Hear, hear. Bravo Hutton.
EH

After watching Newsnight I'm not convinced the BBC are taking in Hutton and they clearly signalled their intent before it ws published:

"What is important once Hutton is published is that if the BBC is criticised we learn from whatever is written - assuming of course that we agree with what is said," Greg Dyke

Oh whoopy! Yes that's what we need, a regulatory body, that'll sort it all out nicely. Sheeeesh.

Excellent summary. I was reading it as I sit here waiting for C-SPAN to begin broadcasting Hutton-related programming from Britain, which is scheduled to run all night (I'm going to tape it for viewing tomorrow). It's going to include BBC news coverage of the Hutton report as well as Blair and Michael Howard going at it in the House of Commons. Should be interesting.

The serious problems at the BBC can also be found, albeit on a smaller scale, in America's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). I hope that before too many years pass all of these broadcasting services will be privatized, by one method or another.

One quibble, Stephen. Didn't Dr. Kelly die in July, rather than in August?

M.J. Smith
Highway99.blogspot.com

This debate is very interesting but it's also touchingly naive. Do you really think that the Beeb's prejudices are going to disappear? It is perfectly true that the BBC is the "Guardian of the airwaves". It has long ignored its duty of impartiality, with impunity, especially under the present Government. Paxman, Kirsty Wark, Humphries, etc etc have long made clear their political sympathies and gone out of their way to present centre-right opinions in the worst possible light. It is virtually impossible to make real headway within the BBC if you hold centre-right opinions.

But do you think that any of this is going to change? The whole Gilligan episode was about the Government using its muscle to ensure that the BBC got back on message pretty damn quick....along with the Times, the Sun, the FT and (oftentimes) the Indie and the Guardian. Blair didn't appoint Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke to run the BBC in order to correct its left liberal bias. He appointed them to run the Blair Broadcasting Corporation....paid for by you and me.

Not sure about Blair winning on tuition fees.
It's a bit like if Spurs were given a 9-0 head start against Man Utd and claimed victory when it finished 10-9 (not altogether impossible).

Impossible. It would be 9-10.

Stephen

"There is a clear left liberal bias in the BBC's assumptions."

Do cite appropriate evidence of this please.

Not sure what a "radio viewer" is but you can listen to BBC radio for nought: the radio licence was abolished donkey's years ago.

Not that old chestnut again, surely. I really can't be bothered to respond, but just so it doesn't look as if I've no answer: opponents of immigration are always portrayed as extremists; opponents of EU membership of the EU are similarly regarded (and as it happens I am pro-immigration and pro-EU membership); proponents of the death penalty are likewise; the list goes on...

Look. It's quite simple. Attack the BBC and you do Blair's work.

Anything in Blair's interest runs counter to ours, as citizens of a democracy.

Whatever the BBC's manifest weaknesses, its virtues outweigh them.

The bias to which Stephen refers is not a conscious project of left wing propaganda enforced top-down by the governors, but - arguably even more pernicious - a culture of left wing views that pervades the institution. You could call it the "attitudinal aggregate" of the corporation - the general character of the political and cultural values possessed by its employees. The BBC attracts a certain kind of graduate (bourgeois, often from public sector families, convinced that business is a bit grubby, possessing a vague interest in doing something creative), and this inevitably results in slanted coverage.

The BBC should be privatised. That such a vast, politically biased public broadcaster - funded by a regressive tax - still exists in 2004 is one of the few things to dislike about this country.

Ben:

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com
http://lastnightsbbcnews.blogspot.com

Paul

Thanks for the tip, but come off it... independent analysis please. The contributors to those blogs obviously don't understand how ironic it is for those wholly biased against the corporation to nitpick - in tiresome and monotonous detail - at every comma and full stop in one of its broadcasts.

And wasn't it a survey by the ITC or someone that found the BBC's coverage of the Iraq war to be the most pro War of any of the broadcasters? That's evidence I trust. The above blogs can be dismissed as the mere rantings of those - judging by the protests outside the BBC's offices today - with very little support amongst most of the British people.

I spent an evening last year listening to a British soldier talk about his experiences during the Iraq war. He and his team switched on the radio as they crossed the Kuwaiti border. He said, and I quote :'We were fighting our way up to Basra, and thought we were doing well. The BBC kept telling us how badly we were doing. We wound up switching stations.' These are British soldiers whose morale was being actively undermined by the BBC. Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies, good riddance.

Julie,
Don't for get the Ark Royal. It's crew in the Gulf switched off the BBC feed during the war out of disgust at the slanted coverage.

Ben. It may be true that the anti-BBC bloggers lack perspective. I certainly do not agree with all their criticisms. Though I do not read them on a regular basis, some occasional viewings would lead me to suspect a degree of obsessive nitpicking of mere detail.
However, I hardly see how they can be dismissed with the words "independent analysis please". Who are they supposed to be independent from?
Is it their prejudices that render them unacceptable, or merely that they are not your own?
As regards the protests, they may accurately reflect the opinion of BBC emloyees. That does not mean they are those of the British people.

Stephen, I hate to rain on your parade, but have you seen the comments in Thursday's Telegraph by Boris Johnson, again repeated by Robert Liddle and Charles Oborne in the Spectator?
They basically accuse Hutton of dishonesty. A lot of folk think that Hutton has outrageously turned a blind eye to the government's misdemeanours.

Don't get me wrong - I supported the war to overthrow Saddam and feel more confident that we did the right thing with every day that passes. But let's be clear - Blair and his colleagues exaggerated the WMD threat. That is a fact, and the BBC helped expose that point. I know some pro-war people hate to admit this, but in substantial terms, the BBC was accurate.

The BBC is a haven for left-wing bias? Please please please - shut up. Why the Right has to be angry unless every media outlet broadcasts or publishes everything it wants to here is beyond me. As a full-blown left-winger, I'll let you in on a little secret: the BBC is not biased to the left. At all. Consider the following: the BBC's coverage of the Iraq war and its preamble was the most pro-war of any broadcaster.

The Stop the War Coalition was hardly featured in debates or coverage, even though it organised the biggest anti-war - or any - protest march in British history. When it came for the numbers marching, out of all the news outlets, the BBC reported the least - once even estimating lower than the police figure, which as a rule of thumb you always double, as police figures are routinely laughable. I cannot move for smug middle-class home and lifestyle programmes on the box. The few fair-handed documentaries are either on well after eleven on BBC2 or shunted onto BBC4 - which I don't have. Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is always skewered in favour of the Israeli Government - the differences in describing Palestinian and Israeli 'terror' attacks is a case in point (ie. the word 'terror' will not be used to describe Israeli Army actions, even against foreign nationals like the ISM volunteers).

Stories on asylum are frequently inaccurate and follow the tabloids agenda - who, I remind you have focussed on this story in the past two years in an attempt to push up falling sales - and the British public love a scapegoat precisely because they feel so powerless about the things that truely affect their lives - spiralling cost of living, poor job prospects in certain areas, the affordability of housing and ever-increasing personal debt.

In short, don't complain about left-wing bias where it plainly does not exist. After all, you have 80% of the press, ITV, all of satellite and cable television and big business on your side. We have Socialist Worker and, occasionally, The Guardian. You're doing quite fine as it is.

And if you don't stop complaining, I'll come round your house and personally raise your taxes...

I wonder whether Kid Penfold would be brave enough to make a threat like "and if you don't stop complaining, I'll come round your house and personally raise your taxes..." if he lived where I live. Thanks to the Second Amendment, people who threaten to "come round your house" with hostile intent face somewhat more effective resistance here than they generally do in Britain.

Kid Penfold,

You forgot to add the Daily Mirror, the New Statesman and the Independent to your list.

And the 'Beeb' is generally subliminally 'soft-Left' biased and was anti-war, not just in the recent Iraq war but in the Falklands conflict too.

If the BBC (or anyone) were in America, they could broadcast whatever they want, whenever they want. The media answers to no one in America.

The cheerleading pro-Bush media of America sees to it that Americans are kept ignorant to the crimes of the Bush White House.

Unlike the BBC, the reason the media in America can publish whatever they wish is that it is privately funded. If the BBC wishes to have the same privilege, it need only reject its government funding and make a go of it on their own.

And for your edification, the majority of American media (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Seattle Post-Int., etc.) are decidedly left-leaning, antiwar, anti-Bush. Please don't delude yourselves as to the origins of why the vast majority of the American public was and still is pro-war, pro-Bush.

The showing of "leftist" leanings is by the way the news is presented, or not presented. People are called specific names if they are "right wingers" and not "left wingers", Media Example: Mr.Bush (no respect) vs. President Clinton (respect), a leftist will be introduced as a regular person, but when talking about a conservative, they will be introduced as "a right wing conservative", an object will be presented as something normal if it is liked by liberal taste, but will be chastied and labeled when it is "pro war, pro abortion, conservative,right wing, pro business,christian, etc.
Another way is to deliberately not report something because it does not agree with your way of thinking. Anything liberal or anti-conservative will be put on the front pages, whereby a report or story that shows the liberal way of thinking was wrong will not be reported or it will be put in the back of the paper or a small segment of broadcast time !!!!
Liberal people don't see this or hear this because it is their way of thinking, but to conservatives or right leaning people, this bias sticks out like a sore thumb !!!!
If the government is to continue funding this service for all the people, then there needs to be an editorial review board made up of both right and left views, so that BOTH are presented to the people, and NO leanings or comments are injected.
PRESENT the news unbiased, let the people decide.
But that is NOT the agenda's in most newsrooms !!!!
That is why FOX news is gaining, and the US broadcast is losing !!
Take heed PBS and NPR !!!!!!

Gilligan: repeat perp with BBC help.

Gilligan misreported there was no evidence of the Americans at Baghdad’s airport when he wasn’t really in it & the Americans were firmly in control. Next day he & colleagues misreported there was no evidence that Americans had reached Baghdad’s center or had even entered Baghdad at all, when the Americans had done both. Couldn’t admit two errors in two days, & on the second day Gilligan said that the Americans have a “history of making these premature announcements.” They proceeded to make the question of American veracity the story of the day there. That & more is in “Bizarro Broadcasting Company” by Denis Boyles, Duck Season, April 7, 2003 & now at
http://www.NationalReview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment072903.asp.

So, Gilligan previously misreported, then distorted the news, with colleagues’ help, in ways that covered up his misreporting, notably by shifting critical focus onto their favored targets. Sound familiar?

It's what Gilligan & BBCers did again in the matter of Kelly & the dossier. It’s not just the BBC, either. It’s a microcosm, for instance, of the left’s & news media’s obsession over uranium intel claims, an obsessive focus distracting from their own miserable & trust-exploding record of claims about the Iraq war, rolling defense into redoubled offense in order to regain trust & advance their agenda. Then Amanpour Orwellianly cried censorship “by” Murdoch’s competition, &, to boot, did so when CNN & others had kowtowed to dictators as Pulitzer-winning NY Times reporter John F. Burns & others discussed.

“Who got it right and who got it wrong?”
http://www.Telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/10/who10.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/10/ixnewstop.html
filed April 10, 2003, The Telegraph (UK)

[roundups of war misreporting, etc.]
http://www.AndrewSullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_04_06_dish_archive.html
AndrewSullivan.com April 6-11, 2003

“Special Gloat and Quote Edition: Media's Erroneous Predictions”
http://new.MRC.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030409_extra.asp
CyberAlert Extra, April 9, 2003, Media Research Center

“John Burns: 'There Is Corruption in Our Business'”
http://www.EditorAndPublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1979014
[Interview] Sept. 15, 2003, Editor & Publisher

“CNN's Access of Evil”
http://www.OpinionJournal.com/extra/?id=110003336
by Franklin Foer, April 14, 2003, Opinion Journal

“The awful news CNN had to keep to itself”
http://www.IHT.com/articles/92949.html
by Eason Jordan, April 12, 2003, International Herald Tribune, first published as “The News We Kept to Ourselves,” April 11, 2003, New York Times

“Bob Garfields's Interview with Eason Jordan”
http://www.WNYC.org/onthemedia/transcripts/transcripts_102502_jordan.html
[Relevant to Foer’s “CNN's Access of Evil” above] October 25, 2002, WNYC Radio

“Air War - How Saddam Manipulates the U.S. Media”
http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/howsaddam.html
by Franklin Foer, Posted Oct. 16, 2002, Issue: Oct. 28, 2002, The New Republic

“Saddam's parades of dead babies are exposed as a cynical charade”
http://www.Telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/25/wirq25.xml
by Charlotte Edwards, filed May 25, 2003, the Telegraph (UK)

“Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist”
http://www.MEForum.org/article/548
by Charles M. Brown, Summer 2003, Middle East Forum

Bahgdad Bob represented a stalinist regime with no free press. The American and British Generals represent democratic nations with agressive free press. History and common sense tells you that one feels little pressure to tell the truth and and much pressure to lie, the other may want to lie, but the inevitability of getting caught in lies, and losing credibility, pressures them into telling the truth, or at least, not telling lies.

And yet, much of the free press, and the BBC seems to give more credibility to Bob, why? especially as over time it became clear that he was lying?

Many on this side of the pond, including centrists and center left commentators, lambased the BBC for bias. It was not their opinions that swayed me, merely the frequent quotes from the BBC they inserted into their blogs.

I am not sure whether those who say the BBC is not biased to the left are serious, or whether they see and hear a different part of it than I do. I see their articles on the net and I hear the BBC World Service from time to time. Neither make any attempt to be fair to President Bush or even to follow the ordinary journalistic practices of givng both sides of a story. For example--and if you want to check this you can go to my site for the link--they did an entire piece on media reactions to Bush's State of Union without quoting one bit from anyone who liked it. About 3/4 of those who heard it did like it, if you are wondering.

Or consider the snear quote in a recent headline. Bush said he wanted the facts about the WMD intelligence. The headline says that he wants the "facts".

If Britons can reign in this biased and arrogant "news service", theyl''ll do the democratic world a favor.

Fred Flintstone...you have named yourself appropriately!

The Media and Islam

I’ve noticed 2 strange phenomenon over the last year. The first is the growth of Islam within a British society and culture that is so ideologically set against it. Both current and historical practice together with stated beliefs set Islam against homosexual expression, alternative marriages, sex outside a heterosexual marriage, sex on TV and in books, individualism, youth culture, critical art, alternative comedy, criticism of authority and religion, religious pick and mix, women’s right to a career, singleness. In addition, historically there’s been a utter lack of interest in animal rights, the environment, pluralism, vegetarianism and all manner of other secular issues.

The second phenomenon is the utter lack of public debate or critical study of Islamic attitudes to the above. Where are the feminists, career women, animal rightists, secularists, vegetarians, ‘humane’ animal stunners, Marxists, atheists, pluralists, artists, comedians, satirists, individualists, youth leaders, pornographers, human rightists and libertarians? Have they decided to take a holiday after spending the last 2 generations seeing off that resident source of revealed religion – Christianity?

Or has another factor entered the arena. Is it FEAR? What does that say about our broadcasters, notably the BBC?

i believe the BBC is the worlds best news outlet, its far better than any american news service (with the possible exception of NPR) they report news that you dont get anywhere else. youll never hear a story about nigerian politics or malaysian music on say, fox news (what a horrid excuse for a news channel) and most of the reporting ive heard on the BBC has been impartial. it would be a great loss to the world if the BBC went under, especially since private news channels cant match the broad swathe of issues covered, and can only say what their parent companies (ie: clearchannel, general electric, ect ect) want them to say.

phatforum anita @X@ strokejob vhs bath @X@ girls handjobs sheryl @X@ orgie murzynka @X@ wibrator sekslowne laseczki @X@ niunia w rajstopkach @X@ egaculation bambi @X@ little squirt christina @X@ girls scuirting clips @X@ adult boobie download @X@ adult breast mpeg @X@ puffy boob pics @X@ pochwa w aucie darmowe @X@ fli @X@ dojrzale babki pod prysznicem @X@ cocks troking japanese vid @X@ handjobangels models orgasm @X@ hnadjob perfect jpg @X@ seks playboy @X@ malutkie opalanie przystojny @X@ dziewczyny dupa @X@

美女视频录像
激情自拍录像
三级片
免费成人电影
免费黄色电影
免费激情电影
免费色情电影
免费性交电影
免费性爱电影
三级片
美女视频录像
人体艺术图辑
黄色网站
色情
色情网站
成人网站
三级片
三级片
三级片
三级片
三级片
三级片
黄色网站
激情小电影
激情小电影
艺术激情享受
激情小电影
日本强奸电影
郎裸体图库
林心如拍黄的图片
性生活片电影在线
性感丝袜美女图片
玉蒲团之玉女心经
十八淫书
色兔妹妹图片
全球十大禁片bt下载
性交裸体图
亚洲成人淫民网
妹妹厕所走光图片
视频聊天
成人电影
黄色电影
激情电影
色情电影
性交电影
性爱电影
免费电影网
免费在线电影
看免费电影
免费电影网站
最新韩国电影
两性生活
性教育片
免费电影神话
最新电影无极
免费激情电影
免费黄色电影
最新电影下载
成人性爱电影
美女图片
美女走光
美腿图片
三级片
强奸电影
美女祼体图片
黄色电影下载
免费色情电影
性感美女图片
漂亮妹妹图片
做爱图片
美少女
幼女图片
舒淇写真集舒淇全裸照
偷窥电影偷窥小说偷窥图片
美女被强歼小说
巨乳小电影免费下载
美女厕所偷窥
视频mm自拍艳舞
仙人洞美女
一个馒头引发的血案
神雕侠侣
少妇
美女 美女图
明星露点写真
裸体写真 明星裸体写真
人体艺术写真
美臀
女人图片 性感美女图片
女性乳房 女性乳房写真
女人屁股 女性屁股 偷拍
偷拍女人的图片
18 贴 图 台湾 成人
男同性恋写真图片
午夜天堂成人小说-午夜天堂成人电影
台湾网络小说 台湾网络电影
小龙女与尹志平
图片性闻
美女洗澡小游戏 美女洗澡偷拍电影
艳舞
成人图库
女明星图片
丁字裤
免费电影在线看
免费电视连续剧收看
美臀 翘臀 图片
少妇展穴
色影无忌
三级片
性感美女床上自拍
三级片
免费成人电影
免费黄色电影
免费色情电影
免费成人电影
免费色情电影
免费黄色电影
免费成人电影
免费黄色电影
免费黄色电影
免费色情电影
免费色情电影
床第间的正点自拍
露点图片
女性最易献身时刻
自拍DV
偷拍录象
美女诱惑写真自拍短片
人体艺术另类
成人小说
黄色网站
成人论坛
成人图片
走光
三级片
视频录像激情视频
18dy-脱轨电影,tuogui
性感美女床上自拍
色情影音-激情写真media情色
激动电影-18dy
18dy-激动电影
免费小电影
性电影
免费成人电影下载
免费电影在线观看
宽带电影
经典电影下载
免费恐怖电影
免费影片下载
免费影院
最新大片
十八电影网
美女写真
人体艺术
日本av电影
情色电影
同志电影下载
激情视频下载
明星露点图片
写真电影
阴部图片
乳房图片
人体写真
美国大片
免费成人影片
在线看电影
成人网站
乳房 图 奸淫
极品嫩穴图片
美女插穴
黄色小说
在线激情电影
性教育电影
两性电影
看电影的网站
免费看电影
免费在线电影
免费电影下载