In her excellent column in
yesterday’s Sunday Herald, Angela Haggerty highlighted the one eyed tweets of
one G A Ponsonby whilst not being aware of his past. If my own memory serves, he did/does do stuff
for Newsnet Scotland but the online persona is a constant battle to aggressively
plug his book on how biased the BBC was during the referendum.
"Is that a dagger I see before me..." |
For a lot of the
serious pro-Indy supporters, the coverage of the referendum from the BBC is
still a serious touchstone issue. For me
though, I’d always thought that any bias, including the bias outlined in the
UWS papers on the media’s output, could be attributed to an institutional bias
rather than a deliberate premeditated bias.
Certainly, you couldn’t class the BBC’s coverage at the same level of
bias as, say, an edition of The S*n from about 1983. Indeed the flashpoint of
this – Nick Robinson’s performance at Alex Salmond’s final pre-vote press
conference - was described as by other
people as deeply biased. At the time
though, I thought that it was “Unprofessional, yes. Biased, no”. As a result of this view, I always take
Ponsonby’s views with a huge pinch of salt.
Someone who, rather like the website he provided pieces for, has promoted
a staggeringly one eyed view of independence and those people opposing it and his worldview.
The thing is
though is that it’s not the issue of independence that has shaken my own view
of the impartiality of Auntie, but their treatment of the Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn. You would expect the London based
dead tree press (as Guido used to call them, before he became a Murdoch Shill)
to have gone hard against a figure so diametrically the opposite to anything
they believe in. The joker in the pack
though has been the performance of the BBC, and in particular their new
Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg and their flagship politics programmes –
mostly hosted by fellow Glenburn boy Andrew Neil.
The moment where
both Neil, Kuenssberg and the whole Daily Politics programme jumped, not so
much the shark, but a row of them whilst farting the theme tune to Happy Days
would be during Corbyns first attempt at a cabinet reshuffle. The on air resignation
of Stephen Doughty proved to be a controversial moment for the BBC, given that
according to the output editor of the Daily & Sunday Politics, Doughty was
only ‘considering’ resigning three hours before the show. Even more damning is Alexander’s description
that Kuenssberg “sealed the deal” for Doughty to resign on their show. Which makes you wonder what precisely was in
their conversation?
Of course Doughty
has backed the BBC, Kuenssberg & co.
His resignation had the desired effect in handing Cameron ammunition to
attack Doughty’s leader. Assuming that’s
how the new politics works, no? The
issue isn’t though whether the BBC should be behaving like other news organisations
but whether they have compromised their own impartiality with how they handled
the story. As I said at the time, should
the BBC really be the people to hand shadow ministers the knife to use to stab
their leader in the front? In
broadcasting this story, the BBC have undermined their credibility, as can be
seen in two examples from yesterday, when both Corbyn and his shadow chancellor
O’Donnell were doing the rounds.
O’Donnell had
drawn the long straw by going on to John Piennar’s Radio 5 Live show. Except that O’Donnell unexpectedly found he
was rationed to describing Labour policy in 5 words before being interrupted. The new shadow Defence secretary Emily
Thornberry fared little better against Neil himself when trying to explain
Labour’s review of defence policy. Neil
even brought up the supposed scandal involving Thornberry taking donations from
a law firm involved in legal action against HM Army. When Thornberry explained
that the law firm in question were only donating manpower, it did make me
wonder why this was suddenly a scandal among the right wing press (and the BBC)
and the accountancy firm PWC ‘donating’ employees to other Labour MP’s, namely Rachel
Reeves, Tristram Hunt, Chukka Umuna and Iain Murray, was not a scandal.
Standards are definitely slipping at Auntie Beeb.
Sky News has
always had a slight but detectable right wing bias, even down to their choice
of participants on the Sky Papers section (watching Kaye Adams on this, it’s
clear that she has – in the words of Rob Gretton – ‘gone south’), with the Daily
Mirror’s Political Editor Kevin McGuire the only ‘tolken’ leftie allowed on the
slot. On the other hand the BBC has
always fought for it’s impartiality. In
the eighties they even had to contend with the Thatcher government sending the
police to raid their offices (including the old Queen Margaret Drive HQ of BBC
Scotland) over a documentary series, which I think was on spy satellites.
Since Iraq, the
death of David Kelly & the fall out from Hutton, the BBC have not been the
impartial force that they were and defiantly lost something. The resignation of Greg Dyke with hindsight
seems to have cowed the BBC as their news outlets seem to have allowed their
presenters to wear their views a bit more subtly. A harbinger of this change being the current
JP Morgan strategist, Stephanie Flanders, when she was the BBC’s economics
editor. Whether Kuenssberg’s obsession
over Corbyn’s 7 day reshuffle will be seen as the turning point, or whether the
politics unit continues in it’s treatment of Labour remains to be seen.
It will not be
helpful to the corporation if it is caught in the crossfire of an increasingly
bitter and acrimonious fallout. Even
more so since the BBC is showing no intention of learning the lessons of it’s
poor coverage of the Independence referendum.
You would think that we were not on the eve of another referendum
sometime soon. Regardless of your
political viewpoint, Corbyn deserves fair coverage of his attempts to lead the
Labour party. Whether he succeeds or
fails to become PM in four years time should not be dependent on coverage which
is, to date, unacceptably below the standards the BBC used to reach.