I have already noted that I did not appear on Newsnight last night, despite getting as far as the Green Room. And I have noted why.
As a consequence I wrote a blog saying what I might have tried to get across on air. The only reason for doing that when I did was that I'd tweeted that I believed I was appearing and so felt an obligation to follow up. I was not trying to show up Newsnight, or necessarily criticise them. That's despite the fact that their track record would suggest they must do this to someone every night. Instead I was simply getting my thoughts on record.
To my surprise my tweets, and that blog post, got quite surprisingly noticed on social media. About 1,000 new Twitter followers have resulted. Most seem to be angry with the BBC.
On a day when Steve Bannon was given an unopposed free ride for fifteen minutes on the Today programme the inability to put another lone voice in air was noted, especially when the right were not present because they'd pulled out.
And the perceived imbalance of the BBC in general was also referred to.
And, I am pleased to say, some noted what I actually wrote.
What I take from this is something deeper. I was frustrated of course. In fairness, I think the BBC producer was as well. She was very apologetic. I think they had tried to get someone to debate with me when Arthur Laffer pulled out. But the fact that they could not continue without the right being present, when they appear to have very many fewer qualms about the left not being represented, is telling. And it has been noticed.
The BBC really does need to consider what balance means. I do not deny I am left leaning. But it is very apparent that I am willing to criticise any and all political parties when I think it appropriate. To suggest I am party political is hard, I would suggest. I rather suspect some in Labour would agree.
Is it so hard in that case for a singular opinion to be aired, especially when I had made clear what my line would be in advance?
I think not.
Maybe I reveal my bias.
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:
It just confirms what many of us in Scotland knew about the BBC. There was a long lead up to it but they played a substantial part in giving us Boris as PM.
I tell you Richard that there are a lot of mild, sane & reasonable people shouting at their radio’s these days in pure frustration at the crap that is being peddled in the name of balance on the BBC. I’ve never seen or heard it before but a section of society are getting a mite fed up with the:
Basically
Biased
Communication
Johnson and his ‘Toxies’ (sic) may have had a bounce of some sort but it is not clear to me that he is going to get away with anything by those who actually vote given his past record as a bounder basically. The Toxies may end up regretting their choice even yet.
“Maybe I reveal my bias. ”
Your bias is commendable, but alas the popular media are (once again) providing the right with rebuttal material: Spending on the NHS, schools and higher public sector pay can now be afforded and justified because our government took heroic action to cut newLabour’s obscene borrowing after the financial crisis.
1 – Why then is £sterling 10% lower against the euro and 15% lower against USD since 2010?
2 – How did austerity not reduce borrowing anything like as much as planned? In 2010 the OBR forecast that PSNB would be just £20bn by 2015-16. In fact it turned out to be £71.8bn. Over the first five years of austerity the government borrowed £158.9bn more than expected i because depressing economic activity meant austerity also cut tax revenues.
3 – why then has austerity not shown itself to be counterproductive and unsustainable? Cutting prison staff looks like a “saving”, until prisoners riot or re-offend upon release because of a lack of rehabilitation. “Savings” on flood defences prove expensive when we need to repair the damage done by flooding. Cuts in psychiatric care and youth services impose extra costs and failures on the police, our communities and economy. A lack of spending on schools isn’t a saving if parents have to have collections to buy books and pay a hidden tax by donating money to schools.
Your bias Richard is commendable because your ideas show that the left can promote policies and instituations that increase productivity, enterprise, social cohesion and economic stimulation not only reduce income and wealth inequality.
All power to you sir. I just wish that more people on the social democratic left confidently and aggresively adhered to your analysis.
I only listen to R3 and the Cricket (even though I’m Scottish). That way I remain reasonably sane and calm – well, apart from the World Cup Final, where an Irishman (and other “immigrants”) gave a helping hand.
As far as I’m concerned the BBC News and Current Affairs (in Scotland and now in England) have scraped the bottom of the barrel and are no longer worthy of our trust.
It strikes me that this is a great way to shut you up. If the ‘other’ side of the balance equation doesn’t like your argument, isn’t up for real debate, has a weak position all they have to do is not turn up. This means that they don’t get to peddle their views, but they often have more opportunity to do so than the left view, making it a great way to stifle alternate opinions. I sounds to me that this is little more than the school playground where all you need to do is stick your fingers in your ears and say nah nah nah.
It’s not balance, it’s entertainment. Laffer was the attraction, with Richard to spice up the interview. No Laffer, no article.
Economics needs to be treated as a science, not a philosophy. There’s enough concrete evidence now for interviewers to tackle pundits themselves, rather than rely on an opposing expert. When David Attenborough discusses evolution, a creationist is not brought in to opine that The Flintstones was realistic. When Brian Cox discusses the big bang theory, a medium does not channel Fred Hoyle.
I tend to agree with this
I agree with 99.9% of content on this blog but as a scientist struggle with the concept of economics as ‘a science’
Varoufakis has some
Interesting views on this.
http://aidc.org.za/varoufakis-explains-economics-not-science/
Also just to say thank you Richard for the quality content!
Told you so. Glad it got picked up by quite a number of those not asleep at the wheel.
As for bias….(excuse me while I choke on my mackerel)…Bannon (among many fascists recently aired) interviewed at length and with little proper challenge should put that argument at rest.
So now it transpires that the other guest had to pull out at the last minute because of a family emergency. And you decide to characterise it as follows:
‘And then they said Laffer had pulled out. No reason had been given. I could suggest one. He’d learned who his opponent was.’
Any chance of a retraction on this blog when you learnt the news, or do we continue letting everyone pile on ?
Staying classy
No one told me Laffer pulled out for this reason until Emily Maitlis disclosed in a tweet not even addressed to me at about midday today
I have absolutely no reason to apologise
I have complained to the BBC about Maitlis’ claim I distorted matters when I had not been told of them
I had a mail from the BBC last night saying I should not have been treated the way I was
Laffer came off worst when Richard and he last met. In the absence of any proper explanation from the BBC, it was fair assumption to make by Richard. However, had the BBC been professional and courteous and fully disclosed the reason, Richard would not have interpreted it that way.
The shoddy handling of all of this makes me agree that the BBC just sees current affairs as entertainment. They are in other words thinking more like a commercial station than thinking about their original aims and objectives in the way they handle things.
Also, I like Maitlis but I cannot help but think like many leading TV journo’s these days, she thinks that she is the story. She’s not the worst at it but it sounds to me as though she is protecting herself and the Newsnight brand and also admit to not watching it as much as I used to.
I think we should be a bit circumspect with criticisms of the BBC. It is certainly an imperfect institution and gets things wrong regularly and often in a systematic way eg. in respect to balance between left and right which you mention. But we should also try and understand just how difficult a task it faces in trying to put out balanced news which represents different aspects of public debate in a fair and critical way. Also it is worth thinking about just how problematic the media would be if we didn’t have the BBC.
One final point to make: criticisms of the BBC where the argument is that it is giving air time to such and such a view seem to me to miss an important point. Such views are being represented because as the BBC perceives that they have gained currency within public debate and discourse. The views need to be defeated in the realm of public debate and ideas, and to the extent that they are not being defeated isn’t so much the responsibility of the BBC, but people who oppose them. Ie. the fact that objectionable and stupid views on the right are getting airtime on the BBC is because so far, the left hasn’t been able to defeat or marginalise those views or render them pointless.
I used to admire the BBC but situations like this continue to erode my trust and faith in them as a public sector broadcaster to be proud of.
How on earth do they expect programmes like Newsnight to improve knowledge and expand citizens understanding of issues where, as Nicholas says above, a weak argument cannot be exposed because a guest does not turn up and in the interest of balance the BBC cancel the discussion? That is how a civilisation stagnates and ultimately perishes.
The BBC have been doing this for ages – wheeling out Nigel Lawson every time there was a discussion on climate change even at the point where the scientific evidence demonstrated that human-induced climate change was no long a theory but as near to scientific fact as it possible to get.
Who knows perhaps they will start bringing on Flat-Earthers every time they want to discuss something Global!
I’m very concerned that Steve Bannon – who is basically a neo-fascist – gets 15 minutes of prime time radio on the Today Programme. This is the BBC recast as a far-right propaganda outlet. When Labour wins the next election (as I think they will – even if they end up leading a minority govt) we desperately need an inquiry into bias in the BBC’s news output. It’s been getting worse and worse for some time now – they’ve gone from giving the ConDem govt an easy ride on austerity in 2010-15, to a stage where they are now actively encouraging and showcasing political viewpoints on the extreme right of the politicial spectrum. The question I’d like answered is: why are they doing this? Has the BBC management been taken over by fascists, or are they being lent on by the Tory govt? And if the latter, why is the Tory govt bigging up Steve Bannon? There must be some reason behind all this.
I agree with all that Howard
“The BBC really does need to consider what balance means. ”
The organisation came under heavy fire are year or so ago for giving too much time to the likes of Lawson – spouting drivel about the climate disaster (or in his view – the lack thereof).
Thus the org’ has form over many years with respect to a lack of balance & is in need of root & branch reform – far too many establishment figures.
I don’t listen to R4/the Toady prog anymore – it carries nothing of interest apart from mostly Tory propaganda spouted by know-nothings.
There are two bases for criticising the BBC; balance and challenge.
Their defence to the balance criticism is that we are being attacked by both sides so we must be getting it right. This despite last nights example (and others) of Richard/Laffer vs Bannon, and the classic of Farage on question time.
The other criticism – challenge – they are as or more guilty of. Blatant lies endlessly go unchallenged. It’s hard to tell whether this is ignorance on the part of the presenters or guidance from producers or others further up the management tree. The contrast is regularly made with Channel4 news who are much more inclined to challenge interviewees, regardless of their politics.
Both are a problem and they sound too often like a mouthpiece for the current government. I also sympathise with friends N of the border. I’m a big supporter of the BBC so find it very saddening. It suits those on both main political party’s extremes to undermine the BBC – I’m all in favour of a drains-up to understand what’s been going on and to get the BBC back on track
“Has the BBC management been taken over by fascists, or are they being lent on by the Tory govt? And if the latter, why is the Tory govt bigging up Steve Bannon? There must be some reason behind all this.”
My theory FWIW is the decline of print journalism has funnelled ex-Murdoch workers into the “soft option” of the BBC.
Their contacts and attitudes transfer while the old hands get retired and replaced by a new breed of editor, who sets a different agenda.
I don’t think the management need to be leaned on. Similar situation with corporate capture in the revolving door to the lobby at Parliament.
Besides that – thanks to Richard for the excellent commentary.
But please – lose the beard if/when you do go on TV.
You have more gravitas when you LOOK like an accountant!
I rather like the beard….
Surely the obvious question to ask is this.
If you had pulled out of the programme at very short notice
Would they have told Laffer he could go home?
Beards are good – less time preening in front of a mirror scrapping ones face daily. A sign of self confidence too!
Maitlis and co – these way overpaid, over powered, PUBLIC broadcasters – are daily shown as the gatekeepers they are.
As for the fallacy of balance – there is no need to make a balance on every single broadcast. You could easily have been interviewed yesterday and the cancelee another day. Balance would be preserved.
After all there is no balance on all other issues.