Into the Labyrinth again

Just checking through our archive for our use of the word 'labyrinthine' - plus 'labyrinth' - to describe the BBC's tortuous complaints process, I find I've used it in five posts over the years - in 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2019.

So it's gratifying to find that a former BBC head of news, Roger Mosey, and Ofcom's Kevin Bakhurst, both used exactly the same term to describe the BBC complaints process on this week's The Media Show on BBC Radio 4.

It feels like vindication.

Roger Mosey described the BBC as being “rather bad at accountability”:

Roger Mosey: And now I'm outside the BBC you see that accountability is really important, and it's very crucial for the BBC that it is accountable. I think it's rather bad at accountability really. The complaints process is very complicated. I've only ever...Since I've been outside I've made one complaint in eight and a half years. And I know the system. And you just got stuck in this labyrinth of not being able to work out how it was that you got anyone to acknowledge that there was a genuine issue there. 

And former BBC high-up now their regulator Kevin Bakhurst said that people get lost in the process and don't like the tone of the BBC's responses and “give up the ghost” - and also rather deliciously skewers a BBC 'defence' here:

Ros Atkins, BBC: But help me dig into the detail here. And, Kevin, you're the one making the request. So let me ask you, if I Google now 'BBC Complaints' I'm quite easily gonna end up on a page which says 'What would you like to say to us?', so the problem is presumably not that. The problem for you is what happens after that? 

Kevin Bakhurst: I mean, our research shows audiences can Google it and find their way in really, really easily and quickly, and they approve of that. And, by the way, in general they approve of BBC First as the right way to deal with complaints. However, once they get into that system, they get lost. And, as Roger says, it is really labyrinthine for audiences. That's what our research shows. They are not quite sure where they are in the process, they don't like the tone of language they get in responses from the BBC, many of them...when we were discussing this with the BBC, the BBC said, well, you know, it's a measure of our success that people don't come through to Ofcom that much at the end. Our research shows people don't come through to Ofcom because they've given up the ghost going through the BBC complaints process, and don't really understand where they are or how to advance them.

 As we've long said.

The Media Show

I've belatedly caught up with this week's The Media Show where Ros Atkins talked to Ofcom's Kevin Bakhurst; Owen Meredith of the News Media Association; former BBC head of news Roger Mosey; and Alice Enders of Enders Analysis.

Various thoughts flitted across my mind while listening to it, e.g. I tutted when Ros said:

But on the broader issue of complaints. Here's a statement today from the BBC - and, by the way, we did invite the BBC onto the programme, but they've sent us a statement.

It's always a little daft when the BBC declines to speak to itself.

This led into my next thought, concerning Ros's role in the programme. One admirable quirk of the BBC, especially during John Humphrys or Eddie Mair's interviews with BBC people during times of crisis for the BBC, was that BBC interviewers can go in surprisingly hard on the BBC. One DG, George Entwistle, had to go after a particularly high-temperature John Humphrys roasting. Maybe it was because the BBC weren't there to stick up for themselves that Ros played the part of BBC defender so strongly - i.e. for professional reasons, and reasons of fairness and balance - but he did seem to take certain things personally and put considerable energy - and what sounded like conviction - into sticking up for the BBC.

Anyhow, there were some interesting exchanges during the programme...which will follow in the next few posts...

There's nothing like a dame (Jenni Murray)

The big 'BBC bias' controversy I missed this week was Dame Jenni Murray of Woman's Hour getting a ticking-off from the BBC for a Sunday Times piece, where she'd written that transgender women aren't "real women".

Of course, Dame Jenni's Sunday Times piece was full of PC caveats but that still didn't stop the specific target of her criticism, India Willoughby, from (outrageously) calling for her to be sacked for expressing her opinions. 

Nor did it stop the Four Gender-Fluid Horseriders of the Twitter Apocalypse from descending upon her. 

Or the BBC from 'reminding' her about her duties regarding BBC impartiality. 

The BBC said: 

Jenni Murray is a freelance journalist and these were her own views, however we have reminded her that presenters should remain impartial on controversial topics covered by their BBC programmes.

The whole debate over this raises many, many questions, but I'll just stick to the BBC impartiality questions (as is my way). 

Several things struck me about this affair, but most of them can be grouped under one issue: the ever-controversial question of what 'freelance journalists' at the BBC can and cannot say. 

The first thing to say is that it's staggering how many of the top names associated with the BBC are freelance. (Mr Hammond, are you taking note?)

Who knew Dame Jenni Murray, veteran of Woman's Hour, was freelance rather than BBC? You may have done, but I didn't - though I certainly should have known. Wherever you took 'top talent' at the BBC turns out to be freelance. 

The second thing to say is that the BBC response makes it clear that 'freelance' BBC talent is meant to "remain impartial on controversial topics". 

So, from that, I draw the conclusion that everyone - from Andrew Neil to Andrew Marr to Samira Ahmed - is meant to be "impartial on controversial topics", even while doing something for a non-BBC media outlet. 

And I'm assuming that the old Twitter impartiality guidelines apply to freelancers too.

(And what about Gary Lineker?)

The third thing to say is that it's very interesting what got Dame Jenni Murray pulled up. She's expressed controversial opinions before and not got told off by the BBC for it - despite the 'right-wing tabloids' giving her stick over it. 

A famous example is her call for pornography to be taught in schools in a piece for the Guardian late last year - a subject she'd discussed with a supporter and a non-opponent (a fair way of characterising her guests I think) on Woman's Hour as well. 

Why didn't she get pulled up for that? 

My answer to that would be that she didn't get pulled up over pornography in the classroom because the BBC has a pronounced social liberal bias. 

Many people at the BBC would see nothing outrageous about a call for pornography to be taught in classrooms for feminist reasons. They would, however, feel deeply uncomfortable with the Woman's Hour dame breaking one of the very latest cardinal rules of social liberalism, by saying that transgender woman aren't 'real women'. 

The BBC has been leading the way in trying to make transgender identities normal and accepted in the past couple of years. Dame Jenni Murray - as an old-fashioned BBC feminist - is clearly very much out-of-step with current BBC thinking on the issue. Hence her unprecedented 'reminder'. 

The fourth thing to say (and, probably, the most controversial for some reason) is that, as Dame Jenni says in her Sunday Times piece, she is a feminist, and feminism is the driving force behind Radio 4's Woman's Hour. 

The programmes feminist underpinnings aren't disguised. They are openly stated...and this despite the fact that, according to the feminist Fawcett Society, only about 7% of women in the UK call themselves 'feminists'. It's an ideologically-charged programme, and doesn't make any bones about that being the case, or see any problem with that being the case. 

In other words, Woman's Hour is not impartial. It's biased in favour of feminism. And the BBC is intensely relaxed about that being the case. No-one at the BBC, evidently, sees that as being, in any way, hard to reconcile with the BBC being an impartial broadcaster. Why is that the case? 

Why is it wrong for Dame Jenni Murray to express a view many people share about transgender people but right for Dame Jenni Murray to front an openly pro-feminist daily Radio 4 programme? 

I had other things to say about this earlier in the week but can't remember them now. Radio 4's The Media Show did, however, discuss the issue (very interestingly) this week. (A transcription is unnecessary as it will be available to listen again to for a year). It's well worth a listen - especially for the Sunday Times Magazine editor's parting shot about BBC bias over Brexit. 

"One thing that is true of the BBC is of course, you leave all your personal opinions at the door"

This week's The Media Show featured a remarkable pair of interviews about BBC bias - especially regarding BBC bias against Donald Trump. 

The first interview featured Charles Moore of the Spectator, laying into the BBC's 'groupthink' and the corporation's lack of even-handedness when it comes to disputing/believing 'facts' (i.e. questioning figures from the Trump side whilst simply taking on trust figures from the anti-Trump side), plus making the contrast between how the BBC greeted the election of Barack Obama with how it's greeted the election of Donald Trump. 

The second interview featured James Harding, Director of BBC News. It was one of those BBC interviews when the senior BBC manager essentially says little other than that 'the BBC is getting it about right'. Even when he sounded as if he was about to concede one of Charles Moore's points, Mr Harding spun around and refused to concede it:

JAMES HARDING  Erm, I think, let me say two things. One is: I think Charles Moore makes a really good point and made a really good point in that article which is, if you're going to have an argument about the honesty of the President of the United States in picking a fight with the media about the size of his audience at the inauguration, then you’d better be as vigorous and as keen to monitor the numbers of people who go on marches. And I think that point is not just related to Trump, it’s related to that bigger issue about public protests and how do you make sure that you, you do that accurately?
STEVE HEWLETT:         So do you think there was an element in the BBC’s reporting . . .
JH:          (interrupting) So . . .
SH:         . . . that could fairly be described as ‘uneven’ slightly?
JH:          No, I just think, I think what that is an extremely important thing is (sic) to keep on reminding people that if you’re going to pick a fight over fake news – and there is a fight on all sides over fake news, then you keep coming back to the efforts you make to be accurate.  That’s a really important point.

Plus, he quite blatantly side-stepped some of Steve Hewlett's sharper questions (or, to put it another way, failed to answer them), eg:

SH:         I guess is . . . I mean, this is a very cheeky question . . .

JH:          Hm-hmm (laughs)

SH:         And there’s no reason why you should have a proper answer to it, in fairness . . .

JH:          Can I just say, ‘No I don’t’ (laughs)

SH:      Do you . . . well, that might be the answer. Do you know anybody on the journalistic or editorial staff at the BBC, who is pro-Trump?

JH:          (two second pause) (inhales) So . . .

SH:         As an individual I mean.

JH:        So, so really important . . . there’s a really important thing here, which is that, people inside the BBC, they are all journalists, actually, one of the great misunderstandings about journalists is that there is such a thing as groupthink. Journalists, by nature, have really contrary opinions, they have different opinions, certainly when, when there’s a group of think— er, people who go in one direction, they, by nature, want to go the other direction, you know them as well as I do. Erm, one thing that is true of the BBC is of course, you leave all your personal opinions at the door.

Yeah right!

It was a strikingly weak performance, all in all. See if you agree.

A full transcript, courtesy of David and Andrew at News-watch (and many thanks to them for providing it), follows 'below the fold'...

Sir Craig Oliver gets it wrong

On this week's The Media Show, Sir Craig Oliver got to complain about BBC 'false balance' during the EU referendum campaign and used the following specific example:

One of the stories that I tell in the book is: George Osborne and I were standing outside the Prime Minister's office on Sunday evening watching the BBC News, about to go into a meeting. And in the morning Penny Mordaunt, who was a government minister, had said that Britain does not have a veto on Turkey joining the EU. It does. It's a straightforward fact. And yet all day long on BBC bulletins, on BBC online, we were struggling to say, "But why can't you just say 'It's not true' right from the off? Help people understand this story because she's just got it wrong". 

And we watched the bulletin and there were two packages about Turkey in that bulletin that night. And at the end we just looked at each other and said, "What hope do the viewers have in understanding this?" because at no point was it made crystal clear that there are no international experts at all who think Turkey is going to join the EU in the next few years and Britain does have a veto and France, you know, I think, has to have a referendum. 

And I'm just saying that what needs to happen...and it's not just me that's saying this but Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who did a report for the BBC on this subject...when you speak to BBC viewers and listeners and readers online they feel incredibly frustrated because they feel they're just getting 'on the one hand, on the other' and saying 'Help me out!'. 

Well, it looks as if I'm going to have to do what Sir Craig demands on the BBC's behalf - as The Media Show didn't do it here - and 'help' people out by pointing out that Sir Craig himself 'just got it wrong'. 

What you've just read above from Sir Craig Oliver is simply not true, and I know because I wrote a piece about that very Sunday evening bulletin (including some transcriptions) and, as you will see, the former Downing Street spin doctor was wrong on several counts. 

He said the BBC didn't say that Penny Mordaunt was "wrong" when the BBC actually explicitly did say that she was "wrong" - and the BBC's Alex Forsyth even used the word "wrongly"!

And when he said that "at no point was it made crystal clear" about international experts saying there was no chance of Turkey joining the EU in the next few years, he 'forgets' that Alex Forsyth not only made that clear, saying herself "It is in fact some way off" but also featured Prof. Anand Menon (an expert) saying "it's not anywhere near becoming an EU member". 

The BBC could hardly have done Sir Craig's bidding better.

So, Sir Craig Oliver is behaving like Coco the Clown here and talking out of his newly-knighted behind.

Even his bit about BBC online is wrong. The BBC News website's Reality Check feature did rubbish Mrs Mordaunt's claims "right from the off" and "helped people understand this story":

So Sir Craig was comprehensively wrong.

On a related matter incidentally, why, whenever he uses this Turkish accession example on the BBC (as I've heard him do before), does no BBC interviewer ever ask him about his boss David Cameron's Turkey unlikely to join EU ‘until the year 3000’ claim? That claim was surely at least as worthy of a BBC 'reality check as Mrs Mordaunt's claims?

Anyhow, here's the relevant bit from my original post (from Sunday 22 May) in full just to show just how wrong Sir Craig was here. (I'll be charitable and put it down to 'confirmation bias' on his and George Osborne's part):

Wrongly claimed

Tonight's BBC One evening news bulletin began with the following headline:

Referendum battle lines are drawn over the Health Service and the chances of Turkey joining the EU. With controversy over what future migration levels might be David Cameron clashes with one of his own ministers on whether Britain could veto Turkish membership. The head of NHS England says the Health Service would be effected in a UK exit caused an economic slowdown. We'll be exploring the latest arguments from the two sides, with less than five weeks to go.

The bulletin (courtesy of BBC reporter Alex Forsyth) quickly - and explicitly - ruled who was right and who was wrong over that Turkey 'controversy': 

Sitting on Europe's south-east flank, Turkey's now at the centre of this referendum battle. Its role in tackling the migrant crisis has renewed talk of it joining the EU, and that's allowed those who want the UK to leave to raise questions about immigration and security. Like this minister [Penny Mordaunt] who today wrongly claimed the UK had no power to stop Turkey joining.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Penny! (according to the BBC).

We then got clips of Dave and Boris both saying (in the past) that Turkey should join the EU.

Then Alex did a 'Reality Check' for us. She 'made it clear' that Turkey wasn't going to be joining the EU any time soon. And blog favourite Prof. Anand Menon (the one who did that massively pro-EU series on the EU for The World at One) then duly appeared as Alex's 'talking head' to say (correctly) that the UK has traditionally been Turkey's biggest cheerleader as regards its entry into the EU and to emphasise the point that it's not "anywhere near becoming an EU member". And Alex then capped that by saying of Turkey's prospective EU membership, "It is in fact [emphasis hers] some way off..." (BBC message reinforcement on overdrive, I think, here!)

So relax about Turkey! (And don't, whatever you do, mention that Turkey has already been granted free visa access to the EU as part of the panicky EU-Turkey migrant deal!  {Edit: But see comments below}.)

Clowns v experts

Having been at work all day, I've not heard much of Radio 4 - other than catching up with that Gus O'Donnell documentary and hearing PM as I drove home. 

I did, however, hear Steve Hewlett's interview with former BBC DG Mark Thompson on this afternoon's The Media Show and was struck by two things:

Firstly, the specific examples of 'wrong use of language' that Mark Thompson used to bolster his argument that "something has gone wrong with political language and it's making it harder to have serious public debates about important issues" in the UK and the US included a couple of recent examples from British politics - both from the Leave side of the EU referendum: "take back control" and "our Independence Day".  

And, secondly, that Steve Hewlett pushed a 'Roy Greenslade/Timothy Garton Ash (etc)' line of questioning on how the BBC had reported the referendum, and whether BBC guidelines should be changed to stop the BBC treating both sides of a referendum equally - or as Steve 'n' Mark put it, treating 'Coco the Clown' on one side with the same respect as a 'world-leading expert' on the other. 

Mark Thompson duly went along with Steve's line of questioning and agree that if there's another referendum it should be conducted differently by the BBC and that 'Coco the Clown' on one side shouldn't be accorded the same respect as the 'world-leading expert' on the other. 

I think it's not hard to guess where that kind of argument is intended to take us - especially if there's another referendum.

Controversial

The BBC has, controversially, been controversial this week.

If Twitter is anything to go by (and it usually isn't), there's a 'trending' petition complaining about the BBC's 'pro-assisted-suicide bias' following Thursday's major one-and-a-half-hour documentary BBC Two How to Die: Simon's Choice (which - disclaimer! - I've not yet seen).

Anti-euthanasia campaigners are furious at the BBC for, as they see it, campaigning for assisted suicide. 

They say that there have been six such major documentaries (sympathetic towards assisted euthanasia) in the past few years but next-to-none exploring the alternatives. 

The comments below articles about this at the likes of the Mail and the Telegraph show that - as opinion polls also keep showing - an overwhelming majority of the British public incline towards or fervently support assisted dying, so the BBC isn't offending most of its viewers here.

Whether that makes a succession of (allegedly) sympathetic programmes about euthanasia 'right'. impartiality-wise, is another question entirely.

I'm as pro-assisted dying as the next (British) man, but I keep noting these major documentaries apparently supporting my position on the BBC and I don't doubt that there is a bias on this, towards my side of the argument.

Should there be, given the BBC's statute-driven guidelines?

******

Radio 4's The Media Show featured a discussion about this very subject.

First up, Steve Hewlett (BBC presenter, Guardian journalist) interviewed the programme's producer/director Rowan Deacon who, I have to say, did a very good job of casting the documentary in a completely-non-agenda-driven light. She sounded very plausible. (Please listen to her yourself if you're doubtful). 

Steve wasn't exactly tough on her though.

Then came a double interview with a campaigner for Care Not Killing and a BBC editor. 

Here, to be fair, Steve Hewlett did give the BBC man the tougher time, pressing him on the question of those six major documentaries and asking him to cite counterbalancing documentaries; but, to be equally fair, the Guardian/BBC man also 'replied to/countered' some of the anti-euthanasia campaigner's point himself.

The bias here wasn't egregious though I wouldn't say it was anything approaching being entirely absent. 

******

The same episode of The Media Show, incidentally. featured more on the scrap between (to put it crudely) the Hacked Off Brigade and the non-Guardian/non-BBC press. 

Sir Alan Moses, the head of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which Hacked Off types see as a patsy of the press barons, got into quite a (largely good-natured) scrap with Steve Hewlett of the BBC/Guardian, describing Steve's introduction to his interview as "tendentious". 

And then, after Sir Alan, had somethinged off (or words to that effect), Steve interviewed the Guardian's Jane Martinson. 

As admirable as Steve Hewlett can be, Guardian-on-Guardian interviews like this don't ever fill me with confidence.

Deal or No Deal

So...

...on the minus side for the BBC, the BBC has agreed to meet the £650 million cost of free licence fees for all people over 75, currently paid for by the Department of Work and Pensions, and from 2020 to take control of the policy itself, while...

...on the plus side for the BBC, (a) the licence fee will be allowed to rise with inflation, (b) the BBC will get back the £150 million set aside for broadband roll-out, (c) the government will change the law underpinning the licence fee so as to make people accessing public service TV on the i-Player (and the like) have to pay for the privelege, and (d) any decision to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee (which the BBC reckons might have cost it £200 million a year) will the put off until Charter Review and then take account of any adverse impacts on the BBC's finances.

*****

That's roughly the way the deal was outlined by Steve Hewlett on today's Media Show on Radio 4. 

And that sounds like a pretty good deal for the BBC to me.

*****

According to Steve Hewlett's calculations, however, the deal could cost the BBC a few millions. 

According to the BBC itself, the cost will be either 'flat' or (pace Tony Hall) might actually be positive for the BBC (i.e. it might gain financially from it).

Alan Yentob, speaking on Media Show, backed the BBC's present bosses and asked if Steve Hewlett was a mathematician.

*****

The reactions from various interested parties to the government's deal with the BBC have been bewildering and fascinating. Opinions have been crossing each other in all directions. 

I was actually watching the BBC News Channel on Monday afternoon (having taken the afternoon off), watching John Whittingdale's announcement to parliament (in the wake of the previous day's newspaper reports and that Marr Show interview with George Osborne) and noticed the various sickly looks and words of shock from the BBC presenters immediately after - and then, later that day, also registered Evan Davis's sarcastic commentary on that night's Newsnight, which absolutely reeked of BBC self pity.

But that was only part of it. 

Over the past four days, we've pretty much seen and heard it all...

From the former head of the BBC Board of Governors Sir Christopher Bland to the former head of the BBC Trust Chris Patten, via the former deputy head of the BBC Trust Diane Coyle, many of the "great and the good" of the BBC's recent past have piled in, furiously denouncing the government and its "shabby deal" for risking harm to the BBC and its independence.

From Lord Hall to Danny Cohen, in contrast, the present bosses of the BBC have appeared pleased with the deal, saying it's a good one for the BBC which won't lose them any money at all (and might even gain them some). 

From Labour's Chris Leslie in the House of Commons to 'Aunty Pol Toynbee and all' at the Guardian, however, accusations that the government is guilty of an ideological assault on the much-loved BBC. Other have said the BBC is becoming a branch of the government.

And from the BBC's traditional critics ('people like us' - see this fine piece by David Keighley at Conservative Woman) charges that the government is actually guilty of completely letting the biased BBC off the hook.

*****

And some media voices from beyond the BBC seem to share the concerns of 'people like us'.

Take David Elstein, who described the whole thing as "bizarre" on today's Media Show on Radio 4.

The thing that's especially got his goat is the fact that the government appears to have scuppered what seemed like a parliament-backed 'done deal' (both Commons and Lords) to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee, That meant, he said, that a million people every year will now continue to be caught up in the legal system - and 50 people imprisoned for non-payment of  fine each year - because of this relentlessly-enforced telly tax.

And....(h/t Guest Who at Biased BBC)....please also have a close read of this damning verdict on the deal from the editor of the UK Press Gazette, Dominic Ponsford: 

Government's £650m raid on BBC finances is a PR exercise which has played the public for fools 

The last time Press Gazette did a count the BBC listed more than 200 communications contacts, but none were prepared to answer a simple question on Monday – what was the net impact of the Government raid on the BBC licence fee?

The BBC knew the answer of course (I assume the BBC would not agree a funding deal without doing at least a back of the a fag packet calculation on what the impact of that deal would be). But they weren’t telling me because it did not suit the narrative they were seeking to control. The Department of Culture Media and Sport was similarly tight-lipped about the real impact of the deal.

It suited the Government to look like it was taking an axe to the BBC finances and it suited the BBC to play the victim.

Chancellor George Osborneannounced the mo ve on Sunday morning's Andrew Marr Show on BBC One. The BBC has to "make savings and contribute to what we need to do as a country to get our house in order" he said, so would have to bear the £650m cost of providing free TV licences for the over-75s.

We (the media) swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The headlines on Monday reflected delight from BBC bashers and outrage from its defenders.

Only once this had sunk in was the BBC prepared to reveal the truth.

Yesterday Lord Hall, the BBC director general, told Radio 4 Today: “The government’s decision here to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC.”

So far from being a raid on the BBC’s finances, the whole thing has been an elaborate PR exercise.

Free TV licences for the over-75s costs an estimated £650m a year, we are told.

But the Government is allowing the BBC to begin raising the licence fee with inflation and has promised to close the loophole whereby those who only watch the BBC iPlayer on their computers don’t need a TV licence. And the £150m of licence fee cash currently ring-fenced to subsidise broadband roll out will reduce to nothing over time.

Today the BBC press office was finally prepared to admit that the deal is cash neutral over time.

So the Government has been allowed to disguise a tax rise (future increases in the licence fee and an expansion in those who pay it) as an austerity cut on the BBC.

And the BBC has been able to hang on to its £3.7bn a year public subsidy while every other state-funded body (outside the NHS and schools) faces massive austerity cuts.

It’s all been an unedifying exercise in smoke and mirrors politics which has played the public for fools.

 *****

Returning, finally, to today's Media Show on Radio 4...

This was a very strange affair, with three former BBC bigwigs - Alan Yentob, Diane Coyle and Tim Suter - all being strongly pro-BBC, and the chosen Tory representative - Sir Norman Fowler - being hardly less pro-BBC.

Only David Elstein (a former BBC man himself) made some strong points against the BBC (as well as against the government) - points that resulted in a short run-in with Steve Hewlett (which David Elstein won) over the decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee issue. 

Mr Yentob was interviewed separately, as he, supported the deal.

Ms Coyle and Mr Suter strongly opposed it (from identical-seeming perspectives). As did the two remaining guests (Sir Norman and Mr Elstein), who joined a vigorous foursome against the government's actions...

...or, actually, a fivesome, given that the tenor of Steve Hewlett's was also strongly directed in the same direction. 

I know that many people admire SH's knowledge of the media, but he did seem to tend very strongly in one direction today, like his programme as a whole [a direction that can be characterised, perhaps confusingly, as pro-BBC, anti-deal and critical of the government]. 

And - to repeat the point - the fact of the matter is, with the greatest respect [two phrases that always spring to mind whenever I think of Sir Norman, given how often he used to use them!], that Sir Norman Fowler is as pro-BBC as Ms Coyle and Mr Suter - and made that abundantly clear today. Why was he the chosen Tory? 

I didn't find it a particularly satisfactory listen (as you may have guessed).

Bias at the BBC

This afternoon's Media Show on Radio 4, hosted by its regular presenter, Guardian columnist Steve Hewlett, was a hacking trial special. Steve Hewlett himself has been the BBC's lead commentator on the hacking trial. (He was their main reporter on last night's Newsnight too.)  His guests were Guardian journalist Nick Davies, former Guardian editor Peter Preston, former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis, Hacked Off's Joan Smith (formerly of the Independent), Conservative Lord (Norman) Fowler and Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman.

Looking for bias here you could argue that this programme was (a) biased towards the 'broadsheet' end of the press and against the 'tabloid' end (4:1). 

Or you could argue that the programme was biased (b) towards the left (Guardian/Independent) wing of the press as opposed to the right (News of the World) wing of the press (4:1), with guests from the Times, Telegraph and Spectator conspicuous by their absence. 

Could you claim it was (c) party-politically biased though? Well, politically-speaking, one Conservative and one Labour guest must clearly be called 'balanced' - though the Conservative actually scored points against his own side, and it was left to Neil Wallis instead to do the Labour-bashing to balance Harriet Harman's Tory-bashing. Still, we can safely rule that charge out. 

Not so easy to rule out though is the charge that the programme was (d) biased on the thorny question of press regular/Leveson. Four of the six guests were firmly pro-Leveson and pro-regulation (Harriet Harman, Norman Fowler, Nick Davies and Joan Smith) while only two were critical/opposed (Neil Wallis, Peter Preston) (ie. 2:1). 

My conclusions from this are that The Media Show wasn't as balanced as it should have been. An anti-press regulation politician and another anti-Leveson right-wing journalist (the Spectator's Fraser Nelson for example) should surely have been added to the panel - though quite how you would have fitted them all into the half hour provided is a moot point.

Newsnight did it somewhat better last night. 

Predictably they devoted the entire programme to it, which was probably overkill (though the BBC's coverage of the story as a whole has never lacked for 'overkill') and, yes, may well suggest bias and, yes, Steve Hewlett of the Guardian/BBC Radio 4 Media Show acted as both interviewee and reporter (twice), but, still, Laura Kuenssberg did her duty and gave both of her politicians  - Harriet Harman MP, Labour & John Whittingdale MP, Conservative - tough questions critical of their respective parties. 

And, yes, though separate interviews with Nick Davies of the Guardian and hacking victim Ulrika Jonsson, also tilted things one way (the expected way), the closing debate could not have been better balanced with Rich Peppiatt, filmmaker and former tabloid journalist, and Baroness Onora O'Neill, philosopher, on one side [the pro-Leveson, pro-regulation side] and journalist and LBC presenter Nick Ferrari, journalist and Isabel Hardman of the Spectator on the other [anti-Leveson, anti-regulation]. 

That closing Newsnight discussion is what The Media Show should have been like.