Post by Teddy Bear on May 29, 2013 15:38:44 GMT
While it's what we already knew, and even the previous BBC director general Mark Thompson admitted to, it's always good when an independent study monitoring its output since 1997 on this particular subject proves it to be the case.
I disagree though with this assessment in the report that perceives the cause as 'He said BBC bias was often unintentional or provoked by ‘basic decency’ and a desire to protect the underdog.'
Labour desired this mass influx of immigrants to secure votes for themselves, and the BBC were a very willing conspirator, aiding in that propaganda. Also 'basic decency' doesn't downplay Islamic violence, but fear and dhimmitude does.
Considering the negative impact to this country by the BBC having skewed its reporting on this important issue, can we expect any due repercussions?
My guess is it will be a case of 'lessons have been learned', 'time to move on', 'yuda yuda yuda'...'trust has been restored'.
I disagree though with this assessment in the report that perceives the cause as 'He said BBC bias was often unintentional or provoked by ‘basic decency’ and a desire to protect the underdog.'
Labour desired this mass influx of immigrants to secure votes for themselves, and the BBC were a very willing conspirator, aiding in that propaganda. Also 'basic decency' doesn't downplay Islamic violence, but fear and dhimmitude does.
Considering the negative impact to this country by the BBC having skewed its reporting on this important issue, can we expect any due repercussions?
My guess is it will be a case of 'lessons have been learned', 'time to move on', 'yuda yuda yuda'...'trust has been restored'.
The BBC and its bias towards pro-immigration lobby: Report accuses 'left-wing Corporation of downplaying violence by Islamists'
By Alasdair Glennie
The BBC gives too much weight to pro-immigration voices and ‘almost totally ignores’ the negative social impact of multiculturalism, a new study has claimed.
The corporation suffers from left wing ‘groupthink’ that prevents its journalists from challenging institutional bias and results in pro-immigration ‘propaganda’, according to the research published yesterday.
It was also accused of ‘downplaying’ violence by Islamists while being happy to criticise Christianity and report on the activities of other violent extremists.
The report, by independent think-tank The New Culture Forum, looked at coverage by BBC news and current affairs programmes since 1997.
It comes as the BBC undertakes an ‘impartiality review’ by former ITV and Sky executive Stuart Prebble to see whether it gives ‘due weight’ to a full range of opinion on controversial topics, such as immigration.
The study’s author, Ed West, concluded: ‘In its coverage of the topic of immigration, the BBC has given overwhelmingly greater weight to pro-migration voices, even though they represent a minority – even elitist – viewpoint.
‘And in its coverage of the economic arguments for and against immigration, it has devoted somewhat more space to pro-migration voices.
‘In terms of the social costs, the BBC has almost totally ignored certain areas. The more awkward a subject is for polite society to deal with, the less coverage the BBC gives it.’
He added: ‘It would be no exaggeration to say that a foreigner who subscribed only to the BBC might visit this country and be blissfully unaware of many of the social problems associated with immigration.’
According to the study, it is ‘common practice’ for the BBC to give a platform to multiple pro-immigration spokesmen with no dissenting voices.
Mr West said: ‘Between 1997 and 2013, of the hundreds of immigration news reports that I have personally watched, listened to and read, in literally just a handful have anti-immigration voices not been outnumbered.’
The report was particularly scathing about a BBC Online article on ‘Migrant Myths’ published in 2002.
The article said the idea of the ‘scrounging, bogus asylum seeker’ was a ‘misconception’, while opponents of mass immigration were guilty of ‘racism, political opportunism, misinformation, media mischief-making and sheer cowardice’ as well as genuine concern.
Mr West said: ‘However laudable its intentions may be, a feature like this – which presents only one side of the argument – is propaganda.’
He said BBC bias was often unintentional or provoked by ‘basic decency’ and a desire to protect the underdog.
But he said by focussing on personalised, emotive cases of asylum seekers and immigration success stories, the BBC failed to cover the views of ‘working class natives’ or to ask awkward questions about the difficulties of integration.
Damagingly, in the wake of the Woolwich killing last week, the study accused the BBC of failing to report accurately on violence by Islamic fundamentalists.
It said: ‘In contrast to violence perpetrated by white-skinned extremists, the BBC tends to downplay any violent activity on the part of extremists.’
It added: ‘The BBC feels uncomfortable tackling Islamic extremism or aggression by minorities; it feels more at ease to see Muslims as victims of racism or Islamophobia.’
In 2010, the BBC’s then director general Mark Thompson accepted the corporation had once been guilty of a ‘massive’ Left-wing bias and admitted its coverage of immigration and Europe had been ‘weak’.
He said: ‘The BBC doesn’t always get it right. I think there are some areas, immigration, business and Europe where the BBC has historically been rather weak and rather nervous about letting that entire debate happen.
In 2007, a BBC Trust report into the BBC’s impartiality found the corporation had self-censored subjects it found unpalatable.
The BBC said coverage of immigration is ‘impartial and balanced’, but Trustees are carrying out a review to see if ‘due weight’ is given to a range of opinions on hot topics.
- Report looked at coverage by BBC news and current affairs programmes since 1997
- The study’s author, Ed West, said the BBC ignored certain areas
- He said BBC bias was often unintentional or provoked by ‘basic decency’ and a desire to protect the underdog
By Alasdair Glennie
The BBC gives too much weight to pro-immigration voices and ‘almost totally ignores’ the negative social impact of multiculturalism, a new study has claimed.
The corporation suffers from left wing ‘groupthink’ that prevents its journalists from challenging institutional bias and results in pro-immigration ‘propaganda’, according to the research published yesterday.
It was also accused of ‘downplaying’ violence by Islamists while being happy to criticise Christianity and report on the activities of other violent extremists.
The report, by independent think-tank The New Culture Forum, looked at coverage by BBC news and current affairs programmes since 1997.
It comes as the BBC undertakes an ‘impartiality review’ by former ITV and Sky executive Stuart Prebble to see whether it gives ‘due weight’ to a full range of opinion on controversial topics, such as immigration.
The study’s author, Ed West, concluded: ‘In its coverage of the topic of immigration, the BBC has given overwhelmingly greater weight to pro-migration voices, even though they represent a minority – even elitist – viewpoint.
‘And in its coverage of the economic arguments for and against immigration, it has devoted somewhat more space to pro-migration voices.
‘In terms of the social costs, the BBC has almost totally ignored certain areas. The more awkward a subject is for polite society to deal with, the less coverage the BBC gives it.’
He added: ‘It would be no exaggeration to say that a foreigner who subscribed only to the BBC might visit this country and be blissfully unaware of many of the social problems associated with immigration.’
According to the study, it is ‘common practice’ for the BBC to give a platform to multiple pro-immigration spokesmen with no dissenting voices.
Mr West said: ‘Between 1997 and 2013, of the hundreds of immigration news reports that I have personally watched, listened to and read, in literally just a handful have anti-immigration voices not been outnumbered.’
The report was particularly scathing about a BBC Online article on ‘Migrant Myths’ published in 2002.
The article said the idea of the ‘scrounging, bogus asylum seeker’ was a ‘misconception’, while opponents of mass immigration were guilty of ‘racism, political opportunism, misinformation, media mischief-making and sheer cowardice’ as well as genuine concern.
Mr West said: ‘However laudable its intentions may be, a feature like this – which presents only one side of the argument – is propaganda.’
He said BBC bias was often unintentional or provoked by ‘basic decency’ and a desire to protect the underdog.
But he said by focussing on personalised, emotive cases of asylum seekers and immigration success stories, the BBC failed to cover the views of ‘working class natives’ or to ask awkward questions about the difficulties of integration.
Damagingly, in the wake of the Woolwich killing last week, the study accused the BBC of failing to report accurately on violence by Islamic fundamentalists.
It said: ‘In contrast to violence perpetrated by white-skinned extremists, the BBC tends to downplay any violent activity on the part of extremists.’
It added: ‘The BBC feels uncomfortable tackling Islamic extremism or aggression by minorities; it feels more at ease to see Muslims as victims of racism or Islamophobia.’
In 2010, the BBC’s then director general Mark Thompson accepted the corporation had once been guilty of a ‘massive’ Left-wing bias and admitted its coverage of immigration and Europe had been ‘weak’.
He said: ‘The BBC doesn’t always get it right. I think there are some areas, immigration, business and Europe where the BBC has historically been rather weak and rather nervous about letting that entire debate happen.
In 2007, a BBC Trust report into the BBC’s impartiality found the corporation had self-censored subjects it found unpalatable.
The BBC said coverage of immigration is ‘impartial and balanced’, but Trustees are carrying out a review to see if ‘due weight’ is given to a range of opinions on hot topics.
