BIAS IN THE DUOPOLY
The media: Paul Johnson
welcomes the first report of a new broadcasting monitor-unit
MANY times in the past I have com- plained in this column that, while there is clearly a good deal of political bias in our television duopoly — the BBC is by no means the only offender — no attempt was being made to document it systematically by regular and careful monitoring. At last my prayers are being answered. The Con- servative Central Office has set up its own television monitoring system and I trust will issue further reports from time to time. In addition, an organisation called the Media Monitoring Unit, operating from 201 Holland Park Avenue, London W11 (01-741 8458), has been conducting a large- scale monitoring operation since July 1985. It has now issued its first annual report, covering the period up to June this year. It is edited by Simon Clark, consists of 314 pages, including a revealing double index of names and organisations, and is a real eye-opener.
This substantial document must be read in full by everyone in public life directly involved the workings of the duopoly, and especially by members of the IBA and the BBC Board of Governors. For MPs and journalists who feel they have not time to go through the whole thing, there is an admirable 15-page introduction, which summarises the first conclusions of the survey. This is followed by a statement of aims of the unit. There is a detailed programme assessment of the following series: Panorama, Open Space, World in Action, TV Eye, First Tuesday, Diverse Reports, Union World, 7 Days, A Week in Politics, Opinions and Comment, ending in a statistical 'Assessment Summary'. Next, there is a month-by-month monitoring report on individual programmes. Then there is an extremely valuable section called 'Media Briefing', which 'records some of the words, activities and political affiliations of those working within the media and those working to influence it from outside, as reported by the press and other sources'. Finally there are six appen- dices on special topics, such as the notor- ious Hidden War programme about Greece. In short, it is exactly the kind of systematic appraisal for which I and many other people have been asking. What does the report reveal? In the first place, it is able to give credit to those television producers and journalists — and there are some — who succeed in achieving balance. One programme which survived the test remarkably well was Channel 4's A Week in Politics, proof that a series can be highly political without being unfair. MM found that of the 25 programmes and 50 individual reports monitored, no less than 76 per cent were balanced; there were 14 per cent with a right-wing bias, 8 per cent with left-wing bias and 2 per cent non- political. Another high-scoring series was TV Eye, praised for 'taking tough subjects such as nuclear power, the American bombing of Libya, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and providing viewers with a good range of opinion enabling them to make up their own minds'. But even this programme had lapses: in a survey of the teachers' strike, four teachers put the union side while the Government's case was not presented at all. Moreover, while 29 per cent of 31 programmes monitored were non-political, and 51.6 per cent suc- cessfully balanced, 19.4 per cent had a political bias, all of it to the Left.
With Panorama, MM found that it successfully achieved balance over many issues, such as Westland, Northern Ire- land, the police, terrorism and black townships in South Africa, but failed in nearly a third (32.4 per cent) of its prog- rammes; of this, there was 24.3 per cent bias to the Left. The record of Granada's World in Action is much worse. MM reckons that only one in five of its prog- rammes was balanced. Of 34 programmes monitored, 10 were non-political, 13 had a left-wing bias, four a right-wing bias and a mere seven achieved balance. Still worse was Channel 4's Union World. Of 21 progammes (55 items) monitored, no few- er than 25 items had a left-wing bias, two a right-wing bias and only six were balanced (22 items were non-political). Thus this series had a left-wing bias rating of 45.5 per cent, and 75.7 per cent if you count only political programmes.
The worst offenders, MM found, were those series which openly admit to present- ing opinions but claim to preserve balance over a period, such as Channel 4's Diverse Reports and BBC's Open Space. Of 26 Diverse Reports transmissions, MM calcu- lates that five were non-political, the rest politically contentious: of these, only four achieved balance, five had a right-wing bias and no fewer than 12 a left-wing bias.
The record of Open Space is the worst of all. Out of 17 programmes with a political content, all except one (which was ba- lanced) had a left-wing bias. 'In practice', MM says, 'Open Space appears to provide access only for those with left-wing views.'
MM's first report is abundantly rich in detailed material, and I shall be returning to it. But two preliminary conclusions strike me. During the 1960s, the then director general of the BBC, Sir Hugh Greene, laid it down: 'Nothing is more stultifying than the current affairs prog- ramme in which all the opposing opinions cancel each other out. Sometimes one has to use that method but in general it makes for greater liveliness and impact if the balance can be achieved over a period, perhaps within a series of related program- mes.' The BBC Handbook states, 'That remains BBC policy today.' IBA guide- lines take a similar view: 'The Broadcast- ing Act's requirements about impartiality allow a series of programmes to be consi- dered as a whole.' Systematic monitoring makes it quite clear that, in both halves of the duopoly, this system has broken down, in some cases completely, and that the removal of the balance-within-a- programme requirement has been success- fully exploited by the Left, often in the most shameless fashion. The intentions of Parliament are being ignored and, in effect, both the Broadcasting Act and the BBC Charter are being breached. This is a matter to which the BBC Governors and the IBA must devote urgent attention.
Second, the report also reveals evidence of individual political bias among television presenters, reporters and, by inference, producers. In a state-managed duopoly broadcasting structure, pledged to impar- tiality, the political views and associations of those who control, shape and influence its output are a matter of public concern.
Members of Parliament are required to declare any personal interests of a financial nature when speaking in a debate which affects them — a tradition strictly enforced — and, in recent years, to make regular declarations so that the public knows ex- actly where those interests lie. Enoch Powell objects to this strongly on constitu- tional grounds, but the vast majority of MPs think it necessary and comply willing- ly. I am coming to believe that the duopoly ought to publish a register of political interests and affiliations of all those in- volved in it who have an impact, direct or indirect, on its programme output. By all means let the opinion-formers of the broadcasting industry exercise their politic- al rights: but let the viewer and the listener know how they do so.
Previous page
