The government (especially IDS) and several voices from the Right side of politics - from Stephen Glover to Janet Daley and Daniel Hannan - have often been sharply critical of the BBC for what they see as its biased reporting of the Coalition's benefit reforms. They argue that the BBC has taken sides in the argument (consciously or unconsciously) - i.e. the side of those who oppose the government's reforms.
Today's rejection by the High Court of challenge to one of the government's key benefit reforms brought by a number of disabled claimants resulted in the following cluster of stories, which led the BBC News website for much of today (until the sentencing of Wikileaker Bradley Manning demoted the story into second place):
Housing benefit challenge fails
Disabled families lose a High Court challenge to social housing benefit cuts for residents with spare bedrooms in England, Wales and Scotland.
Does the main article provide evidence for the case against the BBC? Or does it show impartial reporting at its finest?
Wall, what should we expect from such a report in advance?
I think we should expect an outlining of the judgement (complete with quotes from the judges) followed by reactions from both sides - presumably the 'winning side' first (i.e. the government) and the 'losing side' second (i.e. the benefit claimants). For the report to be balanced it obviously needs to provide a roughly equal amount of space to each side of the argument.
Is this what happens?
No.
This is how the main article about the story of the BBC website is actually structured:
Paragraph 1: Descriptive
Paragraph 2: Descriptive
Paragraph 3: Descriptive
Paragraph 4: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 5: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 6: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 7: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 8: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 9: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 10: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 11: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 12: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 13: The government's side
Paragraph 14: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 15: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 16: The government's side
Paragraph 17: The government's side
Paragraph 18: The government's side
Paragraph 19: The government's side
Paragraph 20: The government's side
Paragraph 21: Descriptive
Paragraph 22: Descriptive
Paragraph 23: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 24: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 25: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 26: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 27: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 28: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 29: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 30: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 31: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 32: The side of the claimants
Paragraph 33: The government's side
That's 21 paragraphs given over to critics of the benefit reforms (the claimants, their solicitor, Labour, charities) and just 7 given over to supporters of the benefit reforms (the government) - which strikes me as a massive imbalance in the article against the government.
You can of course carry out the same count for yourselves to see if you agree with my labels for each paragraph.
BBC News website readers moving on from that biased article have four other links to click on - two are BBC journalists' overviews (including a Q&A article), but the other two are given over entirely to the the claimants's side of the argument. This strikes me as a further imbalance, adding insult to injury.
You will also have noticed that the judges' ruling is not quoted by the BBC. The BBC article merely links to it. I'm at a complete loss to understand why the whole point of the story - that a judge has made a ruling dismissing the claimants' case - seems to be missing from the BBC's lead article. Where are the quotes from the judges? Where's the summary of their ruling?
Now, it's not all bad. There are two videos in the main article - one for each side of the argument. That's an attempt at balance.
Still, it must be said that the video where the claimants' side of the argument is given is placed right at the head of the article, just beneath the headline, while the government's response is placed well down the page.
However, the inset analysis from Mike Sergeant, the BBC's local government correspondent, does strike me as being a model piece of impartial reporting (in miniature). That's the article's redeeming feature.
Don't you agree that this provides a good deal of evidence to support those at the Telegraph, Mail and Spectator who agree with Iain Duncan Smith that the BBC is biased against the government's benefit changes?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.