BBC NEWS comes bottom of poll on Iraq

BBC NEWS comes bottom of poll on Iraq

Broadcast
24 October 2003

Viewers regarded the BBC's coverage of the war in Iraq as less objective than its commercial rivals, according to new research from the Independent Television Commission (ITC).

The report, Conflict Around the Clock , found that BBC ONE and BBC TWO were considered to be less fair than rivals ITV, Channel 4, five and SkyNews.

Out of 4000 television viewers polled in the research, only 66% said BBC ONE's news coverage was fair to all, while the figure for BBC TWO was marginally better at 69%. This was against a figure of 77% for C4 and five, and 75% for SkyNews, while ITV polled at 70%.

The poll, which was conducted in April - before the BBC's row with the Government over Iraq - also found that 61% of viewers thought there was too much coverage of the war on television.

A majority of viewers - 63% - also said the feelings of families should be paramount when showing bodies on screen and if the images were likely to upset them, they should not be shown.

The BBC found itself at the sharp end of this view when it sparked public outrage by showing the faces of dead British soldiers in a Correspondent special - a move also criticised by the BBC's own governors.


Not seen any mention of that anywhere on the forum, and thought some might be interested in it. As usual, don't forget to take into account that it's based on a 'representative' poll - possibly the most dubious way of gauging the reactions and opinions of a wider group of people.

As per usual, despite there being a ONE PERCENT difference between ITV and BBC, Broadcast writes it as an anti-BBC story.

I'd agree with C4 coming up at the top, though - their news programme is, and was during the war, excellent.

What confuses me is the difference between the percentages for BBC One and BBC Two. Weren't the news specials on both channels produced by BBC News 24?

I find C4 News unwatchable. This analytical malarkey is beyond me.

I suspect that people identify Newsnight as being news on BBC Two. Newsnight is quite distinct from the rest of BBC News output as it is more analytical.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem with this poll (as indeed with most polls of this nature) is that it presumes that all of those polled are in a position to make an objective assessment of all the choices. We don't know anything about the demographics of those polled, but I would wager that few, if any, of these people actually watched all of these news services for enough time to be able to form an opinion on their reliability and objectivity. How many viewers of ITV News would also watch five News? Would a significant number of BBC NEWS viewers also watch Channel 4 News, and also Sky?

Depending on the questions asked of those polled, I rather suspect that the answers given were based largely on the subjects' "favourite" news service, the one that they were watching most frequently at the time of interview, or the one that they historically viewed as being the "best" or "most objective".

You're all missing an important point:

Andrew Gilligan really damaged the perception of BBC's objectivity and professionalism.

The fact that BBC and ITV are so close underscores how BBC News has descended into mediocrity (same as the average).

Sure, the methodology of the poll might be a bit suspect, but there's a real meaning to the results: the perceptions on BBC News's quality have dropped.

Someone should do something about that -- and a set change for News 24 isn't the best place to start.

I, for one, would rather watch BBC News than tacky Sky or sensationalist ITV. Yes, Andrew Gilligan did some damage, and he will (I'm sure) be made to pay for that.

BBC journalism is well known as the best in the field, and although this incident will have a short term impact I think BBC News will recover fully over the medium to long term.

Considering the very intelligent debate that has taken place on the Forum in recent months about the BBC's role in the Kelly scandal, and how it has faired since, it's rather ill-considered of you to state that everyone has missed this point which only you can see.

If you'd care to actually read the article, you'll notice that the poll was conducted in April - long before Gilligan got the BBC's knickers in a twist - and it seems that most others picked up on that.

The 4,000 people polled (less than 0.01% of the UK population) were probably ITV/Sky brown-nosers anyway; who see the word 'BBC' and immediatly think "crap" and change channels.

For the record, that's not quite the kind of "very intelligent debate" to which I referred in my previous post...

LOL What a stupid thing to say! Why would they be brown-nosers of a commercial organisation. How insulting!!