Bbc brexit bias revisited | thearticle

For years the BBC has responded to accusations of bias in two ways. First, by ignoring such accusations and by making it as hard as possible to provide viewers and listeners with ways to

complain. Second, they have said, “we are attacked by both the Left and Right so we must be doing something right.” Jay Elwes doesn’t work for the BBC, as far as I know, but the second of

these is the argument he uses in his response to my piece for _TheArticle_ last week about BBC bias over Brexit. This starts with his title: “When everyone thinks the media is biased against

them, journalists are getting it right.” This doesn’t follow. If Lord Adonis thinks the BBC is hopelessly biased against Remainers and that the ERG think the BBC is biased against Leavers

that doesn’t mean the BBC is right. It may be that Lord Adonis _and _the BBC are both wrong. What we need is evidence and argument. In my piece I tried to back up my arguments with evidence.

I quoted newspaper articles accusing the BBC of bias with the facts and figures they used. I gave examples, not just saying that Fiona Bruce interrupted James Cleverly but how often. I said

how many people (more than 2,000) had complained about a remark by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News. And I concluded, “There seems to be a pattern here and the BBC and Channel 4 News seem

reluctant to provide clear information which might refute these allegations of different kinds of bias. It is time for a parliamentary enquiry into these questions. Our news broadcasters

must be seen to be completely impartial, especially at a time when the country is so fiercely divided over Brexit.” In his clear and courteous response, Jay Elwes argues that such a

parliamentary enquiry is “an appalling idea”, that our media provide a wide spectrum of opinion and  that Brexit is a disaster so the BBC is quite right to cast a critical eye over the

claims of Brexiteers (“After all, what else could the media say about Brexit? . . . Give them a target as rich and varied as this and of course they’ll sink their teeth in.”). He doesn’t

refute any of the evidence I offer or provide evidence of his own. Last week did Emma Barnett interrupt a Conservative minister twelve times in two minutes on her FiveLive programme or not?

Did Mishal Husain constantly interrupt Matt Hancock on the _Today _programme or not? Did James Naughtie compare the ERG with the Front National and the AfD? Were the reports by the IEA and

Civitas about the under-representation of Brexiteers on flagship BBC programmes wrong? At the time of writing, social media is full of a story about Jeremy Corbyn misleading Parliament about

his expenses related to the infamous wreath-laying trip to Tunisia. It has been reported in _The Sun _and it is all over part of social media. I have seen no reference to it at all on the

BBC News website, on any BBC news programme on TV or radio. Why not? This is a huge political story which, if true, implies that Corbyn misled Parliament about this particular trip. Complete

silence on the BBC. Elwes asks why I focus on the BBC. I do so for two reasons. First, the BBC is publicly funded. Second, it has a worldwide reputation for accuracy and impartiality. If

there is evidence for bias this is a serous issue. The BBC has made no apparent effort to investigate these allegations of bias. BBC News executives have not replied to my criticisms about

bias on a number of issues (not just Brexit). I am beginning to run out of patience and wonder if a parliamentary enquiry is the only way left. If the BBC won’t sort itself out then someone

else will have to, above all, for the sake of the BBC’s reputation which Jay Elwes and I agree is so important.