[Media-watch] Dissent under pressure at the BBC

[david Miller]

as promised

Dissent under pressure on the BBC

The BBC is putting its staff under pressure to keep dissent over Iraq off the air.  An internal memo written by Director of News Richard Sambrook and circulated throughout the BBC, advises staff to 'be careful' and that it is 'important' to have voices 'to articulate the Bush/Blair line'.  The memo indicates a growing nervousness in the Corporation which seems to be taking a line much more restrictive than other channels.

'Can I share a growing concern' wrote Sambrook in the email sent on 6 of February, nine days before the biggest marches in British history.  'Listening to phone-ins and emails it seems to me we are attracting some of the more extreme anti-war views.'  While acknowledging that the public is against 'unilateral US action', Sambrook goes on to 
complain that those 'motivated to call in or email are, to my ear, frequently from the more extreme end. (The "lets have regime change in Washington London and Israel" variety). We may sometimes unwittingly be nobbled by anti war campaigners  (I heard exactly the same question phrased the same way on 5 programmes in one day).  Of course anti war campaigners are trying to influence the media, but a more likely explanation for the uniformity of message is the widespread use of the internet to access the real news that the BBC will not broadcast.

Sambrook also notes that the preponderance of dissent 'forces out presenters to put the Bush/Blair position to callers -- sometimes making us appear to be siding with the government'.  You couldn't make this up.  The notion that 'balance' requires anti-war views to be countered with the 'Bush/Blair' line shows just how out of touch the BBC is.  The real debate in the UK is between those who would accept war with a UN resolution and those who would not.  In between are a vast array of dissenters who worry about the 'evidence' for war.  All the opinion polls show that this is the case.  Most revealingly, Sambrook goes straight on to note that the appearance of siding with the government is 'not true in all cases'.  Could there be a clearer admission that the BBC is on occasion 'siding' with the government.  How does this sit with the legal duty to be impartial?  The appearance also means that the BBC is desperately casting around for pro Blair voices: 'Equally it is of course important that we have someone to articulate the Bush/Blair line'

The memo reveals the increasing distance between t he BBC and the British public on this question.  Other broadcasting outlets have found it difficult but have started to adapt  to a situation where most of the political establishment is adrift from the vast majority of the public.  Normally the media fill their news bulletins with authorised knowers' - politicians, experts, people of importance mistaking status for authorititativeness.  The anti-war protests have sent a shock through the media system.  Some - such as Channel Four have tried to adapt: Jon Snow presented Channel Four News from the London demo; ITN broke new ground by arranging for six anti war protestors to meet Blair.  Channel Five News - until recently the preserve of candyfloss lifestyle news - have gone further and appointed an 'anti-war correspondent'.  These are very much adaptations to a seismic democratic shift.  

Senior BBC management meanwhile have spent much time worrying about how to keep anti-war sentiment off the airwaves.  BBC bosses publicly worried about how they could best excise anti-war sentiment from the Bafta awards, noting that  'When it comes to editing, we will be concentrating on what is appropriate to the event.'.  A Radio Three world music poll disqualified the front runner on the basis of 'voting irregularities'.  'This is intended to be a musical award... not motivated and organised for political reasons' said Stephen Whittle, head of Editorial Policy.  In BBC TV news reports on the 15th Tony Blair's speech in Glasgow was reported but no mention at all was made of the 70-80,000 people - the biggest demonstration in Scottish political history - who marched to protest at Blair's visit.  On the morning of the 15th Radio Four's Today programme refused to interview any representative of the Stop the War coalition, CND or MAB the organisers of the march.  The BBC's Deputy Director of News Mark Damazer, told the organisers he had 'no intention' of allowing them on.  The leaked memo reveals why such judgements are made.  But the record of the BBC will now be marked with the stain that their flagship radio programme failed to interview any of the organisers of the biggest march in British history on the morning it happened.  

The pressure from management has not gone down well in all parts of the BBC where - away from the flagship networked programmes BBC journalists have been adopting creative ways to represent mass dissent.  But clearly such attempted innovations do not please the hierarchy. 

As Sambrook writes 'these are delicate judgements and we will pay a high price for getting them wrong.  I suggest further discussion in programme meetings and at Ed Policy and Ed Board.'  The price may well be high and depending on which way they jump it will be paid either in viewers or government intimidation and harassment.  The evidence of the war is increasingly showing that the reason that viewers have been turning off from broadcast news and current affairs is not because of their lack of interest in politics but rather their disdain for dull bite size government friendly reporting.  The audience for question time, for example, routinely languishes at around a million.  Yet, according to BBC sources, when there is a real debate such as when Ken Livingstone was on talking about the war or when Andy Gilchrist of the FBU was on the audiences reached around 1.3-1.4 million.  In the last couple of weeks Question Time has bitten the bullet and evaded the routine Millbank attempts to control the guest list.  First George Galloway and then Vanessa Redgrave have appeared.  Viewing figures shot up to 2.3 and 2.4 million.  But this BBC success in their mission to bring back audiences to serious politics is something of a state secret in the Corporation.  You will look in vain for a press release on the BBC website.

If the BBC does start properly representing public views they risk the wrath of No10.  Maybe that wrath has already been expressed.  Wouldn't it be interesting to hear how this debate is playing out in the BBCs confidential editorial policy meetings?