The negatives of 'Impartial' Reporting

Ok, so in a previous blog I mentioned in passing that the BBC's commitment to impartial reporting sometimes leads to a lower quality of reporting. I said this was because they have to take into account the views of all conflicting groups, regardless of the plausibility of their claims.

Well, I now have a concrete example of this.

The BBC reported that Ukrainian troops were retreating from Debaltseve. The use of the word 'retreat' in the title implied that they had somehow 'lost' the military conflict but the article, which you can read here, gave a very unclear account of the statements made by the Ukrainian politicians and President Putin.

In other words, it did not explicitly say whether it was a forced retreat, or a voluntary retreat aimed at creating goodwill to help the progress of the Minsk Agreement.

Contrast the BBC's style with this far more direct article from the Guardian. The subtitle of the article reads 'Retreat from contested railway hub connecting Donetsk and Luhansk marks strategic victory for rebels'. Given the evidence presented in the Guardian article and, interestingly, even in the BBC article, it is clear that the Ukrainians did indeed suffer a military defeat.

Now, it could be argued that the evidence presented in the BBC article allows people to reach their own conclusions given the evidence presented before them. However, the reality is that a lot of people do not have the time, inclination or knowledge necessary to undergo this type of analysis.

This isn't a case of the media giving its opinion on the quality of different parties' environmental policies, in which case the BBC should rightly remain impartial. This is a case of the media giving people correct information that they otherwise would not have.

The BBC needs to stop promoting impartiality at all costs and implement a policy of what I shall term 'informed impartiality'.

p.s. I promise my next post won't be about the BBC...

'Foreign' criminals and the BBC

Note: This article is not intended to make a normative point about the values of multiculturalism, immigration or anything similar. It merely points out what might be an interesting inconsistency in BBC reporting between TV and online

It is often alleged that the BBC has a left-wing, vegetarian, liberal agenda. To some extent this is true. In my opinion, their attempt to remain as impartial as possible sometimes leads to misleading reporting. This is often separate from a left-wing bias - I sometimes wonder how much effort they have to go to in order to find an opinion that deviates from the mainstream; all in the name of 'impartiality'. I believe the news would be better reported if minority views, such as that climate change (of the anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic sort) is not happening, were ignored. Providing them with a platform gives them a legitimacy that their lack of evidenciary credibility does not deserve.

The topic I will discuss today is not necessarily misleading. I actually haven't made my mind up about whether it is or isn't. It is, however, pretty interesting.

Today the BBC reported that a man was 'arrested as he made his way to behead a soldier'. It turned out that the man was Muslim. Now, the TV version of BBC news announced in its introductory sentence that the man was Muslim. The article (linked above) does no such thing. If one were to simply read the blurb on the BBC News homepage, which I consider to be the equivalent of the introductory sentence to a TV news story, the man's religion would not be apparent. Now, I am not saying that his religion is important, or that the BBC is being 'soft' on Islamic fundamentalism. I am just pointing out a difference.

This same difference in reporting occured when a gang of 4 Polish nationals assaulted and beat up a lecturer in late 2014. The TV news immediately called them Polish, whilst the first iteration of the article I read didn't discuss their nationality. A subsequent BBC article mentions just once that they were 'Polish nationals' but again, this is not in the story's blurb. Whilst it would have been clear to any British person that their names were Eastern European, their precise nationality would have been less obvious.

This also contrasts with the reporting of the story by other newspapers, as (perhaps unsurprisingly) the Telegraph, Evening Standard and Daily Mail all referred to the men as Polish in the title. 

So why this difference? Well, with a sample size of two I cannot really say with any confidence that there is a difference. However, a brief google shows that younger (and perhaps more impressionable) individuals use online news sources whilst older (and perhaps less impressionable) demographics tend to dominate TV news. An alternative explanation would say that younger people are less xenophobic and so have complained or would complain if the news they read was perceived to be racist. However, as they don't watch TV news, they don't complain about that.

Is any of this relevant? Are my explanations plausible? Who knows. Maybe. Perhaps you can comment if you have an opinion...

A Changing Tide in Pre-election Giveaways

David Cameron recently announced that there is an 'economic, moral and practical' case for lower taxation. But why announce a change in taxation that will only come into effect in 2020 now? Those who think this might be because the tax cuts will be phased in, meaning we start to feel their effects in 2016, need to remember that the Conservatives are planning rapid deficit reduction, so it's unlikely that they'll get introduced until the end of the next Parliament. Now, what Cameron actually forgot to mention was that there is also an unashamedly opportunistic case for the introduction of lower taxation at the time of a general election. 

The interesting point about this announcement is not that a pre-election tax giveaway has been announced, as all parties are guilty of doing this, but that it has been announced so far in advance of the next time we go to the polls.

Presumably the rationale for this has come from the recent criticism by newspapers of the Coalition Government's give-away of pensioner bonds. These couldn't be justified by the coalition's economic policy (i.e. the need for fiscal austerity), as they cost more in interest than gilts of the same maturity. What they could be justified as was as a reminder to the over 65s, who turn out in far greater numbers and tend (though not overwhelmingly) to vote Tory, of where their allegiances should lie.

By pre-announcing the tax cuts by a full five years, no-one will be able to criticise Cameron for opportunistic giveaways in 2020. Instead, we shall have years of drastic deficit cuts and (coincidentally???? - though this is a discussion for another time) reductions in the size of the state by 2019-2020, followed by a sudden upturn in our disposable income... just in time for voting season!

Now as I said, all parties are guilty of this. The IFS have shown that a net tax cut had been given in 1992 and 2001, by the Tories and Labour respectively. However, it should be noted that Labour, despite having the economic conditions to allow it, chose not to provide a giveaway in 2005, even though that was the election when Tony Blair began to face substantial criticism of the Iraq war, causing support for his party to drop by 5.5% relative to 2001.

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

That parties provide pre-election giveaways? Sure, obviously

That David Cameron's proposal marks the beginning of a new trend towards pre-emptive pre-election giveaways? Perhaps, it's certainly plausible this time round

That the Conservatives are more opportunistic than Labour? I have a sneaking suspicion about this one, though no-where near enough evidence to prove it so, for now, I'll say "probably not" through gritted teeth,