This story has been published by The National in the last couple of hours and refers to an interview I did with BBC Radio Scotland this morning:
As they note:
ECONOMIST Richard Murphy clashed with a BBC Radio Scotland presenter as he ripped into the corporation for being “biased against the nationalist cause”.
Murphy took part in the phone-in on the Mornings show presented by Connie McLaughlin on Wednesday when the pair got into a spat.
Midway through an extensive discussion on impartiality at the BBC, Murphy came onto the programme to say he did not have confidence in the BBC, highlighting that the “nationalist community” does not trust the broadcaster because it is “so absolutely pro-Unionist”.
After former BBC political editor Brian Taylor was brought back into the discussion – having spoken on the programme already – alongside ex-BBC Radio 4 presenter Roger Bolton, Murphy and McLaughlin then got into a heated back-and-forth.
Eventually, after many interruptions from the presenter, who seemed totally unaware that the producer had invited me onto the programme because, apparently, they could find 'no one in Scotland' who had a word of criticism to make about the BBC, I was allowed a word in edgeways and got to say:
The BBC is biased in favour of big business, it is biased in favour of the right wing media because it uses that as its news sources in the main for discussion, it is biased against the nationalist cause in Scotland, it is biased against the Palestinian cause in its claim and its right to have a state, [and] it is biased in favour of Israel very clearly.
Lesley Riddoch captured the exchanges in a Tweet, which I share below.
The bias was staggering. In a supposed discussion on bias in the BBC, which had BBC employees or ex-employees appear one after the other to sing its praises, including the fact, as one suggested, that in 35 years he had never seen editorial bias, I was interrupted from the moment I began to criticise it, as if to prove that everything I had to say about bias was justified.
Even more bizarrely, when they introduced me, they said I was a 'columnist' but would not even mention The National newspaper that I write for - so biased are they against it. I had to correct them.
Never doubt that the BBC is biased.
And most especially, never doubt that it is very biased in Scotland, where Unionism is the only cause that it represents.
No wonder no one wanted to go on: the odds were grossly unfairly stacked against me as a critic. And that, apparently, is an absence of bias in the BBC lexicon.
Unbelievable exchange this morning on Radio Scotland between the presenter and Professor @RichardJMurphy, interrupting him and conducting an interview with barely concealed contempt. Really bad. pic.twitter.com/24foHLktqn
— Lesley Riddoch (@LesleyRiddoch) July 16, 2025
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
The BBC is disappearing up its own backside, as it is now running programmes where BBC presenters just sit and chat to each other.
A very powerful contribution on the direct line between the media (especially the BBC) and political establishment smearing the left under Corbyn and the capitulation on Israel/Gaza is by Richard Sanders on Double Down News. Essential viewing.
https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2025/july/15/how-labour-antisemitism-hoax-paved-way-for-genocide
~In the past the suggestion that the BBC be accountable to the licence fee payer has appeared in comments on this blog. This would mean the Trustees are elected by the payers, and the Trustees decide the size, scope and price of the service through appointments of the DG and the other directors of programming. Fundamentally this would remove a government department (the DCMS) from making the appointments, and remove the State from setting the fee.
~In the past you’ve rubbished this suggestion, preferring to keep the institution under State and not licence payer control.
I simply think it not technically feasible at sensible cost.
I did leave a comment in the previous story regarding this but it has gone all I will say well done Mr Murphy about time they were challenged over the biased reporting before reading this article I contacted ofcom Scotland about the reporting regarding bias but I doubt they will do anything.
Well done sir.
Thanks
Ofcom Scotland however is still controlled by the same organisation in England…and will use the same standards if we can call it that.
Thank you Richard for calling them out. You stuck to your task despite an extremely rude presenter. Over many years I complained directly to the BBC about their bias and misinformation. Of course they never admit to any bias. I no longer watch any BBC news or political programmes.
Thanks
Astounding.
You did very well indeed.
The trouble with presenters like Connie Whatserface is that they think they are entertainers.
If I could get my hands on the BBC, heads would roll, I’d strip it clean and start again especially on current affairs and ‘light entertainment’. I’d have some of the ‘commissioners’ made more accountable for a start – maybe I’d make them dress up in pantyhose and and have them stand in cold custard for a couple of hours as they explained to me the nuances of their commissioning skills. I keep trying to get our household to stop paying the license to be honest but without success. I’m not too impressed with Channel 4 either.
Well done Richard, seriously.
Thanks
Totally agree with the points you were making, Richard. I was brought up to believe that the BBC was neutral, fair and unbiased, sadly those days are long gone!
I gave up on BBC Scotland, and the BBC in general, years ago; in Scotland it’s a very good idea to do that. Sanity demands it.
The presenters belong to some sort of cult to rival North Korea. You will never find an impartial presenter amongst them.
I don’t know whether you are bothered (I doubt it) but you won’t be asked back. One of the upsides of pointing out their partiality. Revel in it – you’ll never have to engage the dopes ever again.
My experience is otherwise.
*engage with the dopes*
And they wonder why an increasing number of us in Scotland refuse to pay their tv licence!
Fantastic Richard. Editorially speaking, especially so in Scotland (where I live), the BBC is a disgrace. I can no longer listen to most BBC Scotland programs, especially the morning show you were on, where multiple hosts are obviously biased and addicted to non-stop interrupting “guests”. We gave up our TV licence several years ago as our own wee protest against the corporation. I don’t miss TV in the least (except for the odd rugby match), and my blood has dropped a few points according. Thanks for sticking to your guns this morning and making your points so strongly and directly. You have made my day (insert extremely smiley emoji here).
Thanks
Well said, Richard. Scotland is badly treated by the BBC, and poorly served; but that is only part of the problem.
The BBC is currently enduring criticism over the management of presenters on Masterchef. It was in trouble not very long ago, over the management of Huw Edwards. In 1995 it was in trouble over the Martin Bashir interview of Princess Diana. The BBC’s own 1996 investigation into the interview was described as “woefully ineffective” (Dyson Report). Earlier it was in trouble over the management of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall, over decades. “At least 72 people were sexually abused by Savile in connection with his work at the BBC, including eight victims who were raped. There was also one attempted rape. The youngest rape victim was 10 years old” (BBC News report, 25th February, 2016, quoting from the Dame Janet Smith Report on the Savile affair). Dame Janet Smith’s report contains one case of a young girl from the audience on ‘Top of the Pops’, who reported Savile for seriously inappropriate behaviour. Security staff were called. The decision was quickly and decisively taken: the young girl was thrown out on the street.
The BBC, we may consider from the repeated problems, appears to have an endemic, constantly recurring problem managing the ‘talent’. Exactly how many of the Dame Janet Smith Report recommendations have been precisely, and rigorously applied? What public evidence has it supplied of the changes that it required to make in the management of ‘talent’?
The BBC, frankly should have lost its Charter over its repeated failures of management. Are we supposed to believe there is anything worse for an institution and its credibilty than the events surrounding Savile? What has to happen before the BBC pays a serious price for its gross failings? What would it have to do, to pay a real penalty for failure? Anything at all?
Thanks Richard.
To add to the list – I see BBC bias in their reporting of Africa, India, China and even sports events. I have grown up with BBC and have been a great admirer. They have produced some fantastic content over the decades however their coverage of Covid and recent wars have been selective and more towards shaping the narrative in favour of the government (i.e. wealthy donors).
I did what I could…..
Its not surprising – other than that they had you on the programme at all.
The BBC’s self congratulatory complacency about its in built biases is staggering. It makes the Ministry of Truth seem really crude. On R4 media show this afternoon there was ‘a discussion’ on BBC’s Gaza coverage which concluded that generally the BBC’s coverage had been fine – although ‘they perhaps could have found a way of broadcasting the ‘Doctors Under Attack’ film which Channel 4 eventually took on.
But the whole unstated implication was that BBC was having to show that it wasn’t Hamas- biased (Glastonbury, ‘Children in Gaza’ film etc.). Not a hint that BBC staff had sent an open letter complaining of pro Israel coverage and dehumanising of Palestinians, or than hundreds of writers and artists had penned an open letter to the same effect.
A resigning staff member had said BBC had invented a whole new language to refer to the ongoing massacre and slaughter.
No questioning of whether there should be at least occasional references to international arrest warrants for Israel’s leaders or whether UK could do more.
They are allowed to mark their own homework.
I was personally invited on by the producer.
No one seemed to have told the presenter.
And much to agree with in your comment.
Bloody Brilliant!
Well said.
Made the same points in BBC survey, it’s an Establishment neoliberal tool.
Thanks Prof
Thanks
Thee BBC is pro Isreal and anti Palestine? Are you sure?
Oh, yes
As an exiled Weejie, “nice waan Jimmeh! That put her gas at a peep!”.
I bet her earpiece was buzzing during that wee exchange.
I hope so…
Until Before Brexit, I’d try to defended aspects of the BBC….
The “impartiality” position was thoroughly unpicked by John Pilger as far back as the 80’s. Upset at BBC bias more than 15 years ago, I uncovered an old book by Pilger on BBC bias … True before, then and moreso now.
Their “journalism” is now awful/shocking. Superficial rehash of tabloid leads or pedalling stories prepared as news releases. It’s easier/quicker. Stenographers, not journalists.
However …. Their top team/editorial now seem worse … Their presentation/interviewing on current affairs/politics/economics is neoliberal to the core……
Thank you, Richard.
This is the kind of treatment all SNP representatives have received over many years. Presenters rubbishing what the invited speakers say, interrupting their attempts to speak, treating them with thinly-veiled contempt. Loading audiences with pro-Unionist spectators. Bringing on indy ‘rivals’ and giving them loads of air time that their vote share doesn’t warrant, etc. Magnifying any perceived (or invented) fault or disagreement within the organisation. On and on and on…SNP Baaaad….
Considering the SNP has been the elected Scottish government since 2007 and, for most of that time, have had the lion’s share of MPs as well, this blatant bias is extraordinary. But the BBC continues with it, because it works. Voters and supporters get put off by what they see on such a ‘trusted’ broadcaster.
The BBC is definitely a tool of the state. Such a shame, to lose such a good broadcaster to this kind of manipulation.
I remember back (in the late 80s) when they used to broadcast (without commentary) most of the SNP annual conferences live, on BBC 2. After moving to Scotland I used to watch these broadcasts, and I joined the SNP based on the debates they held over various subjects and the humanitarian conclusions the membership reached. Maybe this is why the BBC stopped giving the SNP this platform; it made the party and its aims far too appealing for unionists to stomach.
Hmm I would rather Richard use a different term to ‘nationalist’. That term has very negative connontations across the globe…he should say pro independence community, or pro SNP (N=national) or pro self determination anything but ‘nationalist’.
Noted, but I am not at all sure I agree.