Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
I found this extract of an article in ‘The Politician’. I pretty much agree with it.
‘The EU referendum debate was a unique opportunity to break away from the adversarial politician-versus-politician model of general elections and hold a truly educational, society-wide debate.
The BBC and wider media did no such thing. A study by Loughborough University found “a very narrow debate” in the EU referendum. The press coverage was 91% men and 44% Conservative politicians (ten per cent Labour) . White Tory men dominate EU referendum coverage in the press and on TV. Audiences were frustrated by the politicians’ soundbites of claim and counterclaim, with the BBC giving “equal airtime to unequal arguments”. By the end of the soap-opera, Brits were still ill-informed on just about every issue relating to the EU.
Remainers' exasperation with the BBC recently comes down to several factors. The corporation appears to toe government hard-Brexit lines unquestioningly, there is a clear pro-Brexit stance from a few leading BBC personalities and a blind-spot for large anti-Brexit events. But there's something else too. The BBC has allowed itself to become the pulpit of arrant superficiality in debate.
This seems to be misunderstood by defensive BBC personalities, who attribute the Remainers' pique to hearing 'people you disagree with saying things you don't like'. Robinson's article was headlined: "Remainers attacking the BBC should be wary of ending up with a British Fox News." The sub-header read: "The United States is now a democracy in which there are no shared facts and are only disputed opinions." Yet, this is exactly where the BBC has failed. It has stopped being a resource and communicator of shared facts, and instead become an arbitrator of disputed opinions.
There are, even now, plenty of 'shared facts' to be found if you care to look. There are countless cross-party reports coming from the committees of the Lords and Commons. I recall a Lords inquiry into UK-EU science published in April 2016, during the referendum debate, after six months of oral testimony and over 70 submissions. The submissions and testimonies alone were fascinating and educational. Delving into the consensus-built conclusions in a compelling and easy-to-digest way would improve public understanding of the world around us, including our rich civil society contributions. The BBC coverage amounted to one online article.
Compare that to the time spent on some of Boris Johnson's off-hand pronouncements at the time, which were assiduously discussed, for hour after countless hour, on BBC TV and radio. This is the difference between public education and gossip journalism.
Even now, there is a robust stream of quality reports coming from the Lords, Commons and further afield - drawn from cross-party inquiries and wider civil society input. Yet the BBC seems to provide no quality educational interface to such repositories of agreed 'shared facts'. It also appears to shun the 'shared facts' of major peer-reviewed output from top journals like the Lancet on matters of Brexit and the NHS. And yet it happily promotes the not-so-shared facts of non-peer-reviewed claims by Prof Patrick Minford. Wild claims trump measured consensus.
It has not appeared even to expand its research team to meet the explosion of demand. BBC analysis online is depressingly lightweight compared to output you will find from The Economist, the Financial Times, UK in a Changing Europe and the Institute for Government. A paradigm shift is needed. The BBC is a public educator which brought us BBC microcomputers and the iPlayer. Surely it can innovate to develop a creative online interface to handle the evidence-base deluge around Brexit. The public need it – and so do its own journalists.
Of course, there will always be some of the usual tit-for-tat political gossip of which the BBC is so fond. This is not an argument for ignoring it altogether. It is simply a demand that we ground a greater proportion of content in the sort of 'shared facts' journalism which Robinson claimed to be so keen on.
The BBC badly needs a push in robust, innovative public education. Otherwise, how does BBC news retain privileges over Channel 4, Sky or ITV? If it cannot distinguish itself as the primary public educator, what is BBC News good for?’
I really can’t see things improve. The Tory party has pretty powerful advocates at very senior levels at the Beeb. Lord Adonis the labour peer (yes I know) has very publically criticised the BBC coverage of Brexit for being far too pro Brexit. What was telling for me in the response to his criticism was the Director General Lord Hall making clear that his journalistic guidelines were to cover the mechanics of Brexit only and the different options for leaving as leaving was a fait a complit. It is particularly depressing with a left wing dominated media and a BBC that has abdicated any responsibility for holding lying politicians to account and truly conducting their role to educate.
‘The EU referendum debate was a unique opportunity to break away from the adversarial politician-versus-politician model of general elections and hold a truly educational, society-wide debate.
The BBC and wider media did no such thing. A study by Loughborough University found “a very narrow debate” in the EU referendum. The press coverage was 91% men and 44% Conservative politicians (ten per cent Labour) . White Tory men dominate EU referendum coverage in the press and on TV. Audiences were frustrated by the politicians’ soundbites of claim and counterclaim, with the BBC giving “equal airtime to unequal arguments”. By the end of the soap-opera, Brits were still ill-informed on just about every issue relating to the EU.
Remainers' exasperation with the BBC recently comes down to several factors. The corporation appears to toe government hard-Brexit lines unquestioningly, there is a clear pro-Brexit stance from a few leading BBC personalities and a blind-spot for large anti-Brexit events. But there's something else too. The BBC has allowed itself to become the pulpit of arrant superficiality in debate.
This seems to be misunderstood by defensive BBC personalities, who attribute the Remainers' pique to hearing 'people you disagree with saying things you don't like'. Robinson's article was headlined: "Remainers attacking the BBC should be wary of ending up with a British Fox News." The sub-header read: "The United States is now a democracy in which there are no shared facts and are only disputed opinions." Yet, this is exactly where the BBC has failed. It has stopped being a resource and communicator of shared facts, and instead become an arbitrator of disputed opinions.
There are, even now, plenty of 'shared facts' to be found if you care to look. There are countless cross-party reports coming from the committees of the Lords and Commons. I recall a Lords inquiry into UK-EU science published in April 2016, during the referendum debate, after six months of oral testimony and over 70 submissions. The submissions and testimonies alone were fascinating and educational. Delving into the consensus-built conclusions in a compelling and easy-to-digest way would improve public understanding of the world around us, including our rich civil society contributions. The BBC coverage amounted to one online article.
Compare that to the time spent on some of Boris Johnson's off-hand pronouncements at the time, which were assiduously discussed, for hour after countless hour, on BBC TV and radio. This is the difference between public education and gossip journalism.
Even now, there is a robust stream of quality reports coming from the Lords, Commons and further afield - drawn from cross-party inquiries and wider civil society input. Yet the BBC seems to provide no quality educational interface to such repositories of agreed 'shared facts'. It also appears to shun the 'shared facts' of major peer-reviewed output from top journals like the Lancet on matters of Brexit and the NHS. And yet it happily promotes the not-so-shared facts of non-peer-reviewed claims by Prof Patrick Minford. Wild claims trump measured consensus.
It has not appeared even to expand its research team to meet the explosion of demand. BBC analysis online is depressingly lightweight compared to output you will find from The Economist, the Financial Times, UK in a Changing Europe and the Institute for Government. A paradigm shift is needed. The BBC is a public educator which brought us BBC microcomputers and the iPlayer. Surely it can innovate to develop a creative online interface to handle the evidence-base deluge around Brexit. The public need it – and so do its own journalists.
Of course, there will always be some of the usual tit-for-tat political gossip of which the BBC is so fond. This is not an argument for ignoring it altogether. It is simply a demand that we ground a greater proportion of content in the sort of 'shared facts' journalism which Robinson claimed to be so keen on.
The BBC badly needs a push in robust, innovative public education. Otherwise, how does BBC news retain privileges over Channel 4, Sky or ITV? If it cannot distinguish itself as the primary public educator, what is BBC News good for?’
I really can’t see things improve. The Tory party has pretty powerful advocates at very senior levels at the Beeb. Lord Adonis the labour peer (yes I know) has very publically criticised the BBC coverage of Brexit for being far too pro Brexit. What was telling for me in the response to his criticism was the Director General Lord Hall making clear that his journalistic guidelines were to cover the mechanics of Brexit only and the different options for leaving as leaving was a fait a complit. It is particularly depressing with a left wing dominated media and a BBC that has abdicated any responsibility for holding lying politicians to account and truly conducting their role to educate.