One of the areas where the BBC and the media in general has a striking lack of diversity is in the subjects studied by its recruits. It seems auntie's corridors team with humanities and social science graduates, few(with the possible exception of the economics editor) would know the difference between the median, mode and average of a statistical sample.
This lack of even basic scientific knowledge has had two effects. First correspondants seem unable to appreciated that in science there are always disagreements and controversies, and that scientists and doctors often engage in very brisk exchanges of view without falling out. The fact that climate change deniers got short shrift was unfortunate because it meant viewers were denied the chance to see both sides of the science - and that I think is due to the fact the Beeb doesn't have people with the right sort of background to moderate such discussions.
The best example was the response to the Cass Review. One interviewer let Patrick Harvie is his Smugness say the review was 'problematic' to be fair the interviewer asked in what way and Harvie implied 'experts' had told him. That was the end of the discussion.
The accusation that the report was 'problematic' and had 'ignored' important studies - with the implication that is was biased was never addressed. Dare I suggest it was because no one in the BBC had or has any idea how systematic reviews are done. Knows about he PRISM protocol or the Newcastle-Ottawa instrument - which was used in this review . The Cass reveiw was methodologically sound. I read it- including the appendices. I've done systematic reviews for SIGN(Scottish Intercolleagiate Guidelines Network).
One of the reasons for what appears like bias may not be so much ideological as just not having a scooby.
Excellent article charting how we got to where we are now.
The BBC is finished in its current form and high time too. The lack of critical thought and the othering of those who don’t hold their liberal lefty views have done for them. My tolerance of them ended when they jumped aboard the gender bandwagon and revealed just how misogynistic they truly are. Men in their Women of the Year lists?! I’ll never trust them again.
I agree that we need well-informed debate on important subjects. Any apparent bias is certainly not consistently left-wing. I remember David Dimbleby giving Ed Milliband a hard time, as if the previous Gordon Brown government had been wholly responsible for the financial crisis caused by an international banking crash. The Question Time programme has promoted Nigel Farage for many years, including Brexit, and now gives the Reform Party an easy ride. Most recently, Raffi Berg, who heads the BBC's Middle East desk, has been exposed as a former CIA propaganda operator and Mossad collaborator. This helps to explain the pro-Israel bias on their Gaza coverage, and they mostly ignore the terrible plight of the Palestinians in the West Bank who suffer from an apartheid regime.
One of the areas where the BBC and the media in general has a striking lack of diversity is in the subjects studied by its recruits. It seems auntie's corridors team with humanities and social science graduates, few(with the possible exception of the economics editor) would know the difference between the median, mode and average of a statistical sample.
This lack of even basic scientific knowledge has had two effects. First correspondants seem unable to appreciated that in science there are always disagreements and controversies, and that scientists and doctors often engage in very brisk exchanges of view without falling out. The fact that climate change deniers got short shrift was unfortunate because it meant viewers were denied the chance to see both sides of the science - and that I think is due to the fact the Beeb doesn't have people with the right sort of background to moderate such discussions.
The best example was the response to the Cass Review. One interviewer let Patrick Harvie is his Smugness say the review was 'problematic' to be fair the interviewer asked in what way and Harvie implied 'experts' had told him. That was the end of the discussion.
The accusation that the report was 'problematic' and had 'ignored' important studies - with the implication that is was biased was never addressed. Dare I suggest it was because no one in the BBC had or has any idea how systematic reviews are done. Knows about he PRISM protocol or the Newcastle-Ottawa instrument - which was used in this review . The Cass reveiw was methodologically sound. I read it- including the appendices. I've done systematic reviews for SIGN(Scottish Intercolleagiate Guidelines Network).
One of the reasons for what appears like bias may not be so much ideological as just not having a scooby.
Excellent article charting how we got to where we are now.
The BBC is finished in its current form and high time too. The lack of critical thought and the othering of those who don’t hold their liberal lefty views have done for them. My tolerance of them ended when they jumped aboard the gender bandwagon and revealed just how misogynistic they truly are. Men in their Women of the Year lists?! I’ll never trust them again.
I agree that we need well-informed debate on important subjects. Any apparent bias is certainly not consistently left-wing. I remember David Dimbleby giving Ed Milliband a hard time, as if the previous Gordon Brown government had been wholly responsible for the financial crisis caused by an international banking crash. The Question Time programme has promoted Nigel Farage for many years, including Brexit, and now gives the Reform Party an easy ride. Most recently, Raffi Berg, who heads the BBC's Middle East desk, has been exposed as a former CIA propaganda operator and Mossad collaborator. This helps to explain the pro-Israel bias on their Gaza coverage, and they mostly ignore the terrible plight of the Palestinians in the West Bank who suffer from an apartheid regime.