One of the things about monitoring a particular BBC programme over a long period is that you can see how a story develops over time - and how the BBC adapted to those developments.
An example of this is how BBC Radio 4's Sunday covered the Occupy protests. Do you remember them? They were 'big news' a year ago. They brought about the collapse of the capitalist system a couple of resignations at St. Paul's Cathedral. Sunday provided extensive coverage at the time and, I believe, showed themselves to be sympathetic to the Occupiers' (somewhat nebulous) cause.
It all started in America and the BBC was quick off the blocks in reporting the Occupy Wall Street protests - which it did in very great detail. (For a flavour of that coverage please have a read of David Preiser's coverage at Biased BBC). Sunday was somewhat late to the party but soon made up for it.
It all began for Sunday on 23rd October 2011, with Edward Stourton introducing a report from BBC reporter Matt Wells with these words:
"Now, the protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street has gone viral, as they say. As it enters its second month, it's spread to cities around the world. It doesn't have a clear manifesto as yet but in New York, where it began, a group of religious leaders who'd been part of the protest met this week to coordinate their contribution."
Matt Wells' report was not unlike many of his other reports from the U.S. He can be an insightful reporter but his own positions are often not hard to discern. I wouldn't say that this was necessarily the case here but the report lacked alternative perspectives and can still be classed as being biased. We heard from Rev. Michael Ellick, a prominent figure in Occupy, as well as three young female "protest chaplains", a Buddhist monk and a lad called Tyler - all Occupy protesters, all saying 'Occupy'-type things. Not a whiff of scepticism or criticism of the movement was heard from any talking heads.
The focus of Sunday, however, tended from then on to focus almost exclusively on the protests in the United Kingdom. In the same edition of the programme Ed interviewed the PR man at St. Paul's, Rev. Rob Marshall (familiar to many Radio 4 listeners from his large number of appearances on Thought For The Day.) Ed's criticisms of the authorities at St. Paul's were to get ever stronger as time passed, but even at this stage he seems to have been pushing an angle that he would continue to push:
"And it really isn't safe? I mean, it's difficult to believe that, but it really isn't?""Do you think the cathedral has slightly shot itself in the foot on this, because in the early stages the cathedral and its clergy seemed rather keen to see the protesters and rather sympathetic to work they are doing?""How much money was the cathedral losing every day?""So Mammon is a factor in all this?"
For pretty much the one and only time during the whole of the programme's coverage of the Occupy protests, Ed then read out an e-mail from a listener unsympathetic to the Occupiers:
"Let me finally put to you an e-mail we've just had suggesting this: 'Perhaps St. Paul's Cathedral authorities could proclaim their sympathy with the protesters by having the loudest and longest peals of bells throughout the days and nights until the protesters leave?'"
By the following week, the 30th October 2011 edition, Sunday had got fully into its stride over the story. Jane Little's introduction contained what, at the time, seemed to me to be an example of 'framing the debate':
"Was St. Paul's right or was its popular canon-chancellor right?"
That "popular" canon-chancellor was, of course, Giles Fraser (also very familiar to Radio 4 listeners from his numerous appearances on Thought For The Day, among other BBC programmes).
When the segment on #Occupy SPC got under way Jane began, "When the set up camp in the City of London to protest the greed and excess of the bankers...". When I first heard that I thought it was a pretty loaded way of putting it and that it would have been better if she had said, "When the set up camp in the City of London to protest what they see as the greed and excess of bankers". What do you make of that? And what do you make of what followed - a report by Trevor Barnes?
