BBC Bias? It’s all in the Tory mind.

We know how much some Tories want to control discourse.  Anything that opposes their cosy wee world view is seen as ‘dangerous’. Opponents will be smeared and smeared again. Canards, narratives and strawmen arguments will be substituted for real arguments and proper ideas.

There is a sizeable number of Tory MPs and MEPs who believe that the BBC is biased against them. But this is nonsense: the BBC is the state broadcaster and, as such, disseminates the state’s views which are by their very nature conservative. Therefore the views of the state are concurrent with the views of the present Tory-led government. Thus any accusations of  anti-Tory ‘bias’ are entirely baseless.

So upset are they with not being able to fully control discourse and the flow of information, they have set up Biased BBC to air their somewhat twisted interpretations of so-called bias. This site appears to have been set up by a disgruntled Tory, though it is not clear which one. To be sure, this site was not created by an ordinary man-in-the-street. Perhaps the most revealing this about the Biased BBC site is its link to Sky News.

They seem to have an issue with Question Time.

… the grim horror of Question Time returns tomorrow Thursday the 13th for the first show of 2011. It’s BBC bias in the raw; at its most blatant and visceral.

“BBC bias in the raw”? How so? They offer no explanation for this ejaculation. it’s simply presented as a universalism. A fait accompli.

Recently the Tucosn shootings have got them foaming at the mouth. When it was suggested that the tone of political discourse in the US had to be mollified, the Right immediately swung into defensive mode. Here BBC Bias says,

The tragedy in Tuscon has given BBC North America editor Mark Mardell the opportunity to bang on and on and on about the “harsh rhetoric” of the American Right.

It’s denial. Funny how they never comment on the blatant anti-worker and pro-cuts bias, isn’t it?

The rest of the site is simply barking with their house contributors churning out story after story of imagined slights. Pitoyable!

Randist Douglas Carswell claims to know the [exact] nature of BBC bias

While refreshing to hear Mr T say what the rest of us have known for years, to fix the problem, it is important to grasp the nature of the BBC’s inbuilt prejudices.

Oh? And what are those?

The BBC does not tilt to the left in a partisan sense. It’s coverage of political parties tends to be pretty fair and balanced.

So what’s the problem, Dougie?

Rather, it is the BBC’s outlook – the unconscious presumptions of their producers and reporters – that often makes them seem so leftist.

So now you’re claiming to be a psychic? You know exactly what people are thinking now? The blog focuses on an interview with Director General Mark Thompson  the Daily Mail, a paper not known for its love of the BBC. Thompson has apparently admitted to the paper that the BBC has been “guilty of left wing bias in the past”. Remember Thompson is the one who refused to air DEC appeals for the Gazan victims of Operation Cast Lead on the BBC. That sounds like a particular form of bias to me.  Again, not a peep from the BBC-haters.

Here Carswell shows his bias,

Have you heard a BBC journalist challenge officials on the basis that it might be morally wrong to restrict an individual’s freedom to earn a living?  No, but I bet you’ve heard lots about government action to protect jobs. Fair and balanced reporting would point out how the later very often has consequences for the former.

It isn’t clear what Carswell means when he says “it might be morally wrong to restrict an individual’s freedom to earn a living”? I’m willing to bet that there is a hidden discourse here that involves an attack on the right of workers to join trade unions and to resort to industrial action. This Randist position is fleshed out in the following paragraph,

When a private company makes a whopping profit by providing willing customers with a product they want, far from greedy, the company is likely to have done something extraordinarily good. Yet how often does BBC coverage reflect the virtues of the free market?

What “virtues” might these be, Dougie? The virtue of selfishness? The virtue of economic slavery? Persisting with his laissez-faire line of argument he says,

Free markets provide sixty million Britons with food each day – without which we would starve.

Yes and free markets produce billions of tons of food waste every year. Free markets mean that millions of people starve to death in what are often called Third World countries.

Here is an example of real bias. When did the BBC become the unofficial ministry of information for the Israeli government?

As I pointed out in an earlier blog, the BBC was also more than happy to present the government line during the General Strike of 1929.

This blog highlights the BBC’s anti-union bias.

With regards to the public spending cuts, the BBC has been compliant and presented the government’s line without question. I challenge anyone to find evidence that suggests otherwise.

The Tories want a compliant and supine media that only presents their side of the story. Their claims of bias do not stand up to scrutiny. The Telegraph, together with the Daily Mail has waged a near-constant battle to undermine the BBC and call for its break up. More recently, the Guardian published this story that claims that Culture Secretary (and millionaire) Jeremy Hunt is “knee deep in News Corp”. Indeed, Hunt has had secret meetings with News Corp and even met with James Murdoch. Even The Torygraph has reported this story.

Contrary to popular opinion, this country does not have a free press. Much of it is biased towards the Conservative Party. Out of all the newspapers printed in Britain, only three are free from any Tory connection. In the case of The Independent, its claims to objectivity and impartiality are questionable.

This article from Seumas Milne is rather interesting,

Even the BBC’s John Humphrys could be heard this morning charging a bemused Barber on the Today programme with “effectively” threatening to “make the country ungovernable”, raising the question of “who runs Britain?” It bizarrely fell to the government minister Francis Maude to point out that the seven-million strong trade unions had a “legitimate stake” in the controversy around its plans to cut the deficit.

Really? Francis Maude said that? I’m sure it was an anomaly.



Leave a comment

Filed under allegations of bias, Media

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s