I love the BBC. I’m proud of the BBC – as Mitch
Benn sings, as UK citizens “it’s this and lousy weather that keep us together.”
In the face of decades of cuts and the frustrations of successive governments,
the BBC has continued to lead the world in broadcasting and news journalism, and
in its spare time has created the world’s best children’s programming and one
of its handful of best websites.
My mother worked at Bush House, I have friends
in BBC journalism, and I am predisposed to believe that their news is the proper
news in a way that any other source’s is just not.
Part of the appeal of BBC news is that
it is regularly attacked both from the right and from my comrades on the left
for hideous bias, suggesting that they must have a sensible balance. Therefore,
my thesis would usually go, current left-wing fury at “the meeja” and the BBC
in particular about coverage of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party is simply par for
the course.
And yet, and yet.
In the last couple of months both major
party leaders have chosen, or been forced, to allow free partliamentary voting
and campaigning on topics which split their parties – bombing Syria and the EU
referendum. The variation in coverage of these two decisions has been extraordinary:
war in Syria became a subplot to internal Labour politics, while war in the
Conservative party became, er, a subplot to internal Labour politics.
This is the clearest of any number of
examples where Corbyn’s Labour is simply not getting a fair hearing, contemplation
of the precise angle of his bow at the Cenotaph being another egregious low
point. Her Majesty’s Opposition is not being given the chance to oppose, and
there is a constant spotlight on its own processes. So why is this happening?
Firstly, Corbyn’s team is not playing
the established media game – or possibly they are trying but are no good at it.
Their spin doctors aren’t in the ear of news editors, and their parliamentary
party is not on message compared to the ranks of Tories dutifully tweeting
about “security” and the “long-term economic plan”. The well-earned contempt in
which the left holds most print media undoubtedly seeps into their attitude
towards broadcast journalism as well.
This is doubtless not ideal material
for news editors to work with. However, it is not the job of a news
organisation to be spoonfed spin and soundbites by press officers, or gossip by
“senior sources”. Their job – in the case of the BBC their requirement – is to
look at what is happening in the world and report it as objectively as possible,
with news clearly differentiated from comment.
(Also, hands up who would be glad never
again to hear the phrase “later today X is expected to say Y about Z” as the endless
drip of party-led expectation management leads the news…)
When it comes to comment, both sides of
an argument need to be heard. The standard BBC method, on Today or Newsnight,
is to have a heated debate between two people ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ something; stem
cell research, say, or salad cream. (That’s not whimsy, Today really had a
segment on whether Heinz should stop making salad cream. Carol Vorderman was pro
salad cream, I think Nigella Lawson was anti.)
However, on Newsnight recently five
voices were heard during a debate on Trident, none of which were opposed to
renewal. And this in an organisation which until very recently gave climate change
deniers an equal voice with actual scientists in such conversations.
On a range of issues, including renationalisation
of transport and utilities, the housing crisis, entitlement to and levels of social
security, and the concept of austerity itself, there is no longer any
significant agreement between the two main parties. This should offer any
number of opportunities for compelling news broadcasting as differing political
philosophies and policies are argued out. Instead, the opportunity is lost in favour
of feeding an agenda that Labour is somehow unserious and unelectable for
investigating policies with which many or most of the population agree.
Whatever you think of him, Corbyn is a different
type of party leader than anyone for at least a generation. In beliefs and methodology,
he does not fit into the Labour leader-shaped hole the media is used to. With
strong opinions allied to a polite manner and a commitment to seeking
consensus, his leadership is ill-suited to a modern news cycle. I would argue
that this means the modern news cycle needs to change. There is nothing
intrinsically wrong with spending a few days over a reshuffle; the media could
have reported the results rather than contemplating its navel while moaning
about the time taken.
It’s not as if there was nothing else
going on; with a significant and controversial housing bill in parliament, rail
fares rising again, a shooting in Paris, the Chinese stock market in crisis,
the Chancellor talking about interest rate rises, and northern Britain still underwater,
it is absurd that the resignation of a junior shadow minister was anywhere near
yesterday’s news bulletins, let alone leading them.
The role
of the BBC in inviting Stephen Doughty to become, if not a household name,
then at least a news story for half a day by resigning on air seems not
particularly controversial. The idea that this constituted a “blow to Corbyn”
and that this blow constituted a major news story is much more worthy of
challenge. In a world where Nick
Robinson of all people suggests there is inherent anti-Corbyn bias at the
BBC, perhaps it is time to look at how the news is generated.
Finally, why am I like everyone else
looking at the BBC in particular, when it is so clearly better at news gathering
and reporting than its commercial alternatives? Precisely because the BBC is special
and different for all the reasons above and many more. And because it has
earned the right over generations to be judged by higher standards than other
British news organisations, and to be challenged from a place of support when
it does not meet those standards.
I do not believe for a moment that the
BBC or individuals within it are Tory stooges with an agenda to destroy Jeremy
Corbyn. What I do think is that political journalism has become too formulaic,
with agendas set by politicians rather than journalists. This is not good for
journalism or politics; let’s hope the monstering of a scruffy, bumbling,
tie-less and utterly committed party leader starts a debate about how things
might be improved. And that the improvement begins in the news department of
the world’s best broadcaster.
