The artful bias of the BBC

[Glom]

I came up with this article (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/misc/bbcbias.html). I was thinking of posting it at that BBC action place, but I wanted to run it through here first. I know it's focusing on niggly things, but my point was how they convey negativity through various subtle means.

[Taks]

i think often times the so-called bias in the media is actually stemming from the media pandering to those they think may be reading their reporting. i.e. it's not so much the media is biased, but they assume their readers are biased and report accordingly.

this is just as bad, IMO, as you still get biased information AND, they end up turning off potential readers. this is the very reason my "new scientist" subscription just ended, btw...

taks

[Jeff Root]

I'm generally in favor of more use of fission power, and
don't consider the radioactivity warning symbol to have
undue negative connotations. I occasionally go places
where radioactive materials are used, and I appreciate
the warnings. Not that I'm likely to stick my finger in a
beaker of clear liquid sitting on a physics lab bench,
whether it contains tritium or not.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Taks]

I'm generally in favor of more use of fission power, and
don't consider the radioactivity warning symbol to have
undue negative connotations.this applies to those that are open-minded about the technological benefits to nuclear power. those that are not, due to lack of education, ideology, or whatever, view these things differently.

I occasionally go places where radioactive materials are used, and I appreciate the warnings. Not that I'm likely to stick my finger in a beaker of clear liquid sitting on a physics lab bench, whether it contains tritium or not.but the point being made is not about warnings on containers or otherwise dangerous materials/areas, as these are valid uses of the labels. the point is about using these labels inappropriately in news articles to convey a subtle message about the topic, without actually stating the message openly.

nobody in their right mind will fault someone for putting a radioctive hazard symbol on a cannister full of U238. but are we really worried that the nuclear hazards are going to be ignored if we don't put the labels in news reports?

taks

[Disinfo Agent]

A few weeks ago, I saw a BBC report on the current state of the nuclear debate. I cannot remember what they said, which gives an impression of how intellectually stimulating it was, but I do remember an image from the title shot at the beginning of the report. Among the many pictures of nuclear facilities displayed in this collage, there was also a large image of the radioactive hazard warning symbol.

We had not even past the title shot and already a bias was exposed. A warning label had been introduced, which tacitly suggested to the viewers at home that we are dealing with something dangerous.

This reminded me of a similar image I had seen some time ago in a BBC report on the nuclear debate. In this report, they showed us a map of the British Isles indicating the location of nuclear facilities across the country. Seemingly innocuous you might think, however this map was credited to Friends of the Earth. Unsurprisingly then, then had decided to indicate nuclear facilities, not by marking them with a Rutherford atom or perhaps an innocent dot, but with the radioactive hazard warning symbol.

Their marketing department is good. What is supposed to be an innocent piece of factual information is loaded with huge bias and implication as danger symbols are used to indicate the presence of nuclear infrastructure. The only way they could have been less subtle in their message is if they had given the map the title, "Location of holocaust machines throughout the United Kingdom".Sorry, but worrying about which symbols they use to mark nuclear plants on a map, and calling that "bias", is an exaggeration. (Don't the nuclear facilities have signs with those same symbols on the ground, by the way?)

Last November, Newsnight did an article on the debate. Aside from the unusual one sidedness, one particular mention stuck in my mind. Electricity and transportation and generally separate issues, however, when it comes to nuclear power, the opposition never miss a trick. When tasked with the issue of the usefulness of nuclear power in reducing pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, the opposition response was to say that it will not help to reduce emissions from transportation.

Ignoring hydrogen economy and synthetic fuels etc, this is true. However, it does not invalidate the role of nuclear when dealing with electricity (it's either all or nothing with these people). But more galling was the fact that they were trying to advocate renewable energy instead. Renewable energy is no more likely to help with transportation than nuclear. How can they try to sell this shortfall for nuclear as a disadvantage, while so blithely glossing over the fact that renewables suffer from the same shortfall? Shame on Jeremy Paxman for allowing them to get away with that.This seems like a fair criticism, and it might be worth writing a letter of protest about, or bringing up in a future debate. But it's more likely to be due to ignorance than to bias.

[Glom]

Sorry, but worrying about which symbols they use to mark nuclear plants on a map, and calling that "bias", is an exaggeration. (Don't the nuclear facilities have signs with those same symbols on the ground, by the way?)

I take your criticism and will consider my response.

PS, I know this essay is a piece low down on the significance scale. I wasn't intending to shake any foundations with this. I just wanted to comment on a pet peeve of mine about media imagery.

[Disinfo Agent]

Believe me, I'm all for voicing complaints at the media's reporting. I just think that bias is a loaded word, and a difficult charge to prove. It's more constructive to say that they were "mistaken", "inaccurate", or "misleading" about such-and-such.

[Glom]

Believe me, I'm all for voicing complaints at the media's reporting. I just think that bias is a loaded word, and a difficult charge to prove. It's more constructive to say that they were "mistaken", "inaccurate", or "misleading" about such-and-such.

Perhaps so.

[Moose]

Believe me, I'm all for voicing complaints at the media's reporting. I just think that bias is a loaded word, and a difficult charge to prove. It's more constructive to say that they were "mistaken", "inaccurate", or "misleading" about such-and-such.

Speaking for myself, it's not so much a loaded word as an overabused one. Maybe I'm jaded, but it seems to me that accusations of "bias" these days are most often used to stifle critical speech when the facts are woefully and obviously not on one's side. *cough Fox News cough*

I'm not slinging at you in any way, Glom/777, but you might choose vocabulary that hasn't been abused to the point of collapse by the shrill-for-money. (I won't call 'em professional. Real professionals don't pull stunts like that.)

[Joff]

The BBC is not unbiased, and its indivdual reporters are human enough to show their prejudice occasionally, but it is good on many topics. I think it's probably the high regard in which it is held that leads you to feel such irritation at these subtle points - if it wasn't that good, you wouldn't even notice this stuff. Calling this "artful" presupposes that it is deliberate. I've always been inclined to interpret such things as cock-up rather than conspiracy myself.

[Skipjack]

Personally I am with Carl Sagan on this one. he was supporting ideas like Orion and NERVA propulsion.
I remember him saying on Cosmos once, that "using nuclear bombs for propulsion of space ships is the best use of nuclear bombs once can think of".
I aggree with that.
Now for nuclear power plants: I think that the danger and the environmental problems coming from them are blown way out of proportion. IMHO, a coal power plant is much worse for the environment.
Nuclear power can be save and it can be comparably clean.
Anyway, of course the media is always biased (depends on who is lobbying... if its the coal- lobby, or the nuclear lobby, or the water- power lobby, or the Si- lobby, etc). IMHO its all a question of money.
CU
Skipjack

[Philip A]

The BBC is not unbiased, and its indivdual reporters are human enough to show their prejudice occasionally, but it is good on many topics. I think it's probably the high regard in which it is held that leads you to feel such irritation at these subtle points - if it wasn't that good, you wouldn't even notice this stuff. Calling this "artful" presupposes that it is deliberate. I've always been inclined to interpret such things as cock-up rather than conspiracy myself.

Sorry Joff, but in my opinion the BBC is very biased in this country. They do make some excellent programmes, which are justifiably exported throughout the world. However, the standard at home is less than stellar, with frequent dumbing-downs and, in my opinion, wilfully biased reporting. The humanity of the reporters is unquestioned (at least they all appear humanoid), but they all seem to be recruited from a single school of thought. I rarely watch anymore, and I live here!

[Philip A]

Oh yeah, Nice one 777! Keep it up, eventually someone may listen to reason. Possibly.

[peteshimmon]

You must understand that putting images into
millions of homes can bring out wicked
temptations in some nasty people. For as long
as I can remember, a story on a news program
about waste water will bring on certain
images. I might be tucking into a snack when
suddenly..oh no!...wheres the remote...
Doh..and pictures of a flushing lavatory
floods into my living room! Some rope and the
nearest lampost is the answer I say!

[Joff]

Sorry Joff, but in my opinion the BBC is very biased in this country. They do make some excellent programmes, which are justifiably exported throughout the world. However, the standard at home is less than stellar, with frequent dumbing-downs and, in my opinion, wilfully biased reporting. The humanity of the reporters is unquestioned (at least they all appear humanoid), but they all seem to be recruited from a single school of thought. I rarely watch anymore, and I live here!Very biased but you rarely watch it... hmm... ;)

Anyway I'd be interested to hear what you see as the BBC's most noticeable biases.

[Halcyon Dayz]

The biggest problem with a bias is, that people
usually aren't aware that they have one.

[Taks]

Sorry, but worrying about which symbols they use to mark nuclear plants on a map, and calling that "bias", is an exaggeration. (Don't the nuclear facilities have signs with those same symbols on the ground, by the way?)the difference is that the nuclear facilities that are posting these signs have a very real need to warn people of the nature of the plant they are about to walk into. a newspaper publishing an article with 50 little "danger will robinson" logos is showing a bias, i.e. "nuclear bad." also, bias is not necessarily intentional (edit: see PS below), which is why 777 geek was careful not to call it conspiracy. that the BBC did not catch it, however, is evidence of their willingness to let such bias slide, as is your statement that it's an exaggeration.

as noted, "bias" is strictly a point of view proposition. we all have them, but some seem more egregious than others and often attempt to sway public opinion. would you have thought it an exaggeration if the icons were smily faces? heck, for neutrality why not little cooling towers...

taks

PS: by "intentional" i meant along the lines of "HAHA! We'll keep putting this negative imagery out there and slowly change world opinion!"... as noted by halcyon daze, bias is not always self-perceived. they may intentionally do something but not necessarily in a conspiratorial manner.

[Taks]

Very biased but you rarely watch it... hmm... ;) are you ruling out the possibility that he used to watch it, but his opinion waned in the face of the bias he perceived? i did the same thing with new scientist... i got tired of the bias regarding certain articles and opinions, and stopped reading, eventually cancelling my subscription.

taks

[Disinfo Agent]

the difference is that the nuclear facilities that are posting these signs have a very real need to warn people of the nature of the plant they are about to walk into. a newspaper publishing an article with 50 little "danger will robinson" logos is showing a bias, i.e. "nuclear bad." also, bias is not necessarily intentional (edit: see PS below), which is why 777 geek was careful not to call it conspiracy. that the BBC did not catch it, however, is evidence of their willingness to let such bias slide, as is your statement that it's an exaggeration.Excuse me... My statement that it's an exaggeration is what?

[Taks]

Excuse me... My statement that it's an exaggeration is what?evidence of your bias... not towards "nuclear bad" as i've never seen you post anyting to indicate such a stance. bias towards the "there's no bias in the media" position...

you don't see it as you think it is perfectly ok to have these subtle little hints dropped, but others do not, 777 geek and i, for example. everyone has bias, to deny that is the same thing as saying "i never lie!"

taks

[Disinfo Agent]

evidence of your bias... not towards "nuclear bad" as i've never seen you post anyting to indicate such a stance. bias towards the "there's no bias in the media" position...You are sooooooo wrong. :lol:

you don't see it as you think it is perfectly ok to have these subtle little hints dropped, but others do not, 777 geek and i, for example.They're just stupid labels on a map -- who cares what they look like? Most people probably won't even notice their shape. Are you afraid you might be subliminarily converted by a radiation sign?! :shifty:

everyone has bias, to deny that is the same thing as saying "i never lie!"Everyone has biases. However, not everything we do or say is necessarily biased.

[Taks]

You are sooooooo wrong. :lol:you're the one that called it an exaggeration, not me...

They're just stupid labels on a map -- who cares what they look like? Most people probably won't even notice their shape. Are you afraid you might be subliminarily converted by a radiation sign?! :eek:i don't and you may not, but neither you nor i are the standard dimwit that may be swayed by these things. it's just annoying that these things are done regularly and nobody seems to care.

whoever (er, whomever?) put this map together had a very real intent. as i said before, why not little cooling towers?

Everyone has biases. However, not everything we do or say is necessarily biased.not to ourselves, at least. ;)

taks

[skepticfrog]

If I may be perfectly vanilla, I think I agree a little bit with everyone on this one. I do think we are all biased to an extent in most of the things we do. Sometimes we do not realize that what we have done is biased, however. In this case, I don't think the nuclear warning sign was meant to reflect a bias against nuclear power, but rather served as a the most common referent most people have as a symbol for nuclear power. Personally, I don't see the symbol as something that immediately means opposition to nuclear power. I guess some do.

That is not to say that we should guard against said unintentional bias...

I do think the reporters job is exceedingly difficult. Many reporters must cover such a broad range of events and categories of occurences that certain shorthand that seems obvious may carry meanings / predispositions of which they are not aware. I think that is the case here.

Anywho, my rambling two cents before heading off to teach a little about politics to impressionable young minds...

[Jeff Root]

Taks,

I agree with Disinfo Agent and skepticfrog: The symbols are just
symbols, neither negative nor positive. They do not say "This is
bad" or "This is good". Whether at a nuclear power plant, in a
chemistry lab, or on a map. I might use the same symbol on a
map if I were to make one promoting nuclear power.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[captain swoop]

It's funny how both sides of a topic always claim the BBC is biassed against them. Usualy they get an equal number of complaints of bias from all the parties involved in any kind of news story or prog.

I think that means they are getting it about right.

[Philip A]

Very biased but you rarely watch it... hmm... ;)

Anyway I'd be interested to hear what you see as the BBC's most noticeable biases.

Sorry for the late response, I've been away for a few days.

The most noticeable bias is political, which we won't go into here. Look for information on the Hutton report/whitewash carried out by the government.

There is a fairly marked anti-science bias, with some of the reporters (generally qualifications in the Arts, not sciences) not really understanding their topics, and so either coming to the wrong conclusions or just pandering to the viewpoint of the Islington Chattering Classes.

There are specifics, but this really isn't the forum for them.

PS: Cheers Taks, you got it exactly right!

[captain swoop]

anti - science bias? where is that evident?

Islington Chattering Classes?

I think we see your own bias starting to show.

[gwiz]

"People who complain about bias in the media usually mean that the media are not biassed enough in their direction."

Can't put my finger on the origin of this quote.

[Disinfo Agent]

Save your outrage at the media for stuff like this (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=670945#post670945).

[Glom]

I've thought and decided not to post it. Thanks for the feedback.

[Weird Dave]

Why not little cooling towers? Because not all nuclear power stations have cooling towers - those by the coast vent warm water directly into the sea.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=dungeness%20power%20station&sourceid=mozilla-search&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi
Also, many people think that a steaming cooling tower is emitting polluting smoke, so it could still give a negative impression.

[Stregone]

Why not little cooling towers? Because not all nuclear power stations have cooling towers - those by the coast vent warm water directly into the sea.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=dungeness%20power%20station&sourceid=mozilla-search&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi
Also, many people think that a steaming cooling tower is emitting polluting smoke, so it could still give a negative impression.

Lets go all out and use little mushroom clouds. ;)

[Philip A]

anti - science bias? where is that evident?

Islington Chattering Classes?

I think we see your own bias starting to show.

I perceive anti science bias in the generally poor reporting standards. As I said a lot of the reporters seem to have no scientific education past GCSE and as a result are either easily swayed by nonsense, or do not bother to check facts before broadcast.

And yes, I am biased. I'm not a reporter, however. I am especially biased against the Islington Chattering Classes, I have little time for those who think the world is the way they would like it to be, rather then the way it is. BTW, this is not a political viewpoint!

[captain swoop]

what is an islington chattering class then?