Sunday 22 September 2019
BBC Brexit bias
To my mind the most remarkable revelation of the week was to be found in the Daily Mail. John Humphrys' take on the BBC attitude to the Brexit referendum.
But recalling the morning after the 2016 referendum, he says: ‘Leave had won – and this was not what the BBC had expected. Nor what it wanted.
‘No nods and smiles when the big bosses appeared. No attempt to pretend that this was anything other than a disaster.
‘Their expressions were as grim as the look on the face of a football supporter when his team’s star player misses the penalty that would have won them the cup. Bosses, almost to a man and woman, could simply not grasp how anyone could have put a cross in the Leave box on the referendum ballot paper.
‘I’m not sure the BBC as a whole ever quite had a real grasp of what was going on in Europe, or of what people in this country thought about it.’
Yes this is easily explained as well-known BBC bias, but surely there is another question which isn't so easily answered. Why would professional broadcasters fail to take some pride in understanding both sides of the Brexit debate? If Humphrys' view is sound then BBC staff up to and including senior levels failed to understand the basics of the debate - such as crucial questions of democracy and accountability.
Yet it isn't difficult to understand both sides of the debate. I voted Leave and I'm hoping that Leave means Leave but I understand why people voted Remain. From what I see, I think most Leave supporters understand why people might vote Remain. Similarly I would have expected professional broadcasters to have no great difficulty in putting their own views to one side in order to understand and maybe even predict the mood of the electorate. Apparently they weren't up to it.
It suggests the BBC is an astoundingly unprofessional outfit which in turn suggests there are two BBCs. One section delivers the technical side of BBC output plus the slick, professional presentation. That side of the BBC is pretty good.
The other section seems to be a narrow, somewhat amateurish and bureaucratic management structure which does not even understand its own audience. Dump this bit and maybe the BBC could revive itself - but only within a fully commercial environment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
And why did it come as a surprise to MPs, who at least ought to know what their constituents are thinking?
Agreed. And look at the choice of news items. Every day there seems to be an article (often a confected piece of research) about feminism, homosexuality, transsexuality, or ethnicity. What possible reason can the BBC have for keeping these on the agenda? I'm sure it doesn't reflect the concerns of the majority of the country.
I believe I’m right in saying that the BBC receives quite generous funding from the EU (around £1.3million, IIRC) in addition to the licence fees. Which might explain a lot as to why it is so pro-Remain – it stands to lose a big chunk of money. And, just as commercial TV stations are reluctant to broadcast programmes which criticise their advertisers’ products for fear that they’ll stop advertising with them, so too is the BBC fearful of presenting the Leave side of the argument in case the EU decided to – err – divert their funds elsewhere.
All of the above - thank you Sackers, Sam and Anon - and, knowing one or two bods involved in the BBC, I'm not in the least bit surprised.
Luckily, we've avoided the BBC news for two years now, only seeing the occasional glimpse when we thought that a General Election was due a few days ago.
The BBC is a huge drain on British respectability, costing far too much for left-wing 'opinions' and little else. They have done too much to estrange sensible folk with their outrageous smarming to the so-called 'climate change' agenda, and seem to hate far too many countries for daring to disagree with their collective weakness. President Trump 'loves' useful idiots and most of them turn up in W1A.
but surely there is another question which isn't so easily answered. Why would professional broadcasters fail to take some pride in understanding both sides of the Brexit debate?
And the answer is that they're not professionals anymore.
Sackers - they should know and I'm sure some do, but not all of them. Some obviously don't care and prefer to rely on the political brand.
Sam - I'm sure you are right, their viewers are unlikely to be interested. I suspect the BBC saw itself in the longer term as the official EU English language broadcaster.
Anon - interesting point and worth investigating. There are probably other ways in which EU approval might matter to the BBC.
Scrobs - that's an interesting angle - "a huge drain on British respectability". Yes there is something sleazy about the BBC.
James - yes, with public funding the professionalism is optional.
Post a Comment