[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I find the BBC's choice of "expository photograph" positively hilarious. So subversive. XD

1) They're all white, and not just any white but with a vague white-trashy look.
2) The woman looks very ugly in her rage. Some pictures of anger inspire sympathy and desire for justice, others terror or even hateful recoil. This one only makes you feel mock pity and alienation, a sort of "wtf is this stupid woman riled up about" kind of picture.
3) The old man has the "I'm Bill O'Reilly's target audience" look all over him.
4) Although they clearly don't look like upper class people (though looks as measures of class distinctions in America just don't work period), they don't give the sympathetic air of the suffering proletariat either. This ain't no noble les miserables to be honored and lionized.

In conclusion: lol BBC, lol.

Actually, I was about to cite the above article as part of my ongoing rebuttal of Yoko_Takeo's allegations of crooked media.

The notion that all media organisations are biased, in one way or another, is a universally accepted opinion. And this applies even to the venerated BBC, much vaunted for its impartiality.

The above story is one of those rare examples of very poor reporting and extremely questionable editorial judgment on the BBC's part. First of all, there is the unspoken assumption that Mr Obama's health-care reforms are universally accepted by Democrat-voting Americans while unanimously opposed by those who vote Republican. As the lengthy discussions in AnimeSuki alone would suggest, the consensus is not quite so clear cut. The choice of photo, as Irenicus pointed out, is deliberately misleading, as it aims — unambigiously — to portray typical Republican-voting Americans as dumb rednecks.

To be sure, the BBC is doing what it often does: It loves demonising the United States in general, playing to the usual stereotype that the British have of Americans as being shallow, stupid people too in love with corporatist capitalism to look after the social welfare of their own countrymen.

It is fine to pillory the self-serving politicians who oppose Mr Obama for the sake of opposition. But, then, do you notice how the article happily puts Republicans on the dock, quoting the views of two "exasperated" Democrats, while not giving similar space for Republican views?

Where is the fairness and balance in the story then, as expected from a news organisation that prides itself for its impartiality? Is it OK to run a polarising story such as this without giving the accused party the right of reply?

So, the point I was trying to make to Yoko_Takeo is this: He is half right in claiming some kind of bias within media. Examples such as the one provided by BBC above show that even some of the best in the industry fall prey to internalised prejudices.

Where he is wrong, however, is in suggesting that all the distortions are caused by the profit motive. The BBC runs, in effect, on a tax on every British citizen in the form of radio and TV licensing fees. It has a guaranteed income of around 3 billion pounds (US$4.8 billion) a year, if not more. It doesn't have to chase a profit, not when it has an assured source of annual revenue.

And yet, even then, the BBC is vulnerable — like any other organisation, media-related or otherwise — to fall victim to group-think. This is one of the most persistent problems likely to occur in any group, big or small, for the simple reason that crows of a feather tend to flock together.

You see this even in a forum such as AnimeSuki, made up of individuals who are presumably free of organisational coercion and therefore free to speak their minds. Yet, it doesn't take much for an impartial observer to see that AnimeSuki's members generally favour left-wing, progressive politics. We are generally suspicious of authority, and especially allergic to religion. In general, we are anti-racisim, pro-minority rights, especially those of women and homosexuals, and are generally pro-internationalism (if not necessarily pro-globalisation).

These internal biases show up in the more controversial topics that have cropped up from time to time in the General forum, from the threads on religion to gay rights. People who attempt, however reasonably, to put forth an opposing view tend to get pilloried as reactionary conservatives too lazy to think.

==========

Now, rambling thoughts aside, I'd take you back to your regular news service. Here's a small story that cropped up last week from China, most likely missed by the rest of the world.

China bans further employment of substitute teachers

Beijing (Jan 24): China's education authorities have banned employment of new substitute teachers, but denied a deadline for dismissing those still at work.

"Governments at all levels must ensure the inflow of qualified teachers and prohibit any school from taking on more substitute teachers," said Mr Lu Yu Gang, deputy director of the personnel department of the Ministry of Education.

Long-time employment of substitute teachers would not only impair the interests of students but also be unfair for the teachers as they are usually lowly paid, Mr Lu said.

Discussions about the future of substitute teachers have been featured prominently in newspapers and on websites in recent days, as it was reported that all the substitute teachers would be dismissed this year.

Substitute teachers are more often seen in poor places, mostly rural villages, as local governments could not afford to employ enough licensed teachers.

By the end of 2008, China had about 311,000 substitute teachers, according to the ministry.

- XINHUA

The above is another one of those tiny, seemingly insignificant stories that nonetheless strike a chord with me, because it throws a spotlight onto the much larger tectonic shifts occurring in a rapidly modernising China. A sociologist, and a journalist, would see possibilities for many further stories on this topic, if he or she would like to dig further.

More poignantly though, the story reminds me of a little-known 1999 movie by Zhang Yimou, Not One Less.