Read Our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
The BBC is constantly accused by its critics in the right-wing press of being biased to the left and “woke”.
In reality, any bias is in a quite different direction, with a growing perception that its news agenda too often shadows that of the Conservative press and that its panels are regularly stuffed with pundits from the self-same right-wing newspapers and Tufton Street pressure groups
And that’s without mentioning it apparently taking every opportunity to platform Nigel Farage, Richard Tice and now Tim Montgomerie — in spite of Reform UK having a mere five parliamentary seats.
But there again, as Farage is, according to BBC political editor Chris Mason, “a master of political storytelling”, the BBC perhaps see his yarn spinning, however poisonous, as being good for audience numbers and thus not to be discouraged.
Faced with this criticism, the BBC recently undertook a consultation on its draft Editorial Guidelines in which much was made of the issue of “impartiality”.
The Consultation Document notes that:
The scope and prominence of impartiality in BBC terms has changed significantly since the publication of the current guidelines, with evolving applications well beyond politics, public policy and other areas which used to encompass what were seen as ‘controversial issues’
Of course, one of the main reasons why this has happened, although the BBC doesn’t say so in so many words, is because the culture wars have gifted the traditional enemies of the BBC, who have long accused it of being overly liberal, with the perfect opportunity to yoke their cause to the anti-“woke” bandwagon.
It is thus extremely disturbing to find the consultation appearing to cede ground to these culture warriors by stating that: “The guideline on breadth of opinion has been expanded and recognises that appropriate breadth and diversity, combined with freedom of expression, may mean the inclusion of views some in the audience find offensive”.
It also notes that: The section on ‘Contentious Views and Possible Offence’ now puts greater emphasis on freedom of expression and the need to sometimes take into account impartiality in judgements about ‘offence’, which itself may now encompass issues beyond, for instance, extreme political views.
The problem here is that both offensiveness and freedom of expression have been comprehensively weaponised by the culture warriors. Those who argue for the regulation of certain kinds of speech generally do so not because they find such speech offensive but because, among other things, it stirs up hatred and division, propagates disinformation or is used to harass, bully and threaten.
Calls for its regulation are then characterised by the likes of the Free Speech Union and Elon Musk as demands for censorship, which has now shifted from being a concern primarily of liberals to becoming a hobby horse of the libertarian right. In doing so it has essentially mutated into a demand for consequence-free speech and for those who object to such speech, or are victims of it, to shut up.
It would thus be more than unfortunate if the BBC were to follow the line of Ofcom, which has allowed GB News to drive a coach and horses through the impartiality clauses in its Broadcasting Code in the name of a half-baked libertarian conception of freedom of expression.
One really does not have to have read Sir Isaiah Berlin (or more recently Timothy Snyder) to understand the importance of freedom from, as well as freedom to; indeed the distinction is absolutely fundamental to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which makes it abundantly clear that the right to freedom of expression is not unqualified but has to be weighed in the balance with other rights.
Concerns about impartiality also lead to ‘guidelines’ to take on the matter of the affiliations of contributors to BBC programmes, such as interviewees or panel members. In this respect they note that in the case of those from organisations such as “charities, think-tanks or universities, it may be necessary, when relevant, to give appropriate information about affiliations, funding or particular viewpoints. The same applies to individual researchers, journalists, scientists or other experts”.
They are also concerned with the degree of scrutiny that should be applied to contributors, arguing that: assessing levels of appropriate scrutiny should be based on the degree of power, responsibility and accountability of the contributor. Appropriate levels of scrutiny should be applied to those who are in Government, as well as other bodies or organisations holding power and responsibility; but appropriate scrutiny should also be applied to those who oppose or seek to influence, including opposition parties, campaigners, experts and academics.