"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'...

Clowns v experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BBC's media go-to boar

Steve Hewlett, sticking his hand up a senior BBC executive

As no BBC representative was available to discuss Piggate on Newswatch, who did Newswatch turn to instead? 

Inevitably to Steve Hewlett of The Guardian.

I may be the only person left who still thinks of him as "Steve Hewlett of The Guardian" because nowadays, when he appears on the BBC...which seems to be very often, especially when there's an important story 'about the BBC'...he's usually described as an 'independent media consultant' or, more often, merely as the presenter of Radio 4's The Media Show.

On this week's Newswatch Samira Ahmed introduced him as:

Steve Hewlett. He's a former BBC executive and introduces The Media Show on Radio 4.

All right and proper perhaps. However, I have to say - and this may be me simply being forgetful - but I don't think I've ever heard Steve Hewlett described as "a former BBC executive" before. Wonder what role he held exactly? 

It's hard to find out online, though LinkedIn (minus a stunning photo) records him as being a former Panorama editor, so I suppose that must be it.  

Over the years I've looked for a Wikipedia entry on him and none has ever appeared. There is a Wikipedia article about 'Steve Hewlett', but that one's about a ventriloquist from Basingstoke who appeared on Britain's Got Talent - and I'm really not convinced that they're the same Steve Hewlett at all...

....though Steve's contribution to this week's Newswatch, where he basically gave the BBC a completely clean bill of health over its Piggate coverage, could be a sign that I'm actually wrong about that. Yes, he wasn't actually engaging in any ventriloquism but he did seem to be providing a spot-on impersonation of a typical BBC executive appearing on Newswatch exonerating the BBC on all counts, combined with a side impersonation of Frank Spencer:

Look, my estimation, for what it's worth...I'm not sure the BBC did a mischief here. 

At least he didn't say 'whoopsie'.

That said, as ever, much of what he said came across as reasonable and I couldn't find anything much to disagree with him about.

Mmmm - nice!

Deal or No Deal

So...

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

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

*****

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

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

*****

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

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

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

*****

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

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

But that was only part of it. 

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 *****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talking to Islamic State

This viewer comment -

Every second of airtime given to these ISIS terrorists is a gift to them. If their intention is to strike terror in people's hearts, then the press is helping them all the way.

Andy Wood

- was the starting point for Steve Hewlett's interview with the BBC's World Affairs Editor John Simpson on this week's Newswatch. 

As it was such an interesting interview, I thought I'd transcribe it for posterity. It touches on such important subjects.

*****

Steve Hewlett: John, thanks very much for coming. Are you, do you think, and the media more generally, really guilty of giving IS propaganda?

John Simpson: Oh, it's the kind of thing that people say whenever you get this kind of situation, or "You're giving them airtime. You're doing their propaganda work for them". I mean, what is news? I mean, otherwise, we would be reporting anything. People often say, "Oh, would the BBC have been in Berlin in 1943?" Of course we would have been - if we'd have been able to - of course. We don't want to tell people less than we can. We want to tell them as much as we can. 

Steve Hewlett: You've been covering conflicts for a long time, often featuring combatants, some of whom are described as "terrorists" from time to time, and one thing and another. How is covering this conflict differ?

John Simpson: This is really, really hard. I've kind of made what I laughingly call "a career" out of being on the other side. Not the side...not our government's side, not the side of people who say "You shouldn't give these people propaganda", but going and trying to see what's happening there. I used to do a lot of work with the IRA. Then I went to Argentina during the Falklands War. I...all of these kind of things....

Steve Hewlett (interrupting): You met the Taliban!

John Simpson: I met the Taliban, and I spent a lot of time with...Yes, and I would really like to go and see ISIS - except that I would be one of these characters in an orange jump suit with my head being sawn off. And when it's as extreme as that it really does made it difficult. If I could find a way, Steve, of going and being pretty sure I'd come back, I would do it. I wouldn't tell the BBC before I did it or anything, but I would go and do it. But I haven't found a way of doing that.

Steve Hewlett: Do you think that because of this, or that effect, that we are less well informed about this conflict, the dynamics of it, than we might otherwise have been?

John Simpson: I think if we saw the kind of people that are in places like Ramadi and Mosul up front and listened to what they had to say I think that would be the strongest propaganda against them that's imaginable. It may be some of them are wise enough to realise that and that's why they don't want to do it.

Steve Hewlett: How sure can you be that you know what's happened? I mean in the piece that we looked at there's a bit where you say, "One of the things about this conflict is you never see the enemy. You see lots of people firing, but you never see who they're firing at" and all you're able to say is that IS are somewhere over that ridge, sort of thing. How sure can you be that you're getting the truth of what's going on?

John Simpson: It's hard, of course. The fact is the Iraqis aren't terribly good at...well, they're not actually very good at lying, the Iraqi government, and, of course, when they win some places back they're not terribly good about taking journalists there. But you can go there. You can see by the facts on the ground whether ISIS is there or not. I mean, frankly you rather hope they won't be.

Steve Hewlett: One last question, if I may: You said that if you could you would like to talk to ISIS, if you could do it without losing your head, so to speak...

John Simpson: In every sense!

Steve Hewlett: Have you made any attempts to get to them, and are any arrangements underway? Attempts to...Is there other form of communication at all?

John Simpson: Well, I probably wouldn't say if there were, but actually no, because I don't know through the normal channels in Iraq and Syria and so forth...I don't know how to make contact with them. But, you know, you get a nose for these kind of things and one day it might be possible. The problem is you've got to have absolutely failsafe agreements that they won't kill you. You know, whatever else, that's not a very bright idea. I don't want to make the news. 

Steve Hewlett: OK, thank you very much indeed.

Suspicious Minds

Fair dos to last night's Newsnight for leading with the hacking scandal at Mirror Group newspapers. 

Given the wall-to-wall coverage the BBC gave the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World, owned by the BBC's main UK rival, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, you would have expected the BBC to 'go big' on this story as well - especially as the hacking scandal at Trinity Mirror is now apparently much bigger than the one at the NOTW...

...and yet, overall, the BBC hasn't given the Mirror scandal anything like the saturation coverage it gave the scandal at the Murdoch Empire, has it? They've certainly covered it, but without any of the frenzy of their NOTW coverage.

Is that because the BBC doesn't see the Mirror Group as a serious rival (unlike News Corp)? Or because Mirror Group leans to the left (unlike News Corp)? Your guess is as good as mine. 

One of the criticisms often made of the BBC's NOTW coverage (on blogs like this) has been that the BBC seemed to have been working hand-in-hand with the Guardian to build the story into a scandal of some proportions that it would destroy Rupert Murdoch's power in Britain - as if they were Siamese twins.

No one could excuse last night's Newsnight though of working hand-in-hand with the Guardian in their reporting of Guardian rival Mirror Group's legal travails, could they? 

Yes, Newsnight's editor and former Guardian deputy editor Ian Katz had invited Guardian-columnist-turned-BBC-media-expert Steve Hewlett to present his Newsnight report, and Steve Hewlett's 'media expert' was none other than the Guardian's resident media pundit Roy Greenslade, but surely no-one would read anything incestuous into that, would they?

Or to the fact that the honest, repentant ex-Mirror journalist interviewed in the studio after Steve's report, Graham Johnson, has also written for the Guardian and worked on the BBC's Panorama - and received the backing of Hacked Off and Nick Davies of the Guardian during his trial? There's nothing incestuous about that either, is there?

Obornegate

To return to a subject Sue has tackled earlier...

The self-updating 'My blog list' feature on the right hand side of this blog gives me the chance to see what's going on elsewhere. For some reason, I included 'Guardian Media' in the list. (Sorry Sue).

For the past few days the 'Guardian Media' link has been updating itself pretty often - and always with some new story about the perfidious Daily Telegraph, in the wake of Peter Oborne's dramatic resignation from the paper. [Update: Immediately after posting this piece, yet another such Guardian piece appeared].

The Graun is obviously on one of its periodic all-out crusades against a major rival. The intent is clear - as it was with the Graun's tireless campaigning against the Murdoch Empire: To serious damage a rival. 

The BBC, inevitably, hasn't been far behind. (The two often seem to walk together on such occasions.)

Newsnight didn't just help 'break' the story (via the Guardian/BBC's media go-to-guy Steve Hewlett), it also led the following night's edition with its own damning report (from Chris Cook) on the Telegraph's misbehaviour. 

Legal eagle and Radio 4 Law in Action presenter Joshua Rozenberg (aka Mr Melanie Phillips) was then interviewed and told how he'd resigned from the Telegraph after his articles were 'amended' - despite his protestations - to include untrue things that the Telegraph had been pressuring him to include because they chimed in with their core messages (say, about the EU or the European court). And I have to say that I believe Mr Rozenberg completely about that.

The Telegraph published an unapologetic editorial about the Oborne affair. This included some swipes at the BBC and the Guardian:

This newspaper makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary, allegations that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party. We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets.

We will take no lectures about journalism from the likes of the BBC, the Guardian or the Times. Those media outlets that are this week sniping about our coverage of HSBC were similarly dismissive in 2009 when we began to reveal details of MPs’ expenses claims, a fact that speaks volumes about their judgment and partiality.

There's obviously some truth in this but the Guardian's description of this editorial as "callow" seems fair to me. What the Telegraph did, if Peter Oborne is to be believed, isn't proper journalism. It just isn't. That editorial doesn't even come close to being a proper, convincing rebuttal of those charges.

And, by the way (though none of this seems to concern the Beeb or the Graun very much), the Telegraph has slumped in quality in recent years, and has shed a lot of its best journalists (who weren't quite on message), and has closed much of its content for comment, and has become a bit too partisan in its projection of the official Conservative Party agenda to the extent of smearing others (such as UKIP), etc.

That's by the by though. Anyhow...

The Telegraph's attempt to fire back at the Guardian with a piece alleging something similar to the Oborne accusations hasn't taken off, probably because it smacks of desperation. And their attempt to fire back at the Times with a piece claiming - without much evidence - that behaviour there had resulted in suicides among Times journalists has rightly been condemned as absolutely atrocious journalism well beyond the Times, the Guardian and  the BBC (including, on the BBC, by FT and Northern Echo journalists). 

Media outlets fighting each other can get vicious. Very vicious. The Telegraph is coming out firing, but shooting itself in the foot. The Guardian and BBC are lapping it up and attacking the Telegraph on two fronts. The Times doubtless has its own agenda (an overlapping demographic for its readership) and is joining in, and being broadly defended. 

There are agendas everywhere, much as you'd expect from commercial organisations. But from the publicly-funded BBC? Why is their agenda so apparent?

“On” a lot more?

I heard a snippet of the Media Show (about 20 minutes in) yesterday afternoon. I understand the topic was bias in the media with regard to the referendum, or the Scottish Spring as I like to think of it. 

One of the guest experts was Greg Philo, (Glasgow Media Group) and, as is his wont, he had to drag the Israel-Palestine issue into it all of a sudden. 

He said:  “It’s clear the Israelis are ‘on’ a lot more than the Palestinians”

I mean WTF?  What-planet-is-he-on? 

Now, let’s ask, just for one second, what evidence does Philo (what an apt name) have for that statement? First of all, how many Israelis make regular appearances on T.V? 

Mark Regev, Daniel Taub and occasionally Peter Lerner. Danny Danon was on HardTalk the other day. So was Yuval Steinitz.  Not Israeli, but “philo-Israel,” Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips are on quite a few panels. Maureen Lipman?

Then there are some Israeli lefties that are harsh critics of  the Israeli government. Gideon Levy, Ilan Pappé and  people who write for the Guardian. Mira Bar-Hillel. (Only joking) Is Philo including these?

So how many Palestinians? Well, if not actual Palestinians, there are certainly a fair few pro-Palestinians. (PhiloPalestinians)

Mustafa Barghouti, on at least as many times as Mark Regev during O.P.E.  Hanan Ashrawi ditto. Dateline’s top contributor ’arry Batwan, and we saw quite a bit of Manuel Hassassian. Regular guests on programmes like “The Big Questions”: Mehdi Hasan, Mohammad Shafiq, Mo Ansar, Ajmal Masroor, Myriam Francois-Cerrah. All there to have a dig at Israel at the slightest opportunity.  Yasser Abed Rabbo, Fawaz Gerges, Chris Gunness, Dr. Mads Gilbert,  guests on HardTALK. Regular talking heads: Chris Doyle,  George Galloway, Ghada Karmi and Owen Jones, always ready willing and able to propagandise on behalf of Israel’s enemies.

Lucy Winkett, John Bell, with their infamous anti-Israel sentiments,  all contribute to religious broadcasting. Sheihk Ibrahim Mogra, Yasmin Alibhai Brown,  frequently brought in to speak on behalf of the religion of peace, not to mention dozens of Middle East experts that are never off our screens; last but not least, the BBC’s own staff pro-Palestinian advocates and activists - Jon Donnison, Orla Geurin, Zeinab Badawi and Yolande Knell, Jeremy Bowen and the entire cast list from BBC Watch, and the many regular experts who outweigh by far pro Israel spokespersons on current affairs programmes like Dateline, Newsnight, and don’t forget Greg Philo himself. 

I know, I know, I’ve left out hundreds of them. But how can Greg Philo just get away with saying, in passing, in that  there are more Israelis ‘on’ than Palestinians? 

********

For your edification, here’s a small transcription of the snippet.

Steve Hewlett

Steve Hewlett

"What about the basic allegation that the “Yes” is being under or  mis reported in some ways?"

Greg Philo, sounding like a down-market Will Self with a smigeon of Ken Livingstone,  responded:

“Well yes, Salmond was on as far as I can see, as I understand it Salmond and the SNP were on a lot, but the issues were not bein’ discussed. It was being personalised whatever and I mean my own view, I mean I don’t want to comment or not because I haven’t studied it but my own view is that if you said to Alex Salmond “Look we’re not going to have you on so much ” (chuckle) I don’t think he’d be very happy. And I would guess that, I mean it’s very difficult to argue, um prima facie anyway, that someone who’s on such a lot, wall-to-wall, that is in some way puttin’ ‘im down. You know, it’s clear that if you look at the Israel Palestine stuff, it’s clear that the Israelis are on a lot more than the Palestinians, you know, and that fits the map.....it’s..”

SH

"But it hasn’t happened in this case..."

GP 

"No. I would have thought, I haven’t counted it, but you don’t get that impression."

Get Hewlett

One of the Guardian's media writers, Steve Hewlett, is now the BBC's go-to-man for media-related stories. 

This isn't exactly news. After all, he'd already become a BBC regular as regards media-related stories even before they invited him to present Radio 4's The Media Show. 

Since then he's frankly verged on the ubiquitous (on the BBC) whenever any major media story breaks - whether it be the Newsnight scandals, the phone hacking trials, the Patten-Thompson row, you name it. 

Now, I don't think he does a bad job by any means but the BBC's over-reliance on his opinions surely isn't helpful. One voice should not be so dominant, however reasonable-sounding that voice may be.  

This thought struck me again after this morning's Farming Today covered the BBC Trust's newly-released report on the BBC's coverage of rural affairs (discussed on an earlier post). 

There are any number of people Farming Today could have contacted to discuss this report but, no, they chose to do what Radio 4 as a whole tends to do on such occasions - ring for Steve Hewlett. 

Even though I now pretty much take Steve Hewlett's ubiquity for granted, even I was taken aback by this. Couldn't they have put just a few seconds of thought into thinking of someone other than Steve Hewlett to provide their 'expert' commentary on the report? Well, obviously not and, as a result, BBC listeners were again presented with Steve Hewlett's 'authoritative take' on a media-related story - and only Steve Hewlett's take.

This isn't a criticism of Steve Hewlett. It's a criticism of a mindset all too common at the BBC, a mindset that often results in predictable reflex-actions - such as speed-dialing Steve Hewlett whenever a BBC Trust report comes out. 

Bias at the BBC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newsnight did it somewhat better last night. 

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

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

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

That botched 'Newsnight' - a case of bias?

As you may have noticed, the BBC is in turmoil today - partly thanks to Newsnight again. 

Following the debacle over the pulling of their report on Jimmy Savile last December, the programme's joint investigation with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) into abuse in North Wales, broadcast last Friday (2/11/2012), wrongly accused 'a senior Conservative figure from the Thatcher era' of child abuse. The programme itself didn't name him at the time, despite an ill-judged tweet from TBIJ leading viewers to expect that it would. Despite that, the damage to the lord's reputation was done. The identity of the wrongly-accused 'senior Conservative figure from the Thatcher era' began to 'go viral' across the Twitterverse, becoming widely-known as a result. The programme itself had left enough clues to lead people in that direction, so go in that direction people went. The gossip turned out to be all wrong. It was a case of mistaken identity. The accuser realised his mistake and 'fessed up (and says it was the police who are guilty of getting him to identify the wrong man).  Newsnight has unreservedly apologised, the 'senior Conservative figure from the Thatcher era' is now taking legal action on several fronts and the BBC has been sent reeling.

There do seem to be a lot of questions that need answering. Some are for the top management of the BBC, and the Director General has been touring BBC studios today, being pounded left, right and centre by his own presenters. 

What though of the questions for Newsnight? Steve Hewlett of the Guardian and BBC Radio 4's Media Show, the BBC's go-to man for media issues, has been sharply critical of the programme, claiming the BBC had looked into the accuser and his accusations on at least two separate occasions "and found them wanting". Another question for Newsnight - and TBIJ - arises from the fact that, by all accounts, the accuser was only shown a photograph of the wrongly-accused man yesterday - one week after the report was broadcast - and only then realised his mistake. Why on earth wasn't he shown that photograph earlier? It also emerged yesterday that the BBC had chosen not to contact the wrongly-accused man for a right of reply on the Friday of last week. Why? Because, it says, it didn't actually name him in the Newsnight film. Unfortunately, that answer is begging even more questions. (The Reynolds Defence comes into play here, apparently). 

So how did it happen? There's much speculation going on (ironically, given what happened last week), but these seem to be the most popular contenders for an explanation:

- REDEMPTION. Did it arise because Newsnight wanted to make amends for its failure to broadcast the report into Savile's child abuse last year, doing something that showed that it cared about the issue and that it could still do proper investigative journalism?

- DIVERSION. Did it arise as some sort of diversionary tactic, designed to take the public's eye off child abuse focused specifically on the BBC and shift it instead onto child abuse more generally?

- BIAS. Did Newsnight seize at the chance to shift an abuse story onto a Top Tory for a specific reason, or was that just a co-incidence? If it did try to shift it onto the Tories deliberately, why? To put the Tory-led government on the back foot over the ongoing scandal at the BBC (quiet them up?), or to have a partisan jab at the Tories, and smear Mrs Thatcher for good measure?