How should our unelected and unaccountable television and radio presenters and interviewers conduct themselves, so as to avoid the continual allegations of political bias?
Last week, in this magazine, Charles Moore had a bit of fun at the expense of Jim Naughtie, the Today programme presenter, for having balked in a rather sententious manner when a guest on the programme described him as ‘a liberal’. Jim apparently replied, ‘You have no idea what my political views are’, provoking Charles into a few paragraphs of typically elegant and dry parody: ‘As Bagehot must have pointed out somewhere, the Naughtie can constitutionally have no views of his own and acts only on the advice of his ministers (or “researchers”, as they are called).’
Well, quite. It is truly ludicrous that we should be expected to believe that our television and radio journalists, even those belonging to the state broadcaster, are devoid of personal political opinion and are mere ciphers for a glistening stream of untrammelled, objective, truthful inquiry. The reverse is true: they are (for the most part — and certainly including Jim) intelligent, extremely well-informed individuals who, of course, have strong views about pretty much everything, no matter how tidily they put such baggage aside on air. But they are forced into the untenable position of having to gainsay such an obvious fact at least in part because of the bias and inconsistency in the arguments of the likes of Charles and others on the political Right: they wish to have it both ways. Let me explain.
Three years ago I was forced to resign as editor of the Today programme after writing an article for the Guardian which made fun of the Countryside Alliance. I suspect I would not have been forced to resign were it not for the fulminations of Charles Moore, who was, at that time, editor of the Daily Telegraph. In an editorial he wrote that I had shown ‘blatant bias, animus and even party allegiance’ and that this was ‘not acceptable from the editor of Today’. Rather wearily, and with great decency to me, the BBC reacted as it felt it should and within a couple of days I was gone.
Now I bear not the slightest grudge against Charles — and in fact I cannot think of many people in journalism for whom I have greater respect. But on this issue he is ethically quite inconsistent — and the inconsistency damages the arguments of those who believe, with some accuracy, that the BBC, in its news coverage, dresses a little to the left.
I wondered at the time, while I was pondering my resignation, what it was that Charles and the Telegraph most objected to. Was it the fact that I didn’t much like the Countryside Alliance, or was it merely that I had said as much in print? Would it have been unacceptable for me to harbour, within myself, ‘blatant bias, animus and even party allegiance’ against the fox-stranglers? Or was it the act of confessing to the animus, etc., that was morally wrong? The Telegraph’s argument then struck me as intellectually deeply flawed, if not actually incoherent. They would surely be aware that I must have political views; their objection, therefore, derived from the fact that they were views divergent from their own. It further struck me that writing such articles provided a form of transparency; it was beneficial for the public to know the beliefs of those who ran, or presented, their radio and television programmes. But at the time this seemed a very self-serving argument and it was therefore difficult to advance.
There’s an interesting side issue. After my Countryside Alliance article for the Guardian, the BBC clamped down on its employees writing for outside publications and we retreated to a world in which poor Jim Naughtie is forced to react sententiously when someone dares to append to his soul a political disposition. Before that point the corporation, I suspect, quite liked people like Jeff Randall, John Humphrys and myself penning the occasional piece — largely because we were anything but card-carrying leftie liberals and, therefore, the corporation could show that there was room within its senior ranks for journalists who sometimes contradicted the pinkish consensus. Not any more.
The crux of the matter is this: we are all sufficiently mature to understand that while our presenters, interviewers and editors may strive to be ‘objective’ and to expunge any trace of bias from their programmes, they are nonetheless possessed of views which may, on occasion, gently glimmer through. This should not give us a problem. There should not be the slightest worry in Jim Naughtie cheerfully admitting to his political views — no matter what they might be — so long as there is a healthy cross-section of views among his colleagues; so long as there is political diversity. Howling the house down whenever a BBC employee unburdens him- or herself of an opinion militates against us ever knowing whether or not there is that healthy cross-section. The BBC instead shuts up shop and everyone pretends that they have no political views at all; that they are, in an almost Nietzschean sense, beyond politics. But you cannot be beyond politics.
What you are left with is a corporation whose employees consider themselves neither left nor right, but merely civilised. They coalesce around a bedrock of watery mores which they believe to be beyond argument, a mere matter of decency. In foreign affairs, a vague commitment towards the underdog — the Palestinians, the Nepalese and Ukrainian insurgents/opposition, the inhabitants of African countries where everyone is starving (‘give more money!’) and so on. In home affairs it is against what it perceives to be nasty things: the BNP and Ukip, Tories who want to destroy the NHS or allow rich people to get richer, and so on. It thinks Islam is perfectly fine and dandy, save for a few nutters, and that yobbery on our high streets is rather ghastly (if overstated) and that the best way to sort it out is by understanding the very real social problems, etc.
Now, you may agree with all of those positions — most people in the country do, I reckon. But don’t kid yourself it’s an apolitical stance. It’s as political as a presenter saying ‘Vote BNP!’ just before the eight o’clock news on the Today programme. But deprived of its liberty to be truly politically diverse by the fusillade of complaints from the likes of Charles, that is what it is left with.
Comments