Sunday, July 17, 2011

Bias and the BBC

One of the most common complaints levelled at the BBC is that it is biased. Typically, people accuse it of propagating the opposite views to their own. The burden of proof is somewhat slight for many people when they talk about the bias of the BBC – little more than the BBC happens to have said something with which they did not agree. As such, the BBC is placed in an impossible position. It means that the BBC simultaneously has to represent every view in our diverse country or run the risk of being biased. Given the impossibility of the former, therefore, the BBC ends up being accused of the latter.

Furthermore, is there any real way of not being biased? I mean, even if the BBC editorial staff go into a project with an entirely open mind, if there any real way in which anyone can put their innate biases to one side and be completely neutral? I try to be neutral when I read any article or book, but I know that my prejudices and biases lurk in the background. For example, when I read something about Gordon Brown I try to keep an open mind and look at the content of what he says, but I can’t quite get over my natural antipathy towards that ghastly man. I know I am biased, despite my best efforts not to be.

Of course, it doesn’t matter if I am biased – I make no attempt to pretend otherwise. Plus, no-one has any right to really call me on the content of this blog. You don’t pay for it, so you don’t get a say in what I put on here (although you can respond in the comments section, obviously). However, the BBC – at least on some levels –is still presented (and arguably presents itself) as a public service. Part of the issue is that, whether we watch the BBC and its output or not, we still contribute to it if we own a TV through the licence fee. People feel the right to demand neutrality from the BBC because they have little choice but to fund it. The same is not true of every other media outlet that springs to mind. Don’t like the bias of Fox News? Well, you don’t have to pay for it. Likewise, don’t like the bias of The Guardian? You don’t have to buy the paper (not least because you can get the content for free online). Whereas the BBC…

I don’t think we could make the BBC absolutely neutral, and even if we could, I still think that some would deny that neutrality because it is impossible in a pluralistic culture like our own that is filled with incommensurable values to meet the expectations of one and all. So the best thing we can do is remove the demand that the BBC be neutral. So let’s remove the one thing that allows every licence fee holder in this country the feeling that they have a say in the output of the BBC. Quite simply, let’s end the licence fee.

Labels: ,

6 Comments:

At 7:54 pm , Blogger Matt M said...

What would happen to Doctor Who?

 
At 9:35 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Dunno. Might be cancelled, might end up with more money. Hopefully the latter, since it is one of the BBC's biggest money spinners.

 
At 9:36 am , Anonymous Timac said...

I quite like 6music without Ads. Though I'd happily pay a few quid to subscribe to it.

You can keep your Doctor Who. I think it's pants

 
At 11:47 am , Anonymous Anonymous said...

They could instruct their 'journalists' not to wear Obama campaign gear when reporting on him (no, I am not making this up)

 
At 12:25 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Timac,

That would be the joy of it - you wouldn't be paying for Doctor Who, and I wouldn't be paying for your unfathomably fashionable music station. Result.

TNL

 
At 10:05 am , Anonymous SimonF said...

A bit picky but if we must have a BBC we want its staff to be disinterested not neutral.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home