Written by David Keighley
This article was first published in Briefings for Brexit and we re-publish it here with their kind permission.
(You can read Part 1 here)
A key character in the Bashir affair identified by Lord Dyson was Anne Sloman, who was BBC chief political adviser, and therefore one of the key advisers to Tony Hall, who was then BBC director of news. Sloman was among those who investigated in 1996 claims of impropriety against Martin Bashir, and despite abundant evidence to the contrary, concluded that he was ‘honourable’.
She betrayed similar arrogance in her treatment of News-watch and the claims of anti-EU bias. In an editorial meeting in which the Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle was present (in his then role of editor of the BBC Today programme), she asserted that eurosceptics like Lord Pearson were ‘mad’ and therefore should be ignored (link).
Her treatment of me was even more outrageous. At a summer drinks meeting between Parliamentarians and the BBC attended by Lord Pearson, she told him that the reports I was compiling should be ignored because I had been ‘sacked by the BBC’. This was an outright and baseless falsehood. I had worked for the BBC for seven years without a blemish on my staff reports and had been promoted regularly throughout. I left the BBC because I found a more senior job at the ITV breakfast television station TV-am, where I became director of public affairs.
As a result of her claims, I was forced to fire off (at considerable expense) a pre-action letter for defamation of character, and she huffily backed down. But her intention was clear. She wanted me out of the way, to be discredited and taken off the case.
This illustrates that a basic tactic of BBC senior managers at the BBC is to try to destroy or discredit those who oppose it. That applied in the Bashir case with the graphics designer who drew the forged bank statements, with BBC Newsnight journalists in 2011-13 who wanted to blow the whistle on the BBC’s treatment of Jimmy Saville (their BBC contracts were not renewed) and in the Cliff Richard affair, when the BBC tactic was to throw the blame on to South Yorkshire police.
So how can the BBC senior management be so arrogant and disdainful towards those who oppose the Corporation? A central problem is that the BBC’s Charter gives the Corporation almost unassailable independence. It was designed to protect BBC journalism from political interference. Noble aim. But the drafters of the legislation surely never envisaged that the Corporation would, in effect, go rogue – as its approach to EU coverage and BBC Ideas shows – and become an enemy of the country and the culture which pays for it. A dangerous enemy, too, because its goals appear increasingly to be the complete denigration and destruction of Western values.
A manifestation of its unassailability is that the BBC complaints process is not fit for purpose. It is designed to protect the BBC rather than to deal conscientiously with the concerns of audiences. The complaints process could be a shop window for BBC transparency, and for the further debate of matters of public controversy. Instead it has become another brick wall which the BBC hides behind and a vehicle to discredit opponents. An example of this is that New-watch has within the past month received a warning letter from the complaints unit (which is sub-contracted to facilities company Capita) warning us that we are making too many complaints and that they are too complicated to deal with so we are wasting Corporation resources.
A second manifestation is that the BBC refuses to produce any independent evidence to verify its impartiality. Instead, it relies on opinion polls. This is absurd and simply not good enough. News-watch reports into the BBC output are based on scrupulously-applied academic principles which can be seen and debated by anyone. By contrast, the BBC simply tells the world it knows it is impartial, and therefore it is. Yet the Corporation provides no evidence to support its position and claims it would be a waste of time to do so. That is an absurdly arrogant stance for an organisation in receipt of £3.5 billion of public funding to adopt.
In that context, as cries for reforms intensify, an acid test of the government’s intent will be whether the proposed structural reforms include such monitoring and an overhaul of the complaints system. Only when these operate on an independent basis and thus hold the BBC genuinely to account will BBC bias end. As things stand, it is an obdurate, arrogant and unprincipled law unto itself.
~~~ *** ~~~
David Keighley is a former BBC producer and news executive who now runs News-watch (www.news-watch.co.uk), a media monitoring company which for the past 22 years has fought BBC EU bias.
Very interesting article by Mr Keighley. He is doing sterling work in challenging the bias of the BBC.
We can support his project by refusing to pay the licence fee. It really is effective. In fact it probably is the most effective way to deal with any corporation or business playing politics. ‘They don’t like it up ’em’ as Corporal Jones would say.
Only one solution: bin the BBC in its entirety and start again. Any remnant of the original will act as a seed for its rebuilding. A good start would be to remove the licence fee and any government subsidy.
Remove the licence fee – won’t happen. It is up to people to stop funding it.
Wrong people in charge! A corporation gone ‘rogue’. Isn’t this the nub of the matter? A political class divorced from its audience and with their own disingenuous agenda. Too far gone for reform. Defund it. Break it up. Sell it off. Why gift powerful communication tools to people we can no longer trust?