BBC vs. Fox News: fair and balanced to you, too

International Herald tribune ^ | 1/9/04 | IHT

[Mark Felton]

MOUNT PLEASANT, South Carolina When Greg Dyke, director general of the BBC, resigned last week, there must have been satisfied smirks at the offices of Fox News. After visiting the United States last year, Dyke had said that he was shocked by "the Fox News formula of gung-ho patriotism." He warned the British media: "In the area of impartiality, as in many other areas, we must ensure we don't become Americanized."

.

The irony will not be lost on the people at Fox News that Dyke had to step down because the BBC was found to be telling untruths that were politically damaging to the British government. The BBC has often been accused of having a liberal bias, and many interpreted its reporting of the Iraq conflict as being antiwar.

.

So it's official: the BBC messed up. But however much Fox News feels vindicated by the verdict, it should not ignore the fact that many foreign observers feel that the political right has taken over America's news media, and that the overt political bias of Fox News and Clear Channel Radio has become a serious obstacle to the fair workings of democracy.

.

The contrast between Fox News and the BBC crystallizes the difference between the cultures that gave them birth. Fox News was in many ways a brave experiment: a news channel aimed directly at a target political audience, albeit an audience that had previously been identified by Rush Limbaugh. The success of Limbaugh's conservative radio show, a daily diatribe against all that is liberal, caused a sea change in talk radio. In many parts of the United States it is now all but impossible to find a radio talk show that is not modeled on Limbaugh's pro-Republican format.

.

But few thought a mainstream television audience would accept the same opinionated personalities that make conservative talk radio work. The rapid growth in Fox News's audience caught other news channels off guard, and prompted a panicked shift toward the political right in cable news coverage. The buildup to war gave American networks the chance to outdo each other in patriotism and hawkish support for the administration. It was in this fevered climate that a shocked Dyke discovered the most ebullient of them all: Fox News.

.

If this fast-moving, money-driven change is typically American, then the monolithic introspection of the BBC scandal is typically British. The BBC, after all, was never a money-making enterprise; it was established by the government in 1922 to "inform, educate and entertain" the British people. It is paid for by an obligatory license fee. This protection from the forces of nature has allowed it to follow its own instincts in pursuing news stories and, some would say, has also allowed it to develop an institutional liberal bias.

.

It was not a fall in market share that finally forced the BBC to address the allegations - the corporation is immune to such things - but the Hutton inquiry. When Brian Hutton's report blamed the BBC for a series of blunders, Dyke and two other BBC employees fell on their proverbial swords in the traditional British way. The BBC can no longer assume the trust of the British people when it claims to be impartial. It must now prove itself.

.

In the United States such matters are handled differently. There will never be a Hutton deciding whether Fox News is politically biased. Its claim to be fair and balanced is no more than a knowing wink to its audience, and it has no higher master than the dollar. If the audience tires of the Fox News agenda then other stations will move in to fill the vacuum. If there is ever to be political balance in American news coverage it will happen by the law of the jungle, not the law of the land.

.

It is disconcerting to think that American opinion is being informed by such unpredictable forces. Yet in a typically American way, the political bias of its news stations is open, brash and strangely addictive. The British bias is subtle, covert and shielded by the myth of objectivity. There is no such thing. When Fox News claims to be fair and balanced, we're all in on the joke. When the BBC makes the same claim, they seem to actually believe it.

.

The writer, an English teacher, previously worked as a radio and television journalist in Britain.

< < Back to St

[Mark Felton]

"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.

[dead]

The buildup to war gave American networks the chance to outdo each other in patriotism and hawkish support for the administration.

Only a complete idiot could write this sentence.

He's also an idiot in that he can't distinguish between the "spin" that he perceives in Fox News' coverage and the fact that the BBC flat out invented news to push their biased agenda.

[Common Tator]

What idiots like this author never point out is that many radio shows for the left have been tried. They have all failed.

Mario Cumo tried a leftist show. It failed. Alan Combs has failed to generate anything near the Limbaugh audience.

The interesting fact is that rescent surveys show that of the total audience 17 percent call themselves liberals, 34 percent call themselves conservatives and 49 percent call themselves moderates.

By every definition Liberals delegate to governemnt the task of taking care of their welfare. They have no interest in public affairs because they delegate them to the Democrtatic party.

Republicans reserve for themselves the right to run their own lives. Thus they have an interests in public affairs.

There is no way to draw a huge liberal audience for a public affairs program.

[rickmichaels]

...many foreign observers feel that the political right has taken over America's news media...

This is the intersection where Alice in Wonderland crosses The Twilight Zone. The red lights are flashing and the barriers are down. There's a fully-loaded B.S. train coming down the track at full speed. Proceed at your own risk.

[stylin_geek]

The problem we on the right are having is the same problem that was commented on by a resident of Berkeley, CA, in that the resident in Berkeley says one no longer just lives in Berkely, but is constantly having to fight whatever ludicrous "feel good" tax raising ordinance that the city council tries to foist off on the public. Now, the same thing is happening on the national level.

[Highest Authority]

Now that Dyke is out of the BBC, maybe we can get the dykes out of PBS!

[JayNorth]

The laughable part is the concept that Fox News is so right wing, while all the others have no agenda whatsoever. I try to be objective and I do not see a right wing bias at Fox News. I see a very successful experiment in presenting the news without the liberal slant of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, Wahington Post, NY Times, etc. What I do detest is:

- CNN being run by Clinton's right hand man. No bias there!

- Washington Post and Newsweek being run by Senator Graham's family. No bias there!

- Every time a Democrat gets in trouble they trot them out on NBC Today show and adoringly ask them to correct what is obviously a political, partisan attack by the VRWC. No bias there!

- Time/Life/Warner/AOL being run by Ted Turner and other liberals who dominate print, broadcast, cable, on-line, and entertainment media and then run to congressional committees and warn that Rupert Murdoch shouldn't be allowed to own this or that because it will allow no differing point of view. Or shutting out Fox News Channel from its cable outlets for years because "there weren't any channel slots available". No bias there!

[XJarhead]

Yet in a typically American way, the political bias of its news stations is open, brash and strangely addictive. The British bias is subtle, covert and shielded by the myth of objectivity. There is no such thing.

The author almost hit the key difference, albeit unintentionally. In Britain, the BBC is the media. You've got Sky News, but that's a relatively recent phenomenon. Here, we've got not only FoxNews, but ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, PBS, and MSNBC. People can listen to a variety of sources, and make their own decisions as to which network's coverage is most appealing to them. Free choice.

In Britain, they get the BBC and its pretense of objectivity shoved down their throats whether they like it or not. Personally, I much prefer our system, even though it also includes networks that have a leftward bias.

[The Radical Capitalist]

There are so many responses one can make to this article, but let me just focus on two.

First, the writer fabricates how Fox news views the BBC resignation, then chastizes them for having it. I've never heard "Fox News" or any of its prinicpals gloat over what happened to the BBC. This is something totally manufactured by the writer simply to give him something to bash Fox with.

Second, he writes, "If this fast-moving, money-driven change is typically American, then the monolithic introspection of the BBC scandal is typically British."

What friggin' introspection? By whom? On the day after the report, the BBC empplyees emptied their offices and demonstrated in the street in support of the BBC. The next day, the employees donated 5 pounds each to run a newspaper ad, supporting the BBC. I've watched and listened to the BBC over the web and they all say that the Hutton report is bogus because it criticizes them and not the government. Introspection? We could only wish!

[PattonReincarnated]

>> But however much Fox News feels vindicated by the verdict...

I'm sure that Fox News was just shaking in its boots. By the way, is Fox News a person? Can a corporation feel vindicated?

>> the overt political bias of Fox News and Clear Channel Radio has become a serious obstacle to the fair workings of democracy

Give me one example please. FoxNews versus ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC. And to tell you the truth, there are so many liberals on FoxNews these days, that FoxNews is tilted to the left. Half the time I can't stand watching FoxNews. When I hear any Grammy, Micheal, Janet, Scott, sensational story I'm reaching for the remote.

>> Its claim to be fair and balanced is no more than a knowing wink to its audience, and it has no higher master than the dollar.

We call that capitalism here in America. Something that Europe has completely forgotten. Of course, since America has only been around for 500 years or so, we lack all ability the have critical.

>> The BBC, after all, was never a money-making enterprise; it was established by the government in 1922

Yes, that is called socialism. And you know we have too much of that in America too. Take PBS, please. Take CSPAN, please.

Don't hold me back, let me at this liberal scum. I want to teach him a lesson.

[Lexington Green]

The BBC is proven to be idealogially corrupt, anti-British, anti-American, pro-commie, pro-terrorist and seditious. Don't care what they say anymore. They should be jailed.

[optimistically_conservative]

Partisan Editing at Herald Tribune

While ongoing vilification of Israel in European media is part of the problem, veteran journalist Evelyn Gordon has discovered yet another disturbing development: The deliberate tilting of previously balanced articles by one prominent European newspaper ¯ the International Herald Tribune. In an article in today's Jerusalem Post, reprinted below, Gordon finds that the Herald Tribune has altered at least two New York Times articles on the Israeli-Arab conflict in an effort to make Israel look worse to the Herald Tribune's mostly European readers. (We've added links to the original NY Times and Herald Tribune articles, so subscribers can verify Gordon's statements.)

As edited by...'The Herald Tribune'-editors often "improve" Times copy-make readers dislike Israel

[Lee'sGhost]

ANY net that attempts to truly present "both" sides will be labeled conservative by those who grew up believing that CBSNBCABC were responsible, balanced news nets.

[Ukiapah Heep]

1972 - Bombing the Dykes. 2004 - Dyke is bombing.

[Terpfen]

The best part is that the IHT is an enterprise between The New York Times and, I believe, the Washington Post. I guess that, in Europe, they can afford to be blatant.

[optimistically_conservative]

I think the NYSlimes has bought out the WashinCompost and now solely owns IHT.

I do think it shows that they cater to the ideology of their readers - then hypocritically accuse FoxNews of doing the same thing.

[nutmeg]

FoxFan ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

[Wil H]

The laughable part is the concept that Fox News is so right wing, while all the others have no agenda whatsoever.

What Mr Felton might care to explain, but does do so in his article, is why has Fox News been so succesful in taking media share from all the other channels, cable news and network alike.

The fact is Fox provided an alternative to all the others that the public liked. They recognised that there was another point of view that was different from the left wing chorus from the networks. Add to that, the internet has unfettered the masses from the mind control of the networks and the left, like Mr Felton, are apoplectic at the loss of control that they once exerted.

Anyone who reads Coulter or Goldberg's books will quickly realise that people like Mr Felton are delusional.

[Wil H]

1972 - Bombing the Dykes. 2004 - Dyke is bombing

little reported here but the crew of at least one Royal Navy Ship banned the showing of BBC News during the war because of it's biased reporting.

That is HUGE for a British Warship to do that.

[NZerFromHK]

I wouldn't be so optimistic either. Most non-US Westerners and Asians who speak English DO think that CNN is right-wing and "too pro-American". And I mean CNN International - which makes CNN America look like National Review in comparison. Not to say Fox News - "way too far American" according to them. I'm quoting comments from two Asians posting in an Asia-based blog. The comments were made during the Iraq war last April. You can see their far left biases that many Americans don't see:

http://www.gweilodiaries.com/archives/000820.html

(read comments made by Meiling and Leo Lam)

To have an idea of what "objective" reports are like according to these people, have a look at either the BBC or Deutsche Welle TV (which is in English).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

http://www.dw-world.de/english/