Bias and the Beeb
The charge that the broadcasting corporation is left-wing
has been repeated so often that it goes a
For years, I have been puzzled about why arguments over whether the BBC is biased seem to feature only two points of view. The right argues that the BBC is biased in favour of leftists and liberals. In his 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Lecture, Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, proclaimed: "It is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism . . . by and large BBC journalism starts from the premise of left-wing ideology." The other side responds by pointing to, in the words of Polly Toynbee, doyenne of the liberal left, "the BBC's perpetually self-critical striving for fairness and balance, unique in all the media . . . the only non-partisan voice". The idea that the corporation might be more sympathetic to a conservative view of the world than a liberal one never figures in the discussion.
But should it? In November 2005, a well-known BBC presenter delivered the 14th annual Hayek lecture at the Institute of Economic Affairs, in which he called for "a reorientation of British foreign policy away from Europe . . . a radical programme to liberalise the British economy; a radical reduction in tax and public spending as a share of the economy; a flat tax . . . the injection of choice and competition into the public sector on a scale not yet contemplated . . . excellence in schools with vouchers for all".
These are views, drawing on the libertarian philosophy of the long-dead Austrian free-marketeer Friedrich Hayek, that are to the right even of the modern Conservative Party. The BBC presenter was Andrew Neil, whose shadow looms large over the corporation's coverage of Westminster. Neil is on air roughly four hours a week, presenting Daily Politics, Straight Talk and This Week - where one of his co-hosts is the former Tory defence secretary Michael Portillo. Neil and Portillo often gang up, ideologically, on the soft Labour lefty Diane Abbott. Here is the legendary BBC "balance" in action.
But this is not about Neil, who has been on the Thatcherite right for decades now, first as editor of the Tory-supporting Sunday Times and now as chief executive of the Tory-supporting Spectator. This is about double standards, and about how the backgrounds of various prominent BBC employees have been curiously unexamined in the row over "bias".
Can you imagine, for example, the hysterical reaction on the right if the BBC's political editor had been unmasked as the former chair of Labour Students? He wasn't - but Nick Robinson was chair of the Young Conservatives, in the mid-1980s, at the height of Thatcherism. Can you imagine the shrieks from the Telegraph and the Mail if the BBC's editor of live programmes had been deputy chair of the Labour Party Young Socialists? He wasn't - but Robbie Gibb was deputy chair of the Federation of Conservative Students in the 1980s, before it was wound up by Norman Tebbit for being too right-wing. Can you imagine the howls from the Conservatives if the BBC's chief political correspondent had left the corporation to work for Ken Livingstone? He didn't - but Guto Harri did become communications director for Boris Johnson within months of resigning from the Beeb.
Much has been made in the right-wing press of the comments by the Telegraph's editor-at-large, Jeff Randall, on the BBC's "liberal" bias - "It's
a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society" - during his four-year stint as the corporation's first business editor. The bigger question is: what on earth was an outspoken free-marketeer doing as the supposedly neutral BBC business editor to begin with? So much for Auntie's "Marxist" attitudes towards business and enterprise.
How about foreign policy? The BBC is constantly accused of anti-Americanism, but three of its most recent correspondents in Washington - Gavin Esler, Matt Frei and Justin Webb - have all since written books documenting their great love and admiration for the United States. Esler even used the pages of Dacre's Daily Mail to eulogise Ronald Reagan after the latter's death, claiming that he "embodied the best of the American spirit". Can you imagine the reaction on the right to a former BBC Moscow correspondent delivering a similar encomium to Leonid Brezhnev in the pages of the Guardian?
On Iraq, right-wing voices such as the Tory MP Michael Gove have accused the BBC of pushing an anti-war agenda - yet empirical analysis has yielded the opposite conclusion. The non-partisan, Bonn-based research institute Media Tenor found that the BBC gave just 2 per cent of its Iraq coverage to anti-war voices. Another study by Cardiff University concluded that the BBC had "displayed the most pro-war agenda of any [British] broadcaster".
Then there is the claim from small-c conservatives such as Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips that they are ignored by the BBC. Is this the
same Hitchens who is a frequent guest on BBC1's Question Time (according to the screen and cinema database IMDB, he has appeared on the show every year since 2000, and twice in 2007)? And the same Phillips who is a regular panellist on BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze?
So where are the counter-accusations of right-wing bias from the left? The sad truth seems to be that this canard "the BBC is left-wing" has been repeated so often that it has been internalised even by liberals and leftists. How else to explain Andrew Marr's confession of the "innate liberal bias inside the BBC" simply because it is "a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large"?
“The left always feel faintly embarrassed at attempting to promote their own political agenda," says Steven Barnett, professor of communications at Westminster University, "and since the 1980s have consistently failed to bang the drum about the issues on which they might equally be able to pillory the BBC - for example, human rights abuses and the failure to regulate corporate greed." Barnett believes that allegations of bias are a concerted attempt by the right to "discredit any journalism with which they disagree and to promote a political agenda which is more consistent with their own". Liberals such as Marr, he says, feel "slightly guilty about their own liberalism" - unlike those on the right, such as Randall, who feel no such guilt.
Barnett does not believe the BBC is biased "in any particular direction". And yet, from top to bottom, in structure and staffing, in history and ideology, it is a conservative organisation, committed to upholding Establishment values and protecting them from challenge. Take two institutions not normally associated with liberals or left-wingers: the church and the monarchy. Wouldn't a "culturally Marxist" (to use Dacre's phrase) institution have long ago abandoned Thought for the Day and Songs of Praise? In 2008, the BBC broadcast more than 600 hours of religious programming on television and radio, up year on year. And can anyone really disagree with Jeremy Paxman's accusation that the BBC "fawns" over the royal family, behaving more like a "courtier"? The corporation's coverage of the Queen's golden jubilee celebrations and the marriage of Charles and Camilla was stomach-churning both in its excess and in its deference.
The BBC's bias is thus an Establishment bias, a bias towards power and privilege, tradition and orthodoxy. The accusation that the BBC is left-wing and liberal is a calculated and cynical move by the right to cow the corporation into submission. "The right in America has waged a long and successful battle to brand the news as liberal, and the same is happening here [in relation to the BBC] with the aid of a predominantly right-wing press," says Barnett. "I fear they may have similar success in redefining the centre ground of politics to suit their own political agenda." With a Tory government on the verge of power, it is time for liberals and the left to fight back and force the BBC to acknowledge its real bias.
Mehdi Hasan is senior editor (politics) of the New Statesman. To read his NS blog, visit: www.newstatesman.com/blogs
The Edinburgh International Television Festival runs from 28 to 30 August
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


19 comments
AthenaM said:
'And now the BBC are inviting the extremist BNP on programmes at every turn (after promoting them as a legitimate place for a 'protest vote' for weeks before the Euro election), which gives them even more opportunity to stay firmly on the right hand side of the political spectrum - very far to the right in fact.'
If you would care to consult a history book and their policy statements, you'd find that the BNP are, in fact, hard-left.
Good article - but the left has been saying the BBC is completely pro-establishment for years now. The only sections that continue to call it 'left-wing' are the Tories/establishment/ BBC itself. No one without an agenda believes this though. And the mantra is continued by the very people that the BBC exists to serve - and it is repeated in order to keep the BBC in their place (not that there is any danger of them straying, of course).
And now the BBC are inviting the extremist BNP on programmes at every turn (after promoting them as a legitimate place for a 'protest vote' for weeks before the Euro election), which gives them even more opportunity to stay firmly on the right hand side of the political spectrum - very far to the right in fact.
Remember when Jeremy Paxman's head nearly exploded when George Galloway won Bethnal Green? Compare and contrast this to the warm congratulatory welcome the neo-Nazis 'rights for whites' Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons received from Nicky Campbell, Andrew Marr etc.
And of course following the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza this year, the BBC took the unprecedented and not very lefty or compassionate step of banning an appeal for humanitarian aid, farcically citing their desire to remain 'impartial' - no one was fooled by their motive for that either (just check out the gung-ho and racist messages of support the BBC received on their own Have Your Say forum to see how 'impartial' a decision this was). They received over 40,000 complaints but of course this was swept under the carpet (unlike the 'scandal' of Sachsgate stirred up by the Daily Mail, which received far fewer complaints and yet was cited ad nauseum by the BBC).
The guys at Media Lens brilliantly expose this fallacy on a regular basis, as does Chomsky and other high profile media critics and figures on the left (proper left - not faux Labour 'left'). Even Johann Hari and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown have rubbished the notion of the 'lefty BBC'.
I thought Mehdi's article was pretty good. "The BBC's bias is thus an Establishment bias, a bias towards power and privilege, tradition and orthodoxy". I'm not sure that Chomsky or Media Lens say it any better than that, for the layperson (rather than the media studies student).
Media Lens, at any rate, had an opportunity to say what they wanted when they had a New Statesman column. They said some reasonable things, but have been accused of hypocrisy in their column, eg: http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/medialens-monbiot-wilby-milne/
Excellent article. But you're telling me what I already know. The BBC is just as much a mouthpiece for US/Western neo-liberal hegemony, as Fox and CNN. Its actualy performed this propagating function for over 70 years, through the BBC World Service.
Any orthodox Marxist would take Dacre to task. The BBC primarily existed to defend capitalist expansion into new markets. It is part of the ruling class psyche of upholding the illusion of nationhood, when in fact capital is a global system. A public yet national broadcaster is perfect for upholding and perpetuating this discourse, to prevent British workers from seeing their actual condition and seeking alliance with other working class movements.
As it is institutionally set up to defend British capitalism it will therefore recruit people consistent with these values. This is a constant and fixed feature of the BBC. To become devil's advocate for Hitchens and Phillips, yes it does have occasional liberal bias - but thats not the same as leftist bias. Even bourgeois elites are capable taking up a liberal angle on social issues (poverty, human rights, racism) - but only when they see revolutionary ferment in the air.
It is a fairly decent article (particularly the bit that you quote) but it falls down on the assumption that the likes of Marr and Paxman are to be found somewhere on the left, or not quite comfortable with the BBC's agenda; I have yet to see any evidence of this, although there is an abundance of evidence to show that they are very much at ease parrotting the establishment line, and they would not be where they are today if they weren't.
And Mehdi Hasan quotes Steven Barnett who blames the left for not getting its point across more vigorously - but when there are no genuine left voices being invited on to the BBC in the first place, this is a pretty impossible task to say the least. As Hasan himself points out, the BBC gave the least airtime to anti-war voices in the lead up to Iraq and you only have to turn on the telly to see that nothing has changed on this front.
Media Lens answered the charges of hypocrisy very thoroughly in this media alert incidentally -
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/11/081204_can_this_be.php
Sorry - my comment above is in response to "kman".
I agree there's evidence that Paxman is often "at ease parrotting the establishment line", but there's also evidence that he's sometimes "not quite comfortable with the BBC's agenda" (eg see Mehdi's article). It's not as black-and-white as AthenaM point outs.
As for the claim about Media Lens "very thoroughly" answering the charges of hypocrisy, that's a matter of opinion. George Monbiot clearly didn't think so: http://tinyurl.com/monbiot-ml
The idea that the BBC is guilty of leftwing bias, is, frankly, absurd. As, in much of the rest of society, the voice of the Left has been, more or less, systematically expunged from public discourse.
Concrete examples. Facts. In the period prior to the invasion on Iraq the BBC supported Blair and Bush's propaganda campaign and almost totally excluded critical or alternative voices. The ratio was about 95% to 5%, and I'm being generous.
What about today? Let's look at the current economic Depression, the virtual meltdown of Capitalism. Where are alternative voices, Marxist voices, the Trades Unions? They are nowhere to be heard. Take Wake-up to Money, on BBC5 Live. When was the last time they had an even remotely 'left-wing' voice commentating on the current crisis, or the economy, or the market in general? Virtually never. It's banker after banker, followed by City expert after City expert, businessman after bussinessman, laced with ghastly neo-classical economist after economist. And it's day after day, month after month. It's like brainwashing.
The bias is obvious and stark, and can be measured by anyone who cares to crunch the numbers. Once again it's well over 90% in favour of establishment views, attitudes and polices.
Finally, there's Afghanistan, I won't even start on the Middle East. Considering that a substantial majority of british people are highly critical, or against, the occupation of Afghanistan, where are the voices of ordinary people on the BBC? It's almost as if they don't even really exist. The majority don't exist. Their voices are silenced and ingnored. Their tongues have been cut out.
I do not think it matters much if the BBC is left right or centre. What does matter is that the BBC is not as free thinking as we are led to believe. Take the political panel show Question Time. All questions have to be vetted which suggests the panel guests have prior knowledge and the show is recorded and not live. It makes me wonder if the audience is also vetted. This makes me think that the BBC is not independent but fully in state control and it matters not in the slightest if the state is left wing or right wing as our recent history the 1960's onwards show that all governments up to now have been compliant with a false democracy.
Alex Doherty wrote an interesting article in 2005, slightly adapting Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model of the corporate media, for the BBC. The link is below:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6920