What do you think?
Rate this book
Can We Trust the BBC?
The BBC is the most famous media brand in the world, and is growing bigger and more powerful every year. It has a reputation for honest and accurate journalism, but this book argues that the Corporation has a strong internal culture which is biased to the left and which imperils its objectivity. By analysing the BBC's coverage of issues like Europe and Northern Ireland it demonstrates how some groups and viewpoints get favourable treatment, while others are left out in the cold.
The book examines the concept of 'public sector broadcasting' and asks if that should merely mean radio and television free of commercial bias. It looks at the background and political leanings of prominent BBC journalists and asks what it takes to prosper in the organization. It analyses the BBC's treatment of moral debates and reveals a secret report that was highly critical of Panorama. Drawing on the author's 25 years as a BBC reporter, the book blends analysis and polemic to paint a picture of life inside the news machine from a uniquely privileged point of view. It also tells the story of how the BBC responded to a dissident in its own ranks. This book asks a big question; how much trust should we put in the BBC, and how can we make sure it lives up to its obligations to be even-handed and impartial?
The book examines the concept of 'public sector broadcasting' and asks if that should merely mean radio and television free of commercial bias. It looks at the background and political leanings of prominent BBC journalists and asks what it takes to prosper in the organization. It analyses the BBC's treatment of moral debates and reveals a secret report that was highly critical of Panorama. Drawing on the author's 25 years as a BBC reporter, the book blends analysis and polemic to paint a picture of life inside the news machine from a uniquely privileged point of view. It also tells the story of how the BBC responded to a dissident in its own ranks. This book asks a big question; how much trust should we put in the BBC, and how can we make sure it lives up to its obligations to be even-handed and impartial?
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
Hardcover
First published July 1, 2007
1 person is currently reading
39 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 9, 2012
Can We Trust the BBC? is Robin Aiken’s devastating expose of leftist bias at the BBC. Of course every thinking person already knew the BBC could not be trusted, but Aiken provides the evidence from the inside.
Aiken worked at the BBC for many years and he gives us the inside dirt on the systematic and institutionalised bias. The bias is not merely unconscious, a product of the silly left-wing ideologies that journalists seem to be drawn to, it is calculated and deliberate. A political agenda is being pushed shamelessly and ruthlessly.
The vindictiveness with which political opponents are pursued by the BBC is one of the more terrifying aspects of the book.
Most worrying of all perhaps has been the unwillingness of conservative governments in Britain to confront this problem.
The parallels between the BBC and Australia’s ABC are all too obvious, an all too depressing.
Highly recommended.
Aiken worked at the BBC for many years and he gives us the inside dirt on the systematic and institutionalised bias. The bias is not merely unconscious, a product of the silly left-wing ideologies that journalists seem to be drawn to, it is calculated and deliberate. A political agenda is being pushed shamelessly and ruthlessly.
The vindictiveness with which political opponents are pursued by the BBC is one of the more terrifying aspects of the book.
Most worrying of all perhaps has been the unwillingness of conservative governments in Britain to confront this problem.
The parallels between the BBC and Australia’s ABC are all too obvious, an all too depressing.
Highly recommended.
September 3, 2012
This book has really woken me up. I have realised that all my views have been shaped by the BBC which is totally biast. I am so glad I have read this book and I think everyone should to educate themselves especially if they use any of the BBC services.
April 21, 2019
(If possible I'd give this book 4.5 stars, but rounded it to 5, because for anyone truly interested in a behind the scenes look at BBC news it really is worth the read.)
The book asks the question "Can we trust the BBC?" In the current era of so-called 'Fake News' it's an interesting question to ask, and this book (written in 2007) offers some insights.
The author (a journalist whose 25 years at the BBC led to his becoming a senior reporter regularly featuring on the main BBC news programmes) presents a significant amount of evidence why the most honest answer is that it depends...
Aitken argues, from the perspective of a former insider, that while a lot of the BBC output is still as good as anything available elsewhere, much is now prejudiced by an unquestioning acceptance of a set of political and cultural assumptions that many people, possibly even most people, do not share.
The overall picture I got of the BBC can be summarised by the old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" with attempts to update, streamline, and otherwise improve BBC journalism resulting in a bubble of very intelligent but self-regarding people, almost all from similar backgrounds and having similar beliefs, gradually detaching itself and floating off into some alternative reality the rest of us don't have the luxury of inhabiting.
A few points made in the book will give a flavour of what it describes.
1. The traditional style of BBC news was to restrict itself to reporting the who, what, where, and when of a story to give a factual account and avoid giving any opinion, allowing the viewer/listener to draw their own conclusions. This was changed, largely in the late 1980's to include the why of the story, theoretically as part of the BBC's "mission to explain".
Inevitably, the personal beliefs of reporters began to creep in, a process which has now progressed to some news reports consisting of little more than journalists asking each other their opinions on something (of which they may have a very limited understanding), with very little actual factual reporting. This results in the beliefs and prejudices of a small circle, mostly politically left of centre, being presented as unquestioned truth.
2. Current affairs programmes often use the technique of having a panel of guests to discuss a topic. This is now commonly heavily weighted in favour of one side of the argument (always the side the BBC culture favours), with the other side represented by either a single individual, or sometimes no-one at all. This can hardly be considered impartial and leaves the impression that a general consensus of opinion exists in favour of one side, when the truth may be the exact opposite.
3. To me, perhaps the most interesting part of the book was the way the BBC seems to have reported the issue of the EEC/EU over the last half century. I was unaware of the story of how, in the early 1970's, the government had prepared the way for joining the then EEC by getting the BBC to remove at least one very prominent radio presenter, and possibly other journalists, who were seen as being insufficiently pro EEC. The default position has been one of strong support ever since.
Overall, the book gives substantial evidence for its case: anecdotal from the author, interviews with other BBC staff, and excerpts from various reports on the BBC compiled over many years.
As I wrote at the start of my review, well worth the read for anyone interested in a behind the scenes look at the UK's most influential news source. I think anyone reading this book will have a better understanding of how the BBC's biases developed over the years, and those who have previously blindly trusted will likely become far more sceptical than they were before.
The book asks the question "Can we trust the BBC?" In the current era of so-called 'Fake News' it's an interesting question to ask, and this book (written in 2007) offers some insights.
The author (a journalist whose 25 years at the BBC led to his becoming a senior reporter regularly featuring on the main BBC news programmes) presents a significant amount of evidence why the most honest answer is that it depends...
Aitken argues, from the perspective of a former insider, that while a lot of the BBC output is still as good as anything available elsewhere, much is now prejudiced by an unquestioning acceptance of a set of political and cultural assumptions that many people, possibly even most people, do not share.
The overall picture I got of the BBC can be summarised by the old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" with attempts to update, streamline, and otherwise improve BBC journalism resulting in a bubble of very intelligent but self-regarding people, almost all from similar backgrounds and having similar beliefs, gradually detaching itself and floating off into some alternative reality the rest of us don't have the luxury of inhabiting.
A few points made in the book will give a flavour of what it describes.
1. The traditional style of BBC news was to restrict itself to reporting the who, what, where, and when of a story to give a factual account and avoid giving any opinion, allowing the viewer/listener to draw their own conclusions. This was changed, largely in the late 1980's to include the why of the story, theoretically as part of the BBC's "mission to explain".
Inevitably, the personal beliefs of reporters began to creep in, a process which has now progressed to some news reports consisting of little more than journalists asking each other their opinions on something (of which they may have a very limited understanding), with very little actual factual reporting. This results in the beliefs and prejudices of a small circle, mostly politically left of centre, being presented as unquestioned truth.
2. Current affairs programmes often use the technique of having a panel of guests to discuss a topic. This is now commonly heavily weighted in favour of one side of the argument (always the side the BBC culture favours), with the other side represented by either a single individual, or sometimes no-one at all. This can hardly be considered impartial and leaves the impression that a general consensus of opinion exists in favour of one side, when the truth may be the exact opposite.
3. To me, perhaps the most interesting part of the book was the way the BBC seems to have reported the issue of the EEC/EU over the last half century. I was unaware of the story of how, in the early 1970's, the government had prepared the way for joining the then EEC by getting the BBC to remove at least one very prominent radio presenter, and possibly other journalists, who were seen as being insufficiently pro EEC. The default position has been one of strong support ever since.
Overall, the book gives substantial evidence for its case: anecdotal from the author, interviews with other BBC staff, and excerpts from various reports on the BBC compiled over many years.
As I wrote at the start of my review, well worth the read for anyone interested in a behind the scenes look at the UK's most influential news source. I think anyone reading this book will have a better understanding of how the BBC's biases developed over the years, and those who have previously blindly trusted will likely become far more sceptical than they were before.
April 25, 2018
The work is titled "Can We Trust the BBC?" The first chapter is named "The Best Broadcaster in the World?". And it starts with a paragraph about the location and the qualitative estimation of the architecture of the buildings of the main site of BBC. Wow.
The author is a hysterical simpleton who has no idea about the subject at hand. Who is we? We is the propaganda we. What do you mean by trust? Letting the BBC walk the Queen's dogs? Best in what sense? The one who makes the most money, who pisses the most news reels, who has the largest audience? Anyway, Aitken does not seem to be aware that BBS is not an individual or of the ridicule of most of the statements.
The author is a hysterical simpleton who has no idea about the subject at hand. Who is we? We is the propaganda we. What do you mean by trust? Letting the BBC walk the Queen's dogs? Best in what sense? The one who makes the most money, who pisses the most news reels, who has the largest audience? Anyway, Aitken does not seem to be aware that BBS is not an individual or of the ridicule of most of the statements.
September 6, 2019
Robin used to work for the BBC so has seen it from the inside. I used to work in media analysis and although I don't waste my time doing it on the BBC, it strikes me that it is very biased both in terms of coverage, those chosen for interview and its point of view, and this is confirmed. I will say no more because I don't wish for a torrent of abuse but I am certainly happier never listening to its radio and switching off more often.
April 15, 2020
A wonderful insightful book, which confirms my own suspicions of left bias in the BBC. I have the Noble Liar also by the same author waiting to be read...
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews