Tipped

(h/t David Keighley)

According to The Mail on Sunday, Baroness (Tina) Stowell is tipped to replace Rona Fairhead as chair of the BBC's new unitary board (replacement for the BBC Trust). 

Her history is that she was an aide to John Major and William Hague. She then became Head of Communications for three Chairmen of the BBC: Gavyn Davies, Michael Grade, and Michael Lyons (from 2003-08), and then became Head of Corporate Affairs at the BBC (from 2008) before leaving the BBC to rejoin the Conservative Party becoming Leader of the House of Lords in 2014 and a full member of David Cameron's cabinet in 2015. Theresa May dropped her in July this year. She was an early Remain supporter in the EU referendum campaign.

Though her appointment (if it happens) would probably take some of the party political heat off the BBC over James Purnell, the appointment of such a pro-Remain Establishment figure will doubtless raise just as many eyebrows.

More on Chris Packham

A snipe. UK population down 89% in the last 25 years but still legally shot. "Why?" petitions Chris Packham

Courtesy of Alan at Biased BBC, there's more on the BBC Trust's ruling on anti-driven grouse shooting campaigner and freelance BBC presenter Chris Packham's "nasty brigade" comments about hunters and shooters in the BBC Wildlife magazine. 

Further to the Trust's rather ambiguous/mealy-mouthed 'clearing' of the Springwatch presenter (of whom I'm a great fan), the UK Press Gazette reports:

New editor of the [BBC Wildlife] magazine Sheena Harvey told the BBC Trust: “Coming to this magazine as the new editor and with a fresh eye, I will say that I feel some of the language used by Chris Packham in that column was somewhat flippant and the use of a phrase such as ‘nasty brigade’ would not have been let through had I been overseeing the content. 

“My aim for the future is to provide a platform for informed opinion, within the regulatory guidelines and with cogent factual and legal content, and to offer a right to reply in the next available issue to all parties concerned in the debate.” 

The BBC Trust complaints committee said: “The committee considered that the fact that BBC Wildlife Magazine’s new editor would not have allowed the term ‘nasty brigade’ to have been published, together with the fact that both complainants had been given a right to reply to it, meant that the issue had been resolved and no further action needed to be taken.”

Well, of course they "considered" it that way, especially as they'd said exactly that themselves.

None of which will stop Chris campaigning. Just four hours ago, for instance, he stated his support (on Twitter) for another campaign against shooters:

...

...a campaign he himself started:

I'm getting the impression that Chris Packham is refusing to accept any criticism here, and being very public about that refusal. 

Where will that lead him and the BBC? The BBC doesn't like insubordination in the ranks (even its freelance ranks).

On Chris Packham

I suppose I ought to write something (as others are doing) about Chris Packham being cleared by the BBC Trust for calling those involved in hunting "the nasty brigade" and demanding a ban on driven grouse-shooting in the BBC Wildlife magazine.

The (two) complainants argued that Chris had broken BBC impartiality guidelines (the BBC Wildlife magazine being bound by those guidelines) and had a conflict of interest (being a campaigner against driven grouse-shooting).

Now, I've seen some of Chris Packham's videos on the subject and there's no doubt about it: He is a campaigner on the subject.

The BBC Trust cleared him because he was considered not to be working in "news or policy output", and because the article was labelled as "opinion" and a right to reply was offered - duly given in the magazine's next edition - and because Chris is a freelance presenter and not a BBC employee, meaning he's "open to associate himself with wildlife charities without being in breach of the guidelines".

That said, the BBC Trust suggested that he and his BBC bosses "assess regularly and formally" his campaigning to make sure it doesn't undermine the "impartiality and independence" of his BBC broadcasting, and the BBC Trust told him not to use the phrase "the nasty brigade" in the future.

Hmm. So the BBC Trust did see some problems with what Chris Packham wrote for BBC Wildlife.

The status of freelance BBC presenters is a definite 'grey area' when it comes to BBC impartiality. It remains troubling.

In Chris's defence, however - and, admitting in advance my own possible bias as a very loyal Springwatch/Autumnwatch/Unsprung viewer - I've closely observed how careful he is, when presenting those high-profile programmes, to restrain himself when in comes to controversial topics. 

He's even cited BBC impartiality guidelines at times as to why some Unsprung discussions have remained within certain confines and then stuck to those confines.

Yes, he may well have been hinting there at his own dissatisfaction with those guidelines, but stick to them he still did.

To end, here's a drawing of a hen harrier (Chris Packham's main concern when it comes to driven grouse-shooting):

Fakery

So, the BBC Natural History Unit - possibly the BBC's most trusted brand - has been found guilty of serious editorial breaches by the BBC Trust for faking some of the footage in two landmark documentaries. 

As others have said, the really astonishing thing about this is that the BBC is now forcing all its natural history programme makers to go on a 'fakery prevention course' - as if it should actually need drilling into their heads that such fakery is wrong.

It's a funny old organisation, the BBC, at times. 

Shot to smithereens

Further to a couple of earlier posts....

David Keighley at The Conservative Woman has rightly described Rona Fairhead's complacent Independent piece as a "protectionist pro-BBC polemic" which essentially proclaims "that the Corporation is damned near perfect":

The core message is that the splendiferous, fabulous, marvellous BBC knows what the public wants and is delivering it in spades. Auntie might be a tad bureaucratic and may need a slightly different form of governance,  but hey!....anyone who does not believe it is the pinnacle of national achievement is deluded, unpatriotic, and blind to the multi-layered £8 billion bonanza the Corporation brings to the country.

David highlights one quote from the article that had my jaw dropping too, and which bears repeating:

"We have set – and effectively policed – the highest editorial standards in broadcasting, putting complainants and the BBC on an entirely equal footing in the hearing of appeals". 

As he says,

Excuse me?  These scrutiny processes are set by the BBC to favour blatantly the BBC. Every aspect of the BBC complaints process is set in the BBC’s favour. The claim is risible even by Fairhead’s gone-totally-native standards. 

Well, yes. And don't most of us know it!

He also relates Rona Fairhead's "smug defence of the BBC" to Ofcom's rulings against the BBC this week (the rulings the BBC downplayed) - and the BBC's attempts to wriggle out of those criticisms. 

The details are fascinating and well worth reading, showing the BBC "using exactly the same lame defences" with Ofcom that they deploy with us (ordinary licence fee payers):

The BBC’s defence against the charge in a section about one of the TVE programmes shows how bull-headed, bigoted and closeted the Corporation’s ‘high editorial standards’ actually are... 

Ofcom most certainly did not agree. Its frustration that the BBC did not understand such elementary journalistic principles – and defended its actions in this way - is evident in every word of its damning verdicts. 

Fairhead’s claims about those ‘high editorial standards’ are shot to smithereens. So is her claim that the BBC complaints procedure is fair. The reality is that, because of how the Trustees interpret their role and issues such as balance, huge swathes of BBC output (In controversial fields such as climate change) are just as untrustworthy and biased as TVE’s programming was judged to be by Ofcom. 

Jonathan Dimbleby commits "a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality"

You may or not have spotted this (as I believe only the Guardian and the Daily Mail have covered the story), but the BBC Trust has issued a rare damning verdict on a high-profile BBC presenter - namely Jonathan Dimbleby:

Trail for Any Questions? In Today, Radio 4, 29 May 2015

Summary of finding 

The Committee considered the serious editorial breach which occurred during a trail for the programme Any Questions? on Radio 4’s Today programme. In the trail, the Any Questions? presenter Jonathan Dimbleby included information on the charity he had helped to establish in memory of his father and explained how listeners could support it. 

The Committee concluded that this was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality, Conflicts of Interest, and External Relationships and Funding.

The offending exchange on Today ran as follows:

Jonathan Dimbleby: And Justin, I just want to add a football, a personal football, a footnote not football – well it’ll turn out to be a football...

Justin Webb: Not some kind of confession is it? 

Jonathan Dimbleby: Well it’s going to hit me in the face I think probably– I’m not going to be with you next Friday morning. I haven’t resigned, I haven’t been sacked - yet. But when Any Questions? goes on air, I shall be leading a fifty kilometre night-time walk through London to raise funds for the cancer charity we set up after the death of my father fifty years ago. If you want to support our work, our walk, you can find out more online – Dimbleby Cancer Care. Er, now I will be sacked won’t I? 

Justin Webb: Er, I won’t answer that actually Jonathan.... 

Jonathan Dimbleby: …No I think you’d better not, otherwise you could be… Eight o’clock this evening, we’re on air anyway. 

Justin Webb: …exactly, but I will support you privately at least. 

Jonathan Dimbleby: You’re a good man, thanks.

This was the response from the BBC Executive:

The Executive confirmed that they considered this was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines. They noted that it was an off-the-cuff addition to an otherwise scripted trail. 

They stated that it was not uncommon for presenters who were well known to audiences to mention activities they were involved in from their personal lives. However, they noted that it was less usual for this to happen during a brief trail slot and that, in this case, the information about how listeners could support a presenter’s charitable endeavour went significantly beyond what could be editorially justifiable. They stated that the Director of Editorial Policy had written to Jonathan Dimbleby very shortly after the broadcast and the Director, Radio Production, had also discussed it personally with the presenter. The head of the department responsible for the programme’s production had also reminded the presenter about the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines conflicts of interest. 

(No mention of whether anything was said to Justin Webb about his "but I will support you privately at least.")

And this was the Trust's final decision:

Trustees noted that the presenter’s trail had been scripted and that the script had been seen prior to transmission. However, the presenter had ad-libbed to refer to a charity event of considerable personal significance to him. They appreciated that he had a strong emotional link to the charity. However, they noted that a considerable number of other well-known BBC correspondents and presenters also had enduring links with particular causes and charities to which they had an equally significant emotional commitment. 

Trustees noted that the BBC had set up strict protocols around the broadcast of charitable appeals. They also noted that the Editorial Guidelines guarded against any individual’s interest having an undue impact on broadcast output and that this also served to protect charities generally from an individual favouring one particular cause. They noted that the timing of the trail gave the presenter access to a very large audience – and that other charities did not have the opportunity to reach that audience. 

Trustees noted the action that had been taken by the Executive and considered this was an isolated case and would remind presenters and correspondents generally of the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines. They considered that the broadcast was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines for Impartiality, Conflicts of Interest, and External Relationships and Funding but it had been mitigated by the swift Executive action. 

(Good old BBC Executives, eh!)

I can't say that Jonathan's transgression is one I feel particularly outraged about (rather the reverse in fact), but there you have it anyway. Just thought you'd like to know.

Chris Bryant calls Rona Fairhead a "lame duck"

If you care....

According to the Guadrian, Labour's shadow culture secretary Chris Bryant has called for the head of the Head of the BBC Trust, Rona Fairhead. 

He says she's a "lame duck".

“The BBC Trust, and in particular the chairperson, needs to be robust and able to tell the government home truths. The BBC are the embodiment of the independence of the BBC … And I am mystified that nobody has chosen to resign.”

Oh dear, another politician bossing the 'independent' BBC around!

Please excuse me while I go and stock up on the popcorn...

Is the BBC Trust biased in favour of anti-Israel complainants?

Moving onto the latest batch of Editorial Standards Findings (every complaint and appeal being, as usual, "not upheld")...

Among the published rulings, there's one attacking the BBC for being pro-Israel (p.38) and another for being anti-Israel (p.25) - just the way the BBC seems to like it so they can claim to be 'getting it about right'.

The BBC has thrown both complaints out, but there's a notable difference between their rulings:

The one criticising Jeremy Bowen's reporting (the one where he said “After the attack on the centre for the disabled it is clear that the Israelis have some serious questions to answer”) is firmly rejected, while the one quibbling about how Douglas Murray was introduced on Newsnight includes the following emollient passage:

In considering the appeal the Trustees had some sympathy with the complainant’s view. While not agreeing with the complainant that the Henry Jackson Society should have been described as “an extreme pro-Israel organisation”, and considering it to be an organisation which expresses views on a variety of issues, Trustees felt that it was unfortunate that the introduction to the discussion had not included more detail and were not persuaded that most viewers would have been familiar with the work of the Henry Jackson Society. However, they did not consider that this would amount to a breach of editorial standards. Mr Murray’s viewpoint was clear in the interview and so the Guidelines had been complied with. 

I've been reading a fair few of these complaints in recent months and a proper study of the BBC's rulings is needed. (When time permits, I'll put it together). It's my strong impression that the BBC gives more ground - even to the extent of upholding some complaints - to the anti-Israel side. 

Hadar's dogged work at BBC Watch must have detailed scores and scores of examples of the BBC not giving "more detail" about anti-Israel organisations that "most viewers wouldn't have been familiar with" (and some with very dodgy links to extremist organisations). 

Complaints doubtless go into the BBC based on them. I've not seen a single one receive "some sympathy" from the BBC Trustees yet.

Is the BBC Trust biased in favour of anti-Israel complainants?

That BBC Trust ruling against 'Newsbeat'

Some of you will perhaps have read about the BBC Trust and Ofcom's rulings against Radio 1's Newsbeat over that programme's interview with an Islamic State jihadi from Britain. 

There have been quite a few interviews with such people on the BBC, most prominently on Newsnight. Whether any of those are being investigated or not I cannot say. Maybe none of them breached the BBC's editorial standards so egregiously. 

All I can say is this one must have been really bad. The BBC Trust very rarely makes such a damning verdict on the BBC.

The BBC's own online report today isn't very forthcoming. They reported it, but in noticeably less detail than other media organisations.

The BBC online report is especially coy about the BBC Trust's ruling. It doesn't even link to it. 

So, doing what the BBC News website failed to do, here is the short version of the BBC Trust's ruling (complete with a link to the full thing):

Finding of the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust

Newsbeat

13 June 2014

Finding of 10 November 2014 

Summary

Newsbeat is Radio 1 and Radio 1Xtra’s news service provided by BBC News. It is specifically targeted at younger audiences and has a long track-record of reporting newsin a way that is likely to inform and engage Radio 1 and Radio 1Xtra’s audience. 

On 13 June 2014, Newsbeat broadcast a report which included a recording with a British man who had travelled to Syria to fight with ISIS. In a video which had been posted online called “The ISIS Show Podcast”, Abu Sumayyah described how fighting with ISIS was “actually quite fun”, he compared it with a computer game and said it was: “better than" Call of Duty”. 

Excerpts of the video were taken from the internet and broadcast in a Newsbeat report at 12.45pm on BBC Radio 1, Friday, 13 June 2014. Information taken from the video was also used in a Newsbeat online report. 

The recorded news item did include some context which indicated the degree of violence ISIS used and how it was perceived internationally. However the extremist was not interviewed by the BBC and did not face direct challenge or question from BBC journalists in relation to the claims he was making. The online report did not include any context which explained ISIS’s methodology or the international response to it. While both the broadcast report and the online report referred to the material as originating from “The ISIS show podcast” there was no further information to allow audiences to understand what editorial controls there had been over the original output. The Executive reported these Breaches of the Editorial Guidelines orally to the Editorial Standards Committee of the Trust (the “Committee”) on 11 September 2014. 

The Committee considered this was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines for Impartiality and for Harm and Offence. Trustees requested that the Executive provide answers to various questions with a view to identifying the editorial failings that had occurred and considered whether appropriate measures were in place to prevent similar breaches in future. 

Trustees considered that the absence of an appropriate warning and the failure to include sufficient context to question the comments by Abu Sumayyah led to a breach of the Editorial Guidelines for Harm and Offence in terms of the BBC’s “responsibility to protect children and young people from unsuitable content” and in terms of “…including material that condones or glamorises violence, dangerous or seriously anti-social behaviour”.

Trustees also considered the failure both to offer challenge to the views that were aired and to include sufficient context to allow audiences to judge them was a breach of the Editorial Guidelines for Impartiality in terms of the requirement that: “Contributors expressing contentious views, either through an interview or other means, must be rigorously tested”.

The broadcast report has been the subject of a complaint to Ofcom. Ofcom has upheld the complaint as a breach of two rules of the Broadcast Code, namely: 

Rule 1.3: “Children must...be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them”.

Rule 2.3: “In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context...Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence”.

Take your pick

So Rona Fairhead is set to replace Chris Patten as chair of the BBC Trust. 

Needless to say, plenty of people who know nothing about her are already scouring her biographical details and rushing to judgement rather than waiting to see how she gets on. 

I've seen her denounced as a lefty for being associated with the 'left-wing' Financial Times, "a safe Tory" for having a husband who served as a Conservative councillor, a fully-paid-up member of the hive, "Oxbridge", a "parasite", "another bloody woman", a "sleazy" banker, "one of the most accomplished political brown-nosers of her generation", etc...

To help you think up some smears of your own here's a quick run-down of some of things we already know about her. Fire away!

- She's a former chief executive of the Financial Times

- She's a former non-executive director of the Economist Group,

- She's a non-executive director of the bank HSBC 

- She's a non-executive director of the PepsiCo

- She worked at chemicals group ICI and engineering firm Bombardier

- She went to Cambridge University

- She has a master's degree from the Harvard Business School

- She started her career with Bain & Co and Morgan Stanley

- Her husband is a director of the private equity firm Campbell Lutyens and a former Tory councillor in Kensington and Chelsea

- She is one of the coalition government’s business ambassadors 

- She also a director at the Cabinet Office, advising the civil service minister Francis Maude

- She's a mother-of-three

- She enjoys skiing, scuba diving and flying

BBC Apologises: To those who think it is biased towards 'climate sceptics'

Despite the National Audit Office's denunciation of the BBC for hiding behind commercial secrecy to withhold embarrassing evidence, the BBC does publish the findings of the BBC's Trusts Editorial Standards Committee on its well-hidden Corrections and Clarifications page. 

The latest batch of Editorial Standards Committee findings (released on 1 July) covers April and May this year, and is typical of these publications. Regular readers of them - and  there are three of us in total (me, Alan at B-BBC and Hadar at BBC Watch) - will know that they contain two catchphrases:

Finding: Not upheld

and 

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration. 

...and that those catchphrases are used with a regularity and relentlessness that would make Sir Bruce Forsyth blush. 

Oddly though, this month's batch continues that rare thing, a Lesser-Spotted Finding: Part Upheld no less. (It's nowhere near as rare a species at the Almost-Never-Spotted Finding: Fully Upheld, of course - a species not even Bill Oddie has ever seen).   

So what complaint did the BBC "part uphold"? 

Well, it concerned The World at One back on 27 September 2013 and a complaint that 

...the programme had presented the conclusions of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report as if they were controversial, which, he said, they were not. The complainant said that by offering equal prominence to Dr Robert Carter (who was not “a reputable climate scientist”) and one of the authors of the report, Peter Stott, too much credence was given to marginal opinion.

Being the BBC, even most of this complaint was "not upheld": 

Point (A) The programme presented the conclusions of the IPCC as if they were controversial, which they were not.
Point (A) Finding: Not upheld

Point (B) By giving Dr Carter equal prominence with Peter Stott, one of the authors of the report, the programme had created “a false balance”.
Point (B) Finding: Not upheld

Point (C) There were reputable climate scientists who were able to present a nuanced difference of opinion on the impacts and speed of climate change rather than the "strongly contrarian view” of Dr Carter.
Point (C) Finding: not upheld 

Point (D) The presenter should have challenged Dr Carter more strongly on the financial support he received from the Heartland Institute and on its funding.
Point (D) Finding: Upheld 

Finding: Part Upheld

Next month's batch of findings will include a further "Upheld" (of some kind) as regards a second complaint on a similar theme - another successful (or partly successful) complaint from a critic of 'climate sceptics' like Bob Carter and Lord Lawson. Ian Burrell of The Independent claimed an "EXCLUSIVE" on Thursday. (I'm not sure why Ian Burrell is claiming this as an exclusive as Hugo Muir of the Guardian broke it on 25 June and we reported it here at Is the BBC biased? back on 28 June):

Exclusive: Today Programme criticised for giving platform to climate sceptic Lord Lawson

Lord Lawson was given undue prominence, BBC complaints unit rules

IAN BURRELL  Author Biography  MEDIA EDITOR  Thursday 03 July 2014

A complaint has been upheld against the news programme over a February edition in which Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, appeared alongside the respected scientist Sir Brian Hoskins, director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London.

During the programme Lord Lawson, the founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), repeatedly argued that “nobody knows” about the extent of climate change and that 2013 was “unusually quiet” for tropical storms. The debate provoked a flurry of complaints to the BBC, including one from Chit Chong, a low-energy expert based in Dorset, which has been upheld by the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit.

In an apology to Mr Chong over his complaint about the Lord Lawson debate, the head of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit Fraser Steel said “minority opinions and sceptical views should not be treated as if it were on an equal footing with the scientific consensus”.

He went on: “As you have pointed out, Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research and I don’t believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience.”

Mr Steel said listeners had not been properly informed that Lord Lawson had a minority view. “I do not believe it was made sufficiently clear that Lord Lawson’s views on climate change are not supported by the majority of climate scientists, and should not be regarded as carrying equal weight to those of experts such as Sir Brian Hoskins.”

It's quite a week for this kind of thing from the BBC then. Alan at Biased BBC has highlighted the BBC Trust's Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science impartiality Review Actions - the Trust's 'progress report' on how the corporation has responded to the findings on the 'impartiality review' conducted by Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London, back in 2012. 

I think Alan is being rather unfair when he says, "Now Professor Steve Jones is far from independent being an ardent climate change fanatic who owes his living to the BBC and so is unlikely to be impartial", as Steve Jones surely owes most of his living to his university work and the success of his wonderful books (highly successful works of popular science which - as you may have gathered - I enjoyed reading), though his work for the media (Telegraph, BBC, etc) may well have added a bit to those funds too. 

Still, Alan's essential point - that the BBC accepted Prof Jones' complaints about the way (as he saw it) that the BBC gave too much airtime to 'climate sceptics' with an uncharacteristic lack of demur - stands (not that this update report actually adds anything much to what the BBC Trust said back in 2012.) It shows that it's criticism they are more than willing to take on the chin - which is very unusual for the BBC.

Whether you think this is a good or a bad thing on the BBC's part probably depends on where you stand on the highly polarised 'climate change' debate. Some will see this as the BBC coming to its senses about climate 'flat-earthers', others as the BBC Trust confirming its 'alarmist' bias and its unfitness for purpose. 

And me? Where do I stand? Well, I don't 'stand' anywhere. I 'sit'. Firmly. On a fence. Refusing to come off, until I see fit. 

BBC Trust Impartiality Review: BBC coverage of Rural Areas in the UK

The latest BBC Trust's report into BBC impartiality is out today. Its author is Heather Hancock, ex-civil servant and former chair of the BBC’s rural affairs committee. You can read it in full here. 

I suspect you won't be surprised to hear that the report finds that the BBC's coverage is impartial, but there are concerns too.  

Here are the main points:

Positive findings

• Overall, the BBC’s coverage of rural areas in the UK is duly impartial. There is no evidence of party political bias, and a wide range of views is aired. 

• In controversial stories, the BBC’s approach is impartial and its reporters use language that is fair and neutral. 

• In the devolved nations, coverage of rural affairs is strong, with a good spread of interviewees and a nuanced understanding of the issues. 

• Network factual programmes which focus on rural matters, such as Countryfile and Farming Today, are very highly regarded and broadcast a wide range of opinions and thoughtful analysis. 

• Network factual programmes that travel across the UK, such as Question Time and Any Questions?, air opinions and stories from rural areas that are not otherwise heard at network level. 

• In the devolved nations, audiences are appreciative of their own national output and consider the BBC reflects their lives in a way that is authentic and honest. 

Concerns

• The wide spread of voices and opinions that can be heard on some programmes that focus on rural issues is largely absent from network news and current affairs output and from more general network factual programmes. 

• Rural news items originating in the English regions will too rarely be perceived as significant enough to be carried at network news level. 

• The limited coverage of rural issues in network news and current affairs and in network factual output has led to a deficit in the BBC’s coverage of rural affairs in England. 

• This is a source of frustration for audiences in rural England, while audiences in urban areas in England appear to consider rural issues are not relevant to them. 

• Regional sensitivities, for example in the West Country, receive scant attention at network level yet are as significant as those in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. 

• Some rural audiences across the UK feel the BBC has both a metropolitan bias and a London bias. 

• At network level, a small number of charities and organisations have a disproportionate influence on the coverage of rural affairs. 

• News reporting tends to focus on conflict and adopt a binary approach – favouring stories that are about protest. Trustees note that audiences repeatedly say they want to understand more about the underlying story. 

Update 28/6

I thought I'd simply list all the bullet points listed by the report itself here, so that you could see for yourselves what the report actually said before all the interested parties started spinning it in one direction or the other.

Now I'm adding a report from Nick Hallett at Breitbart London, published yesterday, for you to compare with that list. Just look at how Nick Hallett spins it all in one direction. He reports only the negative findings of the BBC Trust report and never even so much as hints at any of the positive ones - such as the key finding that the BBC deals with rural affairs in a duly impartial way.

I think this is a classic example of 'selective reporting', and I can't say I approve. It gives Breitbart readers a distorted impression of Heather Hancock's report.

Why would you do that as a reporter? (I think I can guess).

The BBC’s coverage of rural issues has been criticised by its own governing body after it commissioned a report into the organisation's metropolitan bias.
The report reveals that UK's public service broadcaster’s news and current affairs programmes often fail to reflect the wide range of opinions in rural Britain, treating the countryside as little more than a place of leisure.
Led by former civil servant Heather Hancock, the report criticised the BBC’s over-reliance on a few organisations as sources for stories and views, with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) being singled out as the most used organisation.
Ms Hancock writes: “It is inappropriate for [the RSPB] to have been the unprompted first response for all but three of the BBC programme makers or journalists to whom I spoke. There are many other bird and wildlife charities: the British Trust for Ornithology, for example, did not feature as a source in any of the material we reviewed.”
She also writes that BBC journalists are often not sufficiently wary of the underlying agendas of such organisations. “the RSPB is both a source of expertise and a campaigning organisation and the BBC must be mindful that such bodies seek and benefit from publicity to build support and finance to their cause.
“This demands due challenge by BBC journalists, and a perceived lack of push-back or questioning has been very much noted by other organisations who want to contribute to the BBC on rural affairs.”
The corporation is also criticised for focussing {sic} too much on environmental subjects, with social and economic stories under-reported. The report says the BBC too often seeks to include celebrities in rural news stories.
Also criticised is the corporation’s reporting of country sports, such as hunting and shooting, which it calls “an area of tension and deep conviction”. The BBC is wrong to take a “binary” approach to these issues, giving undue emphasis to stories of conflict, Ms Hancock writes. It should instead do more to explain the facts behind the debates.
One insider told the Times: “One of the main points in the report is that the BBC does not seem to respect the experience of the wider population of England. In Wales and Scotland the BBC’s current affairs is much more satisfactory. It’s in England where the metropolitan bias starts to creep in.
“It feels like the BBC is looking from London into the countryside as a place of entertainment and leisure, and not at the wider social and economic diversity present in rural areas.”

EastEnders is 'twice as depressing' as the real East End warns BBC Trust boss

According to the Daily Mail.... 

EastEnders is 'twice as depressing' as the real East End warns BBC Trust boss as she calls for 'a less miserable portrayal of modern Britain'.

EastEnders is 'twice as depressing' as the real East End according to the head of the BBC Trust, who has called for the corporation to do more to 'provide a less dispiriting portrayal' of modern Britain.

Acting head of the BBC Trust Diane Coyle, said the unfathomably popular BBC One soap is also too badly-acted and has too many 'kitchen sink' style plot lines to be an accurate reflection of an area such as Walthamstow, one of the boroughs on which the fictional Albert Square is based.

In her first public speech since taking over as char wallah of the BBC’s governing body Mz Coyle - who is in the running to replace Lord Patten as head of the trust - said the programme was 'crap' and 'lacked a sense of British fun'.

She also said: 'BBC Central Committee figures suggested that there are almost ten times as many white gangsters living in fictional E20 as in real life E17 and that the criminal population of EastEnders tends to be more Kray Twins-like than their real life counterparts and much more likely to have been born in the UK than real-life East End criminals'.

Mz Coyle said the BBC's Central Committee for England 'compared the population of Walthamstow in East London with Walford - the fictional home of EastEnders'.

She said it would be 'daft' for the show to be a 'perfect replica' of the real world, but said it was 'important to ask whether the BBC can do more in its popular output to provide a less depressing vision of life in modern Britain'.

Philip Mitchell, a spokesman for EastEnders, said in response, 'Leave it ahrrt, you slarrgg!', and suggested that Mz Coyle might be better advised to go and chuck herself 'darrrnn them stairrrrs'.

The BBC said they would ‘advise and support the BBC on diversity’.

Is the BBC’s coverage of rural England distorted by a metropolitan bias?

Something to look out for...

According to The Times' media editor Alex Spence, a BBC Trust report from former civil servant/BBC insider Heather Hancock is to be published this week which will say that "the BBC’s coverage of rural England is distorted by a metropolitan bias" and that "the public broadcaster’s news and current affairs programmes too often fail to reflect the wide range of interests outside of England’s main urban centres." 

The BBC Trust commissioned it, Alex Spence says, in an attempt "to examine whether the BBC’s reporting on rural matters, such as badger culls and the building of wind farms in the countryside, is objective". 

Among [Heather Hancock's] findings are that the BBC’s reporting on the countryside is disproportionately focused on environmental matters, with not enough coverage of how economic and social issues affect ordinary people outside cities. 

The Countryside Alliance isn't exactly taken aback by any of this. Its head, Barney White-Spunner, is quoted as saying: 

The Countryside Alliance has long been vocal in our concerns. That is not to say that programmes like Countryfile are not valid and interesting, but they are not a true reflection of the realities of rural life and livelihoods.

Going for Gold?

ITV's Tom Bradby had something of a scoop today when 'a senior government source' told him that Sebastian Coe is "the clear front runner" [just like he was in the 1980 and 1984 Olympics] to take over from Chris Patten as Chairman of the BBC Trust. 

There are a few hurdles left to clear and obstacles that can be placed in his way, but I am told he is interested and that he enjoys the firm support of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Given that this is basically a Number Ten appointment, that should more or less settle it. 

The prospect of one Conservative peer replacing another Conservative peer as head of the BBC Trust has already got the massed hordes of the left-wing Twitterati up in arms, squealing "#BBCBIAS!" at the top of their shrill voices and bemoaning the fact that this would be the second time that the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has appointed a Conservative peer to head the BBC Trust.

It's a little more complicated than that of course. 

If appointed Conservative Lord Coe would take over from acting BBC Trust chairman Diane Coyle who, controversially, advised Labour on competition policy from 2011. She, of course, is holding office following the resignation of Conservative Lord Patten. Lord Patten succeeded Sir Michael Lyons, a former Labour Party councillor, who in turn followed Sir Michael (now Conservative Lord) Grade, the BBC Trust's first head.

There's an awful lot of politics (of the Conservative-Labour variety) there, isn't there?

What if the BBC and the government were to choose from outside the political elite/establishment box though? 

I admit it's vanishingly unlikely [100% unlikely in fact] but, were it to happen, I'm officially ruling myself out of contention, here and now. I'm too politically partisan [as some of my recent posts probably made clear].

Sue, on the other hand, isn't politically partisan at all [well, not in a party political way anyway]. She would make a great Chairwoman of the BBC Trust. 

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that she might be a little too busy to take it on, but we can all keep our fingers crossed nonetheless, and - if it happens - don't forget: You read it here first. (And so much then for Tom Bradby and his so-called 'scoops'!)

A Dreadful Advert

Our household stopped subscribing to the Telegraph after one too many of those obnoxious and offensive articles in which Peter Oborne aired his pathological obsession with the Jewish Lobby, but I must admit the Telegraph seemed to  have a pretty interesting obsession of their own. (Dissing the BBC) 

However the Times isn’t entirely deficient in that department either.

Bottom of page 13, (£) a piece by Miles Goslett about Lord Patten, illustrated with a distinctly unflattering photo of the soon-to-be ex-chairman of the BBC Trust. 

“Patten a ‘dreadful advert’ for the BBC” says the headline.  Groups representing the licence fee-payers have penned a letter to Sajid Javid saying Patten’s mistakes must not be repeated.

“....due to his astonishingly patronising approach to anyone who has ever questioned him on any matter relating to the BBC.”

They say they the new appointee mustn’t be indulged like Patten, who is paid £110,000 for “three to four days per week,” has five corporate jobs with firms including BP and EDF, and is also the unpaid chancellor of Oxford University.

“In the letter, Patten is also accused of ‘covering up at least one major scandal”  ....the Pollard review into the Savile affair, which “failed to include key evidence about Mark Thompson” even though Nick Pollard, who chaired the £3 million inquiry, admitted its exclusion was “a mistake” .

Failure to observe due impartiality

“The BBC’s news division is on course for another row with the corporation’s internal watchdog about its coverage of Israel.The BBC Trust has upheld a complaint which alleged that a five-minute report on Radio 4’s Today programme about the Six-Day War was misleading and biased, The Times has learnt. The findings, due to be published later this month, will inflame internal tensions that have lingered since the trust partially upheld several complaints about the accuracy and partiality of Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East editor, five years ago.” 

So begins an article in today’s Times(?)

The latest complaint relates to an item by Kevin Connolly aired on the Today programme in June 2011. My goodness, that’s a long time ago. I wonder what has been happening to this complaint in the meantime? Oh. It seems it had been bobbing about within the internal complaints process, which “had dragged on for two and a half years”

The complainant alleged. 1.) that the impression given was that “Israel had occupied land three times its original size as a result of the 1967 war, when it had given back 90% of the land captured in 1967 back to Egypt” and 2.) the misleading impression was given that “Israel was not willing to trade land for peace, when it had reached peace deals with Jordan and Egypt that had included transfers of conquered territory”

"The Trust found that the Today report had been inaccurate on both points, and that the complaints should be upheld."

“Consequently, there had been a failure to observe due impartiality.” 

 The Times observes that the publication of the Trust’s findings on March 25th is likely to lead to outrage  among the corporation’s journalists.  The Times also sees fit to reference Jeremy Bowen’s protestations in the Independent that we mentioned here, and for a finale, a tidbit about the Balen report, 

"which it refused to release on the grounds that it was produced as an internal editorial exercise."  

“It was rumoured to have found that its coverage was anti-Israel.”

Bowen; still smarting

Jeremy Bowen has written a new book “The Arab Uprising” Not only that, but he has received an award:  News Television Journalist of the Year

[Jeremy] is among the best known foreign correspondents on British TV and the judges called his entry a "masterclass in TV journalism." Even when injured by shotgun pellets he continued to report the events around him. What particularly impressed the judges was his ability to provide context and analysis from within fastmoving events on the ground.”

Even when injured by shotgun pellets he soldiered bravely on which gave us the opportunity to use our Bowen-in-a-Bandage images a few more times than was strictly necessary. 

I’ll look forward to hearing him plugging his book. Meanwhile, back at the Independent, he’s been chatting to Ian Burrell and he’s still miffed about the BBC’s soft reprimand five years ago, at the time when some complaints against him were partially upheld by the BBC Trust.

He is still smarting from a controversial BBC Trust finding against him in 2009, which outraged journalists both inside and outside the BBC. He maintains that the ruling – relating to the sourcing of part of a story on Israeli settlements, following complaints by two full-time pro-Israeli lobbyists – was a “mistake” based on a “flawed” investigation process that has now been changed. “One person they took advice from who was held up as independent was later appointed as Israel’s ambassador to the United States,” he complains. The BBC Trust continues to defend its findings.

Hmm. 

 “The BBC Trust said it had received two complaints claiming that a June 2007 website report, headlined "How 1967 defined the Middle East", in which Bowen described the legacy of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, contained inaccuracies and was biased against Israel.

One complaint about this online report was partially upheld by the BBC Trust on the grounds of both accuracy and impartiality, ruling that Bowen should have used clearer language and been more precise in some aspects of the piece. The trust also said Bowen's reference to Zionism's "innate instinct to push out the frontier" had been unqualified and that his statement that Israel was "in defiance of everyone's interpretation of international law except its own" had been imprecise and should have been picked up by BBC Online's editorial processes.

On the issue of impartiality, the trust said that Bowen "should have done more to explain that there were alternative views on the subject which had some weight" and that "readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war".

The BBC Trust upheld the second complaint with regard to impartiality and partially upheld it with regard to accuracy on a number of the same grounds and also on the basis that Bowen's statement that "the Israeli generals … had been training to finish the unfinished business of Israel's independence war of 1948 for most of their careers" had been imprecise.”

Not sure how he could substantiate his accusations that the reprimand was a “mistake” based on a “flawed” investigation process, I suppose he meant he didn’t like it because the complainant was pro-Israel and one of the advisors was an ‘American’ who was not ‘impartial’. These pesky pro-Israel types happen to be the sort of people who would complain, and who would know exactly what there is to complain about. So tough shit.

I think most pro-Israel types can safely say they know the feeling, because obviously we face precisely that in reverse on, as they say, ‘a daily basis’. 

It does seem somewhat churlish of Bowen to bear such a grudge, and it makes him look like a habitual bearer of grudges, if there’s any truth in the rumours that he’s never been able to forget that the Israelis killed his Arab driver.  He is after all, supposed to be a professional, grown-up, senior journalist, not a petulant infant. Grudges are not ideal baggage for an impartial BBC reporter to carry.

Jonathan Dimbleby waded in at the time, too. These Guardian reports have been sanitised and spun by the BBC/Guardian laundering service, but they nevertheless had to admit Bowen had boobed. 

No doubt his book will be popular. Tricky subject, the Arab Spring Uprising.

BBC (un)trust

According to OFCOM, more than half of the British people receive their news from the BBC. 

52% use the BBC website, as against 19% who use Facebook and 10% who use Twitter. BBC One is the most popular news source (52%), followed by ITV (13%), BBC News channel (6%), Sky News and the BBC website (both 5%).

However (in less good news for the Beeb), as regards bias and impartiality, BBC TV was beaten by Sky, ITV and Channel 4. 

Oh dear. So, the BBC may be Britain's dominant news outlet, yet the corporation is regarded as more biased and less impartial than all of its main broadcast rivals. 

Hmm, the tide may be turning. 

Friends in high places

It looks as if he wagons are being drawn around the BBC, following the Public Affairs Committee debacle last Monday. 

Among those firing their pistols at the approaching native Americans is the BBC's Head of Strategy, former New Labour minister James Purnell. He's trying to fend off (Conservative) Culture Secretary Maria Miller's attempts to give the National Audit Office full access to the BBC's accounts, and he's receiving the backing of senior Labour Party figures like Harriet Harman.  

Now calls for Ofcom to either regulate the BBC in place of the BBC Trust or to become the custodian of the licence fee are being resisted by, of all people, Ed Richards, head of Ofcom (a former advisor to both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown). He says Ofcom shouldn't get involved with the governance of the BBC.

By one of those remarkable coincidences which seem to arise a lot these days...and I read nothing into it, of course...Mr Richards is a friend of James Purnell's (according to the Mail and the Guardian) and collaborated with him on Labour 1992 election manifesto. They spent years playing football together too. 

In one of those other fascinating coincidences, Ofcom was actually the brainchild of James Purnell and, just to make your head spin a little more, Mr Richards used to be Controller of Corporate Strategy at the BBC. 

Which all goes to show that it's a very small world. 

[Does Ed Richards, by any chance, have a secretary called Miss Purnell, and James Purnell have a secretary called Miss Richards?]