Berlin

It's clear from news reports however that the BBC are employing fewer British journos than in the past. It is quite a claim that the foreign journos are "usually extremely good". Do you have any evidence for this?

Of course they are mother tongue speakers of the local language, a plus, but as locals, they are also more likely to have a partisan perspective and not to put forward an unbiased account.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Good journalism is not limited to Europeans journalists only - and what about any bias they may have in their reports?

You seem to think that organisations like the BBC, ITN, Sky News, Al Jazeera are both centres of excellence and incredibly naive in being unable to tell whether any journalist they use has any bias or know how to interprete the reports they use.

Good journalists, in most countries, do their best to be unbiassed in their reports.

Monica, since it was you who made the claim of foreign journo exceptionalism it is down to you to substantiate it, not me to prove otherwise.

I did not suggest that good journalism was limited to Europeans, but I do take the view that as the BBC is funded by British license fee payers, then their highly sought after foreign reporting roles should be in the main going to British citizens, not providing work for foreigners. There is no shortage of good people in this country, including people who speak almost every language in the world.

You seem to think that organisations like the BBC, ITN, Sky News, Al Jazeera are both centres of excellence and incredibly naive in being unable to tell whether any journalist they use has any bias or know how to interprete the reports they use.

I am afraid you are wrong, that is not my view but nor do I consider these organisations unbiased as you naively seem to do. Nor do I think any journalist is entirely unbiased, but in general, I have more confidence in the report of a journo who is not intimately and personally involved in a war zone than one who is. There will always be some bias, but it is likely to be less for the former.

I believe the best reporting jobs in the BBC should go to the best reporters they can recruit and many of the nationals in the countries they report from can provide far better reports on the situation in their country than outsiders jetting in for a couple of weeks and then moving on to the next hot spot.

The task of any good reporting agency is to get the best reports they can use by the right use of in-house reporters, British nationals on the BBC pay roll, foreign nationals on the pay roll and free lance reporters and I expect any competent news agency to be able to do that a lot better left to themselves than when government, quango (now there is a word we do not hear nowadays), select committee, Board of enquiry etc etc, start meddling by telling the news agency to recruit in a way that does anything other than put quality of reporting at the top of the agenda.

As for bias, show me a person or organisation anywhere in the world that says it is unbiassed and I will say I am looking at a liar. No-one and no organisation is unbiassed, but this does not mean that an organisation cannot see and allow for bias in others.

This discussion is in danger of becoming one of those discussions about how many angels can dance on a pinhead arguements as we both split hairs more and more finely (to majorly mix my metaphors) so I am drawing a line under my communications on this subject with this post.

"many of the nationals in the countries they report from can provide far better reports on the situation in their country than outsiders jetting in for a couple of weeks and then moving on to the next hot spot."

Yes you have already given us your views on the superiority of foreign reporters, however reiterating this claim does not equate to evidence.

I have listened to many of these reports and have not found them to be uniquely insightful, or in any way superior to those of good roving reporters, as well as frequently being delivered in heavily accented restricted off shore English. This could be a problem for the hard of hearing.

I do not believe that the BBC chooses them for superior skills, but likes to employ them because it satisfies their internationalist objectives and they are probably cheaper to boot.

BTW Monica I am glad we can at least agreee that the BBC is biased!

Is it?

All human perception is biased.

Why don't you just admit you know sod all about the BBC's recruitment policies or practices?

(From a former Reuters employee)

I have a fair bit of anecdotal knowledge of BBC recruitment practices (nepotism) actually daphne. Their agenda is also pretty much in the open now:

Andrew Marr:

The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”.

All this “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.

They have opnly declared they want to employ more ethnic minorities and employing foreign reporters fits with this.
They even employed Malala Yousafzi when she was an eleven year old schoolgirl and unknown (shoehorned into the role by her controlling ambitious father).

Btw Daphne are you always so rude to posters who disagree with you?

I thought Gransnet was a polite forum!

Sadly, Mair, you now know differently!!!!

I thought it was a given that the BBC has a left of centre agenda.

Carry on posting Mair totally on your wavelength.

This is interesting, daphne.

www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/12/media-2017-161230144352351.html

is anyone allowed to look at the link please or is it just for daphne?

Why don't you just admit you know sod all about the BBC's recruitment policies or practices?
[gasp]

Did no-one on here make any NY resolutions about kindness and politeness?

I presume you have looked at it, Jalima.
If not, why not?
You don't normally take notice of what I say.
Daphne is decent enough to look at links, unlike some on here - not necessarily meaning you.
The link is also about the media, which daphne is interested in. I would hope she lets me know if she agrees with the message, rather than just making remarks about the messenger.

'decent enough'?

It might be a 'given' in the Daily Express, but it's not true and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I believe in plain speaking, Mair.

I'm not sure what you mean about making remarks about the messenger. I read Al Jazeera regularly, because it has some very good journalists and offers perspectives not often available in the British press. I like Rachel Shabi. She's an Iraqi Jew, who was brought up in the UK, so has some interesting and thought-provoking views on the Middle East. I also read Haaretz, because it's a left-wing Israeli newspaper, which openly criticises the current Israeli government without being anti-semitic.

However, the link isn't about the Middle East.

Shabi is right. The media has changed beyond recognition over the last few years as a result of the internet. I think we should all be very aware about news sources. As you know, I do challenge stories if the sources don't seem credible. I'm also aware that propagandists use fake pictures and stories, which can go round the world in seconds. Everybody can be a publisher these days and nobody really seems to care whether stories are fake, if they support their particular viewpoint. I'm also very concerned by Twitter bullying and blatant trolling, even on sites such as GN.

I once toyed with the idea of becoming a journalist and started my working life at Express Newspapers (shock horror) and Reuters. The whole scene has changed beyond recognition since those days. Even at Express Newspapers, we wouldn't have published a story which hadn't been checked. Even the opinion articles were quite clearly opinions rather than pretending to be facts. Reuters was totally different. We published facts as impartially as possible, which were then sold to other outlets. It was up to them what they did with our facts.

These days anybody can post any old garbage on the internet and it's often difficult to attribute sources. Unfortunately, many numbskulls can't tell the difference. I seriously think Media Studies and an analysis of news reporting should be in every school's curriculum, if young people are going to be taught how to play a full part in any democracy.

No, Jalima, I didn't. Some people don't deserve it.

I think Rachel Shabi's piece was very good, dj. I didn't necessarily agree with every point she made, but she was saying most of the right things, and her overall point was a good one.

All reporting and editorialising contains some bias, because it is written by human beings; the important thing is to know where those humans and their equally human - though it's sometimes hard to believe - employers/proprietors are coming from, so that we can to a degree discount the views in the Guardian, the DT, etc. and indeed the BBC.

What we should be able to trust is the reporting of facts by the media, but it is becoming increasingly difficult with some of them.

I believe in plain speaking, Mair.

So you won't mind if I award you the Grumpy Old Bird 2016 then?


Share it with your chum Durham if you like!

When I was at school (many moons ago) there was a huge emphasis on preparing us for our future lives. Unusually, we had 8 periods a week in the Sixth Form for General Studies. We were advised to read two newspapers every day - the Guardian and the Times. The idea was that we could read about the same news items from two different views. Sadly, the Times is now behind a paywall and is not the serious newspaper it once was. We were also trained to summarise and to question sources, although checking them wasn't easy in tose pre-internet days. I don't think I've ever lost those skills.

I presume you have looked at it, Jalima.
If not, why not?
You don't normally take notice of what I say.

1 No, I haven't
2 You didn't address it to me
3 What makes you say that, I always do take notice!
(that's why I didn't look at it!)