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 @ 07:22 PM
Ken,
I really wish you would read my posts, rather than para read them. For the record: “what it* generally sees as a pro left, anti right bent”. As for the accusation that BBBC is purely polemical, well it is to an extent, but it is much more empirical than you are portraying it. Indeed the whole site is a practical response to the top quote on the right hand side from Andrew Marr.
As for this: “it is fairly clear where it actually lies”. This is sheer, throughother and downright lazy commentary. I don’t doubt you genuinely feel that way, but just saying what feel doesn’t make it true.
*Biased BBC.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 12:52 PMOC’s,
[Editorial snip for the sake of civility - Moderator]
Au contraire, we have far too many regional variations. Who hasn’t had the desire to chew the remote control into a mangled pulp whenever MOTD has been bumped back to the small hours due to the baldy charismaless pate of John Daly or some such?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 12:56 PM“I really wish you would read my posts, rather than para read them. For the record: “what it* generally sees as a pro left, anti right bent”.”
I’m sorry I refuse to get into a game of splitting hairs.
“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.”
is a free ride for you about a controversial issue.
“As for the accusation that BBBC is purely polemical, well it is to an extent, but it is much more empirical than you are portraying it. Indeed the whole site is a practical response to the top quote on the right hand side from Andrew Marr.
As for this: “it is fairly clear where it actually lies”. This is sheer, throughother and downright lazy commentary. I don’t doubt you genuinely feel that way, but just saying what feel doesn’t make it true. “
No, it is fact, Mick. The BBBC spends it’s time looking for left wing bias in the BBC. Of course it is going to find it. If I set up a website looking for right wing bias, I 100% guarantee you I would find it too, and I’d have empirical evidence to back it up. The article I linked to suggests as much. The bias is within the actual method you are using. If you just looking for left wing bias, you miss the right wing bias, centrist bias and everything else, along with the overall picture. When you are partisan, you begin to project your own interpretation and ideas onto things. The bias is in the actual methodology, at the most fundamental level.
That doesn’t mean they can’t raise issues worthy of debate. But in and of itself it’s not enough.
I just wish Mick you weren’t such as sucker for all the Web 2.0 nonsense.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 02:06 PMKen,
You misread, misquoted and then misrepresented what I had written. It was not about split hairs or bias, it was just plain untrue.
As for flawed methodologies, I get your point and it’s an interesting one… The reason I quoted the BBBC was as an exemplar relating to earlier comments in the thread (and in the article under discussion) suggesting that there should be no bias in the BBC whatsoever.
As yet no one has come up with a reliable methodology for marking out unacceptable levels of bias (right or left) and how that might be implemented. Without that, and short of the kind of privatisation Soupy is suggesting, I don’t see how the issues Gibney raises can be practically addressed.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 02:37 PM“You misread, misquoted and then misrepresented what I had written. It was not about split hairs or bias, it was just plain untrue.”
No, *you’ve* misread me.
What you said:
“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. “”
To sum - BBBC is “well respected” and it’s methods are empirical and objective.
Me:
“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. n fact, if you want to point to the bias on “Biased BBC”, it is fairly clear where it actually lies”
It’s a little messy, but what I was trying to get across was - bias is there, but people projecting their own views by focusing on a specific political agenda are going to be fuck all use in finding the true biases of the Beeb.
I also couldn’t believe you came out with it, and for ignoring the fact that the “well respected BBBC” is held in contempt by as many people as it is respected by.
So, please tell me how exactly I misquoted you, when I gave all of the relevant paragraph - about the utility of the BBBC and it’s ilk, which was all I was talking about. I was challenging you a specific point, rather than the whole argument.
“As yet no one has come up with a reliable methodology for marking out unacceptable levels of bias (right or left) and how that might be implemented.”
That would be because there is no entirely objective way to determine if there is bias in reporting, let alone measure the extent of it. is there an objective bias, or is it really relative to the centre of electorate? The BBC can’t stray too far from what the public wants in any area, because if it does, bye bye Licence Fee. Does the cynicism that can creep into political interviews really drive people’s views, or simply reflect it?
At any rate, it seems to me the gradual opening up of the media with regards viewer interaction will more effectively provide a “reflection of the choices of the electorate”. Bottom-up rather than top-down.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 03:14 PMOkay, thanks for the clarification, it was probably me reading too much into your mildly uncivil intro. I think I’ve read one too many of those today… and I haven’t even had my first drink of the day!!
I do, though, have some serious regard for the BBBC site, even if I personally don’t entirely share their world view. It is moderately well read inside the corporation, and I’m fairly sure that it and other similar sites are having an effect: certainly in terms of what gets discussed and how it is framed on radio and tv.
I don’t demur too much from your basic argument that it basically has to self regulate. But where does that leave Jim’s concerns?
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 03:56 PM“I don’t demur too much from your basic argument that it basically has to self regulate. But where does that leave Jim’s concerns?”
I think they are ultimately unfounded. The process is ultimately two way; the political mood will reflect the news agenda which will reflect the political mood. Sometimes one will fall a bit behind the other - eventually they’ll catch up. It should be noted it can happen the other way too - optimistic voices drowning out skeptics. That has happened with economy to an extent, North and South, over the past while.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 04:18 PMOC you say ‘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. ‘
I think the problem here is that no matter how much you wish NI was part of a different polity for now it’s part of the British polity and for very practical reasons that effects what news gets reported.
For example, like most everyone living in NI I have a sterling mortgage so I want to know what the BoE are doing with the interest rates and I want to know what economists in Britian are saying about the likely direction of interest rates. Conversely I really couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss what the ECB does.
Similarly like it or not my kids, like most people’s kids here will be doing GCSEs and A Levels so if Westminster are proposing reforms to those systems I want to know about it. But if the Dail is talking about tinkering with the Leaving, really I couldn’t care less.
Posted by on May 18, 2007 @ 06:36 PMGibney: The licence-paying public overwhelmingly voted for an administration led by the DUP and Sinn Féin.
SF/DUP aren’t a party - they aren’t even really a coalition. They agree on very little, and each of them is waiting for the other to fail to support the system. So why should the BBC trust SF more than the DUP does, and why should the BBC trust the DUP more than SF does?
Posted by on May 19, 2007 @ 06:57 PMJone replied ably to Ollie’s suggestion that news from the Republic should take precedence over UK news.
But I still feel we could use a little more coverage of the major stories in the southern state. Clearly we can be spared southern tabloid pabulum, but if there are major financial or political scandals (I gather they happen quite frequently), even a basic run-down of what it’s all about might be helpful - if only to illustrate the benefits of devolution!
What’s southern coverage of the North like? Have they even started to use the term “Northern Ireland”?
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 01:24 AM“But the roles are separate, and essentially adversarial. “
Anyone who has ever seen the media’s love in with Peter Mandelson just cannot believe that!
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 06:19 AMI don’t agree with the piece.
The media’s essential role is to scrutinize, not to oppose. Those are two different things.
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 08:37 AMone replied ably to Ollie’s suggestion that news from the Republic should take precedence over UK news.
But I still feel we could use a little more coverage of the major stories in the southern state. Clearly we can be spared southern tabloid pabulum, but if there are major financial or political scandals (I gather they happen quite frequently), even a basic run-down of what it’s all about might be helpful - if only to illustrate the benefits of devolution!
What’s southern coverage of the North like? Have they even started to use the term “Northern Ireland”?
Reporting the ‘bad’ news - or anything which reflects poorly on Irish culture - has been the main point of BBC news coverage of the south for the past several years, as far as I can remember it. Their coverage of the Dingle/Daingean wrange was nothing short of sheer anti Irish propoganda.I don’t expect anything but propoganda which promotes a very narrow interpretation of Britishness from the BBC, especially in Ireland, at present which is why I want to fundamentally change the relationship between Belfast and London, broadcasting wise.
I think it’s important that the broadcaster is answerable only to viewers in the north and its funding comes directly from the licence fund - and isn’t filtered through London.
And, again, I ask, why should broadcasting remain a ‘reserved matter’ as policing is to be devolved?
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 08:41 AMI think it’s pretty well understood that the media worked out quite a long time ago that they can move from reporting the news to leading it.
Sometimes i can sympathise, such as with Alan Johnstone being kidnapped in Gaza and BBC and friends reporting updates constantly for a month even when there were no updates (which was most of the time). Fair enough, I would have done that too.
Other times though, such as the strong pushing for Paul Wolfowitz to resign from the world bank led, made and created the news in my opinion.
I am no friend of the Bush administration, especially with regards to Iraq, but it’s pretty obvious if Wolfowitz wasn’t involved with that administration and the Iraq fiasco, the BBC in particular, would not have given this relative non-story so much coverage and created the push for his resignation.
I personally feel the press have a huge amount of power to ‘make the world in their own image’ so to speak. And they try, for good or ill.
I wonder, (not saying mind you), if the NI peace may have come sooner, if the reporting of certain parties was done with less caricature ??
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 09:10 AMGibney writes:
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.
Applying a free market solution here does not quite wash. The print media are accountable to the companies and corporations who choose to advertise in them, and this introduces corresponding bias in their output. I’d take the BBC’s accountability to a democratically elected parliament any day.
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.
Apparently we’re all supposed to join hands and worship the new dawn brought to us by the benevolent DUP and Sinn Fein, the very people who brought us the 30 years of misery that preceded it, something like praising a man who agrees to stop raping his wife. Clearly Jim has no respect for the stupid sheep-like general public who he obviously believes lack the intelligence to make their own minds up about the work of our politicians and the nature of the line the media are taking in that respect, and whom he implies need to be protected from the machinations of the evil BBC. This stuff is straight out of the USSR in the good old days. Accuse anyone who criticizes the regime as being an Enemy of the People. It’s a well-worn tactic.
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!
Davenport was completely right to ask this question, since it had been posed on the same day by Jim Allistair who had resigned from the DUP. The reaction that Davenport got said a lot more than any other reason he might have had for asking the question.
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.
These are questions which would have been posed to Sinn Fein election workers on the doorsteps. Why shouldn’t the BBC ask them ?
Mick:
The abolition of the license fee is certainly a practical solution to that problem.
The BBC may not be any less biased in that case; it just wouldn’t be funded by the public anymore. I don’t think that counts as practical solution.
I think the BBC is a bit like the NHS in that it provides a standard of sorts for the private sector to keep up with. I don’t want to misdirect the thread into a USA-vs-UK healthcare debate, but I think that private hospitals and clinics are forced to be competitive due to the fact that you can get similar treatment for free in the NHS. Likewise, the BBC provides a standard against which other media are measured. I’m quite convinced that if it were taken away, there would be an overall reduction in the standard of the news media in the UK.
As you well know yourself Mick, often accusations of bias are less to do with concern about partiality, and more to do with people getting sore when the media reports a perspective that they don’t like. How often does Slugger get accused of either unionist or nationalist bias ? Murdoch consistently refuses to address the glaring biases in his own media; the BBC confront them head on and debate them (and so does Slugger).
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 09:56 AMAs far as Gibney goes, he seems to be trying to create cover for SF and the DUP. These ‘negative’ questions often come about as the result of the massive U-turns in those two parties. His article is designed to deflect such awkward questions, because they expose the parties. The questions expose just how wrong those two parties were about their fundamentals for so long.
And no-one like being reminded about how they changed their mind totally on their most fundamental beliefs.
On another point, since our Assembly is merely an administrative type of body - ie doling out the limited budget given to it by London - one of the obvious questions for Ministers after every new initiative will be: “So how are you going to pay for this? What services will we be losing to facilitate this new one?”
One wonders if asking such ‘negative’ questions to Ministers will result in reporters being labelled Journalists Against The Peace Process again.
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 01:08 PMThe benefit of “administration” is that DUP/SF negotiation will be required on issues on which both parties have constituency interests.
The SF belief that “economies of scale” are achievable if one takes an all-Irleand perspective will be tested in due course. Similary, the DUP/Robbo focus on “efficiency” will inevitably involve consideration of job losses. Prod jobs as well.
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 02:53 PMOne wonders if asking such ‘negative’ questions to Ministers will result in reporters being labelled Journalists Against The Peace Process again.
Indeed, I’m away to make up my “Pete Baker was right” badges ;)
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 06:14 PMIt is not up to the BBC to reflect voting figures. For one thing voters vote to elect politicians not newsreaders. The BBC should be trying to explore divesrse opinions. If they seek to reflect past voting proeferences. They will be bolstering up the status quo.
Posted by on May 20, 2007 @ 06:44 PM“BBC should reflect the choices of the electorate…”
Aye right. Jim would have been all in favour of that POV when Unionists won critical votes in 1921, 1973, 1986, and indeed when the DUP were temporarily anti-Agreement and top party.
Just like a few weeks ago the people should be allowed to use the name “Derry” as their right
to express their culture, but now there is to be no alternative, and any civil servant using the name Londonderry in Conor Murphy’s office is to be kneecapped…er, suspended.Freedom of Speech, eh Jim?
We all know the Beeb already has a political agenda,which is whatever the NIO writes for it. I well remember when the GFA was leaked early a senior Unionist told me it would go to the beeb fractionally before the rest “for services rendered”. The best efforts of others to brown nose on a comparable scale have- as yet- not been so richly rewarded.The lack of any serious scrutiny of Gibney’s party’s involvement in criminality over the past 20 years is a damning indictment of journalism in the BBC. In fact the only times the hacks have showed any “courage” (that wasn’t Dutch of course) is in trendy snook-cocking ( or is that cock-snooking?)at hamfisted bans or remote cabinet ministers.
We may presume that there will be no serious scrutiny of the excesses of Murphy and other ministers from any party- no opposition in parliament- none but the most obvious cockups making the news.Yup the beeb will be happy to present Conor Bradford’s ever so slightly dry sketches as cutting edge journalism, while more sinister forces continue to socially engineer in the shadows
Posted by on May 21, 2007 @ 06:46 AM
