Josh Chafetz of Oxblog has a cover story (!) in the current Weekly Standard, “The Disgrace of the BBC.” First of all, Maziltov! to Josh on the story publication – I think the cover of the Standard is quite a cap-feather.
What’s striking to me about Josh’s story is how much envy I feel of Brits. They, after all, did have critical coverage of the lead-up to war on major networks. That wasn’t all they had – it’s my impression that the interested Brit could find plenty of pro-war views in both major dailies and on the major networks – but that had it at all is, to me, something stunning. In the United States, there was no critical coverage of the “march to war” until well after the war had begun.
This is a much more important “free speech” issue than the censorship of Demon Beast Invasion, by the way. The marketplace of major news outlets – which sells their product to advertisers, please recall, and not to the general population – decided, for whatever reason, to be overwhelmingly in support of George Bush in preparing the American people for war with Iraq. From September 2002 to March 2003, a large minority of Americans – between 33% and 43% – opposed invading Iraq. (The numbers opposed to an invasion were larger in other polls, depending on how the question was asked; for example, a CBS poll in February 2002 found that 61% of Americans prefered to “wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time.”)
Admittedly, 33-43% is a minority – but it’s a very large minority, and one whose size was never reflected in the coverage given their views in the lead-up to war on TV or in major newspapers. For example, FAIR did a study of major American network coverage in January and February, and found that “17 percent of the total on-camera sources, represented skeptical or critical positions on the U.S.’s war policy– ranging from Baghdad officials to people who had concerns about the timing of the Bush administration’s war plans.” That’s not just folks who were anti-war; there were only 17% of sources who were skeptical at all. Other numbers are even more depressing; of the 267 Americans interviewed by the major networks in reports on Iraq, only 17 (about 6%) expressed any skepticism about invading Iraq.
So somewhere between 33% and 43% of Americans opposed invading Iraq; but if you were watching network news, only 6% of the Americans you saw were even skeptical about the prospect.
Isn’t that a problem? To my mind, this kind of censorship – the kind of marketplace preference that makes certain views simply disappear into insignificance – is the biggest problem in the media today.
Meanwhile, conservatives in the US are infuriated that even one British network had the nerve to express any skepticism.
Oy.
If it’s true – and I’m not at all convinced it is – that the BBC had an anti-war bias in its reporting, then my feeling is, great. At least British TV viewers had that one alternative; they could flip their channels and see more than one view on the war presented. In the US, viewers didn’t have that option. (Unless they had cable TV, that is. With cable, we could choose between the war boosters on the networks, and the war cheerleaders on FOX).
Josh’s case against the BBC isn’t that impressive – basically, in months of 24-hour reporting, the Beeb made a handful of generally slight errors. Not exactly a stunning indictment. As Kevin at CalPundit argues:
Kevin goes on to point out that on the most substantial issues, the BBC seems more correct than wrong:
Gilligan may have overplayed his hand, and the BBC certainly went over the line in defending him, but ‘ so far ‘ the actual charges Gilligan made seem to be holding up pretty well.
Meanwhile, some significant counter-evidence – such as an academic study which found that the BBC was actually one of the most pro-war of British networks – is simply ignored in Josh’s article.
Sadly, Josh hasn’t yet replied to CalPundit, although he did reply to the (in my opinion less substantial) criticisms made on Matt Yglesias’ blog (by both Matt and Matt’s readers). Mainly, Josh seemed put off – understandably – that one person accused him of being a “sell-out,” and many questioned the motives of a Rupert Murdoch-owned magazine criticizing Murdoch’s competition.
Josh also seem annoyed at how many people brought up the case of FoxNews for comparison. But Josh has only himself, or perhaps the Weekly Standards‘ editors, to blame for that. The sub-headline of his story (” Unfair, unbalanced, and afraid”) implies a comparison between Fox and the BBC; it seems a little unfair of Josh to object to critics making the same comparison.
There is something of an ad hominom in certain of the criticisms (such as the “sell out” comment), and Josh is right to treat those comments with disdain. But I think he’s missed a larger point – and one that, admittedly, in no way refutes Josh’s case against the BBC. Nevertheless: The Weekly Standard didn’t publish Josh’s article because it was well-researched, or well-written (although it was); nor did the Standard print it because they are in any way opposed to media bias. They published Josh’s piece for one reason only: Because it attacked the BBC.
To see what I mean, imagine that Josh (who, to his credit, dislikes Fox News) wrote an equally good article outlining Fox’s considerable bias. Is there any chance that the Standard would run it as a cover feature? Heck, would they print it at all? No, of course not. Doing that would be be criticizing both Murdoch and the right, and the Standard will not do that (unless they’re trying to avoid being dragged down with a drowning man, e.g. their criticism of Trent Lott). The Weekly Standard doesn’t care about media bias or dishonesty; they only care about these things insofar as they’re useful as partisan tools for bashing the left.
In that sense, I think the critics of this piece were on to something. Until the Standard finds dishonesty, bias and hypocrisy on Fox News worth criticizing, it does seem rather self-serving and smug of them to criticize the BBC’s far less egregious bias on their cover. Regardless of the fact that Josh’s own motives in writing the article were, I believe, high-minded..
That doesn’t seem quite right… within the basic norms of journalistic integrity, the WS is under no obligation to be “balanced” or “unbiased” precisely because they’re so openly and self-consciously a partisan, political magazine. They’re not claiming to be Newsweek or the AP, and nobody expects them to be. The BBC presents itself as a neutral news source, and so the standard is quite different.
Julian, wrong comparison: ampersand is comparing BBC to FOX, not to WS.
FOX claims to be fair and balanced. The Weekly Standard has never challenged this claim. Why not? If WS genuinely opposes partisanship in the guise of unbiased reporting, it should be critiquing it wherever it appears. If WS is just a tool of the GOP — and incidentally I like WS, it’s the only conservative outlet linked on my weblog — then it’s harder to take its criticism of the BBC seriously.
I gave up on FOX, once and for all, when I saw a report on the downslide in the economy that had a graph titled, “The Price of Freedom.” Not even “The Price of Iraqi Freedom,” in some desperate attempt at retaining a grasp on reality.
But I’ve heard Julian’s criticism of mainstream media over and over: that they pretend to be objective and therefore they deserve more criticism for being biased than outlets that are openly partisan. I believe Limbaugh even has advocated that everyone give up the attempt at objectivity and become as openly biased as himself, and then people will know how to discount everything they see or hear.
This strikes me as a counsel of despair; Limbaugh has given up on the ideal of journalistic objectivity. It’s not very surprising since he’s never been a real journalist himself — I’m always suspicious of career opinionaters (counting myself in that category) who think they’re experts on news reporting.
But I think that ideal is worth holding onto and attempting to maintain. For that reason, I welcome articles like Chafetz’s; I would much rather watchdog the bias of mainstream media than lose faith in their ability to be objective.
Murdoch owns the WS? Oh.
Good post.
I’m not ready to call Chafetz’s enterprise high-minded. He set out to prove bias, and from months of coverage he assembled a rather thin article. I can assemble you a rather thin article proving alien abduction, but it won’t be high-minded. It will be partisan disinformation.
WHY DOES BIAS IN BROADCASTING MATTER?
By George Rolph
Television and radio broadcasting today helps to shape, mould and inform the views of millions of people every day. Because these mediums are so powerful they have a duty, both moral and legal, to accurately and fairly represent the views of its population as well as those of dissident groups within that population.
The question is, what can you do about it when the broadcasters do not carry out these obligations. The truth is, virtually nothing!
You can complain to the broadcasting watchdogs and, if they feel your complaint has merit, they will complain to the station that broadcast the offensive material. In turn, the offending broadcaster will issue an apology about whatever it was they did wrong. This is highly unsatisfactory because it does not stop further, identical, breaches of the law at a later date. The current system gives the broadcasters a way of avoiding the kind of court actions the rest of us have to endure if we break the law. How would you feel if you caught the local burglar robbing your home and when you called the police they contacted the burglar and complained and asked him to issue an apology to you and a promise — you know he will break — not to do it again?
There is also another and more sinister side to this cosy set-up. Imagine you are the head of a national broadcaster like the BBC. Further, imagine that you hold very strong personal political views that you would love to impose on the population as a whole. Unfortunately, the population do not share your views and show no sign of doing so in the near future. One way to get your views broadcast to the nation would be to recruit others into the organisation who also share your views and then place them into key positions within the corporation. Once this is done, your personal political ‘slant’ can be added to every appropriate news report. You can commission programs that also reflect your views. The power you would have over the views of the population would be massive and frightening. The fact that most people do not share your views would now be irrelevant. Now you have the power to mould the publics thinking so that they will, in time, come to share those personal political views but without being aware of how they were manipulated into that position.
Do you think this is just scare mongering and it could not happen? You would be wrong. It is happening today at the BBC.
In order to understand what I mean by the above statement it is necessary to give some historical background to it.
Mainstream feminism calls, quite rightly, for a level playing field between men and women, both in law and in the workplace etc.
However, there is another strand of feminism that most people regard as extreme and do not subscribe to. It is known, among other names, as Radical Feminism. Radical feminism is not based upon the ideals of equality between the sexes, but upon the idea of revenge upon and replacement of, the ‘patriarchy’. Its views are rooted in communist, revolutionary Russia and was first postulated by Marx and Engels and other such ‘luminaries’ in the world of communism.
In the early 1970’s in Great Britain, the mainstream and reasonable feminist organisations suffered a take over by their more extreme, radical sisters. There followed an outbreak of mild bombings, demonstrations, ousting of detractors and death threats * made against those who wrote about what was going on. Powerful background support was given to these people by the extreme left wing of the Labour party and trade unions. The fledgling domestic abuse and refuge movement was taken over completely and its founder ousted and threatened to the point where she was forced to leave the country in exile for a time.
The radical feminists, (both male and female) during the two decades of the 70’s and 80’s, aided by their powerful political allies, quickly advanced into positions of high influence within publishing, broadcasting, education and social services. The politicians wrote laws that helped smooth their paths into the highest echelons of these organisations and so ensured that the political philosophies of radical feminism were widely disseminated.
By the 1990’s the BBC, along with large portions of the print media, had been thoroughly infiltrated and the slow manipulation of the population began. The problem was, the British people (much to their credit), were not interested in the message of the radical feminists because, in the main, they simply do not believe it. This led to a more aggressive policy by the radical feminist element in our society and by the year 2000 the BBC began to pump the political views of this group into more and more of its programming. At the same time, the BBC began to suppress all contrary debate and exclude anyone who did not go along with the radical feminist ethos. So began the most disgusting high jacking of British democracy ever seen in this country. We are all having a political viewpoint we have no interest in, foisted upon us by a powerful broadcaster and other institutions and all without being given a platform on which to object. It all amounts to an horrendous brainwashing of the population by a minority political group. Imagine what would happen if the B.N.P managed to do this in the future!
Incidentally, at the same time as all of this was happening in Great Britain, it was also happening in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and America. If that is not an organised attempt the thwart western democracy, then I do not know what is! These events have been well documented and the information is available in many places on the Internet.
The BBC will not allow any masculist views to be aired on their programs in anything like the coverage they give to the feminist view point. Neither will they allow the men’s movement to discuss 3.3 million men who suffer domestic abuse in the UK and who have no refuges to escape too with their children. In fact, all discussion on matters unrelated to the radical feminist agenda, is completely ignored. However, the feminist ethos and position is pumped at us all relentlessly.
At the time of writing this I am aware that just this morning on the BBC breakfast news program, another feminist author was given space to plug her views. No contrary position was allowed to be given by way of balance. The net effect of all of this is that we, the British people, are not allowed to think outside of the feminist box, or question any of the feminist viewpoints or interpretations of history, or philosophy. Nothing is more dangerous. If you doubt it, consider Germany in 1935. Now, as then, a minority is being allowed to impose a political viewpoint on the majority.
Bias in broadcasting, while seeming to be harmless and low key, may well have a darker and more organised side than most of us realise. Our only chance of stemming the tide is not through the useless regulatory bodies, or the self regulation of the broadcasters, but through the courts where we can at least argue our case publicly before the people. For the moment, the men’s movement in the UK and a few other unaffiliated organisations are the only ones who are speaking of these matters. We have to work harder to get these disturbing facts placed before the people so that they may pass an informed judgement on those who have perpetrated these deceptions.
*Dan Lynch writes: “I admire Erin Pizzey for her objectivity when it comes to violence in the home and for her constant efforts to search for a solution by looking at the whole picture and not to create a ‘blame game’.
Erin Pizzey is accredited with having opened the first modern shelter for abused women and is the founder of the women’s shelter movement. That was in 1971. She is the author of numerous books, including probably the first book on the subject of domestic violence, Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear, as well as Prone to Violence, which is now an online book that was originally published in paperback. The paperback is a rare find and, according to some, worth a tremendous amount. To my understanding it is now in reprint.
Erin has been doing her work in the field for over 30 years.
It’s funny, you’d think we would be having an Erin Pizzey day, or parades in her honour, even memorabilia or a constant mention of her contribution, on television, radio or newspaper, each time the issue comes up. Hell; even mention her on all those numerous pamphlets that are circulated or on billboards about Domestic Violence that can be seen all across the U.K., Canada the US, right down to Australia and New Zealand.
What she got instead was ostracism and death threats. Erin was cast out of many circles because of her statements. She has been denied web space at nearly every Domestic Violence site there is.
You wouldn’t think that people would be burning or trashing her books in every English-speaking country in the world to the point that it has been found that there are only about two known copies of her book Prone to Violence left in Canadian libraries.
How did this pioneer come to deserve such wrath from fellow DV counselors and feminists; what did she do to elicit such hatred? Erin stated that women, too, are abusers, that they are often violent, and not just in self-defense. Studies show that they are equally likely, or even more likely than men, to be the ones who initiate violence – the ones who attack and elicit a self-defense response from their partners.”
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.htm
George Rolph
No More Silence