Media bias is often defined as the publication of positive information that favours a particular viewpoint and negative information that criticises the viewpoint of opponents. A clearer view of bias is that it is the suppression of negative news about a favoured viewpoint and suppression of positive news about the contrary viewpoint. The suppression of news is the heart of bias.In the UK it is Ofcom that polices bias in Channel 4 and the BBC. Ofcom always diverts the investigation of bias into whether or not a particular article was fair. In doing this they are scarcely performing a fraction of their job because they are missing out any investigation of the suppression of news.In the past the political parties have had sufficient influence to push back against extreme bias but in the
John considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
J. writes Biden to win the US Election. What then?
J. writes The Future of the United Kingdom
J. writes In Praise of Trade
Media bias is often defined as the publication of positive information that favours a particular viewpoint and negative information that criticises the viewpoint of opponents.
A clearer view of bias is that it is the suppression of negative news about a favoured viewpoint and suppression of positive news about the contrary viewpoint. The suppression of news is the heart of bias.
In the UK it is Ofcom that polices bias in Channel 4 and the BBC. Ofcom always diverts the investigation of bias into whether or not a particular article was fair. In doing this they are scarcely performing a fraction of their job because they are missing out any investigation of the suppression of news.
In the past the political parties have had sufficient influence to push back against extreme bias but in the EU Referendum the issue cut across party lines. The electorate was totally in the hands of the sense of duty of broadcasters and Ofcom. However, it seems on the basis of the Referendum coverage, that both the broadcasters and Ofcom had an implicit agreement that the omission of news was reasonable and did not constitute bias (See Is the BBC biased about Brexit?).
The continued, bitter support in the media for certain cross party issues is seriously damaging the UK.
Sir David Attenborough was recently interviewed on BBC Breakfast. He stated in no uncertain terms that population growth had caused the damage to the global ecosystem. The BBC has a substantial bias against population control, it suppresses data from news programs that blame population growth for global warming, species extinction, ecosystem destruction etc. and always talks in terms of local opposition to "much needed" development and racist opposition to population growth through migration etc. The BBC even insulted David Attenborough, who was absolutely clear about overpopulation, by diverting the issue from human overpopulation to what "we" can do now. The BBC and Channel 4 fail to mention that studies of the relationship between population growth and global warming
have determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20
times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a
high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and
light bulbs, etc. The failure of the BBC and Channel 4 to mention the effect of overpopulation in the UK and globally is deadly. This news suppression seems to be fully supported by Ofcom.
On the EU, the fact that the UK would need to fulfill the terms of the Copenhagen Criteria to rejoin the EU is suppressed. These state clearly that the desire for "political, economic and monetary union" is required for a country to apply for EU membership. The huge expenditure of Remain relative to Leave in the Referendum is never mentioned. The true story of how the huge Leave majority in the opinion polls in 2012 was whittled down so that the Referendum was nearly a draw is not mentioned. The massive trade and current account deficits between the UK and EU are suppressed. The Role of the shady "European Movement" in the EU Referendum was almost entirely suppressed.
|Opinion polls showed Remain had a chance after 2015.|
The failure to mention these things is calculated to keep membership of the EU open as an issue even though it has been resolved by Referendum and two elections. No doubt the Remain faction at the BBC believe that in 10 or 20 years time there might be another chance at EU membership but this is not good enough. The BBC and Channel 4 are supposed to provide impartial news coverage and suppressing these stories shows huge bias. The effect of this bias is that we all meet people who believe that Leave massively outspent Remain and
that the population favoured Remain but were cheated out of EU
membership by the Russians at the last moment in the campaign. There are many people who feel cheated simply because the BBC etc. have been suppressing the truth. That the truth is not generally known is hugely divisive and damaging to the UK. The leading BBC presenter, John Humphrys, gave a clear report that the BBC was biased during the Referendum but Ofcom has just covered the issue up.
The BBC and Channel 4 have occasionally reviewed The Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Davos (WEF) but have concluded such articles with as much reassurance for the viewer or listener as possible. What do they suppress? In the case of Bilderberg they suppress any mention of the affiliated groups that lobby the EU and the fact that the BBC attends Bilderberg meetings. Even discussion of the desirability of such groups is dismissed. They have also suppressed the fact that Keir Starmer is a member of the Trilateral Commission and what that means. This suppression of the reality of international cooperation between Multinational Companies, International Banks and Governments is an attack on democracy. In the absence of honest coverage it should be no surprise that these various groups have given rise to conspiracy theories.
The BBC and Channel 4 have particularly excelled themselves for bias in their use of "Historical Presentism". This is where those who support a particular political viewpoint browse all of history and use those events that most support their cause as if they were the responsibility of their political opponents. Historical Presentism is an intellectual sham. Past events cannot be judged according to current mores and the selection of those events that support a modern cause whilst suppressing the context and any mention of events that do not support the cause is naked bias. The recent coverage of slavery is an example, as was the coverage of the anniversary of Hiroshima.
Outside of bias by suppression the BBC and Channel 4 also use anecdotal reporting to produce bias by selection. We can all remember interviews during the Referendum debate when an erudite professor was invited to explain a Remain point and then a couple of drunk, old age pensioner supporters of Leave were interviewed in a pub to address the Leave view. Where there is anecdotal reporting it should always be followed by a fair summary that does not suppress the truth.
Part of the problem with the BBC is that it has merged its global and UK newsrooms. This means that the UK audience is being exposed to US news as if they were Americans which is especially dubious when it relates to the police and racism. UK viewers get far more on Trump than on Macron and Merkel and I know many people who understand the US Constitution better than our own. This is utterly unacceptable for the UK's National Broadcaster.
When David Clementi, Chairman of the BBC, steps down in February the replacement must be committed to ending news suppression. The Ofcom committee that overseas the BBC Charter should be largely replaced and the number of ex BBC staff on the committee limited to two members.
When the BBC Charter is renewed it must include a real definition of bias as "the suppression of negative news about a selected viewpoint and suppression of positive news about the contrary viewpoint". The Charter should also address the issue of anecdotal reporting and bias by selection. BBC World Service should be transferred to the Foreign Office and other global activities sold off.