“has the potential to cause serious damage to the corporation’s international standing”

Any organisation, if it is not living up to the standards that it represents itself as holding, deserves to take some damage. Bimbleby seems to have forgotten that what is important is reporting as impartially as possible, not the BBC itself.

Dimbleby perfectly typifies how the BBC *has* lost its way (though not in the way he means) shifting from reporting to editorialising; Bowen has been in the vanguard of this trend, along with Peston, Robinson and others.

While it might have seemed a good idea at the time, it is the BBC signing its own death warrant.

You may agree with Bowen, or disagree (as I do), but the BBC should not and ultimately, given its funding method, cannot continue to editorialise in the way it does.

an invitation to viewers and listeners to draw their own conclusions

Goodness, we can’t possibly allow that now, can we?

News organisations should report the facts and leave the viewers to form their own opinions.

What they should not be doing is reporting the opinions of both sides and leave the viewers to work out what the facts are.

This is the risk that Dimbleby is warning of.

This is the risk that Dimbleby is warning of.

Quite true.

As the right harangue the BBC for its “left-wing bias” the BBC have tried to move to a position of reporting comment to stifle the rights bitching – all to the detriment of the BBC itself. The BBC used to report the facts as was/is – the right never likes that so accuses the BBC of being left-wing – they still do it.

Until the right have 100% control of all media (which they almost do now) they will not be happy.

cjcjc: “The BBC should not and ultimately, given its funding method, cannot continue to editorialise in the way it does.”

If working in social research has taught me anything, it’s that all but the very most basic facts are political. You may take a view that a political issue can be reported by only talking about facts, but ultimately reporting on pretty much any human phenomenon is political. The words you use to describe something are a political decision – do you call them immigrants, migrants, asylum seekers, illegal aliens, foreigners?

Even the selection of facts you choose to report is a political decision. How much airtime do you give to the war in Afghanistan? How about government spending decisions?

Editorialising is inevitable and impossible to avoid. The best the BBC could ever do, even if it were perfect, would be to get a balance of both majority views and when possible minority opinions as well.

What ever happened to that Scotland Yard investigation into the E.U. funds sent to the B.B.C.,In contravention of the guide lines in its Royal Charter.??
How many other Media organisations is the E.U. funding?
What do you have to do for that money ? Well I suppose that really is a dum question.?
Nah-They wouldn,t do that would they ?

I agree with jungle, its impossible to just report the fact.

Occasionally, just the way facts are reported will get you accused of picking sides.

Report on Israeli use of White Phosphorous in civilian areas and you are labelled pro Hamas. However, if you report on Israel’s use of White Phosphorous and follow it with reports of Hamas being bastards too you will be called balanced.

However, the two events are unrelated. They both exist independently as newsworthy topics but they don’t have to be be used together to promote bias.

Reporting on two opposing views does not equate with balanced reporting. The BBC needs to report on a wide range of topics, and from a wide range of view points, but it does not need all the analysis and coverage to be a report of two or more differing views given equal weight. The coverage as a whole needs to present a fair range of views from the Monetarist to the Marxist but each segment must be allowed to do its own thing.

“The Pro Israel lobby is not interested in good reporting, they just want pro Israel propaganda 24/7. They are well funded , and well organised and are killing independent reporting about Israel in the western world. They have turned The American media into noting more than pro Zionist propaganda machine and are doing the same here in the UK and other countries.

The fact the BBC governors chose to get involved shows how powerful the pro Zionist lobby are at intimidating any media body into obedience. ”

As usual the cjcjc troll talks out of his tory backside. The Right is in no position to talk about bias. They want nothing but right wing bullshit all the time. When the Torygraph or the Mail shout abot BBC bias then you no the idiots have taken over the village.

Sally: That will be why the BBC haven’t published the Balen report then, because it shows no bias at all?

The Telegraph and the Mail, even the Guardian, make no pretence of lacking bias and being privately owned shouldn’t have to. The problem with the BBC is that being taxpayer funded it should be impartial but it has a clear soft left bias. Its the combination of the two with the absolute denial of the second that is so irritating.

Troll “The problem with the BBC is that being taxpayer funded it should be impartial but it has a clear soft left bias. Its the combination of the two with the absolute denial of the second that is so irritating.”

The BBC is not biased, it is just that Conservatives are so ideologically stupid that they can’t deal with the other sides views. They are so used to having their news served up by rabid right wing newspapers that they don’t understand impartiality.

BBC Political reporter Nick Robinson. Joined the Conservative party at University. BBC political show This week in politics presented by Andrew Neil, ( former editor of Sunday Times and Thatcherite cheer leader) and Michael Portilo, (former Tory cabinet member) Vs Diane Abbot Labour MP. Only bias there is threeTories to one Labour.

Read the views of the BBC by former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, or Tony Ben, or Alistair Campbell and many other Labour people. They all hated the BBC and viewed it as bias against them.

The truth is that the Conservatives don’t want any views expressed except right wing ones.

Hahaha – Tory troll Sally wants us to listen to Alistair Campbell!

News reports and (most) reporters strive for objectivity, but it is important to distinguish between objectivity and balance. Objectivity, as regards broadcast journalism, is the reporting of the facts as they are – reporting the truth. ‘Balance’, on the other hand, is the notion that each ‘side’ to a story carrys equal weight, even if in many cases this simply is not true. Therefore, seeking to ‘balance’ a story may undermine the truth of it.

As such, an objective report – or even a decidedly subjective report (such as a documentary by John Pilger or Peter Oborne) – will usually contain more truth than a merely ‘balanced’ one, and that’s why Dimbleby is correct.

There’s a difference between an ‘authored’ documentary by the likes of Pilger or Adam Curtis which are very much promoted as subjective – and indeed that’s the reason that we watch them – and editorializing in a news report.

I agree that offering two opposing points of view does not constitute ‘balance’ though: climate change denial does not ‘balance’ the far more credible claims of scientists any more than we need a racist to ‘balance’ all stories about immigration.

Quite funny -

http://www.sodall.co.uk/BBC/parody/index.htm

That’s about as funny as Jim Davidson rubbing his grizzled knackers all over the face of a petrified pig, singing the theme from Big Break.

Sally, noticed any beams in your eye lately?