[Update] The News Corp scandal

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I'm at a loss as to the relevance of that to plurality within the news.

The problem with NI is not so much that they control so much of the media, but that they have proved that they are willing to use that control to further the political beliefs of one man. One man who has been known to change his allegiance seemingly on a whim. Also, like most newspapers, the bias in his publications is overt (yes, I do count the Guardian in that list).

You argue that print is dead, and it may be, but 3 to 4 million people still read the Times and The Sun everyday, and if they are basing their beliefs on what they read (and there is some evidence they do), that can mean the difference between one party winning an election and another.

That, IMO, is too much power for one man to have over our electoral system.

The BBC, while it has it's own political bias (slightly left, I'd say) also has strict rules governing political bias in it's output. Not just self enforced rules, but laws. It's political stance is also not set by one person.

It's also worth remembering that the two primary sources I've seen for complaints about BBC bias (The Mail and News International) have their own agendas that have little to do with BBC bias, and it's entirely possible that they are using the bias claim as a weapon to attack the BBC.

Could I just point out that there appears to be some confusion between source of news and choice of source of news.

The graph shows that 73% of news is sourced from TV (which consists (mainly) of BBC News, ITV News, Sky News, and a couple of smaller players). BBC is then the choice of source of news for 70% of the 73% (which equals 51% of news sourced).

No one makes anyone watch the BBC news, viewers just prefer it.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I'm at a loss as to the relevance of that to plurality within the news.

Surely plurality isn't an aim in itself? I'd have thought the aim is to have a wide spectrum of opinions catered for, and the Beeb seems to do a pretty good job at that. At the end of the day people have a choice as to what they watch/read. There seems to be little point in forcing people to watch/read a number of sources evenly in the interest of plurality.

Originally Posted by Stuart

The problem with NI is not so much that they control so much of the media, but that they have proved that they are willing to use that control to further the political beliefs of one man. One man who has been known to change his allegiance seemingly on a whim. Also, like most newspapers, the bias in his publications is overt (yes, I do count the Guardian in that list).

You argue that print is dead, and it may be, but 3 to 4 million people still read the Times and The Sun everyday, and if they are basing their beliefs on what they read (and there is some evidence they do), that can mean the difference between one party winning an election and another.

That, IMO, is too much power for one man to have over our electoral system.

The BBC, while it has it's own political bias (slightly left, I'd say) also has strict rules governing political bias in it's output. Not just self enforced rules, but laws. It's political stance is also not set by one person.

It's also worth remembering that the two primary sources I've seen for complaints about BBC bias (The Mail and News International) have their own agendas that have little to do with BBC bias, and it's entirely possible that they are using the bias claim as a weapon to attack the BBC.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

Not sure where the BBC Staff are 'Guardianistas' comes from either.

Ignoring the rest as we'll agree to disagree the BBC advertises in the Guardian, according to the link above it apparently now conducts interviews with the Guardian, and just a Google for the terms shows some interesting results.

I would speculate you read the Guardian, Damien?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...+guardianistas

There is supposedly impartiality in all TV news. I do wonder how an organisation chartered to be impartial, etc, can reconcile impartiality with...

"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that"

Jane Garvey
BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.

"We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking."

Ben Stephenson
BBC Drama Commissioning Controller
Guardian, July 16th 2009

Originally Posted by Andrew Marr

The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...rrect-BBC.html

Michael Buerk attacks 'politically correct' BBC
BBC presenter Michael Buerk has criticised the corporation for being "out of touch" with public opinion.

The veteran journalist accused BBC staff of making the left-wing Guardian newspaper their “bible” and political correctness "their creed”.
Mr Buerk, who presents Radio 4’s Moral Maze, was reviewing the memoir of his former colleague, Peter Sissons, who also attacks the BBC for having “institutional bias”.

I'm sure I could find loads more, but then if the BBC claim openly to be unbiased and their output suits one's point of view they must be unbiased.

---------- Post added at 11:01 ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Could I just point out that there appears to be some confusion between source of news and choice of source of news.

The graph shows that 73% of news is sourced from TV (which consists (mainly) of BBC News, ITV News, Sky News, and a couple of smaller players). BBC is then the choice of source of news for 70% of the 73% (which equals 51% of news sourced).

No one makes anyone watch the BBC news, viewers just prefer it.

You forgot the online output Hugh.

The BBC also has domination over radio, print is the only media in which it does not have by far the largest share of viewership / listeners.

I would imagine some people prefer it because we're all forced to pay for it if we own a TV.

Anyway I'm starting to turn this into an attack on the BBC, which is somewhat OT. My initial point still stands that the idea of News International getting their hands on Sky News somehow causing issues with plurality is farcical.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Ignoring the rest as we'll agree to disagree the BBC advertises in the Guardian, according to the link above it apparently now conducts interviews with the Guardian, and just a Google for the terms shows some interesting results.

I thought this was discussed before? The Guardian has a large media section, and is considered a one-stop-shop when it comes to media jobs?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Could I just point out that there appears to be some confusion between source of news and choice of source of news.

The graph shows that 73% of news is sourced from TV (which consists (mainly) of BBC News, ITV News, Sky News, and a couple of smaller players). BBC is then the choice of source of news for 70% of the 73% (which equals 51% of news sourced).

No one makes anyone watch the BBC news, viewers just prefer it.

Yes they do prefer much more then the woeful ITV news and the insidious politically bias Sky News organisation.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Ignoring the rest as we'll agree to disagree the BBC advertises in the Guardian, according to the link above it apparently now conducts interviews with the Guardian, and just a Google for the terms shows some interesting results.

I would speculate you read the Guardian, Damien?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...+guardianistas
l[/url]

I do. That Google search doesn't prove they are 'Guardianistas'.

As for the BBC recruiting in The Guardian. They have a big media section, I mean really big. It's viewed in pretty much the same way the public sector views them as a place to get jobs. Rather disingenuous to use that as evidence as it will be very heavily influenced by the fact The Guardian is viewed as the place to look for media jobs. The other papers either don't have a job section at all or the section is very small compared to the massive Guardian one.

As for the quotes. Well that's what I said, they have a typically left wing staff but also as I mentioned they are in a large part working in Comedy, Drama and other non-news programming.

It's impossible to have individuals who are unbiased. Just Impossible. Everyone will have political opinions and professions can often tend to be self-selecting. It's true across the creative industries, from which the BBC employs, that it's heavily liberal. It is that to which Marr was referring. This is also true of ITV, Channel 4 and so on. You can't get a balance of left/right opinion in media.

The question is the influence of a editional line of reporting. This is very evident in News International where there is a strict line to which the staff will write too. This is not in place at the BBC News which attempts to be impartial. They do reports to measure the impact their staff's personal bias is reflected in news reports and they do admit it happens. That is a far cry from a institutional attempt to stick to a left wing position.

Also worth noting their Political Editor was a member of the Conservatives when he was younger.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Stuart

The problem with NI is not so much that they control so much of the media, but that they have proved that they are willing to use that control to further the political beliefs of one man. One man who has been known to change his allegiance seemingly on a whim. Also, like most newspapers, the bias in his publications is overt (yes, I do count the Guardian in that list).

The rules on impartiality within the television media remain in place. Fox News UK isn't an option here.

Originally Posted by Stuart

You argue that print is dead, and it may be, but 3 to 4 million people still read the Times and The Sun everyday, and if they are basing their beliefs on what they read (and there is some evidence they do), that can mean the difference between one party winning an election and another.

This is a situation replicated worldwide. The Sun is actually the major culprit for this one as far as I'm aware.

Originally Posted by Stuart

That, IMO, is too much power for one man to have over our electoral system.

Shorting of restricting the freedom of the press further I'm unsure what can be done here?

The same argument that applies to the BBC, that people watch it because they choose to, applies to The Sun. People buy it because they choose to.

Originally Posted by Stuart

The BBC, while it has it's own political bias (slightly left, I'd say) also has strict rules governing political bias in it's output. Not just self enforced rules, but laws. It's political stance is also not set by one person.

It's set by a group of people, who are largely like-minded hence being in those positions.

Originally Posted by Stuart

It's also worth remembering that the two primary sources I've seen for complaints about BBC bias (The Mail and News International) have their own agendas that have little to do with BBC bias, and it's entirely possible that they are using the bias claim as a weapon to attack the BBC.

Oh I've no doubt they are, which is why I couldn't care less what they say.

These issues are largely issues within the political arena though, these are issues replicated wherever there is some freedom of the press.

---------- Post added at 11:08 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

I thought this was discussed before? The Guardian has a large media section, and is considered a one-stop-shop when it comes to media jobs?

Please feel free to ignore the inconvenient parts of the post.

---------- Post added at 11:11 ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I do. That Google search doesn't prove they are 'Guardianistas'.

As for the quotes. Well that's what I said, they have a typically left wing staff but also as I mentioned they are in a large part working in Comedy, Drama and other non-news programming.

It's impossible to have individuals who are unbiased. Just Impossible. Everyone will have political opinions and professions can often tend to be self-selecting. It's true across the creative industries, from which the BBC employs, that it's heavily liberal. It is that to which Marr was referring. This is also true of ITV, Channel 4 and so on. You can't get a balance of left/right opinion in media.

The question is the influence of a editional line of reporting. This is very evident in News International where there is a strict line to which the staff will write too. This is not in place at the BBC News which attempts to be impartial. They do reports to measure the impact their staff's personal bias is reflected in news reports and they do admit it happens. That is a far cry from a institutional attempt to stick to a left wing position.

Also worth noting their Political Editor was a member of the Conservatives when he was younger.

I know you're a Guardian reader I'm sure you've mentioned it before. I'm glad you agree that there is bias within the BBC's staff, and that this bias does find its way to news reports.

I don't remember mentioning that there was an institutional bias within the BBC, merely that it has a high proportion of Guardianistas, which you appear to have agreed upon, so it's all good.

Of course it's only bias if it's not what you think

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/wo...n.html?_r=1&hp

In a way, Mr. Cameron is unlucky. Successive governments, most recently the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, courted Mr. Murdoch with almost as much fervor as the current one. Mr. Cameron's happened to be the government in power and without a chair when the music stopped.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I know you're a Guardian reader I'm sure you've mentioned it before. I'm glad you agree that there is bias within the BBC's staff, and that this bias does find its way to news reports.

I don't remember mentioning that there was an institutional bias within the BBC, merely that it has a high proportion of Guardianistas, which you appear to have agreed upon, so it's all good.

Of course it's only bias if it's not what you think

I am pointing out that every organisation will have bias because reporters are human and when there is no editorial line for them to take then their own beliefs will sometimes come though. The difference between the BBC and other organisations is the BBC tries to eradicate it as best it can whereas News International deliberately seeks to push that a bias for it's owner's own political or financial (BSkyB) gain. The later is far more insidious which is why I fear their media dominance more than the BBC's.

I also find no real evidence that they intentionally seek to recruit left wing staff for their news output. I think that their recruitment in The Guardian is a result of The Guardian's position within the media industry as a good place to look and advertise for jobs.

I can understand bias when I see it. Even if it agrees with my own beliefs. I am aware of The Guardian's left wing bias and know when it's being pushed. I have to say that, like most broadsheets (i.e not The Independent), most of their bias is confined to their columnists, the editorial and the stories they choose to cover. I find most of their 'straight' reporting on matters is objective. I believe this is because that is what broadsheet readers want, they dislike facts being omitted. I do not see that bias in BBC reporting. Even the few opinion pieces on their site are mixed.

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------

That said I also read The Times online and on the iPad so I guess I am a big ol hypocrite there....

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/wo...n.html?_r=1&hp

Too true. The extent of that fact has been forgotten in the current furore but I have a feeling we're all soon going to be treated to a detailed account of just how long this has been going on and who else is culpable.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Could I just point out that there appears to be some confusion between source of news and choice of source of news.

The graph shows that 73% of news is sourced from TV (which consists (mainly) of BBC News, ITV News, Sky News, and a couple of smaller players). BBC is then the choice of source of news for 70% of the 73% (which equals 51% of news sourced).

No one makes anyone watch the BBC news, viewers just prefer it.

And there is a very good reason for that preference.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

And there is a very good reason for that preference.

I agree.

Most left-wing papers think the BBC is right-wing and establishment-orientated, and right-wing papers think the BBC is pinko commy liberal tree-huggers - imho, that means the BBC are doing it right....

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree.

Most left-wing papers think the BBC is right-wing and establishment-orientated, and right-wing papers think the BBC is pinko commy liberal tree-huggers - imho, that means the BBC are doing it right....

That's the way I see it.. If the BBC are hated equally by both, they must be doing something right..