Tuesday, May 31, 2005

BBC to Fox News: "We're not leftie" (but you're pretty "rightie")

The right-wing media in both the U.S. and Britain have been taking pot shots at the BBC lately.

First there was the broadside delivered by former BBC correspondent, Robin Aitken, who claimed in an interview with Damian Thompson in the right-wing Daily Telegraph (May 14, 2005, p. 21 - registration required) that there is a "a culture of 'institutionalised Leftism' at the corporation" and "a centre-left consensus within the BBC that colours its entire output and undermines its solemn pact with the public to present the news impartially". That provided the spark to allow other right-wing newspapers to jump in, including the following:
  • Murdoch's News of the World ("BBC has Leftie Bias says Reporter," May 15 and a Leading article, "Truth about BBC Bias" the same day)
  • the Daily Mail ("BBC's Bias to the Left, by an Insider," May 16, p. 22, and a commentary piece by Melanie Phillips on the same day: "Partial, prejudiced and institutionally Leftwing. At last, and from an insider, the damning truth about the BBC", p. 12)
  • a sideswipe by The Sun (May 17), and
  • a sample of outraged anti-BBC letters to the editor.
The evidence of institutionalized left-wing bias in the Aitken article, however, seems pretty sketchy - based on a limited set of personal experiences and a lot of perceived slights and general disgruntledness with the institution, sort of along the lines of Bernard Goldberg's swipe at CBS in his book Bias. (See Eric Alterman's book, What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News, for a well-researched rebuttal to Goldberg and other promoters of right-wing perceptions.)

Back to the BBC. Less than a week later, on May 20, 2005, the Wall Street Journal propelled the story across the Atlantic. In an article headlined "An Aunt with an Attitude", Scott Norvell, London bureau chief for Murdoch's Fox News, made the claim that "BBC producers are so institutionally leftwing they do not even consider alternative views." (I'd link to it but it's pointless since the WSJ requires paid subscription for you to read any of its content - so here's the Media Guardian report to read.)

The focus of Norvell's slam on the BBC is its coverage of the recent Malcolm Glazer takeover of Manchester United. According to Media Guardian, Norvell talks of the story as the BBC's "'perfect platform' to peddle 'its anti-free market ideology'". He is quoted as arguing that the BBC framed the story as "an effort by a rogue financier with a funny beard and no heart, who wants to 'take Manchester away from the people and into the hands of market forces'." (For the record, here's my take on the Glazer/Man U saga.)

Not content with slagging off the Beeb, Norvell goes on to take a swipe at all of British broadcasting. States Norvell:
    The influence of the [centre-left] groupthink goes far beyond the BBC and now permeates the cliquish world of British broadcasting in general . . . Almost everyone in the television business has worked for the BBC at some point . . . and now carries the torch of institutional leftism.

Then Norvell says something intruiging. He argues that viewers watch Fox News (in America - Murdoch's UK TV news arm is satellite-delivered Sky News) because the presenters are "open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal . . . The Beeb's institutionalised leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it." That's very interesting. Fox's news chief stating that the organization is conservative and is open about it. I always thought that Fox News wanted to paint itself as unbiased - the whole "We Report - You decide" thing. The brilliance of Fox, after all, has been to present itself to its conservative viewers as the only unbiased news source in a world dominated by media lefties. It sounds like Norvell is now saying something different.

Anyway, the BBC's response was a bit slow (maybe they hoped that they could just ignore Fox and it'd go away), but they've finally fired back. Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of news, defended the Corporation in the pages of the Wall Street Journal (and reported in The Guardian).
    She said she "strenuously" denied such partisanship at the BBC and said the David Kelly affair was proof of the BBC's "search for truth in the face of concerted political pressure and threats - no matter the colour of the government".

    Ms Boaden said BBC correspondents went to great lengths to give the Glazer family's side of the story despite having had requests for interviews and comment persistently turned down.

    "The BBC did not take a position on the takeover bid and the 10 O'Clock News did not, as Mr Norvell claims, state that it was 'bad for shareholders'. We simply reflected the unhappiness of the fans."

But Ms Boaden's retort also included the following:
    "The majority of the UK believes the BBC to be impartial and the BBC to be the most impartial broadcaster in Britain (and increasingly across America and the rest of the world). Perceptions of bias will undoubtedly linger among individuals and among those of particular political perspectives. However faced with the huge spectrum of BBC output and an overwhelming commitment to impartiality, those 'perceptions' will be outweighed by the evidence."

I like the reference to "those of particular political perspectives". Now who could that be? And what might be those "political perspectives" of which she speaks? Could this be code for the "rightie" ideologues over at Fox News? Why yes, I think it is!

This brings to mind a final point of mine. I'm tired of Fox and others slagging off "leftie" media and "leftie" this and "leftie" that. The use of the diminutive in this case is insulting - because it's nearly always intended to be so in the contexts in which the word is used. (Calling the Japanese "Japs", women "girlies", and Pakistanis "Pakis" is insulting for the same reason). It's time we heard Fox News consistently described as "rightie" - as in "those righties on Fox News are up to their old tricks again." Fair's fair, after all. :-)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home