Well, Occupy Wall Street is being covered by the Mail and Telegraph, but the word has gone out to make that coverage uniformly hostile, as I noted here:

http://zelo.tv/q8KGFh

In the USA, the only host who is taking the protests seriously and reporting on them in depth appears to be Keith Olbermann at Current. No surprise there.

I work for the BBC News archive, and having spent the last 4 night shifts cataloguing many cut stories about the Occupy Wall Street protest that have gone out on various BBC News networks, I have to say that your central premise is simply incorrect.

…..except that it’s not true that the BBC ignored or downplayed it.

I’ve seen several reports on the TV news, heard items on the radio and have read 2 articles on the BBC website, where there’s also a slideshow of pics about the demo.

For what it’s worth, while the BBC’s coverage of the protests might not be amazing, it’s considerably better than most of the local coverage. Quite a few people I know in the USA have compared it very favourably to their local media networks for:
1 – covering the protests at all
2 – not taking the official state line on absolutely everything.

As they say, you know it’s bad when you have to watch foreign news to find out what’s going on in your own country…

If you were listening to the BBC’s flagship “Today” news programme at 6.45am or so this morning you’d have heard a report on it.

I see you make no points made about WHY the BBC should be reporting the protest. Could you enlighten us?

I read this, this morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15155046

Tim Fenton, so you didn’t like Brendan O’Neill’s piece on them in the Telegraph.
He is a wind up merchant I agree, but you shouldn’t dismiss him too quickly I think. He says:

An article on the Occupy Wall Street website claims “the working class in this country has been brainwashed by MSM, Fox News and the Right-wing propaganda machine”. It says everyday Americans, being stupid, do not understand what socialism is, because “they have been emotionally brainwashed against it”.

And they do say that. He gives the link to their website where they say it.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/theres-nothing-wrong-with-socialism/

I think perhaps you wrote this without actually having watched or listened to the BBC recently, James. That’s not unusual, it seems to be a pretty standard qualification for anybody attacking the BBC these days. It seems to me the protests have had plenty of coverage, about right for the size of the story. What else can they say? The protesters don’t have a programme or any specific demands, so the story can hardly evolve.

“The BBC is often held up in right-wing mythology as a kind of Marxist propaganda outlet staffed by ageing lefties who still think that they are still living in 1968.

In reality, the Corporation is anchored far more to the prevailing orthodoxy of laissez-faire economics than either its opponents or devotees would care to admit.”

MEH

The BBC is as unbiased as any news source is likely to get. Nevertheless, everybody who wants to see biases will see them. If you think the BBC is biased, that normally just shows that “objective analysis” does not mean “your opinion”.

I get most of my news from online news aggregators such as Reddit and Hacker News. I expect more and more people will do this, bypassing the power that major news organisations currently have to set the agenda.

@2 Did you change your name to get a job at the BBC? I’m thinking of going for Portersby Bartleby-Fufkin on my post-PhD application? What d’ya think?

@Portersby Bartleby-Fufkin – not my fault I’ve got a ridiculous name, if it’s any consolation they don’t pay me very much. I’ll look out for you in the TVC bar, I’ll be chatting with Binky Fetherington-Cocksby.

@9

It means that what the BBC considers newsworthy is influenced by the commercial sector that surrounds it.

@ 12 James

That part of your analysis is probably true. Although I’d also point out that (as with your George Osborne example), when the BBC just seems to repeat a politician’s announcement, that’s probably because it’s not its job to go digging around for controversy (plus the staff simply may not have the time to do so). If the Guardian disliked that announcement, they’d probably find a critical source to quote. The Beeb would be more likely to report the story, wait till the critical source denounced the policy of its own accord, then report that as another story.

@13

There are also problems with the idea of ‘balance’, Chaise.

Another extract from Nick Davies’s book:

‘Scientists spent two decades warning that the planet was heating up while journalists simply balanced what they were saying with denials from experts and oil companies. It was the same years ago when scientists tried to warn that smoking was linked to lung cancer, and journalists simply balanced their evidence with counterclaims from the tobacco industry. It was the same again in May 2006, when thirteen of the most senior doctors in Britain…wrote a public letter calling on the government to stop funding homeopathy and other ‘unproven or disproved treatments’. The journalists immediately reached for a homeopath who denounced the doctors’ letter snappily as “medical apartheid”, and the facts were soon buried in balance. The truth? Not our job….The demand for balance has become a gateway through which spokesmen for the consensus are invited to enter our stories with their comments, regarless of whether or not they are false, distorted or propaganda’.’

James,

no doubt Nick Davis is right. If large influential news organizations were able to reliably identify what’s true from what’s blather by vested interests and cranks, it would definitely be better for them to report truth and ignore rubbish.

But imagine saying to a large influential news organization: we trust you identify what’s true and important from what’s rubbish, please only report opposing views in order to explain they are rubbish.

I can see that going wrong.

I agree with you that we have a problem with “opinions over the shape of the earth differ” reporting, but perhaps we have that problem for a good reason: in general it’s safer to have new organizations that don’t take a view on what’s right or wrong (in the factual sense).

Admittedly, perhaps asking for a bit of discretion, in the most egregious cases, wouldn’t be too much to ask for.

It was the same again in May 2006, when thirteen of the most senior doctors in Britain…wrote a public letter calling on the government to stop funding homeopathy and other ‘unproven or disproved treatments’. The journalists immediately reached for a homeopath who denounced the doctors’ letter snappily as “medical apartheid”, and the facts were soon buried in balance. The truth? Not our job….

I understand the problem and I’m inclined to agree with the complaint, but what do you suggest?

@15

Yes of course. I do think we should defend the BBC, I just think that we should be aware that it is often heavily influenced by what its biased ‘competitors’ are saying.

@16

I’m only suggesting we are aware that balance itself has its problems.

Require journalists to List sources/provide references unless doing so would place somebody at risk (like a whistleblower). That way the role of PR firms becomes more obvious. Online versions should also link to original documents.

Two general points:

‘Balance’ is not the same thing as ‘objectivity’. For example, ‘balance’ is when you invite onto your programme a climatologist with years of peer-reviewed work behind him/her to debate AGW with, say, Milord Monckton. ‘Objectivity’ is when an interviewer puts equally searching and well-researched questions to two people who have differing views on the subject but who might both reasonably be presumed to know what they’re talking about.

‘Balance’ in this context is a cover for laziness or even cowardice; ‘objectivity’ shows some integrity in the journalist and some respect for the intelligence of the viewer/listener.

The second point is that we should sometimes be careful what we wish for. It would be perfectly possible for us to have Wall (Street) to wall coverage of what has been happening in NYC, but which would be of little value to those broadly supportive of OWS’ aims because all – or as near to ‘all’ as dammit – of that coverage would be negative. This appears to be what is happening in the US (mention should also be made of Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC’s comment on the violent policing ()).

What we really need in both of these cases is journalists with integrity and editors who will stand up to ideologically-motivated proprietors. What we actually have got are various types of rodent – from scaredy mice to sewer rats – who are content to be little more than stenographers to Power.

Sorry, upcocked the link there:

Lawrence O’Donnell

I do not believe the BBC has lurched to the Right as such, I do believe it has dumbed down to accommodate the fuckwits among the Right in a vain attempt to avoid accusations of ‘bias’.

‘I do not believe the BBC has lurched to the Right as such, I do believe it has dumbed down to accommodate the fuckwits among the Right in a vain attempt to avoid accusations of ‘bias’

The BBC hasn’t had high standards for decades. I spent a reasonable part of my masters degree looking at the history of the media in Britain and the only point when it was ever intelligent was when John Reith was using it to try and ‘ educate’ the masses into becoming Middle class. As soon as the Radio times got printed and people could more effectively choose what they wanted to listen to the BBC had to respond by producing popular programs, which were more often than not low brow rather than high brow.

Its not dumbing down to avoid accusations of bias, its dumbing down because people are dumbing down due to ever decreasing attentions spans as they have much wider access to other outlets and activities to grab their attention.

The BBC, like all things which operate in a market ( which is basically everything) aims at the lowest common denominator unless they’re a niche outlet ( i.e. BBC 4)

OWS have been “protesting” (basically sitting on the floor, occasionally banging drums, holding up ragged and incoherent placards made from pizza box tops) outside my workplace in Chicago for the last week and a half. They never amounted to more than a few dozen people, and were generally ignored by everyone. The “brutal” police indulged them by not enforcing laws on vagrancy to move them on, and even allowing them to sleep in their cars.

Today they are all gone. Just like that. Protest over. Looking forward to LibCon reporting the imminent collapse of what the Left clearly imagined was its answer to to the Tea Party (with about a thousandth of the numbers or credibility).

I have to say that your central premise is simply incorrect.

In fact, the liberal media has bigged up these protests far, far beyond anything justified by the numbers of people involved. Pretty much all of whom have been middle-class, unwashed and white, and skipping the beginning of their new college semester. The Guardian’s coverage, in particular, has been utterly risible. Oh well, if the Left wants to set itself up for an almighty and humilitating fall, so be it. Wouldn’t be the first time.

The BBC were extremely slow off the mark in reporting it – yes, they’ve snapped to it now but I searched for coverage having heard a fair bit via twitter, boingboing, reddit etc over several days, and there was nothing on /news.

I disagree with the idea that it’s because they’re in favour of laissez-faire free markets – their coverage of the student protests/riots really shocked and surprised me. The two things that stick out in my mind are 1) the BBC Cambridge reporter describing students staging a peaceful (but noisy) sit-in as “an absolute rabble”, and 2) the News 24 anchor describing, over shots of horses charging the kettled crowd, the police ‘using horses to calm the crowd’.

it made me very sad and disenchanted with their lack of objectivity – and balance and objectivity are both things News aims for, and usually get right. But at heart, they are the voice of the establishment, and there is a tendency to treat the hoi polloi as wrong until proven valid in matters of public order, especially when confrontations with the police occur.

14. James Bloodworth

There are also problems with the idea of ‘balance’, Chaise.

Notice that every single case you cite is a scientific issue. You can show with hard stuff like maths that smoking causes lung cancer. You can’t use Maths to show that while disability makes people worse in the long run, the benefits in the short term of being a compassionate society out weigh it.

We can have a debate about balance in scientific stories. About how the media is full of third rate minds who are incapable of understanding the nuances of serious stories. About how the media should not be acting as a gate keeper to the truth. How science merges into advocacy and what the BBC should do about it.

Or we can just agree that balance in non-scientific stories is important.

“the prevailing orthodoxy of laissez-faire economics ”

What utter, utter rubbish. What laissez-faire? How is bailing out banks and printing up billions of dollars and pounds ‘laissez-faire?

You people are stuck in an intellectual ghetto with this obsession about left versus right. When are you going to wake up and realise what ‘divide and rule’ means?

When the Tea Party were protesting against bail-outs you called them a bunch of racists, and hastened the day that it got co-opted back into the mainstream with Koch money. Now another group of people – many of them the same – express the same kind of sentiment, you’ll laud them to the skies.

You think the state will save you from the bankers? The state *is* the bankers.

The answer is liberty and – yes – laissez faire.

Having read some of the coverage of these people and their demand, I would have thought they would be delighted the BBC is ignoring them.

It is probably the best thing the 68ers who run the Beeb could do for them.

And now SMFS is attributing to others the philosophy which is advocates himself. How cute. You’ve spun into a circle!

Here is some balanced coverage from Russia of all places;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG_TKAJyV6k&feature=player_embedded

And this appears to be an activist, which might give another sense of the feeling there;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFdIa-F2GM

The “balance” is the reason that Brendan O’Neill gets on the BBC as a professional contrarian. Women there complaining about sexual harrassment on the streets? Get BO’N on there to call them a bunch of Victorian prisses who are opposing the rights of blokes to shout “Nice tits” at them. Without the “balance” of the BBC BO’N's idiotic contrarianism would never be heard.

Another Tom wrote: ‘I see you make no points made about WHY the BBC should be reporting the protest. Could you enlighten us?’

Well, perhaps because the BBC, like most British media, has a peculiar fascination with anything, important or trivial, that happens in the USA.

I think B O’Neill provides some useful criticism K B Player. Even when he’s not all that good. A movement like this Wall Street one is crying out for someone – who’s not on the right in the way that Fox News are – to seek some clarification as to what is going on there. What is going on there? It’s a mish mash of people protesting just about everything. Pretty directionless as far as I can tell.

Also, how should the BBC cover it? It’s not really suitable for the main evening news programmes, as it would only get two minutes and no one would be any the wiser. It’s more suited to a documentary like programme, but that wouldn’t go out at prime time as it’s not important enough. So the story gets relegated to lesser time slots and over night radio.

Btw, I think it was perfectly reasonable to be critical of the ‘Slut-walk’ marches. And it’s not just a bloke thing. B O’Neill has plenty of women writing for him. Like this one.

Disdainful and conspiracy-minded, the protesters claiming to speak for all Americans are acting like teenage despots.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11145/

@ 15 James Bloodworth

See what the Judge and SMFS said. I’m not arguing that the BBC should be perfectly balanced between the two most extreme POVs, even on moral issues, let alone scientific ones.

The Beeb doesn’t have to pretend that evolution, the link between smoking and cancer etc. are scientifically controversial to achieve objectivity. I’d be perfectly happy with the BBC saying “this is evolution, it is a fact, some religious people dislike it because the facts contradict their beliefs”, although it’s probably not the most diplomatic route to take.

I was wrong. The Chicago protest is not over — when I left the office yesterday, they were back in force, around 50-60 protesters. What happened, I think, is that yesterday I got in early, ~9am, and OWS were all still in bed. By the time I left, after 6pm, the protest was back — but unfortunately for them, nobody was around to see at, as the Loop is a ghost town after business hours. Clearly, if you want to make a point about the finance industry and disrupt it’s daily existence a little, it helps to keep the same hours as that industry, not those typical for privileged and lazy students.

@James Bloodworth – it is worth remembering that one can be both “anti-worker” AND left-wing – the Fabians have epitomised that since the days of Beatrice and Sidney, which is the very root of the British Left’s tragic fate, imho.

Thank you for this. I was shocked the by the way the BBC failed to provide adequate coverage of the earlier protests in Madrid, but the way they initially ignored Occupy Wall St and then defamed the protesters as ‘fringe’ and woolly minded has confirmed to me that someone with an agenda is pulling strings at the BBC. It’s disappointing as I always believed that the BBC were impartial, and I am very suspicious that it is a symptom of our rights to free speech/information being eroded under our very noses. So thank god for Democracy Now; I will be looking to them for my information from now on.

I feel sorry for the BBC. Easily the most objective news source we have, and yet those on the left and the right are all too happy to whine that it’s bias in the other direction, because it doesn’t report the news in the way that they would report the news. It’s quite simple – you think the BBC is right leaning because it’s more right leaning then you, which it should be, because you are left of centre. I expect this of right wing dinosaurs in the Mail but it’s always a little disappointing to see it coming from the left too.

Talk of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in this is futile, as it completely misses the point.

The division is between ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’, i.e. between those who have their hands on the levers of political and economic power and those who are expected simply to be happy little consumers and know their place.

As essentially part of that power structure (a rôle which was recognised as far back as 1926), the BBC is always going to know on which side its bread is buttered and will seldom step far outside the terms of engagement set for it.

This isn’t just a BBC thing, it applies to all corporate media. On the Saturday when millions marched through London against Blair’s war on Iraq for example, the ITN evening news bulletin started with a seven- or eight-minute slab about the ‘revelation’ that John Major (“Oh, yes!!”) had been knocking off Edwina Currie about fifteen years before; this was followed by a mention of the march in London, but showing a clip of Blair arriving at some conference in – I think – Italy; and then it was on to the sports news and finito.