He says this just as Newscorp are about to buy Sky! How very odd..

“For example, Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, said he should be able to host a “debate” about immigration or Britain pulling out of Europe without having to present a countervailing point of view. That’s not debate then! ”

My thoughts exactly.

Maybe this sort of thing would be ok if we had stronger laws preventing the press from spreading lies and misinformation?

Having a British version of Fox News would certainly counteract the left leaning bias of the BBC. Since it is a BBC Chief calling for this move, he must be hoping the BBC could then openly support Labour, oh, sorry, they do already.

Yes John. Any news services that doesn’t constantly parrot your prejudices must be a direct supporter of Labour.

*Pats head*

We already do have several versions of Fox News it’s just that they are in print rather than on TV. I don’t see the problem with the concept that broadcast media (which has a much wider reach than print) should be broadly neutral, it’s not like there isn’t already plenty of space for people to peddle the prejudices in the British press.

“Media pluralism is essential to democracy”

Indeed it is which is why we should have, umm, media pluralism.

You know, just like we do with newspapers. Something for everyone, low brow rightwhingery (D Mail) to high brow such (Torygraph, Spectator) and insane leftiness (Whatever the SWP calls their paper these days) and sometimes rational leftiness (Indy perhaps).

And the very fact that we have hearts on sleeves political bias to the various newspapers is what gives us one of the most vibrant newspaper selections in the world (no, seriously, try reading some of the po-faced US press before you come over all teary eyed for “impartiality”).

BTW, it’s also worth noting the results of the academic studies on media bias. The various outlets don’t lead the readership into thinking a particular way: they chase their readers’ prejudices rather.

@ 6 Tim W

“The various outlets don’t lead the readership into thinking a particular way: they chase their readers’ prejudices rather.”

Surely this is a case where cause happens on both sides? So the Mail, to pick an easy example, runs stories about evil Muslims because it knows how much its readers enjoy those stories, but the stories themselves confirm and reinforce the view that Muslims are evil.

Also, I’m pretty sure that the Mail could use the themes it normally employs for existing hate groups to stir up hatred against another group that its readership generally doesn’t know much about.

Another favourite bugbear of the tabloid press is the “health and safety gone mad” issue, which is a problem the tabloids more or less invented.

6.
If Fox News wanted to call itself ‘Fox Opinion’ and not pretend to trumpet itself as ‘fair and balanced’ I wouldn’t have a problem with it in the slightest.

5. Agreed. Currently papers like the Daily Mail and the Sun fool their readers that it is written by and for people like them. The Sun writes in joky working-class vernacular (e.g. ‘It’s the Sun wot won it’) while being run by Rupert Murdoch, one of the biggest media moguls in the world. This should be disgusting enough on its own!

@ 8

Agreed. Opinion isn’t the problem, dressing opinion up as news is the problem.

I remember seeing a “fair and balanced” Fox News story titled “Liberal Venom”. It’s beyond parody.

In the linked article, Mark Thompson states:

Why shouldn’t the public be able to see and hear, as well as read, a range of opinionated journalism and then make up their own mind what they think about it?

But he doesn’t answer the implied question as to where will the public get the necessary information with which to make up their mind about it.

We’re in danger of ending up with a blatantly propagandist media industry at the same time as we have a government hell bent on destroying the sections of further education that encourage the kind of critical thinking necessary to see through media bias.

As Emily Davis says in her original article, seriously, WTF?!

@6 “The various outlets don’t lead the readership into thinking a particular way: they chase their readers’ prejudices rather”.

On the other hand, it leads to this:

Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/fox-news-viewers-are-the-_n_798146.html

@ 12

In fairness (and I should add that I think that the only group of adult Americans less well informed than Fox viewers is those who read or watch no news at all, and even then only maybe), the study appears to have picked not just misinformation, but right-wing misinformation that you would expect people who watch Fox to be especially likely to believe. Going by the information in the article, it seems a fairer title would be “Fox News viewers most likely to believe untrue negative statements about Obama”.

Fox News is hugely popular in the bipolar world on Yanky politics; a transition over to Blighty would have to be a different vehicle but why not? It’s hardly right that the BBC should crowd out so many independants and use its dominance to prevent alternatives.

Daily Mail TV? Ugh.

We already have FOX news up here only it goes under the title of the BBC.

http://newsnetscotland.com/politics/1242-bbc-scotland-and-the-lie-that-almost-brought-down-a-government

http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1117873-media-bias?ref=title

OP: “One of the reasons that Conservatives seem to be having such an easy time at the moment is that it is much easier scrap rules, initiatives and policies than it is to put them in place. Destruction is always easier than creation – so to rebuild impartiality again would be much harder.”

You could put that argument the other way. It is very difficult to create rules that work in practice (laws require hours of time from MPs, “Lords” and civil servants in their formulation). Lots of rules and initiatives do not work, so two options exist:

1. Scrap the rule/initiative, giving more time for consideration of things that matter.

2. Another circle of rule/initiative, trying to manage things that should not be managed.

Regarding mass broadcasters, there are existing laws and consensus that their news stories are honest. That does not mean that news stories are neutered. It means that journalists are expected to get their facts right and report both sides of any contentious story. It also allows investigative journalism that might be one sided but which is required to be honest.

The rules and consensus were constructed in a narrow band era. Most readers here grew up in an era of four TV channels, where C4 were the challenging upstart. We still get our current affairs information in a multi channel world from the same sources as 25 years ago: BBC news, ITN and what used to be Fleet Street. Perhaps I should add Sky News as an interloper, but it conducts itself like the old media.

I have deliberately used the word “honest” rather than “impartial” to describe how traditional media works. Investigative journalism should be honest, but that does not demand impartiality. A journalist can present a story about misconduct in a documentary; the consensus is that the accused can respond in the programme or in follow up programmes.

Thus, I am not concerned whether Fox News UK is established. If Fox News UK operates as a minority channel, it can broadcast whatever it wants. PressTV offers bonkers loads of hatred from Iran and it is available now on your browser should you wish to absorb filth.

I would be concerned if Fox News UK took over the identity of an existing broadcaster. But only a bit.

In the UK. mass broadcasters operate under a set of rules. Lefties and righties squawk in equal numbers about programmes. If Fox News UK establishes itself as a mass broadcaster, the same rules apply.

Could someone please explain why it is that the BBC is regarded as “liberal”?

As I recall, what happened as the result of Andrew Gilligan in an interview on 29 May 2003, just after 6am, with the BBC Today programme, referring to the government’s “sexed up” dossier on Iraq’s WMD, Gilligan was obliged to resign as the Today’s defence correspondent and find another job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gilligan

A little further on Greg Dyke, the BBC’s director general, was obliged to resign as well and all that was for a report that was essentially true.

The dossier on Iraq’s WMD was sexed up – it claimed four times that Iraq could use weapons of mass destruction within “45 minutes” of a command from Saddam Hussein: no WMD were found in Iraq after the invasion in March 2003.

OP: “For example, Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, said he should be able to host a “debate” about immigration or Britain pulling out of Europe without having to present a countervailing point of view. That’s not debate then!”

“How” or “Whether” ?

If people have already assumed an irrational immigration policy they might wish How to implement stupidity.That can still be a debate.

A counter argument is self defined in the Whether question.

“Impartiality in news broadcasting will never be ‘outdated’ or ‘extreme’. If it becomes so, then democracy will suffer”

Utter tosh. If anything, preventing a UK version of Fox News is bad for democracy. Doesn’t say much for free speech if you’re supporting banning a news outlet just because you don’t happen to like the way they present the news.

Do you not find that if you want to know about something then the best thing to do is read as many different articles from as many different authors as you can? That way you get a fuller picture, and you can iron out each authors own prejudices to get to a point where you understand the *thing*, subject of course to your own prejudices. Why should a news story be any different? If there’s a kettling story, I want to see reports from the pro-side of both camps and then I can make my own mind up.

BBC Radio five news this morning had sum-one From the tax alliance telling listeners that the #UKuncut -protests where wrong.
Because making company paying their taxes properly would leave the UK

But they did not have any one speaking on behalf of #UKuncut

strange ?

“For example, Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, said he should be able to host a “debate” about immigration or Britain pulling out of Europe without having to present a countervailing point of view. ”

Mackenzie is a two faced tosser.

That is typical of the hypocrites on the Right. It was their determination to push through the balance rule manly to attack the BBC back in the 80s. And The Sun and News of the World led the campaign, and demanded that the broadcasters should give right to reply. Mackenzie was editor at the time, so it is not surprising to see that he has now completely changed his views.

And the reason of course is FOX. The Right wing hate balance , they love corporate funded news because the Right then dominates the air ways, just like they dominate the written media.

The BBC is doing what it always does and tries to appease the far right. But you can never appease the right wing.

With ITN offering alternative TV news, the BBC does not have a monopoly of TV newscasts.

The fundamental issue re: Fox News is not just its notorious tendency to blend factual reporting with editorial opinion, it’s also a matter of how much UK media is already controlled from within the Murdoch empire. Try listing the press: The Times, The Sun, NoW, People etc. And Andy Coulson, previous editor of the NoW, now works in Downing St as the government’s communications director.

cynicalHiglander wrote:
“We already have FOX news up here only it goes under the title of the BBC”

He forgets to mention it is anti SNP and pro Labour.

We in England have the same problem with rampant loony left bias in the BBC, and only tribal thinking people (most on this blog) deny this obvious fact.
Listen to the daily ranting cuts, cuts, students, cuts bias of the Toady Programme and World at One, PM etc, while they tend to interview serial incompetent Labour ex ministers like Darling and Bob “a Job” Ainsworth of MOD infamy.
The BBC’s bible is the Guardian, and it is the mouthpiece of the Labour Party, especially when in the current leadership vacuum.
A week ago the World at One interviewed a Liberal Democrat minister who stated he would resign over the student fees issue. The bbc were cock a hoop over this “scoop” until they found they had interviewed a hoaxer. Ironically this story was in the Guardian of the 6th December.

“BTW, it’s also worth noting the results of the academic studies on media bias. The various outlets don’t lead the readership into thinking a particular way: they chase their readers’ prejudices rather.”

And in his next post Tim Rand will pull out of his arse an academic study that says the moon is made of blue Cheese.

@24: “Listen to the daily ranting cuts, cuts, students, cuts bias of the Toady Programme and World at One, PM etc, while they tend to interview serial incompetent Labour ex ministers like Darling and Bob “a Job” Ainsworth of MOD infamy. The BBC’s bible is the Guardian, and it is the mouthpiece of the Labour Party, especially when in the current leadership vacuum. etc”

Try:

Quote: UK consumer confidence drops ahead of spending cuts

Consumer confidence has fallen to its lowest level in almost two years, on the expectation that the economy will weaken over the next six months and spending cuts will make it harder to find a job.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8208713/UK-consumer-confidence-drops-ahead-of-spending-cuts.html

Quote: Consumer confidence fell to a 20-month low during November as people became increasingly pessimistic about the future of the economy, research shows.

Nationwide said its expectations index, which measures people’s optimism towards the economic situation in six months’ time, dived by nine points during the month to 61, its lowest level since March 2009 and more than 50 down on where it stood in November last year.

The fall was driven by a nine-point jump in the number of people who think the economy will be worse in six months’ time than it is today, while there was also an 8% fall in the proportion of people who think there will be many or some jobs available.

But consumers are also pessimistic about the current economic situation, with 69% of people saying they think it is bad, 5% more than during October. The number of people who believe there are not many jobs available also rose by 6% to 64%.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gsydZpzTtBLyECaHVQClagH9_Zgg?docId=N0189421292517110118A

Quote: The Treasury has insisted it is not drawing up a “Plan B” to prop up the economy if the recovery falters next year, in spite of proposals from Britain’s top civil servant that stimulus measures should be put on standby.

The suggestion, in a private memo by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, was revealed in Monday’s Financial Times. It caused irritation in the Treasury, which says its austerity plan is working.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb489d5a-07bf-11e0-a568-00144feabdc0.html#axzz18WAg88JK

Mark Thompson is an idiot and he also isn’t averse to giving the Israeli government a helping hand when it comes to presenting its ‘arguments’ in the media.

Don’t be stupid, Bob B. Why should evidence get in the way of a good paranoid conspiracy theory? Everyone knows that the BBC is actually run by Stalin’s reanimated corpse, some bloke in the pub said so.

This is the slippery slope. The fact that the BBC are suggesting it proves what I’ve been saying all along, that the BBC is the State propaganda machine and folk like Paxmand and Gavin Esler are establishment cronies, doing nicely from this compulsory tax, despite being unable to produce quality programming anymore.

As a Yankee who’s lived in a country that’s “benefitted” from the presence of Fox News, I’d call Mark Thompson’s proposal for a British version of Fox News a moronically short-sighted idea.

Here in the US, the major purpose of Fox News is to echo Republican Party talking points and misinform its viewers as much as possible. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina generated unsympathetic coverage from Fox towards poor black refugees. Murdoch’s network has claimed that recent extreme snowstorms disproves the existence of global warming, promotes the extremist paranoiac right-wing conspiracy theories of Glenn Beck (e.g. liberals are dedicated to undermining the US Constitution), and provides a regular media platform for glorified simpleton Sarah Palin. It also provides regular sympathetic coverage to the American fascist movement known as the Tea Party.

The most insidious aspect of Fox News is that it’s very effective in spreading conservative misinformation. Its viewers refuse to be swayed by facts which contradict Fox’s lies.

For Thompson to express interest in such an odious media model makes me seriously wonder about his commitment to free and open debate.