This article was originally published on RC on December 5, 2019.
Media bias - BBC or you?
We are subjective.
Our reality is seen subjectively by each individual; we just can’t help it. The degree of subjectivity and susceptibility to being subjective, however, varies widely. Welcome, Bias.
One’s inclination for something and one’s prejudice against another, considering all things, cannot be individually investigated. For example, I cannot get to the bottom of everything my best friend stands for or stands against. However, a collective voice in favour of or against something is more identifiable. Lest we forget: I create my own bias, and you create your own bias. Thus, my outlook on life is different from yours. My perception of bias is different from yours. My bias for a subject could be your bias against it. I shall not deny that there may exist corporation-level biases, but how much of such ‘bias’ do we agree with, based on our own individual inclinations and prejudices? As Roy Greenslade kindly put it, “Bias is in the eye of the beholder.” This subjective lens is especially important to bear in mind when we are looking at national institutions like the BBC.
BBC and Recent Criticisms of Political Bias
Since the beginning of this century, the BBC has had an increasing share of complaints. Even more prominent is its level of impartiality. This public perception is even more noticeable in politics, critics of which use the highly instrumental word “bias” as a measure of impartiality.
The reporters and their employers are not the only purported instigators of political bias; the politicians themselves haven’t helped. Their unbridled promises during election campaigns and the imminent amnesia that follows when elected into office seem to give support to that most fundamental of many individuals' biases—all politicians are liars. Then there are the critics. The ‘celebrated’ ones with academic prowess and/or glowing CVs, whose utterance supposedly will give us better insight into the subject at hand. But alas, apparently, they pick sides. We also call them biased. The same goes for the analysts, academics, and the occasional member of the public who manages to say the wrong thing in a vox pop—they are all biased. Then there's the corporation airing it all—definitely biased.
So when a politician with their own bias is interviewed by a journalist with their own bias, sometimes edited before broadcast by people with their own bias, directed by an individual with their own bias...
The BBC is a national institution, and for many a pride and joy—with good international standing. Defending it is all we can do. But we cannot defend it by criticising it for nearly everything. It’s not just the left, nor the right, but literally literary critics left, right, and centre. But is it the BBC that is really biased?
The claims of bias have become synonymous with lying. From the white lies of politicians, through the data manipulations by analysts, to the critics and academics who mix research results with personal beliefs, they all have an angle. At least that’s how we all see it. Once they have uttered a statement to support an argument, they mostly stand firm to defend it. Enter erroneous statements, latched onto by reporters with individual biases. The journalists who try to hold them to account are also human, keeping in mind our subjective nature. These individuals make up the corporation, individuals with different views. No matter how much a corporation tries to be impartial, the comments of its affiliated individuals will still be subjective—if not to the individual, definitely to someone else out there. The critic.
When ‘lies’ are caught out, people clash. When they are not caught out (yet), belief in such 'lies' is supported by each individual’s bias. When our bias is attacked and shattered, we naturally seek to defend it. This could be by calling others a liar or being outright biased. This reaction in itself is biased, isn't it? Which poses the question: “Who is really biased?”
If you join a heated debate and your opinion is sought, do you base your opinions on what has been argued from the start, or on arguments you witnessed? Consider how your expressed opinion will be interpreted by someone else, and how different sides of the argument might react. What happens when you find out a persuasive argument used during such a debate was based on false information (without which it wouldn’t have been persuasive)? Who do you blame for what, and who is truly biased—everyone who had a view, or you, with a different view?
Never mind that most of these academics, critics, and analysts may know their stuff. No, we ignore that. I don’t agree with you; you are biased. According to most polls (if you believe in them), most people have apparently changed their minds regarding the decision they made in the Brexit referendum. This makes the point that having these mixed opinions and analyses out there, however different, is informative in that regard, an advantage of this age of information technology. But one could also argue that the nature of this repetitive information (across the board)—which we were previously naive to—ultimately creates a perception of bias, a disadvantage. Admittedly, some analysts and journalists may have forgotten the basic principle of fact-checking, and the fast-rising credibility of the so-called “fact-checkers” is now in tatters. It might be time for a new brand of news reporting: “Alternative journalism.” Alternative comedy didn’t do badly after all, by breaking traditional formats to offer something fresh. But what will that look like? Spin doctors posing as journalists? Journalists who actually name their sources (so we know who to lynch)? Journalists with no personal opinions? Droids? And how the hell do we really know they are telling the truth?
I put it to you that the ‘lie’ that inevitably leads to being seen as biased is actually ‘misinformation’—the new term for white lies.
Age of Information`
The age of information clashes with the age of technology. We live in a world where our history and past activities are accessible at the click of a mouse, and something you said as a drunk, naive, and possibly stupid teenager umpteen years ago comes back to haunt you when you least expect it. The longer you are in the public eye, the more open to scrutiny you become. The more you leave yourself open to scrutiny—never mind the other alternative is to pack your job in—the more your past is delved into and compared to your yet undetermined future. The bias that led to such exploration for comparisons will effect the bias that feeds further down the pipeline of subsequent multiple biases. Words become twisted, and alternative truths become the headlines. The worst must be when someone’s private life history is made public, and the biases we have—either of the person, their job, the story, or just the way it was obtained—become the forefront of our opinion on the subject. We are kept on our toes, always on the alert for bias, quick to point out others’ wrongdoings, when in most cases it is one’s own unjust bias that is to blame.
Sometimes, truly, the truth is what you believe to be true.
We are force-fed information that warrants suspicion, but we are always suspicious where there is probably none. We have become indifferent when it matters, and vocal only where there is already noise.
For an age that is supposed to make us feel more fulfilled, its developments and the immoral uses of its technologies have led to the rise of other factors that blur our outlook on reality and have made us even more individually biased. These include, amongst other things, large-scale misinformation and, of course, fake news, to the betterment of propaganda and to the unwitting extreme detriment of democracy. The perpetrators of these acts are the real influencers, not a public corporation. They are individuals with warped views and equally warped practices—individuals from all walks of life. Few of them may or may not work for the BBC, but for those who do, their opinions, or indeed our perception of their opinions, should not be used to judge the corporation as biased. I say, bearing in mind our own individual biases, are we fit to judge who is really biased?
Dumbfounded critics of criticism, y compris moi, impact more on partiality and polarisation through social media than the Beeb and its journalism staff. That is the conclusion I have come to anyway, based on endless catfights and jibe-induced comments directed towards the BBC and its journalists on Twitter (now X). If such exists, God help a BBC staff member who quotes any ‘respected’ newspaper editor’s view on Twitter that differs from a follower’s view, or interviews in a style that differs from a certain wider audience’s approval. The same God will have to rescue the producer who is afraid to admit that their expected guest sent in a doctor’s note to explain their absence, because such indifference could be seen as partiality. At this rate, decent journalists will start to actually change their reports in order to satisfy the “impartiality police,” and then they’ll really be biased.
If we stop trusting all reporters and journalists, who is going to report the news? We only need to keep our defences up by personally sifting through the news we have, respecting the opinions of the individual reporting it, gathering wider-sourced reports individually, and always being open to criticism whilst being mindful of other people’s potential bias. One certainly does not need to stoke the fire, especially because of one’s own bias. Most journalists' errors appear to be not being able to substantiate the credibility of their reports on demand, as opposed to ‘taking sides’ when reporting. We need more evidence than an “in my opinion” outburst on social media to really call an institution like the BBC biased.
Thus, irrationality and a lack of due diligence do not constitute propaganda and bias. It’s probably just misinformation. Get the right information yourself!
By the way, how are you doing? Let me know your thoughts on bias and the media in the comments below!
