The BBC doesn’t like Christians, and there are discussions of ways to change this. As revealed by the British conservative tabloid the Daily Mail, “the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.” To most on the right, this is not shocking news.
Let’s take a step back and consider some recent developments. The New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse has come clean on her biases. The management at the NYT stumbles around to get its story straight and now the BBC has this embarrassment on its hands. As of Tuesday, the BBC had not addressed the situation, but it will be interesting to see what its response ends up being.
Are two major media organizations a trend? No, not yet, but this is certainly something worth noting as news organizations struggle to find their place in the fast-changing media landscape. Perhaps all news organizations should be more straightforward with their inherent biases. Much of a newsroom’s bias could be easily determined by charting the political and social views of its reporters.
This brings me back to the BBC story, in which the Daily Mail appropriately focused on the staffing of the taxpayer-funded newsroom:
A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
What is most interesting about this report is that a BBC executive claims a “widespread acknowledgement” that the BBC has gone too far toward political correctness. So tell us something we don’t know already, but are BBC decision-makers starting to realize this as well? Does this mean the BBC’s staff is going to move toward true diversity?
This brings me to another point. BBC Sunday morning political pundit Andrew Marr said in the story that the network has “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.”
What exactly is an “abnormally large number”? Unless the BBC decides to let us know, it will be difficult to determine exactly how abnormal its staffing situation really is. But the irony of the whole situation is that while BBC executives can rant and rave about how they promote multiculturalism, they to fulfill that mission if they do not have a staff and executive team that represents the wide range of views in the social landscape.
I’m not saying that newsrooms should hire political hacks to do their information-gathering. Rather, in considering hiring decisions for reporting positions, and ultimately editing positions, BBC executives should consider diversity of belief an important part of their mission of multiculturalism.
 | Posted at 5:47 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (16) |
October 25, 2006, at 3:26 am
All I can say is that every time I hear that guy on BBW World Report say “…The Prophet, Peace be upon him…” I just want to puke and think that Lion-hearted king must be spinning in his grave.
October 25, 2006, at 5:44 am
For me, as a wire journalist, Mattk’s comment raises a style question that has been troubling me. How should Muhammed be introduced on first reference?
My view is that saying Prophet Muhammed, without further ado, gives credence to the view that the man was a prophet. If we are to seek balance, that would require us to say the Lord, or the Savior, or the Redeemer Jesus Christ, the Lord Buddha and the Lord Krishna.
I would think that the fairest and most honest introduction would be “the Muslim prophet Muhammed.”
Any thoughts?
October 25, 2006, at 6:48 am
To be fair to the BBC, Attila the Hun would be considered a wishy-washy multiculturalist by the “Daily Mail”. Its target audience is the suburban middle-class, and it regularly runs scare stories about the coloured and/or Eastern European hordes waiting to overrun Britain! and the collapsing property market which will leave you all paupers! when it is not running stories about the booming property market which will make you all millionaires!
It never really got over the replacement of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, and you can detect a note of wistful yearning for the glory days of Maggie in its pages.
October 25, 2006, at 7:50 am
It never really got over the replacement of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, and you can detect a note of wistful yearning for the glory days of Maggie in its pages.
So, are they right about *this* story or not? That’s what matters to this discussion.
October 25, 2006, at 8:21 am
“So, are they right about *this* story or not? That’s what matters to this discussion.”
I tthink Martha is saying that the Mail isn’t exactly a reliable source of objective information about the BBC. It would be like relying on Rush Limbaugh for an unbiased perspective on the NYT. It seems fair to say that Mail probably isn’t giving the whole story and could even be making a few things up.
October 25, 2006, at 8:46 am
The post acknowledges the fact that the Daily Mail is a conservative paper. Perhaps I should have emphasized that more. Whether or not the story is reliable depends on whether the BBC or the individuals involved will challenge its authenticity.
October 25, 2006, at 9:03 am
You shouldn’t blame the messenger because you don’t like the message. Nobody seriously disputes that the BBC is strongly liberal-leftist in its tilt, pro-Palestinian (think Orla Guerin), anti-Israel, anti-Bush etc. Thousands complained about it broadcasting the blasphemous ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’, which is full of the F-word and depicts Jesus is a very lewd way - and the BBC just brushed these complaints aside. Of course it would NEVER show the Danish cartoons - it is far too afraid.
What sticks in the craw of many people is that they have no option but to pay the annual license fee of about $300 - a compulsory tax on all owners of TVs (not pay by view).
October 25, 2006, at 9:35 am
I don’t really think the Linda Greenhouse episode is evidence of the kind of institutional bias the Daily Mail story is about. I mean, she’s one reporter, and as far as I could tell from her controversial remarks, she wasn’t talking about Christianity in particular. Do we even know Linda Greenhouse’s religious background?
“Perhaps all news organizations should be more straightforward with their inherent biases. Much of a newsroom’s bias could be easily determined by charting the political and social views of its reporters.”
I have to say: I really, really hate ideas like this. Take it outside of politics for a second: I’m Catholic. Does that mean I have an inherent bias against Jews, Protestants, Muslims, etc.? Should I have a bio on the Web site saying, “Catholic Reporter” just so any non-Catholics know they shouldn’t talk to me about religion stories?
The “reveal your biases” argument seems to be based on the notion that reporters are unable to separate they personal opinions from their work. For some (known as “bad reporters”), this is true. For the vast majority (“good reporters”) this is an insult.
October 25, 2006, at 10:26 am
Martha says “To be fair to the BBC, Attila the Hun would be considered a wishy-washy multiculturalist by the “Daily Mailâ€.â€
This is truly ironic because Attila the Hun was HIGHLY multicultural.
Genetic research shows that there is little support for the idea of a “Hun†people. Rather the “Huns†that were lead by Attila were a grouping of Turkic, Mongolian, Finno-Ugric, Yenisein Tungus, Caucasian, and Iranian clans. I think they had been welded together around a core of the Xiongnu people after the Xiongnu lost a battle to the Han Chinese in central Asia and started migrating west (though climatic factors probably had a lot to do with the migration too).
Even beyond that though, Attila took this ethnic polyglot that was the Huns and added to his Army several of the peoples he conquered, Alans, Gepids, Burgundians, Rugians, Scirii, Sarmatians, Slavs, Heruls, Thuringians, and Ostrogoths. In addition to this there were large numbers of freed/escaped Roman slaves, who, given the Roman slave markets, could have literally come from any ethnic background. The Roman historian Priscus records that on his visit to Attila’s camp entertainment was provided by a Scythian fool and Moorish dwarf. If I recall correctly Atilla’s “right hand man†was in fact a highly educated Greek.
Now I mention this, not just because I feel the need to show off my “suburban middle-class†education, but because Attila did multiculturalism RIGHT. In the Hun Empire where you came from, what color you skin was, or what tribe you were from simply didn’t matter. What did matter was what sort of skills you had and how well you did your job. Attila was no Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. but he did care more about the content of your character than the color of your skin. Attila didn’t have (or need) a “diversity czar’.
The problem here is that the BBC does have a “diversity czar†(or more properly “diversity commissarâ€). Once you get someone who’s paycheck rests upon the need to make the organization more culturally diverse, the organization will NEVER be culturally diverse enough. There will always be more to do, as long as that person or persons need something to justify their continued employment. Giving this person additional duties and the power to snoop into people’s political and religious views is NOT the answer. Firing them and their entire staff would be a great place to start.
What the BBC needs though is some way to be held accountable to the public. In America the P.C. Press is simply loosing marketshare, income, and advertisers. (I’ve heard that the NYT is now the #3 newspaper in the Greater New York Area… is that true?). You can see this in the NYT stock price, the L.A. Times low circulation numbers, the job cuts at MSNBC, etc.
Since the BBC is funded by British Taxpayers, I don’t know how this could be done. Perhaps they should be (at least partially) privatized, the way British Steel, and the coal mines were, or weaned off the Government ala PBS and NPR in the U.S. I would suggest that Lady Thatcher head a commission on the subject.
October 25, 2006, at 10:37 am
It does tie in to the matter of institutional bias; one reads the “Daily Mail” for a certain point of view, just as one reads the “Independent” or the “Guardian” for a different point of view.
Is the story true? If by true, you mean, is there what is perceived as a liberal bias within the BBC, then yes. And no.
If by true, you mean, is the “Daily Mail” correct that the BBC is a nest of Trotskyites who want to ban fox hunting (that is what “being anti-countryside” means) and turn the nation into vegetarian pacifist metrosexuals, well - no, not really.
The above quote “BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities” could be rephrased as “BBC executives find that there is a higher than average proportion of…”, depending of course on what you consider an ‘average proportion’ of gay/black/female/Catholic/disabled persons.
‘Admit’, ‘dominate’ - these are emotive terms. You ‘admit’ to guilt; your enemies seek to ‘dominate’ you.
There certainly is a case to answer for the BBC and how it is constituted; however, it’s worth bearing in mind that no government, whatever the party, ever believes that the state broadcaster is sufficiently on its side or supportive of its ministers, and no opposition, whatever the party, ever believes the state broadcaster is tough enough on the government (for fear of losing its licence fee).
When the Tories were in power, the BBC was accused of being soft on them. Now that Labour is in power, the BBC is being accused of being out to get them.
October 25, 2006, at 10:42 am
“Attila took this ethnic polyglot that was the Huns and added to his Army several of the peoples he conquered, Alans, Gepids, Burgundians, Rugians, Scirii, Sarmatians, Slavs, Heruls, Thuringians, and Ostrogoths. In addition to this there were large numbers of freed/escaped Roman slaves, who, given the Roman slave markets, could have literally come from any ethnic background. The Roman historian Priscus records that on his visit to Attila’s camp entertainment was provided by a Scythian fool and Moorish dwarf. If I recall correctly Atilla’s “right hand man†was in fact a highly educated Greek.”
Well, exactly my and the “Daily Mail“‘s point, Larry! Did Hunnish schoolchildren learn the dates and reigns of the kings and the glories of the Hunnish empire, or were they instead force-fed mushy multicultural ‘there’s no such thing as a pure Hun’ fare? That’s what’s wrong with the country nowadays! It’s political correctness gone mad!
October 25, 2006, at 12:03 pm
Actually, no. If the BBC responded everytime a London tabloid attacked them, they would do nothing but issues statments. Much like if the NYT responded every time a conservative tabloid in New York attacked them.
We need to be careful about assuming that playground namecalling and taunting is real news or a real debate.
October 25, 2006, at 5:49 pm
Albion, I’ve always thought reporters should not call anyone a prophet or a christ or a buddha. Those are adjectives that the reporter would have too much difficulty verifying.
I would be happy with
1. “the founder of Islam, Muhammed”,
2. “Jesus” (everyone reading your report knows who you are talking about whether or not they regard him as the Christ.)
3. “Siddhartha Gautama, known to his followers as Buddha”
October 25, 2006, at 8:54 pm
Martha,
As everyone who went to my middle class suburban school knows, there were no Hunnic schoolchildren. Being steppe nomads, and mostly illertate they didn’t have schools. (Attila though could certianly speak, and probably read, Latin due to the time he spend as a hostage at the Roman court. Greek I don’t know about, but it is likely he picked up at least some.)
The children learned to ride (before they could walk), hunt (no grocery stores in the 5th Century), defend themselves, and use the horse bow. Since the Hunnic empire pretty much rose and fell with the life of Attila himself there really wasn’t much of a king list to memorize, and the kids pretty much saw the “glories” first hand when Dad came back from the battle with all sorts of loot.
What is important to note is that the Huns cared not about your ethnicity nor your religion, they cared only about your loyalty. Neither did they care much about your gender. If you remember your Priscus (you do rememeber your Priscus don’t you?) you will recall that during his mission to visit Attila Priscus saw Attila accept gifts from a woman because “he (Attila) wished to please the wife of his lieutenant”. Unlike the mysoginistic customs of the Moslem world, women under the Huns were not seculded, could participate in politics to some degree (hence Attila’s desire to keep the women happy) and even obtain power, if they had the ability to hold it.
In fact Priscus even writes of his visit a village ruled by a woman, specifically one of the wives of Bleda. (Bleda, as every middle class suburban school child knows was of the brother of Attila who died in a “hunting accident”.) Later, during the time of the Emperor Justinian the Sabiri, (who consdiered themselves to be Huns) were ruled by a woman, Boarex, who took power when her Husband Balach died.
The BBC could do well to implement the policies of Attila. Like I said, Attila’s policy was that he didn’t care about your ethnicity or religion, as long as you were loyal to the Hunnic (not Hunnish)agenda and the Hunnic people. The BBC could do well to implement this policy, because in their rush to embrace all things exotic they have forgotten the part about being loyal. They are seemingly unaware that a large percentage of the people whose cultures they rush to accomodate would like nothing better than to see the Western Culture exterminated and wiped off the map.
October 26, 2006, at 9:39 am
Mr. Grade has always been a twit. He’s the man who wanted to throw Doctor Who into a wastecan (and symbolically did so, on a BBC talk/gameshow) instead of seeing a cash cow that only needed better milking. It surprises me not at all to learn that he is incompetent in other areas besides business sense.
November 17, 2006, at 2:35 pm
Background Checks On Doctors