In November 2011 John Humphrys made and BBC 2 broadcast a nasty programme on welfare in which John Humphrys displayed all the arrogant, ignorant and abusive nonsense so oft said by the supposedly 'self made person' of those who have not, in their opinion, emulated their success. He berated those on social security benefits. He claimed we had a welfare culture. And he did it an whilst exposing the worst of his manner. Many of us took deep offence at the same. The Child Poverty Action Group complained and yesterday the Guardian reported:
The BBC Trust has ruled that a controversial programme about welfare reforms, written and fronted by the Today presenter John Humphrys, breached its rules on impartiality and accuracy.
The programme The Future of the Welfare State was first broadcast in November 2011.
The trust, which governs the broadcaster and is chaired by Lord Patten, chided the documentary-makers saying that "judgments reached or observations made are still required to be based on the evidence and should not give the appearance of presenting a personal view on a controversial subject".
Significantly the committee found that the programme had not backed up its controversial views with statistics and that this, said the trust, had led to the programme being inaccurate.
In a blunt assessment, the trustees found "the absence of sufficient complementary statistical information to underpin contributors' accounts, viewers were left unable to reach an informed opinion and the accuracy guidelines had been breached".
Specifically the committee said viewers would have concluded that the government was targeting benefits that were responsible for leaving the "welfare state in crisis" and creating the impression that "despite the anecdotal testimonies of jobseekers heard in the programme that there was [a] healthy supply of jobs overall".
"Both issues are central to the viewers' understanding of the key issues discussed in the programme, and because this was a controversial issue… the failure of accuracy had also led to a breach of impartiality."
Tellingly, it adds:
Before the programme was broadcast, Humphrys wrote a personal opinion piece in the Daily Mail to publicise his views and the programme. In it he wrote of "the predictable effect of a dependency culture that has grown steadily over the past years. A sense of entitlement. A sense that the state owes us a living. A sense that not only is it possible to get something for nothing but that we have a right to do so."
This is important for two reasons. First it conforms the bias within the BBC. If you pay presenters small fortunes this is what happens: they begin to feel themselves apart from and look down on the rest of society. We see and hear it far too often.
Second, it confirms Humphrys has little or no understanding of the ordinary. He is an exception and a fortunate one (some are exceptions in their misfortune). But most people have lives, unlike Humphrys, over which they have little control. They can't move. They do not have exceptional talent. They are therefore at the whim of fortune in the place where they are. Statistically that is where most people are, and will remain. Which is why government intervention on their behalf is essential. And Humphrys neither understood his own position or that of others or the needs of policy in making his comments, which after his exposure to politics is some indictment.
It makes me wonder when his retirement date should beckon. We can do without those with such attitudes and this lack of understanding on the Today programme.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
As you have decided to rely on the Guardian (again) as your reference point without bothering to read the actual BBC Trust findings, I am sure you will have no hesitation in publishing a summary of the findings published by the BBC.
I have difficulty in reconciling what what have written with the actual findings.
“The Committee concluded:
ï‚· that the subject of the programme was controversial and a major matter within the meaning of the Editorial Guidelines.
ï‚· that the programme makers had made a legitimate editorial choice in choosing to tackle the subject by focusing on the voices of those “with most to lose”, taking the Government’s planned changes at its starting point.
ï‚· that there was no evidence in the programme that John Humphrys was advocating the Government reforms rather than playing the traditional interviewer’s role of devil’s advocate by challenging interviewees as appropriate.
ï‚· that given the clear signposting of the nature of the programme, which was to examine the proposed changes through the eyes of a selection of those most affected, the programme had included an appropriately wide range of voices.
ï‚· that, in approaching the subject in the way it did, the programme had not omitted an important perspective and had not therefore jeopardised perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality on a controversial issue.
ï‚· that the presenter’s reference to “a victim of the benefits system” was not a direct paraphrase of what a contributor had said but speculation by the presenter and that this section of the programme was duly accurate.
ï‚· that it was appropriate that weight was accorded to the New York contributions in the context of the allegation that there was no authoritative voice challenging the UK reforms.
ï‚· that a series of voices heard in the programme, most notably the benefits claimants themselves, John Humphrys’ questioning, and also voices in New York, challenged the Government’s assumptions and ensured that the programme achieved due impartiality by reflecting an appropriately wide range of significant views.
ï‚· that the programme was fair and open-minded when examining the evidence and weighing material facts and that it gave due weight to the many and diverse areas of the argument.
ï‚· that, having introduced the headline figures of the rising benefits bill, the programme ought to have reflected what percentage of that overall rise was represented by the welfare benefits being targeted by the Government and which were the subject of the programme.
ï‚· that the absence of sufficient complementary statistical information to underpin contributors’ accounts, viewers were left unable to reach an informed opinion and the Accuracy guidelines had been breached.
ï‚· that, as both issues are central to the viewers’ understanding of the key issues discussed in the programme, and because this was a controversial issue which was also a major matter within the meaning of the Editorial Guidelines, the failure of accuracy had also led to a breach of impartiality.
ï‚· that the anecdotal style of the personal testimonies heard in the programme had been clearly signposted and were likely to have met audience expectation; and the contribution by John Humphrys, recollecting his own personal experiences was, in the view of the Committee, consistent with that approach.
ï‚· that on the issue of the likely efficacy of the Government’s welfare reforms, which was the focus of the programme, there was no evidence that John Humphrys’ commentary or approach went beyond reaching a professional judgement rooted in evidence as allowed for within the guidelines.
ï‚· that the sentiments John Humphrys expressed in relation to the public mood in the past compared with now were judgements based on his personal experience rather than opinions which could be interpreted as a personal view.
The complaint was partially upheld on one point with regard to Accuracy and Impartiality.”
The full report can be found here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/may_jun.pdf
As noted the complaint was partially upheld
The report referred, it seems, to the upheld failings
And yes – it clearly found Humphrys showed personal bias
It just said it made clear that this was clearly his opinion – not that of the BBC
That supports what I said
Your argument is just wrong
I didn’t accuse the BBC of bias – I accused Humphrys of bias and the finding is that he did show that
Richard, is what you’ve written really a fair assessment of your headline and initial assertion? I think picking part of the ruling and focusing on that isn’t really fair.
Having read the report I think the Guardian summary is accurate with regard to John Humphrys
I believe the Guardian report was fair as was the CPAG summary
My comments looked at Humphrys comments – and quotes the findings
What a wrong with it?
The report aid what e Guardian quoted
you said “n November 2011 John Humphrys made and BBC 2 broadcast a nasty programme on welfare in which John Humphrys displayed all the arrogant, ignorant and abusive nonsense so oft said by the supposedly ‘self made person’ of those who have not, in their opinion, emulated their success. – See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/07/31/john-humphrys-is-biased-and-even-the-bbc-now-say-so/#sthash.EzU0lqlZ.dpuf“.
The report you referred to clearly did not reach conclusions which support this, and the partial finding against was a technical point about sources.
Personally I think an apology is owed, although I am sure Humphry’s will lose no sleep if you choose not to.
What I and others quoted is what the BBC said
Richard for it is worth, having read the weasel worded Editorial Standards Committee’s consideration of CPAG appeal(s), I think that you have been quite fair in stating:-
“John Humphrys displayed all the arrogant, ignorant and abusive nonsense so oft said by the supposedly ‘self made person’ of those who have not, in their opinion, emulated their success. He berated those on social security benefits. He claimed we had a welfare culture. And he did it an whilst exposing the worst of his manner.”
So I wouldn’t bother to entertain any comments from Justin, Alastair and Margaret’s or anyone else defending the indefensible. In particular, Alastair, please note no apology should be forthcoming.
Despite the BBC Trust being chaired by a senior Conservative, Chris Pattern, and this is relevant, the ESC had to concede:-
“The complaint was partially upheld on one point with regard to Accuracy and Impartiality”
In other words, the full facts were not presented to enable a viewer, who had relied solely on the JH’s programme for information, to make a balanced judgement.
JH’s article is a pernicious piece of propaganda. Let’s ignore Beveridge’s first four aims of eliminating “Want. Disease. Ignorance. Squalor.” and focus on the last one “idleness”.
He includes an account of his family circumstances and his old neighbourhood to lower the reader’s guard down. I’m afraid I can’t stomach the rest of the piece in order to arrive at the conclusion:-
“Beveridge tried to slay the fifth evil giant and, in the process, helped to create a different sort of monster in its place: the age of entitlement. The battle for his successors is to bring it to an end.”
The alleged problem of entitlement is, it would appear, of course, only confined to the unemployed. He didn’t dare mention that there might be an entitlement culture amongst pensioners, despite 47% of the benefits bill going on state pensions, while only 3% goes on Jobseeker’s Allowance. Oh no.
Nor would he dream of tackling the entitlement culture existing at the wealthiest level of society. Even if he had the cojones to do so, why put paid to a “gong” in some future honours list for “services to broadcasting”?
Richard, you have been remarkably restrained in your comments on a man, who is of the same ilk as that odious individual, IDS.
I think this pretty much proves that you and the Guardian are wrong:
However, in a letter to The Telegraph, the BBC Trust claimed it did not criticise Humphrys directly and had found only that the programme “omitted” statistics that could have helped “viewers to reach an informed opinion”.
“We did not criticise John Humphrys in our finding on the BBC Two programme The Future State of Welfare,” the letter from Alison Hastings, a BBC trustee, read. “We did not uphold any of the points of complaint about his presentation of the programme, which we considered to have been based on professional judgment, not personal opinion.”
Well let me state the obvious conclusion in that case, which is that the bias is institutionalised
Justin -“OMITTED STATISTICS” – that opens a grand canyon of deception and fraudulent presentation and you refer to it as a minor affair!
I doubt though this will receive the publicity need to correct Humphry’s foul “Victorian” propaganda that is shared by far too many living in the same comfortable position in society. That’s live in comfort rather than endure an existence, which befalls the less fortunate at the bottom of the income scale.
Of course, there’s no chance that in the interests of balance reporting, the BBC will make a programme about the lying and cheating of the rich and their overbearing sense of entitlement!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/07/yes-virginia-rich-people-are-not-the-same-as-you-and-me-they-cheat-more.html
Talking about people who appear on TV and write for the Daily Mail , there was a program on TV last night written by Simon Heffer about post-war British War films .
I’ll read the D.M. if there is a copy of it lying on a seat in a railway carriage but wouldn’t spend money on it .
What I hadn’t appreciated before was that Simon Heffer is highly intelligent and on last nights showing capable of being sincere .
Probably views the stuff he churns out for regular D.M. readers as commercial junk for mass consumption by an undiscerning readership . Suppose the chap has to pay his bills but as with John Humphrys , what an abuse of talent .
BBC stating the obvious again!
And I see the Right Wing cavalry has already ridden to his rescue, accusing the BBC of – for goodness sake “Left Wing bias” !!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10211915/John-Humphrys-a-victim-of-BBC-Left-wing-bias.html
Those claiming that the BBC has a left wing bias are simply so far right, that centre right is “on the left” to them! They simply mean that the BBC is not right wing enough for them. The BBC has moved progressively more to the right over the last few years, including using more and more right wing think tanks for political commentary and calling them “independent” and the increasing use of opinion journalism rather than fact based objective journalism.
Well said, Richard – Humphrey’s is an appallingly arrogant man who obviously feels he has achieved the status of a god who can hover above reality. He has passed his sell-by-date by many years and ended up a caricature. Similar has happened to Paxman -they both suffer from the Thatcher/Blair Syndrome where power and status go to one’s head so that one feels to be the arbiter of truth. I’ve had enough of the BBC, its dumbed down news, trite presenters, poor interviewing, cheesy complacency and corporate greed. I’ve just discussed with my thirteen year old son the possibility of not renewing the license when it next comes up. That’s 145 quid towards my bedroom tax!
According to his wiki page JH has worked for the BBC since 1966. Without this background he would never have been asked to write Daily Mail columns. 47 years working for the state broadcaster and then he writes about ‘a sense of entitlement. A sense that the state owes us a living’. What a &*$!?…
First post from a lurker Richard.
I detest this tendencey from the succesful to put their good fortune down to something special and innate within themselves which others could attain if only they had the ‘get up and go’ to achieve such greatness. Such self congratulatory preening is insulting to those less fortunate, whether in intelligence, health or opportunities.
I have listened for many years to The Today Programme and now find myself almost unable so to bear it any longer.
Could not put my finger on why things have changed for me, but a perceptible tendency to push the line of whichever government is in place would appear to be the thing that has been gnawing away at me.
The BBC has become a propaganda machine for government: and does not even feel the need to pretend impartiality any more.
As a Scot looking for a balanced discussion on the pros and cons of indepencence, we are being assailed by a relentless pro-union bias from the BBC.
Next year we are to be sent James Naughtie to front the BBC as the referendum nears its decision date. An unabashed pro unionist to misinform the Scottish people. The BBC has lost its moral compass to such an extent it no longer represents the values upon which it was built.
I am not willing to pay for this disgraceful institution any longer and have cancelled my license. I believe there will be many more following in my footsteps since talk of mass refusal is rife in indepencence circles up here.
When the BBC attempts to subvert democracy, it has gone too far and will suffer the consequences.
Alex
Yes- I’m afraid I find Naughtie a gtotesque toady of the status quo , his value system is utterly bourgois. These people inhabit a world obsessed with power and status and have deserted all real intellectual and critical enquiry. The BBC, as you say, has no moral compass and is now a caricature. It’s days are numbered – I for one will be denying it the License fee soon – I hope many do the same. Compare it to Russia Today or Al Jazeera which one can watch online and you will soon see how anodyne it has become.
I read the Mail today as i was visiting a friend who reads it. It presented JH as a victim of Left Wing bias who told ‘the truth’ about the ‘bloated welfare system’. This is a phrase also used by the Daily Excess, sorry, Express. There seems to be a campaign to demonise the poor. The other ‘entitlement’ group ,which you expose, Richard, are rarely attacked.
I know there are some people as described. Often, they are the people who have taken American individualism attitudes without the commitment to self responsibility. However, they are a minority and their attitudes are often an attempt at self justification when faced with the prejudices fostered by the tabloid press.
What makes it worse for many is that if they are out of work for a long time, few are willing to employ them.
There is no ‘one truth’-about welfare claimants or much else. It is so common for the media to reduce things to a single perspective. In this way opinion can be presented as fact. Factual analysis is missing in much of BBC TV. It is better on radio 4 and some of the foreign news channels.
Fortunately we now have the alternative of the web but mass attitudes can still be fabricated by the mass media.
What democracy would that be ?
The “vote for me and I’ll ignore you until next time” type we have ?
I do not recall the “we’ll sell the nhs to our masters” part of the manifesto.
And while the BBC is definitely slanted, so are the other broadcasters…including the satellite one/s.
The entire media, with very few exceptions, are “under the command” of those who have everything.
If you wander about the BBC productions, there was the “why poverty” series (maybe still available on youtube) (I have part 4 on my pc)….hardly an a###-licking program, more an a###-kicking one.
I doubt it is a coincidence the BBC is “in favour” of the union, and nothing gets people annoyed more than being talked-down to.
But then, there are 41 labour seats at stake here. If the Scots vote to depart we will be stuck with the conservatives for ever….the limp-dims are finished….ukip never started….and we already know that the conservative leaders are well under the thumb.
The english don’t need the scots to create a government that is not directly antagonistic to their interests, they need an opposition party worth voting for.
The diminutive broadcaster and the current south centric tripartite coalition have much in common, the pathetic need to have others to look down on and complete ignorance of their total dependence on existing social structures for their good fortune.
While I’m not mad about the oxymoronic idea of independence in europe, a change might be as good as a rest, for both parts of the union.
I bet John Humphrys knows far more about bitter poverty than anyone commenting here. Ditto David Starkey. I suppose that makes their opinions worthless. Far better to listen to the Toynbees of this world.
Peter, John Humphreys and David Starkey may well have come from relatively humble backgrounds, but the point you totally miss is that when these two were growing up in 50’s Britain, people at their level of society had a real chance of upwards socal mobility. The 50’s was a time of full employment, and society, thanks to the policies of the 1945 government, was far more equal.
Their equivalents in today’s Britain have very little chance of upward social mobility, thanks to decades of right wing neoliberal economics. If they can get jobs at all, they’ll be insecure, badly paid, lousy terms and conditions (zero hours contracts anybody?) and so on.
There’s nothing more infuriating than succesful people like Humphreys who were able to climb the social ladder from working class backgrounds berating their 21st century equivalents for not doing so when that ladder has been taken away. Especially when in doing so they repeat the same myths about the welfare state that the political right use in order to justify their destruction of it.
having followed the bedroom tax debate for some months in national and local papers and taken part in many blogs it is sad to observe the increased hardenings and callusing of many in relation to poverty and disability. It is heartening to note that many are appalled by this Government but the number expressing the “I pays me taxes and works hard why should I support ’em” camp seems numerous. There still seems to be very little awareness of the causes of poverty within the financial system itself and hardly any anger towards the banking/finance sector. This seems incredible but it is the state of affairs – the british are in a narcoleptic trance in this regard and I feel ashamed to live in a country whose populace is in the process of losing its moral magnetic north. It’s worse than many on this site realise!
Simon, what you say about
“very little awareness of the causes of poverty within the financial system itself and hardly any anger towards the banking/finance sector. This seems incredible but it is the state of affairs — the British are in a narcoleptic trance in this regard”
only bears out the absolute BRILLIANCE of the MP’s expenses diversionary scandal. Prior to that, at the time of the great 2008 credit crunch EVERYONE was talking about the need for real reform, and real change.
Then the neo-liberal puppet-masters sprung their coup, cried “Fire, fire” about a waste-paper basket on fire, so we all took our eyes of the REAL conflagration of the WHOLE of decent society, and the need to have radical reforms of the Banking and money-creation system.
And for those neo-liberal puppet-masters it was a real “Win,Win”, because not only did it distract attention from the REAL problem, it also discredited Parliament, the ONLY body capable of reining them in, or at least of making significant moves in that direction. You’ve got to hand it to them – they are really slick operators, damn them!
Indeed, Andrew – However, to take it to the point where people have become so calloused that they can welcome the eviction of disabled/mentally ill makes me want to weep – I never thought our society could stoop so low nor vent its petty, selfish dissatisfactions in such a crass and trite manner. This needs explaining because it is the most alarming symptom of the formation of a fascist mind set.
I heard the other closet neoliberal Evan Davis refer to himself on the Today programme as a member of the ‘rarefied metropolitan elite’ the other day. I almost choked on my cornflakes.
Nothing ‘closet’ about him! he’s even tried to explain and justify the neo-lib project in terms of evolutionary psychology – humans like to group around the rich and Wealthy so as to create a feeling of greater security! Read:
Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity by Raymond Tallis!