Lots of people think that BBC News is biased in one way or another. It isn’t. People who don’t work for the BBC simply cannot imagine the trouble and wrangling and arguments that go into making sure that the output of News is as impartial as it’s possible to be. Of course it’s not nice when the BBC is saying something that you don’t like, and it’s much easier to imagine that this happens because of bias, but the hard truth is that if you think the BBC is biased on an issue then your opinions on that issue are probably wrong. (Of course, if you think the BBC is wrong about the details of a story, particularly if it’s an IT story then you’re probably right! But I’m talking here about bias not accuracy.)
One of the processes that ensures impartiality in news reporting is having clear rules for whether or not you report on a story. The theory goes that you report developments and if there aren’t any developments and you think people are interested anyway then you have to find another angle to the story. You may think it’s worth reporting that China is torturing people in prison but they were doing that last week; if there’s nothing to add this week then you can’t report on it. There is always some debate about whether anniversaries constitute a development in a story, usually you need more than just an anniversary as a justification to do a story in which there have been no other developments.*
The way in which BBC News has been reporting Alan Johnston’s captivity frequently has not met any of the usual criteria. There have been memos and e-mails from editors and managers in News telling programme makers to keep the story in the output despite the fact that there have been no developments. As a result the story has been regularly mentioned in news bulletins and programmes, often with no justification at all or at best a flimsy reference to some arbitrary anniversary such as three weeks or the second month since he disappeared. There have also been several dire items including this nine minute package that went out on Newshour last week (Newshour on Alan Johnston). I know that many editors and journalists are unhappy about this pressure but most of them are unprepared to challenge the orders that they have been given.
The BBC has a responsibility as an employer to do everything that it can to get Alan Johnston released. By staging demonstrations and organising vigils and press conferences it can keep the story fresh and in the headlines and that may well add to the pressure on his captors to release him. I can even see the justification for the embarrassing “Free Alan Johnston” posters that have appeared on billboards around London, although they look uncomfortably similar to the BBC’s current promotional material to me. However, it is vital that the BBCs role as a lobbyist is not conflated with its role as a provider of impartial news. Otherwise it confirms the suspicions of those people who are inclined to believe that the organisation is biased – that the news agenda is based not upon a careful, academic judgement of what stories are most important but rather on the personal whims of whoever happens to be in charge at the time.
* This only applies to radio news. In television news the criteria for doing a story are mostly to do with whether there are pictures or not.
Very interesting Jon. What I don’t understand is how the editors of last night’s news justify the extensive use of the stuff Cho Seung-hui sent to NBC. Certainly the fact that this material turned up could be called a “development”, but I can’t see any legitimate point in broadcasting it. Is there disquiet behind the scenes about it?
Peter
Ah! I’ve just remembered the footnote. Of course, according to the “has pictures” criterion, it’s a wonder they didn’t spend the whole 30 minutes looping them with a Gangster soundtrack.
Still, disquiet?
You are entirely correct Pete. In fact, since my partner was the editor of last night’s Newsnight I don’t feel that I can reveal the extent of the disquiet about their use of the pictures. However, I don’t think I’m being indiscreet by mentioning the phrase “own goal”.
In my initial remarks I was specifically refering to the 10 O’clock News on BBC One. I very rarely watch mainstream news on TV any more, and this is why, really.
I watched the Newsnight slot on the Internet, and their line was typically the more high-minded “Is it right to show all of this footage?” with the inappropriately named Paxman cross-examining some chap from NBC. Of course, as the NBC man pointed out, even the Newslight feature was liberally illustrated with extracts and stills from the murderer’s rantings.
If I had been editing that programme I’m not sure that I would have had the guts to not show any of the Seung-hui pictures, although with hindsight that may seem like the better option. However, if they had made that decision would it have affected your view of the programme? Might it have tempted you to watch it more regularly?
Jon
the BBC (atleast Worldnews service) is very bias towards the Palestinian cause. Proof is you saw little mention of the latest Israel Independence day on Tuesday and you will see atleast one article of Nakba day or what the Arabs call Catastrophe day.
With repsect to Johnston, how can he be said to be an impartial reporter (and hence the BBC being impartial) where he was always on the angle of the Palestinian side without a corressponding Israel view of things. Just saying that he is a “friend of the Palestinian people” as the BBC did say at the onset of his capture proves that he wasnt unbiase – where do you ever hear of a reporter being referenced as a friend to whom he’s reporting on.
Steve
I just heard several mentions of Israel Independence day, including a recording of the Declaration of Independence, on the Newshour programme in an unusually long (nine and a half minutes) sequence by Claire Bolderson which discussed the extraordinary ignorance among Palestinians about the history of Israel and about the Holocaust. You can listen to the programme again on their site if you’re interested.
Next year is the 60th anniversary of the creation of Israel and I’m in no doubt that there will be a series of special programmes about the subject, simply because a sixtieth anniversary is seen as more significant that a fifty-ninth.
I do agree with you about the expression “friend of the Palestinian people” being a bad choice of words. However it doesn’t prove that Alan is biased. While he’s been working in Gaza he has not been in a position to report what the Israeli government is saying although he has reported statements from the army. It has been the job of the several correspondents based in the Jerusalem bureau to do that.
of course Johnston is biased. Did you ever hear his reports? It(always)sounds like he is about to cry out of emotion over some terrorist (or in BBC’s vocabulary, “militant”)death, almost like Barbara Plett did with Arafat. Doesnt sound impartial to me.
Steve
I’ve only ever seen Alan showing emotion when he was talking about children who had been killed. I’m not sure what your definition of ‘terrorist’ is, it varies for different people.
Would you like to tell me where you think impartial coverage of the Middle East can be found? Would it be in the Jerusalem Post by any chance?
Someone who goes into a pizza shop to blow up mothers with babies and children are terrorists.
I dont know about the Jerusalem Post (dont read it), but the BBC, which is what we’re talking about here, claims to be impartial, and you Johnston’s “friend of the Pals” proves to me that they’re not.
S
What about someone who fires a missile into a pizza shop to kill someone whom they believe to be a political enemy? The mothers and babies probably don’t care about the motivation of the person who causes the explosion. A killer is a killer, it doesn’t make much difference to their victims if they are wearing a uniform or a checked scarf.
Israel and Gaza are in a situation which is very similar to two countries that are at war. In that kind of situation journalists have to report from one side or the other, the difficulty in crossing the front line makes it impossible for anyone to report both sides at once. My experience of working on News programmes is that the Israeli government are very effective at getting their message across; they are usually helpful, articulate in English and available. Until Kylie Morris, who established the job that Alan was doing, decided to start reporting from Gaza it was much more difficult to hear anything from the Palestinian side. Not many of the politicians spoke good English and that meant that we heard a great deal from a very few spokespeople. Because so many of the people of Gaza are living in terrible conditions (I think you’d agree with me about that even if you don’t agree with me about the reasons) it is inevitable that their suffering will form a background to any story from Gaza. I think that the fact that Alan was reporting on the suffering of the people of Gaza is why he has been described as a “friend of the Palestinian people”. As I said earlier I don’t think it was a good choice of words.
What I’m claiming here is that the BBC is not biased in its coverage, not that every report from every journalist gives equal weight to every opinion. Sometimes it’s not possible for an individual journalist to tell the whole story. In cases where a reporter only has access to one dimension of a story then it’s the job of the programme editors to ensure that their programmes cover those other dimensions. Did you listen to the edition of Newshour that I mentioned? I think that it’s a very good example of the sort of balanced reporting that the BBC produces. If you don’t want to listen to the whole programme here’s a link to the Claire Bolderson package on its own (Gaza history package 8.7 mb). I’d be very interested to hear what you think of it.
If the BBC isn’t bias then how come it is clearly:-
anti smoking
anti israel
anti US
Pro EU
Pro Islam
Pro 2012 olympics
Also how comethey won’t reease the Balen report? If you think the BBC is unbias then you are obviously not very bright.
You’re right about the BBC being anti-smoking, I often wish they’d talk more about the advantages – helps concentration, staves off hunger, gives structure to your day, looks cool. You’re also nearly right about the 2012 Olympics; I have seen several critical pieces about the funding and arrangements and so on but not much about how all sport is a waste of time and shouldn’t be encouraged, which is my view. But then the BBC’s coverage is also biased against murder, rape, theft and war. Do you really think that they should take an entirely impartial view on absolutely everything? Is that realistic?
Also, do you have any examples of the BBC’s bias against Israel and the US and in favour of Islam and the EU? Saying that something is clearly true isn’t really an argument, you’re just expressing a prejudice. I may not be very bright but I do at least have some examples to back up what I’m saying.
The BBC is also biased in favour of using nouns and adjectives correctly. Hats off to Sam for redressing the balance here.
Steve, you’re an intelligent guy – don’t become a polarised steroetype!! It’s this kind of closed-minded thinking that perpetuates the troubles in this part of the world.
Just because Alan Johnston is described by his family (and not by the BBC – this was a quote from his father) as “a friend of the Palestinian people” this does not mean a priori that he isn’t a friend of the Israeli people, the French people, the Welsh people…
“The People” aren’t the ones who are firing rockets, launching airstrikes, blowing people up in pizza restaurants, pontificating on the political stage… “The people” are the ones whose shops are empty, whose wages haven’t been paid in months, whose very fabric of life is being torn apart by the intransigence of politicians on all sides.
Alan Johnston was reporting the story of PEOPLE Steve, people like you and I who are just trying to get on with their lives but don’t have the privileges we have. It could have been anywhere in the world – they could have been suffering for any number of reasons, victims of drought, hurricane, earthquake, disease, or in this case politics.
He has done a great job, as have other journalists from the BBC and elsewhere. If they didn’t highlight the human aspects of the tragedies in our world then our understanding of them would be far poorer.
Alan Johnston is a conartist.
There is no such thing as the “Army of Islam” group. It`s just a scam that Johnston himself cooked up as a political stunt.
Meanwhile, he looks and healthy after taking is vacation.
Johnston wasn`t kidnapped by terrorists .. he himself is a terrorist.
…and his motivation is?