 |
| Meet the Ahmeds |
Samira Ahmed: Hello and welcome to Newswatch with me, Samira Ahmed. All other major party leaders have faced the questioning of Andrew Neil, but not Boris Johnson. Is this the fault of the BBC? And in a fractious campaign, have BBC interviews helped or hindered the election process? Interviews with party leaders during election campaigns are often feisty affairs, and Andrew Neil is widely considered one of the BBC's toughest interrogators, as he showed this week with his questioning of Jo Swinson and Nigel Farage. Boris Johnson's failure to commit himself firmly to Andrew Neil's questioning initially led the BBC last week to say the Prime Minister would not be on The Andrew Marr Show until he committed to the Andrew Neil interview. But after Friday's knife attack on London Bridge, the corporation withdrew that ultimatum, arguing that it was now in the public interest for him to appear. Here are the thoughts of Maria Jeffrey:
I am dismayed and disgusted by the way the Tories have played the BBC. Why was Boris Johnson allowed the oxygen of publicity for his election campaign on The Andrew Marr Show - a U-turn, given the BBC ban after he'd declined to have his policies and behaviour scrutinised by Andrew Neil - a process that the other party leaders had been through.
But if the suggestion was that Boris Johnson would have an easy time on The Andrew Marr Show, that turned out to be far from the case. In a often acrimonious conversation, the presenter pressed the Prime Minister on the circumstances under which the London Bridge attacker Usman Khan had been released from prison:
There was no question... And under the Conservatives he was let out. No. Under the Conservatives he was let... Because - because... This was a Conservative decision. Because of changes... You've been in power for ten years! Because of changes to the law that were brought in by the Labour Party - that I voted against. SCOFFS. You were in power for ten years and you've done nothing about it in ten years! Jeremy Corbyn voted in favour of. For ten years, you've done nothing about it. He voted in favour of automatic early release. That was... For ten years, you've done nothing about it. You cannot retrospectively change... For ten years, you've done nothing about it.
Dave Mann was one of the thousands of viewers to object to the interview and recorded his reaction on video:
I'm a huge admirer of Andrew Marr and watch his programme most Sundays, but I was appalled at the way he interviewed Boris Johnson last week. He kept posing questions and then, when Boris was about to answer, would not let him answer and kept asking more questions or talking over his answers. In fact, he seemed more concerned about moving onto the next question than actually hearing what Boris Johnson had to say.
Samira Ahmed: Well, with me to discuss that and other issues around the BBC's election campaign coverage is the editorial director of BBC News, Kamal Ahmed. Thank you for coming on Newswatch. So the London Bridge attack had already become politicised. So viewers are right, aren't they, to say that there was a case for the Prime Minister to go on The Andrew Marr Show?
Kamal Ahmed: I think there was a very strong case. The Prime Minister had already made a statement about how law changes may have affected the treatment of the perpetrator of this crime. And I think audiences, quite rightly, would want to see the BBC interviewing the Prime Minister. So there was a significant change in the political weather because of the events on London Bridge and I think it was quite right for the BBC to say that the Prime Minister was available and that the BBC was the place where that interview should take place.
Samira Ahmed: OK. It's pretty obvious, isn't it, that the BBC should have pinned down all the party leaders before running any of the Andrew Neil interviews? Because now you didn't get the balance right on the Andrew Neil interviews. Why didn't you?
Kamal Ahmed: So, these are very complicated issues. I am involved in Question Time, for example, and when you're doing a whole series of programmes, to say that you need to nail them all down before the campaign, or before announcing any of them, that is...has two big problems...
Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) Not before announcing any of them!
Kamal Ahmed: First of all, it would give the parties veto over us doing anything. So it would be one party that said "We're not doing it," that would mean we'd have to abandon everything we're doing. And also, we also have to be practical, Samira. Diaries change, events change. We need to offer various different interview slots. And if...
Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) I don't think people feel it's about a veto - they feel it's about the Prime Minister playing games and avoiding scrutiny.
Kamal Ahmed: Well. We offered many, many different opportunities for the Prime Minister to sit down, do the interview with Andrew Neil. That option is still open. There's nothing we can do to compel them to appear. We just have to do our best.
Samira Ahmed: So too many interviews, when they do happen, viewers feel, can seem to end up in arguments without offering genuine insights for voters in an election. And the Marr encounter with Boris Johnson, where you couldn't even hear each of them, talking over each other, it was just painful, wasn't it?
Kamal Ahmed: No, I don't think it was painful. I think that he got some interesting information out of the Prime Minister - the fact that 74 other people who had been released from prison under possibly similar terms to the perpetrator of the crimes of London Bridge was a very important point. Now, of course, sometimes politicians don't want to answer the question that's put to them, and I think it's quite right for Andrew to then say "Well, hang on. I wasn't actually asking the question you're answering. I was answering - I was asking a different question."
Samira Ahmed: OK, stay with us. We're going to move on to another issue now.......Allegations against the BBC of political bias are par for the course during election campaigns, but those who suspect the corporation of favouring the Conservative Party this time round point to two incidents, which we have featured on Newswatch. The replacement on Breakfast of this year's pictures of Boris Johnson laying a wreath on Remembrance Sunday, where he had been criticised for his appearance with what was considered more flattering footage of him from three years ago. And the cutting from a news report of audience laughter directed at the Prime Minister during a Question Time leaders special. The BBC has apologised for both mistakes, but questions are still being asked about how and why they came about. At the same time, there's been criticism of the airtime given to photo opportunities and stunts, such as Boris Johnson's spreading a scone last week. Designed to show politicians in a good light, there's the suspicion here again that the Conservatives have benefited more than other parties have, with Tony Padilla begging for:
No more sycophantic photo ops with scones and jam.
.......Well, Kamal Ahmed is still with us. All the political leaders do try these stage-managed stunts, like the scone or they're in a boxing ring, to make themselves look good. Why is BBC News pandering to them?
Kamal Ahmed: Well, we're not. I mean, these are just pictures that audiences see all the time. They're well able to judge how important these things are. And they have to be put up against the huge amounts of information that is on our online site. The rest of the package, these are all tiny little bits. I think the point about all these allegations around the BBC, these are things that are on air for a matter of seconds. We produce hundreds of hours of election coverage - really serious, really in-depth, really holding our political leaders to account. Of course, you can take tiny little clips of a second here or a second there, but that doesn't reflect our overall election coverage.
Samira Ahmed: OK, well, it's interesting you say that because obviously, you know, viewers feel that it does - it adds up. And the BBC's - it's fair to say it hasn't had a good election because it's already had to apologise over news content - we mentioned a couple of specific stories there. And the explanation for the editing off of the Question Time audience laughter - it was concerning. It didn't actually save time and there was something editorially important that was lost in taking off that laughter. What is going on at BBC News?
Kamal Ahmed: It did save some time. We've admitted that it...
Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) Two seconds!
Kamal Ahmed: No, it was a few seconds. We've admitted it was a mistake. Again, this is in the context of hundreds of hours of material. That piece came from a Question Time special done by the BBC the night before. It was run in full on all sorts of output. That was one outing where it was trimmed and a mistake was made. You say we've had a bad election. We have had the Question Time special - all four of the main party leaders on air, prime time, BBC One. The seven-leader debate. Andrew Neil interviews with Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson and Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage were all fantastic pieces of work.
Samira Ahmed: All right, Kamal. Thank you very much. We've got another issue.......Through the campaign, broadcasters have been showing a wide variety of debate programmes involving senior politicians and the questions of who is invited where and who actually turns up and takes part have been as fraught here as they have with those interviews with party leaders. We're recording before Friday night's head-to-head leaders debate on BBC One between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, but for weeks have been receiving viewer complaints like this from Alice Hovanessian:
I am writing to request that you included the Lib Dems as the only Remain and centrist voice in the BBC election debate. They represent a lot of people and were even in government more recently than Labour. A lot of people do not support Corbyn or Johnson and will want to hear what Jo Swinson has to say. The all-male format is also very stale in this day and age.
.......So let's talk about this, Kamal. I mean, at a time when, you know, women MPs are quitting Parliament in significant numbers because of abuse and hostility, so the decision to exclude the only female national party leader, Jo Swinson - Nick Clegg was there with David Cameron and Gordon Brown in 2010 - it looks like very poor judgement by BBC News, doesn't it?
Kamal Ahmed: So all these leaders' debates which you've referred to should be taken as a set of programmes...
Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) This is THE leaders debate, six days before the election. .
Kamal Ahmed: ...so as I say, on Question Time - on the Question Time special, you had Jo Swinson, Nicola Sturgeon, Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson in one programme. Jo Swinson has also been involved in many other special programmes to do with the election. When it comes to who appears in the prime ministerial debate, we compare, or we test our output, against the result in 2017. And in that election, 80% - more than 80% of the votes - went to the Conservative Party or the Labour Party, and that fashions the way we look at how we build our programmes.
Samira Ahmed: And I hear what you say, but viewers will say, "Look, it doesn't matter how many other programmes you have with other leaders, the BBC is promoting this as the big one. It is six days ahead of the election."
Kamal Ahmed: We're not saying it is the big one. It is a very important moment...
Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) The prime ministerial debates?
Kamal Ahmed: It's the prime minister debate...There are many, many different ways of engaging. One programme out of all that set of programmes is defined by who could actually be prime minister on December the 12th, after December the 12th. And that is one - that is the prime ministerial debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson.
Samira Ahmed: Kamal Ahmed, thank you very much.
