Does the BBC have an inherent bias towards Migration Watch and the Taxpayers’ Alliance? In short, yes. However, it could simply be an inconsistency in editorial style over a desire to misinform readers.

An interesting use of the phrase ‘in short, yes’ since the rest of your article – and the obligatory pretty graph for the thickos – demonstrate that half of the references to TPA do, in fact, provide context.

Once again, the BBC has failed to correctly give context to the Taxpayers’ Alliance in the pursuit of objective reporting. Half of my results found this was the case.

See? You repeatedly make sweeping generalisations and then qualify them in the hope people people just read the first part of your paragraphs.

You may or may not have a point but as you don’t provide any analysis of how the BBC describes similar organisations on the other side of the political spectrum (UKuncut or Tax Justice Network) we simply don’t know.

I’m not quite sure what the issue is supposed to be here.

In the case of Migration Watch, I suppose I can see how describing the organisation as a campaign/protest/lobby group might be desirable in order to avoid any false impression that this is, say, an official quango tasked with recording and reporting the facts on migration. But what could an organisation called ‘The Taxpayers’ Alliance’ be *other* than a campaign/protest/lobby group?

Surely the real issue here is whether the BBC should be referring to Migration Watch as ‘an anti-immigration campaign group’ (say), or to the Taxpayers’ Alliance as ‘a right-wing campaign group’, not whether it should be providing a ‘context’ by describing them as campaign groups full stop. If the BBC started referring to the Taxpayer’s Alliance as a campaign group 100% of the time, how would that be an improvement over providing ‘no context’?

Implicit in comments is the problem that BBC journalists are now so pressed that they are not providing context or performing proper checks. For example the Mid Staffs hospital coverage reported the standardised mortality rates as deaths, rather than a statistical tool to flag up a need for closer investigation.

There seems to have been a drift away from a complacently left-liberal feel towards a something more like the tabloids, with sensationalism and trivia becoming more prominent. BBC reporting is now patchy, with some excellent journalists, often overseas, but also some complete rubbish. I now treat BBC reports more like a news wire and go to Channel 4 News for insight and analysis.

Cherub: that’s because, increasingly, editorial policy at the BBC is driven by the bits of it that make international money, and not the bits of it that are a public service to the UK. I grew up with the World Service, and got a hell of a shock when I found out how much was missing from Radio 4 by comparison. And that was back in the early 90s. Since the advent of News24, the BBC has started programming national news prior to international, which really annoys me (that’s how Americans do news, not serious news organisations).

Regarding the OP: yes, it would be useful if the BBC accurately described establishment hacks as Tory proxies. But they’re not going to, because for all its ‘complacent liberalism’ in times past, and although it is willing to hammer the government of the day at least some of the times they deserve it, Auntie is and establishment hack and always has been. The BBC is in many ways a proxy for Sir Humphrey Appleby in the same way that the TA are proxies for the extremely greedy party: they act as a force of gentle establishment obstructionism.

The BBC is the London establishment propaganda mouthpiece. Failing to reveal that so-called impartial commenters may not be that impartial is rife throughout the organisation. The Scottish nationalist folks are always complaining about its shocking bias. What is revealing is the BBC Scotland reply that they have no obligation to be impartial outside of an election campaign. They see it as their remit to promote the unity of Britishness, therefore have no problem with being biased towards that end. Anyone who is a threat to the interests of the London establishment, is a threat to the BBC and will not get equal treatment to those who promote the interests of the London establishment.

The nationalists have a point with BBC Scotland inviting supposed objective economic commenters to pass comment on SNP policies. It is never revealed that the independent commenter is usually in some way connected to the Labour party. One economist they use for rent-a-quote comment is married to Wendy Alexander, the sister of Douglas Alexander. Another two used to work for the Labour party. Yet another public finance professor invited on to rubbish the SNP is a former Labour party apparatchik. They even managed to find some minor French official who is opposed to the idea of Scottish independence. This was presented in such a way to suggest that this was the opinion of the French government. Turned out she also was a former UK Labour party apparatchik. It would be easier if BBC Scotland just introduced their guests as here is a Labour party representative to rubbish the SNP, and our “independent expert” who is going to criticise them is also the Labour party.

The BBC failing to reveal the questionable independence of commenters is a serious flaw.

What tends to bother me more with such groups is that their motives or their funding is rarely explained. I know people have objected to the name of “Taxpayers Alliance” given that they’re taxpayers who don’t believe they are represented by this ‘alliance’ and so feel that the name is misleading and could draw people into believing things they say that are very politically/ideologically driven. If you know the claims are being made by a clearly ‘right wing’ group then you know how to interpret their bias. The TPA are given an incredibly high profile considering how small their membership actually is.

Planeshift

“Before we get more tories on here rubbishing the idea of a state investment bank, it’s worth pointing out that creating one in Wales is the policy of the Welsh Conservatives.”

The Welsh proposal isn’t a stand alone investment bank but a partnership with existing High St banks to make available more funds for directed lending to SMEs.

One of the major differences between the UK and the USA economic models is the prevelance of venture capital money for “innovation” (which is specifically what Chris Dillow was talking about rather than “bog standard” corporate lending) and goes part of the way to explainimg the US’s lead in industries like software and biochemistry.

There’s no shortage of capital in the UK. Look at the money going into gilts, corporate bonds, London property etc. Tweak the system to make long term VC investing more attractive and that can fund innovation. And the government can spend its (borrowed or printed) money funding things that really only governments can do well, like major infrastructure.

For the other SME corporate lending we don’t need a big government investment bank we need more High St banks and bankers that know their local economies. Government can, and should, do more to encourage their creation.

Everyone goes on about how the BBC should give a fair hearing to both sides. Now when the BBC gives a tiny bit of hearing to one side, the other side complain and say it’s total bias.

To provide your argument with some grounding, you need to provide a context. How many mentions does the BBC make of all left leaning organisations? Without this context your argument falls flat on its face. You come across as someone whining on about the fact that the “other side” has got any air time at all and you would prefer that the BBC stick to the only one and true point of view – yours.

Sorry. Post 8 was meant for another blog.

The word “Alliance” implies that it is an umbrella organisation of many different taxpaying groups when clearly they are just a single group funded by some right wing business types who are opposed to the state doing anything. As they are deliberately setting out to mislead the BBC should not be using their input. I have complained to the BBC on various occasions about this but just keep getting the usual brush off that the BBC airs a variety of views.