I listened to a piece on BBC radio yesterday (October 10) which revealed the corporation’s problems with the notion of impartiality.
Czech mate
It was about the Czech Republic’s ratification of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. The BBC interviewed an insider on Czech politics who said any delay was the result of grandstanding and political machinations by President Klaus.
This, of course, may well be true. I know nothing of Czech politics, but the idea that a politician might grandstand and machinate does not shock me.
Czech out
I waited for the interview to continue with someone from the other side who would no doubt refute these accusations and hurl some of his/her own.
But there was no such interview. The piece closed. That was that.
The message was clear: treaty ratifiers = good; anti-ratifiers = not worth the bother really.
EU EU oh
This is fairly typical of the way the BBC does Europe. There’s an implicit assumption that the the European Union is a Good Thing, and that an ever-closer European Union is a Good Thing as well.
Yet a good proportion of licence-fee payers (in fact, I’d say a clear majority) doesn’t see things this way at all.
Given this, surely a little more Euro-rigour – perhaps even Euro-scepticism – is appropriate?
Absolutely agreed, it’s a sort of passive bias. The BBC doesn’t say anything one way or the other, but the choice of quotes or interviews spins the story.
I was also watching an article on MPs’ expenses, and a selection of newspaper headlines happened to include (entirely accidentally, I’m sure) two headlines which specifically hammered the Tories over expenses and none about any other party.