To: et.letters@telegraph.co.uk
Re: What the BBC and The Daily Telegraph have in common
Date: Sat, 26 July 2003

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my appreciation of the articles by Eoghan Harris and Janet Daley, which appeared in last Wednesdays Telegraph (Blair must stand firm in this war against the ideologues; The BBC is a world, not a law, unto itself).

They reminded me of an earlier article, by Barbara Amiel, and the unsent letter it had prompted me to write (Disinfect the BBC before it poisons a new generation, 7 July 2003; The decline of the BBC, 7 July 2003).

The BBC, in its its news and current affairs broadcasting (as a result of political bias), as well as in its general manner of presentation and self-promotion (in attempting to emulate commercial popular broadcasting), has fallen from the high standards it was once rightly famous and highly respected for.

It is not just the BBC's unbalanced political bias that disturbs me, but its active pursuit of what often looks suspiciously like a political agenda, while pretending to be balanced and objective. It's coverage and comment on the war with Iraq and post-war developments is the most obvious, ongoing example.

However, the BBC's clearest and most pervasive political agenda is its promotion of immigration and of multiracial, multicultural society, while condemning anyone who is less than keen on it as racist. In this they are supported by the so-called "liberal" press and have been so successful that hardly anyone dares mention it. Those who would like to are kept silent by the fear of being branded a racist, and the dilemma of not wanting to offend the immigrants who are here. And this, despite the fact that a large majority of the "indigenous" population (particularly those over 50, who grew up in pre-mass immigration days) are very unhappy (to put it mildly) about the huge influx (we are not permitted to say "flood", although it would be an accurate description, certainly of my experience of it) of third-world immigrants who have transformed large swathes of suburban Britain, and will transform Britain entirely if allowed to continue coming at the rate they are. 

The thought of Britain one day no longer being ethnically predominately European or having a Black or Asian prime minister sends a shudder down my (racist?) spine, as I am sure the thought of a prime minister of European descent would send a shudder down the spine of any African or Asian living in his own country (see my email to NYT: The American (a country of immigrants) view of immigration, 24 July 2003).

Getting back to my original reason for writing, i.e. the unbalanced bias and political agenda at the BBC. In many ways it reminds me of the Telegraph, whose political bias and agenda is considerably worse than the BBC's. You will, of course, argue, that the Telegraph is not a public service funded with taxpayers' money, but a newspaper with a known political outlook and financed by those who chose to read it. 

Nevertheless, I think the way you exploit the power you have over your readers is often far from being in the spirit of good journalistic practice. The way you take almost every opportunity to caste the present government, its members and policies you don't like in a negative light is good propaganda from a Conservative standpoint, but it is shamefully bad journalism. Far from attempting to separate news reporting from comment and political bias, you deliberately blur the distinction - either that or you are far less intelligent than I assume. 

The following recent, MAIN front page, headlines illustrate my point: "Death of the dossier fall guy", 19 July; Blair tries to rein in Kelly judge over scope of inquiry", 22 July; "Hoon is shaken by visit to Kelly Widow", 24 July; "Public's trust in Blair hit Kelly affair", 25 July; Blair seeks life without spin, 26 July. These are all politically coloured stories which may have their place inside the paper, but certainly not on the front page, where they obtain a significance out of all proportion to what they deserve, but where, of course, they serve (very unfairly) to cast in an unfavourable light and discredit your political opponents. 

Another example, when reporting or discussing the prospect of Britain adopting the euro, is how you invariable refer to it involving "scrapping" the pound, thus appealing to peoples' strong emotional attachment to what, after all, is an important part of our national history and identity. In so doing, you make rational argument even more difficult than it is anyway.

Since I have only been reading the Telegraph on a fairly regular basis for the past few years I cannot judge whether, like the BBC, you have fallen from higher standards, or are simply continuing a time-honoured "tradition".

Because we buy (or just read) your newspaper, you seem to think that gives you the right to manipulate our opinions and reinforce our prejudices. In fact, like most of the rest of the media (now including the BBC), you are abusing the trust and responsibility placed in you and are undermining our democracy.