News article

By Professor Ivor Gaber, Professor of Journalism at the University of Sussex

My entry for the prize for the most unsurprising allegation of 2015 was the uncannily similar complaints that emanated from a number of Conservative MPs who claimed that the BBC’s reporting of the general election had been overtly pro-Labour (fat lot of good it did them, one might opine).

Let me state at the outset that I believe that political journalists need not, indeed should not, be political eunuchs. If you are interested in politics – and one would have thought that that was a basic requirement of working in the area – one is going to have political views. Hence, the fact that some BBC journalists have, or had, left or right-wing leanings should not be a cause of surprise, nor of concern.

In fact, I would argue that if your own political opinions are on the record then it is that much easier for colleagues and, more importantly, the audience to judge whether you are allowing those opinions to influence your output.

Indeed, I worry about those political journalists I know who proudly state they have no political views. I worry because everyone has political views and, if you are not conscious of your own, then how are you going to take them into account when you are reflecting on the fairness, or otherwise, of your own reporting?

The most shining example of someone who has a “political past” but has developed into one of the most highly regarded political journalists of our time is the BBC’s (now former) political editor Nick Robinson – who will be the next Today programme presenter. Many aeons ago Nick Robinson was chairman of the Young Conservatives, a fact that much exercised Alastair Campbell when he was Labour’s director of communications.

But, as a former colleague and now as an academic researcher and a viewer, I would argue that his political analysis and commentary has been, indeed are, usually fair and perceptive.

So is Robinson an exception, that is a former (or could be current for all I know) Conservative working for the BBC in a leading political role, but doing a decent job of work; or is he more of a norm than people might think?

Fellow travellers

To begin with there’s the BBC political journalist who gets the more political air-time than any other - Andrew Neil: he presents or co-presents five hours of television programmes a week including This Week, the Daily Politics and Sunday Politics. Neil is a penetrating interviewer, who exposes weaknesses in the arguments advanced by politicians of the left, right and centre. He’s also a former Murdoch editor, was a researcher for the Conservative Party and is chairman of the Conservative-supporting Spectator magazine. He stoutly argued his free market views at the Hayek lecture at the right-wing Institute of Economic Affairs in November 2005.

But the real power, the critics might argue, is behind the scenes, where the left dominates. Or does it? Nick Robinson’s former senior producer, Thea Rogers, left the BBC in 2012 to become special advisor to the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne. Then there’s Robbie Gibb, the editor of BBC TV’s live political programmes; he was a deputy chair of the extreme right-wing Federation of Conservative Students and went on to become chief of staff to the senior Conservative MP Francis Maude before joining the BBC.

Nor should we overlook the fact that David Cameron replaced his previous press secretary, Andy Coulson, with the then-editor of BBC News, Craig Oliver and around the same time London’s Tory Mayor, Boris Johnson, recruited BBC political correspondent Guto Harri, to head his media team (and when Harri moved on to the Murdoch Empire he was replaced by Will Walden, a BBC news editor at Westminster).

But in the context of Tory-aligned personnel in influential positions within the BBC, perhaps most importantly of all, one thinks of the recently retired the chair of the BBC Trust was Lord Patten, a former Conservative cabinet minister. Hands up those who can remember the last time a former Labour minister chaired the BBC? The correct answer is never. Patten was, by my reckoning, the tenth BBC chair to sit in either the Commons or Lords on the Tory benches; the equivalent Labour total is two – Phillip Inman (created Baron Inman) – who was chairman of the governors in 1947, for less than a year, and he was succeeded by Ernest Simon, 1st Baron Simon of Wythenshawe.

Not one of us at all: Andrew Marr interviews David Cameron before the 2010 election. Jeff Overs/BBC / PA Archive/PA Images

As for the BBC’s other Labour links – the last chairman with any Labour connections was Gavyn Davies who was, as will be recalled, forced to resign by a Labour government. A former Labour minister, James Purnell is currently working as a senior BBC executive, specifically on charter renewal and presenter Andrew Marr had a well-publicised flirtation with Trotskyist grouplets in his youth.

The only other current or recent Labour connections I am aware of are political correspondent, Lance Price, who left the corporation to become Labour’s director of communications. Broadcaster Melvyn Bragg who, when he became a Labour peer was immediately banned from appearing on any programmes that might have any political content.

Eye of the beholder

So why, despite the demonstrable connections between the BBC and Conservatives and the paucity of connections on the other side, as well as the plethora of academic research that demonstrates that if there is a bias in the BBC’s reporting of politics it is to the right rather than the left, do Conservative newspapers, politicians, and presumably voters, think the opposite?

First, on a very basic level of political instincts, those on the right are not sympathetic to public bodies per se. There is an innate belief that in virtually all areas of life the private sector does things better. Hence, the BBC is seen as almost one of the last vestiges of the nationalised industries created by the post-war Labour government, even though the corporation came into being two decades earlier under a Conservative government.

Then, there is the nature of journalism itself. It attracts curious, slightly obstreperous, people who like to ask awkward questions, usually of the establishment. This can be seen as an essentially left-wing activity and way of thinking – but the very same description applies to journalists of the right.

The final reason is, in my view, that the right tends to make more noise about these matters. This is because those on the left of the political spectrum feel highly conflicted about the BBC, so their case goes by default. This is partly because they tend to have a broadly positive view of the BBC – they regard the concept of public service broadcasting as a societal good – and as a result are extremely reluctant to join the right in their campaign of Beeb-bashing.

Follow the money

All the above suggests we are dealing with genuinely-held beliefs about media bias, one way or another. However, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that what drives the Conservative-supporting newspapers to attack and seek to undermine the BBC has as much to do with profits as it does with politics.

All newspapers see the BBC as a formidable competitor, not just for audiences but for income as well. Conservative-supporting newspapers are outraged by what they see as “public money” – in fact, income from the licence fee – being used to fund a direct competitor. Indeed, the BBC News Online site, according to the most recent research from the Reuters Foundation dwarfs the sites of the Mail Online (and the Guardian for that matter) in terms of both readership and trust.

An additional motivation for the Murdoch-controlled papers seeking to undermine the BBC is that its BskyB network competes with the BBC head-for-head, for audiences and hence it would almost be foolish of them not to attack the BBC.

These ongoing political attacks on the BBC as a bastion of left-wing thinking would be an irritation, a severe irritation, at any time. But with a Conservative majority government in office, an upcoming renewal of the BBC’s charter and licence fee settlement pending and a secretary of state not seen as one of the BBC’s most passionate supporters, these attacks could have very serious consequences, not just for the BBC but for the country as a whole, just how serious the consequences might be will become clear in the next few months.

This is an extract from a forthcoming collection “The BBC Today: Future Uncertain” to be published by Abramis in September

Ivor Gaber is Professor of Journalism at University of Sussex

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Back to all news