This one has had me scratching my head. If you click on the title of this post it will bring you to a blog connected to the Guardian newspaper. It concerns an article on the BBC's Newsround site. There have been lots of accusations that the article is biased because it seems to either blame America for the attacks of 9/11 or justify al-Qaeda in some way.
This feeds into the article we've been reading in class recently around the issue of freedom of speech and the representation of all views in the media. Is the BBC being biased here by explaining the position of al-Qaeda or is it merely trying to fairly represent the views of all those involved in the story of 9/11? Do the accusations of bias have anything to do with the language used in the article or the way the sentences are structured ( the esteemed Mr. Graham, he of Room 81, the English corridor, thinks this may just be the case).
16 comments:
im cool, being the first one to comment this :P. Although slight bias is obvious, newsround is a children's program isn't this the usual style that they use, assuming that the viewers know nothing on the subject.
i can see where people are coming from about the bias, but i don't think it is at all. newsround is aimed at children, so newsround would need to mention the little details to help them understand more. the first version just told the facts, the second just missed some details out.
While it is reasonable to assume that the audience, being younger children, know nothing, those that accuse the BBC of bias would claim that the selection of facts is questionable, as is the order in which they are reported.
like zainab said, i can see why people would think that this article is bias, but i don't think that it is. this is because it is giving its audience the details they need to know, as they are, and explaining to them what needs to be explained. it is then up to the audience to decide whether they agree with it or not.
I agree with Zainab and Farrah, i don't think it is bias because it isn't saying that Al-Qayeda are right about what they're doing they're merely saying what they believe. And i think the audience even though they are young will know things about the subject but they will only know the parts that they are exposed to more which is the American view, so i don't think it is unreasonable that newsround show them another point of view. However i do think that they don't explain enough and it is very vague but i guess if they wrote more on the subject they would be accused of being biased for giving too much attention to Al-Qayida, so it's really a lose lose situation. Wow i've written a lot ha ha.
I feel that newsround is being biased, but its is only so that the audience can understand the problems and what is being said. Letting the audience get the full picture. They're allowed to have their own opinion (freedom of speech) even though the program is aimed at children.
its danni! i forgot my name and password.
It's a newsround article for kids so obviously its bound to use simple language to explain 'why they did it'. This may make the article appear biased but really, I dont even think it is!
Not strictly to do with this article but in case you left today's lesson with a crushing sense of disappointment that you didn't get to hear "Ferry Across the Mersey", you can now do so at
http://www.esnips.com/doc/3db6a10d-07a7-4e70-a423-6ab2b73031e3/Ferry-Cross-the-Mersey
Who knows it may just change your life - or not....
i don't think that the BBC is biased because the BBC is trying to put down everyones point of view down so that the audience knows the whole story and knows what is right and wrong. so they could also choose for themselves that which story they think is true or false. The BBC put down the American's and Al-Qaida's story so the audience has an idea of who is saying what.
I have to tell you that since reading this article and others similar, the whole issue has confused me; I not sure where I stand on the issue. The BBC is meant to fairly express the nations thoughts and feelings as we fund the channel. However I don’t see how this is truly plausible as to express one view is therefore going to disregard another. For example the original Newsround post is almost justifying the actions of al-Qaida it describes how America “got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East” and there is no mention of the other western countries who played a part. It goes on to suggest that al- Qaida declared a war called “jihad” against America, when in actual fact it was against all western countries. Due to this I think its obvious that Newsround are being biased however as I mentioned before how can they give one perspective without disregarding another? In as much as the above does not prove the Will Lewis statement "I can't help but think that a lot of the TV industry is still about serving people who work in the TV industry and not about the customer." The fact that the Blue Peter producer was recently sacked due to not conforming to the BBC mission statement suggests that they have their own agenda.
btw can you ask Mr Gibs to give me the sixth form blog address, thanks.
I think that news round is being kind of bias because they are communicating information to young children who know nothing about what has happened in the past with the 9/11 or who was the cause of it all but on the other hand it is not just young children that watch news round it is also the older youths. Although from news rounds point of view they might think that it would help younger children to understand what is going on in the world, and it would be allowing them to have their own opinion and thoughts of what to believe.
As i have mentioned before, i do not think that this article is bias although i can still see how people would find this bias. This is because newsround are only giving one side of the story, which could suggest that newsround agree with what Al-Qaida have done and are giving reasons to justify their actions. This is quite apparant when Damien Thompson said, "When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaida, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave." Which suggests that Al-Qaida only attacked because the US troops didn't listen to Osama Bin Laden. Since many other articles give the views of mainly the opposite side, people begin to believe what they are told, and then when they hear a story like this one, giving Al-Qaida's side of the story, they think that what they are being told is not true, and begin to accuse the article on being bias. However, as i have already said, i do not think that this article is bias, it is just giving the story of the side we never really hear about.
welll i can see why they believe that it is bias but however even though newsround is aimed for younger kids they are tryin to produce some facts so that the information given is suitable for the target audience even so becuase they are just kids they too are critising on what kids can understand becuase they have porposly missed out on some other details.
Penguin ROCKS BIG TYM X.
i think this article is biased!
and i am confused, first they used to blame the Al-Qaida for the attacks and know they have another version to tell?!
but on the other hand, i then do not think that this article is biased as newsround is only giving the details and facts about this subject and they are not saying that the Al-Qaida are right, but they are only explaining their side of the story and giving the audience the facts and detials they should know. it will then be up to the individual to think what they want. it is like an other atricle, it is up to the individual whether they would like to believe it or not.
I'm going to respond mostly to Fiona's posting because it makes a number of points which others also make.
1) You are right to point out that other Western countries are involved in conflicts in the Middle East and that Al-Qaeda have declared a Jihad on The West rather than just America. So you could conceivably say that by mentioning America only the article is somewhat biased. The revised version does remedy this by including the phrase "America and other countries."
2) A possible reason for Newsround mentioning only America is the need for simplicity. As many of the rest of you pointed out, Penguin Rocks in particular, Newsround is trying to present the information in a way which is accessible to its target audience of children. However, in simplifying the facts they do run the risk of presenting a biased report.
3) Although in this particular article Newsround is presenting only Al-Qaeda's side of the story, it may be that throughout the rest of the webpage they present the other side of the story, thus creating a balanced and unbiased account. There is an obligation on British news reporters to represent both sides of the story.
4) I'm curious to know what private interest you think the BBC is serving by publishing this article, as opposed to the interest of the audience. In addition, why do you find it suspicious that an employee would be sacked for not agreeing with the mission statement of the organisation. If they fail to agree with the fundamental basis of the organisation then they are likely to always be pulling in a different direction to everyone else and become a disruptive rather than productive member of the team.
Sixth Form Blog is at http://burntwoodsixthform.blogspot.com/
newsround is only being biased as it is giving the target audience, which is young children a basic insight into the attacks without trying to confuse or offend their young audience the accusations of bias have alot to do with the language used in the article and the way the sentences are structured .i feel tones of sarcasim(dnt fink its spelt right)and the vague sentences are almost brainwashing the audience.obviously the institution notifying this tries ot stay in the middle nad not have left or right wing poltical ideolgies and tries to stay in the middle .
Post a Comment