Those of us who perforce had to watch the BBC coverage of the recent Commonwealth Games held at Manchester would not have been wrong if we concluded that British and bias are interchangeable words.

But it is not only persons of other Commonwealth countries living here who felt the partiality of the BBC and were angered by the fact that the BBC did not seem to realise that some 70-odd countries or territories participated in the games.

Britons themselves were so embarrassed-if not annoyed- by the one-sided coverage that letters appeared in newspapers and some wrote to the BBC website.

But the BBC true to its avowed claim to fairness, impartiality and objectivity, quickly removed the criticisms from its website before more enraged members of the viewing public said what they really thought of the BBC and its commentators.

To give a taste of what Britons had to say about the much-touted BBC-usually by its own staffers who seem to hold themselves up to public admiration as paragons of journalistic virtue- let me quote one letter that appeared in the liberal "The Independent": "In common with more than a few people, I have been enjoying the achievements of the Commonwealth athletes in Manchester over the past few days. However, most of my edge-of-the seat moments have not been during the events but rather during the pre-and post-event commentary. It started off well, but within a couple of days we were back to the usual BBC glorification of all things English, to the exclusion of all other countries and their achievements.

"I have nothing against a national broadcasting company supporting their athletes but, having lived in various parts of the world myself, and watched their coverage of such international events, the BBC coverage of the present games makes me rather ashamed".

I am not privy to what particular events the complainant Ewan McDonald and his friends watched. But had he watched some of the events that some friends and I watched, I wonder whether he would have been as gentle on the BBC as he was in this letter. It was nothing but a disgraceful performance by the BCC that seemed to labour under the antiquated belief that the Commonwealth is Britain.

BCC's sports producers and its hired commentators seem to be living in that era when the Catholic Church also deluded itself into believing that the earth was the centre of the universe and all other planets revolved round it.

To the BBC all 54-members of the Commonwealth and the other territories that participate in the games must necessarily revolve round Britain and therefore extolling the performances of the English (and occasionally the Welsh and Scottish, not to mention those of some Australians) is what is required of it.

All sorts of scoundrels find refuge under the banner of patriotism and if the BBC believes that because it is the British Broadcasting Corporation it must cater only to the British, then it is time it abandoned the pretence of claiming to be an independent and fair purveyor of news and views.

After almost every event in which England took part, its participant would be interviewed even if he or she did not win it. Most often competitors from elsewhere who performed well, were left out in the cold. The crowning act came when the BBC did not show India's women hockey players receiving the gold but showed the British team that came second, simply because the match ended on a note of dissent with British protests that were rejected by the judges. If athletics coverage was partisan then the commentaries on the boxing were horrendously one-sided.

Judging by the observations and remarks of the commentators a viewer might be pardoned for wondering whether these commentators had any wagers going on the match. For there they were not telling their viewers what was happening but were sounding like the ringside Seconds of the English boxers, giving them advice on what to do.

"Don't do that", is the advice proffered by one commentator to England boxer Paul Smith. Then goes the other commentator "Come on Smith, you've got 30 seconds to go".

And then comes the great denouement. At the end of an event one interviewer says how losers go and congratulate the winner. "Such super sportsmanship is unbelievable, isn't it?"

Either this man is so surprised or he had nothing else to say but mouth such banalities.

If sporting events can produce such partisanship from the BBC, which has for decades conned its international public by parading its so-called fairness, then what are we to expect from BBC's coverage of issues vital to British interests?

Earlier this year, BBC's coverage of the political events in Zimbabwe leading up to the elections last March, was criticised by some BBC staffers themselves who could not stomach the biased and sleight-of-hand reporting by its domestic news division that, of course, caters to the viewers at home, according to The Guardian newspaper.

Interestingly the critics were from the BBC's World Service who expressed concern that the 'coverage of the Zimbabwe elections has been driven by a "colonial" agenda, potentially damaging to the corporation's reputation for impartiality'.

What is the implication of that criticism? It appears that the BBC gives its international audience a more balanced coverage via the World Service while its domestic service caters to the remnants of colonialism that still linger in the heart of British society.

The Guardian story went on to say: 'It is suggested that the interest in the Zimbabwe election is being driven by the "residual British interest and the presence of white farmers," according to one Bush House source. Another said the agenda was characterised by "latent and unwitting colonialism"'.

The World Service, which criticised its domestic section, did not go unscathed either. Said The Guardian: "There has also been concern about the prominence given to the Zimbabwe election on the World Service's main news programmes, the World Today, World Update and Newshour".

That is not surprising. The BBC takes its cue from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and plugs the British foreign policy line. Britain led the charge against Robert Mugabe and wanted Zimbabwe sacked from the Commonwealth. Britain did not have its way eventually, but the BBC's coverage was to prepare the world at large to understand, if not appreciate Britain's insistence that Mugabe be penalised.

Robert Mugabe might have turned into a great dictator. But surely Britain had a hand in his rise to dictatorship. Anyway Britain has supported greater dictators and megalomaniacs than Mugabe.

Zimbabwe is not the only developing country to have suffered from the BBC's partisan coverage. I have written before on that subject and there are institutes that have carefully researched BBC coverage of the developing world.

After a particular programme on the Wanni and the LTTE by the BBC I asked the producer whether there was no bias in it. Her explanation was that even if there was, future programmes will correct any perceived bias, that the BBC coverage has to be viewed over a period.

I have heard many laughable explanations for partisan coverage in my time, but this really took the cake.

I asked her when the next programme could be expected-next day, next week, or next century. Naturally she had no answer. Assuming there would be another balancing programme, they should be telecast as a series preferably on consecutive days, so that viewers will form opinions on the basis of the overall coverage, not wait for some unknown date when some corrective may be expected by which time their minds are already set. This is the BBC's way of trying to evade responsibility for pressing ahead with its own agenda. If the Commonwealth Games coverage showed the BBC at its journalistic worst or its jingoistic best, should Britain be considered a venue for the Olympic Games if it vies to stage it?

Surely the International Olympic Committee should consider this important aspect too in making a decision. On the basis of the BBC's recent coverage Britain should not be considered, unless its journalists who preach to the rest of the world on fairness, will collectively plead culpa and vow to mend their ways.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster