Post by Teddy Bear on Apr 20, 2013 17:28:29 GMT
A few days ago I saw this article by Fraser Nelson in the Spectator confirming the appointment of James Harding by the incoming BBC Director General, Tony Hall, as the Director of News.
While the author of the article seems to be fairly optimistic that Harding might address the inherent bias at the BBC, I only wish I could share it.
According to Wikipedia:
On 16 April 2013, his appointment as the new head of BBC News was announced, although he will not formally take up the post until August.[26][6] He had said in 2011 that the BBC does not have “a pro-Israel newsroom and it has taken management to get some balance in there”. Accordingly, Harding found this “frustrating because, unlike The Times where you can just choose not to buy it, you have to pay for the BBC.”[15]
I think most of us are fairly cynical, and not without good reason, for seeing any real change at the BBC to address the multitude of bias they exhibit every day.
I’m going to try and keep an open mind and watch how his appointment develops. Either he will swallow his own ethics to go along with the existing dynamics, or we will see changes. It will be interesting if he does conform to his previous observations about the BBC, and attempt redress, how those responsible for having maintained it that way react, and what they do about it.
At least we have a privileged position to best understand whatever is really behind the actions and words that might come out if there was to be any confrontation.
Interesting days ahead.
The Commentator has a good article about it:
While the author of the article seems to be fairly optimistic that Harding might address the inherent bias at the BBC, I only wish I could share it.
According to Wikipedia:
On 16 April 2013, his appointment as the new head of BBC News was announced, although he will not formally take up the post until August.[26][6] He had said in 2011 that the BBC does not have “a pro-Israel newsroom and it has taken management to get some balance in there”. Accordingly, Harding found this “frustrating because, unlike The Times where you can just choose not to buy it, you have to pay for the BBC.”[15]
I think most of us are fairly cynical, and not without good reason, for seeing any real change at the BBC to address the multitude of bias they exhibit every day.
I’m going to try and keep an open mind and watch how his appointment develops. Either he will swallow his own ethics to go along with the existing dynamics, or we will see changes. It will be interesting if he does conform to his previous observations about the BBC, and attempt redress, how those responsible for having maintained it that way react, and what they do about it.
At least we have a privileged position to best understand whatever is really behind the actions and words that might come out if there was to be any confrontation.
Interesting days ahead.
The Commentator has a good article about it:
Guardian writer says new BBC news chief will have to "leave behind pro-Israel" views
So The Guardian, or at least its writers, believe that you can't be balanced and in favour of the Jewish state?
by Media Hawk on 19 April 2013 12:37
I knew that when James Harding was appointed BBC director of news this week, the Guardian would have something to say about it.
You see, the former Times editor is Jewish, and he has professed that he is a supporter of the Jewish state. He once told an audience, “I am pro-Israel” and that in reporting on the Middle East, “I haven’t found it too hard” because “The Times has been pro-Israel for a long time. I try and be as simple as this… write the news without prejudice.”
Harding also stressed the need for balanced journalism, something I feel is overtly lacking at the BBC. He stated, “We say we’re pro-Israel but we’re also pro the Palestinian state… the question a journalist should always ask himself is are you making the case before opinion is dressed up as reportage?”
Well now Harding has to deal with a BBC that has scarcely landed in the centre on the Middle East conflict, as our reporting shows. But he was also (too) fair to the Beeb. He has stated, “I think that it is not a pro-Israel newsroom – it has taken some management to set a balance.... I don’t think its coverage is as aggressively biased as the Jewish community thinks.” A new report shows that 79 percent of Jews in Britain think the BBC is biased against Israel.
Now, I'm no member of the Jewish community, and I can smell the bias a million miles off, but what really struck me is that the Guardian writer, Lisa O'Carroll, thinks that Harding cannot be pro-Israel in his outlook (and pro-Palestinian state, by his words) and "balanced". Presumably, by her standards, you can only be "balanced" if you're apathetic, or even anti-Israel? She writes:
Well, we'll be watching to see just how Harding takes on the institutionalised bias at the BBC. He doesn't have to forgo his appreciation for the Jewish state to be balanced. He just has to be a decent, open-minded and fair arbiter on such matters. But I'm hardly surprised that Guardian writers cannot separate the idea of being in favour of something and not being flagrantly and blindly biased towards it. After all, this is the newspaper that continues to print terrorist propaganda.
In the interest of "balance", of course...
So The Guardian, or at least its writers, believe that you can't be balanced and in favour of the Jewish state?
by Media Hawk on 19 April 2013 12:37
I knew that when James Harding was appointed BBC director of news this week, the Guardian would have something to say about it.
You see, the former Times editor is Jewish, and he has professed that he is a supporter of the Jewish state. He once told an audience, “I am pro-Israel” and that in reporting on the Middle East, “I haven’t found it too hard” because “The Times has been pro-Israel for a long time. I try and be as simple as this… write the news without prejudice.”
Harding also stressed the need for balanced journalism, something I feel is overtly lacking at the BBC. He stated, “We say we’re pro-Israel but we’re also pro the Palestinian state… the question a journalist should always ask himself is are you making the case before opinion is dressed up as reportage?”
Well now Harding has to deal with a BBC that has scarcely landed in the centre on the Middle East conflict, as our reporting shows. But he was also (too) fair to the Beeb. He has stated, “I think that it is not a pro-Israel newsroom – it has taken some management to set a balance.... I don’t think its coverage is as aggressively biased as the Jewish community thinks.” A new report shows that 79 percent of Jews in Britain think the BBC is biased against Israel.
Now, I'm no member of the Jewish community, and I can smell the bias a million miles off, but what really struck me is that the Guardian writer, Lisa O'Carroll, thinks that Harding cannot be pro-Israel in his outlook (and pro-Palestinian state, by his words) and "balanced". Presumably, by her standards, you can only be "balanced" if you're apathetic, or even anti-Israel? She writes:
"Harding, who is Jewish, will also have to leave behind the pro-Israeli line of the Times. In a debate at the Jewish Community Centre For London in 2011, Harding said "I am pro-Israel" and that in reporting on the Middle East, "I haven't found it too hard" because "the Times has been pro-Israel for a long time". However, he also stressed the need for balanced news reporting and said he was also in favour of a Palestinian state."
Well, we'll be watching to see just how Harding takes on the institutionalised bias at the BBC. He doesn't have to forgo his appreciation for the Jewish state to be balanced. He just has to be a decent, open-minded and fair arbiter on such matters. But I'm hardly surprised that Guardian writers cannot separate the idea of being in favour of something and not being flagrantly and blindly biased towards it. After all, this is the newspaper that continues to print terrorist propaganda.
In the interest of "balance", of course...