The House of Lords has ruled this morning (by 3-2) that the BBC should publish the controversial Balen Report, which it commissioned after accusations that its coverage of Middle East politics was too pro Palestinian and too anti Israeli. However, this is not the end of the matter, and it now returns to the High Court.
It seems to me that this is a matter of public interest, especially as the BBC is paid for by us, the taxpayers. And I'd say that if the report was into whether the BBC was too pro Israel. Chris Doidge disagrees. He dusts down old chestnut that it might prevent the BBC from "taking risks" if the report were published. What arrant nonsense. A public service broadcaster should not be "taking risks" with its news coverage. It should be aiming to report and explain with as little subjective commentary as possible. It not there to persuade or commentate, it is there to provide news coverage.
26 comments:
Yes the Balen report should be published.
Yes it will impact on the way BBC journalists are seen by others and the manner in which they report.
The answer to that is 'tough'.
I expect the Balen report does not show that the BBC is biased as such, but that the means by which it has gathered news stories in the middle east requires it to be. When Alan Johnston was kidnapped it was a shock to the BBC and to the media as a whole.
The reason it was a shock was that to get their favoured human-interest handwringly type stories in and aroung the likes of Lebannon and Gaza requires journalists to co-operate with Hamas and Hezbollah - who do you think shepherds journalists to particular stories and provides a modicum of security for the journalists? Furthermore, some of the reports from those regions are provided by known supporters of those groups.
To my mind the Balen report is being sat on because it admits reporting from the middle east is more propaganda than they care to admit.
Actually the House of Lords have not ruled that the Balen report should be published.
They have ruled merely on certain technical questions to do with the jurisdiction of the information commissioner and the tribunal.
It is for the High Court now to consider whether the report should be published.
O/T - is anyone unable to access Guido Fawkes at the moment (12.15)? I have been unable to connect for about 1 hour.
"Inform, educate and entertain" - How hard can it be?
No so technical
The law lords have decided the law
by 3 to 2
The BBC loses its main argument
on jurisdiction (and what Lord Phillips calls the journalism issue)
The case goes back to the High Court
for judgement
It's hard to see how Mr Sugar can lose from here
I agree the report should be published - and I believe contrary to what the loud pro-Israeli lobby is trying to suggest here, I would think the report probably concludes that the BBC has had a longstanding pro-Israel bias, and its reporting is influenced heavily by Israeli media lobbyists. Those people should be careful what they wish for.
Andy,
That is laughable. Can you give ANY examples of pro-Israeli bias from the BBC? Even one? And where do you get your objective news which shows that the BBC version is skewed in Israel's favour?
I'll bet that this is what lay behind the BBC's recent decision not to screen DEC's Gaza appeal -- a cack-handed and desperate attempt to appear "impartial". Instead all they did was alienate licence-fee payers (among whom I am pleased to say I do not number myself) yet further.
The most biased stuff is actually on the World Service, funded by our very own Foreign Office ... so named because it exists to serve the interests of foreigners. You can hardly switch it on without being bombarded with pro-Muslim propaganda; so these days, I don't.
Last Friday, after a week without newspapers, because we were snowed in! I got a copy of The Times.
Hidden in the Notices section was one that informed readers, from whom I cannot recall, that a complaint that Jeremy Bowens ?reports from Gaza "were biased against the Israeli's" I was quite amazed that this had not and was not subsequently taken up as a significant news story.
I hardly watch the BBC news so I am unaware if they apologised for his bias.
@Neil Well, first of all I would say that the BBC's coverage has become more balanced since the report was written (2004), which leads me to believe that it probably concluded such a bias. I think Jeremy Bowen has generally done a good job with his reporting since he became ME Editor in 2005.
You're 19 years old according to your profile, and I do not wish to patronise you, but did you really pay close attention to this when you were 13 years old and younger?
I cannot easily provide you with a well constructed argument here - I'd have to invest mountains of time going back through archives. I'm merely stating an opinion.
I personally think a good balance can be found between Haaretz, the IHT, Al Jazeera, BBC, and the Guardian. The BBC is probably on par with ITN, though it can do more with its resources.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough on my blog! I didn't mean the BBC should take risks when reporting on the Middle East.
This FOI decision is going to set a precedent for any internal report the BBC commissions in the future, whether in news, entertainment, drama etc.
It's risk/innovation in other departments that will certainly be damaged if the post-mortem is likely to be played out in public.
No organisation can be expected to work in that way, whether publicly-owned or private.
Chris Doidge,
Of course public organisations should be expected to operate in this way. They are funded by the tax-payer (against our will)so they have to be accountable. If they are accused of bias, the public, who fund them without choice, have every right to know whether the accusation has been found to be true or false. Surely this is even in the BBCs own interests, from a credibility point of view. However damaging the report is, people would still be more likely to listen to the BBC if they were at least honest.
Andy,
I don't think the BBCs reporting from 6 years ago is directly relevant (I actually was pretty interested in politics at 13, but my memory of media reporting from that long ago is rather sketchy. What is much more relevant is how the BBC report now.
I put it to you that you might not be quite impartial on this issue yourself, which may explain why you are happy with Jeremy Bowen's reporting - I am not, and I know I am not the only one. On this point, I know I am not impartial, I don't think anyone is, I am pro-Israeli, but I have good reasons for being so.
With all due respect, I don't think that AlJazeera and the Guardian are awfully good comparators for the BBC. They could make Nasrallah look biased in favour of Israel.
At least Chris gets us back into the nub of Iain's original post which was about whether to publish.
(An argument based on guessing what the report says seems pretty futile).
I'd like to pick up on Iain's point that public service broadcaster's should not be 'taking risks'. Wouldn't that mean the end of Panorama then? Or Newsnight? (I'm not suggesting they are the epitome of investigative journalism).
Some news reporting does require risk taking. Andrew Gilligan's 'sexed-up' dossier report is one example.
It's risk taking because it can have consequences.
We know what happened after Gilligan's report on the Today programme. After Death on the Rock programme, Thames TV company lost its franchise.
You're suggesting a transcription service; Hansard with pictures and subtitles.
As for this idea of 'as little subjective commentary as possible', merely choosing which stories to cover and which are more important than others requires a subjective judgement. One guided by professional standards, but a judgement.
I'm bet you think there are stories and issues the BBC should cover but does not (I know I do).
The idea that any news organisations is ever going to achieve this mythal middle way is unlikely.
Just consider the variety of opions expressed on your blog about its coverage of Israel.
BTW: I'd like to see the Balen published as a matter of public interest.
Neil,
I agree publicly owned organisations should be accountable, but there should be a distinction between internal and external reports.
Because this report was written with the express intention of being read internally, that is how it should stay.
That decision was quite probably the wrong one, but having been made it shouldn't now be overturned, because of the precedent it will set.
The best solution in all of this is for the BBC Trust to commission a report that is for public consumption.
Yes, it would be different and less comprehensive, but at least Balen has, hopefully, served its intended purpose of improving BBC journalists' reporting of the Middle East.
Neil: the BBC isn't funded against my will and according to the latest opinion poll data I could find (August last year) two-thirds of people agree with the funding structure.
You may hold your views dearly - it does't mean everybody else does.
PhilC,
Would it not be reasonable if the 2/3 of people who are happy to fund the BBC as at present continued to do so (as that is their will) and the remaining 1/3 were not forced to against their will?
Neil: I don't believe in nuclear weapons but part of my taxes goes towards funding our nuclear arsenal.
I accept that, because the idea that we could individually choose from a menu of options about what we would like to fund seems impractical.
The system allows governments to operate on a mandate given by voters - and voters have not given a mandate to abolish the licence fee.
That's OK, because we live in a democracy so we try operate by consensus as far as possible.
If a party was elected on a promise to abolish the licence fee (and did so) then you would be happy and I would not and that would be OK too.
You should rejoice in the licence fee as proof of the flexability, maturity and moderation of parliamentary democracy in action.
I shall believe it when the Jew hating commie scum of the BBC publish it.
PhilC,
You don't seem to get my drift, or maybe you do and are simply being obtuse. You don't like funding defence spending, and as you rightly point out, that is tough. Some people don't like funding layabouts, but we have to put up with it because that is what the government likes to spend our money on. Perhaps others don't like funding the NHS, or state run education, but they still have to.
The media is different. A state-run media is dodgy even if it is completely impartial. Media outlets funded by the state is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes, and we should not have them, regardless of how impartial they may be. The fact that the BBC is very plainly NOT impartial makes the problem far worse.
If two-thirds of the population are very happy with the BBC then it can afford to run on a commercial basis, like all the other media outlets do. You presumeably don't fund the Daily Telegraph, because you presumeably don't agree with their stance on most issues, and that is the way it should be. But those of us who disagree with the BBC still have to fund it, and that is wrong.
You disagree with Britain's defence spending, and I disagree with funding layabouts, yet the taxpayer has to fund these things, and I am generally OK with that. But you must be able to see how widely different this is from having a state funded media, unless you are being dishonest or really stupid.
The whole issue of risk in the news would not matter one jot if the decision by Birt to merge News and Current Affairs was reversed. News should not be about risk taking as Iain rightly says.
Leave the risk taking to Current Affairs which Panorama and Newsnight would fall into.
If the BBC have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide. Isn't that the usual mantra?
"Media outlets funded by the state is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes, and we should not have them, regardless of how impartial they may be."
But the BBC isn't funded by the State - that's the whole point of the Licence Fee. Yes, the government sets a limit on how much they can charge us, but the money comes directly from the people and not from the government.
The 'totalitarian' argument is completely silly.
Chris,
Of course they are funded by the state. What difference does it make that the money is not channelled through a government department (except that it is slightly cheaper)? Absolutely none, it is a tax paid directly to the BBC.
What would happen if someone with a telly did not pay this tax? They would be liable to the penalty prescribed by law, just like if they avoided any other tax.
To say that the BBC is not state funded is dishonest, the taxpayer is forced to fund it whether they like it or not, and that should not be the way any media organisation is funded - it is totalitarian.
Sorry Neil, been busy brainwashing people otherwise I would have responded sooner.
You write: "The media is different"
Why? Explain.
An organisation that disseminates and explains information, funded through a tax system, so that people can better understand what goes on around them and make judgements and contributions to society based on that information. That definition could apply to schools and universities or the BBC.
By your definition schools signifiers of a totalitarian state because we can't even switch them off. They force ideas into childrens' head and jail parents if they refuse to attend these education camps.
And what about PBS in America? Publicly-funded. Is America a totalitarian state?
I am being, as you kindly put it, neither obtuse nor stupid, merely pointing out that you confuse an opinion (the BBC is plainly biased) for a fact, your definitions are loose and hyperbole makes a good speech but a poor argument.
PhilC,
It is perfectly obvious why the media is different. Everyone needs an education, I am sure you would agree. But everyone does not need the media, so if they want it, they can pay for it themselves.
As it happes, I believe that the education system should be privatised as much as possible too, as should everything else (with the possible exception of defence).
Post a Comment