Changes

==Accusations of Bias==

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards and against multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism, [[Islamophilia]] and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

It is also perhaps noteworthy that, as a public sector organization, the BBC does have features of a [[socialist]] institution and it is believed that this may be reflected in some of its broadcast content.<ref>http://biased-bbc.com/2012/04/20/a-socialist-win-is-a-bbc-win/</ref>

It is also perhaps noteworthy that, as a public sector organization, the BBC does have features of a [[socialist]] institution and it is believed that this may be reflected in some of its broadcast content.<ref>http://biased-bbc.com/2012/04/20/a-socialist-win-is-a-bbc-win/</ref>

===Bias against the US and Israel===

===Bias against the U.S. and Israel===

Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].  However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen.  Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales.  The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar.  Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007.  The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias.  Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy".  It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>

Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].  However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen.  Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales.  The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar.  Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007.  The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias.  Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy".  It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>

<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>