Monthly Archives: April 2016

Referendum Blog: April 29

EU Referendum Blog | 29th April 2016 | by David Keighley

MORE ROBINSON BIAS: One of the most extraordinary questions of the EU referendum so far was posed by Nick Robinson when he interviewed Lord Patten on the Today programme on Wednesday (27/4). In essence, it seemed that the Today presenter – having first noted how wonderful he (Patten) thought the BBC was – invited the former BBC Chairman to say that the Corporation’s coverage was favouring too much the Brexit case.

The relevant sequence was at the end of the interview. This was it is full:

NR: A last word on an organisation that you used to be in charge of, you were Chairman of this organisation, of course, which you . . .

CP: (speaking over) (word unclear)

NR: . . . generously called ‘the greatest broadcast in the world’ the BBC . . .

CP: Hmm.

NR: There are people on your side of the argument now who are in favour of remaining in the EU who, to paraphrase them say ‘the BBC is bending over backwards to produce balance in this argument, and doing so in a way that does not produce the facts.’

CP: Well . . . erm . . . I think the BBC has an extremely difficult job. Erm, it’s having to cover this referendum, er, with the shadow of a Charter Review and Mr Whittingdale hanging over it, erm, I think that may make people excessively deferential when trying to produce balance. You have the Govenor of the Bank of England on, or, or the IMF chief, so you feel obliged to erm, put up some, er . . . some Conservative backbencher that nobody’s ever heard of on the other side of the argument. And it does, it does . . . occasionally raise eyebrows, but I think I would prefer the BBC to be being criticised for being so balanced, excessively balanced, than for, than for doing anything else. It’s a very great broadcaster, which is dedicated to telling the truth, and that’s an unusual thing in the world of the media.

Fundamental points here before considering in detail how seriously irregular this exchange was are that Lord Patten is a) an ardent Europhile who served as one of the UK’s European Commissioners. He is thus bound by the terms of his pension never to criticise the EU; and b) while BBC Chairman, he vigorously resisted efforts by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee to investigate perceptions that the BBC coverage of EU affairs was strongly pro-EU. He refused three times to appear before the Committee. It was only after he had resigned the post and Rona Fairhead had taken over that the Chairman did appear, in January 2015.

Against this background, a reasonable adversarial question to have put to Patten would have been whether – in the context of the blanket coverage by the Corporation of President Obama’s threat the previous week to put Britain to the ‘back of the queue’ for a trade treaty – BBC reporting had been rigorous and balanced enough. Instead, Robinson tamely asked what Lord Patten thought of the suggestion (from the remain side) that the BBC was bending over backwards to produce balance in the argument in such a way that it was distorting the facts. In other words, Robinson asked a strongly pro-EU figure whether the Corporation was doing too much to bring the ‘exit’ arguments to the audience. This gave Patten the opportunity both to agree with the main point, and then to be extremely condescending and dismissive of the ‘exit’ case – and to amplify the threat that Robinson suggested was an issue of concern. At this point, he cannot have believed his luck, and, indeed, he appeared slightly surprised (in his rather halting response) that he had been presented with such a wide open goal to attack his Brexit foes.

Patten replied it was extremely difficult for the BBC to cover the referendum because of the ‘threat’ hanging over it from Culture secretary John Whittingdale and the Charter Review. His agenda here was almost certainly deeply political: that John Whittingdale was considered a threat to the BBC by the ‘remain’ side because he had formally warned the Corporation that its EU coverage was considered in some quarters to be pro-EU. Patten suggested that in the face of this threat, BBC staff were being ‘too deferential’. His next point stuck the boot in further and was both smug and condescending: against the high quality figures that the ‘remain’ side could marshal, such as the Governor of the Bank of England, or the IMF chief, this deference meant that producers felt ‘obliged’ to scratch around and put on ‘Conservative backbenchers that nobody’s heard of on the other side of the argument’. His parting point was that he would nevertheless prefer the BBC to be ‘excessively balanced’ in this way than to do anything else – which is why, he claimed, it was ‘a very good broadcaster dedicated to telling the truth’.

Robinson thus elicited an answer from Lord Patten to vent in full his ‘remain’ prejudices, to concur with his interrogator’s observations that the BBC was a very high quality broadcaster, to attack the calibre of of the ‘exit’ speakers, to imply the Charter review process was biased because it was in the hands of Brexit supporter John Whittingdale, and to air his belief that, if anything, BBC coverage of the referendum campaign was ‘excessively balanced’; in other words, heavily biased towards) the Brexit side.

Nick Robinson, as well as being Today presenter, is a former BBC political editor. It is arguably an affront to journalism that this exchange ever happened, and – coming after his aggressive interview of Nigel Farage on the same day also noted on this blog – seems to be blatantly against the BBC’s referendum coverage guidelines.

Photo by bobaliciouslondon

Referendum Blog: 28 April

EU Referendum Blog | 28th April 2016 | by David Keighley

PRO-PATTEN BIAS: After his interview of Nigel Farage on Radio 4’s Today, in which presenter Nick Robinson attempted in every way he could to say that Ukip was an irrelevant political force, Robinson then interviewed Lord Patten, the former BBC chairman about why, in effect, he thought it was vital for the Brexit side to lose. The contrast between the two was stark. Here, numbers count:

Nigel Farage

Total Package Duration: 6 minutes 44 seconds

Total words from Nigel Farage: 846

Longest uninterrupted sequence: 118 words (next highest were 112 and 80)

Number of times Nick Robertson spoke over or interrupted Nigel Farage: 10

Number of times ‘control’ of discussion passed between the two: 62 times

Chris Patten

Total Package Duration: 6 minutes 10 seconds

Total words from Chris Patten: 682

Longest uninterrupted sequence: 154 (but two others of 150 and 142)

Number of times Nick Robertson spoke over or interrupted Chris Patten: 1

Number of times ‘control’ of discussion passed between the two: 18

Put another way: Farage could scarcely get in a word edgeways, whereas Patten had a relaxed opportunity to put his various points.

Nigel Farage managed to say that Ukip was fighting the May election, was hoping for a breakthrough., was challenging on open-door immigration, which was rising, that families would be £40 a week better off outside the EU, and that the UK could survive outside the EU with a deal for trade which it would be able to negotiate. None of these policy points were more than a few words long, all of them were strongly challenged by Nick Robinson, and most of the time, Farage was defending negative points raised by Robinson. He chose not to ask about policy, and focused instead on the problems faced by both Farage and his party.

By contrast, Lord Patten was interrupted only once. Because of the more relaxed approach, he had five sequences of 154, 150, 142, 110 and 80 words in which he variously made the points that it was vital for the UK to stay in the EU and take a lead role in it; that Britain had a natural leadership role in Europe, and those at our great institutions, such as academics, desperately wanted to stay bin the EU; that Margaret Thatcher was against referendums, and was a strong believer in the EU; that although ‘Europe’ as an issue had gnawed away at the Conservative party for years, but he now hoped it would be resolved and those who supported exit would be magnanimous in defeat; and that the BBC was working ultra-hard – despite an absence of speakers and evidence to – convey the Brexit case. Robinson was ‘adversarial’ in that he pushed that the EU had caused divisions in the Conservative party and suggested that Margaret Thatcher had come to oppose it. The ‘Tory splits’ approach that News-watch research has shown has dominated the BBC coverage of the EU for 16 years, and suggests that the in/out debate is about party politics rather than issues of principle. Overall, Robinson seemed most focused on allowing Patten to put the anti-Brexit case; with Farage he aimed to prevent him as much as possible from making positive points at all.

Transcript of BBC Radio 4, ‘Today’, 27th April 2016, Interview with Nigel Farage, 7.51am

NICK ROBINSON: Is this the year the job is finally over for the UK Independence Party? The moment it can claim victory in its battle to free the country from the clutches of Brussels, or have to accept that the people have spoken and they’ve chosen to stay within the European club? Or is UKIP, which of course is fighting council, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliamentary elections in just a few weeks’ time, here to stay whatever the result of the referendum? We’re joined by UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, who joins us live from Cardiff. Morning to you Mr Farage.

NIGEL FARAGE: Good morning.

NR: People have a referendum, the people will decide, so what’s the point of voting UK in any other election?

NF: Well they will decide on June 23 you’re quite right. However on May 5 as you said in your introduction, we’re fighting the Welsh Assembly elections Scottish Parliament elections, we’re fighting seats in Northern Ireland for Stormont, we’re fighting the London Mayor, London Assembly, one and a half thousand council seats and we’ve got 34 people standing as police and crime commissioners. So it’s er . . . it’s rather like a British Super Tuesday isn’t it really (laughter in voice) it’s remarkable.

NR: What’s the point though? People might think, well, look, I used to vote UKIP, if they did, to send a message, as it were . . .

NF: (speaking over) No, no, no, no, no . . .

NR: (speaking over) Why not?

NF: No, no. We’re way beyond people voting UKIP as a protest or to send a message, and what we’re seeing is a very strong consolidation of the UKIP vote, where people now want to vote UKIP in every possible form of election. We’ve made some big advances in councils over the course of the last couple of years, and I do anticipate more of that on May 5. But for me, I mean, the big goal on May 5 is to win representation in the London Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly, and I think I’m the only party leader who’s got a chance of winning seats in all four of them.

NR: You see, the suspicion some people have is that UKIP is a . . . curious combination of a one-man band – you, of course – and maybe this one-man is carrying a sack full of fighting ferrets. You’re speaking to us from Cardiff, you’ve got prominent candidates, Neil Hamilton and Mark Reckless who are not from Wales, and you’ve got the leader of the UKIP (sic) in Wales who says he wouldn’t have chosen them if he’d had the chance to do so.

NF: Well, we put it to the members, and the members chose, so, you can’t argue with that, if that’s what party democracy comes up with. Not everyone is going to like the result, but it is what it is, I mean . . .

NR: (interrupting) You can’t argue with it, you say, but the leader of UKIP in Wales has done precisely that, he’s argued with it and he said it’s not who he wanted.

NF: Well, it’s not who he wanted – that’s up to him isn’t it? Look, the point is this: we may have some discussions about who should and should not be candidates in winnable positions, but I look at the Conservative Party, which is literally ripping itself to pieces, and a Labour Party where over 80% of the MPs don’t want Corbyn as leader, and I look at their problems and think, ‘what I’ve got is nothing.’

NR: (short laugh) You say it’s nothing, but of course, one of your most prominent members – well, is she a member? It’s an interesting question, isn’t it? Suzanne Evans, wanted to run against you for leader, was a prominent figure on television and radio, she’s now been suspended. It sounds again, you can’t really deal with the competition.

NF: Nothing to do with me. I, I’m party leader, Nick, I tour the country, I try and raise money, I try and get the (fragment of word, unclear) the party coverage, I try and enthuse the troops. I don’t deal with discipline or candidate selection, and I never have done.

NR: Nothing to do with you? Suzanne Evans . . .

NF: (speaking over) I have nothing . . .

NR: (speaking over) You have no influence over what the party does.

NF: Zip.

NR: Okay, well let’s take the opportunity now, why don’t you take the opportunity now to say, ‘I want her back, she’s one of our best and most prominent voices, we need her, she’s a contrast to me, we don’t get on, but let’s have her back.’

NF: (speaking over) Well, I don’t think she behaved terribly well, so . . .

NR: So you don’t want her back?

NF: I don’t think she’s behaved terribly well, she’s suspended for a short period of time, but, but frankly (words unclear due to speaking over)

NR: (speaking over) Do you want her back or not though, I’m just asking you that.

NF: (speaking over) Well, as I say we’ve got, on May 5 UKIP is going to make a significant breakthrough into lots of levels of parliament and assembly to which we’ve never been before, and off the back of that we’re going to fight a big, strong campaign in the run-up to the referendum on June 23, and I think it’s very important, in this referendum campaign that the Leave side actually gets into the other half of the pitch and starts to challenge the Remain side about open-door immigration, about the fact, the figures that are out this morning, saying we’ve underestimated Eastern Europ— Eastern European migration by at least 50,000 people a year . . .

NR: (speaking over) There are some other figures out this morning as well, you may have heard them, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, says Brexit is like a tax, that it will cost people the equivalent of one month’s salary . . .

NF: (speaking over) Yeah, yeah.

NR: . . . by 2020. Do you say, ‘Yeah, yeah’, but . . .

NF: (speaking over) Yeah, yeah, yeah. IMF, OECD, you know, a whole series of international organisations, stuffed full of overpaid people who failed in politics mostly, (fragments of words, unclear) and frankly . . .

NR: (speaking over) Well presumably you’ve got . . . would you like to give us a list of the organisations that agree with you, because it, it’d be very . . .

NF: (speaking over) Yeah.

NR: . . . useful to have them.

NF: (speaking over) Yeah. Yeah, they’re called ‘markets’ they’re called ‘consumers’ they’re called ‘people’ and they’re called ‘the real world’, and . . .

NR: (speaking over) Well can you, can you name an organisation of economic . . .

NF: (speaking over) And I have the advantage . . .

NR: . . . forecasters, private or public, that agrees with your view . . .

NF: (speaking over) Oh well, I mean, I mean . . .

NR: . . . that you’d be better off outside the EU.

NF: (speaking over) I’m in . . . I’m in Cardiff. I’m in Cardiff, I mean, the Professor of Economic at Cardiff University, Patrick Minford, said very clearly that outside the European Union the average British family would be £40 per week better off.

NR: He’s one individual, Mr Farage, isn’t he? He’s not an organisation . . .

NF: (speaking over) Well . . .

NR: . . . he’s not . . .

NF: (speaking over) It’s very interesting, you know . . .

NR: (speaking over) an international body.

NF: Yeah, well, of course. These international bodies, there’s virtually nobody working for any of them that has manufactured a good (sic) or traded a product globally. I did that for 20 years before getting into politics, and the fact is, whether we’re in the European Union or outside the European Union, we will go on buying, buying and selling goods between France and Germany and Britain and Italy, because ultimately, markets aren’t created by politicians, it’s about consumers making choices.

NR: Just like Albania, is it? Because Michael Gove suggested the other day we could have a trading relationship with the rest of Europe like Albania’s?

NF: Well, I don’t think he really did, I think that’s sort of, sort of spin, no I mean look . . .

NR: (interrupting) Well, if he, if he didn’t, forgive me, which country would you like . . .

NF: (speaking over) Look . . .

NR: . . . us to have a relationship like, if you see what, sorry (words unclear due to speaking over)

NF: (speaking over) I would like us to have a relationship like the eurozone’s biggest export market in the world, the market they need more than any other to have as free access to as possible, and I want is to have . . . I mean, if little countries . . .

NR: Like? Like?

NF: . . . if little countries like Norway and Switzerland can get their own deals, then we can have a bespoke British deal that suits us.

NR: Well, they both, as you know, have to take immigration through free movement, so just . . .

NF: (speaking over) Well . . .

NR: . . . we’ve only got ten seconds, can you name a country . . .

NF: (speaking over) they’ve been betrayed . . .

NR: . . . that you would like to be like?

NF: They’ve been betrayed by their politicians in both Norway and Switzerland, and they’re now rebelling against that . . .

NR: (speaking over) Just five seconds left, can you name a country that you would like us to be like (words unclear due to speaking over ‘after Brexit’?)

NF: (speaking over) Yeah, the biggest market in the world. The United Kingdom will have its own deal with the EU and be free to make its own deals with the rest of the world, we will be better off.

NR: Er, I think the answer’s no you can’t name a country, but Nigel Farage . . .

NF: (speaking over) Because, because we’re, because we’re the United Kingdom, we’ll do our own deal.

NR: Thank you very much for joining us, Nigel Farage.

Transcript of BBC Radio 4, ‘Today’, 27th April 2016, Interview with Chris Patten, 8.34am

NICK ROBINSON: It’s been another interesting week in the story of those everyday folk, who just happened to be running the country. The Justice Secretary says the Health Secretary could pay junior doctors more, if only we got out of the EU. The Home Secretary disagrees, she wants to stay in the EU, but she would like to tell you that she wants to get out of the ECHR, which the Justice Secretary says we’re staying in. Meantime, the Mayor of London . . . you get the idea. I hope you’re all following this. Well, no, let me summarise, the Tory party is more publicly divided than it has been for years, since, in fact, the 1990s, when (fragment of word, unclear) John Major fought to keep his party together. Alongside him then was his Conservative Party Chairman, Chris – Lord – Patten, who joins me now. And was of course also Chairman of the BBC for a period of time.

CHRIS PATTEN: (speaking over) Happy families, Nick, happy families.

NR: Happy families. There were those Conservatives who believed that this referendum would, and I quote their phrase, ‘lance the boil’. Isn’t the truth that it is merely spreading poison?

CP: Well, I think that depends, erm, on the outcome. I very much hope that will vote to remain in the European Union, I think that’s in the interests of not least my kids, and the next generation, I think it’s in the interests of a better future, but erm, I, there will be a lot of collateral damage, erm, if we vote to come out. I hope that if we vote to stay in, those who have been campaigning to withdraw will actually not take the Alex Salmond (fragments of words, unclear) path and think this is a nef— neverendum, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Erm, and I think, I hope that they will support the very elegantly put proposition of Theresa May yesterday that we should, or, the day before yesterday, that we should erm, be self-confident and take a leading role in the European Union. So, I hope that’s the position they’ll take.

NR: In order to win, do you believe that the Remain campaign has to do rather better than say, ‘You’ll be a few quid worse off, if you dare to leave’?

CP: Well it is, of course (short laugh) decidedly relevant that will be poorer – I think everybody accepts that, except for a few diehards on the other side, but I do . . .

NR: (speaking over) It’s not (words unclear) you served in Brussels, though, is it, as a Commissioner, (words unclear due to speaking over)

CP: (speaking over) No, it isn’t, it isn’t, it’s, it’s because I think that erm, er . . . Britain has a natural role leading Europe, er, I, I believe passionately that a lot of the problems we face in the country, and in other countries today can only be dealt with through international, greater international cooperation, and I want to see Britain leading that. We are a great country, we’ve got great cultural institutions, greatest, if I may say so, public service broadcaster in the world, the greatest universities in the world, some of the greatest researchers. When researchers say they how much they hope, desperately, that we’ll stay European Union, that, that resonates with me, and I want us to be able to play a leading role internationally, I want us to be part of the global, liberal order, which makes the world more stable and more decent today than it used to be.

NR: What do you say to those though who remember that people like yourself fought Mrs Thatcher over the issue of Europe, and they say, look, she was right to warn about Brussels’ creeping power, she was right to say the single currency couldn’t possibly work and would drag us all into an economic crisis, she was right to have some worries that enlargement wouldn’t have a, produce a shallower Europe, but a deeper one with mass immigration.

CP: But she was also right to argue passionately against referendums, which she regarded as being the favourite . . . I think these are her, almost her words – the favourite devices of despots and dictators. Erm, she was also right . . . erm, to argue that there was a huge political case as well as an economic case for Europe. And she was right, erm, to argue that we should be playing a leadership role in Europe, not withdrawing.

NR: When you quoted those words, which I think you did to David Cameron, said the referendum was the last resort of dictators – I don’t imagine he was best pleased, was he?

CP: Erm, I’ve, I’ve disagreed with party leaders, erm, for years about referendums. I think referendums undermine parliamentary democracy.

NR: How does the Conservative Party avoid the mess, frankly, much worse than a mess, wasn’t it, the disaster of what befell the government that you were a central part of in the mid and early 90s?

CP: Well, you’re quite right, erm, that this is an issue that’s been gnawing away at the unity, the integrity of the Conservative Party for years. I very much hope that this will decide the issue once and for all. It will require spectacular quantity of magnanimity on the part of the Prime Minister, but it will also require a commitment by those who lose, which I hope they will, on the Brexit side, to pull together now and work for the interest of the country, and for the interests of the future, so that we don’t find ourselves once again as . . . David Willets might put it, ‘Committing an act of intergenerational theft against younger people.’

NR: A last word on an organisation that you used to be in charge of, you were Chairman of this organisation, of course, which you . . .

CP: (speaking over) (word unclear)

NR: . . . generously called ‘the greatest broadcast in the world’ the BBC . . .

CP: Hmm.

NR: Lord Patten, Chris Patten, thank you very much indeed.

Photo by UK in Italy

IEA BOOK SLAMS BBC BIAS

BBC Bias, News-watch | 28th April 2016 | by David Keighley

A book published today by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) about the future of the BBC contains a chapter in which research carried out by News-watch takes centre stage.

The key areas of output investigated included the daily religious/spiritual segment Thought for the Day, broadcast as part of the Today programme. News-watch analysed almost a thousand editions and found that its tone was overwhelmingly against business, economic enterprise, and capitalism.

This is the full version of the IEA press release about the book:

The BBC is no longer fit for purpose. Its market power – especially in terms of news provision – coupled with its compulsory funding method and its closeness to the political process is hugely problematic. Significant examples of bias undermine it further, whilst commercial competition risks rendering the BBC irrelevant.

In a new IEA report, authors call for the commercial privatisation of the BBC. The case for this is multi-faceted: technology and a changed commercial landscape have demolished the economic and practical arguments for the licence fee and the BBC’s privileged position, whilst the case for public service broadcasting is weaker than ever given increased competition through the internet.

New analysis of a number of case studies suggests the BBC exhibits relative biases in a number of areas. Though all media outlets are likely to have biases, the BBC’s is likely to be more problematic and change public opinion, given its trusted reputation, the inability for customers to withdraw payment and the fact it provides 75% of all televised news.

Problems with the BBC:

Bias by omission:

· Voices favouring Britain’s exit from the EU have tended to be under-represented on Radio 4’s Today Programme. From March 2004 to July 2015, there were 4,275 guest speakers on EU themes. Just 3% of these were explicitly in favour of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. Seven in ten of these speakers were from UKIP, and over a third were Nigel Farage alone.

· During the official 2015 General Election campaign, 25 business speakers discussed the EU referendum on the Today Programme. Over three-quarters of these speakers saw the referendum as a worry or a threat to business, despite polling finding two thirds of businesses back the holding of a referendum.

Bias by selection:

· In a sample of 976 separate editions of Radio 4’s Thought for the Day, 167 included discussions on economics, business and finance. Two thirds (65%) expressed a negative opinion on capitalism, markets and business, whilst just 8% gave any sort of positive perspective. Negative commentary outweighed positive commentary by a factor of more than eight to one.

Bias by presentation:

· Value judgements: A BBC journalist described OBR forecasts that spending levels as a proportion of GDP would likely fall to levels last seen in the 1930s as a ‘book of doom’ and ‘utterly terrifying’. Not only have these figures been heavily criticised, but even if they were comparable, the forecasts would see the UK government spending the same proportion of GDP as Australia.

· Misinformation: A third (24 of 78) of stories on the BBC website between 2012 and 2015 that mentioned ‘Amazon’ and ‘tax avoidance’ conflated corporation tax paid by companies with sales revenues – which has nothing to do with the tax base for corporation tax which is profit.

· Health warnings: Think-tanks associated with conservative and free-market analysis are much more likely to receive ‘health warnings’ on the BBC News website than think-tanks associated with more left-leaning positions.

Declining justifications for the licence fee and public service broadcasting:

· Technological transformation means it is now straightforward to exclude non-payers from receiving television signals.

· Multiplicity of platforms and devices means there is no longer a clear relationship between owning a television set and watching programmes, which are now available on computers, phones and tablets.

· Televisions are now portable and used for a variety of activities. The notion of a definable tax base for the licence fee has broken down.

· The justification behind public service broadcasting is also declining. In reality there is a wealth of channels, programming and other content. Maybe people don’t watch as much educational content as others think desirable, but this that cannot be solved by simply subsidising the creation of more such content. The main channels of public service broadcasters have seen their share of viewers nearly halve since 1991.

Bringing the BBC into the 21^st Century:

· The government should uncouple itself from the BBC and remove compulsory funding. In the era of programmes such as House of Cards, arguing that commercialisation leads to dumbing down is unconvincing. The BBC will also struggle going forwards without commercial freedoms; with just half of BskyB’s income, privatisation is needed for it to flourish on a global scale.

· Privatisation could not eliminate biases, but could lead to the viewing public becoming more appropriately sceptical. A privatised BBC would also bear a considerable commercial cost if its reputation were impaired.

· The BBC is fast becoming a minnow in international broadcasting, communication and entertainment world taken as a whole. If it remains nationalised it could become irrelevant. Already, the income from subscription to television broadcasters is twice the income from the licence fee received by the BBC.

· Other options include the BBC becoming a members’ organisation such as the National Trust, with members becoming licence fee payers. Alternatively it could be set up with a large trust fund and operate with a corporate governance structure. The Guardian, for example, is one of the most successful online journalism sources while being supported by a charitable trust.

Commenting on the report, Mark Littlewood, Director General at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said:

“The BBC needs a business and ownership model more appropriate than the one designed the best part of 100 years ago. Keeping a publicly funded broadcaster, with a Charter drafted by politicians, risks seeing the BBC eclipsed by new technology in the same way that Royal Mail has been eclipsed by email.

“The ending of the licence fee and the privatisation of the BBC would permit the BBC to compete freely and aggressively with other global media businesses.”

The links to it are here and (BBC bias chapter ) here. Iain Martin, the editor of web news and comment service, CapX has noted that the IEA research about Thought for the Day shows a deep anti-capitalist bias.

Referendum Blog: April 27

EU Referendum Blog | 27th April 2016 | by David Keighley

GET FARAGE!: Here we go again…almost exactly a year ago, during the general election, Evan Davis slammed into Nigel Farage, interrupting him no fewer than 50 times and hardly letting him utter a single word about policy. Today, it was Nick Robinson’s turn on Today. Ostensibly this was an interview about Ukip’s chances in the various May elections, but Robinson had another agenda, which at core, was to work flat out was to show the party was hopeless, divided and clueless. First off, what was the point of voting Ukip at all in these elections, because their relevance was only to the EU referendum? Next – a BBC constant ever since Nigel Farage entered the national stage – he was a ‘curious’ one-man band. Then, the party he is leading is a ‘sack of fighting ferrets’. The next point was a new one: Farage ‘can’t deal with competition’ because his rival for leadership, Suzanne Evans had been suspended. Whether or not she had behaved badly became a central point of the interview. Next were figures from the OECD, which, said Robinson, showed that Brexit would cost people the equivalent of one month’s salary. Farage tried to answer, but Robinson was having none of it. Before he could explain why the figures did not add up, Robinson introduced another challenge. He wanted ‘a list of the organisations that agree with you’. NF tried to say what counted was consumers and markets rather than the big organisations, but Robinson slammed him again to demand that he name ’an organisation of economic forecasters…who agrees with your view that you’d be better off outside the EU’. Farage said that Patrick Minford, the professor of economics at Cardiff University (where he was) said that the average British family would be better off by £40 a week. That, however, in Robinson’s book, did not count because he was not an international body. Farage said the that international bodies did not have figures working for them that traded manufactured goods, and that outside or inside the European Union, the UK would continue trading. Nick Robinson asked if the trading relationship would be like that of Albania’s as mentioned by Michael Gove. Farage said what Gove had said about Albania had been spun. Robinson asked what country he would like to base the UK’s relationship on. Farage said that if small countries like Norway and Switzerland could reach their own deals, the UK could arrive at a bespoke deal. Robinson then gave him ten seconds to name a country ‘that you would like to be like’. Farage repeated that the UK could forge its own deal. Robinson responded:

‘Er, I think the answer’s no you can’t name a country’.

All these issues were legitimate lines of questioning. But the point here was the tone: Robinson from the outside was massively aggressive and on a mission to push Farage as hard as he could. He gave him very little space to answer and in every case, crashed in with another reason why his answers were unsatisfactory. The contrast between that approach, and, for example, Huw Edward’s handling on Sunday of his interview with President Obama could not be greater, even allowing for the fact that the latter is President of the USA. An important perspective here is that the BBC has form. Nick Robinson’s belligerent approach to Farage was yet another example in a long line of similar encounters. In nearly all of them the formula has been the same, especially the idea that Ukip is a one-trick pony and grossly incompetent. This was ostensibly an interview about the party’s prospects in the forthcoming UK elections, but it was nothing of the sort. It was an unsubtle, disproportionately hostile, attempt to discredit the Brexit case and to yet again to undermine both Farage and Ukip.

Photo by Euro Realist Newsletter

Referendum Blog: April 25

EU Referendum Blog | 25th April 2016 | by David Keighley

CROWING FOR OBAMA?: Mark Mardell’ the BBC’s former ‘Europe’ editor and now presenter of World This Weekend, was in no doubt on Sunday about how important President Obama’s observations about the EU referendum were. He declared:

The UK part of his farewell tour wouldn’t even count as a long weekend, but it might prove the most important 50 hours in the referendum campaign so far. Here was one of the most popular and powerful politicians in the whole world pulling no punches.

Next came an extract from the president’s interview by Huw Edwards in which he outlined in detail and in full the horrors that would befall the UK if it left the EU. Mardell then visited the president’s staged ‘town hall’ question and answer session, where, he said, Obama seemed to be ‘a bit of a rock star to some’. There followed a vox pop in which the first respondent said that Obama ‘had every right to speak out’ in the way he had because Britain was not an isolated country. The second voice agreed it was OK for the president to intervene, the third said he could have an opinion, but it was up to the British people to decide. Mardell concluded:

Of course, what any President of the United States says is important, but this one perhaps strikes a different chord.

He then asked ‘former adviser to the Labour leadership’ Aisha Hazanika how it struck her that Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson had mentioned his Kenyan ancestry. She responded:

It sort of smacked of a completely unnecessary, weird undertone that was pretty unpleasant, and I think actually, very un-British. I think people were quite embarrassed about it, and I think it ties into what’s actually happening with the mayoral election at the moment, we are seeing quite an ugly strain of dog whistle politics. There are people in the Conservative Party saying ‘We’re not saying Sadiq is necessarily a terrorist, but . . .’ and that kind of smearing with innuendo and association is not something that has really happened in British politics, and I don’t think that that sends a particularly progressive message around the country and to the rest of the world.

Mardell then observed with the 400^th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death and the Queen’s 90^th birthday, it could have been a week for ‘inward looking staring backwards at the past’, and the president’s political intervention had been wrapped in appeals to British sentimentality. He said:

But the blunt, unsentimental job he set himself was to take a wrecking ball to the Leave campaigners’ case

Mardell then spoke to Simon Hix, introduced as a professor of political science at the London School of Economics. He noted that the ‘leave’ side was calling Obama a lame duck figure, but then said that the president was ‘telling it pretty straight’ and was ‘articulating the policy that was probably that of the Washington establishment’. He added:

I think the onus is on the people campaigning for Brexit now to articulate the post-Brexit vision of the UK in the world, and one of the big question marks there is Britain’s relationship with the United States. They always assumed that we could leave the EU and we’d naturally be able to set up some Anglospheres, some global, English-speaking trade bloc, as a substitute for the EU in a way, and I think Obama has put paid to that idea.

Mardell then interviewed ‘former defence secretary’ Liam Fox and noted first that, before the visit, with the backing of 100 other MPs, he had written a letter to the US Embassy urging Obama not to intervene. Mardell noted that the advice had been ignored and then asked what impact the intervention would have. Dr Fox replied that Obama’s claim that Britain would go to the back of the queue in arriving at a trade deal would not apply because the negotiations would not be handled by his successor. Mardell said that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would follow the same policies. Fox replied that what was said in primaries could not be trusted, and pointed out that negotiating trade deals with the EU was highly complex as 27 countries were involved. Mardell interrupted to state that the president was quite clear – it was impossible to queue-jump and it could take ten years. Fox disagreed and claimed that several deals were dealt with at the same time, it was not a system of one at a time. Mardell observed that Fox was an ‘Atlanticist,,,someone who was very much believes in ties with the US’. It was now clear that Obama wanted Britain inside the EU. Fox responded that the president had also observed that the bond between the two countries was unbreakable. Mardell said:

But nevertheless, doesn’t the President’s whole tone rather blow a hole in the argument for an Anglosphere, for an Atlanticist approach of a Britain outside the European Union?

Fox disagreed and said leaving the EU would make the UK open and outward looking rather than in the strait-jacket of the EU, ‘heading for massive economic failure as a result of the single currency…and the collapse of Schengen’. Mardell noted that Fox’s letter to the US embassy had said that the intervention of the president could undermine the vote itself’. He asked if this had now happened. Fox said that in the interview with Huw Edwards, there had been a lot of backtracking, and his message had been softened so that it was now ‘more appropriate’. Finally, Mardell asked what Fox thought about Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage raising the president’s ‘half-Kenyan ancestry’. Dr Fox said it was important that the debate was about the issues.

That’s a long analysis, but important to show the range and parameters of this Obama package and to illustrate the extent of Mardell’s imbalance. First, it should be noted that Liam Fox was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to some of the points raised by the Obama visit, and made a decent fist 0f doing so.

But the negatives in the construction far outweigh that. The first issue is Mardell’s extravagant, open admiration of Obama. Of course, the president of the United States is powerful, but Mardell emphasised and amplified that on at least three occasions, leaving listeners in no doubt whatsoever that this was a very important man making a very, very important contribution to the referendum debate. Second, his vox pop sequence was weighted to the ‘in side’; those he spoke to expressed only one slight reservation that this was an important, relevant message delivered at an appropriate time. Third, the former Labour party ‘leadership adviser’ Hazarika was given a totally open goal to call Boris Johnson’s mention of Obama’s ancestry ‘unnecessary, weird and pretty unpleasant’ – and then to deliver a withering attack on the Conservative conduct in the mayoral elections. In effect, Mardell presented her with the platform to call him ‘racist’, without explaining at all that Johnson’s newspaper about article about Obama’s intervention contained detailed argument as to why his background in Kenya was relevant. Fourth, Mardell included comment from Professor Hix that the intervention of Obama ‘was a serious blow to one of the key pillars of the Brexit campaign’ without including anything that challenge such an extreme statement. President Obama had already set out his position in the feature; this amplified it. Of course, Liam Fox then rebutted the point, but the construction meant that this was a 2-1 argument, not a straight 1-1 equation. And that was the overall position. Much more time was allocated to the Obama pitch, and Mardell exaggerated its strength by his extravagant praise of Obama. He gave the distinct impression that he was crowing against the Brexit case, and enjoying it.

Photo by dcblog

Referendum Blog: April 24

EU Referendum Blog | 24th April 2016 | by David Keighley

MORE NEWSNIGHT BIAS: Newsnight continued their series EU Referendum Road on Friday night with a visit by reporter Katie Razzall to the Shetland Isles, the UK’s most northerly outpost. The full transcript is below. As with her previous report, it heavily favoured the ‘remain’ side – although not so obviously. The ‘in’ case was articulated by two figures: the managing director of a local green energy company, and a woman, who it was said had been passionately ‘out’ at the 1975 EU referendum – to the extent that she had been involved in noisy protests and arrested – but was now firmly ‘in’. Razzall buttressed their pro-EU remarks with an observation at the end that all 15 of the regulars of a local pub were in favour of staying in. Ranged against that were two ‘out’ figures – one a former ‘Viking chief’ who now ran a local real ale brewery, and who looked to Norway as a model that the Shetlands might follow because the place was ‘absolutely pristine’; and a farmer who said the local economy needed to adopt a more global outlook. He claimed that ‘little Europe’ was ‘not for us’. On the face of it, therefore, there was a form of balance, two ‘ins’ against two definitely ‘outs’.

The bias stemmed from other factors., One was that Razzall said that in the 1975 EU referendum, the islands had been one of only two electoral areas of the UK that had voted ‘out’. She then set out to show that this had been based on that the economy back then had been primarily linked to fishing – and spoke immediately to the green energy manufacturer who said strongly that he supported ‘in’. She asserted:

‘But how changeable are Shetlanders’ attitudes to the EU four decades on? New industries have grown up since the fishermen swung the vote, Shetland is pioneering tidal power, and Fred Gibson’s firm, which has received some EU funding, is making the fibreglass blades.

FRED GIBSON Shetland Composites The first one is up and running at the moment. As we speak it is actually producing electricity which is going on to the local grid.

KR: So you will be voting to stay in?

FG: Oh, absolutely. I think it is going to be very interesting, what’s going to happen here, this time. I can see exactly why they voted no last time. And that was purely down to the fishing industry.

KR: That’s still important in Shetland, but it employs far fewer people these days.

FG: When I was at school, there would be at least three or four other pupils in my class whose fathers were going out probably every day to go fishing. It’s funny because I asked that same question to my children quite recently, and they said that they didn’t actually know anyone, and then one of them said, oh, he thought that somebody’s father was a fisherman in his year group. So that has completely changed.’

Thus Razzall’s editing and selection of comment suggested that although the fishing industry remained ‘important’ it was at a far lesser level to the point that fishermen were rare. Checks on Google, however, soon reveal that, in fact, fishing, remains the islands’ main source of income, accounting for 28% of all economic activity. This is what the Shetland Economy website says:

‘The fishing industry – which includes the catching, farming and processing of fish and shellfish – is Shetland’s biggest sector by some way. It has always been at the absolute heart of Shetland’s economy and community. The seafood industry is worth £300m a year to the local economy.’

She deliberately projected a misleading impression to viewers. The reality is that more fish is landed annually in Lerwick than the whole of Wales, England and Northern Ireland combined; the only fishing port bigger than Lerwick in the entire UK is Peterhead; the value of the catch is £76m annually (plus there is a very substantial salmon farming industry); and very substantial numbers of local people are employed in fish processing and related activities.

In ignoring the fishermen, Razzall glossed over a vital strand of local opinion. The local fishermen’s association, as is revealed by their website, is clearly unhappy with the Common Fisheries Policy.

Further analysis: a brief but important ‘remain’ contribution was overlooked. After the remarks supporting ‘remain’ by the green energy manufacturer Fred Gibson, Shetlands postmistress Valerie Johnson was asked if islanders would vote in the same way as 1975. She responded that she could not see that happening, and when challenged by Razall why, she stated:

I think the unknown is if you are not in it, of what would happen.

KR: It’s the unknown. Project Fear is working.

VJ: Yeah, yeah.

This tipped the overall balance of contributions to three in favour of ‘remain’ against two for ‘exit’. At a very basic level, therefore – on top of the observations above – Katie Razzall edited her feature so that it was against the ‘exit’ case.

Photo by Reading Tom

Referendum Blog: April 22

EU Referendum Blog | 22nd April 2016 | by David Keighley

ROBINSON ‘USES SAME EU PROPAGANDA AS OBAMA’: In this News-watch post about his television series Europe: Them or Us?, it was noted that former BBC political editor Nick Robinson had chosen to call Winston Churchill ‘the father of a united Europe’ , and in so doing, collaborated with – and amplified – the EU myth that the primary reason for the foundation of the EU was to create peace. His projection was that Churchill’s ideas were forged in the crucible of war to create lasting peace.

The Richard North and Christopher Booker book The Great Deception illustrates decisively that the primary goal of the founders (led primarily by the Frenchman Jean Monnet) was Utopian and socialist. The driving ideology was to reduce sovereign states to municipalities, with the EU run by an unelected central bureaucracy (now the European Commission) whose only loyalty was to the idea of ‘Europe’ defined by the Commission itself.

In this context the ‘peace’ myth has been one carefully cultivated by the Commission (and its predecessor bodies), since its earliest days. How could anyone argue for the dismantling of a body with such an important core function?

It is that territory and that concept that US President Barack Obama has chosen for his full-frontal attack today in the Daily Telegraph on supporters of Brexit.

His central message is about the EU’s peace-keeping role. He talks of the special relationship between the US and the UK being forged ‘as we spilt blood together on the battlefield’, and then claims that the European Union came from the ‘ashes of war’, and says it was an institution that was set up to provide foundations for ‘democracy, open markets, the rule of law’. It had since underwritten more than seven decades of relative peace and prosperity in Europe’.

Obama concludes:

‘Together, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have turned centuries of war in Europe into decades of peace, and worked as one to make this world a safer, better place. What a remarkable legacy that is. And what a remarkable legacy we will leave when, together, we meet the challenges of this young century as well’.

He thus relies – as the central pillar of his attack on the ideas of those who wish to leave the EU – that the EU has been a major factor in the relative peace most of Europe has enjoyed since the fall of Nazi Germany, and more than that, has removed the reasons for war. Nick Robinson’s analysis in Europe Them or Us? was drawn from the same propaganda stream. The timing of his message so close to Obama’s visit may have been coincidental, but it echoes and reinforces it, and, intentionally or otherwise, is calculated to undermine the Brexit case by scaring voters into believing that without the EU, there is a danger of future European wars on the horrendous scale of the past.

Photo by dcblog

BBC Bias: an EU referendum campaign progress report

BBC Bias, EU Referendum | 21st April 2016 | by David Keighley

News-watch has been carrying out detailed monitoring of news output since mid-January. A large number issues relating to impartiality have been noted, and overall, there is still, despite improvement, significant cause for concern that the ‘exit’ case is not being properly represented.

On the plus side:

There is definitely and clearly an effort to explore the respective ‘leave’ and ‘remain cases. ‘Exit’ guests are appearing in unprecedented numbers, and are often being treated with due respect. Pro-EU politicians such as George Osborne are, on occasions, being subjected to rigorous scrutiny. There is evidence that presenters and correspondents are better briefed on EU issues than in the past, and are challenging the key economic points from positions of real knowledge.

This improved coverage to date underlines just how much the ‘exit’ case had previously been neglected, and its advocates under-represented, denigrated or often ignored.

But:

That said, there are still major issues. All of them are fully evidenced on the News-watch website, and for the sake of economy, the key points are only summarised here.

The BBC has not explored much the issue of the validity or otherwise of David Cameron’s reform package. From the off, website copy suggested it was valid, and there has been no determined exploration of whether it is. This is central to the ‘remain’ case and the absence of scrutiny is bias by omission.

Though some programmes are going off-diary and exploring the roots of the current debate, as yet there has been no obvious effort to investigate critically the full nature of the ‘leave’ movement, and what it represents. Nick Robinson’s survey of the history of the UK-EU relationship was purely through the lens of Westminster Bubble, that is, the leading politicians and the main political friction points. It added nothing new, and if anything served only to reinforce the stereotypes that have characterised the BBC’s coverage of what it calls ‘Europe’ for far too long. Who are those who actually want to leave the EU? They are not simply racists, anti-immigration fanatics, over-zealous ‘populist’ patriots, disaffected Tories, disgruntled fishermen and lazy working class louts who fear foreign competition. What is the ‘leave’ case and what are the historical roots, both inside and outside Parliament? Nothing has yet been done in that terrain, and that’s a glaring omission. Unanswered questions include why the most left-wing, radical Labour leadership in two generations has allied itself with the CBI, the big Banks, and the IMF, and against thousands of its traditional working class supporters in wanting to stay ‘in’. The BBC talks freely and often about the low-hanging fruit of a ‘Tory civil war’, but this debate is about much more – and nothing in the coverage has explored that area in any but a fleeting (and often derogatory) way.

Heavy and increasing weight has been given coverage of those who say ‘Brexit’ will be damaging, such as the IMF, the Treasury and the CBI. Senior BBC political correspondents have reinforced this by suggesting (18/4) that the ‘leave’ side case is ‘cobwebby’ and not fleshed out.

Analysis conducted by News-watch of BBC2’s Newsnight typifies the problem. This covered 40 editions. ‘Exit’ guests were appearing for the first time – a big step forward – but there were still serious inadequacies. The programme has not sufficiently explored the ‘exit’ case, and has routinely given far more prominence to the remain side. There have been fewer ‘exit’ guests, and the imbalance is not accounted for by a tougher treatment of the ‘remain’ side – if anything, the reverse applies. Against this already skewed background, the decision to use the Sealand defence installation as a metaphor for what exit might look like was silly. It skewed the first Newsnight special referendum programme (11/4) strongly against the ‘exit case’. It may have been intended to be a humorous approach, but given the BBC ‘s past track record of denigrating the exit case, it came across instead as a deliberately negative editorial device. On Tuesday night (19/4) the different treatment of Emily Maitlis of her two guests, Pascal Lamy and Lord Owen, underlined the problems in the Newsnight approach. Towards Mr Lamy, she was thoughtfully inquisitorial, and allowed him plenty of space for his answers; towards Lord Owen, she was much sharper, interrupted much more, and scarcely allowed him to respond.

Similar detailed analysis (20 consecutive editions) by News-watch of Radio 4’s 10pm programme, The World Tonight, also highlighted significant impartiality problems. The programme explored the ‘remain’ and exit’ arguments from its more cross-border perspective, and mounted special programmes assessing opinion to the EU debate in Berlin, Spain and France. But most weight was given to the pro-EU perspective in those features. In separate studio interviews, ‘remain’ figures such as Alan Johnson had more opportunity to put their case than ‘exit’ ones.

Since January, News-watch has also analysed a number of referendum-related special programmes, including ones on Greenland’s exit from the EU, Norway’s existence outside the EU, a survey of the EU’s impact on countryside issues (Costing the Earth), and Nick Robinson’s Europe: Them or Us. All of them have shown a distinct bias towards the ‘remain side. Nick Robinson’s description of Winston Churchill as the ‘father of European unity’ stands out as particularly biased because he chose as the bedrock of his programme a provocative historical interpretation that is hotly contested by the ‘leave’ side. The Greenland and Norway programmes particularly over-stressed the difficulties of leaving the EU, and the Costing the Earth programme gave much more space to the ‘remain’ side.

Analysis of Mark Mardell’s reports on World This Weekend is underway. Two editions, one from Portugal and the other from a meeting of The European House think-tank at Lake Como, have already been specially analysed and noted for their pro remain bias. On both occasions, Mark gave significantly less prominence to the respective ‘exit’ spokesmen and gave them less space to answer the points put to them.

Analysis of a strand broadcast on Radio 4’s World at One, by Professor Annand Menon raised serious bias issues. The five three-minute segments (from 12/4) were presented as objective analysis of aspects of EU operations and impacts, but they were anything but. For example, he played down the complexity of the EU’s structure – flying in the face of one of the principal objections of the EU from Eurosceptics.

This brief synopsis of bias is not exhaustive, but gives an overview of some of the key issues.

Photo by rockcohen

Referendum Blog: April 21

EU Referendum Blog | 21st April 2016 | by David Keighley

BUCK-PASSING? Nick Robinson’s second programme in his series Europe: Them or Us? highlighted numerous deep-rooted issues of BBC bias. In summary, he said he was presenting a history of the UK’s relationship with ‘Europe’ but in reality, he started from within a narrow area of the Westminster bubble and did not progress outside. He assembled a one dimensional progression from Macmillan to Wilson, from Callaghan to Thatcher, and from Major to Blair; nearly everything within his picture was simplistically binary: Heath taking the UK in against old-fashioned resistance from Labour party diehards; Wilson combining with Thatcher to stay in; Thatcher fighting for money back – and ultimately Geoffrey Howe – after she realised too late that the Single European Act had been a trap towards integration; Major fighting his own party ‘bastards’, and Blair getting it wrong about the euro.

More of this later, but first (h/t Craig Byers) the second programme contained one huge distortion comparable to Robinson’s claim in the first, that Winston Churchill was the ‘father of European unity’. It was a jaw-dropping piece of buck passing. He asserted that it was the Blair government, not the EU itself (through the free movement directive) that was responsible, for the influx of nearly 2m EU citizens to the UK after 2004. Of course there was limited space in the programme and it covered nearly 70 years of EU-related developments. But that does not excuse such inaccuracy.

Photo by Images_of_Money

Referendum Blog: April 20

EU Referendum Blog | 20th April 2016 | by David Keighley

OSBORNE BIAS? News-watch has already noted that the marathon BBC coverage of George Osborne’s remain ‘Exocet‘ on Monday led the senior political reporting team to make claims that the ‘leave’ side did not have satisfactory documents to produce in response, and also that the weight of establishment opinion was strongly against exit. Political editor Laura Kuenssberg and her deputy Norman Smith thus entered the controversial domain of offering strong opinions about key matters relating to the EU referendum. No doubt BBC more senior news executives would defend their comments on the ground that such correspondents are entitled to exercise, and indeed are paid to do so, their professional opinions in the area of their specific expertise. However, that raises further important issues. If the claims of one side of the referendum debate are to be subjected to such examination, is the same happening with the other? Relevant is that it was reported as part of the Osborne ‘Exocet’ that the Conservative high command is still insisting that they can talk with confidence about how Britain will perform in a ‘reformed EU’, and predict the economic future on that basis. But are the EU ‘reforms’ secured by David Cameron actually binding? The BBC has said from the beginning that they are, but there are numerous claims that they are not, most recently from the Vice-President of the European Parliament. It seems that there is a tougher level of scrutiny from Kuenssberg for the ‘out’ camp and another for ‘remain’. Another point here is that the ‘in’ side are being judged to be the more credible – there has been no obvious effort to look at what is likely to happen to the EU, if, after UK exit, there is a scramble by other countries also to leave.

LABOUR ‘HANDS OFF THE BBC’: What is it about so-called social ‘progressives’ that they think that any change in the BBC – as the debate continues about Charter renewal – is going to result in a slide into deteriorating standards and even collapse? Angela Eagle, the Labour party’s shadow secretary for culture, has made a keynote speech in which she has laid out in detail for the first time the Corbyn regime’s thinking about media policy. Her principal message to the government, despite the huge changes and challenges facing media companies is ‘lay off the BBC – any intervention is bullying’. Her core points were:

Culture secretary John Whittingdale should not interfere at all in the BBC, especially over the EU referendum coverage or in matters of how programme budgets should be spent
no changes in the licence fee
no changes to the BBC’s commercial operations, including the possible sale of its stake in UKTV
No ‘top slicing’ of the BBC licence so that other broadcasters could benefit from a ‘public service fund’.
The BBC should remain at the heart of a complex state media patronage system in which it hands out cash to ‘independent’ producers
Only minor changes in BBC regulation, and strong doubt about the ability of Ofcom to become future regulator (as was proposed by the Clementi report). Further, he government should not be involved in any way in the appointment process of a future regulatory body or management board.

This was a facile, lazy speech which suggests that Labour’s only concern is to maintain the BBC’s dominance and the media status quo, along with the continuation of its funding by the licence fee, despite it being least affordable by the poor. The suspicion must be that Eagle and her colleagues do not want change because they know that editorially, the Corporation favours Labour values, and has been for years favouring its agenda – pro-EU, human rights (with all that loaded phrase entail in left-wing politics), multiculturalism, climate alarmism…and so on. Eagle’s only real reservation about the BBC’s current state of health is that it is not diverse enough. And she reserved her loudest cheer for Channel 4 (which she also says must not change) for its ‘360 degree diversity charter’ – a document that could serve as The Bible of the diversity industry.

Photo by Chingster23

12 3