As amazingly reported Sunday by the British Telegraph (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):
The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.
Shocking, yet refreshing, wouldn’t you agree? But that was just the beginning:
The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.
It warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule.
Hmmm. Celebrities must not be pandered to. Luckily, American media don’t do that:
After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation’s coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.
But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.
Instead, at a time when the corporation was renegotiating its charter with the government, it allowed itself to effectively become a promotional tool for Live 8, which was strongly supported by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Geldof, Bono and Curtis were attempting to pressure world leaders at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, which was taking place at the same time, to help reduce poverty in developing countries under the banner 'Make Poverty History’.
Sound a little bit like what American media are doing with Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts, and how they’re pandering to global warming alarmists like Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, and Leonardo DiCaprio? Think our press organizations would ever admit it?
Regardless of the answers, the article continued:
The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.
It reads: “There is a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”
A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.
Aren’t the similarities between what the BBC admitted and what conservative media analysts in America continually point out regarding our press absolutely striking? And how about this revelation:
During the seminar a senior BBC reporter criticised the corporation for being anti-American.
Fascinating, wouldn’t you agree? Equally so was an editorial published in England’s the Sunday Times concerning this BBC report (emphasis added throughout):
There are some things you do not need an official report to tell you - that John Prescott thinks he is a babe magnet, that President Mugabe is not entirely in favour of white farmers and that Al-Qaeda takes a pretty dim view of the West. The report commissioned by the BBC into itself concluded with something equally blindingly obvious. It said that the organisation is institutionally biased and especially gullible to the blandishments of politically driven celebrities, such as Bono and Bob Geldof. Almost anyone in Britain could have told the BBC that for free, but maybe it’s better to have it in an official report.
[…]
But what emerges from the report is a picture of an organisation with a liberal, anti-American bias and an almost teenage fascination with fashionable causes. The report singles out the BBC’s overwhelming and uncritical backing for the campaign over Live Aid and now the Live Earth concerts on global warming.
All those in favor of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, FNC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Reuters, and the Associated Press undergoing the same self-examination with full disclosure say “aye.”
*****Update: Jules Crittenden comically noted:
Good thing [the BBC] didn’t go looking for pro-Jihadi sentiments. That could have got ugly quick.
