BBC News Staff admits bias at secret meeting

[Teddy Bear]

While many have been well aware of BBC bias, till now the BBC have always denied such allegations, knowing full well it goes against their mandate for which they receive public funding. Now stars of their news team have admitted it. The noose around their corrupt necks is tightening, and I can't wait for their last publicly funded death rattle.

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News

By SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday

Last updated at 21:11pm on 21st October 2006

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen
) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.

And the BBC's 'diversity tsar', Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils.

Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross.

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to 'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.

Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.'

(hat-tip to giddyboy at the Anti TVL license website

[Teddy Bear]

I urge all readers to visit the Daily Mail webpage for this article, linked above, and post a comment at the bottom of the page. It is time people did more to end the funding for this corrupt organisation instead of just being conscious of it.

[steevo]

At least they admit it, well to a point. I think one thing is for sure here, there is no shame. Raw propaganda in as believable form as can be dished to the waiting and willing. To hell with so many Western values and principles, even that which has made it possible for their own survival. For all of us who understand such needs as the basis of our liberties, these folks are the enemy.


Teddy...

[Teddy Bear]

Steevo good to see you.

It appears that more of the BBC staff are getting a bit sick themselves of the corporations stance, or leaning, and voicing their opinions. Of course officially the BBC as always deny any negativity to their continued direction.

BBC 'guilty' of ignoring public opinion says senior executive

The public service broadcaster has come under fire from one its senior executives for not listening to its audience
A senior BBC executive has admitted the politically correct views of the corporation are at odds with most of its viewers.

BBC commissioning editor for documentaries Richard Klein admitted the broadcaster was out of touch with the British public, saying it was guilty of "ignoring" mainstream opinion.

Speaking to a room full of TV viewers and BBC staff, he suggested that if the current situation continued it could affect the organisation's long-term future.

Klein said: "By and large, people who work at the BBC think the same and it's not the way the audience thinks. That's not long term sustainable."

"We pride ourselves on being 'of the people', and it's pathetic.....Channel 4 tends to laugh at people, the BBC ignores them."

His comments, reported in the corporation's in-house magazine, come on the back of news earlier this week that a string of BBC executives and journalists have admitted that the corporation is institutionally biased.

Details from a recent "impartiality" summit held at the BBC highlighted how some of the corporation's own top staff now believe it is guilty of promoting left-wing views, is biased against Christianity and as an organisation is disproportionately dominated by gays and ethnic minorities.

It was also claimed the BBC overtly promotes multiculturalism and is anti-American and anti-countryside.

Klein, who made his views known at an "audience festival" organised by the BBC last week to find out what its viewers think, admitted that the BBC's liberal internal culture did not match that of the wider British public.

He said: "Most people at the BBC don't live lives like this, but these are our licence payers. It's our job to reflect and engage."

The TV executive, who sponsored a study to find out what issues concerned viewers, even warned other BBC staff about the dangers of ignoring popular opinion.

"They may be challenging to us, but don't dismiss them", he said.

His comments come after repeated claims that the BBC has misjudged the mood of British public.

Last month the corporation was deluged with complaints after a Muslim extremist was given 12 minutes of airtime on Radio 4's flagship Today programme.

It also came under attack in the summer when it broadcast a "sick" comedy, which showed Tony Blair being assasinated and terrorists crashing a jet into parliament.

The BBC was also criticised last year after it was revealed that the corporation had cautioned journalists against using the word terrorist - claiming the word was too judgmental.

More recently the BBC has agonised over whether news-reader Fiona Bruce should be allowed to wear a necklace with a cross on it.

Research conducted by the BBC showed that many viewers felt "gagged and alone" and also believed mainstream views were being driven underground.

Ann Davies, who carried out the research for the corporation, openly questioned whether the BBC should change its approach.

She asked: "Should we, the BBC, be a pressure valve for that opinion? Should we help break the contraints of the PC police?"

Research into audience members views showed that many thought that politcal correctness had become endemic in Britain.

One said: "Politicians know more about how a Muslim lives than they do about what it's like to be me, day in, day out."

[steevo]

You know I have wondered just how much they're at odds with the British public, I'm somewhat surprised at this. From my contact via Internet with Brits and many Europeans... in general they hold the same biases, especially the young. Anti Christianity, America, and Israel seem to be ingrained now. There doesn't appear to be much alternative news anywhere except the net and these biases have fed off a growing collective ego.

[Teddy Bear]

Well I'm very happy to say that people are becoming more and more aware of this bias, and I'm wondering how long will the BBC be able to maintain its own assertion that it is fair and balanced in light of a continuing stream of criticism to the contrary. That's not to mention other issues of overpaying celebrities, while not providing the quality that one should expect for that money they have available.

This recent article from the Telegraph really sums up very nicely the state of the BBC. It rates its own topic, but it is in keeping with the present one so I'll post it here. Tom Leonard really rocks.

The BBC's commitment to bias is no laughing matter
By Tom Leonard - Last Updated: 12:01am BST 27/10/2006

It's fair to say the message is finally getting through: the BBC has a problem with impartiality. The row over BBC bias has been rumbling on longer than war in Sudan and always seemed just as unresolvable. The format was always the same: take a bunch of Left-leaning, liberal-minded television executives and a bunch of Right-leaning politics wonks with obsessions about BBC reporting of the Middle East, the EU and the Tory party. Then they hit each other over the head with rolled up, heavily underlined copies of programme transcripts from Newsnight or Today.

And this is a battle that the BBC has become very adept at fighting. Every time the clamour of bias on some particularly hard news issue, such as Israel, Iraq, or Brussels, gets too loud, the corporation commissions some research that finds no bias, or – next best – evidence of bias on both sides.

But no matter how much BBC bosses swear blind there is no problem, the issue refuses to go away. Why? Because for many licence-payers, the BBC's skewed assumptions about what the world is about and how its inhabitants should think is the most annoying thing about it – more annoying than dumbing down, than the universal licence fee, than Jonathan Ross's £18 million pay packet. More annoying even than Natasha Kaplinsky. And particularly infuriating when the BBC denies it outright, as did Michael Grade, the BBC chairman, in an article published a few days before a governors' impartiality summit a month ago.

advertisementNot that he'd already made up his own mind or anything. Anyway, embarrassingly, it emerged (through leaked minutes that were rather harder to elicit from the corporation than Mr Grade's article) that even some of his most senior journalists disagreed. Andrew Marr, hardly one of the BBC's token Right-wingers, declared that the BBC "is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people". It has, he added, "a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias." The meeting also heard that the BBC was patronising its audiences and constrained by an intolerant version of politically correct liberalism.

The bandwagon is gathering momentum. Yesterday it emerged that a BBC executive, Ann Davies, has questioned whether the corporation should "help break the constraints of the PC police" after audience research found it was out of step with much of mainstream public opinion. Another BBC boss, Richard Klein, commissioning editor for documentaries, told staff it was "pathetic" for the BBC to pride itself on being "of the people".

They're all spot on. It's high time the debate moved on from narrow notions of political bias. Far harder for the BBC to gainsay is that it has a liberal cultural bias, one that envelops pretty much all programmes, not just news and current affairs. If you want to find the most solid evidence of partiality, look at the BBC's entertainment output – its dramas, comedies and arts programmes. This is where its guard is down, where the BBC editorial police are not watching out for "balance" weak points. And it's also where, arguably, the partiality is far more subversive.

I wouldn't know where to start in tackling the political correctness of BBC drama, but I think the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves would go to Spooks, BBC1's flagship series about impossibly right-on MI5 agents. The series was originally praised (by the BBC) for its accuracy about the real work of the Security Service. So what did it kick off with on the first episode? A pro-life extremist bomber out to cause mayhem. Come on, you must know about them! No? Well, what about episode two, which tackled the equally pressing issue of racist extremists in league with Right-wing politicians plotting mass murder of immigrants? I lost interest in Spooks, but tuned in again a few weeks ago for the start of the fifth series. It was about homegrown al-Qa'eda terrorists taking over the Saudi embassy and murdering innocent people. Except that they weren't British Muslims at all, but undercover Israeli agents. Once again, the villains are a million miles away from the ones you might expect, and top-heavy with the forces of reaction.

The forces of reaction are conversely under-represented in pretty much every BBC panel show that I can think of. I'm not suggesting it has to bring back Jim Davidson, but are there any Right-wing funny men on the BBC? Meanwhile, any Guardian columnist who doesn't have a regular gig on the BBC needs, frankly, to change agents. That newspaper – or the Independent, if they're desperate – is the default button for BBC researchers phoning round for a studio guest.

The death, earlier this year, of Linda Smith, a regular on Radio 4's The News Quiz, and the subsequent glowing tributes to her caustic Left-wing wit from fellow panellists drove home the point that most of them were either serving or former Guardian columnists.

Of course, they poke fun at the Government but – as with so much BBC criticism – it's almost always from a Left-wing perspective. Over on BBC2, producers of the arts discussion show Newsnight Review achieve similar success in striking a balance among their regular guests.

Anyone who could even be vaguely described as Right-of-centre is a rarity. Inevitably, this sets the terms of the debate. And so, as happened in the summer, when a panellist described George W. Bush as a warmongering moron, nobody so much as stirred in dissent. When, a month later, Newsnight tackled the controversy over Ken Loach's allegedly sympathetic film about the IRA, they interviewed two film critics. They were from the Guardian and the Independent on Sunday, and, sure enough, they agreed what a great director he was.

Sometimes, even the BBC notices the bias. Not long ago, I watched a three-man media debate on Newsnight in which two were Guardian writers. The other was captioned with his previous job on another newspaper.

But does this all matter as much as accusing the Government of "sexing up" a dossier on WMD? Yes, more so. In embedding a liberal agenda in programmes where people's bias antennae may not be so finely tuned, the effect is more insidious. The rocks of the BBC's cultural assumptions are starting to fall apart somewhat: witness its second thoughts on its commitment to multi-culturalism. More reassessments will follow and the BBC, if it has any sense, should welcome them.

As it wrestles with the inevitable decline of its audience in the digital age, impartiality is that rare problem for the BBC – it's one that it can actually do something about.

[Teddy Bear]

Here's an article in the New Statesman from the 'liberal' point of view. I don't actually like the word 'liberal' or 'lefty' used to describe a political leaning, when in fact these are individuals who are one or more of the following:
1. Unable to hold two thoughts in their mind at the same time and believe the liberal point of view makes them appear more intelligent and caring.
2. Have a personal agenda and use the 'lefty - bleeding heart' philosophy to further it knowing it will receive immediate acclaim among certain circles.
3. Are too lazy, ignorant, or careless to pursue the facts of any particular story and go with the 'humanitarian' flow .
4. Think by spouting bleeding heart values makes them appear as a better human being than they really are. All one has to do is to attack their particular argument and one sees them spout all the crap that they profess to be against come out.

I include this article though because the writer actually details how many other writers have seen through the BBC and expressed their views.

Media: The BBC should hold its nerve
Peter Wilby
Monday 6th November 2006


BBC bigwigs have held a day-long conference to examine their own impartiality. This was probably a mistake

What happened was that the BBC's bigwigs held a day-long conference on impartiality. It was attended by everybody from Michael Grade, chairman of the governors, downwards, and involved some of the BBC's rivals, such as Sky's Adam Boulton, and some of its bitterest critics, such as Janet Daley of the Telegraph. The event was webcast live, and the outsiders, who included the Financial Times's John Lloyd, were told they could report it. Lloyd did so in Prospect and the FT. The conference, he wrote, went deep "into the BBC's emotional hinterland, unleashing a certain amount of controlled anger, even of self-contempt". For example, Justin Webb, the BBC's Washington correspondent, said the corporation didn't give America "any kind of moral weight". Andrew Marr, former political editor, said the BBC had "a cultural liberal bias".

It is impossible to imagine any newspaper attempting a similar exercise in self-examination, certainly not openly. This did not stop the BBC's press enemies making the most of it, and insisting the conference was "secret" and Lloyd's somewhat tendentious accounts "leaked". According to the Mail on Sunday, "a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted . . . the BBC is dominated by trendy, left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity". Tim Luckhurst in the Daily Mail advised the BBC to correct "its nauseating tendency to patronise the public, and . . . realign itself with the quiet, decent majority". In the Financial Times, Philip Stephens, without referring directly to the meeting, listed "a visible disdain for politics, an obsession with Iraq and a rising anti-Americanism" among the BBC's shortcomings. In the Telegraph, Tom Leonard moved on from news to "the political correctness of BBC drama", the preponderance of Guardian and Independent critics on arts programmes, and the excess of left-wing wit on panel shows.

Too much humour

Nearly all these charges seem self-evidently risible. Lefties have long been accused of lacking humour; now, apparently, they have too much of it and use it as a wicked, subversive weapon. And is Stephens suggesting the BBC should ignore the outcome of a war that Britain and America started and which now threatens to destabilise the entire Middle East? A service that accommodates Jeremy Clarkson in Top Gear, allows Melanie Phillips to rant on The Moral Maze, turns Boris Johnson into a media star, and gives bishops free airtime during its peak morning radio show doesn't strike me as uniformly liberal or atheistic.

I am sure the impartiality conference was well-intentioned, but it was probably a mistake. For one thing, in the interests of balance, the outsiders should surely have included my fellow NS columnist John Pilger or somebody like him. For another, asking Lloyd to these things invites trouble. He tends to muddle the roles of journalist, academic, pressure-group lobbyist, Presbyterian-style preacher and Blairite apologist. In my experience (he wrote for the NS when I was editor), he usually manages to upset everybody.

But the biggest error is to scrutinise the concept of impartiality too closely. It is a worthy aspiration but, by its nature, unattainable. As anybody who has dealt with a convinced supporter of Israel or Palestine knows, people who themselves take an unbalanced view will not see your view as balanced, no matter how hard you try.

The BBC maintains a fairly strict apportionment of time between representatives of the main British political parties. Otherwise it takes, as its editorial default position, respectable, informed opinion. This seems about right. According to a poll this year, 48 per cent of the British public believe in evolution while 39 per cent believe in creationism or intelligent design. So, should the BBC, after an hour-long programme on evolution, balance it by allowing just under 49 minutes for the alternatives? I think not, and I would not expect the BBC to give more than token airtime to creationists even if those poll proportions were reversed. Lord Reith's original mission, we should recall, was to educate and refine public taste. The proposal that the BBC should echo some notional consensus of demotic opinion is a fairly recent one, and derives, I think, from the British right trying to imitate the success of the US right in convincing voters that the media are in the grip of a left-wing conspiracy.

Fortunately, the right here faces a struggle. In opinion polls, the BBC consistently scores far higher for trustworthiness than any of the newspapers that criticise it. Michael Grade and his troops should hold their nerve.

[steevo]

Good points on your definition of a lib. Number 4 so many times has struck me as evidence of mental illness. But increasingly, really, its just evil.

Since I read Mr. Wilby's article I've decided to make a few comments even if stating the obvious. I'm assuming he's writing from the UK when saying its hard to imagine any newspaper going through similar examination and I'll take it he means any major media. Here in the US we have talk radio and with the conservative/libertarian perspective it is big media tho not really big. The hosts are always receiving calls from listeners with a divergence of viewpoints and many times criticism. They are always held accountable and want it that way as they know with moral confidence why they believe the way they do. Some liberals have tried but fail miserably - its not tax supported, its free market :-) Imagine a daily format with BBC regulars stating their views and answering to joe public, even if they don't have to worry about pay?

I find it so ironic he feels there should have been more "balance" with the critics/reporters. Like how long have the BBC had it their way, only. But he wanted more libs, or should I say almost-libs. And he makes the conference out as this courageous, ground breaking endeavor but probably foolish as the Bishops and Melany will have more reason to self-aggrandize and moralize.

As far as humor, yes it is wicked and subversive. Lets face it its based on falsehoods making evil from that which is not, and that which is evil the victim, with the intent to stir sympathies. Just creative fun for the whole family.

Interesting article even if written by an arrogant bastard.