Sunday, 19 June 2016

You think?



Sue and I have always loved our 'introspective posts' and we haven't done many recently, so...

******

Will that last post about Mishal Husain's EU/immigration documentary provide yet more 'proof' of 'ITBB bias'?

I ask that because an anonymous commenter has just recently commented "Is this blog biased? Not a tricky one either" on a defunct thread about Mark Mardell's EU referendum coverage. 

(I'd written, "Is former BBC Europe Editor Mark Mardell biased? Not a particularly tricky one that!"?)

I'm guessing he (or she - or, in these times of transgender awareness, they) thinks this blog is a pro-Brexit blog and, thus, completely biased in its criticism of the BBC's EU referendum coverage. And, being so, worth discounting.

Is there any truth in that? Was I biased against Mishal Husain there? I, as you might expect, think I was absolutely spot on and showed why Mishal was biased, but you might disagree. You might have found me 'biased' instead.

Well, I can well understand why he (or she, or they) might assume that we're pro-Brexit. (I'd assume that too if I read this blog). But, whether we are or not, would that necessarily make us biased in our coverage of the BBC's coverage of the EU referendum? 

We started out pledging to be scrupulously fair to the BBC. Have we slipped over time then?  

******

I read that comment immediately after I'd posted my latest stats post. In that post I provided verifiable evidence that strongly-pro-Remain trends have emerged on Newsnight and on BBC One's News at Six over many weeks and months. I've posted similar stats showing a similar bias on other BBC platforms too.

But I've also (as on that very post tonight) tried to be fair and provided the counter-evidence - in this case that Question Time has been scrupulous in balancing its panels between Remain and Leave. 

And I didn't hesitate to post, in a previous post that otherwise highlighted plenty of strong pro-Remain bias, that Newsnight's 'My Decision' video series had strikingly gone the other way, bias-wise. It had heavily favoured Leave.

Have we done enough of that? I know some people (beyond that commenter) think we haven't. And I know other people think we've actually been far too kind to the BBC. 

Ooooh! Complaints from both sides! Ergo, we must be as impartial as the BBC. QED. (Not!)

I've always tried to lay out the evidence for any claim of bias I've made. (Unsupported Assertions R Not Us.) And I've always invited people to point out any errors that I may have made - and will continue to do so for as long as I keep on blogging, as I could very well be wrong. 

And I'll issue that invitation again here: If you think that post about Mishal Husain's immigration documentary isn't quite right please tell me why (as I see you already have! - and thank you for doing so). And if you think that stats post tonight is wrong please tell me why. I really won't mind (much).

******

So have I (not Sue, of course) been guilty of failing to give the BBC its due, as some very dear to me have told me in no uncertain terms recently? 

They say they've heard lots of impartial stuff from the BBC. They think the BBC has, by and large, been just fine over the EU referendum (just as the Daily Mail, Peter Hitchens, Peter Oborne, Sir Bill Cash & Co. think the BBC has been just fine too - to their great surprise).

They've made me seriously doubt myself.

All I can say, as I've said before, is that I've seen, read and heard what I've seen, read and heard. And I've seen, read and heard a lot. And, yes, I've heard a lot that's been broadly balanced and yes - if truth be told - I should have highlighted those more often. But I've also heard lots and lots and lots that's appeared pro-Remain-biased and much, much less that's appeared pro-Leave biased. And I've provided evidence to back everything I've written to that effect.

And the stats I've monitored (on Newsnight and BBC One's News at Six) were - as credible monitoring demands - reasonable choices, chosen in advance. The bias they've shown is the bias they've shown. That bias isn't any of my doing. It's been the BBC's doing. And I've always given every possible piece of evidence (including all available links) to back it up and allow readers to check what I've written and judge for themselves.

******



Swallowing my happy pill and putting my blinkers on, I know that not one of you will think, even for a second, that this delightful post has been in any way overly defensive.

None of you will presently be thinking about the term 'flapping around like a headless chicken'.

After all, I'm an eternally happy, 'Onwards and Jedwards' kind of blogger. My blogging motto is famously 'Damn the speedos, full torpedoes ahead!'. (Not really, of course, for any newbies).

Now where are all my Leonard Cohen albums when I need them?

10 comments:

  1. You're doing fine. Ignore the anonymous defender of the indefensible, who probably sees bias as simply you saying something with which he disagrees. In any case, as with the BBC, every single post isn't expected to be scrupulously balanced within itself. One must consider the big picture, balance over the long term.

    There are plenty of times where you say the BBC wasn't biased in that instance. And unlike the BBC's phony numbers game, your numbers don't lie.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like this blog and think you're pretty balanced. Anyway, you don't rake in pot loads of licence fee money and have to defend your position to a tee.
    You give credit where credit's due, and your pro Israel stance is interesting to read.
    The way I view the BBC is that it is the absolute king of censorship by omission - take tonight's debate with David Cameron.
    Cameron is asked (again) if he would veto Turkey's accession to the EU. He dances his usual tango (Turkey won't be allowed access for 30 years etc). But there's never the follow up question : Why, if that's the case, is the UK government throwing money at Turkey to aid its accession bid ? That's happened 3 times in the last week on various programmes. The BBC allows wriggle room, and with that wriggle room comes what I perceive as bias - it's mostly about what they don't say. If you don't know better, it looks like good journalism. I sometimes think I just expect too much of the BBC, and then I watch something and think "no, this is just sloppy!".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had a similar experience while watching Andrew Marr interviewing Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour had said, twice, in support of his pro-mass immigration position, that 2 million British people live as expats within the EU. That's one of those debunked figures. The figure is around 1.1 million and Andrew Marr should have known that and pointed it out. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn said it twice and both times wasn't challenged on it felt sloppy to me too.

      Delete
    2. My favorite moment was when Corbyn dismissed the very notion of unlimited immigration by saying that as British people also migrated to Europe, it worked both ways. Complete non sequitur, which Marr simply glossed over and moved on.

      Delete
    3. I didn't see the interview, but I bet Marr left out the expat pensioner figure too. That one's only used when the narrative demands it, and in this case the total sounds better as one entity.

      Delete
  3. I've actually been accused of being a racist today for suggesting people vote leave / saying the Farage poster is only racist if you want it to be, interesting times.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds fun. I switched on the radio this morning and heard Baroness Warsi. My first thought was: 'Shock News! Baroness Warsi Plays the Race Card Yet Again!'

      Delete
  4. Simply can`t go wrong with this prophet for the New Century that is Leonard Cohen.
    This is the prayer for today...hope to God that He gives us a clear slap in the face to the elite who`ve shown their true colours...which funnily enough turn to a fetching brownshirt shade when all bleed into each other.
    But as long as Len is with us...God smiles, and will work His way through all this for us.
    The sainted Jennifer Warnes on background...sorry, got to recommend ANTHONY HEGARTY and HIS version of this sng-gets the words wrong...but the very voice of God throughout most of this near-perfect song.Leonard would have voted Brexit!...good enough for me!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Simply can`t go wrong with this prophet for the New Century that is Leonard Cohen.
    This is the prayer for today...hope to God that He gives us a clear slap in the face to the elite who`ve shown their true colours...which funnily enough turn to a fetching brownshirt shade when all bleed into each other.
    But as long as Len is with us...God smiles, and will work His way through all this for us.
    The sainted Jennifer Warnes on background...sorry, got to recommend ANTHONY HEGARTY and HIS version of this sng-gets the words wrong...but the very voice of God throughout most of this near-perfect song.Leonard would have voted Brexit!...good enough for me!

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.