'Racist in Peace'
Our coverage of the death of Bernard Manning provoked lively debate in the Glass Box on the PM Blog last night (the Glass Box is where listeners comment and discuss what they thought of the programme each day). We interviewed Frank Carson and some listeners felt our coverage proved we are a bunch of liberal lefties. What do you think? (listen to it here).
Ironically the item was followed by a look at the . The report demonstrates how impartiality can be a fiendishly tricky concept. For me, had we interviewed a critic of Bernard Manning asking 'how racist was he then?' that would be a lefty perspective. Had we just asked Frank Carson to eulogise his friend that would have been partial as well.
The assumption we made was that Bernard Manning was a controversial comic who many accused of being racist. It is the same line taken by all the national press today from liberal lefty ones to the Sun's 'Racist in Peace' headline.
Some listeners say that because Carolyn Quinn put the allegations of racism to Mr Carson and asked how he felt about it that must be the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s view. I find this pretty simplistic.
If we challenge a contributor it does not mean that the position the interviewer is taking is 'the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ view'. The fact that we gave air time to a friend of Mr Manning who gave a powerful and moving tribute does not mean we support that view either. All we are trying to do is to find the most effective way of telling a story in a way consistent with our obligation to be impartial.
Comments
A large portion of the right-wing press (and by extension, a large part of the country, since most of the UK's press is right-wing) will always have it in for the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳.
I noticed Sky and ITV both touching on the race issue as well in the people they were talking to about Bernard. Yet neither of them are being called liberal-biased in response. Go figure.
I think you handled it about right, though I'm sure you've accepted by now that you're damned whatever you do.
It is by no means a easy subject - but I was musing on how humor is ok when it comes from those at who its about. The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s own "Goodness gracious me" was brillant but was about race. Just as "Miss Joycline" is very good but its about race. I did not like Mr Mannings work but my parent thought he was great. I guess that sums it up. Generation have different values and we have all become a bit more sophisticated and educated. At the end of the day, as my Dad would always say, he is another human being. May he rest in peace, regardless of what people thought of him.
People are confusing controversy and bias.
Good journalism is controversial, good journalists ask difficult questions.
Carolyn Quinn had absolutely no choice but to ask Carson about Manning's racism - supposed, actual or otherwise.
It is the only news angle in town on a story like this and the one readers, listeners and viewers will expect to be answered.
Evidence of liberal bias? More like evidence of basic editorial standards.
Leftism pervades the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ though doesn't it, as many current and former ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ employees (eg Marr,Aitken) seem willing to admit.
When was the last time John Humphrys questioned any interviewee from the right. "Surely it's time to think about introducing education vouchers, Mr Johnson?"
What was the last time there was a ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ drama which put forward a right-wing view of the world. Yes Prime Minister perhaps? That was what, twenty years ago now.
You see, the problem is that people confuse what they see on television with the news. The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ self-admittedly contribute much to that sad notion. Your legendary Left Wing bias and sectarian agenda transformed you from the business of reporting the news to trying to change them. Therefore, the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ defrauded itself and lost all moral credibility. One sidedness and glaring partiality galore.
As your very own Oscar Wilde once said:" The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple"
Greetings
Speedy Gonzales
What I find simplistic is phrases like this; "If we challenge a contributor it does not mean that the position the interviewer is taking is 'the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ view'".
The only time anything is "challenged" by a beeb reporter or presenter is when it doesn't fit in with the approved beeb pinko worldview. Any time someone is on from a favourite lefty pressure group or party then they won't be "challenged" at all.
This is where the bias is, it encompasses all aspects of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s output. The beeb is just a cosy lefty-liberal club, the sooner it is sold off the better.
The problem many people have with the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is that by being impartial it often takes and presents viewpoints which are not in the British interest. This maddens many (including me) as I am the one funding the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳, not those we are at war with in Afganistan and Iraq. Often the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ comes across as a propoganda machine for militant Islam. And then there's the way views are presented on key shows, such as Question Time, where leftish leaning individuals often out number rightish leaning people on the panel, it should be even in number to be fair. For example, I may not be a supporter of the BNP, but I never see them on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳, yet I get to see the Green Party (well meaning but largely wrong on everything by being too extreme) and various other hard left individuals like the Director of Liberty and Mr Crow of the Transport Union (and an Ex-Communist) to name a few. Why not risk putting Nick Griffin on the show - that would show the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ being far more fairer and impartial and allow his policies to be critically challenged?
From the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Trust report:
"These dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as 'flat-earthers' or 'deniers', who 'should not be given a platform' by the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ must give them appropriate space. 'Bias by elimination' is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming."
So will you actually invite those skeptics to write regular op-ed and commentaries or will it be the occasional skeptic sandwich and entire series devoted to extreme environmentalism (ie business as usual)?
Personally, I actually commented on the quality of the reporting of this death in the evening news - it actually sounded genuinely unbiased whilst noting the criticisms levelled at this guy. Shame you can't acheive this standard with all of your reports.
So, many people were offended by Manning's racial & sexual humour. They took exception to his overt reference to colour, religion, dress code, sexuality.
Well, many of my generation take exception to Ben Elton, Billy Connolly, Little Britain ranting, filthy language & crude depictions of men, women & children.
Oh, but, they are 'modern humourists', so that's supposed to be alright then! The fact that they are every bit as unpleasant in our view as Manning etc. from his era just makes us old-fashioned & bigoted.
Okay, I'd rather be OUT-DATED than finding the parody of a 'gay', or explicitness about 'breast-feeding', or 'women's periods', or 'vomiting' as "FUNNY"!?
i agree with many of the comments. i saw the itn piece on bernard mannings' death and they also touched on the race issue. the bbc were good in the fact they reported the death of who to many was a hero and a great comic. if the bbc were partial then they may not have reported his passing at all. whether or not people see his act as being offensive (i for one find the goodness gracious me "go for an english" scetch offensive but this was acclaimed on channel four as being one of the bestcomedy scetches ever,) the man is now dead and should be allowed to rest in peace.
"I noticed Sky and ITV both touching on the race issue as well in the people they were talking to about Bernard. Yet neither of them are being called liberal-biased in response. Go figure."
There are at least 2 major differences between the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ and ITV/Sky.
The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is funded by a compulsory licence fee. Not so with ITV/Sky.
The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ has a charter obligation to be impartial. Not so with ITV/Sky.
"We interviewed Frank Carson and some listeners felt our coverage proved we are a bunch of liberal lefties. What do you think?"
I don't think, I know.
I will state clearly that your listeners sound as if they're very polite and obviously masters of English understatement.
I no longer watch nor listen to anything you traitors produce in the way of drama, news or current affairs. My health, both temporal and Spiritual are far to precious to be contaminated by the stench of the propaganda effluence that emanates from your rotten, stinking, treacherous organisation.
Bernard Manning was angelic when compared with your self-righteous PC attitudes. Hypocrites and whited sepulchres!
Adrian Clegg