If you want to see BBC man in his natural habitat you must travel to the
unpromising reaches of Wood Lane in west London, the corporation’s spiritual
heartland.
You can learn a lot about the organisation from pavement level. Your eye will
certainly be drawn to the familiar outline of Television Centre (known as
“the centre” by BBC types), but you will also take in the massy new
development which squats by the elevated section of the Westway. This is
known — in irritating coinage — as the “media village” and its imposing size
and confident design telegraph to the observer that this organisation is a
leviathan.
With its proliferating television and radio channels the corporation is easily
the country’s most important media organisation. It reaches into every home,
is many people’s constant companion, and shapes and moulds opinion in ways
that we hardly understand. Its stated ambition is to become the most
“trusted media organisation in the world” and given its glittering
reputation for quality, accuracy and fairness we might think that it has
already realised that aim.
However, after 25 years as a BBC reporter I concluded that I could not trust
it. Auntie has moved away from its nonpartisan ideals to championing
progressive causes. And that is a distorting prism through which to see the
world.
Back to pavement level. As you stand there outside the Tube at White City, BBC
people course past you. They swing into work with their interesting bags and
clothes, no two alike. In this respect, at least, the BBC does fulfil its
royal charter obligation to balance: no style goes unrepresented. But their
colourful plumage camouflages a more insidious conformity. For with
membership of the tribe comes adherence to a set of well defined political
beliefs, distinctly inclined to the left.
These convictions are not made explicit to the outsider; the line for public
consumption is that the BBC has no line. But this is moonshine; it takes
very strong editorial positions which are consistent and clear. There is no
central diktat, for instance, insisting that all employees believe that
George Bush is an idiot and that the American religious right threatens
world peace. But you would find few BBC people who would dissent from such
views.
Why should this be so? First, the majority of BBC employees share similar
backgrounds: they are middle-class arts graduates of liberal outlook.
Second, the internal political culture within the corporation’s newsrooms is
well defined and subtly coercive.
It was Lord Macpherson, in his inquiry into the Stephen Law-rence murder, who
alerted us to the possibility that organisations can develop institutional
deformations; in the case of the Metropolitan police it was racism. In the
case of the BBC, by precise analogy, it is leftism.
When I first joined the BBC in the 1970s I accepted all this as the natural
order. In BBC Scotland where I worked in the 1980s there was a suffocating
antiThatcher consensus. As it happened, I was the business and economics
correspondent and I had become convinced that Thatcherite economics were
necessary and actually worked.
These heretical views were looked upon askance; most of my colleagues thought
I was just winding them up. “You don’t really believe that, do you?” they
would sometimes ask plaintively. I nearly came to blows with one producer
(who later rose to prominence at BBC Westminster) because he would not
accept that Thatcherism was a legitimate political creed at all.
The antiThatcher bias was sometimes jaw-dropping. In 1984 I returned to my
office in Scotland having covered the Tory conference in Brighton at which
the Grand hotel was bombed by the IRA. “Pity they missed the bitch,” one of
my colleagues commented.
When I moved to London I found things were just as bad. If you find yourself
working alongside well educated, intelligent and agreeable people it can be
uncomfortable to be the dissenting voice. As one producer described it, you
almost feel part of an ethnic minority.
I remember a planning meeting at The Money Programme where we were discussing
priva-tisation. I offered up the Thatcherite orthodoxy; there was a pause of
the kind you get when someone has made an audible bodily function at a
dinner party and then I was politely ignored.
Try making a reasoned argument against abortion, single parenthood or
comprehensive education — or in favour of the Iraq war — at the BBC and see
how much progress you make.
Of course none of this would matter if it was merely about the discomfiture of
a handful of misfit conservatives in the BBC’s ranks. But it is much more
serious than that. The fact is that the BBC’s internal political culture
profoundly colours its news output. The corporation’s public stance has
always been that it is fair, evenhanded and nonpartisan. Sadly the reality
is different.
Of course the convictions of individual journalists have a bearing on what is
broadcast. How could that not be so? For it to be otherwise BBC journalists
would need to display a judiciousness that would be remarkable in the
judiciary itself. All journalism is about selection: which story to cover,
which to ignore, who to interview and which bits of it to use in the
finished piece. At every stage journalistic judgment comes into play.
As consumers of news, we should all be aware that the BBC’s news agenda is
only one among many; it is fallible, partial and hugely influential. Scripts
are often as opinionated as any editorial in The Guardian.
There will be many, I’m sure, who will immediately object and fly to the BBC’s
defence when I claim that the corporation’s journalism consistently favours
the Labour party and the liberal left generally. They will point especially
to the Iraq war, Andrew Gilligan, Lord Hutton et al. Surely that proves the
corporation is robustly independent?
Er, no, actually. What was striking to me while working on the Today programme
was how rapidly a doom-laden BBC line emerged about the war; from the very
outset Today and the rest of the corporation were instinctively and
viscerally opposed to military action. When I suggested that our coverage
was skewed, the programme’s editor told me: “That’s a very dangerous view.”
The BBC’s stance had consequences. I believe it reduced even further the slim
chance that military action would prove effective, for the combined might of
the BBC’s suasion was committed from the outset to proving that the war was
a disaster and Tony Blair a liar (just think what effect that had on opinion
both in Britain and around the world).
The loss of public support, orchestrated by the BBC, has been a grievous
handicap for the war party. The only reason the BBC bet the farm on Gilligan
was that it passionately wanted to believe that not only was the war wrong
but that the government had lied through its teeth. Inconveniently Hutton
found otherwise, not that this altered the BBC’s conviction that, really, it
was right all along.
The BBC is too big and important an institution for the situation to be
allowed to persist. The first step towards a remedy must be for the
corporation itself to acknowledge that it has a problem. There are plenty of
BBC people, including senior and well known individuals, who will do exactly
that in private. But it is essential that the BBC breaches the omerta — the
code of silence — and fesses up in public. Then some practical steps could be
Some of Aitken’s colleagues celebrated the Brighton bomb taken. Bias not
only stifles public debate, it is also destructive for the corporation.
In the late 1990s my colleagues had elected me to the BBC forum, designed to
improve communication between management and staff. At one meeting in
December 2000 I suggested to Greg Dyke, then the director-general, that
there should be an internal inquiry into bias. Dyke, a Labour party donor
and member, mumbled a muddled reply. As he left the meeting I overheard him
demand of his PA: “Who was that f*****?”
“Diversity” is a concept much venerated within the BBC and yet my
diverse political view was never respected. Dyke labelled the institution
“hideously white”, but skin colour is not the only diversity issue. There is
a need for some kind of reasonable balance between people of differing
political complexions. It is striking, for instance, that whereas I could
name a long list of senior BBC journalists with left-wing antecedents, I
cannot think of a single one from the right.
It is time that the BBC started hiring journalists from the right, not as a
token presence but as part of the mainstream. And it would not be a bad
thing if, like London policemen, BBC producers and reporters got “diversity
training” that sensitised them to the problem.
A more radical change would be to go for a market solution. No one demands
that newspapers should be nonpartisan; readers are allowed to choose the one
that chimes with their outlook. Why should broadcasting be different?
Fox News in America challenged the old networks and showed there was a big
appetite for such a service. But entry costs are very high. Why not take,
say, 2% of the BBC’s revenue (a tasty £60m) to establish a rival serv-ice?
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have a real alternative to Radio 4? The BBC has
demonstrated it cannot be all things to all men; perhaps it is time for a
change.
Can We Trust the BBC? is published by Continuum
I very much hope that Mr Aitken can be persuaded to turn his book into a campaign. If so, he can sign me up.
W.S.Becket, Bangor, UK
The dear of BEEB lost it's way a while ago. Enough said. But what do we DO about it? A textual analysis of a months worth of News out put might be a start - but what is really needed is a public message, something aking to the road pricing vote on the PM's website.
G Fincham, Norwich, UK
The interesting thing about the BBC’s news output is that whatever the show the same view is promulgated. No matter whom the individual presenter may be they will rigorously follow the sentiments and shibboleths of their colleagues, the shows may have different names but the basic editorial is strictly confined? There is nothing even vaguely right wing about the BBC, unless you refer to the occasional airing of Jim Davidson (and then only to prove how execrable people from the right can be). Only when we see the Beeb giving interviews featuring Labour luminaries and Guardian correspondents do we see how much it disparages Conservatism, blatantly propagandist, balance irrelevant. The BBC seems to believe that social issues are socialist causes and this is where the real danger lies; this is where we see the emergence of the celebrity socialist and their grip on sentiment, the propagation of maudlin sentimentality rather than direct and concerted action; causes anointed by wasters.
Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England
Many people have recognised the truths contained in this report for a long time. There are several blogs and websites devoted to the subject and pointing out specific instances, principly biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
John Tomlinson, Essex, UK
To say that the BBC has created a media hegemon and is consciously orchestrating public opinion is as stupid and pointless as saying the same about News Corporation the company which owns Sky, Fox, The Sun and among others The Times.
Owen Stevens, Hereford, UK
To the person who said that there is no sign of bias at the BBC, I would suggest he thinks about that remark. I'll wager you don't have much evidence of The Telegraph being read in the canteen there. As long as they recruit people who have generally gone through the same education route, adveritse primarily in The Guardian etc. then they will continue to employ people with a certain view of the world. It is sometimes as instructive to notice what the BBC doesn't report on - stories embarrassing to Labour which every other news outlet is featuring are of then given scant coverage by the BBCor ignored altogether.
Dave Proctor, Leeds,
What Robin Aitken is really complaining about is that the BBC is not biased to the Right.
Not content with having the vast majority of the press biased to the Right, he wants the BBC too.
I think that the BBC is as unbiased as any news organisation can be.
However, it does continue to talk of nuclear weapons as 'Britain's nuclear deterrent' which is biased in terms of reporting, because these weapons are not deterrents and not entirely controlled by the UK.
To continue to describe them as deterrents is a pro-neclear weapon phrase, not an unbiased one.
On the question of bias, ITN was at one time clearly biased to the Conservatives, and do not show such bias now beacause both parties are centre right in direction.
Peter Allen, now of the BBC, when on ITN, described Neil Kinnock's response to the budget as 'inept'.
His role was to report in on what Mr Kinnock said, not give his opinion of it, but he did, because it was a bad one. That's bias for you.
Alan, London, UK
Sadly, a great number of listers and watchers recognised this left wing leaning of the BBC a long time ago. Even some hardened Socialists friends are embarrassed by the one sided nature of some of the reporting. This is why the BBC no longer carries the authority that it once did. I agree with your correspondant who trusts Sky news more than the BBC. There seems to be no balance and objectivity, and any internal dissent has long gone. Balance will only be restored when the senior managers at the BBC start to manage the organisation properly. Hiring right wingers will not do it. Only good management will fix the problem.
Dave, Carterton, Oxford
A bit of a mixed bag in my opinion as I agree with the general tone of the article but definitely disagree over the Iraq business and that the BBC was wrong. No one really takes the Butler or Hutton inquiry seriously as it was a stitch up by Blair to try and justify his illegal war. This isn't just the assessment of the BBC whose outspoken Gilligan became the sacrificial lamb, but from many media outlets both domestic and foreign. Even a Senate committee hearing into evidence of WMD agreed with Dr Kelly findings and effectively said that Blair & Bush lied through their teeth over WMD. On this issue the BBC is in tune with the majority of News channels. On domestic issues however they have given disproportionate time to minority groups and this puts them right in amongst the politically correct fascists that have taken over the country and the Labour party. On this I find one female newscaster particularly nauseating as she sucks up to the PC morons they put on the morning news.
Mike, Denia, Spain
Of course, the Beeb will claim that because they oppose both left-wing Labour and right-wing Tory governments, then that proves they're impartial; but since when did anyone believe that this Labour government was left wing? The BBC is funded by a poll tax and thus tends to have a view of the world which is very much public = good, private = bad: it loves the monarchy (another publically funded institution) but hates Tesco. And that's absolutely fine, as long as they would come out and say so. Though whether we should all be forced to pay for this casual mixing up of reporting and opinion is another question.
I agree with the point about Hutton. It is clear every time I listen to the Today programme that they are still smarting about this.
Ian , London,
Very unusual for the truth to be told on the BBC. At the very least the BBC should create a cultural conservative equivalent to one of the myriad BBC 'niche' channels, eg 'Asian Network'. More people read the Telegraph than the Guardian, by a long way.
Ibnezraster, Homerton, UK
I lost faith in the BBC as an impartial media outlet some time ago. I now view it in the same way as I do Fox news - a joke. I believe very little they now say. Reporting is now full of biased comment. The Prime Minister is now the major recipient, I suspect as pay-back for the daring to question Andrew Gilligan and the subesquent findings of Hutton. I didn't think I would ever say this but I trust Sky News more. I don't mind reading or listening to a particular biased ideological view point if it doesn't claim to be impartial. Although Fox News claims to be 'Fair & Balanced', nobody actually believes it but accepts it for what it is. Unfortunately the BBC is untouchable. Most people would rather believe them as they have educated us not to believe any government of what ever persuasion.
Frank, Nr. Exeter, United Kingdom
Most interesting article which paints the BBC for the left wing pinkoes they are. Similar problems pervade the ABC in Australia who in attempting to create more diversity of opinion successfully spawned the SBS media network which took two steps further to the left. Now they claim to be centerist but they are nothing more than a sheltered workshop for Labour Party hacks.
Graham, Sydney, NSW
A massive, publically funded organisation is left wing?
surely not...
Well, next time the Tories are in power, they can always neuter it if it's a problem. People are drifting away from 'traditional' tv towards niche programming that can be found on the internet or on one of the vast array of digital channels. Most of the people I know don't even own a tv, choosing to purchase media content online (or through more traditional routes such as DVD rental).
Douglas, Edinburgh,
I'm sure good old Rupert Murdoch will love this article. And guess what, look where it is! Bias indeed.
Greg H, Broadstairs, UK
In 1976, whilst living in Melbourne, I was given a short-wave radio and remember lying in bed one night listening to Prague Radio giving an entirely different slant to an event that had been reported in the preceding days .."The peace-loving people's of the Eastern bloc utterly reject the aggressive posture of the imperialist Western bloc"... that sort of thing, and that was my first real awareness that people on different sides of the argument could see things differently. Over the past 30 years I have noticed that the BBC has moved appreciably from being the neutral news reporter of my youth to an organization with a clearly apparent world view, although one expressed less obviously than by Prague Radio all those years ago. The BBC World Service is particularly biased in its institutional outlook. It is wrong to abandon neutrality in any direction at the public expense. The intolerance of different views reminds one of Malcolm Bradbury's satire "The History Man".
Peter, Cambridge,
1. an opinion poll asking members of the public which party they think tv and radio presenters vote for.
2. a test case of refusal to pay the licence fee on human rights grounds.
Michael Ruddy, Levens,
During the recent gun murders in London the BBC news never onece mentioned the people involved were not white - "it's irrelevant" is the usual comment or "do we have to say when a criminal is white", yet as Rod liddle points out in todays ST blacks make up 1% of the population but 90% of robberies and 25% of gun crime. The BBC are too biased against the truth. If you listen to their version of the news you would never know if the Madrid bombers were actually Muslim - "do we need to say if they were Christions" was one answer to my enquiry.
Dr Phill Edwards, leeds,
The television licence is an absurd anachronism in 2007. Why do we put up with it? The answer is simple: the BBC, Hutton or no Hutton, is Labour's stooge and the Conservatives are frightened of its power. If we had any sense we would privatise it like British Telecom was and so many other leviathons have been. I don't see it happening so, alas, we are stuck with its bias and its unwanted tax.
Adrian Gilbert, Tonbridge, UK
The BBC’s pervasive left-wing mindset has often made me want to stop paying the TV license. Here's just one typical example: a friend once called BBC radio to speak regarding the Middle East conflict. He first gave his real name, an English one, and did not get through to the program. He then called again half an hour later giving an Arab surname and got on straight away........,.
Its high time new reporters, researchers, editors and producers are employed, representing the 'less fashionable' non leftist point of view. The BBC and its leftist reporting often reflects the shallowness and narrow mindness of the European Liberal Left. Lets hope Mr. Aitken's book makes a difference.
Tamar Arnon, London,
Another similar imbalance, and possibly from the same left leaning arty background, appears to be the Beeb's technical illiteracy in virtually all news programmes (pace the odd presenter). A good bad example is the Today Programme where anything maths/engineering/physics is laughed off by the usual presenters as beyond the comprehension of real people.
Mike Snelling, Tessy-sur-Vire, France
Mike Snelling, Tessy-sur-Vire, France
Good lord, surely a bitter man who never made it as high up the tree as he would have liked isn't blaming his lack of promotion on an anti-right wing bias? You can't help but suspect this is the case.
If Aitken thinks Fox News, with its many proven sins of omission, elision, collusion and partiality, is a role model for other news stations then clearly he is too stupid and biased himself to deserve advancement.
Alan Brown, Edinburgh,
So let me get this straight - most people at the Beeb think that Bush is a fool and that the Iraq war was a bloody disaster. In what sense is this erroneous or a problem? Your attempt to try to blame the BBC for the failure of the military operation is disingenuous - they should be applauded, not censured, for having the guts to stand up to the military and political establishment in Britain and the US and to be one of the few organisations reporting the carnage on the ground in Iraq rather than parroting the sanitised neocon agenda from a studio in London.
Accuracy in news reporting isn't the same thing as sitting on the fence: there are plenty of occasions in life when the truth does lie predominantly on one side. Your attempt to hold up Fox News as an example of the broadcasting we should be having is beneath contempt - you don't have to be on the left of the political spectrum to deplore the daily diet of lies, hysteria and distortion that make up that station's output.
Laurence, London,
A very accurate view, albeit unbelievable for any outsider, into the corporation's bias to the left. This is also heavily reflected at the BBC World Service headquarters in central London. A service which essentially broadcasts BBC Newsroom left-wing views in over 30 languages throughout the world... What's more, all that being financed by the Foreign Office.
Nick, London,
Time to decriminalise the TV licence. Time to regionalise the BBC and make each region autonomous with a small coordinating head office.
ToMTom, Leeds, England
It has long been apparent to any objective and impartial listener/viewer that the BBC has a strong but cunningly hidden left wing anti american bias. At times the reporters are almost sniggering when there is an item which portrays the americans in a poor light. The direction of the BBC took a noticeably sharp left turn under the stunning incompetence of its previous politically correct manager Dyke. Unfortunately his successor complete with beard, sandals and open shirt seems happy to drift along the same path. Fortunately international listeners/viewers have a wide range of more impartial news agencies to turn to leaving the BBC more inconsequential and irrelevant than ever before.
gordon gray, Auckland, new zealand
The BBC will never change.....for the willfully blind cannot see. There is an exact parallel in the US University educational system. Institutionalized bias is never rooted out through internal action. Only outside pressure and outside money can turn the tide, and FOX News in the US is a prime example of that truth. The BBC in England, and the main-stream media in the US will go to bankruptcy as the undiscovered truth lies before their sightless eyes.
David Helelr, Alexandria, Virginia
Spot on.It seems more apparent on radio than t.v to me- there is a diffrence in interjections and number of hostile questions to different political guests. Listen to 5 live to see what he means.I dont want the beeb to support one party or another just give them ALL a hard time,sadly that wont happen-not when you have people like Ed Balls getting a nice cosy welcome to their views.
Andrew, Eastbourne, England
So what's new?
We all knew this
The BBC, has, after all, brought off a trick that Goebbels could only dream of; being able to enforce the funding for your propaganda organ from the objects of it
bill fuller, London, UK