Liberty Alone

I think it should be taken for granted that the BBC is biased, its bound to be, its virtually impossible not to be biased.

I disagree with how many people say it is biased however.

On Radio 4 the bias is that presenters are almost overwhelmingly socially liberal but statist. This is not necessarily a left-wing bias, since the left and right wings can be statist.

The right complain that their views are not often expressed, often it seems to me in the attempt to avoid offense to anyone. The right does get its say in many debates, but it is true that the presenter is often biased against them in their views and this inevitably taints their handling of the subject.

The worst bias however is the bias in favour of state action. In news reporting interviewers always ask what the government is going to do. I have never heard anyone question whether the state needs to do anything, criticism comes in the form of ’shouldn’t the state do this instead?’.
That is a reflection upon society and the current political climate as well as a bias within the BBC. Of course the BBC will also be predisposed in favour of state action, it is a direct beneficiary of such action.

The BBC’s hiring practice also does not help. It appears to advertise in the Guardian alone, which is a left-wing statist paper with readers who tend to take that view. The fact that employees are overwhelmingly of this view must put off those who disagree with that view, especially in current affairs.
Also, liberals who don’t believe that the state should be involved in the media to such an extent would tend to eschew such employment, preferring to work in private industry.

To my mind, the only thing which can be done to solve this problem is to privatise the BBC. I wouldn’t mind if the BBC was then a left-wing, statist propaganda station or a right-wing loony station. It at least would not be funded by the tax-payer whilst pretending to be unbiased.

I think it is impossible to have no bias in news reporting or the media. Even if its selection of the stories or what extra information you include. You cannot include everything. In today’s world of easy transmission of information and the increased ability to comment upon and criticise media stories or shows this is not so much of a problem.

I’ve been alerted by Devil’s Kitchen of this article on the BBC news website.

It concerns M. Maurice Papon, who in 1998 was convicted of crimes against humanity for his role in the arrest and deportation of Jews during World War II. He also served in the French civil service in Algeria during the Algerian War - a war in which many atrocities were committed, probably with the knowledge of the civil service.

DK is disgusted by the article, and the apparent praise it gives M. Papon. I agree with this, the article almost treats Papon as a misunderstood character and lauds his commitment to the service of the state, no matter what that entailed. That does not absolve anyone of responsibility, even thinking that the right thing was being done does not absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions. The article has a hint of that all too prevalent sentiment amongst non-liberals (especially the left, but the right indulges in it too) that if the sentiment or aim was right then no matter what the outcome it doesn’t really matter.

The fact that blind service to the state is wrong both morally and practically is the other point this article misses. You may be able to morally justify actions if you believe them to be the correct actions (although the results are not then necessarily moral), but blind subservience is simply wrong, you were following orders is no excuse (there is a grey area around being coerced into doing things, but following orders does not entail coercion).
The state is not a representative of the general good, it is not an omniscient entity which will always make the right choices. The state does not merit blind service, indeed, to do simply what you are told by your superiors in the state structure in the name of serving the state will lead to doing things which are not justifiable.