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

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

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they