Post by Teddy Bear on May 12, 2014 19:42:00 GMT
A short succinct article by Christopher Booker at the Telegraph post Patten with which I wholeheartedly agree.
I caught this comment following the article, and my reply to it.
The BBC is beyond hope
Whoever succeeds Lord Patten as chairman, the BBC will continue to betray its noble ideal of impartiality
Christopher Booker
So long as Lord (Chris) Patten remained as chairman of the BBC Trust, there was little chance that the aptly named “Corporation” would mend any of the ways in which it has betrayed those noble ideals that once earned it worldwide respect – from its overblown, overpaid bureaucracy to the dumbing down and sensationalising of so many of its programmes.
Arguably, the biggest betrayal of all, because it so flagrantly defies the BBC’s statutory obligation to “impartiality”, has been the way its output has become dominated by that all-pervasive political and cultural bias that gives it such a recognisable “party line” on pretty well every issue of the day.
Lord Patten, the complacently Europhile global-warming believer, fitted this like a glove. But, whoever succeeds him, there is little hope that much will change. For the time being, his role will be played by his shadowy deputy, Diane Coyle, who, on The Independent, was a stridently Europhile cheerleader for Britain joining the euro. But, in due course, she will be replaced by some rather higher-profile politically correct clone, and this empire of self-satisfied mediocrities will sail smugly on its way as if nothing had happened.
Whoever succeeds Lord Patten as chairman, the BBC will continue to betray its noble ideal of impartiality
Christopher Booker
So long as Lord (Chris) Patten remained as chairman of the BBC Trust, there was little chance that the aptly named “Corporation” would mend any of the ways in which it has betrayed those noble ideals that once earned it worldwide respect – from its overblown, overpaid bureaucracy to the dumbing down and sensationalising of so many of its programmes.
Arguably, the biggest betrayal of all, because it so flagrantly defies the BBC’s statutory obligation to “impartiality”, has been the way its output has become dominated by that all-pervasive political and cultural bias that gives it such a recognisable “party line” on pretty well every issue of the day.
Lord Patten, the complacently Europhile global-warming believer, fitted this like a glove. But, whoever succeeds him, there is little hope that much will change. For the time being, his role will be played by his shadowy deputy, Diane Coyle, who, on The Independent, was a stridently Europhile cheerleader for Britain joining the euro. But, in due course, she will be replaced by some rather higher-profile politically correct clone, and this empire of self-satisfied mediocrities will sail smugly on its way as if nothing had happened.
I caught this comment following the article, and my reply to it.
devondickie • 4 hours ago
As someone who has made current affairs & news programmes for the BBC, C4, ITV and a host of foreign TV channels, here's my two penneth.
"Wherever you stand - you stand somewhere - it's people of claim to be able to defy gravity you should be worried about." (C) Devondickie 2014.
What I mean by this is that even if you try to be fair, the reality is that you can't be - it's impossible. Selection of stories, participants, questions asked, editing, selection of facts, use of language, colour of graphics, examples given - they all involve making choices - and as soon as there is choice, there is bias - consciously or unconsciously.
Similarly, as soon as you make someone into a "correspondent", they may try to avoid bias, they may make sure they present both sides of an argument, indeed, they may even interview spokespeople from all sides, but inevitably, the choices they made, the words they use and the causal models they apply will be biased - indeed, they may even flip one way in the first part and flop the other in the second.
My partial solution firstly to this issue is to allow the protagonists a greater say to press home their argument and spend a hell of a lot less time on correspondents pontificating about it.
Secondly, what's wrong with having partisan correspondents? It would be perfectly possible for a report to feature two correspondents who are billed as partisan and let them present their case and even argue it out. This happens with Kevin McGuire and and Andrew Pierce on several newspaper review shows and I've always felt that the audience got a much better idea of the issue from their verbal punch ups than any number of worthy correspondents often sidestepping the real points of friction. At least you would know the views and politics of the person speaking - the pretense everyone who is a reporter, presenter or correspondent must be definition be unbiased is an oxymoron and a large part of the problem.
Thirdly, there should be more personal view programmes - provided there is balance over a range of programmes and the protagonist has to interview a leading opponent of their views and give them a fair chance to express them, this is another way to avoid the fence-sitting which the crude notion of "balance" requires.
As to bias, I have seen it both ways. Alistair Burnett - RIP - @ ITN used to be a past master at royal sycophancy and toadying to the Thatcher government, whilst you'll find bias from the left and the soggy centre well distributed too.
In Italy they simply hand out state TV channels to each faction - not a good solution in my view, an entire channel continuously biased. In the USA the media is dressed up as "commercial", so they get the best political bia money can buy - another duff system.
The BBC is still the top dog in the world - Mr Booker may deride it and would probably scrap it if he could. I do not agree - it's the least worst system in the world - and much admired for it.
Oh, and look @ Fox News if you want to see bias with a capital B...
As someone who has made current affairs & news programmes for the BBC, C4, ITV and a host of foreign TV channels, here's my two penneth.
"Wherever you stand - you stand somewhere - it's people of claim to be able to defy gravity you should be worried about." (C) Devondickie 2014.
What I mean by this is that even if you try to be fair, the reality is that you can't be - it's impossible. Selection of stories, participants, questions asked, editing, selection of facts, use of language, colour of graphics, examples given - they all involve making choices - and as soon as there is choice, there is bias - consciously or unconsciously.
Similarly, as soon as you make someone into a "correspondent", they may try to avoid bias, they may make sure they present both sides of an argument, indeed, they may even interview spokespeople from all sides, but inevitably, the choices they made, the words they use and the causal models they apply will be biased - indeed, they may even flip one way in the first part and flop the other in the second.
My partial solution firstly to this issue is to allow the protagonists a greater say to press home their argument and spend a hell of a lot less time on correspondents pontificating about it.
Secondly, what's wrong with having partisan correspondents? It would be perfectly possible for a report to feature two correspondents who are billed as partisan and let them present their case and even argue it out. This happens with Kevin McGuire and and Andrew Pierce on several newspaper review shows and I've always felt that the audience got a much better idea of the issue from their verbal punch ups than any number of worthy correspondents often sidestepping the real points of friction. At least you would know the views and politics of the person speaking - the pretense everyone who is a reporter, presenter or correspondent must be definition be unbiased is an oxymoron and a large part of the problem.
Thirdly, there should be more personal view programmes - provided there is balance over a range of programmes and the protagonist has to interview a leading opponent of their views and give them a fair chance to express them, this is another way to avoid the fence-sitting which the crude notion of "balance" requires.
As to bias, I have seen it both ways. Alistair Burnett - RIP - @ ITN used to be a past master at royal sycophancy and toadying to the Thatcher government, whilst you'll find bias from the left and the soggy centre well distributed too.
In Italy they simply hand out state TV channels to each faction - not a good solution in my view, an entire channel continuously biased. In the USA the media is dressed up as "commercial", so they get the best political bia money can buy - another duff system.
The BBC is still the top dog in the world - Mr Booker may deride it and would probably scrap it if he could. I do not agree - it's the least worst system in the world - and much admired for it.
Oh, and look @ Fox News if you want to see bias with a capital B...
Teddy Bear reply to devondickie
Oh... somebody who has made money out of the BBC, and wants to again, is trying to convince us that the 'BBC is still the top dog in the world'.
That would be fine if this was Crufts, but we are commenting on its value as a publicly forced sponsorship of a left wing mindset that fails to abide by its charter - in any way shape or form.
That it uses its position to brainwash as many citizens as it can while masquerading as fair, balanced, and impartial makes it the most insidious force in this country. There is no attempt by them to address their acknowledged left-wing mindset with a clear consistent agenda for their own purposes, and for that reason most here want to see their licence fee terminated.
Ideally I would like to see it privatised, as watching them squirm with their propaganda while trying to balance their books would be a fitting punishment for their past arrogance and pretence. Then either they will have to change their ways and offer something of value or go the way of the Guardian. In the meantime we'll enjoy their eating humble pie.
As for Fox, nobody is forced to pay for them, how can you compare it?
I wish we had a similar outlet here - oh yes we do, but they're the other end of the spectrum AND IT'S THE BBC. And but for their relentless attack of Murdoch over the hacking affair we might have had them. I notice the BBC didn't do so well with their own FAR WORSE scandals.
Excellent article Christopher.
Oh... somebody who has made money out of the BBC, and wants to again, is trying to convince us that the 'BBC is still the top dog in the world'.
That would be fine if this was Crufts, but we are commenting on its value as a publicly forced sponsorship of a left wing mindset that fails to abide by its charter - in any way shape or form.
That it uses its position to brainwash as many citizens as it can while masquerading as fair, balanced, and impartial makes it the most insidious force in this country. There is no attempt by them to address their acknowledged left-wing mindset with a clear consistent agenda for their own purposes, and for that reason most here want to see their licence fee terminated.
Ideally I would like to see it privatised, as watching them squirm with their propaganda while trying to balance their books would be a fitting punishment for their past arrogance and pretence. Then either they will have to change their ways and offer something of value or go the way of the Guardian. In the meantime we'll enjoy their eating humble pie.
As for Fox, nobody is forced to pay for them, how can you compare it?
I wish we had a similar outlet here - oh yes we do, but they're the other end of the spectrum AND IT'S THE BBC. And but for their relentless attack of Murdoch over the hacking affair we might have had them. I notice the BBC didn't do so well with their own FAR WORSE scandals.
Excellent article Christopher.