Are Newspapers Doomed? 338
Ponca City, We love you writes "James Surowiecki has an interesting article in the New Yorker that crystalizes the problems facing print newspapers today and explains why we may soon be seeing more major newspapers filing for bankruptcy, as the Tribune Company did last week. 'There's no mystery as to the source of all the trouble: advertising revenue has dried up,' writes Surowiecki, but the 'peculiar fact about the current crisis is that even as big papers have become less profitable they've arguably become more popular,' with the blogosphere piggybacking on traditional journalism's content. Surowiecki imagines many possible futures for newspapers, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to deep-pocketed patrons. 'For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime — intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on — and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.'"
It's attrition in the target audience. (Score:3, Insightful)
Once most of the people who grew up reading newspapers die or just stop reading them, it's inevitable that the print form will cease to exist -- as we know it. I see a lot more prints of news websites than I see newspaper clippings, so the need for SOME of it to hit paper is still there. It's just that most people don't want the whole thing delivered physically any more. They still want the content, but most of it never leaves the digital form, so while NEWSPAPERS may die, journalism does not necessarily follow suit.
Mal-2
"Soon?" (Score:4, Insightful)
'For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime â" intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on â" and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.'
really? I thought that vanished in 1999
There has been very little fact checking or true investigation in reporting in quite some time, and I'm afraid you can't blame the internet for that.
Newspapers will not die though. Most of their stories are sourced from the same organizations which source on-line content (reuters, associated press, et al), and they will continue on in their ineptitude and failure to fact check or investigate, as usual.
i hope so (Score:4, Insightful)
last I checked my local newspaper was easily 50% to 70% just ads
and the content trashy with alot of spelling mistakes
at least on the web we can adblock the noise
I doubt all newspapers are... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ad revenue is a bad model (Score:5, Insightful)
Ad revenue cannot and should not sustain newspapers or television. We really need to figure out what is important to have in our society and start ponying up money to support it. I would like to see more money going to services like PBS and NPR to expand that quality of programming into a local printed publication. I have to admit that I very rarely read a paper, but I do listen to NPR pretty much every time I am in the car and I recognize that the bulk of their programming comes from news discovered by print journalists.
Go ahead and tax people for it and give the papers away. If there are no reporters out there to dig up the interesting stories that don't qualify for the sensationalist 10PM news shows then we are in danger of losing that part of our history. It's time people stop thinking about themselves, and making a quick buck on ads by catering to the lowest common denominator and start thinking about what they can do to add value to the quality of life for the entire human race.
Re:Oh No! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is terrible. You can't put websites at the bottom of the parrot cage!
Newspapers were considered so important to the country that the first amendment to the Constitution preserved the freedom of the press. It's sad that I'll likely live to see the end of newspapers in this country. Most have already lost relevance. It may seem cool to get your news from bloggers but they aren't news sources they just voice opinions they aren't held to any standards. Even broadcast news is all opinion pieces these days. Objective news is a dying thing. Free speech and freedom of the press were separate things in the Constitution for a reason. One is opinion and one is supposed to preserve the right to objective news that isn't controlled by the government. This country would not exist as we know it without newspapers so they deserve more respect than to be viewed as bird cage filler. It'll be a sad day when the last newspaper closes. The founding fathers would be horrified and we should be as well.
I heard this 10 years ago - the death of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
internet. Once micropayments came along (which back then was always real soon), everything on the internet was supposed to become pay-for. Every website you visit would deduct a fraction of a penny from your browser or something. This would be "necessary" to pay for inherent costs. What they didn't count on was that on the internet, oftentimes, if someone doesn't provide it free, someone else is willing to step in and grab that audience.
Also, since many newspapers are little more than repackaged AP and Reuters news, looking at the NY Times for guidance - I don't know what their value proposition is supposed to be. This past election cycle, because I paid attention to politics - I have seen how the old media doesn't even pretend to present the world as it is but just their packaged version of it - they do a bad job of reporting things of niche interest - 3rd parties, other people running other than the "top 2" candidates that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, etc.
Considering this, what value do they bring to the table? If they don't carry the most general of news, someone else will. And since they don't cover anything in depth (not every interest in audience, by nature), most easy to find forums, blogs, etc will cover a subject deeper and be more informative.
All I see is someone bickering that their pre-packaged, repackaged jack-of-all-subjects, master-of-none is becoming obsolete by the fact that it's not the pre-1980s anymore when people relied on print to stay informed.
AP broke the newspaper industry (Score:5, Insightful)
I get two newspapers each week.
One is going broke, one is doing fine.
One is skimmed, one is read front to back.
One is full of AP content, one has no AP content.
One is full of news I have already seen online, one is full of fresh stories.
Most newspapers are trying to churn out stories for the AP, hoping that their (version of the) story gets picked up and brings in some money. Meanwhile they have to pay for the expensive incoming AP stories, which they use liberally in their papers to justify the cost, filling their paper with barely readable, highly edited and condensed, dreck that has been widely available elsewhere.
Newspapers that will survive are covering the stories that no one else is covering.
Re:Oh No! (Score:3, Insightful)
Newspapers were considered so important to the country that the first amendment to the Constitution preserved the freedom of the press.
Nope. Newspapers aren't all that important, even in those early days.
What was really important was pamhlets. And those live on, in the form of not only that laser printer on your desk, but also the flash-ban books in the nonfiction section. And blogs.
Free speech and freedom of the press were separate things in the Constitution for a reason.
Yes, but not for the reason you think. Speech and press are mentioned separately -- in the REDUNDANT first ten amendments -- because we inherited British jurisprudence, which has them be separate things.
Remember that the Bill of Rights was written as a "sure, we'll put it in just to be safe" thing. It wasn't part of the original negotiated plan, and was likely written by a legislator who was trying to compe up with a good inclusive list one afternoon.
Re:Ad revenue is a bad model (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not want to support what you support. I'm perfectly happy without TV and getting my news on the internet without any level of burden to tax payers save the .gov sites.
Why? Everytime I go see a free paper on one of typical newspaper vending machines, most of them are still there. People don't value them because they see it's free and figure it translates to cheap or not worthwhile. Also, many people take those free papers and not read one word, but only because newspaper is good for cleaning glass, starting fires in stoves, packing material, etc.
Also, editorial content will be compromised soon enough. Parts of the audience will say it's a great paper, but then demand sports coverage. Then tax dollars go toward reporting, to me, something worthless, games and whatnot. One man's trash...
Your solution - a free paper - is going to a problem that is not there. If a person wants to be, he can be well-informed rather freely online. But many people don't want to be well-informed, they want their cartoons and sports and that's it. You are trying a solve a human tendency in the wrong way.
It will also be obsolete within 10 years. Cheap wifi-capable ereaders will be available and print newspaper market will be like the buggy whip industry in the 1890s. Days numbered and going down fast.
Chicken and the Egg: Ad Revenue and Content (Score:3, Insightful)
The comment above points to ad revenue drying up as one cause for the demise of print news. While reduced ad revenue may cause newspapers to fold (pun intended), it is not the cause of the reduced circulation and therefore lower ad revenue.
Content is everything and as our society has become more politically polarized, the bias in American news media has become more and more obvious. This leads potential readers (like me) to simply not subscribe. Just as when I see movies with certain politically vocal stars, I simply avoid the box office. This is America and actors can be advocates and newspapers can be political advertisements, but choices have consequences and I sometimes wonder if these groups understand that you can't diss half of your audience without consequences.
I am a computer guy, but I hate to read long pieces on line. I would actually like to subscribe to a regional paper if I really did think that I was being offered unbiased news. So although I think that online media contributes to the demise, once again I do not think it is the cause.
The simplest cause for the demise of newspapers: content (or lack thereof).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Soon?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Newspapers will not die though. Most of their stories are sourced from the same organizations which source on-line content (reuters, associated press, et al), and they will continue on in their ineptitude and failure to fact check or investigate, as usual.
Aye. And also newspapers are (have always been IMHO) "influencers". They are bought and maintained with the idea of having a way of influencing public opinion. In a democracy, public opinion is a source of money, so the owners of newspapers are richly paid beyond the advertising revenues, in ways not reflected in the accounting books. In short, we are always reading about newspapers dying, but I seem to detect no lack of them in the newsstands.
Re:It's attrition in the target audience. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once most of the people who grew up reading newspapers die or just stop reading them, it's inevitable that the print form will cease to exist -- as we know it.
That would be me, then. I grew a broadsheet reader, but I don't bother nowadays. The press try to claim a "gatekeeper" role, filtering the real news from the dross (I see they're still claiming "intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on"), but they've long since abandoned that. Apart from opinion, all you find in newspapers now is PR releases reprinted almost verbatim and Associated Press reports reprinted almost verbatim (it's fascinating to compare reports of the same incident in different newspapers: big news each paper will put it's own spin on, but mid-range and low level news is often word-for-word the same between newspapers). The only question the editors ask is "will this sell" (more precisely, "will this supply readers who we can sell to advertisers"), which is no more effective as a gatekeeper than the blogger who says "will this entertain my readers". I don't see how the news press can survive; it's only added value for the readers would be investigation, fact checking and real, on-the-ground reporting, and that's expensive (too expensive for the extra readership it attracts). All that's left is pure entertainment -- celeb gossip, pictures of scantily clad young people and amusing factoids pretending to be news. The internet is a threat there, too, but at least it's cheaper. I'm guessing that it's cheaper to send a reporter to a celebrity party than to a war zone?
Nobody's saying they'll just "poof" (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody's saying they'll just go "poof" and just cease to exist, one day. There most certainly will be newspapers around in 15 years time. But how many?
I used to read a newspaper in the metro, and even got the paper delivered to my mailbox; but it's even easier to just read it on one of my 24" screens instead of having to go down the stairs to pick it up. And in the metro I just read the news on my $smartphone.
Re:Ad revenue is a bad model (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>. I would like to see more money going to services like PBS and NPR
Then give them more of YOUR money; not mine. I don't want my dollars going to support those pro-government, anti-individual (i.e. socialist) organizations. If you like PBS/NPR, I'm happy for you and fully support your decision to give money to them. But Not my money. My money stays in my wallet.
Re:Mainstream reporting is biased, full of crap (Score:1, Insightful)
Only on Slashdot could someone argue with a straight face that the mainstream media isn't Left enough...
Re:i hope so (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the primary reason that the newspaper industry must survive. Ad revenue is what supports the media industry (whatever media you choose to pick). Everyone ignores ads to a greater or lesser extent. But it is easier for the publishers to sell companies on the idea that their ads might be seen in a physical media than an on-line media. This is the primary reason that the TV industry is so against the time shifters - be it VCRs or more modern variants. If my commercial is zapped, why should I pay to put it on your show? It's a point that is even harder to sell on-line.
When there is no revenue from ads, the subscribers won't pay a high enough price to cover your operating costs. How many on-line news sources do you actually subscribe to? How many do you subscribe to if the "cost" is nothing more than an on-line registration? I'd guess pretty few. So you are a content leach. That works fine for you, since there are still enough people paying money in print (or cable TV subscriptions, or on-line equivalents) to pay people enough to produce content that they can distribute in its entirety or in reduced form to the on-line world.
If the revenue flow ceases to exist, there isn't going to be much content worth reading. As things become tighter, you can be assured that those providing content will seek to protect it further. The cost of litigation is something that the on-line bloggers haven't had to deal with much yet. You can rest assured it will happen.
Those editors have lots of job functions. I'll be the first to agree that the quality of the newspapers has declined somewhat. The editors might be just as good, but the reporters ability to write correct English has declined. More mistakes are getting through edit. Another important job function is to keep the content fresh. A particular blogger may have an agenda, but if he or she never extends beyond that agenda - do you keep coming back? A third job function is to keep the paper from being sued for libel. That is another litigation expense that the on-line only crowd hasn't had to deal with much yet.
On-line will always have a place. It is convenient to find news about a particular subject during the day when the newspaper is not at hand. But at the end of the day of looking at a computer screen for 8 hours, I'd much rather sit down to a nice local newspaper and a nice global newspaper to read the pieces of news I'm interested in. I personally can't stand the talking heads on TV blathering the same 1 minute sound bite every 15 minutes. I'd much rather skip around and read what I want from print.
Re:Oh No! (Score:3, Insightful)
No individual view is objectve, but if different views are aired - without any official hindrance (congess shall make no law...), people can make up their own minds among them. In practice the real extreme loonies usually cancel each other out.
That of course works as long as the people are well informed & educated enough to choose wisely...
Analogous to music (Score:5, Insightful)
....SOMEONE has to create the content. The blogosphere (and hell, even slashdot) mostly points to someone else's content. Joe Blogger isn't going to be doing any in-depth investigations and that is the foundation of journalism. One can look at how superficial how TV journalism is to print journalism...and then realize that the blogosphere offers insight and nothing else.
Content isn't going to come with compensation.
Re:"Soon?" (Score:5, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Oh those poor "news" papers (Score:1, Insightful)
Newspapers and the editors who run them have long been bought by different people.
Newspapers can increase circulation by ditching the propaganda and carrying factual content. I have no sympathy.
Re:It's attrition in the target audience. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, my local paper, run by a chain that publishes a similar paper in about two dozen nearby areas, is thriving, albeit not setting any profitability records.
Local papers have local news and that's what's important to people. It's still a thrill for a parent to see their kid's picture in the local paper. Local merchants need a way to reach local customers.
When the web becomes a truly localized place for most people, then the small papers may disappear. Right now they fill a niche and throughout all of publishing, those are the businesses that are surviving the "onslaught" of the web.
Re:Ad revenue is a bad model (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. Targeting is not just by want, but also by time and location. Print and TV are location based, due to physics.
For example, if we take a fast food restaurant: By necessity, location based. Corporate wants to run a trial sandwich, only in a certain area, for a certain period of time. It will advertise that new McStinky only on the local channels, for a specific price. Hence, only the local people see it. With internet based ads, your connection can come from anywhere, to anywhere. So a lot of people will cruise down to their local McScotsman, looking for the new McStinky sandwich. And the person behind the counter will have no clue.
Same with snow tires (Mexico vs Montreal), sandals in February(Miami vs Bangor), or speedboats (San Diego vs Iowa).
Yes, they are screwing it up. But there are a LOT of considerations on where and how to spend those ad dollars beyond just 'format'.
Re:Ad revenue is a bad model (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget too that BBC News also covers things that are shameful for the BBC itself, such as the fines [bbc.co.uk].
I think the BBC is one of, if not the, most impartial news source around, personally. Certainly far better than Fox News etc.
But then, I've always had trouble believing what anyone like Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Diane Dimond et al have to say given their very confrontational tone of voice and quickness to anger when they are called on their views, or are otherwise contradicted. They would say they are hard-hitting. I would say they are hot-headed egotistical scuzzbags.
Re:I heard this 10 years ago - the death of the fr (Score:5, Insightful)
This ignores the point of the article - that the bedrock, actual "sources" of news such as the NYT are also in dire financial straits [gawker.com]. Once they are gone (and by that I don't mean "cease to exist," merely that the quality nosedives because there are fewer investigative journalist slots) then all the secondary news sources you decry - and their readers - will be high and dry. The blogs and forums are just cud-chewers. Somebody still has to do the interviews and take the photos for them to ruminate over.
Re:Oh No! (Score:4, Insightful)
It may seem cool to get your news from bloggers but they aren't news sources they just voice opinions they aren't held to any standards.
Newspapers haven't had standards at least since the 1970s.
Even broadcast news is all opinion pieces these days.
"Duh." Anyone who watched the insane rush to anoint Barack Obama and the nastiness with which every member of the press treated the other side (not to mention the witch-hunt mentality towards the few actually neutral reporters who dared to ask Obama/Biden the TOUGH questions) will realize this.
Of course, there's plenty of other evidence why this was the case [howobamagotelected.com].
Objective news is a dying thing.
Again, "Duh." The populace hasn't demanded balanced news, so it's dying. The recent push for the reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine" [wikipedia.org] by the Dems is not really about "fairness", it's about their trying to take a stab at media outlets that don't carry their party line; you can be damn sure they would claim the "big" news networks are already "fair" and so "don't need changing" while they try to censor out anyone that doesn't agree with them.
Free speech and freedom of the press were separate things in the Constitution for a reason. One is opinion and one is supposed to preserve the right to objective news that isn't controlled by the government.
"The right to objective news that isn't controlled by the government" - sadly, the idea of "objective news" is nigh impossible to find. There are so many ways to tilt a story:
- Weasel words
- Incendiary words
- Selective sourcing
- Abuse of statistics ("counting the hits, forgetting the misses", etc)
And that's just a few.
It'll be a sad day when the last newspaper closes.
Funny, I think the opposite. Newspapers will either adapt, or they won't. I'd rather have a lot more, smaller newspapers (and local papers seem to do just fine, because they can get locally-targeted advertising) competing and catching each other's mistakes than one big conglomerate that simply wants to indoctrinate, lie to, deceive, manipulate, and tilt the story over and over and over again.
Re:Epic 2015. (Score:4, Insightful)
What you end up with in that future is a bunch porn, twiiter and trivial drool and nothing of substance.
Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
Because thanks to the internet, we can now get our news from places that are *even more biased* then we could in print or tv. With the click of the back button, you can leave any page or content you disagree with, all the while justifying it by saying "oh they are just biased" then go back to your DailyKos, Digg, or wherever. After all, Digg isn't biased--the people decide what is important. DailyKos tells it like it is. Slashdot is the only place I trust for reporting on Microsoft, everybody else has been bought and paid for, right?
You should be scared of this future you tout. It is one that will be more partisan, and more bitter then the world we are in now.
Main stream media serves an important function--No matter our age, gender, political views, religion or sexuality, the main stream media is something we all use as a common reference point to our world. Without it, what will bind us together?
Re:People interested in news aren't stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
"The investigative reporters are now almost exclusively online. You no longer need a distribution network, and printing facilities. A good investigative reporter can setup a web site fairly easily, and if he/she is any good, the ad dollars will follow."
You are kidding, right? Online investigative reporting doesn't hold a candle to some of my local/regional papers. And I live in the northwest. If the local paper disappears then so does the very good reporting on state and local government.
Now the papers full of AP material, they serve very little purpose and will be no great loss.
Your example of "thetruthaboutcars.com" isn't very good. All you had to do was look at their falling marketshare and legacy costs and do very simple math. In other words, it was "obvious".
Problems with online. Lack of resources (for small outfits), lack of focus (for large outfits), and lack of credibility. Papers (in general) are more credible than online. Their static nature is important. They also serve as a source of record. Some of these things may be overcome. The best of all worlds will probably be a small paper of "unique" items coupled with an online presence.
Re:Mainstream reporting is biased, full of crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh No! (Score:3, Insightful)
I care about my newspapers a lot and would really hate it if they went away. I think they definitely bring something else to the table in terms of news and certain papers are consistently of higher standard than ALL web news outlets because of their indepth reporting, (relatively) unbiased opinion and greater, more sensible appreciation of the bigger picture.
However I don't care about winning over any of you /.ers with this argument- life's too short for that. There is one angle that I can take on this which everyone here will understand: Even if newspapers were just what you get online in paper form, I'd still buy them any day over reading the same stuff online.
;)
Why? Simple- I spend too much time already (in my job) staring at a screen, paper's a refreshing and healthy way of getting the news when you're sick of the TFT.
Full disclosure: I'm 21, so don't give me the he's-stuck-in-his-old-ways argument
Re:Ad revenue is a bad model (Score:2, Insightful)
"I think the BBC is one of, if not the, most impartial news source around, personally."
The BBC is a den of raving lefties sucking up British tax money. If you think it's impartial, you're probably a raving lefty too.
The BBC has two priorities, in order:
1. Keep that tax money coming in.
2. Push their raving lefty ideology.
The only time they may seem 'impartial' is when they're following priority 1 rather than priority 2 (e.g. not pushing too much lefty claptrap when there's a Tory government).
Re:Analogous to music (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they have a 'bias'? Sure, everybody does. So you don't get all your news from them. Look around.
Now, the NYT just might be able to get by because it sits in one of the largest local markets in the world. This may not bode well for other, smaller news organizations.
Investigative reporting is out there. You just have to look. Editors like to rock the boat. That's how you get headlines.
Not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
The first 10 amendments were added so that the 13 colonies would approve the constitution.
Ironically, the separation of church and state was required by Virginia BAPTISTS, who feared domination by New England puritans. (See "So Help Me God", by Forrest Church.) But the Deists (many of the founders were 'Deists', who acknowledged God, but not bible or church) willingly accepted it. The Puritans (Adams, et al) went along.
Law students apparently get to argue whether or not the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) are valid, since their adoption did not follow the process laid out in the Constitution. (One side says they were adopted WITH the Constitution, another side says they have been adopted by stare decisis (respect for prior decisions), and one side argues petulantly that they are not valid.)
IANAL - I just like to read.
Re:Oh No! (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. +1 Insightful. We don't need objective papers; we need biased papers with citizens reading both, and reaching their own conclusions. (In most cases the truth is probably in the middle.)
Re:Oh No! (Score:2, Insightful)
It manages to act outraged that everyone knew Sarah Palin's daughter was pregnant, and ignores questions that show bias the other way. How many Rep voters thought Obama was a Muslim for example.
The guy used multiple choice polls, where the choices helped ensure people voted the way he wanted to.
Re:Oh No! (Score:3, Insightful)
personally, i'd prefer if newspapers became non-profits. by selling ads (usually about 50% of each edition) newspaper publishers become beholden to advertisers.
It sends chills down my spine whenever people talk about non-profits as if they're the magical solution to impartiality and objectivity. It works for a certain type of work, but it would be a dangerous model for newspapers to adopt.
With very few exceptions, non-profits are just not economically independent enough, as they are by far much more at the mercy of their supporters. Since most exceptions are NPOs under the benevolent umbrella of a government or very large organization's budget (e.g.: U.N.), I'd be seriously concerned with a model where newspapers NPOs supported by one government or another.
By becoming non-profits, newspapers would *definitely* be beholden to their donors list. They will literally receive money for the type and angle of their reporting - after all, why would you economically support a newspaper you don't like?
As long as they are economically independent (or attempt to be), newspapers are a lot more likely to have an independent voice and be somewhat objective.
In the current model, if newspapers are selling advertising, that means they're selling *something else* that commercial interests want. Yes, they may expose themselves to potential conflicts of interests - but at least in principle they do not have to pacify their advertisers - and in practice they are beholden to different masters:
- They don't need to establish a patronage relationship with their advertisers
- Can walk away from advertisers making unethical demands (assuming a large enough pool of other advertisers)
- Need to balance the cost of selling out against the loss of their *real product*. i.e.: losing their reputation => losing their audience => losing ALL their advertisers.
The reality is that audience is still king. If there is bias in news media, it is to satisfy the expectations of the audience, which wants its own biases confirmed (not the advertisers'). E.g.: the economic success of certain over-'balanced' media outlets was a matter of ratings increasing along with the 'balance'.
This is really no different from Google's position as a search engine: yes, they sell links. Yes, they *could* seriously twist information for their advertiser's interests. But they lure their audience with the best search results - the moment they compromise that, people move on to the next search engine with better results.
The difference is that Google is well attuned to what the audiences does want, and found a spot where this is a positive feedback that encourages objectivity. Newspapers do not seem to have that level of self-awareness, and are stuck in a business model that is not very profitable. Without some serious soul-searching, they may not find an economic place for their true value (objective, primary source news) soon enough.
Re:Ad revenue is a bad model (Score:1, Insightful)
I think the BBC is one of, if not the, most impartial news source around, personally. Certainly far better than Fox News etc.
Sure, set the bar high.
The BBC is incredibly left-wing and biased. After yet another BBC diatribe, the public outcry was so great they were forced to investigate how biased they are. It was called the Balen report.
The BBC has spent over £200,000 in the courts fighting the release of their own report documenting how biased they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Balen_Report [wikipedia.org]
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1575543.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
If you want a good laugh, read http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]