The Journalistic InfectionWell they're finally out of the closet on this one. In a group encounter session, members of the BBC admitted to each other - though not to the public - that their reporting was biased. And then someone outed them anonymously to the UK Daily Mail, a newspaper that the majority of them would no doubt scorn to read.
A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.That last is quite an admission. Or perhaps more like stating the obvious.
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness...
In other news from the report, the anti-American bias of their reporting was acknowledged, though admitting the same about Israel was oviously a bridge too far. Or - who knows - a bridge too far to admit publicly for this particular leaker.
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.Yes, that sums up their position very neatly. Though Byford doesn't seem to have done a very good job in helping to correct the bias. It makes you wonder how bad were the unredacted versions of the reports he received.
I wonder if they finished the encounter session with a round of whatever the British equivalent to kumbaya is.
And now that this out in the open, one wonders if it will have a bearing on whether the BBC is allowed to continue to suppress the Balen Report, reporting on its anti-semitic outlook.
Earlier this week I posted on the BBC's attempt to suppress a publicly funded report that criticized its objectvity and reporting methodology and its anti-Israel bias in the ME, called the Balen Report. Mr. Sugar, the man pursuing action against the BBC in order to get public access to the Balen Report, notes that he became concerned with BBC standards during the course of the 2nd intifada.
Mr Sugar said: "This is a serious report about a serious issue and has been compiled with public money. I lodged the request because I was concerned that the BBC's reporting of the second intifada was seriously unbalanced against Israel, but I think there are other issues at stake now in the light of the BBC's reaction."
I'm sceptical this new leaked report alone will change anything, but, perhaps, after a while, slowly, slowly, it will build into a big enough crescendo that change will arrive after all. I certainly don't see how the BBC can maintain its right to the license fee in Britain when they are not at all representative of the people they serve. But in order for that fight to be won, it might first be waged.
Awake, Britons, awake.