MEDIA STUDIES
There's no need to go barmy, but we should complain like mad about BBC bias
STEPHEN GLOVER
Iremember it very clearly. It was about quarter to seven on the Today programme on Monday 14 February and Jim Naughtie's voice was trembling with excitement. The BBC had discovered that the Tory chief whip in the European Parliament was lobbying on a considerable scale and charging fees for doling out advice. There was no suggestion that Timothy Kirkhope had acted illegally oh no — but it was definitely very odd. Mr Naughtie clucked disapprovingly. Andrew Gilligan, the BBC correspondent who had unearthed the story, also clucked disapprov- ingly. All sorts of other people were brought on over the next hour and a half, including the Labour leader in Brussels, to cluck disap- provingly. The rest of us, lying at home in bed, driving to work, thought — so they're at it again. Will they never learn, these Tories? Is there no end to it?
The apology I did not hear. It came at the same time on the Today programme on Mon- day 5 June. That story about Mr Kirkhope which we got so excited about — it was almost totally wrong. Of course, they did not quite say this, but they certainly ate humble pie. `The report . . . contained a number of inaccuracies. Mr Kirkhope has not turned himself into a political consultant and has not and does not lobby the European Parliament. In addition, the BBC report implied that he will for a fee advise on how to handle things in the European Parliament, which the BBC accepts is not the case. The BBC is happy to make this clear and has apologised to Mr Kirkhope for the errors.'
Now it may be that the original story was just another piece of innocent Tory-bashing which the BBC indulges in from time to time. But there could be more to it than that. Mr Kirkhope is not simply a Conserva- tive. He is a Euro-Conservative of mildly Eurosceptical views, and therefore ranks high in BBC demonology. There are allega- tions that the Labour group in Brussels orig- inally tipped off the BBC and may even have colluded with it and suggestions that large numbers of Labour MEPs registered shortly before Monday 14 February so that they would not find themselves caught in the backwash. I am sure these stories are as utterly baseless as they are completely offen- sive. The BBC does not need any encour- agement when reporting the activities of Eurosceptics.
When I say that the BBC's bias is a time- honoured tradition, I hope I am not guilty of the occasional paranoia of those of a Euro- sceptical turn of mind. Recent research by Christopher Cook (ironically, broadcast on a little publicised programme on Radio Four) has established that during the 1975 referen- dum campaign on the Common Market BBC bosses attended meetings at the Con- naught Hotel at which pro-Common Market government ministers and civil servants were also present. Has anything changed? There have been countless examples in recent months of the BBC's continuing tendency to report European matters in a skewed way. On 1 February the Today programme implied that when Winston Churchill called for a United States of Europe in his speech in Zurich in September 1946 he intended that Britain become part of such an entity. After a complaint by the Labour Euro- Safeguards campaign, the BBC governors conceded that Churchill `saw Britain as one of the friends and sponsors of the new Europe, not as one of its members'.
Then there was the item on the Nine O'Clock News on 15 March which suggested that since joining the euro the Republic of Ireland had benefited from lower interest rates and cheaper petrol prices than obtain north of the border. After a complaint from the anti-euro group Business for Sterling, the BBC's complaints unit agreed that the report had failed to mention that Ireland suffers from the highest rate of inflation in the EU, and that petrol is more expensive in Northern Ireland because of higher taxes.
No doubt it works the other way. The Eurosceptic press is famous for its anti- European scare stories. But surely the BBC, as a public-service broadcaster, is obliged to be even-handed in its reporting of Europe. I suspect that very often the bias is unthink- ing. Probably no one at the BBC thought it odd that a recent Any Questions programme from Paris should have boasted three fer- vent Europhiles (Lord Brittan, Ken Living- stone and a supporter of President Jacques Chirac) versus a lone Eurosceptic (the nov- elist Frederick Forsyth). I'm sure no one meant any harm when in a recent edition of BBC2's Money Programme it was asserted that employers in Denmark, like their coun- terparts in Britain, are in favour of the euro. (The second part of this statement is not true.) Eurosceptics are frequently inter- viewed by the BBC, but too often they tend to be of the foaming variety. There is a pat- tern of allowing some loony Eurosceptic to blow a few fuses before bringing on some calm and rational Europhile, more than likely the delightful Menzies Campbell of the Liberal Democrats, whose calm and soothing remarks are generally what remain in the mind.
Can anything be done? The guidelines proposed for the BBC by Business for Ster- ling might help. The problem is that the BBC's bias is institutional, and runs from top to bottom. Greg Dyke, the director-general, appoints Andrew Marr as the BBC's political editor, seemingly without reflecting upon the oddity of having Britain's leading pro-euro commentator in such a position during a ref- erendum on the euro. I am sure, as I have said before, that Mr Marr will do his damnedest to be neutral, but it speaks vol- umes about the BBC that the appointment could have been made in the first place. All we can do, I think, is to remain vigilant, and to go on complaining like mad whenever we find examples of the BBC's bias.
Representations have been made to me after my column two weeks ago about Tory columnists and William Hague. I had sug- gested that Janet Daley of the Daily Tele- graph was unique in sticking by the Tory leader from the time of his election until now. This column now also acknowledges that Simon Jenkins of the Times, while never an enthusiastic supporter of Mr Hague, has always been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. As long ago as 8 October 1997, Mr Jenkins predicted a Tory revival, and on 7 October 1998 suggested that `the Hague project could suddenly seem plausible'. Other Tory columnists proud of their record are invited to make themselves known.
Which newspaper will win the battle to get most pictures of the glamorous Russian tennis player Anna Kournikova on its front page? My money is on the Daily Telegraph. The Daily Express is showing promise, and the Daily Mail should never be underrated. Don't rule out a showing from the Indepen- dent. The Times, of course, is the Telegraph's greatest rival, but I just don't know whether its young acting editor'has it in him. A prob- lem will arise when Anna is knocked out, since it is difficult, though perhaps not impossible, to run pictures of someone no longer involved in the competition.
Previous page
