No 36 “Bias by uneven standards” - (is this the same as bias by false equivalence?)
I contend that claims of equivalence between complaints from the left and complaints from the right are false.
The Input. The Beeb’s employees are organically/biologically sourced from the Guardian. Some subsequently move on to al Jazeera. What I'm saying is -the BBC's balance point is out of kilter.
(The definition of a balance point is when a place's heat 'right' output equals the heat 'left' input, or when weight is equally distributed when resting on a single spot.)
The output. To achieve impartiality (where the ‘left’ output equals the ‘right’ output) the input must also be from both the left and the right. In other words “it’s the input stupid”.
Most complaints about 'right-wing bias' that the BBC cites in its defence come from the extreme left. The complainant is frequently outraged at anything they/he/she/xe deems ‘not left-wing enough’. On the other hand, complaints about left-wing bias are a) far more numerous, b) much more articulate, c) patently more substantive. I think there is now a pretty widely-held consensus to that effect.
Contrary to what the esteemed and rather self-deprecating DG might say, there is no equivalence between antisemitism and Islamophobia. Antisemitism is a (recognised) term for hatred of Jews. It traditionally comes from the right, as in extreme nationalism or ‘white’ supremacy, and - more overtly these days - from the left, where we see a ballooning of the (cognitively dissonant) alliance between left-wing anti-capitalists (mainly anti-Christian / agnostics) and pious Muslims who specialise in demonising Jews using extreme paranoid projectionism. This involves accusing the Jews of the very revealing wish-list kind of stuff that’s going on in their own heads, particularly but not exclusively, a burning desire for world domination.
Anyway, Jew-hate is blanket bigotry based on suspicion, envy and hatred of a ‘people’ whereas Islamophobia is a mechanism designed to silence criticism of an unnatural religious ideology.
I don’t know why I even bothered to say that.
Anyway, here’s Stephen Daisley (£) saying what I (might have) written - or if I haven’t, I meant to.
He thinks the so-called moderate Labour MPs are guilty of enabling. Good article. (Did you realise that Lisa Nandy, for all her wisdom, nuanced reasoning and 'moderation', is chair of Palestine something or other. So there. And Boris doesn’t think much of BDS.
I contend that the BBC is equally guilty of enabling. It’s the Corbynism, stupid.
No 36 Bias by uneven standards is probably the same as false equivalence - the latter phrase entered the favourite phrases dictionary more recently, in the last twelve months - I think I am right to say that.
ReplyDeleteMr Daisy can be a bit wet at times but this was an excellent and powerful article.
ReplyDeleteAs Emeritus Professor of Biasology at the University of Expoly, I adjudge that "bias by uneven standards" is a quite different species of bias from "false equivalence".
ReplyDeleteThe former uses differential standards to allow the media to direct the "How dare they?" exclusively at a target country or institution.
The latter (false equivalence) is a way of averting attention from one form of genuine prejudice (or other wrong) by referencing another bogus or invented form of prejudice (or other wrong). For instance, a burglar might claim we shouldn't focus on his burglaries but on how much money the betting companies steal from him when he gambles.
Well, in that case Prof, there must be more than 50 - how about a 'Seasonal Sixty'.
Delete