Thursday, May 17, 2007
BBC should reflect the choices of the electorate…
The proper role of journalists viz a viz politicians and the vexed question of what a legitimate question might be has been a point of discussion here for some time. It’s an important subject. In the past legislation north and south has put severe restrictions on journalism in Ireland. For Jim Gibney, true democracy and presumably by extension a truly free press can only take place in a united Ireland. But, in the meantime, he believes the BBC should reflect the political choices of the electorate:
Despite the huge, unforeseen and welcome political changes that have taken place in the past month the old order and the old way of thinking are also to be found in sections of the media. This has been most noticeable although not exclusively so in the commentary provided by the BBC especially in their flagship programmes Hearts and Minds and Let’s Talk.
Some of the print media also reflects analysis by journalists which suggests they are locked into old battles and prejudices and have not caught up with the new circumstances and mood created by the agreement between Sinn Féin and the DUP. And while the public have the ultimate sanction over these journalists by simply refusing to buy their paper the same approach does not apply to the BBC.
Other media outlets might aspire to be objective and claim they are. The BBC has to prove it is because it is funded by the licence-paying public. In theory BBC journalists do not have the same freedom to peddle their personal views. There is a public expectation that BBC journalists will be objective and their comments broadly reflect the mood of the licence-paying public.
He notes:
The licence-paying public overwhelmingly voted for an administration led by the DUP and Sinn Féin. Yet over the past month BBC journalists have harried Sinn Féin and DUP politicians with questions which are negative, which instil pessimism and could undermine the public’s hopeful mood.
Then cites:
The Gerry Adams-Ian Paisley press conference is viewed as an historical departure point; one of the most important breakthroughs since partition, paving the way for republicans and unionists to work together to peacefully resolve problems: a truly inspirational moment. But not for one BBC journalist who a few days later, amid the euphoria and optimism, asked Gerry Adams about the future existence of the IRA’s army council!
His question brought a swift and uncharacteristic put-down when Gerry Adams described it as “stupid”. Other stupid assertions followed with Sinn Féin and DUP politicians being accused by BBC journalists of selling out – on the one hand administering British rule or on the other being willingly on the road to a united Ireland.
On whose behalf are these questions being asked – the journalist or the public? What contribution are they making to the emerging new society on this island?
Mick Fealty @ 09:22 PM
*ahem*
I think this corrective by Peter Preston is appropriate
Politicians and journalists may work, drink, dine and go on holiday together. Some journalists may even become politicians, or vice-versa. But the roles are separate, and essentially adversarial. Politicians run governments and seek to exercise power in the name of the people. Journalists serve those people directly day by day, for they are their readers and viewers. They do not, if they’re wise, want power for themselves. They do, though, have a direct hand in the workings of democracy. Their stock in trade is information (which, to be frank, the politicians wish to keep under wraps). Information is the lifeblood of freedom. It is also its most contentious commodity. Most battles between press and politics are really information wars.
As it was when I previously noted Jim Gibney’s opinion on this..
Posted by on May 17, 2007 @ 10:18 PMThe issues raised are failed objectivity, bias and peddling personal views. That ain’t journalism to me and not something I accept being forced to buy as Jim correctly notes this is the case with the BBC.
I have the option to ignore bias, subjectivity and personal propaganda from other outlets. With the BBC we are forced to pay for it.
The point doesn’t seem to be about decent or investigative journalism but the forced payment for state journalism enforcing a narrative rather than presenting the story.
Narrative shouldn’t be set by the BBC, not if they are demanding those dissenting from that narrative pay for the privlege.
Though some seem to take offence for those that don’t have bias when the criticism is only directed at the select few who seem more suited to the narrative setting medium of blogging than informing the public of fact.
Posted by on May 17, 2007 @ 10:39 PMDepressing stuff from Gibney - sounds like something penned in a cold, foggy Gorky in about 1959.
Posted by on May 17, 2007 @ 10:53 PMSoupy,
Is this an argument for dropping the licence fee, or reform of the editorial policy of the BBC? If it is the latter, and you are arguing the setting of narrative should not lie with the Beeb, then whom should it lie with?
It may be though that I’m just unsure of the distinction you make between a narrative and a story?
I’ve argued that the work of journalists should be questioned, constantly. Kevin Marsh of the BBC argues today that that questioning is something journalists must embrace in order to strengthen their work.
As for blogging, it is its distributive nature that’s the source of its power, not the capacity to hammer out a single authoritative narrative. Very different from the traditional press standard, which Jim refers to in his article.
Henry Mencken once said, “freedom of the press is limited to those who own one”. Now press barons only have the privilege of insinuating their opinions into wider conversations.
As you know better than most, I have long and often argued for a more civil interrogation of politicians by journalists. But such civic journalism also requires a reciprocal respect from politicians.
Besides being inimical to the pluralist future Jim lays out above, I am not sure how narratives could be daily constructed so as to always chime with a single democratic outcome and actually remain journalism.
As the saying goes: “Good fences make good neighbours”.
Posted by on May 17, 2007 @ 11:06 PMMick,
It’s an either/or argument. As the BBC has an enforced subscription it should either be scrupulously neutral, absolutely balanced in any narrative set by it’s journalists or no longer funded publicly.
The BBC unlike every other medium does not allow it’s audience the opportunity to cease buying the product if the don’t agree with tone, narrative or perceived bias.
It is completely different from all other media. As a result standards of neutrality or absolute balance need enforced. That doesn’t need external input just strong editorial focus on those ends.
If the BBC is unable to be absolutely balanced, neutral or objective then it should no longer receive compulsory funding from those who feel it offers a bias against their views.
Some BBC journalists often adopt an agenda setting approach that should be beyond their remit as what are essentially public servants.
Posted by on May 17, 2007 @ 11:18 PM“BBC journalists have harried Sinn FĂ©in and DUP politicians with questions which are negative, which instil pessimism and could undermine the public’s hopeful mood.”
How patronising! It doesn’t take the BBC to undermine it. If anything, the BBC is largely responsible for creating this ‘hopeful mood’.
Journalists are supposed to ask tough questions - that’s their job. It shouldn’t be a case of treating the DUP and Sinn Fein with the deference afforded the direct rule NIO ministers and others who get a soft ride, it should be a case of giving everyone else the same hard time!
The role of the media is to shine a light on the a activities of politicians for us all to see and hold them to account. Gibeny seems to suggest he would prefer them to ignore certain facts if they are inconvenient to his own ideals.
Gerry Adams’s pathetic “stupid” question remark is not that uncharacteristic - I remember not too long ago on a BBC programme (Let’s Talk?) he dismissed a question from an audience member (approximately early 20s) by telling him he was “too young to understand”.
“one BBC journalist who a few days later, amid the euphoria and optimism, asked Gerry Adams about the future existence of the IRA’s army council!”
Does Gibney seriously believe a large chunk of the electorate were not thinking the exact same thing?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 12:17 AMThe BBC employs some of the fairest, most dedicated and decent people in the media on these islands.
É sin ráite, it is Irish Nationalism’s worst cultural enemy.
We exist, not as a sovereign people determining our own future, but as a ‘region’ of the great Noel Edmonds nation.
Everything they broadcast is strictly filtered by the charming, civilised, middle-class, Guardian-reading unknowing British nationalists in Shepherd’s Bush.
They must be destroyed.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 12:39 AM“It shouldn’t be a case of treating the DUP and Sinn Fein with the deference afforded the direct rule NIO ministers and others who get a soft ride, it should be a case of giving everyone else the same hard time!”
You end up supporting his argument. Equality or neutrality. You accept the bias but argue for extension of it.
In the absence of that balance why should payment for bias be enforced?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 12:40 AM“...over the past month BBC journalists have harried Sinn FĂ©in and DUP politicians with questions which are negative, which instil pessimism and could undermine the public’s hopeful mood...”
All social groups must unite in the name of Historical Progress! The objectives of the Five Year Plan are being achieved!
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 04:41 AMAnd SS… if journalists were tough and sceptical with everyone, in what universe would that represent “bias”?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 04:42 AMThe Alliance Mayor has just quit his post in the DUP dominated Lisburn City Council. Does anyone know why?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 07:00 AMWhat jim’s sf colleagues should do is get broadcasting devolved to stormont and thus shift this centre of cultural gravity from london to belfast. Only then will the transformation of journalistic and otger attitudes occur
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 07:46 AMshould the ban RTE’s subscription in the south? should RTE show more polish programme or more on british history?
The BBC has probably the best news coverage in the world, cracking radio stations, and a fantastic website - for a 100 quid a year it’s the business.
Compare it to the amateur graphics, endless adds and dull presenters on UTV - it’s a no contest.
And just because DUP/SF get the votes, doesn’t mean they all of a sudden need to worshipped.
No evidence to suggest this but in my opinion, people primarily vote for these idiots as a signal to the other side that their community is taking a strong stance. Not because of their policies (apart from sectarian of course).I voted DUP, but only because the UUP had no chance of winning the seat. I fully realise the DUP are a bunch of eejits, but there isn;t much of a viable alternative. SO when thompson et al get stuck into Robinson and collaberators I’m on the edge of my seat, lapping it up.
As for getting the knives out for SF/DUP, haven’t you watched newsnight? BBC presenters ‘test’ their panalists with searching questions - not serving up slow ball after slow ball.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 08:12 AMso partition was a breakthrough?
for once I agree with JG!
:)
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 08:33 AMI realise this is a tangent of sorts but anybody care to comment on why, if policing can be devolved to the north, can’t broadcasting be similarly devolved from Westminster to Stormont?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 09:09 AMThere is no question but that bias exists within the BBC. Biased BBC is a much respected website that has been tracking what it generally sees as a pro left, anti right bent within its reporting for years. And if it does exist, it is right that it should be exampled in the empirical way Biased BBC does.
The abolition of the license fee is certainly a practical solution to that problem. But there is the problem that, as Brian Feeney eloquently tricked out in Wednesday’s Irish News, whilst our politicians can strike a pose on this issue there is nothing practical they can do about it. The licence fee is Westminster’s provenance.
Which brings us back to the other solution. If Jim is arguing that the government should be accorded some dignity and respect, I cannot see a problem with that. Again, go back to that previous link where I have asked, “Does this popular interrogative style of interview always yield the fruit we often imagine it should?” In answer to my own question: no, I don’t think it does.
Deeper than that, John Lloyd in the conclusion to his celebrated essay on politics in a democratic state and its relation to the media: “Politicians have the power of representing the electorate: they must pit it directly against those who draw their power from a less solid base”.
Elsewhere Lloyd argues from journalism’s end that recognising this premise does not mean that journalists must become establishment or pro government. Rather, such journalism “takes on the responsibility of telling a whole truth. It means taking the initiative, and gaining an independent understanding of the world”.
For me, independence rather than balance is the trademark of such engaged, civic journalism. But it also requires a new form of engaged civic politicians: prepared and able to defend their mandated authority, and prepared and able to answer for it too.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 09:26 AMOili,
It’s not at all tangential to Jim/Soupy’s argument. It’s dead on the money. Is it going to happen? Well it’s not on anyone’s manifesto, so I guess that’s your short answer.
But in the blue sky context of some of the questions raised by Jim’s piece the first obstacle to be got over is how, as I asked above, can “narratives be daily constructed so as to always chime with a single democratic outcome and actually remain journalism”? Then I guess: is that really what any of the parties in Northern Ireland really want?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 09:36 AMdoes he want fair and impartial journalism(if that is the right word to use) as was reflected in his mate Martins Daily Ireland.Sorry sinn fein and the DUP should always be scrutinised like everybody else
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 10:15 AMI believe that bias exists within the BBC but I would never want them or any other journalist to be forestalled from asking tough questions when they need to be asked. God knows there needs to be some sort of ‘opposition’ in place during powersharing.
I do believe the more fundamental problems the BBC has is engaging with the entire community in the north and I resent the Belfast London axis. There should be a link of course but there should also be an equal link with Dublin. And, of course, there should be an attempt to have some balance in terms of less of the blue skies over ‘ulster’ and grey skies over the rest of Ireland narrative.
I see this as becoming an increasingly important issue and while I don’t see Northern Ireland Broadcasting Corporation replacing the BBC in the short term, it should happen in the medium term.
And then the real fun will start....
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 10:18 AM“Biased BBC” is a much respected website? You misspelt “one-note, green-ink, queer-bashing, misogynist, racist fruitcakes”, Mick.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 10:50 AMJoe, you obviously need to get out more, not to mention read Slugger’s Commenting Policy.
SSR, try and comment on the subject (you are a more than capable critic) and leave the personal beefs to one side, please!!
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 10:59 AMOC what do you actually mean by ‘devolving broadcasting to Stormont?’
As it stands the BBC is managed locally with it’s Controller reporting directly to a man from Donegal. The Trust and Ofcom also have representation from here.
I’m just curious as to precisely which functions of the DCMS could be usefully taken out of Whitehall and given to Stormont?
Also if anyone can be arsed to look it up on the Irish News archive the BBC’s local news boss wrote a letter of reply to Gibney’s crypto Leninist shite.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 11:03 AM“There is no question but that bias exists within the BBC. Biased BBC is a much respected website that has been tracking what it generally sees as a pro left, anti right bent within its reporting for years. And if it does exist, it is right that it should be exampled in the empirical way Biased BBC does. “
Have you been drinking this morning or something? Bias certainly exists within the BBC but it is by no means clear it is consistent in nature or attitude, and certainly having people of any type projecting their own views onto articles screaming “Left wing bias!! Left wing bias!!” is no use whatsoever in finding it. In fact, if you want to point to the bias on “Biased BBC”, it is fairly clear where it actually lies.
An alternative view on BBC bias:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2434962.ece
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 11:11 AMI think that the BBC in Belfast should be independent of London and that while I recognise that the controller in Belfast reports to a man from Donegal, that fellow, whose name escapes me momentarily, is based in London or someother place in Britain. It’s only a coinicidence that its a man from Donegal - and it has to be pointed out that he’s engaged in climbing up the greasy pole in the BBC in Britain and perhaps his priorities aren’t the local priorities here.
When, for instance, the BBC in Belfast requires extra money, as it says it does, for Irish language programming, it has to go, cap in hand, to London to request this from BBC Trust. That’s not satisfactory. BBC NI should get its slice of the Licence Fund pie directly, not filtered through middle managaement in Britain.
Sure have an arrangement whereby some of the news etc comes from London - but British news should have a lower priority than news from Ireland, all of Ireland. That’s a cultural and psychological inclination rather than the structural - but it needs to be tackled and allowing Stormont control over broadcasting in the north and the funds necessary is essential to the north developing its own identity and not one which is artificially linked to Britain.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 01:14 PMIt strikes me that the criticism of the BBC as being too liberal or too left wing is increasingly restricted to the lunatic fringes of the far right.
I have no problem whatsoever with the BBC acuurately reflecting opposition to devolution and the peace process by allocating a percentage of airtime to those opponents in proportion to the % of the electorate who expressed such opposition in in the last elections.
That would mean never having to watch or listen to Bob McCartney, Cedric Wilson or David Vance ever agin. Who could want more? :)Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 01:52 PM
