it?

If you are referring to my comment on Beekeeper's childish and unproductive contribution to the discussion, then I would suggest that I pitched my view accordingly. I would have thought that would have been obvious even to the most limited intelligence.

I see that you prefer to concentrate your mind on that particular minor aside rather than on my two main posts in which, while happily acknowledging Lewis's pre-eminence in his academic field, I take issue with some aspects of his findings.

Are you suggesting that I am not qualified to do so? Or that I have no right to do so?

As someone who had a long professional career in the media, both print and broadcasting, and has also been an interviewer, interviewee and presenter, mainly in the field of local and regional media, and has taught the craft of journalism at university level as a visiting tutor, I would say that I am adequately qualified to comment on his report and even to offer a critique.

And, indeed, to do so without having to Google up and plagiarise the work of other people in order to justify what I post.

Irn Bru wrote:I thought this thread would startle the herd and a few little tantrums along the way and I was right. What a shame that those that challenge the findings of this study should focus on the author who led the team rather than come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source to dispute their findings but that's just about par for the course.

If you are referring to me you clearly have not taken the trouble to read my two main posts properly.

Why should I, or indeed anyone else in this forum, have of necessity to "come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source..." as you so loftily put it?

Presumably you regard yourself and your allies as the only ones in here who have the ability to make up their own minds and to comment intelligently on the subjects which you choose and which are inevitably pitched towards support for and promotion of Left wing thinking.

But then, you obviously regard those of us who do not feel inclined to praise and glorify whatever you post simply as "the herd" who are capable only of contributing "tantrums."

In a more enlightened environment that might reasonably be regarded as self-centred arrogance.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Unlike certain far Left posters in this forum, who clearly want and expect a fawning and unquestioning endorsement from their peers on even their most fatuous of comments, I much prefer my opinions to be challenged intelligently.

So do I Fred and I would think that Professor Justin Lewis would also expect that as  well. Let's face it though, your post prior to the one I'm replying to now hardly qualifies as an intelligent response,,,,,does it?

If you are referring to my comment on Beekeeper's childish and unproductive contribution to the discussion, then I would suggest that I pitched my view accordingly. I would have thought that would have been obvious even to the most limited intelligence.

I see that you prefer to concentrate your mind on that particular minor aside rather than on my two main posts in which, while happily acknowledging Lewis's pre-eminence in his academic field, I take issue with some aspects of his findings.

Are you suggesting that I am not qualified to do so? Or that I have no right to do so?

As someone who had a long professional career in the media, both print and broadcasting, and has also been an interviewer, interviewee and presenter, mainly in the field of local and regional media, and has taught the craft of journalism at university level as a visiting tutor, I would say that I am adequately qualified to comment on his report and even to offer a critique.

And, indeed, to do so without having to Google up and plagiarise the work of other people in order to justify what I post.

No Fred, I was referring to your response to the post written by Phoenix in which your only contribution in that post to this debate was to describe some of the contributors as nothing more than knuckle-dragging Neanderthals from the outback.

That’s your choice but if you want to lower yourself to the same level as those that you obviously describe in that way then that clearly illustrates the point I made in that it hardly qualifies as an intelligent response.

Your background in media, both print and broadcasting is not in question here but that does not in any way qualify you to dispute the findings of this report without coming up with some hard evidence to disprove the findings.

Your opinions are fine but the findings of the report have not yet been proved to be wrong.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:I thought this thread would startle the herd and a few little tantrums along the way and I was right. What a shame that those that challenge the findings of this study should focus on the author who led the team rather than come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source to dispute their findings but that's just about par for the course.

If you are referring to me you clearly have not taken the trouble to read my two main posts properly.

Why should I, or indeed anyone else in this forum, have of necessity to "come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source..." as you so loftily put it?

Presumably you regard yourself and your allies as the only ones in here who have the ability to make up their own minds and to comment intelligently on the subjects which you choose and which are inevitably pitched towards support for and promotion of Left wing thinking.

But then, you obviously regard those of us who do not feel inclined to praise and glorify whatever you post simply as "the herd" who are capable only of contributing "tantrums."

In a more enlightened environment that might reasonably be regarded as self-centred arrogance.

I am referring to those that have chosen to try and discredit the findings of this study based on the source of the report rather than on the report itself.

I don't expect you or anyone else to praise and glorify anything but if you believe that I do then the arrogance rests firmly in your lap.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

If you are referring to me you clearly have not taken the trouble to read my two main posts properly.

Why should I, or indeed anyone else in this forum, have of necessity to "come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source..." as you so loftily put it?

Presumably you regard yourself and your allies as the only ones in here who have the ability to make up their own minds and to comment intelligently on the subjects which you choose and which are inevitably pitched towards support for and promotion of Left wing thinking.

But then, you obviously regard those of us who do not feel inclined to praise and glorify whatever you post simply as "the herd" who are capable only of contributing "tantrums."

In a more enlightened environment that might reasonably be regarded as self-centred arrogance.

I am referring to those that have chosen to try and discredit the findings of this study based on the source of the report rather than on the report itself.

I don't expect you or anyone else to praise and glorify anything but if you believe that I do then the arrogance rests firmly in your lap.

I haven't done that. I can see and hear and make my own opinion up thanks very much.

I don't need to follow left or right wing nutjobs.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

If you are referring to me you clearly have not taken the trouble to read my two main posts properly.

Why should I, or indeed anyone else in this forum, have of necessity to "come up with some academic evidence from a reputable source..." as you so loftily put it?

Presumably you regard yourself and your allies as the only ones in here who have the ability to make up their own minds and to comment intelligently on the subjects which you choose and which are inevitably pitched towards support for and promotion of Left wing thinking.

But then, you obviously regard those of us who do not feel inclined to praise and glorify whatever you post simply as "the herd" who are capable only of contributing "tantrums."

In a more enlightened environment that might reasonably be regarded as self-centred arrogance.

I am referring to those that have chosen to try and discredit the findings of this study based on the source of the report rather than on the report itself.

I don't expect you or anyone else to praise and glorify anything but if you believe that I do then the arrogance rests firmly in your lap.

I haven't done that.  I can see and hear and make my own opinion up thanks very much.

I don't need to follow left or right wing nutjobs.

You certainly haven't Andy. And if you believe that every single person who has worked at the BBC for the past 30 years has confirmed that the BBC has a left wing bias then that's your opinion and you are quite within your rights to make it known.

Great stuff eh?