A decade of BBC propaganda

[Judi Lynn]

Saturday, January 16, 2010
A decade of BBC propaganda

RESEARCHERS at the University of the West of England, UK, have exposed ongoing and systematic bias in the BBC's news reporting on Venezuela.

Lee Salter and Dave Weltman analysed 10 years of BBC reports on Venezuela since the first election of Hugo Chavez to the presidency in an on-going research project, and their findings so far show that the BBC’s reporting falls short of its legal commitment to impartiality, truth and accuracy.

The researchers looked at 304 BBC reports published between 1998 and 2008 and found that only three of those articles mentioned any of the positive policies introduced by the Chavez administration.

The BBC has failed to report adequately on any of the democratic initiatives, human rights legislation, food programmes, health care initiatives or poverty reduction programmes.

Mission Robinson, the greatest literacy programme in human history received only a passing mention.

According to the research, the BBC seems never to have accepted the legitimacy of the president, insinuating throughout the sample that Chavez lacks electoral support, at one point comparing him to Hitler (‘Venezuela’s Dictatorship’ August 31, 1999).

This undermining of Chavez must be understood in the context of his electoral record: his legitimacy is questioned despite the fact that he has been elected several times with between 56 percent and 60 percent of the vote.

In contrast victorious parties in UK elections since 1979 have achieved between 35,3 percent and 43,9 percent of the vote; the current UK Prime Minister was appointed by his predecessor, and many senior members of the British cabinet have never been elected.

It will come as no surprise that their legitimacy is never questioned by the BBC.

More:
http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=14397&cat=10

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Interestingly, the Beeb is held up here as a standard of good journalism. I am sorry

to hear about the issues in the OP.

[Divine Discontent]

2. hmm. well that's good at all! I guess sensationalism sells papers, gets viewers, hits, etc

[nosmokes]

3. Still, they're light years ahead of what passes for journalism here in the US.

[bemildred]

4. BBC reporting in Latin America and Africa is generally lacking.

But since they are under attack at home for their supposed "liberal bias", I don't want to be too harsh with them. I can't really think of any news source that doesn't dissemble a bit when their own nuts are in a vise.

[Peace Patriot]

5. 304 reports, 3 positive, 301 negative. That is Associated Pukes level of bias.

And it might even beat the Miami Hairball.

I guess we need a new name for the BBC. The Big Bad Con? The Bee Bee can't See? The BBCIA? The Biased Brits Corporation?

[Doctor_J]

7. Not too much different than the US

many DUers swallow all of the anti-Hugo propaganda too.

[Doctor_J]

6. This is bizarre

the BBC’s reporting falls short of its legal commitment to impartiality, truth and accuracy.

In the US the propagandists have no legal commitment to truth. Fox sued for the right to lie, and won.

[BR_Parkway]

8. Can't have the little folks finding out that other systems may be better

for those not at the top of the food chain can we? It might disturb the status quo

[BlueMTexpat]

9. I used to have access to all the BBC channels via the Sky satellite,

and IMO, what is most generally the face of the Beeb to global viewers, i.e., BBC World, has become much more conservative than it used to be. Again IMO, the one that presented the most ground-breaking, thought-provoking and more globally sensitive news and issues was BBC 4 or simply Channel 4. This was the channel that got in trouble for repeating Dr. David Kelly's comments about the "sexing up" of the Iraq dossier. As those who followed that story know, Dr. David Kelly "committed suicide" during the hullaballoo that resulted. Since then, the Downing Street memos and the Chilcot enquiry are showing that the Channel 4 reports were right on target.
Still, I agree with those who say that the World Beeb, however far it has fallen since its glory days and how it more often reflects US-type bias in its coverage of certain areas of the world, is still better than most of what passes for TV (or radio) news coverage in the US.
NPR and the PBS NewsHour are the only comparable competitors, IMO.

[Overseas]

10. K&R.

When all I could see was "A Decade of BBC Propaganda" on the home page listing of Editorials, I immediately thought that it must be about Venezuela.

I am glad their lack of objectivity with regard to the Chavez administration has been analyzed. Thanks for the posting.