"So BBC"

Guido Fawkes is coming close to copying my 'Very BBC'  catchphrase here 😄:

James Harding, former Director of BBC News, self-confessed BBC fan-boy is on the BBC talking about how great is the BBC. So BBC. #r4today

— Media Guido (@MediaGuido) January 21, 2020

This polarised world

I intended to listen to James Harding’s  “Impartial Journalism in a Polarised World’ on Radio 4 this morning at 9am, and for once I remembered to do so - (not that it really matters when there’s iPlayer) but listening to an ear-marked programme in real-time is always best. Here’s the blurb: 

“Polarised politics, cacophanous culture wars and the advent of unchecked, unchallenged news at the click of a button. Can impartial journalism win out in a world of alternative facts and the re-tweet echo chamber of Twitter? If it doesn't, what becomes of democracy? 

When radio arrived, it gave politicians the means of mass propaganda. Television brought us the politics of the soundbite and the twenty-four hour news cycle. But the digital age - unmediated opinion, unchecked sources - has put old-fashioned, impartial news itself under the spotlight. Are we - the BBC and others - any longer believed? Are we trusted? And what happens when we aren't? Do democracy and digital sit comfortably together or is one currently winning at the expense of the other? 

James Harding was editor of The Times and then took the helm at BBC News. After 2016, the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump, he started to think that a different approach was needed, focused on slow news and opening up journalism. He set up Tortoise. In this noisy discussion, James and other journalists grapple with all of these matters, and attempt to navigate a digital future without losing our democratic past. 

He's joined by the political editor of ITN, Robert Peston; staff writer on The Atlantic, Helen Lewis; presenter of BBC Radio 4's The World this Weekend, Mark Mardell; Talk Radio host, Julia Hartley-Brewer; and Gavin Haynes, editor-at-large of Vice UK.

I enjoyed listening but I didn’t think any ground-breaking revelations were made.

Helen Lewis talks at break-neck speed, doesn’t she? She has an impressive ‘radio voice’ though. She made her mark as one of the regular news reviewers alongside Nick Watt on the BBC’s ‘Sunday Politics’ in its Andrew Neill era. Ms Lewis obligingly toned down her political bias a little then, but now, no longer constrained by the BBC remit, she’s an out-and-proud leftie and for all her bright, articulate and knowledgeable manner she can't conceal the limitations of bubble-dwelling. Maybe she can’t see it herself, but why should she? 

Also present were Mark Mardell and Robert Peston.  I want to like Robert Peston, but I can’t. His delivery is tailored to irritate us. You can almost accept the erratic pacing, but it’s that “That” of his that bothers me. It goes something like: “eh-ththutt”; a retch. Perhaps he’s overcoming a stammer. (?)

Where were we? Oh yes, Julia Hartley-Brewer, another hyper-fast-talker. She brought a little counterbalance to the consensus, but I felt she was holding back. 

The other participant was the chap from the edgy media outlet, Vice UK,  Gavin Haynes.   He broke a tacit BBC taboo by bringing Paul Joseph Watson, Carl Benjamin and ‘Count Dankula' into the mix. But for Gavin Haynes, I don’t believe anyone would have mentioned those hitherto unmentionable characters by name, let alone admitted that they might bear some relevance to ’journalism’, at any rate to the ‘polarised world’ compartment of it. (Apparently, Benjamin calls himself a social commentator, not a journalist.)

The discussion covered (pure) impartiality versus ‘due impartiality’ - ITBB has been over this many times, but briefly it (the ‘due’ bit) necessitates making a value judgement somewhere along the line, which Robert Peston called “evaluating”, meaning being sensible enough not to give equal weight to an ‘expert’ and a ‘nutter”. The BBC must be trusted to decide which is which. This leads us gently towards the knotty question of ‘no-platforming’.

Confirmation bias and the echo-chamber phenomenon were alluded to. “People rarely come into contact with arguments they disagree with,” said someone and it’s hard to argue with that. Mingling with the like-minded is reassuring, and comfort zones are just that. Places where you feel comfortable. Stumbling into a hostile environment is exhausting, especially when their default ‘truth’ hangs on a very shoogly peg. People on one side will say  “but you won’t even listen to the other side of the argument” which is precisely what the opposite side is thinking about them. (As Helen Lewis and Julia Hartley-Brewer demonstrate midway through the programme) 

The entire panel, including Julia H-B, was dismissive of Tommy Robinson following a short audio clip of him talking about the media’s lack of support of him as “a political prisoner“. They also played clips from that infamously curtailed interview between Andrew Neil and Ben Shapiro, and Emily Maitlis’s interview with Steve Bannon.  ‘Stranded’ and taken out of context, I thought these examples  - particularly the unrepresentative Ben Shapiro one  - were unhelpful. 

Helen Lewis described Tommy Robinson as having made ‘a whole career out of saying he’d been silenced’ and Mark Mardell called him “a peripheral figure with very little support”.

Julia H-B accused Mark Mardell and the BBC of “creating Tommy Robinson’ because they’d constructed a verbal ‘forbidden territory’ consensus around immigration, while she too skated around the aforementioned ‘forbidden territory’ with some carefully chosen language of her own.

Since much of the media’s bias and a considerable amount of actual news in this polarised world of ours concerns incidents and issues emanating from ‘Islam’, it is significant that the word itself wasn’t uttered at all.  This alone suggests that tiptoeing around this issue indicates that ‘due impartiality’ is as far away from achievability now as it ever was.

Tortoises

I don't know if this is really very interesting, but I thought I'd share nonetheless...

Newsnight's policy editor Chris Cook is deserting the sinking current affairs flagship and moving to Tortoise - former BBC News boss James Harding's new media start-up. Former Today editor Ceri Thomas is already a Tortoise partner. And its first chairman is going to be Barack Obama's former ambassador to the UK and top fundraiser Matthew Barzun. 

Quite what Tortoise will do remains a matter of speculation. 

And that's all I've got to say about that.

'Newswatch' Interview with James Harding (Transcript)

For transcript lovers everywhere...

Samira Ahmed: James Harding, thanks for coming on Newswatch. Let's start with Brexit. You were Director of News during the EU referendum - a very divisive time for the nation. Looking back now what do you say to the many viewers who thought the BBC was actually essentially acting as part of the Establishment and clearly favouring Remain? 

James Harding: I think that the referendum was, of course, an incredibly polarising time, as you say, Samira. But actually what's interesting is, of course, we've had complaints from both sides. And what we try to do, and I think when you look back and you look at the coverage, what we actually did do, was set about trying to explain what the choice was, trying to report out what the choice was. If you look back over the last few years, there have been an extraordinary number of democratic moments - two referendums, two general elections, a host of others around the world. I think one of the real lessons of the last few years is you can't predict what's going to happen. You can't rely on either political predictions or polls, and that means for us we have to do what we're here for, we've got to make sure that people get a sense of what the choice is. And that's what we really tried to do in that referendum, and that fact that was country was then and in some places remains polarised by that outcome is obviously reflected in the way that people respond to the news that they're getting.

Samira Ahmed: You mention the need for the BBC to provide informed news about that issue, and there was a big accusation from many viewers that the BBC was in fact, during the referendum, too timid in calling out things, notably statistical claims being made by one side or another that just weren't true. 

James Harding: Well, that's brilliant, because your first two questions say, 'On the one hand,  the BBC was too Establishment; on the other hand it didn't do enough to make the case for Remain', so...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) No, it was just not calling out statistical claims.

James Harding: No, no. Listen! Firstly, many people come on Newswatch and we make an account of ourselves. There's no question at all, the BBC and, as a news organisation, a group of journalists, what we set out to do is to try and understand the world that's presented to us and make choices, and in that there is no question at all that the BBC has to make judgments, and we do. I suppose that on the issue of statistics, the specific question you're asking about numbers, actually, we made a very clear choice to try and challenge those numbers, question those numbers. And more than that, we didn't do it in a sort of ad hoc way, we took something called Reality Check, right, which was our system for fact checking, we really increased the resources, the number of people working on it and we've made that a permanent part of the way in which we cover politics and policy. So, rather than actually stepping back from analysing statistics and numbers, we've actually stepped into it. 

Samira Ahmed: Related to that, there was an issue about false equivalence. So in the case of Brexit people felt that there was an overwhelming percentage of economists who believed that Remain would be a better result but that the BBC was finding an economist to go on the other side. And to some extent the same with climate. 

James Harding: Well actually, you're exactly right. So the way that we really began to understand this issue of false balance - that's false equivalence, false balance - is this idea that every argument must have an 'on the one hand, on the other hand' and the truth is it doesn't. Not every argument has an 'on the one hand, on the other hand'. And when we were looking at climate change, particularly around the science of climate change, that wasn't the case. And one of the reasons why I think we thought very carefully in the context of the EU referendum was precisely because we learned our lesson as regards false balance about climate change and the science of climate change, so... 

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) So there is a new policy now on climate change, how you report it?

James Harding: No, that's actually been the case for many years. Actually it pre-dates me. One of the lessons that we learned the better part of a decade ago was actually to think more seriously about how we measure, not the arguments over the response to climate change - people can have political views on that - but the arguments over the science and the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, the overwhelming majority, were very clear about the scientific causes and consequences of climate change. 

Samira Ahmed: I just think that some viewers and listeners will be confused because they are wondering why people like Nigel Lawson have been on the Today programme in the past couple of months. 

James Harding: So, as you'll remember, there are two issues here, Samira, really well worth understanding, because there are people who accept the science of climate change but argue that the responses should be different and there are some people who don't accept the science. Our job is to report the science and then to enable the discussion about policy, about the responses, but not to confuse the two. And where we've got into trouble, and where we've had to stand up and say 'Sorry, we got that wrong' was where we've confused the two.

Samira Ahmed: With hindsight, should the BBC have done representation of different political views differently? We've had many complaints from some viewers over the years about, for example, too much Nigel Farage. 

James Harding: So, I think it's a really good and important issue, this, and one that we spend an enormous amount of time thinking about. So, if you got into the team, for example, on Question Time, which would be a good place to start, we are really careful in trying to think about where we hold the programme, so we get the best possible spread of audiences, who's on the panel, not just in the context of who's on the panel on a particular Thursday night, but who's on the panel over the course of a year, over the course of an entire political or electoral cycle. So, we do really think about it a great deal. And actually if you look over time, if you look over all of the BBC, what we call 'output', all of the BBC programmes, it's something that we think really, really carefully about. Actually, if it's all right with you, I think there's something different that is really worth thinking about. It's not about the representation of political parties, it's about the representations of views and personal points of view that are not necessarily captured by political parties but are captured by groups of people or individuals who feel as though their voice should be heard on the BBC. One of the things we've really tried to do is change that too. And I think if you look where news is going, if you look at what's happening, not just in our big bulletins and programmes but what we've been doing in mobile and online, you can see that there are those voices, those stories being told in a way that was never the case before.

Samira Ahmed: Trust in BBC News has been eroded under your watch, hasn't it? 

James Harding: Well, actually, it moves. So the truth is with trust, it moves. I think that obviously I arrived here on the back of Savile and McAlpine, and those were big issues facing the BBC and confidence in BBC News. Actually, that trust and confidence was significantly restored. But you're right, there's also a very profound argument going on around trust in the media generally in the light of what's happening politically. I don't just mean party politically, I don't just mean Brexit and Trump, I mean the extent to which people feel as though they're seen by, if you like, the system, by politicians, by the media - and, yes, that's something we've really got to think about. I think that when I came here the issue facing the BBC was about trust and confidence in our journalism in the light of what had happened. Could we go out and do investigative reporting? Could we go out and do controversial stories, stories which required deeper analysis? And I hope that we've shown, both in the UK and around the world, we do that. I think the point that you raise raises a different issue, which is 'How are we going to do more, particularly for younger audiences, particularly for people between the ages of 16 and 34?'. That's a big challenge that we've worked on and it needs a lot more work in the years to come.

Samira Ahmed: In your resignation letter, you said you were going to set up a media company with a clear point of view. Does that mean you think the BBC's aim of impartial news isn't working in the age of fake news? 

James Harding: No, no, it doesn't. It means exactly the opposite. It means that the BBC's offer is working and should be what it is, which is impartial, but not necessarily taking a position. The public funds, we are funded by the licence fee payer, and everyone who pays the licence fee, I think, has a decent expectation that the BBC should operate in such a way that it reports what's happening but doesn't take a position, doesn't take a stand in the way in which newspapers or websites or other individuals might do. No, actually, I really believe in it. And if you look at the BBC's trust, the BBC trust levels are so much higher than any other news organisation. That's the simple fact. And we still have to keep on working on trust, but it is the thing that is the most impressive about the BBC and the public's relationship with the BBC. 

Samira Ahmed: You were tasked with a plan to cut £80 million from the news budget for the BBC. How much of that plan have you done? 

James Harding: When I arrived here we were on the back end of a five years' savings programme and we continued that. Actually the first year was a £50 million set of savings. And the BBC has been generally cutting its funding of news and current affairs in order to be more efficient and live within our means. You know, what happened in recent years was that we had essentially a frozen licence fee and so, as you can imagine, there was an increased cost of things. We had to make savings. We're doing that again now, and we're in a process where we are gradually identifying places where we can make savings...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) So basically it's still being worked out? I mean, it hasn't happened, has it?

James Harding: Well no, it hasn't happened but it will be worked out, yeah.

Samira Ahmed: Gender. The shocking scale of the gender pay gap was revealed this year with many male journalists on far higher salaries than women doing equal work of equal value. Why did you let that continue? 

James Harding: I think that this is an absolutely critical relationship for us in our relationships with our audiences, but also with the teams of people working at the BBC. So as you many remember, Samira, actually we didn't let it continue. We started very significantly and seriously seeking to change the BBC. So five years ago, when I joined the BBC, and I know I'm following up the work of many other people, five years ago what we set about doing was looking at the teams of people who were on air and on camera and the mix of people that we had on air didn't reflect and didn't come close to reflecting I felt the audiences that we've got. And, as you've seen, the mix of people who are now editors on air, our correspondents around the world, and the (?) of our programmes has fundamentally changed, and our mix has changed too. So off-air - i.e. the people who produce and edit programmes - has changed significantly too. When I joined...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) What about pay?

James Harding: Can I...let me finish! I'll come to pay, because you're completely right to raise it too. When I joined we looked at the situation where there were just about a quarter of the senior editors and managers were women. We've changed that. Now it's nearly 40%. We've still got a way to go, don't get me wrong, we've still got a way to go but you can change an organisation and when you look on the 6 O'Clock or the 10 O'Clock News, when you look at our programmes or you listen to our programmes today, you're seeing a very, very different group of people, and I'm sure that will continue. Now on pay that too we addressed. You may remember in 2016, in the spring, I announced what was called 'a news pay review' and we started making a number of changes. Now those changes were incremental, they take time, people understandably are on contracts, you have to make changes over time, but we have been making changes and in the course of this year what Tony Hall and I and others have set out to do is say, look, we want to be in the forefront of organisations in the country, not just the media but across all businesses. We want to be a place where we have real confidence that we have equal pay, fair pay for people across...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) So we are going to get equal pay? That's all people want to know!

James Harding: Hold on, hold on, hold on! Not only are we going to get it, we have equal pay. If you look, we did a full equal pay audit which showed there is equal pay across the BBC. We have a gender pay gap which is much smaller than other industries. We want to get it down to zero, and we're committed to doing that by 2017.

Samira Ahmed: So there is a gender pay gap, which is not exactly the same as 'We have equal pay'?

James Harding: No, you're exactly right...

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) Well, you've said that you want to explain it but I think we'll let viewers make up their own minds about that. I have another question about gender, but a very specific one. The first female political editor was employed under your watch, Laura Kuenssberg. Why do you think she has been getting unprecedented levels of vitriol and hatred? 

James Harding: I don't know. I think it's shameful that she is, because she is an unbelievably impressive journalist. She is one of the most extraordinary journalists I've ever worked with. If you look at just the thoughtfulness, the diligence and the quality of the work, I'm just amazed that people are so personal, even if they don't like the politics they see in front of them. The fact they're willing to attack Laura - admittedly in different forms, mostly online - the fact they're willing to do that, I find is really shocking, and is bad for the way in which journalism is conducted and public debate. So, all I can say is that I know a few people do this. I do also have to say that I'm in a happy position that many people come up to me and say what an extraordinary job she's doing. And so I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that there are a huge number of people who recognise what an exceptional journalist and brilliant political editor she is.

Samira Ahmed:  We get lots of complaints from viewers that the BBC is anti-Jeremy Corbyn and is focused on Labour Party divisions. Do you agree that the BBC has collectively failed on the whole to treat him fairly and seriously? 

James Harding: No, I don't think that, although I do think there is a really interesting lesson in the coverage of Jeremy Corbyn. So what happened was that Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, and within the Parliamentary Labour Party there was obviously great disquiet, there was great opposition to him within the Parliamentary Labour Party. And we reported that. We reported obviously not just the opposition to him, but the efforts that were made to get rid of him. There were leadership contests that were precisely about that. The question is, did we get that mix right alongside the mix of changes that were happening within the membership of the local Labour Party, and people who were not members? So, I would say the in course of the 2017 general election, we really DID capture that mood. If you go and you look at the way in which we were covering Jeremy Corbyn's rallies, we were the people saying the polls might say X, but look what's happening in terms of the rallies. We also, I like to think, really got to grips with the questions that were the heart of Jeremy Corbyn's proposal to the country in the nature of the manifesto - once again trying to examine the choice, rather than the horse race. But there is a question which is, from the time that Jeremy Corbyn was elected through to 2017, there are obviously changes within some of those constituency Labour Party, parts of the constituency Labour Party, and there's a politics element of that that is also really interesting, but also to the mood of certain parts of the electorate, and particularly young people. And getting to that and making sure we continue to get to that I think is really important. 

Samira Ahmed: You came from The Times and The Financial Times with no broadcasting experience. You hired a number of people into senior roles with no broadcasting experience from newspapers, and newspapers with overt political positions - so Ian Katz at Newsnight, Sarah Sands at the Today programme. Many viewers have complained that it's undermined the BBC's impartiality. Do you see that? 

James Harding: I don't at all. I think we've been incredibly fortunate to have brilliant people come to the BBC. And just so viewers are aware, of course, you know, this is an amazing place to work.  You know, to work at the BBC is as great a privilege as you can possibly have as a journalist. And it's no surprise people want to come and work here. And, yes, I've had some people who have come from papers, we've been lucky to recruit people from Channel 4 News, from ITN, from Sky, we've had people come from across the world of television and radio and print. And actually we're talking, when you mention those numbers, there are few people. Those people you mention are also actually excellent, and I think we're lucky to have them. We want a BBC surely that people who pay for the BBC should want a BBC that has the best people working for it. 

Samira Ahmed: Briefly, do you have any regrets? 

James Harding: Oh, yeah, I'm sure I have a fair few. I'm not sure that Newswatch is the most brilliant place to, sort of, unburden myself of all of them. 

Samira Ahmed: I think it is. 

James Harding: You think it is?

Samira Ahmed: Licence fee payers... 

James Harding: Well Samira, all right, let's have a go at it. I think that the... The biggest issues I've got are the one that I raise about how are we going to change an organisation when the behaviour of people around news is changing so fast. So, that's a long way of saying, we still have huge audiences for the 6 O'Clock and 10 O'Clock News, for the Today programme, and for 5 Live and Newsbeat. Yet we can also see people changing the way in they consume news. Are we moving fast enough to make those changes? And not just in terms of the devices, also the way we tell stories. How do we do that? That's one thing....

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) That's a challenge, not a regret. 

James Harding: Well, it's a regret in terms of 'Did we move fast enough? Have we moved fast enough?'. I think, look, the point that you make about making changes about the mix of people on air and off it, I'm really proud that we've moved. I'm really do think we've moved, and I think it's exactly right that the BBC's always under pressure to move further and faster. And again, would I have liked to say, 'I wish we'd gone further, we'd gone faster', yes of course, and I think that's a good thing, and it's a good spur on to the BBC to keep on changing in that way. And there are a host of other things but I'm not going to share them.

Samira Ahmed: Your successor, Fran Unsworth, is an internal candidate, which some might say reflects perhaps a decision to go a different way for the BBC. Do you have any advice for her? 

James Harding: Well, I chose Fran when I joined as my deputy, and she has been an extraordinary person to work with. For people who don't know her, Fran has worked at the BBC for pretty much her entire career and knows and understands it. Most recently she was running the BBC World Service. And what you see with Fran is an incredibly thoughtful manager of people, a really intelligent judge of news, and a fantastic ambassador for the BBC. But most of all, what she has is the capacity to enable great people to do exceptional work. And when you are the Director of News and Current Affairs, that's the thing you really want to do. It's not what you do. The leadership of the organisation is enabling other people to do great things and no-one does that better in my experience, than Fran. So I think she will be a brilliant Director of News and Current Affairs. I have loved working with her and I tell you a great, great many people in the BBC feel the same way. So I think of the audience - the viewers and the listeners - I hope will look and see in Fran Unsworth someone who is really committed to the best quality journalism that exists in the UK and, as she's demonstrated as the head of the World Service, around the world.

Samira Ahmed:  Thank you, James Harding. 

James Harding: Thank you very much. 

Goodbye James Harding

What is there to say about the imminent departure of James Harding as BBC Head of News? Well, I've got nothing to say, so I'll refer you on to News-watch's David Keighley who provides a short audit of Mr Harding's 'achievements'. 

Apparently the names most likely to replace him are all BBC insiders. They include: Jonathan Munro, Gavin Allen, Fran Unsworth, Jay Hunt, Peter Barron, Ian Katz and Amol Rajan.

"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'...

“The BBC can’t edit the internet, but we won’t stand aside either”

Oh my! The headline in The Guardian reads:

BBC sets up team to debunk fake news 

And The Guardian goes on to say: 

The BBC is to assemble a team to fact check and debunk deliberately misleading and false stories masquerading as real news. 

Amid growing concern among politicians and news organisations about the impact of false information online, news chief James Harding told staff on Thursday that the BBC would be “weighing in on the battle over lies, distortions and exaggerations”. 

The plans will see the corporation’s Reality Check series become permanent, backed by a dedicated team targeting false stories or facts being shared widely on social media. 

“The BBC can’t edit the internet, but we won’t stand aside either,” Harding said. “We will fact check the most popular outliers on Facebook, Instagram and other social media. 

Astonishingly, this isn't fake news. I've not made it up. That's a genuine report in the Guardian and the BBC really are going to expand their Reality Check team to monitor social media and debunk 'fake news' stories. 

A couple of tweets from the Spectator's Ed West reflect my take on this:

The BBC has already failed to keep its Reality Check coverage impartial and, as Ed West says, this will surely make impartiality even harder to maintain. And if any media organisation can be accused of regular bias by omission it's the BBC.

The BBC's Reality Check output will have to be monitored even more closely from now on. 

Deflection tactics

Hadar at BBC Watch has written an important piece about a World Service programme on "anti-Semitism in Europe", following up on the Islamist terrorist attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels in 2014. 

The WS programme, On Background, co-hosted by James Harding, the BBC's Director of News (no less), featured a report from Kevin Connolly, and then a joint interview with Kevin Connolly and novelist Howard Jacobson. 

Very oddly, however, Kevin Connolly's report gave no clue whatsoever that the suspect (Mehdi Nemmouche) is a Muslim or that there was an Islamist motive for the antisemitic terrorist attack on the museum. He simply didn't mention that. Instead, he focused on the history of antisemitism in Europe in the first half of the 20th Century.

That set the stage for what followed (click to enlarge):

And not only were they severely playing down the Muslim element of modern European antisemitism while deflecting attention onto Christian antisemitism, because James Harding also asked this:

Yes, it's the "Muslims are the new Jews" card being played by the BBC's Director of News.

Both Kevin Connolly and James Harding clearly knew exactly what they were about here. 

It's still absolutely extraordinary though.

James Harding gives 'a truly balanced' overview of the BBC's Brexit coverage

James Harding's expression whilst writing his Garudian piece

The BBC's Director of News, James Harding, has written an article defending the BBC's Brexit coverage against all comers - in, of all places, the Guardian. 

(Cries of "You couldn't make it up!" resound in the air.)

The Graun's headline is: A truly balanced view from the BBC: don’t blame us for Brexit.

"It is easy to dismiss these critics as regular BBC bashers or sore losers. But the BBC has no business being complacent", says Mr Harding, whilst penning an article which defends everything the BBC has done regarding its Brexit coverage. 

(More cries of "You couldn't make it up!" resound in the air.)

Now, for 'balance' (BBC-style 'balance'!), Mr Harding does concede, in his final paragraph, "We plainly do not get everything right. We make mistakes and, I hope, move quickly to grip them". 

He doesn't, however, it should be swiftly noted, cite even a single example of any such mistake!

(The cries of "You couldn't make it up!" become deafening). 

That James Harding Speech

James Harding, head of BBC News, made a remarkable speech about BBC bias last week. 

Many of you will already have read about it, and some preliminary fiskings of it have already been conducted by David Keighley at Conservative  Woman and Alan at Biased-BBC - with David promising "a full response to the sweeping generalisations he made about lack of bias...[which] will be evidence-based". 

The whole speech is copied-and-pasted below. (I may add the odd comment along the way - which I'm sure you'll be able to spot).

******

In a callow moment, about three months out from the election, I told David Jordan, the weathered head of Editorial Policy at the BBC, how much I was looking forward to it: “This is going to be fun,” I said. “Fun?” he replied. “It’s going to be hell on wheels.”

It turned out to be both.

And I know that I said I’d talk today about the Future of News. Perhaps we can do that, if you’d like, in the questions and answers that follow. But how about some recent history first. A few weeks on from polling day, what can we say of the BBC’s coverage of the General Election of 2015?

Let’s start, not by patting ourselves on the back, but by taking a look at our election coverage with a critical eye.

A serious critique of the coverage must address the problem with the pollsters. Happily, John Curtice and the exit poll on the BBC [actually, the exit poll was conducted by GfK, NOP and Ipsos MORI on behalf of the BBC, ITV News, and Sky News. It wasn't a BBC exit poll, despite what James Harding is implying there] proved to be right on the night and, from the first bong, it was clear we were into one of the most exciting nights of television and radio I can remember. Nor was it a failure in over-reporting the polls: the BBC’s guidelines suggest we should not lead a news bulletin or programme simply with the results of an opinion poll. And, of course, the polls were central to the politicians’ campaigns, too, so it would have been impossible to ignore them. But, surely, we and all other media organisations allowed the poll numbers to infect our thinking: there was too much ‘coalitionology’ as a result. [Well, that's certainly true.] The BBC did better than others on this [Really? Where's the evidence for that assertion? I have to say that I heard countless discussions and interviews about 'coalitionology' on the BBC, day in and day out, and felt frustrated on many occasions by just how obsessively the BBC was focusing on it. If Sky and ITV really did even more of it than the BBC, I'd be surprised. Mr Harding needs to back this one up with stats - preferably not from Cardiff Uni!], but, with the benefit of hindsight, we would all have been better off with less discussion of deals and allowed the dissection of policy - that we did from defence to social care, housing to education - to speak for itself.

Also, we have to ask ourselves whether we did enough to hold in check the political machines of each party. With each election, the political operations of all parties becomes more controlled, there is ever greater effort put into news management. This time, for example, there were no morning press conferences. There were embargoed stories, dropped just before the newspapers rolled off the presses and the 10 o’clock news went on air. Sometimes, the result wasn’t news, but messaging.

The debates over the TV debates were, to put it mildly, fraught. Personally, I think that the run of four TV leaders’ events that were brokered by Channel 4, Sky, ITV and the BBC gave voters a real opportunity to see the choice before them. The deal saved the TV debates from collapse and secured their place in the British political landscape; it safeguarded the impartiality of the broadcasters; and, from the TV debates to the live interviews to the Question Time special, the electorate got to see its leading politicians under intense scrutiny, live and just days from the poll. That said, we need to listen and draw some lessons from the process with a view to setting up debates in the future. The public will want to see debates ahead of the referendum on EU membership and will expect to see them in the run-up to the 2020 election. Well before, we should promptly agree a timetable for accepting the dates and formats of future debates.

Over the course of the election campaign, I got it in the ear from politicians and their spokespeople - from all political parties.

I was, I admit, quite astonished by the ferocity and frequency of complaints from all parties. More often than not, it was some version of a politician saying either I want “more me on the BBC” or “my side of the story is the story”. And this being my first election at the BBC, I was struck by how many politicians and spokespeople paid lip service to the idea of the BBC’s editorial independence, but, nonetheless, did think it was their place to say what should be leading the news, what questions should be asked and how, how they wanted audiences to be chosen for programmes.

To be clear, I’m not one of the people who subscribes to the view that if you’re getting criticised from all sides you must be getting it broadly right. [Hope he tells his colleagues who go on Newswatch that!] In fact, part of my job is to listen and assess the merit of each complaint, each request, each argument. And the fact is that a fiercely fought election generated a lot of strong feelings: Labour was angry about the focus on the SNP, the Tories regularly questioned our running orders and editorial decisions, the Lib Dems felt they weren’t getting sufficient airtime, the Greens complained about being treated like a protest movement not a party, UKIP railed against what they saw as an establishment shut-out, the DUP felt Northern Ireland parties were being treated as second class citizens, the SNP questioned what they saw as metropolitan London bias at the BBC. And the list goes on. [After saying that he doesn't buy the 'getting it about right' argument arising from getting criticism for all sides, he then deploys a line of argument that attempts to show that very thing! The fact that all the parties moaned doesn't mean - despite what he's implying (in contradiction to himself) - that none of their criticisms hold water. Some may be valid. Indeed, maybe all the criticisms are valid. Maybe they all prove, in complex and subtle ways perhaps, lacunae and genuine bias in the BBC's eye. Some of those complaints ring true to me - even ones from parties I'd never vote for]..

One of the things I really like about the BBC is that it’s alive to its critics. It listens. [But not necessarily to its 'non-establishment' critics, like us who try to complain to the BBC and get sore heads from hitting them against a brick BBC wall so often. The BBC has often been denounced as incredibly defensive, touchy even, when it comes to criticism. Many of us know that all too well]. And, as importantly, we are self-critical. We want to give more voice to private enterprise in particular we’re working to get more company news on the BBC. [Is that a concession?] We feel we should keep on pushing out of London, holding a more devolved UK to account, going after the issues that matter to people in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. And we need to change the look and sound of the organisation. For example, we think we need to do more to give opportunities to disabled journalists to work at the BBC - if, occasionally, we get mocked for going out of our way to make sure the BBC is in touch with the country it serves, then so be it. [Ah yes, that advert for a disabled trainee weatherperson who doesn't need to have any knowledge of meteorology but who does need to be disabled].

But there’s criticism of the BBC’s newsrooms that is unfair and unfounded. Take, for example, the fabled left-wing bias [a "fable" several other senior BBC editors - including one of his predecessors (Mark Thompson) have acknowledged as existing....in the past]. I find this increasingly hard to take seriously. In the light of the Conservative victory, what’s the argument? [See here, other BBC bias-related blogs, and many other sites, James, for that 'argument']. That the BBC’s subtle, sophisticated left-wing message was so very subtle, so very sophisticated that it simply passed the British people by? [Or that it was so blatant that many British people actually saw it (maybe for the first time), and rejected it?] For some politicians have complained about this alleged bias, but not, in any meaningful numbers, the public [so that's us told!]. Or consider the criticism that BBC people are all in the grip of some public sector groupthink: how does that square with the fact that a Conservative Prime Minister, a Tory Chancellor, a proudly pro-enterprise Business Secretary and a London mayor who is a cheerleader for the City all recruited their spokesman from the serried ranks of pinkoes at the BBC [Gosh, he's sounding like a 'defender of the indefensible' on a blog now! It's a wonder he's not mentioned that Nick Robinson used to head the Young Conservatives (as a teenager) yet! He doesn't, of course, mention his fellow James - James Purnell - the ex-Labour minister put in charge of the BBC's political coverage. And how on earth does listing this little list prove that the BBC isn't in the grip of "some public sector groupthink"? This seems like very sloppy thinking to me, reeking with non sequiturs]. By the way, I find equally implausible the Labour critique that the BBC is too right-wing. [Note the brevity of that, and the lack of detail - #bbcbias!!] Let me be clear: the BBC is scrupulously impartial [yeah, sure you are, if you say so]. Of course, we make mistakes [go on, give us some examples to show you're not biased yourself. What? You're not going to give any examples? Really?]. I’m not saying we’re perfect [well, you're giving a jolly good impression of doing so, James!]; but we are impartial [you've not proven it in any way, shape or form but...yeah, if you say so!].

I’ve been asked whether politicians made the link between the BBC’s election coverage and the future funding of the BBC? Mostly, not. But, along the way, there were people from all parties who made the connection between their dissatisfaction with the election coverage and the fact that the next government will set the licence fee and the terms of the Royal Charter. Some did so explicitly. Nigel Farage, for example, said he was unhappy at UKIP’s treatment on the BBC and proposed cutting the licence fee by two thirds. [Has James Harding misrepresented what Nigel Farage said here? Alan at Biased-BBC thinks so, and provides persuasive evidence to back it up. Is there - as there sometimes is with Nigel - a quote somewhere that does prove him to have "explicitly" linked the two things together? If not, this doesn't reflect well on Mr Harding]. Others left it hanging in the air. [Who exactly? Come on, James - names!]

BBC Charter Renewal coming hot on the heels of a General Election was an unhappy coincidence. Nothing matters more to BBC News than its independence. For people to have confidence in this country’s most important news organisation, they must know that its journalists will ask the difficult questions without fear or favour [What? The BBC that tiptoes and self-censors its way round news story after news story, if it risks 'harming community cohesion'?]. The BBC, I’m proud to say, resisted any pressure, but how do we ensure the public remains confident that it is independent of politicians and the government. I don’t have any simple answers, but the experience has raised some questions. Given we are now in an age of fixed-term parliaments, do we need to try to put time between General Elections and Charter Renewal? Will the public continue to have confidence that journalists will, fearlessly, question politicians who, in effect, are setting their salaries and budgets? If not, how do politicians reassure the public that they are not going to play for political advantage or take out their personal grievances on the BBC?

In the week after the election, people let off steam. Already, the mood is different. The early morning calls, the angry texts, the lengthy letters have stopped. I hope – and, in fact, expect that – with the benefit of time and reflection, both the public and politicians will see that the BBC delivered successfully on its responsibilities as a public service broadcaster. In the months ahead and the political contests to come, politicians may not always like our news judgments. But we’re not here for them, we’re here for the public [the BBC as Robin Hood, Braveheart and Mr Smith Goes to Washington, all rolled into one].

And by that measure - the one that matters most - the BBC scored in 2015 [if he says so himself]. So, allow me if you will, to toot the BBC’s horn for a minute [like he hadn't been doing it for the previous half hour].

First, the audience reaction was really encouraging. BBC election coverage reached 9 in 10 UK adults in the last week of the campaign: 89 percent of UK adults said they came to BBC News coverage of the election in the final week of the campaign; it was 88 per cent in 2010. And it was high - 84 percent - even amongst traditionally harder-to-reach 18-34 year-olds [and to think defenders of the BBC rant on about the influence of Murdoch!]. The online - and, more to the point, mobile - numbers were extraordinary: on the 8 May, BBC News Online was used by a record 31.2m global browsers - in the UK it was 20.7m, beating the previous high by 7 million [the BBC's dominance is extraordinary - it's a near monopoly (and monopolies are usually considered unhealthy)]. And, take note, that between 6 and 7am on that Friday morning, 84 percent of browsers were on mobiles. More importantly still, a very high 66 percent chose BBC as the one best source of election results coverage and 60 percent chose the BBC as the best for election news across the whole campaign. BBC was rated ahead of ITV and Sky on all quality metrics - with a particularly strong lead on having great experts, challenging politicians and providing local coverage.

Second, there were real stars offstage. There were no significant errors, no social media snafus [oh yeah?], no technology failures nor cybersecurity failures and no disruption from industrial action. A great many people, who were neither on camera nor on set, contributed to the success of the BBC’s election coverage. And, to my mind, the heroes of the election night were the people who built the systems and the stages that we worked on. The technology operation was the foundation for all that we did. It was sophisticated, ingenious and invaluable. The set at Elstree looked stunning; Jeremy Vine’s parallel universe made sense of the world with an exquisite eye for detail and exceptional flair; and the map on the piazza and the projections on Broadcasting House were a work of art that put democracy right in the middle of the BBC [though it was widely mocked - even on 'Dead Ringers'!]. Before the first bong, it was clear there was going to be only one election show worth watching.

And, third, I think we delivered against our own editorial ambitions. Forgive me, but I think we put on the television event of the campaign - arguably, the event of the campaign - namely the Question Time in Leeds. It was one of a series of events at the BBC, which, like no other news organisation, gave voice to the voter: [the previous challengers' debate, with its extraordinary audience being forgotten. Why is it that the BBC can claim that that biased challengers' debate audience was fault of the pollsters who selected the audience, and yet James Harding can praise the BBC for this unbiased Leeds audience, even though it too was selected by pollsters? Why is the BBC innocent of one and 'to be praised' for the other? Mr Harding would make a great politician!] from the My Election films on the 6 & 10 to 5Live’s 20 outside broadcasts, from Breakfast taking its red sofa on the road to Today’s tour of 100 constituencies [some of which - as we reported here - were far from free from charges of bias and inaccuracy], the debates across Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the English regions, from World at One in Dudley to Victoria Derbyshire’s debates, and the Generation 2015 first time voters who commented and participated all the way through [what about those shocking Newsbeat debates?], the BBC made a point of making sure we all heard from the people [though some were more equal than others].

We made a point of trying to get away from the campaign to cover the choice: the 6 and 10 did a series on big issues, from airports to defence spending to social care, that weren’t getting much play in the campaign; Newsnight interrogated the future of the NHS; Andrew Neil’s series of Daily Politics debates analysed policy, department by department over two weeks; and, online, from Reality Check to constituency profiles, we scrutinised the detail. And, we broke stories, from David Cameron’s revelation in his kitchen that he would only serve two terms to Ed Miliband’s accidental revelation that he only had two kitchens [so many cherries picked here that dozens of new cherry orchards will have to be planted in Salford to guarantee a future supply.]

Being involved in a general election at the BBC is one of the highlights of my professional life. I and many millions of people across the country and around the world will remember the night of May 7th 2015 for years to come. I feel grateful to have had the chance to be a part of it. And, it doesn’t stop. Already, we are looking ahead at a busy political roadmap: the Holyrood elections in 2016, the referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017. I expect it’s going to be fun [and blogs like this  - and many others - will be watching you very closely].

The BBC Scrutiny Committee

The Guardian and the Telegraph disagree about the House of Commons' European Scrutiny Committee's report on the European debate - especially over the committee's criticism of the BBC's coverage of Europe. 

For the Telegraph it's about the "scathing" criticisms and "deep concerns" of the MPs about the BBC's impartiality (or lack of it) over the issue. For the Guardian it's about the BBC "pushing back" against the MPs' encroachment on its "independence". 

As for the BBC's own online report on the MPs' findings, well, it chooses to make the report's general findings about "the lack of an EU debate" its focus. The section on the BBC begins a considerable way down the report, presents the BBC top managers' statements first, then gives the committee's view before ending with a statement from a BBC spokesman. It uses (without quotations marks) the sub-headline 'Independence'. 

For those who want to read the report for itself (and the BBC article fails to link to it) you can find it here. 

For those who don't here are some extracts from it: 

78. We remain concerned following that session that Lord Hall did not seem, in our view, to appreciate fully the limitations on the BBC editorial independence imposed by Article of the Charter, the Framework Agreement and the general law. We were glad to note that Lord Hall stated that on “impartiality, I think that is just fundamental. I really do.” However, we were not satisfied with his responses as to the balance to be struck in delivering that impartiality in respect of different views on the EU issue, and we challenged him that few voices were heard from those with strong views criticising the EU among backbenchers, including from the Labour Party.

80. Overall, following our questioning, we were not satisfied that Lord Hall was sufficiently clear about the structure of the oversight he exercised over those who worked under him as Editor-in-Chief. We were also concerned that neither he nor James Harding sufficiently appreciated that the issue of the EU is not only a party-political, but a cross-party issue for backbenchers.

82. We are gravely concerned that despite our clear message in the session that we would have expected that the BBC would give full coverage to the proceedings attended by Lord Hall and James Harding, apart from a broadcast on BBC Parliament after the session and a short summary of the proceedings on the BBC website, there was to our knowledge no news commentary, analysis or interviews on any of the mainstream programmes of the BBC of the proceedings. We note in this context our continued concerns that there was similarly little coverage of our seminal report on European Scrutiny Reform of November 2013. We regard these failures as inexplicable, and in our view they could be construed as a breach of the BBC’s duties under its Charter and Framework Agreement, and particularly in respect of its public purposes. Furthermore, we find them difficult to understand given Lord Hall’s repeated statements of how seriously he took the issue of impartiality, and the steps he referred to in his oral evidence of how attention is paid to the “flow of information” and a “common response”, with many including daily) meetings between editors and senior managers.

86. We are not yet convinced that the BBC’s training adequately equips BBC editors, correspondents, producers and interviewers to devise the questions and coverage to reflect all sides of the EU equation, in accordance with the BBC Charter and its obligations. We were told by Lord Hall that the organisation is “very reflective. It thinks very hard about what it is doing … The culture, I think, is one of questioning”, and on the question of the complexity of the issues in question, we were told that “the challenge is to say ‘this is complex; it matters. Now we, as journalists, must try to get to grips with it”. In our view a good deal more analysis is required.

90. In summary, we still remain deeply concerned about the manner in which the BBC treats EU issues. Our witnesses seemed to be more intent on defending and asserting their own opinions, mindset and interpretation of the obligations under the Charter and Framework Agreement than in whether they had in fact discharged them or whether they had the mindset to carry through their post-Wilson aims. In the interest of the licence fee payers, and the public in general, and in the context of the approaching General Election and a prospective referendum on the EU, and given the fact that the BBC themselves state that 58% of the public look to the BBC for news they trust, we believe that the BBC has a duty under its Charter, Framework Agreement and the general law, and following the Wilson report in particular, to improve substantially the manner in which it treats EU issues.

93. We deeply regret the fact that Lord Hall’s repeated refusals to give oral evidence delayed the session to such an extent that it has not been possible to conduct further work on these issues before the dissolution of Parliament. Our central tenet, regarding the BBC’s coverage of the EU scrutiny process in the House, and EU issues more generally, is that the country’s public service broadcaster must command wide confidence in its coverage of such a sensitive and complex issue. We do not believe that this has been achieved.

Lord Hall doesn't seem to have gone down too well with them, does he?