I received this comment today:
Richard, might I ask an unrelated question?
What do you think of the BBC's current financial coverage? Do you think it is extensive, honesty, penetrating? Is it reflective of the real turmoil and double-dealing taking place in the City of London, or is it supine and obfuscatory? I as as I was stunned to find that the BBC had dedicated part of its website to asking which ‘cuts' people felt the government should make; and this in spite of the fact that the banks had been handed trillions of pounds of taxpayers money? No mention was made of the fact that the private debt of the the banking sector was transferred to the public's balance sheet — nor was there any mention that this private debt crisis, because it was shirted onto the public balance sheet, helped to trigger a fiscal and thence sovereign debt crisis! Do you think we are seeing honest reporting of events? If not, how do you think we can go about solving this problem?
Thanks,
Jonah.
So let's start by saying the political right complain that the BBC is really left wing. And then let's dismiss that because the right has now moved so far to the extreme that anything that is remotely reasonable (even Conservative) is extreme to them.
Now let's view this objectively. And the answer is that the BBC's performance on economics is poor. Nick Robinson's objectivity as political editor has been widely questioned and focuses too much on, well, Nick Robinson if truth be told. No one is sure why he ignored the Murdoch hacking scandal for so long. I make the point to suggest there's an unquestioning attitude pervading the BBC.
Robert Peston has a deeply annoying presentation style which I could forgive but he's a) sensationalist b) therefore too interested in the moment and not in analysis and c) buys the City line far too much and readily, often showing weakness in ability to question or comprehend answers in the process. I've fisked more than one of his blogs in the past for precisely this reason. He buys the standard line that tax is a 'bad thing'.
Stephanie Flanders is pure Institute for Fiscal Studies, and that means right of centre, buys neoliberalims lock stock and barrel, presumes tax is always a bad thing and generally lacks the objectivity required for the job because she comes, like all neoliberals, predisposed to an answer.
Paul Mason is a shining exception to all the above.
Are we getting what we deserve? No, we're not.
The answer? Hard to say. The Guardian, New Statesman and others try hard to provide good comment. Channel 4 is always a better news programme than the BBC. But what we really need is better radio, more often, because that's where these things get teased out best.
I often wonder if we now need the equivalent of US public radio with its eclectic broadcasting. Just a thought. And I appreciated the question.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
i notice you mention the Guardian – arent they in a difficult position? they are repeatedly (and rightly) attacking the excesses of the financial sector, private equity and hedge funds, and yet they invest in private equity and also (according to private eye) have apparently just invested tens of millions of pounds in hedge funds
is it “do as i say and not as i do”?
I accept that GMG seems not to be wise in its financial dealings
I can separate the paper from its management – which has, I fear, been captured by the financial establishment
Maybe I have been brainwashed, but taxes (excluding sin taxes) are “bad” and spending taxes can be “good”. So it is a balance between the two. We need to tax in a fair and effective way, and spend the taxes in a beneficial and effective way, and the hopefully create net benefits.
You can argue what should be sin taxes (e.g. is the 50% tax rate a sin tax?), you can argue whether taxes are a collected in a fair and effective way, you can argue whether taxes are spent properly, and you can argue whether the balance and net effective is positive.
The problem is that the argument is dominated by pressure groups, lobbyists, the rich and the powerful. That is reflected in news coverage. You voice is important because it highlights issues that would otherwise be hidden and obfuscated by other groups who benefit from the situation.
You have been brainwashed
I agree
But I also enjoy your comments! They are the acceptable face of disagreement
NPR in the US is sustained by big foundations, e.g. Bill & Melinda Gates and major corporate sponsors, e.g. Exxon. A part of their output is recycled BBC. They appear socially liberal and culturally elite. Not going to rock any boats.
In my view, Robert Peston is an Uncle Tom.
BB
My take on this is that the BBC has been on the back foot since the Dodgy Dossier/Andrew Gilligan affair. From that point on it would seem that much of what passes as political/social/economic analysis is actually based on second guessing a line that will least upset government, and I think since that time they’ve appointed journalists who have no trouble towing the line.
To be fair to the BBC, though, I’m not sure there was much to be gained from any other approach, particularly when you see Ministers and PMs increasingly cosying up to the Murdochs and their acolytes, and with those individuals making their hostility to the BBC public.
For example, as Private Eye reported recently, Cameron had 26 meetings or social engagements with News International execs and editors during the period his government were ruling on the BBC licence fee agreement and BSkyB bid and only ONE with BBC execs and editors, so anyone at the BBC is right to be worried about the future of the Corporation as far as I can see, and will act accordingly.
I should add that the Today and PM programmes on Radio 4 do still try to hold the line on analysis. And Evan Davis is particularly good whenever he gets a chance to be (e.g. an interview he did with Francis Maude a couple of months ago on public sector pensions was a shining example).
Davis is also exceptionally bad – and very neoliberal on occasion – as in last TV series which was crass
Evan Davis’s BBC2 series Made in Britain was particularly horrible, particularly his daft insistence that off-shoring manufacturing to countries like China is a “good thing”.
Well, if you regard job losses, adding to the trade deficit and more money pouring out of the country as a “good thing”, then I suppose it is!
It was a shining example of what is wrong with the present economic consensus.
Richard … I totally agree. Paul Mason is the shining exception. When are you going to address Radio 5 Live in a similar matter?
Re the NPR comments in the article and the above response by George Roberts, I must agree with the respondent.
Dean Baker in his daily ‘Beat the Press’ feature, frequently berates the abominable coverage on NPR which by default tows the line on ‘the deficit is the problem’ in the US and ‘what can we do about reforming Social Security and Medicare’. So NPR really isn’t the model we should be emulating.
Agree about Stephanie Flanders. Quite like Robinson. Agree that Peston’s style is a bit monotonous, but think that he does explain arcane subjects rather well. Had no idea he was ‘anti-tax’. What a shame. Paul Mason is my favourite too! Though recently was dissapointed to hear him sympaphise with the idea of granting property rights to slum dwellers in Manilla as away of remedying their plight. Paul! What about revering neo liberal policies that have devasted the agricultural sectors in third world countries like the Philippines forcing people into slums in the first place?
Don’t know about its economic reporting specifically, but for sensible coverage of UK affairs Al Jazeera is good. I got my first wake-up call on the systemic bias of the BBC in the 70s, over coverage of The Troubles in NI, after watching Scandinavian coverage. I’ve never believed the Beeb since, on anything. I don’t think I’ve heard a single mention of the tax gap from them. The BBC seriously corrupts our “democracy”.
If you think Stephanie is “right-on right” you should try Jonty Bloom on that other supposed bulwark of leftie liberalism, R4. He makes Stiffie seem like a marxist, at one point referring to those working in the City as “the brightest & best of Britain”.
You may be a bit unfair on Peston. I don’t think he pretends to be an economic analyst like Martin Wolf etc. He is a good old fashioned journalist who has broken some huge stories (eg the collapse of Northern Rock) & currently has some good stuff going on News Int. The comments on his Blog are also never short of hilarious.
A major problem with the BBC is that there is no one there who is onto the big economics picture, the international trade agenda. There isnt a single BBC journalist who has the faintest idea, so we continue to get whatever Vince Cable tells us about ‘trade’, unquestioned. And they are too arrogant to find out. Many BBC researchers and journalists still think that trade is about goods – corn and widgets.
And that goes for BBC Brussels too, where a lot of the action takes place. We pay for BBC Brussels but what do we get of what is going on at the EU level?
Peston aint as bad as you say, though he has his duff moments.
And Mason aint that good. A careerist moving between global finance, interviewing bankers. to street protestors, wanting to be seen ‘in there with the kidz’. In fact his background is very far left indeed. But between these extremes, he nevfails to report on the downhome issues that affect ordinary people especially real labour issues, and what is really going on here.
Also, in sounding too clever, it is obvious sometimes that even Newsnight presenters are left perplexed as to what point he is making.
Flanders – agree – get rid of her.
Ditto Evans.
I think it is most likely that there are gatekeepers in the BBC, preventing real reporting. Why would there not be, with such a powerful too?
Is this a men only site or something?
If it was how come you’re here?
And Carol Wilcox
Some who seem female from email addresses rather confusingly also use male avatars here – which is odd – except it mayve saves hassle from right wing patronisation
But I sure as heck hope this is not a male only site
I listen everyday to the podcasts of the BBC programs Wake up to Money and World Business Report.
They do not attempt to hide the fact that the British economy is in big trouble, with a recession that has gotten worse since the Tories started with their cuts. Their guests are usually good.
What you will not find is a lot of debate about the causes of the economic problem. The coverage, like most media in the Anglo world, continues to give the impression that all of this is something cyclical, and that it is a matter of time before things improve. No mention of the Offshore system, the distribution of wealth, and very little examination of why other Western economies like Germany and most of Northern Europe are so much more competitive and have a better labour force. …in that sense, they are very conservative.
Precisely
I’ve written something along related lines, in a post “is the BBC scared of tax havens?”
http://treasureislands.org/is-the-bbc-scared-of-tax-havens/
There is definitely an unquestioning belief within the BBC that the city has all the answers to whats going on in the economy. Moreover it clearly has never occurred to them that this source of information could in any way be unbiased.
Why else, for example, would ‘Good Morning Scotland’ (BBC Radio Scotland), without fail every single morning, feel it necessary to seek out the views of city analysts to explain to us the reasons for and consequences of the banking crisis, debt crisis etc. The same can be said for Radio 4’s ‘Today’, Radio 5 Live morning business reporting.
It seems the BBC is well and truly ‘captured’ by the financial sector; unknowingly brainwashing the country with a daily drip, drip dose of city propaganda.
…PS To earlier posters its “Toe the Line,” NOT “Tow the Line”
Sorry, but I can’t really forgive Peston for his slightly unbalanced reporting.
If we look back at the report where he set himself appart from his predicessor, he named Northern Rock as getting loans from the bank of last resort, it was this report that triggered the run on Northern Rock. There were lots of banks that were in reciept of loans from the bank of last resort, which imparted loans annonymously. Yet there were no questions about 1) Where Peston got his information and 2) why he singled out Northern Rock and left out… say… Barclays from his report?
I suspect his recient reporting about Hackergate is also slightly unbalanced, particularaly as we all appear to know who his source on these matters is.
Re the capture of the BBC by the City. Yes, the BBCs Business Dept has a very singular perspective – but ‘business’ affects everyone, including workers. Their approach needs to be a lot more rounded, and critical.
And when have they ever recognised that the key, all-powerful lobbying mechanisms of London-based international financial service corporations exist? When was International Financial Services London (IFSL) every mentioned by these clever all-knowing BBC journalists? Or its current incarnation, thecityuk? Or in the EU, the European Services Forum?
The boards of these lobbying groups consist of representatives of the major banking and financial institutions, with govt dept people there to get their orders.
Yet despite the fact that this is where government direction comes from, I have found, scarily, in briefing senior BBC economics reporters, that they are unaware that these institutions even exist – along with the international trade agenda where we get tied into irreversible international trade commitments. (NB this is also controlled to a great extent, and in a continuum, by the same international financial services firms).
This goes a long way to explaining why BBC economics reporting is so lacking.
The really dangerous thing is the degree of trust that people have in the BBC, which BBC cruises along on, repeating to itself and the public that it is the best news source in the world – despite these gaping holes on the issues that really matter.
For information – thecityuk (yes it really has that punctuation-challenged name) was set up last summer as an unholy alliance of IFSL, the Corporation of London – and UK Trade and Industry (part of BIS)! That was quite clear on their site.
But since then, it has changed (did I say something?), and now this exceedingly powerful financial services lobbying mechanism, and make no mistake – thats what it is, bills itself as an ‘independent organisation’, with no mention of the UKTI connection.
The membership of its Boards are there to be seen, including its Liberalisation of Trade in Services Committee(LOTIS). The existence of this committee was secret until it was exposed by devt NGO World Development Movement. Not only does this committee dominate UK trade policy and UK input to EU trade policy via the bureaucrats who take this to Brussels, but there is direct vector between this committee and the Brussels lobbying mechanism, the European Services Forum.
Looks like I need to read Treasure Islands!