Loving, supporting and challenging BBC News

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.