Skip to main content

Why the BBC is biased

Is the BBC biased politically? Yes, of course, it is. Is it intentional? That is difficult to say.

All our media is biased, and sometimes significantly so. Look at the press. There are good reasons for most of it being called the 'Tory Press'. It backs the Tory party: The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, The Express, The Times, all blasting away, telling us how dreadful a Corbyn government would be.

Corbyn's sin is to be too left-wing, which means he wants to bring about a fundamental change in the balance of power and privilege in British society. He wants to tackle the very inequalities of opportunity that run through our society in education, in work and in social justice. To achieve that he must challenge the elite. This means he lies outside the box of 'neutrality', and being 'neutral' means being anti-Corbyn.

Corbyn challenges the yardsticks by which success is determined. Success, for Corbyn, would be to tackle poverty and inequality. Success for the media would be more economic growth and fostering the wealthy privileged elite that they believe underscore it.

Blair and New Labour were acceptable because they fitted into the 'neutrality' box. For all its successes, and there were many, New Labour wasn't about redistribution of wealth; it was about creating more of it. Yes, new labour invested massively in social infrastructure, and child poverty and pensioner poverty fell, but they didn't appear to challenge the fabric of our social order. Corbyn does.

So, what then about the BBC? Isn't that supposed to be neutral? Neutral, there lies the problem. There isn't a neutral position, which in itself is not also biased.

One of the problems with the BBC is that it reflects our society, and our culture is biased. Our society is organised on inequality. The 'neutral' position is very much biased in favour of keeping the established order of things.

A fundamental assumption of this order is that wealth is good, and the accumulation of wealth is even better. Our economy is based on the idea of growth, and Growth is considered 'good'. And that is one of the critical examples of bias.

Even when it comes to poverty, there is a bias in the outlook. This has two common threads: that at least some of the poverty is the responsibility of the poor themselves. The other is that somehow, 'growth' will make the difference. Redistribution of wealth is not in the order of things. So, taxation is 'bad', or at best a necessary evil.

Politicians are 'challenged' on their tax plans, and generally, increasing taxes is regarded as wrong. That is part of the systemic bias.

So, media outlets like the BBC, for all their efforts, find themselves using pejoratives in their assessments and questions.

Then there are the presumed impossibles, like taxing the rich. They are the untouchables. They hold the aces because they are the 'wealth creators'.

No, they are not the wealth creators. They are the wealth accumulators, and that is not the same thing.

The wealth creators are the workers on poverty wages. Poverty wages are regarded as 'good' because they make 'goods' cheap.

But poverty wages are inadequate - profoundly so as they push hard-working wealth creators into poverty and on benefits, and this is a reason why the welfare bill is so high. Better to pay a decent wage, so that people can benefit from the fruits of their labour. But our system is predicated on low wages. That is part of the biased view.

The Tories branded the poor as skivers. Those on benefits were considered to be 'cheating' the system. This view has been accepted as part of the order of things and contributes to the bias.

The BBC does not always get this wrong. Often they show themselves capable of breaking out of the box. But to a large extent, those in the media grew up and were educated in the culture we have, and that culture is full of biased views. This view, then, is reflected in the outlook of media presenters.

If you are a party that challenges the system, as Labour does, then you will feel the icy wind of this media bias.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba