Willie Pete Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 Would you mind posting a link to that law? There's lots of references to it by people accusing the BBC of being biased, but the only things I can find from official sources talk of "duty" or a "committment" to be impartial as opposed to being a legal requirement. The actual law bit is in a .pdf, so I found this instead But the law requires BBC journalists to be impartial - it is a value and requirement that differentiates the BBC from other news sources. It is also part of the BBC's contract with the audience. http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/ethics-and-values/impartiality/ the corporation's legal obligation to be impartial http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23628970-the-secret-report-at-heart-of-bbcs-gaza-paranoia.do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 And the report makes clear most people believe the BBC to be impartial. They found no bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Interesting. I wonder if you would feel the same had the opposite been found? that it was pro-Israel bias? I suspect you and your ilk would be banging on the doors demanding it be released. Or some other subject that concerned you. If the BBC were secretly undermining it - you wouldn't be this diplomatic about it So hypothetically, if an internal report by the BBC found damning evidence that the BBC supports one of the political parties (let's say....Labour) and senior BBC officials had met senior Labour in secret meetings to discuss policy and when the BBC can report on something, and when to 'play things down' etc. Would that also be ok to suppress in the courts using our licence money? you'd be quite happy for that report never to see the light of day and just 'trust' that the BBC fixes things? Are you not paying attention? The whole issue is that the report hasn't been released - I don't know what conclusions it came to, you don't know. So where did you magic up your emboldened from? As to the rest of your post, I have my own views on the BBCs impartiality about a number of topics, by and large my views are that they fail on a number of these. However I support their right to address these issues confidentially and internally like any other organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Pete Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 As to the rest of your post, I have my own views on the BBCs impartiality about a number of topics, by and large my views are that they fail on a number of these. However I support their right to address these issues confidentially and internally like any other organisation. They aren't just 'any' organisation though. They are publicly funded. I guess if we just continue your vision of how things should be, we can say that the NHS should also be a secretive Mafioso organisation. Hell, the government should have internal reports about its failings and the public shouldn't have to know about it. I would have no problem if the BBC is a privately owned company. If that was the case they could pump their propaganda 24/7 for all I care. But they are using our money to hide their wrong doings from us. You can't get more morally bankrupt than that. Especially as they are LEGALLY bound to be impartial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 They aren't just 'any' organisation though. They are publicly funded. I guess if we just continue your vision of how things should be, we can say that the NHS should also be a secretive Mafioso organisation. Hell, the government should have internal reports about its failings and the public shouldn't have to know about it. I would have no problem if the BBC is a privately owned company. If that was the case they could pump their propaganda 24/7 for all I care. But they are using our money to hide their wrong doings from us. You can't get more morally bankrupt than that. Especially as they are LEGALLY bound to be impartial. Do you just ignore posts that don't fit your argument? The report I linked to found no bias, you don't know what's in the unreleased report, so your claims of bias are not justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 They aren't just 'any' organisation though. They are publicly funded. I guess if we just continue your vision of how things should be, we can say that the NHS should also be a secretive Mafioso organisation. Hell, the government should have internal reports about its failings and the public shouldn't have to know about it. I would have no problem if the BBC is a privately owned company. If that was the case they could pump their propaganda 24/7 for all I care. But they are using our money to hide their wrong doings from us. You can't get more morally bankrupt than that. Especially as they are LEGALLY bound to be impartial. As I asked before, and you ignored, how do you know the report suggests wrong doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Pete Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 As I asked before, and you ignored, how do you know the report suggests wrong doing? Perhaps you should be the one paying attention, as I have already posted links. Balen examined hundreds of hours of broadcast material, television and radio, and analysed the content in minute detail, often scrutinising journalists' individual phrases and choice of words. He then put his conclusions in a 20,000-word report. If BBC executives had hoped for a clean bill of health they were to be disappointed. Balen's findings, given highly restricted circulation at the end of 2004, were frightening. Although they were kept secret, elements leaked out, including Balen's conclusion that the BBC's Middle East coverage had been biased against Israel. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23628970-the-secret-report-at-heart-of-bbcs-gaza-paranoia.do The exact scale of the findings is unknown, but it has been widely reported that the report found anti-Israel bias which is against BBC impartial laws - but they have essentially covered up the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 it has been widely reported that the report found anti-Israel bias which is against BBC impartial laws - but they have essentially covered up the evidence. "Widely reported" Mmmmmm. What about the report I linked that found no bias whatsoever? This one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/govs/olr_audienceresearch.pdf The BBC and other broadcasters do not have a major issue with respect to audience perceptions of their impartiality. Most do not spontaneously identify any specific broadcasting sources that they perceive to be partial or biased in their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When asked directly about the BBC, the great majority of those with an opinion regard the BBC in particular to be impartial in its coverage of the conflict. However, broadcasters do face a number of challenges in covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict is not currently top-of-mind with audiences and the public admits to low understanding of the conflict. In the main, people are also not particularly engaged in the issues. Consequently, although people value impartiality highly, many feel incapable of properly evaluating broadcasters on this. Their default position is to trust that broadcasters will be impartial. This is particularly true for the BBC, reflecting high levels of trust in the BBC and reliance in it as a news source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Perhaps you should be the one paying attention, as I have already posted links. So unattributed speculation then. You need to focus on the facts. The highest court in our land has ruled it's a confidential matter. End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I found the full judgement: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0145_Judgment.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.