At least Jonathan Kent does have a halo

A certain ‘Mark’ wrote in to Malaysiakini clarifying BBC’s supposed partiality towards the British government, noting that:

On the contrary, the BBC board is appointed by the government, its licence and budget comes up for review every few years, and it has demonstrably bent over backwards to keep the government happy. What shred of dignity it once had disappeared with its appalling (and appallingly ongoing) non-coverage of the Iraq war.

Media studies consistently show the BBC to be the most pro-government of broadcasters. For example, in the lead up to the Iraq invasion it virtually barred sane anti-war voices from its screens (there’s plenty of evidence, see the Glasgow and Cardiff Universities studies for examples).

In a rare public reply, BBC correspondent to Malaysia, Jonathan Kent, then replied with a letter of his own admitting that the BBC does report to the government and even conceding that ‘it’s almost impossible for any party to get away with making entirely partisan appointments. ‘ The crucial difference, he points out, lies in ‘that Britain is a functioning multi-party democracy. Governments change. That means that successive Labour and Conservative governments have appointed governors [to the BBC].‘

This author remembers watching the BBC very avidly when Iraq was invaded, and can not decisively say that the BBC was very pro-war. On the contrary, I remember watching numerous news pieces on anti-war marches organized by various organizations, NGOs and university student councils. I also remembered a documentary on bias in news reporting using coverage on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands as an example. Almost every Rupert Murdoch-owned media arm used words which implied the Israeli right to occupy and exist, specifically using benevolent words such as ‘neighbourhoods’ and ‘homes’ for Israeli houses built on designated Palestinian land, whereas the BBC apparently did not tow the line and instead called it what is was: ’settlements.’

Though very subtle, the effect can be astounding on the human psyche and on how it categorizes the world around us.

Jonathan Kent’s letter is very apt, and is partially condemning on the current political status in Malaysia as a one-party democracy. Kent carefully avoids bringing this point up directly in a diplomatic manner. Mark’s letter, which compares Malaysian government-linked media with the British model, exemplifies the current thought of Malaysians today which equates the party-in-power with the government. It is true that the BBC ultimately answers to the British government, but the difference lies in that it does not answer to the party-in-government. In this respect, the BBC is milestones ahead of Malaysian news culture.

But one does not need to read Malaysiakini reports to know this. Just listen to Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin himself when he said that Malaysian viewers were not up to the standard of BBC viewers. Quo vadis, Malaysia? Free press cannot be afforded to those living in a third-world mentality, and yet one cannot shed third-world mentality in the first place without a free press. The terrible woe.

To conclude this BBC love-fest, Kent’s letter ended with a stinging, though poignant, saying:

I stand by the old adage that people get the politicians they deserve.