BBC news chiefs: Not our Job to Save Planet

Two of the BBC's most senior news and current affairs executives attacked the corporation's plans yesterday for a Comic Relief-style day of programming on environmental issues, saying it was not the broadcaster's job to preach to viewers.

The event, understood to have been 18 months in development, would see stars such as Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross take part in a "consciousness raising" event, provisionally titled Planet Relief, early next year.

But, speaking at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival yesterday, Newsnight's editor, Peter Barron, and the BBC's head of television news, Peter Horrocks, attacked the plan, which also seems to contradict the corporation's guidelines. Asked whether the BBC should campaign on issues such as climate change, Mr Horrocks said: "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it." Mr Barron said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."

After
one year's investigation, an official BBC report reveals that the BBC
shows a strong liberal bias through its disproportionately large
coverage of certain "single-issue" concerns.

Commissioned last year by the BBC managers and board of governors,
the report concludes that political events and daily news are covered
fairly. The Daily Telegraph reports, however, that the agency has given
a heavily biased portrayal of issues such as poverty, climate change
and religion.

The report also admitted that the BBC has missed some excellent
opportunities and had "blind spots" in past reporting. After mentioning
several examples including the death penalty, the report addresses the
issue of abortion: "One [BBC] news and current affairs producer
mentioned an instance where he had proposed a Newsnight investigation
into the extent to which abortion in Britain was available, in effect,
on demand."

"His argument was that there was a conspiracy of silence about this:
although it had not been the intention of the legislation, most people
in the field knew this was what was actually happening. But he was
accused of being 'anti-abortion', and a perfectly reasonable-indeed
fascinating-programme idea was not pursued."

Asking whether the BBC is Christian, the report concludes, "When,
outside of religious programming, mention (admittedly rare) is made of
Jesus Christ, Holy Communion, the Crucifixion or the Resurrection,
belief is not assumed, but explanation is not normally given. These
essential elements of the Christian faith are presumed to be shared
knowledge among the audience, whether or not as individuals they are
believers." It then indicates that by explaining Christianity, the BBC
programs would convey the message that mainstream culture is no longer
Christian itself.

The report failed to mention, however, that the BBC also gave
negatively biased coverage of the Catholic Church in 2006. The program
Panorama personally connected Benedict XVI with sex-abuse scandals,
accusing him of being complicit in covering up the crimes. The
accusations were based, however, upon the testimony of only two men,
one who was a dissident priest and the other who founded an
organization with anti-Catholic biases (see
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/061...).

During the same year, BBC also admitted to having an anti-Christian
bias (also not specifically addressed in the report). "The BBC is not
impartial or neutral," said Andrew Marr, BBC senior political
commentator. "It's a publicly funded, urban organization with an
abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay
people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is
better expressed as a cultural liberal bias." (see
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/061...)

After reviewing its findings, the BBC report has developed twelve
guidelines for guarding objectivity. The report indicates the
importance of impartiality in those issues especially that may contain
moral or ethical questions. "Impartiality is most obviously at risk,"
says one of the guidelines, "in areas of sharp public controversy. But
there is a less visible risk, demanding particular vigilance, when
programmes purport to reflect a consensus for 'the common good', or
become involved with campaigns."

The guidelines require that the BBC examine its own values and
maintain a complete objectivity in every field, program and step of
production. Producers must ensure that impartiality "begins at the
conception of a programme and lasts throughout the production."

Commenting on these recent developments, a BBC London journalist
told LifeSiteNew.com, "John Reith's directive that the BBC should
'inform, educate and entertain' is still as relevant today as it was
when he formed the BBC in 1926. While striving for impartiality is key,
so too is the ability to speak out on issues such as global poverty,
school bullying and domestic violence. Does that make the organisation
biased? Or simply a public service broadcaster? I, personally, am proud
to work for an organisation that strives to inform and educate-despite
the criticism that such bold actions entail."

In a press release today, BBC trustee and former ITN editor-in-chief
Richard Tait underlined that this impartiality does not necessarily
mean political correctness. "We know that audiences demand and value
impartiality as essential to the BBC's independence. They particularly
value impartiality in news, and they recognise its importance in other
programme areas," Tait said.

He continued, "BBC audiences believe that impartiality should not
lead to political correctness. The BBC agrees and one of our new
principles makes clear that impartiality is no excuse for insipid
programme-making. Providing space for controversial and passionate
writers and contributors of all kinds will ensure impartiality is an
antidote to political correctness."

At present, BBC Deputy Director-General Mark Byford, Creative
Director Alan Yentob and Director of News Helen Boaden are sending the
report and guidelines to the entire BBC staff, and a variety of
responses are expected.

The
Governors of the BBC plan to request quarterly reports from the
government network on impartiality. These reports are to indicate
whether, and to what extent, viewers and listeners believe the BBC to
be biased.

This effort to better track bias comes on the heels of specific
complaints against the public broadcaster. Last month, the BBC admitted
that it presented a biased radio interview involving a pedophile priest
and a Cardinal. The Church’s representative was constantly challenged
on statements he made about the Cardinal, while a contributor with an
opposing viewpoint was allowed to say anything that she wanted,
including statements that were not true, without any challenge
whatsoever.

The Conservative Party made several complaints about the BBC’s
coverage of England’s local May 1 elections. In spite of the fact that
the Tories gained 565 seats on local councils, the BBC described the
outcome as a "marginal victory." Accusations were also leveled at the
corporation for allegedly switching its description of the election
results from the number of seats won, to the percentage of the vote
that each party got. The percentage of votes that the Conservatives got
put the party in a poorer light than was reflected in the number of
seats won.

It would be nice if the CBC took the same approach to bias
complaints as the BBC has done, instead of sending out the troops to
deny that there is bias. The National Post however, has embarked on
tracking bias on the peoples’ network. Comments concerning CBC bias can
be sent to www.cbc-watch@nationalpost.com.