The openDemocracy website has published a report into the BBC's coverage of the highly controversial Health and Social Care Act this morning.
This 8,000 word report uses rigorous research methods and detailed analysis to confirm what many have claimed: that the BBC has failed in its responsibilities to inform the British public about one of the most important pieces of legislation of the 21st century. Key findings include:
- the BBC never questioned or explored the lack of democratic mandate for the changes to the NHS
- they consistently presented the bill using the government's own highly contested description
- expert critics were not given the space and opportunity to highlight the true nature of their objections
- financial links between healthcare firms, the Conservatives and the House of Lords were never reported
- the significant role of the private sector in Lansley's new health market was never explored
- fears over privatisation were occasionally stated but never explored or explained
- the role of private firms in commissioning care was not properly explained, if at all
- the role of private firms in creating the bill was never examined or reported
- sources with significant links to private healthcare were presented without a disclosure of their interests
- the BBC censored key stories, particularly as the bill reached its final stages. On 19 March 2012 when the bill was finally passed in the Lords, BBC Online published not a single article of news or analysis on the bill.
We blame Murdoch and the right wing media for censoring the messages we get: the reality is that the BBC does it too. Be very worried.
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 would be surprised if this was the only issue not explored properly by the BBC. It’s economic and political coverage seems to me to be increasingly partial. Peston and Robinson seem to be very pro cuts. A couple of nights ago I saw Robinson interview Clegg with Robinson opening by saying that we wouldn’t be able to plug the deficit gap with money from millionaires, oligarchs and mansion. Since when did Robinson work for HRMC and the treasury?
” Since when did Robinson work for HRMC and the treasury?”
Maybe more relevant to ask when or whether Nick left his Bullingdon past behind him?
I think it’s very likely that pressure was applied to BBC management by the Coalition government to report the NHS bill and indeed the cuts programme in terms which were favourable to the government. We know that many Tories hate the BBC and would like to see it replaced by Sky as the nation’s primary broadcaster. The Government probably said to the BBC, “co-operate by going soft on us or we will reduce the licence free and destroy your organisation”. (They already face 25% cuts in funding over the next 5 years as it is). I think if Labour wins in 2015 it should announce a public enquiry into BBC bias and the possible influence of the Coalition Government over editorial content. And we need to have BBC governance structures in place to ensure that this kind of thing can’t happen in future.
I have thought for a long time that the charter guidelines for BBC – Inform, Educate and Entertain – was leaning far to heavily in the ‘entertain’ direction with ‘inform and educate abandoned for the sake of the sacred ratings.
I believe a well respected American journalist said that television was far too important a medium to be used for ‘soap opera’s’ and he had the honour of destoying the McCarthy monster.
The trouble is that the big beasts like Paxman, Robinson, Humphries, Preston & Eddie Mair are allowed a free run which too often reflect the dominant ideas in Fleet Street- they do not have the sharpness either to ask the more pointed questions you get at Channel 4 or they are sloppy and have only a crude grasp of the real issues.
Robert Peston reporting of the PPI Scandal is a prime example of biased reporting; describing the banks behaviour as sincere.
“The banks sincerely believed they were following the rules” – Robert Peston, BBC News, 9
May 2011
It is not possible for an honest intelligence to reach such a conclusion.
Robert Peston didn’t report that the banks said they “sincerely believed”, he reported this as a fact, he offered testimony on their behalf.
This was all done in a graphics and animation heavy, scripted production piece, not an off the cuff, live discussion. The whole piece was BBA propaganda. He and the editors spent time and money on honing exactly the message to convey. Possibly under the supervision of the BBA?
I regard Peston as a contemporary Uncle Tom.
While I deplore much of the BBC’s output these days(especially the coverage of our wars of choice), it doesn’t have much else to report on.
The dozing partner in the new era of coalition conservatism, labour, have done nothing to raise any of the issues detailed in the report.
I know an actual campaign in defence of one of their greatest acheivements might be too much to ask, but too avoid all discussion is just complicity.
I have to agree with you. Someone remarked to me yesterday, where is Burnham? Perhaps all will be revealed next week. It better be so.
The BBC have been cowed by frequent accusations of bias from the likes of Boris Johnson and the right-wing media. This has allowed management, journalists and presenters who are sympathetic to the coalition to influence how the BBC frames this and other issues.
Labour’s timidity is the other aspect. If Labour had been much more vocal in their opposition then presumably the BBC wouldn’t have felt able to get away with giving so little weight to the opposing view.
Both labour and the tories have complained in recent months over their BBC coverage. Labour’s complaint actually involved having people counting up the number of minutes each party received on air, and then in Scotland Labour MP Ian Davidson actually accused the BBC presenter on air of bias towards the SNP. He was appearing on Newsnight Scotland, which he re-named ‘News-Nat – Scotland ‘and repeated the accusation three times, much to the annoyance of his interviewer.
If you take the approach of accusing the BBC of ‘bias’, you won’t get anywhere. ‘bias’ is an extremely difficult accusation to prove. Rather more effective would be to question ‘quality’ – where you can argue that you haven’t heard all sides of the argument or vital points had been omitted.
What would further help would be the closing of the BBC Trust and the transfer of the ‘watchdog’ role to an improved Ofcom that actually worked. Remember, Ofcom does not deal with BBC complaints, you will be told to submit them to the BBC.
At present to make a complaint to the trust, there are a number of procedure’s you have to undertake to actually be in a position to write to them. Two complaints must first be submitted to the relevant department that you are complaining about, the first complaint you make will receive a standard answer that won’t even tackle the point you have raised. You then submit your second complaint, to which you will probably receive another vague response. At this time they will tell you that if you are not satisfied, you may write to the trust. To receive a reply can take months.
In my experience it took 6 months after my first complaint to actually receive a reply from the trust, and it still did not fully answer my specific question. Of course, this prolonged procedure is in itself a handy deterrent for the BBC to put off would be complainers.
An effective system of complaint and accountability would help.
BBC Scotland is an absolute mess. They’ve banned comments from the political and business blogs since December last year without explanation; they don’t report on Scottish Government announcements or issues in general news items; there were two demonstrations this year outside the BBC Scotland offices, on BBC bias, which was reported on Russia Today but not a squeek from the BBC. They have received hundreds of complaints (might be thousands now) which have been duly ignored and now they publish stories on their website which are often taken down after a while and then altered into giving a different perspective. I think people have almost given up on the BBC in Scotland, it’s become a joke organisation.