Whether it was politic or not to reveal the remarks, what Rupert Murdoch said Tony Blair had told him shows that at least someone pays attention to the remarkable (taxpayer funded) anti-American bias of the BBC. The BBC’s professional spokesmen and defenders have, of course, done their best to deflect attention from their political propaganda machine to the other issues. (The above is not to say that the BBC’s coverage is devoid of merit; I often listen, as I do to National Public Radio, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and Deutsche Welle, but their political biases are hard to mistake; what is especially offensive is the coerced taxpayer support of such political institutions.)
I haven’t been following the BBC coverage. How is it biased?
Tony Blair was reported to have told Rupert Murdoch he believes the BBC’s coverage of Hurricane Katrina was “full of hatred of America and gloating”. So where’s the evidence? To read, watch and listen to the BBC coverage of Hurricane Katrina, go here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2005/hurricane_katrina/default.stm Perhaps one of your readers can find some evidence for Blair’s extraordinary statement. I couldn’t find any in the BBC’s extensive coverage of the hurricane.
Greg Dyke, the BBC former director-general forced out in the wake of the Hutton report, said Mr Murdoch had provided a telling insight into his relationship with Mr Blair.
“If it’s an accurate record, Mr Murdoch has provided a fascinating glimpse of his private relationship with Mr Blair,” he said. “It may not come as a great surprise that the Prime Minister aims to please Murdoch but it comes as a bit of a shock he goes this far.” He added: “Mr Blair, it might be said, is hardly the best judge of the impartiality of news coverage, given his behaviour in the run-up to the Iraq war.”
Theresa May, a Conservative spokeswoman, said: “If that is Tony Blair’s view of the BBC’s coverage, he should be giving it to the BBC, not to the head of a rival news organisation.”
For more on Tony Blair’s relationship with Murdoch, go here: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article313465.ece and http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article313480.ece
I’ll leave it to Mr. Brady, who never fails to rise to the defense the socialistic BBC, to defend their coverage of all things American. I suspect that, since he lives in America, he doesn’t follow the BBC’s coverage quite as closely as, say, the prime minister, or as closely as other Britons who express similar disgust at taxpayer-subsidized BBC bias. I listen to the BBC on the radio quite frequently and it isn’t hard to detect the nasty disdain of all things American on the part of many of its presenters. Mr. Brady occasionally visits their news website and reads the articles there. Somehow that’s not the same as being exposed to the television and radio propaganda of the BBC. (I well recall the caustic hatefulness of their coverage of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s election as governor of California, with the frequent invocations of how “*only* in America” could “an action hero of robot movies” be elected governor of the largest state. Oh, how clever! For the rest of the world, Schwarzenegger’s election was a sign of an open society that could embrace an immigrant and elect him to high office. But not for the BBC.
Here, by the way, is the criticism of William Jefferson Clinton and others of the BBC’s gleefulness at the Katrina disaster, as reported in the Financial Times: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7e6c3c44-2719-11da-b6fe-00000e2511c8.html . (One can also get a taste here — http://www.techcentralstation.com/090905A.html — and here — http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/2005/09/plumbing-muck-that-is-bbc.html .)
Right! The BBC isn’t biased. Really, let’s all deal with this like adults, shall we? Just because all of our top presenters and almost all of our writers and editors are from the left of the Labour Party is no reason to suspect even the tiniest speck of bias. None! And the only ones who ever suspect even the tiniest speck of bias are themselves biased! So there!
Tom, I’ve got to comment on something you said-regarding Mr. Brady’s comments, I think you were harsh. I’m a libertarian, and think the BBC (and CBC for that matter) should be privatized, but haven’t been following its coverage of Katrina.
Adam, Mr. Brady has a history of coming to the defense of the BBC, especially when it is in its harshest anti-American mode. There is a well grounded perception among Britons who watch the BBC that it has a strong bias, for years against the Tories and now against the Tories and New Labour. But the venomnous hatred of the United States is especially pronounced among BBC reporters, virtually all of whom hail from the ideological socialistic left and who see their role as using state funds to advance their own political agenda. If you think I was harsh, watch a BBC interview with a non-leftist political figure. Or a report on America.
The question is not whether the BBC is going to be privatized. The issue is whether the government is going to control the content to suit its pro-war policies. Mister Palmer may equate pro-war with “pro-American,” but that’s a perversion of the truth.
I realize that this is somewhat off-topic and too long. Please accept my apologies, Dr. Palmer. I could not resist the urge to comment.
I am sad to report that the publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is also plagued by the same anti-American, anti-capitalist bias that you witness on the BBC. As a Canadian who gets unabashedly teary and sentimental when discussing the founding principles of the American Republic and the importance of economic freedom, it makes me very angry and embarrassed that the CBC claims to reflect the views of mainstream Canadians. It’s bad enough that we learn nothing in public school history classes about the huge military sacrifices that Americans (along with Canadian and British soldiers, of course) made to grant us the political freedom that North Americans (and BritsÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦until recently) tend to take for granted. I fear that those who rely on the CBC for their primary news coverage and the public school system for their history lessons remain irreverent towards the heroic sacrifices of American soldiers, and remain unaware of the remarkable social progress that has resulted from the development of “US-style” (a misnomer, of course) free enterprise around the world. For those who are interested in a systematic analysis of the anti-American bias of the CBC, the Fraser Institute offers the following paper (one can always count on the Fraser Institute to find a way to quantitatively “measure” media bias!): http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?snav=nr&id=666 The same can be said of the BBC that, until recently, has never even considered airing any documentaries that might vindicate ‘Thatcherism’. As Dr. Palmer notes, the fact that this socialist drivel is funded through non-voluntary tax contributions makes it all the more unbearable.
Regarding anti-Americanism abroad, don’t even get me started on the reactions I receive when I defend American citizens as good, upstanding individuals to my Canadian colleagues. Even ‘well-educated’ students cannot sympathize with Americans. Generally speaking, it seems that the more “educated” one gets in this country (especially in the Eastern provinces, and especially at schools of law), the more entrenched and unreasonable the anti-American reflex becomes.
“Is there something wrong in the world? Blame American ‘imperialism’!”, claims the Canadian MSM and the numerous legal scholars who pepper the media with their “expert” opinions. And it goes beyond the ranting of hysterical cranks like Sunera Thobani who deny being “anti-American”, but claim, instead, to be “anti-American foreign policy”. Check out: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=245 and judge for yourself. In my discussions with other Canadians, it seems like a surprising proportion of Canadian intellectuals dislike ~individual~ Americans not because of contemporary US foreign policy, but because most Americans continue to support the principles of liberty and individualism, continue to manifest their love for their country in a visible manner, and continue to exercise their democratic right to elect ‘conservative’ governments. It starts to sound a lot like a strange brand of intellectual nationalismÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦one in which patriotism (which Canadians noticeably lack) is replaced by a jealous, childish, anti-Americanism.
Why so many Canadians reflexively oppose their Southern neighbours so intensely is indeed puzzling, considering our vital trading relationship. I blame at least part of it on the political bias I’ve witnessed on the CBC in the last 15 years. My assertion might be somewhat influenced by the fact that I don’t have cable television, so my exposure to Canadian media growing up had pretty much been restricted to the CBC and a select few channels that were available without charge (so I’m especially bitter about the fact that the CBC didn’t fairly represent my views: thank goodness for the libertopian blogosphere where I can now satisfy my freedom-loving mind!) I would guess that if the CBC were privatized, Canadians could enjoy at least 2 channels with the same amount of funding currently devoted to the venture. Government-run broadcasters, after all, are notoriously inefficient with their finances — and unjustifiably generous to their unionized employees. The CBC, for instance, is currently facing a lockout, which has invoked the ire of Michael Moore: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover092005.htm. I never thought I’d hear an American accuse the “great and honourable CBC” of acting like “an American corporation” for failing to “bargain with their workers in good faith”. The most twisted part of the whole situation is that instead of watching the CBC nightly news, my family and I now get to watch the BBC news, which has taken its place until the lockout is over. Some of the more extreme leftist commentators in this country have remarked that the BBC news is “even better” than the CBC! Sigh.
But despite the intellectual ‘treat’ that is the BBC nightly news, left-wing Canadians have become understandably impatient with the lockout as well: http://cbcunplugged.blogware.com/blog
Without their bland-as-Pablum-propaganda machine to provide them with vital brain food and reactionary anti-American, anti-capitalist ammunition, intellectuals across the nation are now faced with the frightening possibility that they might have to think for themselvesÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦and that they might reach different conclusions about the “benefits” of the economic socialism and social collectivism that has overwhelmed the Canadian political scene for the last few decades.
How likely is it that the BBC bias has, at least on occasion, been a nefarious influence on individual members of British society (like the CBC has for individual Canadians) – stifling independent thought and fuelling hatred using government appropriated funds? Very likely, I would bet.
With the CBC temporarily silenced, this is a rare opportunity for Canadians, like Winston Smith, to turn off the mind-numbing Telescreen and begin to nurture independent thought. Winston tried in vain to remember his childhood throughout Orwell’s 1984, but I am more optimistic about Canada’s future. Given the right circumstances, Canadians may, through their own intuition, finally rediscover the principles of individual freedom and international co-operation (including co-operation with the United States) upon which the political integrity of this country used to rest. One can only hope…
Perhaps we need a register of BBC journalists’ affiliations?
One would have to be blind and deaf not to see and hear the BBC bias on all sorts of subjects. One can find it in the choice of reported news; in the choice of people they interview; in the choice of subjects in ordinary (non-news) subjects (e.g. ending every problem with “And What Could The Government Do About That ?”). If Mr. Brady claims that the BBC is not biased, then that is of course his right – after all we have free speech in America and in the UK contrary to a certain war crimes regime we ousted in Iraq. In passing I note that he receives his information from The Independent which of course is all but what its name says it is.
The BBC bias is at its most obvious when they report about the war in Iraq. At the moment the anti-American strategy at the BBC consists of showing how out of control the situation in Iraq is. We virtually never hear from the millions of Iraqis who are delighted that Saddam has gone.
Before the general elections in May we suddenly saw a change in the BBC reporting. A certain angst had seeped into the BBC newsroom: they didn’t want to emphasise Iraq too much around that time because after all they didn’t want Blair’s (the socialist’s) defeat. Because, even though BBC journalists are against the war, they still did want the Labour Party in power. And miraculously most of the news about Iraq dried up!
Evidence for BBC bias? What about ex-BBC’s journalist Robin Aitken’s book “Taking sides: Bias at the BBC” ? Also Mr. Brady could find plenty of evidence on the many websited devoted to BBC bias – a simple google suffices.
For America hating BBC journalists hurricane Katrina was too good to be left in the natural disasters drawer. I didn’t count the number of signed up Democrats who professed to us how it was all the Feferal government’s fault. In fairness, I did hear one or two dissenting voices of people who said the funding for flood defences had been reduced for the last fifteen years and not just under Bush – but their voices were lost in the tsunami of anti-Bush partisanship. I probably only heard those dissenting voices because I was listening so hard to hear any.
Apart from privatisation (none of our UK politicians have the guts to propose it) I believe a publicly funded media concern should hold a public register which states the political affiliations of its journalists. This should include membership of political groups (e.g. from University onwards), gifts and favours received, personal interest in specific news items etc. This may seems very “Big Brother”, but after all UK politicians also have to state their interests in a special register. And the BBC is funded by the taxpayer, so it is only normal that the taxpayer knows where his or her money is going to.
I understand why some non-Americans gloat over the continuing saga of the screwed up rescue/relief efforts in the aftermath of Katrina.
The U.S. gov’t, along with too many American civilians abroad (businesspeople, tourists, etc.) have tendencies to arrogance, preachiness, and exhibiting a general air of superiority. “We’re better than you. This is how we do things in America, and it’s how you should do them.” The current administration has been particularly guilty of this approach, and it is simply poor behavior.
Hence, when (some of) the supposed superiority is revealed to be a sham, those who were stung by the initial rudeness now gloat.
We Americans would do much better abroad if we’d devote more effort to attaining our ideals and less to bragging to others about them.
Althea must think that hurricanes are divine punishment. Either that or she can’t read. Tony Blair complained about the BBC’s reporting on the harm caused by hurricane Katrina in America, as did a number of other figures. Tom compared that to the BBC’s sarcastic reporting on the election of a foreigner as governor of California. But Althea sees that and finds instead that it’s just about war! She evidently canjust make out the shape of the names of “Blair” and “BBC” and concludes that it must be about that war business she’s heard people talking about. Clever, clever Althea.
Charles is more balanced. I agree that we often perceive a certain arrogance about some Americans. But so what? That’s no reason to hope that they suffer misfortune or to gloat abou it when they do. I also don’t see the gloaters doing anything to lift a finger to help other people, whereas Americans are always first in line to help people in other countries who are suffering.
Not only am I more balanced, but I also agree that it is reprehensible to gloat at the suffering of hurricane survivors. But…
While I haven’t heard the BBC coverage in question (just some BBC radio coverage that contained no gloating) I would suppose that the gloaters are gloating at the obvious incompetence of Bush’s administration. Heck, I am even gloating a bit about this, as the crooks in the administration need to be exposed…although primarily I am sickened by the spectacle of my country moving towards 3rd world levels of incompetence and corruption.
Incidentally, this morning NPR had an interesting interview with several ex-U.S. diplomats and policy wonks (including a pro-Bush guy) on the issue of foreign reaction. All agreed that American preachiness coupled with the botched relief have triggered some understandable gloating, but that the primary reaction is surprise and worry about the state of the States. The piece is worth hearing if you can locate it.
“I also don’t see the gloaters doing anything to lift a finger to help other people,”
Of course, the U.S. is receiving foreign aid from around the world — even the Russians are sending it.
I heard an interviw with a Swedish diplomat on this — Sweden was specifically asked, by some federal agency, I cannot recall which, to send some high-tech water purification equipment. The diplomat had been working for several days to get permission from another federal agency which was blocking the flight from Sweden. He was diplomatic about it, at least.
I remember being told, as a nine year old at a state primary school in the UK, that the BBC was commercial free. Perhaps I’d never thought about it before, but I remember not believing it to be true. It was only after careful watching that I realised it was true… at least up to a point.
BBC television and radio, like other channels of all funding types, does have a lot of inane and irritating filler. But it only advertises itself and its own programming schedule. To maintain that the BBC’s ‘commercial-free’ broadcasting is a justification for its special status is, at best, a flawed and limited argument. It’s worth noting that the BBC is domestically funded by the forced tax known euphemistically as ‘the licence fee’. In order to own and operate a television set in the UK you must pay this tax, and it is enforced by men roaming the country in detector vans that can sense television signals coming from households that are not paid up.
But the BBC World Service, which the rest of the world is exposed to, is funded by a special government grant. The supposed justification for this is that the Service promotes Britain to the World. The reality is that it simply promotes the blindly left-leaning agenda of its journalists and editors. To assert otherwise is ludicrous. As a minor example, during the invasion of Iraq it was possible for BBC journalists to be fired for using the first person plural pronoun to refer to the British forces who were risking their lives for their country. (You may argue that this journalistic detachment is a good thing, but it is nevertheless a telling point on the BBC’s perspective).
Perhaps ironically the BBC World Service is housed in a London building named ‘Bush House’. I quote from “The Rough Guide to London”:
‘Despite its thoroughly British associations, Bush House was actually built by the American speculator Irving T. Bush, whose planned trade centre flopped in the 1930s. The giant figures on the north facade and the inscription, “To the Eternal Friendship of the English Speaking Nations”, thus refer to the friendship between the US and Britain, and are not, as many people assume, the declaratory manifesto of the current occupants.”
On the BBC website you can find a celebration on how the corporation produces programmes that otherwise wouldn’t be made, programmes of great ‘cultural and instructional value to the nation’. I don’t think it is cynical to believe that this is extremely sinister.
It is true that the BBC has enjoyed a series of intermarital tiffs with New Labour, but its wrongheaded reporting is nevertheless largely responsible for landing us with the nightmare of Blair in the first place. The bizarre media balancing act that Blair is able to pull off, is shown by the way he is in bed with Rupert Murdoch’s media empire over the Afhan and Iraq invasions. We can only pray for the future of the world that Mr Murdoch will not be so infatuated with Blairs’ successor in-waiting Gordon Brown. The Conservative Party (Tories), the only party in Britain with a sensible approach on taxation and freedom of the family and individual from the state, has little to no chance of election in the current broadcast media landscape. Long live the Blog!
For information on what should happen to the BBC, the Adam Smith Institute has useful studies at http://www.adamsmith.org