BBC shuts down Serbian, Albanian services

Some of the most independent and professionally minded Serbian journalists have worked for the BBC - usually the ones who don't want to be involved in the dirty partisanship we see daily in the Serbian media.

Two journalists worthy of a lot of respect Vlajic and Stupar worked for the BBC Serbian office in recent years based in Belgrade. They have reported the news and conducted interviews / analysis factually and not just on the radio but also on the BBC's Serbian service online.

All this nonsense parroted by people as opinion from those who have never even listed to them is ignorance.

I suggest that before one takes an opinion on something one should try to learn about the thing in question.

Better yet, just shut down Albania. It would save the EU/US a lot of grief - but they made their beds, now sleep in them.

Ian, the world service is for the time being funded by the foreign office not the fee you pay. This is a matter of reputation and standing in the world media. It seems strange that the Balkans is where the cuts are. Also, why should expats be catered for?

The BBC was and is to this day a large propaganda machine initially designed to look after the interests of the British Empire then the UK. It is one of the better disguised spin doctors unlike the Voice of America which is a subtle as a bull in a china shop.
I am glad that its demise has started. See what happens when you overspend. The UK is in deep financial doo doo and worse is yet to come in future years.

Not that I really read the world service but knowing the BBCs reputation it will mean less propaganda being fed to Serbians so I have no problem with that.

I used to read BBC News extensively but now the propaganda and spin on things is so obvious I only read it if someone tends to link to it. I have found RT (Russia Today) and Xinhua to be far more reliable outlets because they will report the other side of stories about Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Middle East and so on.

The BBC and Western media in general have become the same old regurgitated crap as far as I'm concerned.

The BBC is now obliged to fund the World Service from the licence fee, which is part of the reason for this set of cuts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11572171. I'd be interested to know, does anyone posting on hear still listen to the BBC in Serbian or Albanian?

Rather sad really. There was a time when one of the few truthful sources of information for Serbian / Albanian / Macedonian came from the BBC.

I actually think that services for these countries is still necessary.

In fact perhaps the BBC should state that the employees from these services have a choice of some kind of unified service or none at all.

A reduced service would be better than none at all.

The BBC was and is to this day a large propaganda machine initially designed to look after the interests of the British Empire then the UK. It is one of the better disguised spin doctors unlike the Voice of America which is a subtle as a bull in a china shop.
I am glad that its demise has started. See what happens when you overspend. The UK is in deep financial doo doo and worse is yet to come in future years.
(sj, 26 January 2011 12:46)

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.

It is a shame as the BBC is highly regarded world wide. However the BBC's priority is the British people and British ex-pats as we're the ones who the TV licence as there are no adverts on the BBC. I don't know how many Albanian and Serbian speaking people use the services which are currently provided by the BBC, however if it is minimal and not profitable then I agree with shutting them down.

Zoran there is no need to spin your opinion as you have mentioned your admiration for the new Russian / Chinese world order on numerous occasions.

That is the prism by which you are looking at this issue. Again, without actually knowing anything about the particular issue in question.

Each issue, in my humble, deserves to be looked at on its own merits before passing opinion, or its an ill informed opinion. In fact frankly I don't even see the point in posting on an issue if one doesn't want to know anything about it, but to repeat one's worldview.

I don't disagree with you that Russia and China are becoming increasingly important actors in the global system. However, this has little to do with the ending of the BBC Serbian service.

Insomuch as it has something to do growth / decline of nations, it is a comment on the decline of the UK generally and the need for cuts.

As somebody who supports factual reporting and a wide variety of media I am against the Serbian service being closed down. And I have to say that although I have watched some RT (which is pretty good) and have little experience of Chinese media, I have read numerous reports by organisations I respect that state there is a lot of state / private inteference in the Chinese and Russia media. Its possible there are exceptions I suppose, but I very much doubt that it is of the professional standard one can hear on BBC Serbian.

And the comparison of an occasional report on Russian / Chinese TV with a dedicated Serbian service are two different things entirely.

Zoran a big round of applause for finally trying to inform yourself about an issue, even though you have decided far in advance what your opinion is. I know how boring it must be for you to do that, much easier to dismiss something without knowing.

It is quite obvious what the difference in content is even from a glance at the webpage - there is more specialisation on the Balkans specifically the areas where Serbs live such as Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia. But there is also greater emphasis on stories with countries that have historic ties to Serbia / Jugoslavija or where there is a diaspora community.

If you listen to the radio - as the webpage content is superficial, you would see that there are more interviews with Serbians and analysis of the political and economic situation. This news never makes it to the BBC proper, so no only somebody who hasn't a clue would think its the same content as say BBC world.

And as I keep saying having a Chinese service is all very well, but firstly it is not in Serbian, secondly its not focussed on Serbia. Rather its just like any any world media, whether of a higher quality or not I'm not able to say - because I haven't seen / listened to it SO CANNOT HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION.

Jugoslavija have you listened to the BBC Serbian service, or are you making a generalist comment without knowing?

As for cuts, yes, I know they had to make them. But why is irrelevant Serbia and Albania axed whilst irrelevant Croatia is not?

Actually I'm not sure that many people know the difference between BBC and its external services. Their only frame of reference is what they have seen on television - which is not the same thing, or the same journalists.

I can and do say that the BBC Serbian (formerly Jugoslav) service WAS a valuable and credible source. It has become less valuable and arguably less credible as cuts were made to its staff meaning more reliance or re-reported news. There is no question about that. In the old days the Jugoslav service provided excellent news to a hungry audience fed up with state news banging on about how this year's crops are bigger than last years, or how loved Communist party officials were. There were interviews with dissidents both nationalist, democratic / reformist and former communists back when such media freedom was a dream in SFRJ. Similarly the Serbian service provided a valuable alternative to those fed up with the dominant state national based propoganda of 1990's Serbia. I remember that all too well. And I am well aware of exactly when 'opposition' newspapers existed in FRJ btw, when they were closed down and which towns 'opposition' media was available in. BBC news was available for anybody with a shortwave radio. Relevant it certainly was.

Yes I know about BA, I used the service many times before. However, this service may be reintroduced some day, provided charter flights don't kill BA completely. The BBC Serbian service will not.

Ian, the Irish constitution claims sovereignty over the six counties of Northern Ireland, but you wouldn't expect the BBC to pander to that. If you want another example, is the BBC biased because it doesn't recognise the Falkland Islands to be the Argentine Malvinas, and ididn't even when the islands were under Argentine occupation?
(Dave, 27 January 2011 17:47)

Ireland recognised Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom in 1998 as part of the Good Friday/ Belfast Agreement. This was done by the 19th Amendment to the Irish Constitution which was put to a referendum with 94.4% in favour of the referendum.

Personally I support a united Ireland.

The BBC is also neutral when it comes to the Falkland Islands. For example this is what the BBC says about them:

"The waters surrounding the disputed islands are considered by the UK to be part of the British Overseas Territories. But Buenos Aires believes the UK is illegally occupying the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8523894.stm

Also it is not biased to call them the "Falklands Islands" instead of "Islas Malvinas" as that is a language issue not a political issue. BBC News Spanish refers to them as "Islas Malvinas" as that is the name of the Islands in Spanish. If the Islands were apart of Argentina and no-one objected, they'd still be called the Falkland Islands in the English language.

I have to agree with the views of Bganon and Ian,UK. This closure is just of BBC Serbian service; this service is different to BBC World, BBC news.co.uk and others. The BBC Serbian Service employs highly able and independent local journalists. It is not and has never been all about a service for expat Brits. It’s a service for those living in Serbia – plain and simple.

It is correct that, unlike other news organisations the BBC is legally obliged to be impartial. By staying impartial and questioning governments, the BBC has irritated all political parties at one time or another. It refuses to act as government mouthpiece see - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/attempts-to-control-media-have-a-history-of-backfiring-631432.html

All Prime Ministers have wanted to shut up the BBC – and all have failed. The conservative party (Margaret Thatcher) was furious at the BBC over impartial reporting of the Falkland War and Northern Ireland. The labour party (Tony Blair) criticised the BBC over its impartial coverage of NATO bombing of civilians in Yugoslavia. There are multiple examples. My partner is Serbian and is upset at the closure of the BBC Serbian service. The closure won’t really affect people living in UK (but it’s their taxes that pay for it!). However, the closure will be a significant loss to people living in Serbia and across the Balkans.

Peace and respect to all

GRUK

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)


All you need is two eyes to see that the BBC has a bias and is not too far behind from the biggest propoganda machine going on in North America, CNN.

When Yugoslavia was being bombed, the Greek, German and French broadcasts turned out to be much more unbiased than the British propoganda machine led by Shea and other NATO spokemen. In fact, the turning public opinion in Germany is what made NATO negotiate with Russia and Serbia.







RE: References?

Zoran I'm not entirely sure what your comment has to do with the shutting down of the Serbian service of the BBC.

As I probably failed to point out those that have never listened to it think that the service re-reports the news heard / seen on BBC tv. Alternatively somebody who doesn't know might deduce that the BBC proper basis much of its news on its foreign services. Nothing could be further from the truth. The news heard on BBC world service is seperate from the news we get on say BBC World.

I am saying that the BBC has provided a valuable outlet of professional, factual news for Serbians, even if I accept that these days few listen to it.

If its a positive on the media as I contend I fail to see how your generalist view on the media (which is in fact your worldview) that China and Russia is best. I have never contended that any system is best. What I want is the best of each system. Your bias towards what you see as the future and lack of knowledge on a particular subject has led you to a mistaken conclusion. I wish I could say it was the first time.

And for the life of me I can't understand your views on the Serbian media. I thought we agreed that the Serbian media is open to too much influence whether that is foreign money, BIA or domestic businessmen. Being quoted in the Serbian media is hardly the same as factual based reporting.

I do not see Russian or Chinese services opening up in Belgrade either to provide an alternative. Although I did not that Al Jazerra have expanded their Serbian / Balkan operation, albeit with Sarajevo as their 'capital'.

Let me repeat to those who still don't understand - WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BBC WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BBC EXTERNAL SERVICES. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION LISTEN TO IT AND THEN CRITICISE IT.

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)


Which part are you talking about? If its the UK economy perhaps you should have read the part on the UK economy retracting by 0.6% so far. Or are you talking about the BBC being a mouth piece for British propaganda?

Call it bias, propaganda or spin – it’s all the same. All government-owned media is a mouth piece for that government and its charter is to spread the policies of the government of the day.

The problem with most people is that they don’t recognise spin if bit them on the arse simply because there are techniques of appearing to ask genuine questions when its real purpose is to malign and make your target look evil. The problem with people is that most have been brainwashed they’d believe anything.

Some of the most independent and professionally minded Serbian journalists have worked for the BBC - usually the ones who don't want to be involved in the dirty partisanship we see daily in the Serbian media.
(bganon, 26 January 2011 18:31)
--
It's easy to come to Serbia and not fall in line with the dirty partnerships and speak your mind. I have no problem with that but try doing that in the West. You'll be cut off in no time and that is the reason I respect news outlets like RT (Russia Today). They have their spin on things but I can finally hear the other side of the story. That is something I never hear by the Western press about their own doings.

OK, so I keep hearing how bad Russia, Iran, Serbia and China are but that is boring these days and I think everyone has had enough. Out with the old and in with the new.

(Zoran, 27 January 2011 16:34)

The BBC doesn't portray Kosovo as independent but as a disputed territory.
Also I do watch RT, I really like it, however it is very biased.

B92 News World
BBC shuts down Serbian, Albanian service.

Next thing you know the headlines will be reading:
Serbian-Albanian Service: BBC shuts down.

This is a great and tragic loss to many communities. We hope they will re-think their process of elimination.

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)

Ian, you're being horribly naive. The BBC is required by its charter to be impartial in its coverage of British party politics, which in practice means the three leading parties, since the BNP and small parties of the Left are seldom treated even-handedly. It has no requirement to be "fair" in its overseas coverage, nor is it.

Often this manifests itself quite subtly - compare the slightly equivocal tone in which Chechen atrocities are reported, in comparison to Islamist outrages anywhere else - though it can extend as far as misinformation.

This is not necessarily done for sinister motives. Many of the BBC correspondents I have met in the Balkans don't stay in the region long enough to build up any specialist expertise and are often, to be frank, a bit dim. Very few of them appear to have gone on to greater things. There is also the problem that many are not paid a salary, only a fee per article, and the only Balkans stories that their editors back home recognise are the same old ones - war crimes, nationalism, blah blah...

I'd certainly not call the BBC a UK government mouthpiece, however. The current government loathes it as a nest of hostile liberalism and would quite happily hand the whole organisation over to Murdoch, given half a chance.

"Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)"

I think the BBC is not too bad generally and when you consider that by making these cuts it loses it leading world position to VoA then it reinforces that.

However, I'm not impressed with certain aspects of the Balkan conflicts. I want to hear all sides and I don't think that was/has been achieved.

Recently I'll give you an example. "Kosovo independence is legal" was the headline. That was factually incorrect in terms of the judgement. I cannot accept that level of sloppy (at best) reporting.

Anyway, this is a short sighted cut. For some small savings its prestige will be dented and as a matter of international perception of the UK and that isn't good. The cuts are also in a region that is still not stable in European terms and have questionable media freedom. I read recently of complaints from journalists in both Albania and Kosovo. Serbia has issues too. You allege it is easy to spot Serbian media propaganda - that purported propaganda is more reason not to cut this service. What happens in europe effects the UK and consequently effects tax payers.

From 2014 this will become an issue of the license fee. At present it is the FCO that funds the world service. I don't get it.

btw please feel free to give some contemporary examples of propaganda in the Serbian media taking into account that what is newsworthy is different in different countries.

Ian, B92 refers to Kosovo i Metohije because that is the province's name. I don't think anyone could read the reporting here and not understand that its status was disputed but B92 is incorporated in Serbia, whose constitution stipulates that KiM forms part of its territory.

Would you honestly expect to find the BBC accompanying a Belfast story with a map of "Eire" incorporating 32 counties? Of course not. It's not bias, merely accepted practice.

Ian, B92 refers to Kosovo i Metohije because that is the province's name. I don't think anyone could read the reporting here and not understand that its status was disputed but B92 is incorporated in Serbia, whose constitution stipulates that KiM forms part of its territory.

Would you honestly expect to find the BBC accompanying a Belfast story with a map of "Eire" incorporating 32 counties? Of course not. It's not bias, merely accepted practice.
(Dave, 27 January 2011 15:57)

However it is biased to say that Kosovo is a province of Serbia as Kosovo's status is disputed. If you're to say that Kosovo is either a province or a country then you're taking a side. However if you're to say that Kosovo is a disputed territory, that is being neutral as you're not taking a side; but simply reflecting on Kosovo's disputed status. That is what good honest journalists do when trying to be objective. Saying that Kosovo is either a province or a country is being subjective not objective.

Would you say that British media is biased if they portrayed Kosovo as a country? Even though the UK recognises Kosovo as a country. Of course you would. Hence the reason why the BBC portrays Kosovo as a disputed territory.

Northern Ireland isn't disputed though, every country in the world recognises it as a part of the UK unlike Kosovo being a part of Serbia. There is no dispute in Northern Ireland over sovereignty.

(Mister, 26 January 2011 22:26)

You just have to take a look at B92, the amount of times Kosovo is called "Kosovo i Metohija" or as "Serbia's Southern Province". Also when they refer to Pristina as the "Provincial Capital". It is biased to say that Kosovo is a Province or apart of Serbia. The BBC always refers to Kosovo as a disputed region and that Serbia continues to regard Kosovo as part of its own territory. The BBC doesn't even include Kosovo in it's country list.
According to the Press Freedom Index, Serbia has the 85th most free media in the world in 2010. However Serbia had a higher ranking in 2009 and an even higher ranking in 2008. The EU and the CoE are concerned with the Freedom of Media in Serbia.
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html

You said in your comment:

"Recently I'll give you an example. "Kosovo independence is legal" was the headline. That was factually incorrect in terms of the judgement. I cannot accept that level of sloppy (at best) reporting."

That was not the headline, the headline was "Kosovo independence move not illegal, says UN court" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10730573.

(sj, 26 January 2011 22:38)

Yes I am referring to the propaganda claims, that is why my comment focused on that issue. Also the BBC is not Government owned media, it is partly funded by the Government but they don't own it. The BBC is a Public Corporation, therefore it isn't a private business or a Government department. The BBC has 100% editorial independence from the Government.

Also you still haven't come up with and references or sources to suggest why the BBC is biased.

(Jugoslavija, 26 January 2011 23:39)

Yes you have said that the BBC is biased, but can you prove this or back it up with reverences and sources? A bit of evidence?

Yes you have said that the BBC is biased, but can you prove this or back it up with reverences and sources? A bit of evidence?
(Ian, UK, 27 January 2011 13:58)
--
Ian, get your head out of the sand. How can you say the BBC is not biased? I've been reading it for years and every news source has its own bias. You only have to read what it says about Serbia to realise 95% of it doesn't paint us in a good light. Why does it report that KiM is independent when it doesn't have a UN seat or when the majority of the world doesn't recognise it? It has a bias Ian, no doubt about it. The point here is that many people are bored of it and want to hear the other side. What's going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, the Balkans and even the US/UK.

Here, watch RT and you will see. Watch some of their documentaries, it's all there and it's even on freeview in the UK. You will automatically see the bias of BBC relative to that bias of RT.

"Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)"

I think the BBC is not too bad generally and when you consider that by making these cuts it loses it leading world position to VoA then it reinforces that.

However, I'm not impressed with certain aspects of the Balkan conflicts. I want to hear all sides and I don't think that was/has been achieved.

Recently I'll give you an example. "Kosovo independence is legal" was the headline. That was factually incorrect in terms of the judgement. I cannot accept that level of sloppy (at best) reporting.

Anyway, this is a short sighted cut. For some small savings its prestige will be dented and as a matter of international perception of the UK and that isn't good. The cuts are also in a region that is still not stable in European terms and have questionable media freedom. I read recently of complaints from journalists in both Albania and Kosovo. Serbia has issues too. You allege it is easy to spot Serbian media propaganda - that purported propaganda is more reason not to cut this service. What happens in europe effects the UK and consequently effects tax payers.

From 2014 this will become an issue of the license fee. At present it is the FCO that funds the world service. I don't get it.

btw please feel free to give some contemporary examples of propaganda in the Serbian media taking into account that what is newsworthy is different in different countries.

Ian, the Irish constitution claims sovereignty over the six counties of Northern Ireland, but you wouldn't expect the BBC to pander to that. If you want another example, is the BBC biased because it doesn't recognise the Falkland Islands to be the Argentine Malvinas, and ididn't even when the islands were under Argentine occupation?

Someone name me a news service without some form of bias, and I'll change my name to Zdravko.

bganon, it is my opinion and your interpretation, which you like to spin.

I did not say the Russian and Chinese system is best. In fact, their reporting system is based on Western standards such as the BBC and CNN but I do like their spin on things. Like I said, you can hear the other side of the story on many Western reports and the Russians do report on Serbian issues very frequently (sports, politics, etc..).

I've read and listened to Western media all my life and it is the same old same old to me. Very boring so I'm not surprised that many are seeking alternatives.

So RT, Xinhua and even Al jazeera are very refreshing in my opinion. I can also understand why BBC is becoming less popular when the competition is a step ahead. People want more than just the normal regurgitated propaganda coming from Western sources.

Let me repeat to those who still don't understand - WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BBC WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BBC EXTERNAL SERVICES. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION LISTEN TO IT AND THEN CRITICISE IT.
(bganon, 27 January 2011 12:27)

I dont want to speak for everybody, but most are aware that the article is about the extended world services offered by the BBC; the conversation has just expanded in include the BBC in general.

That being said, you cannot say that the BBC Serbian service was a valuable or even credible source. The Voice of America is a similar government mouthpiece in the US which tries to shape policy in foreign countries, the BBC extended service is not different.

However, given the economic crisis in Britain and the considerable austerity measures introduced by the British House of Commons, the BBC has had to rationalize it's services. Lets face it, Serbia and Albania are no longer high in the national interest of Brits.

However, to change topics, British Airways cut its direct service flight from London to Belgrade last year. That is an essential service that is unfortunate particulary for the Serbian disapora and business community.

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Yawn bganon, I don't need to listen to the BBC Serbian "service" to have an idea what it's about. I've read/watched the BBC for at least 10 years and it's not for me anymore, however, I can understand why you would like it.

The Chinese will shortly be airing a world news service so that's something to keep an eye on.

Here is the BBC Serbian service. Check -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/serbian/

Apart from it being in Serbian, how is the content different to the English version?

It's easy to come to Serbia and not fall in line with the dirty partnerships and speak your mind. I have no problem with that but try doing that in the West. You'll be cut off in no time and that is the reason I respect news outlets like RT (Russia Today). They have their spin on things but I can finally hear the other side of the story. That is something I never hear by the Western press about their own doings.
(Zoran, 26 January 2011)

I have to agree with you to an extent Zoran. RT is a breath of fresh air but only if you listen/read the one-sided view of the British/American media.

If RT were your only source of information it'd be as bad as listening to CNN/BBC. From the RT reports I've seen on Kosova you'd never know the Albanian side of the story but only of the Serbs suffering at the hands of these Albanian "monsters". They don't provide context at all.

Lastly another reason you might enjoy RT is because it's more in line with your view of the world largely shaped by the Serbian conflicts of the 90's.

Zeka, yes I agree. RT has its spin but I can finally see the other side of the story. Not only about Serbia but Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and even the US/UK to name a few.

bganon, of course the BBC Serbian service is not going to report the teenage pregnancy rate in Birmingham and I expect it to be customised for Serbians but it still has the BBC spin on it. I'm happy it's closing because the BBC has not been very favourable to Serbia.

It is a shame as the BBC is highly regarded world wide. However the BBC's priority is the British people and British ex-pats as we're the ones who the TV licence as there are no adverts on the BBC. I don't know how many Albanian and Serbian speaking people use the services which are currently provided by the BBC, however if it is minimal and not profitable then I agree with shutting them down.

Rather sad really. There was a time when one of the few truthful sources of information for Serbian / Albanian / Macedonian came from the BBC.

I actually think that services for these countries is still necessary.

In fact perhaps the BBC should state that the employees from these services have a choice of some kind of unified service or none at all.

A reduced service would be better than none at all.

The BBC was and is to this day a large propaganda machine initially designed to look after the interests of the British Empire then the UK. It is one of the better disguised spin doctors unlike the Voice of America which is a subtle as a bull in a china shop.
I am glad that its demise has started. See what happens when you overspend. The UK is in deep financial doo doo and worse is yet to come in future years.
(sj, 26 January 2011 12:46)

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.

Some of the most independent and professionally minded Serbian journalists have worked for the BBC - usually the ones who don't want to be involved in the dirty partisanship we see daily in the Serbian media.

Two journalists worthy of a lot of respect Vlajic and Stupar worked for the BBC Serbian office in recent years based in Belgrade. They have reported the news and conducted interviews / analysis factually and not just on the radio but also on the BBC's Serbian service online.

All this nonsense parroted by people as opinion from those who have never even listed to them is ignorance.

I suggest that before one takes an opinion on something one should try to learn about the thing in question.

Better yet, just shut down Albania. It would save the EU/US a lot of grief - but they made their beds, now sleep in them.

B92 News World
BBC shuts down Serbian, Albanian service.

Next thing you know the headlines will be reading:
Serbian-Albanian Service: BBC shuts down.

Not that I really read the world service but knowing the BBCs reputation it will mean less propaganda being fed to Serbians so I have no problem with that.

I used to read BBC News extensively but now the propaganda and spin on things is so obvious I only read it if someone tends to link to it. I have found RT (Russia Today) and Xinhua to be far more reliable outlets because they will report the other side of stories about Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Middle East and so on.

The BBC and Western media in general have become the same old regurgitated crap as far as I'm concerned.

The BBC was and is to this day a large propaganda machine initially designed to look after the interests of the British Empire then the UK. It is one of the better disguised spin doctors unlike the Voice of America which is a subtle as a bull in a china shop.
I am glad that its demise has started. See what happens when you overspend. The UK is in deep financial doo doo and worse is yet to come in future years.

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)


Which part are you talking about? If its the UK economy perhaps you should have read the part on the UK economy retracting by 0.6% so far. Or are you talking about the BBC being a mouth piece for British propaganda?

Call it bias, propaganda or spin – it’s all the same. All government-owned media is a mouth piece for that government and its charter is to spread the policies of the government of the day.

The problem with most people is that they don’t recognise spin if bit them on the arse simply because there are techniques of appearing to ask genuine questions when its real purpose is to malign and make your target look evil. The problem with people is that most have been brainwashed they’d believe anything.

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)


All you need is two eyes to see that the BBC has a bias and is not too far behind from the biggest propoganda machine going on in North America, CNN.

When Yugoslavia was being bombed, the Greek, German and French broadcasts turned out to be much more unbiased than the British propoganda machine led by Shea and other NATO spokemen. In fact, the turning public opinion in Germany is what made NATO negotiate with Russia and Serbia.







RE: References?

(Mister, 26 January 2011 22:26)

You just have to take a look at B92, the amount of times Kosovo is called "Kosovo i Metohija" or as "Serbia's Southern Province". Also when they refer to Pristina as the "Provincial Capital". It is biased to say that Kosovo is a Province or apart of Serbia. The BBC always refers to Kosovo as a disputed region and that Serbia continues to regard Kosovo as part of its own territory. The BBC doesn't even include Kosovo in it's country list.
According to the Press Freedom Index, Serbia has the 85th most free media in the world in 2010. However Serbia had a higher ranking in 2009 and an even higher ranking in 2008. The EU and the CoE are concerned with the Freedom of Media in Serbia.
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html

You said in your comment:

"Recently I'll give you an example. "Kosovo independence is legal" was the headline. That was factually incorrect in terms of the judgement. I cannot accept that level of sloppy (at best) reporting."

That was not the headline, the headline was "Kosovo independence move not illegal, says UN court" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10730573.

(sj, 26 January 2011 22:38)

Yes I am referring to the propaganda claims, that is why my comment focused on that issue. Also the BBC is not Government owned media, it is partly funded by the Government but they don't own it. The BBC is a Public Corporation, therefore it isn't a private business or a Government department. The BBC has 100% editorial independence from the Government.

Also you still haven't come up with and references or sources to suggest why the BBC is biased.

(Jugoslavija, 26 January 2011 23:39)

Yes you have said that the BBC is biased, but can you prove this or back it up with reverences and sources? A bit of evidence?

Yawn bganon, I don't need to listen to the BBC Serbian "service" to have an idea what it's about. I've read/watched the BBC for at least 10 years and it's not for me anymore, however, I can understand why you would like it.

The Chinese will shortly be airing a world news service so that's something to keep an eye on.

Yes you have said that the BBC is biased, but can you prove this or back it up with reverences and sources? A bit of evidence?
(Ian, UK, 27 January 2011 13:58)
--
Ian, get your head out of the sand. How can you say the BBC is not biased? I've been reading it for years and every news source has its own bias. You only have to read what it says about Serbia to realise 95% of it doesn't paint us in a good light. Why does it report that KiM is independent when it doesn't have a UN seat or when the majority of the world doesn't recognise it? It has a bias Ian, no doubt about it. The point here is that many people are bored of it and want to hear the other side. What's going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, the Balkans and even the US/UK.

Here, watch RT and you will see. Watch some of their documentaries, it's all there and it's even on freeview in the UK. You will automatically see the bias of BBC relative to that bias of RT.

"Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)"

I think the BBC is not too bad generally and when you consider that by making these cuts it loses it leading world position to VoA then it reinforces that.

However, I'm not impressed with certain aspects of the Balkan conflicts. I want to hear all sides and I don't think that was/has been achieved.

Recently I'll give you an example. "Kosovo independence is legal" was the headline. That was factually incorrect in terms of the judgement. I cannot accept that level of sloppy (at best) reporting.

Anyway, this is a short sighted cut. For some small savings its prestige will be dented and as a matter of international perception of the UK and that isn't good. The cuts are also in a region that is still not stable in European terms and have questionable media freedom. I read recently of complaints from journalists in both Albania and Kosovo. Serbia has issues too. You allege it is easy to spot Serbian media propaganda - that purported propaganda is more reason not to cut this service. What happens in europe effects the UK and consequently effects tax payers.

From 2014 this will become an issue of the license fee. At present it is the FCO that funds the world service. I don't get it.

btw please feel free to give some contemporary examples of propaganda in the Serbian media taking into account that what is newsworthy is different in different countries.

"Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Also it is easy to spot bias (what you call propaganda) in Serbian media.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)"

I think the BBC is not too bad generally and when you consider that by making these cuts it loses it leading world position to VoA then it reinforces that.

However, I'm not impressed with certain aspects of the Balkan conflicts. I want to hear all sides and I don't think that was/has been achieved.

Recently I'll give you an example. "Kosovo independence is legal" was the headline. That was factually incorrect in terms of the judgement. I cannot accept that level of sloppy (at best) reporting.

Anyway, this is a short sighted cut. For some small savings its prestige will be dented and as a matter of international perception of the UK and that isn't good. The cuts are also in a region that is still not stable in European terms and have questionable media freedom. I read recently of complaints from journalists in both Albania and Kosovo. Serbia has issues too. You allege it is easy to spot Serbian media propaganda - that purported propaganda is more reason not to cut this service. What happens in europe effects the UK and consequently effects tax payers.

From 2014 this will become an issue of the license fee. At present it is the FCO that funds the world service. I don't get it.

btw please feel free to give some contemporary examples of propaganda in the Serbian media taking into account that what is newsworthy is different in different countries.

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased.
(Ian, UK, 26 January 2011 16:52)

Ian, you're being horribly naive. The BBC is required by its charter to be impartial in its coverage of British party politics, which in practice means the three leading parties, since the BNP and small parties of the Left are seldom treated even-handedly. It has no requirement to be "fair" in its overseas coverage, nor is it.

Often this manifests itself quite subtly - compare the slightly equivocal tone in which Chechen atrocities are reported, in comparison to Islamist outrages anywhere else - though it can extend as far as misinformation.

This is not necessarily done for sinister motives. Many of the BBC correspondents I have met in the Balkans don't stay in the region long enough to build up any specialist expertise and are often, to be frank, a bit dim. Very few of them appear to have gone on to greater things. There is also the problem that many are not paid a salary, only a fee per article, and the only Balkans stories that their editors back home recognise are the same old ones - war crimes, nationalism, blah blah...

I'd certainly not call the BBC a UK government mouthpiece, however. The current government loathes it as a nest of hostile liberalism and would quite happily hand the whole organisation over to Murdoch, given half a chance.

Zoran I'm not entirely sure what your comment has to do with the shutting down of the Serbian service of the BBC.

As I probably failed to point out those that have never listened to it think that the service re-reports the news heard / seen on BBC tv. Alternatively somebody who doesn't know might deduce that the BBC proper basis much of its news on its foreign services. Nothing could be further from the truth. The news heard on BBC world service is seperate from the news we get on say BBC World.

I am saying that the BBC has provided a valuable outlet of professional, factual news for Serbians, even if I accept that these days few listen to it.

If its a positive on the media as I contend I fail to see how your generalist view on the media (which is in fact your worldview) that China and Russia is best. I have never contended that any system is best. What I want is the best of each system. Your bias towards what you see as the future and lack of knowledge on a particular subject has led you to a mistaken conclusion. I wish I could say it was the first time.

And for the life of me I can't understand your views on the Serbian media. I thought we agreed that the Serbian media is open to too much influence whether that is foreign money, BIA or domestic businessmen. Being quoted in the Serbian media is hardly the same as factual based reporting.

I do not see Russian or Chinese services opening up in Belgrade either to provide an alternative. Although I did not that Al Jazerra have expanded their Serbian / Balkan operation, albeit with Sarajevo as their 'capital'.

Let me repeat to those who still don't understand - WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BBC WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BBC EXTERNAL SERVICES. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION LISTEN TO IT AND THEN CRITICISE IT.

bganon, it is my opinion and your interpretation, which you like to spin.

I did not say the Russian and Chinese system is best. In fact, their reporting system is based on Western standards such as the BBC and CNN but I do like their spin on things. Like I said, you can hear the other side of the story on many Western reports and the Russians do report on Serbian issues very frequently (sports, politics, etc..).

I've read and listened to Western media all my life and it is the same old same old to me. Very boring so I'm not surprised that many are seeking alternatives.

So RT, Xinhua and even Al jazeera are very refreshing in my opinion. I can also understand why BBC is becoming less popular when the competition is a step ahead. People want more than just the normal regurgitated propaganda coming from Western sources.

Zeka, yes I agree. RT has its spin but I can finally see the other side of the story. Not only about Serbia but Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and even the US/UK to name a few.

bganon, of course the BBC Serbian service is not going to report the teenage pregnancy rate in Birmingham and I expect it to be customised for Serbians but it still has the BBC spin on it. I'm happy it's closing because the BBC has not been very favourable to Serbia.

Here is the BBC Serbian service. Check -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/serbian/

Apart from it being in Serbian, how is the content different to the English version?

It's easy to come to Serbia and not fall in line with the dirty partnerships and speak your mind. I have no problem with that but try doing that in the West. You'll be cut off in no time and that is the reason I respect news outlets like RT (Russia Today). They have their spin on things but I can finally hear the other side of the story. That is something I never hear by the Western press about their own doings.
(Zoran, 26 January 2011)

I have to agree with you to an extent Zoran. RT is a breath of fresh air but only if you listen/read the one-sided view of the British/American media.

If RT were your only source of information it'd be as bad as listening to CNN/BBC. From the RT reports I've seen on Kosova you'd never know the Albanian side of the story but only of the Serbs suffering at the hands of these Albanian "monsters". They don't provide context at all.

Lastly another reason you might enjoy RT is because it's more in line with your view of the world largely shaped by the Serbian conflicts of the 90's.

Some of the most independent and professionally minded Serbian journalists have worked for the BBC - usually the ones who don't want to be involved in the dirty partisanship we see daily in the Serbian media.
(bganon, 26 January 2011 18:31)
--
It's easy to come to Serbia and not fall in line with the dirty partnerships and speak your mind. I have no problem with that but try doing that in the West. You'll be cut off in no time and that is the reason I respect news outlets like RT (Russia Today). They have their spin on things but I can finally hear the other side of the story. That is something I never hear by the Western press about their own doings.

OK, so I keep hearing how bad Russia, Iran, Serbia and China are but that is boring these days and I think everyone has had enough. Out with the old and in with the new.

Ian, the Irish constitution claims sovereignty over the six counties of Northern Ireland, but you wouldn't expect the BBC to pander to that. If you want another example, is the BBC biased because it doesn't recognise the Falkland Islands to be the Argentine Malvinas, and ididn't even when the islands were under Argentine occupation?

Ian, B92 refers to Kosovo i Metohije because that is the province's name. I don't think anyone could read the reporting here and not understand that its status was disputed but B92 is incorporated in Serbia, whose constitution stipulates that KiM forms part of its territory.

Would you honestly expect to find the BBC accompanying a Belfast story with a map of "Eire" incorporating 32 counties? Of course not. It's not bias, merely accepted practice.

Ian, B92 refers to Kosovo i Metohije because that is the province's name. I don't think anyone could read the reporting here and not understand that its status was disputed but B92 is incorporated in Serbia, whose constitution stipulates that KiM forms part of its territory.

Would you honestly expect to find the BBC accompanying a Belfast story with a map of "Eire" incorporating 32 counties? Of course not. It's not bias, merely accepted practice.
(Dave, 27 January 2011 15:57)

However it is biased to say that Kosovo is a province of Serbia as Kosovo's status is disputed. If you're to say that Kosovo is either a province or a country then you're taking a side. However if you're to say that Kosovo is a disputed territory, that is being neutral as you're not taking a side; but simply reflecting on Kosovo's disputed status. That is what good honest journalists do when trying to be objective. Saying that Kosovo is either a province or a country is being subjective not objective.

Would you say that British media is biased if they portrayed Kosovo as a country? Even though the UK recognises Kosovo as a country. Of course you would. Hence the reason why the BBC portrays Kosovo as a disputed territory.

Northern Ireland isn't disputed though, every country in the world recognises it as a part of the UK unlike Kosovo being a part of Serbia. There is no dispute in Northern Ireland over sovereignty.

This is a great and tragic loss to many communities. We hope they will re-think their process of elimination.

Let me repeat to those who still don't understand - WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BBC WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BBC EXTERNAL SERVICES. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION LISTEN TO IT AND THEN CRITICISE IT.
(bganon, 27 January 2011 12:27)

I dont want to speak for everybody, but most are aware that the article is about the extended world services offered by the BBC; the conversation has just expanded in include the BBC in general.

That being said, you cannot say that the BBC Serbian service was a valuable or even credible source. The Voice of America is a similar government mouthpiece in the US which tries to shape policy in foreign countries, the BBC extended service is not different.

However, given the economic crisis in Britain and the considerable austerity measures introduced by the British House of Commons, the BBC has had to rationalize it's services. Lets face it, Serbia and Albania are no longer high in the national interest of Brits.

However, to change topics, British Airways cut its direct service flight from London to Belgrade last year. That is an essential service that is unfortunate particulary for the Serbian disapora and business community.

Ian, the world service is for the time being funded by the foreign office not the fee you pay. This is a matter of reputation and standing in the world media. It seems strange that the Balkans is where the cuts are. Also, why should expats be catered for?

The BBC is now obliged to fund the World Service from the licence fee, which is part of the reason for this set of cuts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11572171. I'd be interested to know, does anyone posting on hear still listen to the BBC in Serbian or Albanian?

Have you got any creditable references for that? You do realise that the BBC is not allowed to be biased. Obviously it is impossible to be 100% objective, however it is not "propaganda machine" as you say.

Zoran there is no need to spin your opinion as you have mentioned your admiration for the new Russian / Chinese world order on numerous occasions.

That is the prism by which you are looking at this issue. Again, without actually knowing anything about the particular issue in question.

Each issue, in my humble, deserves to be looked at on its own merits before passing opinion, or its an ill informed opinion. In fact frankly I don't even see the point in posting on an issue if one doesn't want to know anything about it, but to repeat one's worldview.

I don't disagree with you that Russia and China are becoming increasingly important actors in the global system. However, this has little to do with the ending of the BBC Serbian service.

Insomuch as it has something to do growth / decline of nations, it is a comment on the decline of the UK generally and the need for cuts.

As somebody who supports factual reporting and a wide variety of media I am against the Serbian service being closed down. And I have to say that although I have watched some RT (which is pretty good) and have little experience of Chinese media, I have read numerous reports by organisations I respect that state there is a lot of state / private inteference in the Chinese and Russia media. Its possible there are exceptions I suppose, but I very much doubt that it is of the professional standard one can hear on BBC Serbian.

And the comparison of an occasional report on Russian / Chinese TV with a dedicated Serbian service are two different things entirely.

(Zoran, 27 January 2011 16:34)

The BBC doesn't portray Kosovo as independent but as a disputed territory.
Also I do watch RT, I really like it, however it is very biased.

Ian, the Irish constitution claims sovereignty over the six counties of Northern Ireland, but you wouldn't expect the BBC to pander to that. If you want another example, is the BBC biased because it doesn't recognise the Falkland Islands to be the Argentine Malvinas, and ididn't even when the islands were under Argentine occupation?
(Dave, 27 January 2011 17:47)

Ireland recognised Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom in 1998 as part of the Good Friday/ Belfast Agreement. This was done by the 19th Amendment to the Irish Constitution which was put to a referendum with 94.4% in favour of the referendum.

Personally I support a united Ireland.

The BBC is also neutral when it comes to the Falkland Islands. For example this is what the BBC says about them:

"The waters surrounding the disputed islands are considered by the UK to be part of the British Overseas Territories. But Buenos Aires believes the UK is illegally occupying the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8523894.stm

Also it is not biased to call them the "Falklands Islands" instead of "Islas Malvinas" as that is a language issue not a political issue. BBC News Spanish refers to them as "Islas Malvinas" as that is the name of the Islands in Spanish. If the Islands were apart of Argentina and no-one objected, they'd still be called the Falkland Islands in the English language.

Jugoslavija have you listened to the BBC Serbian service, or are you making a generalist comment without knowing?

As for cuts, yes, I know they had to make them. But why is irrelevant Serbia and Albania axed whilst irrelevant Croatia is not?

Actually I'm not sure that many people know the difference between BBC and its external services. Their only frame of reference is what they have seen on television - which is not the same thing, or the same journalists.

I can and do say that the BBC Serbian (formerly Jugoslav) service WAS a valuable and credible source. It has become less valuable and arguably less credible as cuts were made to its staff meaning more reliance or re-reported news. There is no question about that. In the old days the Jugoslav service provided excellent news to a hungry audience fed up with state news banging on about how this year's crops are bigger than last years, or how loved Communist party officials were. There were interviews with dissidents both nationalist, democratic / reformist and former communists back when such media freedom was a dream in SFRJ. Similarly the Serbian service provided a valuable alternative to those fed up with the dominant state national based propoganda of 1990's Serbia. I remember that all too well. And I am well aware of exactly when 'opposition' newspapers existed in FRJ btw, when they were closed down and which towns 'opposition' media was available in. BBC news was available for anybody with a shortwave radio. Relevant it certainly was.

Yes I know about BA, I used the service many times before. However, this service may be reintroduced some day, provided charter flights don't kill BA completely. The BBC Serbian service will not.

Someone name me a news service without some form of bias, and I'll change my name to Zdravko.

Zoran a big round of applause for finally trying to inform yourself about an issue, even though you have decided far in advance what your opinion is. I know how boring it must be for you to do that, much easier to dismiss something without knowing.

It is quite obvious what the difference in content is even from a glance at the webpage - there is more specialisation on the Balkans specifically the areas where Serbs live such as Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia. But there is also greater emphasis on stories with countries that have historic ties to Serbia / Jugoslavija or where there is a diaspora community.

If you listen to the radio - as the webpage content is superficial, you would see that there are more interviews with Serbians and analysis of the political and economic situation. This news never makes it to the BBC proper, so no only somebody who hasn't a clue would think its the same content as say BBC world.

And as I keep saying having a Chinese service is all very well, but firstly it is not in Serbian, secondly its not focussed on Serbia. Rather its just like any any world media, whether of a higher quality or not I'm not able to say - because I haven't seen / listened to it SO CANNOT HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION.

I have to agree with the views of Bganon and Ian,UK. This closure is just of BBC Serbian service; this service is different to BBC World, BBC news.co.uk and others. The BBC Serbian Service employs highly able and independent local journalists. It is not and has never been all about a service for expat Brits. It’s a service for those living in Serbia – plain and simple.

It is correct that, unlike other news organisations the BBC is legally obliged to be impartial. By staying impartial and questioning governments, the BBC has irritated all political parties at one time or another. It refuses to act as government mouthpiece see - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/attempts-to-control-media-have-a-history-of-backfiring-631432.html

All Prime Ministers have wanted to shut up the BBC – and all have failed. The conservative party (Margaret Thatcher) was furious at the BBC over impartial reporting of the Falkland War and Northern Ireland. The labour party (Tony Blair) criticised the BBC over its impartial coverage of NATO bombing of civilians in Yugoslavia. There are multiple examples. My partner is Serbian and is upset at the closure of the BBC Serbian service. The closure won’t really affect people living in UK (but it’s their taxes that pay for it!). However, the closure will be a significant loss to people living in Serbia and across the Balkans.

Peace and respect to all

GRUK