��������

It has been well documented time and again that the �������� is biased towards Islam.

No such proof has ever been offered by the �������� is biased against Islam crowd.

When is Helen Boaden going to admit that the �������� can be wrong? I say never.

"we try to serve all our audiences fairly and impartially."

How many times do people like me have to point out that this is not true?

As a concerned global citizen who has lived in India, Singapore and Great Britain for much of my professional life, I am quite alarmed by the growth of religious parochialism in the last few years. It is the responsibility nay duty of all great institutions like the �������� to ensure the triumph of the humane spirit over fanatical tendencies which are diverting attention of the world from issues like Poverty, Education, Health, Development and above all equal opportunity. The �������� along with other great institutions should take the lead in zero tolerance towards such distractions. In fact BA needs to be congratulated for its recent stance on displaying of religious symbols by its staff. Similarly, Politicians and Statesman must refrain from getting into the quagmire of religious bigotry. In fact the state must consistently follow a policy of religious neutrality without exception.

The whole issue can be defused with secular impartiality! In much the same way as recent events in Suffolk latterly involved "women" rather than "prostitutes" as the proximate descriptive common factor, so should multi-doctrine audience News deliveries be simnilarly uncommitted to religious affiliation! As an agnostic, I have no problem with folk making known to others which brand of belief they demonstrably align with, but equally - as an independent - I do appreciate why one faction may feel upset by unilateral weighting of the right to demonstrate their affinities - however subtly.

Perhaps the �������� should apply similar techniques as they have to-date, by considering religious 'branding' in a similar light to that of product advertising?

I think the �������� needs to redefine impartiality. It seems to be define currently as having no opinions broadcast at all. But perhaps a better definition, and one that would make the news more interesting, is if the news contained opinions - but opinions from all "reasonable" sides of the debate. There is no reason why two �������� journalists could not each express their own opinion - provided, as I said, they were opposing.

I am so tired of the �������� cow-towing to the tiny minority of muslims in this country. Remember we have been attacked by "home grown" terrorists. It seems to a lot of us out there that the �������� is almost protheletising for them. The number of times that you are oh so sensitive about them. Its's time you got the priorities sorted.

The �������� used to be impartial. By the very nature of the way you treat Muslims compared to the way you treat Christians you continue to show bias against the Christian heritage of this country. I accept it is not just the news stories that you will not report because of your sensitivity. It spreads to the whole of the �������� output. You have become the "PC"C.

Yes I do feel sorry for you, it must be terribly difficult being the lone voice of sanity with views unmatched by any other organisations, that seem to ensure that you remain alone, with your own unique viewpoint on the world.

My idea for 2007, how about you simply report the facts of events that take place, using words that exist in the english language. Words which mean what the dictionary defines them as. Try treating your audience as intelligent, without worrying whether they are going to think that some words are a barrier to understanding when that is not in fact what you are there to do. Use words in the dictionary.
If a person blows up innocent civilians for an ideological or religious reason, this man is a terrorist. Don't call him a militant when this is not what the word means. Stop changing the definition of these words when they don't mean what you're trying to make them mean.

If a person is taken against his will,by a group of peeople who are not a sovereign army, this person is kidnapped. he is NOT captured.

Stop revealing your own prejudice through your "impartial" reporting.

Be tolerant. Accept, adapt and adjust for the beliefs of others. We in Malaysia meet each other in public in all our gears and outward symbols of our own multi-faceted faiths anywhere in the streets,malls,homes,etc. To each his own. I put a dot on my forehead, my Muslim friend wears a scarf, my Chinese relation ties a red string on his wrist, my Iban neighbour has tattoos but they are all accepted by all of us. We meet at open houses during Christmas,Krishna Jayanthi,Chinese New Year,Hari Raya Aidil Fitri.
Don't Freak out just because they are differnt in their looks. We are all the same in our heads. Only needs understanding.

In the course of reporting the news of the conflict in the horn of Africa in the last few days, ��������'s interviews with representatives of Somalia's transitional government and Ethopia's government reveals its obvious bias. These discussions more closely resembled debates than interviews, �������� challenging every statement they made including their governments' legitimacy in their actions, even the transitional government's legitimacy in its right to rule. �������� clearly leaves no doubt that it takes the position that the Islamic Courts Union with their imposition of an Islamic state, Sharia law, and possible hosting of Al Qaeda is preferable to the anarchical rule of war lords which has prevailed up to now and possible continuance if the transitional government wins the military conflict and takes power. This is what �������� means when it talks about impartiality and objectivity in reporting the news. It's inability to separate its editorial opininos from its reporting of the news is a hallmark of its degeneration to a propagandistic mouthpiece for its own political views.

The �������� is Impartial? that's news to me. With multi channel TV and the internet people have access to news from a wide variety of sources and your pro islamic anti Israeli bias stands out like a sore thumb. Maybe you think people have not noticed, just google "�������� bias" and you'll see it's common knowledge.

The �������� has absolutely nothing in common with those poor souls who fund the thing, a situation that will with any luck bring about the end of public funding.

To Mark #11,

Well said, I work in the Netherlands, I rely on the �������� World Service for my British news, listening yesterday to the ��������'s interview with the Ethiopian and then the Islamic Courts spokesmen, I was struck by how aggressive the �������� were to the Ethiopian Spokesman and how docile they were when interviewing the Islamic Courts spokesmen. My Dutch friends who were also listening found this one sided reporting amazing.

The �������� also has a HYS on the World Service, this has to be listened to to be believed, everyone who calls with a perspective on anything which is different to that held by the �������� is shouted down, the �������� then compounds this by always giving the final word to whichever terrorist group is trying to justify the unjustifiable at that moment in time.

The �������� is not impartial, it is not even attempting to take a middle ground, instead it is only interested in those subjects which fit it's left wing agenda.

Would it be asking to much for the �������� to start questioning Islam?, after all it has spent the last 10 years abusing/ridiculing Christians/Jews/USA and even our own Armed Forces.

After all the �������� has totally bored everyone trying to ram it's PC agenda down our necks, How about returning the favour to all the Islamic extremists that seem to hijack our airwaves and start asking them real questions i.e. Human Rights, Woman's Rights, Education, Religion....?...no?..I thought not after all that would mean that you would have to finally treat your audience as people with their own views.

Recently in our area , over a five day period,the local �������� news covered assimilation of cultures into British society.
The only culture covered was Islam.
Please do not try to convince me that the �������� is not pro Muslim.
What about the Jewish faith, Sikhs, Buddists and Christians?
Today the �������� covered the annual gathering of Muslims in Saudi.
I do not recall this for other faiths, not even the Christian faith at Easter.
The �������� is not even handed and institutionally biased, that I believe is official.

It appears at this point that the Ethopian army will crush the Islamic Courts Union no matter what it takes and no matter how many people are killed in the process. I don't think this is going to be another Afghanistan or Iraq, I think they will stop at nothing to eliminate the threat of an Islamic state supported by and hosting terrorists on their border. The US is backing the Ethopian government and the transitional Somali government out of the public eye. Hopefully, it won't be necessary for the US to send in its own troops.

If you read lips in order to get your news then maybe a garb would get in the way.

The cross is just as foreign to the UK as is a muslim Garb. Both symbols are from religions that are of the middle east. Those who flaunt the cross are only converts and should be wary imposing their own dogma on others.

Helen

Your claim to impartiality stands on shaky grounds. You showed enough of the Danish cartoons to give the audiences an idea of what infuriated some Muslims. However you did not show them fully. You felt that they would have caused gratuitous offense. Yet you had no problems offending Christians by showing Jerry Springer the opera?

After the 7/7 bombing’s you edited out the ‘T’ word (terror) from your reports. Why? Why can’t you use the ‘T’ word when & where it is appropriate? Why do you use so many Euphemisms to describe Islamic brutality, such as describing the 7/7 bombers as ‘misguided criminals’?

All, for a whole list of �������� PC sin’s and pro Muslim bias please have a look at Biased �������� giant archive.

The �������� coverage on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is so biased towards the Palestinians that ‘the �������� has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers' money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage.’

So if you are impartial Helen, prove it, show us the Balen report!

Now, it is obvious to anyone who watches or listens to the �������� that it is heavily biased towards political correctness, which essentially means it is left-wing, and the fact you suppress and censor uncomfortable information (unless it’s about America or Israel) is what you really do.

Kind regards

Mark

I understand that aspects of your job are difficult. Trying to please all the people all the time is not easy for an even handed organisation to achieve. This is the thrust of your argument and I do have some sympathy. Sadly, dispite your wishing it to be, the �������� is not impartial.

Put simply, if large numbers of your staff unthinkingly believe the Independant/Guardian worldveiw is sound and the rest of the print media is 'right wing' your output is going to be skewed isn't it?

You need to do something more proactive to convince people you are serious about impartiality.

You must know a '�������� culture' exists that is very different from the rest of the country. You need to go out and challenge this. Good luck.

This episode shows the mistrust that one religeon has for another. There will always be fundamentalists who follow every word their leader says. What has been shown through the arguments over dresses and crosses is that they have no place in this paranoid world as much as the terrorists who use their fundamentalism to create wars. The reason we in the west have short sharp wars is because insurance companies dont pay for war. So it should follow that where the apprpriate dress code is not used for war it should be acceptable(as long as we dont go to war).

[QUOTE]For an organisation committed to impartiality – which means we don’t take sides – we try to reflect all and every opinion in an argument[/QUOTE]

Your joking right? NOBODY believes the �������� is impartial even those who happen to generally take the same side as the �������� does ie: myself.

The �������� constantly supports anything islamic and critisizes anything jewish or American. Any oposing view is either censored (like this post may will be) or laughed off as somehow a non legitimate point of view.

And complaints? The �������� ignores them just look at the complaints page and see how many people who were 'guranteed a response' never got one, i certainly didn't.

I would report the �������� to offcom but i doubt it would make any difference becuase the �������� is government sanctioned.

Listen �������� say and do as you like but don't pretend your not biased and stop taking my money to pay for your propaganda, go commercial.

Is it me or did the news reports about muslims happen as well before 9/11 or did it start after?

Dear Helen

I very much doubt if "the cross and the veil" is the most challenging news theme for 2007. My themes are:

* For the ��������, countering the erosion of trust in your impartiality over the last 18 months or so.

* For the UK, how to report Gordon Brown when he become PM without anyone having a chance to have a say.

* For the rest of the world, reporting impartially on Palestine / Israel in the face of the hostility of the lobbies for both sides.

Whether it is forced to or not I don't know, but the �������� seems to give an enormous amount of air time to religious groups to spread their 'messages'. Arch bishops and imams seem to get the most.

Frankly I'd rather hear as little as possible from these deluded people, and I absolutely do not want to see them shoving their religious symbols in my face when they're reading the news, working at a check in desk or anything else. They believe in the most absurd and ridiculously privative nonsense ever created, and I personally find them deeply unsettling. As a species we should have moved well beyond this type of thing centuries ago, but alas they still exist the �������� give them far, far too much time.

Somehow I doubt we will ever see another Jerry Springer the Opera type show broadcast, but Songs of Praise and the rest will continue unchecked forever. Balance? Not at the ��������.

I have two points. Firstly regarding your comment on representing all sides of a debate. I have often noticed that in an attempt to do this the �������� gives disproportionate airtime to tiny extremist groups. Purely because they are extreme. So for example in a question time debate about the cartoons a gentleman whom wishes to impose Sharia law in the UK has equal voice to the Labour representative as if therir opinions carry equal support amoungst the population at large.
Secondly you use the same story about cartoons to show how you took a "middle-ground" between showing them fully and not at all. You seem to feel the fact you were attacked from all sides shows this was correct. However, the middle-ground is not the same as impartiality or basing your practises on rational and logical arguments as to what is impartial. During the Newsnight story on the cartoons a full screen still of a rival Iranian cartoon poking fun at Anne Frank was shown. The middle-ground here was different so you could do it - but that is hardly brave reporting.

Helen,

You must be aware that a "�������� mindset" exists, with particular views and values.

When are you going to tackle this ?

the cross and the veil can both be viewed as fashion accessories if one were to remove their religious symbolisms. as fashion accessories therefore, the cross is less intrusive than the veil in normal social interactions.the veil reduces our access to the non verbal cues of the wearer in a way that the cross does not.the wearer of the veil in a paradoxical way has an advantange over the other person with whom she is interacting as body language acts as a compass that guides western social etiquette, hence the vulnerability that jack straw and others feel when in the presence of veiled women. the other case against wearing a veil in this culture is that it identifies the wearer as an outsider who does not belong to the majority culture.this can not be good for social integration as after all, when most of us go to other countries we show respect for the local culture by wearing local costume. i do not know any culture that does not value a stranger who makes an effort at integrating with local customs.

It does sadden me that the �������� is far from impartial. Many of the things allowed to be said and shown against Christianity would never be allowed to be said about Islam for fear of offending the latter; or perhaps by more direct retribution. The �������� doesn't report fairly and if they do want to be seen to be impartial they need to show more guts, frankly, in standing up to the hard issues - namely saying that terrorism or suppression of someone elses legitimate opinion is exactly what it is instead of their reporting methods of obsequiesness towards any Muslim point of view.

Helen, I know you and the �������� takes a lot of stick. Quite rightly, as I'm afraid we hold you to higher standards than other news organisations. Harsh, but fair - since we want you to stay at the head of the pack, and not succumb to the populist, dumbed-down ratings-chasing alternatives.

This is incredibly tricky. I watched the coverage of the Hajj, where a reporter said something like, 'And over there is the mountain where Mohammed ascended to heaven'. Seemed reasonable with all the pilgrims around. But still noticeable.

Huw Edwards later said a similar thing, but used the wording 'the mountain where Mohammed is believed to have ascended to heaven'. Those subtleties simply don't exist on other channels. They are important, and the considerable effort to maintain that impartiality is a prize that you should continue to strive for.

Happy New Year.

You have rightly said that the greatest problem the world faces today is what you have succinctly called- "the cross and the sword". For whatever reasons, the religious dogmatism is increasing day by day instead of getting reduced which one would have expected considering the fact that the world is moving so fast and science and technology is advancing at an alarming rate opening newer vistas. But, instead of opening our minds and making ourselves broad-minded, our minds are getting chocked with the result that our intolerance level has increased accordingly.
It is great that even in such tough times, we have �������� before us, which can be credited with being value-neutral to a great extent in regards to religion, race and nationality- issues that have divided this world into so many smaller islands.

The very fact that the �������� news editor is able to openly express her views on how difficult this topic is to approach shows just how much lack of appreciation there is in this society. Britain is a multi-cultural society and as such the �������� does a very good job to represent this. I would urge the �������� to carry on provoking such arguments in 2007 to make people all all backgrounds talk about the issues that in 2006 have divided us. Whilst programmes such as the news serve the masses, programmes not so widely viewed such as Newsnight have provided the arguements from every angle, so lets not judge the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation as being anything other than constrained by what society has become!

Well Helen, Happy 2007, looks like you are getting a pasting here, and I have to agree. The �������� is not impartial. Many times if not all the time during the Israeli Hezzbulah conflict in the summer were you reporting on the plight of the Lebanese people. Admittedly the �������� did report a snipit about the rockets being launched by a terrorist organisation, but you skitted around the words nicely so as not to upset the militants (your words) terrorists (my words). try reporting the facts from all sides equally, try using the correct termanology - terrorist 'One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant.' something Hezzbulah does?? I still think after all the pasting you have been given here, the �������� will not change.

Some say that the �������� is impartial: some say that it is not.
I will settle for impartial, but subject to human frailties, unless I find evidence of censorship.
I do think that the massive news machine is getting out of control.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the �������� is unable to examine this matter in the depth that would satisfactorily inform .
We need to know about the beliefs, objects and practices of the religious hierarchies and the facts on which they justify their beliefs and actions. We need to have completely open debate. When rational discussion by some is regarded (or treated) by others as “blasphemy” and/or justification for violence then freedom of speech is in peril.
At some date the Government and the nation as a whole will have to grasp this nettle. The sooner the better.

Moslem women surely cant wear veils out of modesty, more likely out of pride or vanity. Its not veiling its broadcasting. Its saying "I am Moslem and you're gonna know about it cos you cant avoid it." I would have a similar reaction if I saw Christians walking down the street wearing a huge cross from their neck and a crown of thorns on their head. In this day and age the only thing Moslems need to veil is their religion.