Why should we defend BBC News?
Thursday, October 18, 2007 
Before writing about the BBC, I must declare an interest. For five years (1985-1990) I ran a small, London-based research group called the Media Monitoring Unit. The MMU was founded by Dr Julian Lewis (now Conservative MP for New Forest East) and Lord Chalfont, a former Labour minister. My job was to expose what many observers felt was the systematic (or institutional) bias against right-of-centre political opinion on national television current affairs programmes. See HERE and HERE.
As a result of this work - which once resulted in a front page, Evening Standard headline, 'YES, THE BBC IS BIASED' - I developed a serious love-hate relationship with the Beeb. (Bizarrely, the Independent on Sunday later ran a front page news story suggesting that I was motivated by the fact that I had failed to win a place on the BBC's news training scheme when I left university!!)
Although I am an ardent free marketeer, I accept the concept of public service broadcasting and I support some sort of licence fee if that is what is needed to keep the BBC afloat. I like the BBC - in principle - for lots of reasons. In particular, I like the fact that there are TV programmes and sporting events that are not interrupted by ad breaks. This comes at a price that I am willing to pay, although I accept that people who rarely watch the BBC may baulk at this.
I also like the idea that the BBC should provide a benchmark for broadcasting excellence to which others should aspire, emulate or even exceed. But that's another debate.
What I hate about the BBC (News and Current Affairs in particular) is the raging, institutionalised bias that is as evident now as it was in the Eighties. Today, commentators are rushing to the defence of BBC News, arguing that 'news' is what the BBC does best and that, if there are to be budget cuts, they should be made elsewhere. I'm not so sure.
If news is what the BBC does best, I'm a Martian. I could write thousands of words of the subject, but you only have to look at the way the BBC treats the issue of health (smoking, obesity, drinking) or climate change to appreciate just how biased the corporation is. On matters such as passive smoking (or smoking in public places generally), the BBC completely failed in its public duty to debate or report the issue fairly, impartially or in depth. I don't recall a single item on Newsnight (the corporation's flagship current affairs programme) that discussed the issue in any detail. As for a serious documentary on the subject - forget it. It never happened.
On a whole range of social issues, the BBC has been happy to dance to the tune of the environmentalists, the health lobby and the government. If we're going to defend it, BBC News should focus on fact not speculation or individual (and often perjorative) analysis. With regard to current affairs in general, now is the time argue for a new, genuinely independent BBC that looks at issues fairly (if not 100 per cent impartially), and leaves the viewer to draw his own conclusions.
Instead, people are getting their knickers in a twist about Jonathan Ross's (alleged) £18m three-year contract. That's a smokescreen. The real issue is: does BBC News and Current Affairs deserve or justify the money it receives from licence payers like you and me? I'm not sure that it does.
Reader Comments (20)
The BBC certainly does not deserve the money it extorts from us in the form of a licence fee, especially when it only reports from its own standpoint and does not, as you say, tell the story from all sides and allow all opinions and facts to be aired.
If they are so good at what they do then they should not be afraid to present all the facts, from all sides and let the viewers make up their own minds. In my view, to be so biased, they cannot have much faith in themselves.
I certainly object to the amount I have to pay and certainly do believe that I, for one, don't get any value for money. As my husband said last night, perhaps they can get rid of some of the live sporting events that take over the TV and all of our normal viewing - that would save them some money. Neither of us is interested in football, rugby, snooker, etc and don't see why we should have to fund it!
Before and after the introduction of the draconian smoking ban in Scotland and thereafter in Wales, England and Ireland I cannot recollect any fair and unbiased reporting emanating from the BBC. On the contrary, they seemed only to be a mouthpiece for the government and fundamentalist anti smoking lobbies who although unelected seem to have so much influence on that government. Never once was airing given, that I can recall, to proper scientific debate which would have and still could debunk the propaganda maliciously spread by these organizations and, so called, charities.
Stop caling it a "licence fee" would be a good start. Its a tax...plain and simple its just another tax.
The BBC’s news service is indefensible, it has been the cause of many media scares over the years, and its self-opinionated news reporting sometimes borders on farcical lies, sadly because of its so called famed “impartial” reporting many believe it.
A “report” out today indicated to a “recent report” about “new research” which came from a “recent survey” published by an independent group of researchers all plying for more funding, proved, that whilst trying to obtain honest opinions from the BBC, it encountered distorted reporting of one sided issues, it found that because of the corporations power and its ability to stamp out alternative views by sheer ridicule, decided it needs further research (money) however a new survey will be needed to confirm this and needs an independent backer to help prove them wrong (The BBC have offered). The BBC has become almost as believable the Sunday Sport.
If the BBC needs to save money it could start by putting out to tender its job advertising instead of giving this all to "The Guardian".
Now it is harping on about obesity being potentially as "serious" as smoking. But nobody states (or is allowed to state) the obvious - that giving up smoking makes people fat!
An interesting post from Simon; it coincides with a new hobby of mine - to watch first the 6 o'clock news on BBC; then the 6.30 news on ITV -
plus the 7 pm news on C4 when I can. (Yes, I do have an addictive personality type ..). But the contrast is fascinating, esp. to see the way in which the BBC can play down certain items, and play up others. Often the difference in emphasis within the reports is palpable. I have to say that very often C4 is far more in-depth, full-on and avoids political correctness, at least in my perception, than the other two. That may be reflected in their documentaries as well. Worth pursuing this line
of enquiry, esp. in relation to the complete lack of debate and fait accompli of the smoking ban that we have witnessed. One could virtually say "backed as it was by the BBC".
I recall one interview where the young female reporter on 1 July met a very elderly lady who was over 100. She was presented as a rarity -
"a smoker who had lived to this great age". Dripping with patronisation, the interviewer asked her if she regretted her smoking habit and wasn't she sorry now she had smoked all these years. The dear lady held her court gently and mumbled a bit. She was then shown smoking (close up pic of course); and she then said: "Well, I only smoke 4 a day, and I've never inhaled." I just felt ill - what a total insult to that lady and to the viewing public; what infantile rubbish, patronising and almost obscene. But that's all part of the mind-set.
Since the Dr Kelly affair the BBC lost its independence and is now nothing more than the mouthpiece of HM Government, just the same as NTV in Moscow is to Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin.
I would have no objection to paying an increased Licence Fee if the BBC was genuinly independent, free of its left of centre bias ect. However, at the moment I begrudge every penny as I feel it is a tax going to fund a continued New Labour Government.
I wish to learn the true facts and have the Freedom2choose my own conclusions.
The whole news business , this includes all newspapers as well, has not once put forward an answer on the side of smokers.
I wonder if ITN could run the news service better than the BBC.
Just on a side point, not to do with the BBC (and couldn't find a place to put it), I was horrified to read an article in the FT today, can't really remember what it was about, but the writer was writing about crimes in society and lumped smokers in with paedophiles. How on earth can you do that!?!?!
Privatise the BBC and be damned. I don't see why I should be forced to pay for this sub-standard, biased rag.
Indeed, it's reporting is incredibly one-sided and many topices are so poorly researched. The big joke is, of course, that the BBC "thinks" it deals with topics in an even handed manner. If this is the best even-handed manner the BBC can muster bring on the reaper.
Hark, I hear the fat lady singing!
You mean we may be at risk of losing our daily diet of patronising, irrelevant, biased, and inaccurate propaganda delivered by sneeringly arrogant pseudo-celebrities?
BRING IT ON!
But won't the wrong people be getting the boot?
The cosy pc mangers with their "help lines" will remain in post.
The BBC belongs to the last Century. The whole concept of the license tax is absurd in the 21st Century. It should have to stand on its own against all of the commercial stations.
Now, we are told that this television company doesn't want to spend its (our!!!) money on programming, but rather on becoming a player on the WWW.
This is just another useless effort by our useless government.
MS (Southampton)
I can't remember a time now when the BBC news reporting wasn't biased - look at all the red in the background in the studios and the endless reports about smoking/obesity/ drinking - everything being bad for us. I remember a few months ago when the smoking ban was being introduced in Wales and N. Ireland, people were interviewed and were either in favour of the ban, or others who smoked were being so very apologetic for smoking and saying they supposed it would be a good thing. No one ranted and raved and said they didn't want the ban and it would ruin social lives and businesses. We were told that millions of people would now crawl out and come into the smoke-free pubs/bars/cafes etc. but where are they? We have, however, been told that tobacco sales have decreased over summer which is an enormous success!! It looks as though all these successes will last forever!
BBC has always been one sided in their reporting. Get rid of this dinosour.
Jenny, could it be that tobacco sales decreased during the summer because many people were holiday abroad and bringing back a whole load bought a lot cheaper in EU countries? Perhaps the trend over the past few years should be looked at to determine whether tobacco sales have been falling in the summer months. That would put a spanner in the 'Success' story!
A good point from Jenny about the colour red and the BBC - I have felt that for a long time. As for newspapers - Martin Townsend, ed. Sunday Express is one to watch; he seems to be alone in speaking out for smokers and against the ban (even though apparently he doesn't smoke); he has a concern for civil liberty and treating people as adults.
PS I do like Boris Johnson's statement that he wants "to bring some joy back into the lives of Londoners". Made me realise how little any politician stands for that one simple thing.
Let's never forget the pharma industry. The trouble is, tobacco has been so targeted as the beast that it has taken root as just that in people's minds. Any substance can be presented in either an attractive or revolting light (probably anything can since we live in a split of world of opposites); contrast the wonderful aroma of tobacco, good food, good company - or a satisfying fag on a light-night walk home, with either a steaming, over-loaded ashtray of dog-ends, or someone on a street-corner shouting obscenities, with a fag in the mouth. Same substance, different emphasis. We've been fed the latter over and over again. Who wins?
The pharma industry, when "tobacco is replaced by a substitute" - which I think the ex-minister, the Hewitt woman, actually did say would happen. I shouldn't wonder if she and the Red Ken didn't push for the ban in tandem. A partial ban was outlined in the labour manifesto, and then reneged. Not much change there then - and we let them get away with it over and over again. Fight-back time, big-time.
I agree with the other comments.
The BBC is a propoganda machince for the Labour Government (who I did not vote for).
Should the Conservatives ever get voted in will the BBC become Conservative , I doubt it.
Also the BBC does not allow freedom of speech if is against their view.
Why should the tax payer (licensee payer) keep the BBC in jobs, let them compete like all other stations.
The BBC does not challenge for any England games (Football/Cricket/Rugby) and it shows too many repeats where is all the money going it is not on new programs.
I believe the staff are wasting it on trips abroad freebies and awful outdated foreign imports (neighbours)
And far too may reality shows which stop schedules for programs people want to see like CASUALTY etc (stopped for Strictly Come dancing, do they get paid to appear on that and what does it cost ?)
We have to give some credit to the BBC War Correspondents because they go there and do there jobs, however I have to agree with a lot of the comments here, as a smoker, I have not seen any backup at all for the smoker