Article
If Ofcom shines a light on BBC News, it should wake up Today
Parts of the BBC would benefit from a long, hard, independent look at the way they handle stories, says Martin Campbell
John Humphrys and Sarah Montague in the Today studio: the programme's confrontational interviews are neither investigative nor revelatory. Photograph: BBC
The BBC, and Radio 4 news in particular, should be wincing after the Lords communications committee proposal last week that Ofcom should have the final say over complaints about BBC impartiality and accuracy (or, rather, partiality and lack of accuracy).
Peers might get the Basil Fawlty award for stating the bleeding obvious, but it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction made with good motives. Whether Ofcom can carry it off is another matter, of course.
If Ofcom takes over oversight of BBC impartiality and accuracy, we should see a change in BBC output. It is high time a light was shone in the direction of BBC News, and nowhere should that light shine brighter than on the Today programme.
I do not believe the BBC is institutionally partial. However, partiality can grow in an organisation, if left unchecked, in a number of ways. The main road to partiality is through sloppy journalism. Taking the easy option on who to interview, for instance. If that becomes the norm, the output becomes skewed. Then there is the problem of presenters who believe their own publicity and think they should become part of the story before viewers and listeners know enough of the background to make a judgment.
Jumping on press releases and following the tabloid circus leads down the same path to partiality and inaccuracy. It is the oldest trick in the book for a company to dangle its client over reporters at every twist and turn, and all of a sudden spokespeople with a particular interest are becoming "experts" allowed by the BBC to peddle their views or have a disproportionate amount of access to airtime. There is one supermarket, for instance, which always seems to be mentioned in business news, even when it is not at the heart of the issue.
The BBC has been – and is – guilty of all these journalistic misdemeanours. Today, in particular, would benefit from a long, hard, independent look at the way it handles stories. There is a cry, and a loud one, that the BBC is anti-government. I have sympathy for those making the cry although they are not quite right. What often happens, I believe, is this: government spins an angle the day before big speeches and "initiatives". Today finds an anti-government spokesman to rubbish what is about to happen. Then it finds a government spokesman to argue against the case put by the opposition.
The delivery of the speech, its content and any ramifications simply slide away because the story "has already been covered". It has not, of course. The BBC finishes up debating and reporting a very self-selected argument that the BBC itself created.
That is not impartial reporting. That is quick, easy radio and TV masquerading as news and is something to which the BBC Trust has seemed curiously oblivious.
When opportunities do arise to throw light on topics or meet the politicians who carry the can of the day, these opportunities are lost by the Today programme in a cloud of raised voices or screams to answer questions with a yes or a no, as if any sensible adult believes the world can be ruled at every single turn without a shade of grey.
John Humphrys seems to have bought into the idea that it is not a story unless it involves him. TV and radio history is littered with people who caricature themselves without realising it. Humphrys was a good interviewer, but once Dead Ringers started doing impressions of him, it appeared he wanted to do the best one. The result is that the cartoon character often does the interviews. It happened with Robin Day. It happened with Michael Parkinson. Both were skilled practitioners who eventually appeared more concerned with doing impressions of themselves than displaying the skills which brought them to the forefront in the first place.
Good-guy, bad-guy angles and personality-led, confrontational interviews are the easiest forms of broadcast news output. But they are neither investigative nor revelatory, duties which should be at the heart of the BBC. This cheapest form of news output is practised now at every twist and turn by a news organisation which can and does pay its senior staff handsomely. However, the simplicity of today's BBC radio and TV news also makes it a most dangerous form of broadcast news output.
It is a good time to look at BBC partiality and inaccuracy. But Ofcom must be given the teeth to act – and must not be tempted to find newfangled, politically expedient words and phrases to replace "impartiality and accuracy", muddy the waters, and make ruling on partiality and accuracy complaints farcical.
• Martin Campbell is a former Ofcom chief adviser, radio, and managing editor of Talk Radio (now TalkSport). He is now a broadcasting adviser
Related Content
User Comments
Spondit
3 July 2011 11:30PM
It is high time a light was shone in the direction of BBC News, and nowhere should that light shine brighter than on the Today programme.
And you are who, sorry? Oh that's right. A former editor of talk radio.
Genevastar
4 July 2011 6:48AM
It's interesting that this article purports to be about impartiality and accuracy. It seems to me to be curiously lacking in both. I am a 'sensible adult' who most certainly does not believe that the world can be ruled without a shade of grey, which is one of the reasons why I always listen to the 'Today' programme.
As for John Humphrys' 'screams' - I have never heard him scream on air in my life, and do not believe he ever would. I have heard him demand a 'yes or no' reply - in order to try to get a straight answer out of a blustering and evasive politician and, in the process, perhaps, a more accurate one.
I couldn't help smiling at your reference to 'cheap' news-output. It seems to be one of the condemnatory adjectives of choice these days. I'm surprised you didn't rebuke BBC news for being too 'middle-class' as well.
Personally, I dread the idea of Ofcom being 'given the teeth to act.' What next? A Ministry of Information??
Lovelight
4 July 2011 7:55AM
"There is one supermarket, for instance, which always seems to be mentioned in business news, even when it is not at the heart of the issue."
Just tell us which one and we can actually have our own opinion about this story. For a long while it was usually only Asda that let TV reporters on to film when it came to supermarket stories. Not much a hack can do about that.
itver
4 July 2011 9:23AM
Ever tried listening to The Today Programme (or indeed Radio 4) from say the outskirts of Huddersfield? It sounds like something not really about you.
For a start, the posh people. The usual BBC privately-educated lucky lucky people talking to you - I mean you just about never come across someome like Sarah Montague or Edward Stourton north of the M25. You know when they talk about poverty, or benefits, or state schools, or the NHS, they've never known anything about these things.
Then there's the disdain for Britain. Endless coverage of minor foreign stories. You can guarantee whatever domestic issue dominates the popular press on any day, it will be sidelined by The Today Programme. (Especiallty immigration. Ever heard Evan Davies or Mark Austin cover this? Totally out of touch with what ordinary people feel.) Bit of trouble in Bahrain? Lead story. They are many major public issues going on in Britain's towns and cities - not reported.
If they can make Breakfast in Salford, they can make Today too. Take the flagship out of London. No more think-tank reports, foreign dominance, plummy voices. You don't need to be in London to make a national radio show.
R042
4 July 2011 9:35AM
Bit of trouble in Bahrain? Lead story
Understatement of the year.
I would love to see you present the news...
"Hello and welcome to 1939. Well, there's a spot of bother in Poland, some rotter called Hitler's chummed up with good Mr Stalin and they're having a bit of a ruck but it's probably not very important..."
itver
4 July 2011 9:43AM
@R042
a) Ridicuous (and to many offensive) comparison R042. You must be young.
b) Being not at all posh, I don't understand the words you've used. Ruck?
DantheWhirlwind
4 July 2011 10:04AM
Personally, I dread the idea of Ofcom being 'given the teeth to act.' What next? A Ministry of Information??
How do you propose we control the media? Or should we let it go unregulated? It's vital Ofcom step in in the name of public discourse, to prevent shouty debates that become less about politics and more about PR point-scoring.
DantheWhirlwind
4 July 2011 10:07AM
Personally, I dread the idea of Ofcom being 'given the teeth to act.' What next? A Ministry of Information??
How do you propose we control the media? Or should we let it go unregulated? It's vital Ofcom step in in the name of public discourse, to prevent shouty debates that become less about politics and more about PR point-scoring.
Processedpea
4 July 2011 10:39AM
Hey, everybody, Martin Campbell believes " partiality can grow in an organisation, if left unchecked, in a number of ways. The main road to partiality is through sloppy journalism. Taking the easy option on who to interview, for instance. If that becomes the norm, the output becomes skewed. Then there is the problem of presenters who believe their own publicity and think they should become part of the story before viewers and listeners know enough of the background to make a judgement."
Maybe it'd be better addressing the output we can expect from the newly acquired "Sky News", there'll be no "Judgement calls" allowed there, journalist's will just have to tow the line.
I'd be more impressed by the arguments postulated if I didn't feel that Mr Campbell had an axe to grind with regard to BBC radio news. Mind you, the way he bangs on about impartiality he can't possibly have worked for an opposing radio "News" source could he?
oneroundjack
4 July 2011 10:39AM
It's not so much Humphrys doing an impression of himself that I find difficult; it's all the other presenters trying to be like his.
This morning the sports interviewer Garry Richardson once again did his 'beta' impression of Humphrys, rubbishly and over-zealously holding boxer David Haye on the ropes about retirement, like some schoolkid laughing it up on the day when the school bully's bunked off.
Next I'm expecting the weatherman to start ruthlessly grilling the latest high-pressure front as to why it as seen fit to occupy only the north of England without giving equal time and precipitation to the south east.
Dweezle
4 July 2011 10:45AM
You are trying to portray the BBC as some example of partiality? While it is in no way perfect please compare it to other media outlets. The BBC at least tries to be impartial, very , very few others, both foreign and domestic, even pretend to.
Genevastar
4 July 2011 11:46AM
I would prefer that we didn't, Danthewhirlwind. To me, even shouty debates are better than none at all. And I have travelled widely enough to see what happens when governments move to control the media. It may often be done for inocuous-sounding purposes. In my experience, it rarely ends with them. Ask any journalist working in a country with a Ministry of Information.
gingerjon
4 July 2011 12:05PM
Being not at all posh, I don't understand the words you've used. Ruck?
It's the area around the tackle and play-the-ball.
ScarlettOHarder
4 July 2011 12:30PM
This is all nonsense.
I listen to Today most mornings and I feel like this man is describing a completely different programme.
This morning, for example, a really interesting first-hand report on elderly care homes, Lord Howe talking about President Reagan was a very unusual perspective on global political history, and the package about gang crime in Glasgow was also really strong.
Yes, Humphries gets a bit pompous, and yes they do sometimes manufacture polarity in debates, but on the whole there's nothing to even come close to Today.
There are far worse problems elsewhere in the BBC which we should be concentrating on. Stop wasting our time with your conflicted interests, Martin Campbell.
pfunk1
4 July 2011 1:22PM
I do not believe the BBC is institutionally partial.
Try looking a little harder.
The main road to partiality is through sloppy journalism.
No, really, it's not, it's through the interests and support of one party (political or otherwise) gaining ascendancy in the newsrooms, in this case, of the BBC.
The BBC was not impartial in the months and years immediately prior to the 1997 election when they were constantly critical of the John Major government while looking favourably on New Labour.
Nor were they impartial in the months and years in the run up to the last election when they were constantly lambasting Gordon Brown while giving the Conservatives an easy ride - admittedly they became more balanced after the election date was announced.
That is not impartiality and impartiality is very important in the interests of democracy. It should be woven in to the culture of the country's premier public service broadcaster and despite claims to the contrary it clearly is not. A semblance of impartiality is not the same as the real thing
The BBC newsroom's job should be to inform, elucidate and, as objectively as possible, explain, then to allow people to form their own opinions. It should not be in the business of swinging votes - that is why the BBC cannot be left to regulate itself on these matters and why an independent regulator is necessary.
It's high past time that these matters were dealt with publicly. I hope the Guardian will present articles that address them effectively.
This article isn't one of them.
MELANIEBELLAMY
4 July 2011 2:54PM
Humphrys then writes in the Daily Mail soon to be joined with Kelvin and co...
BBC TV Breakfast news is dreadful revoving stories back half hours just dullest news ever best stick to Smooth FM
AnneDon
4 July 2011 3:43PM
In North Britain, we have Good Morning Scotland, but it sounds as if there are similar issues.
I would agree that BBC Radio News is too prone to report whatever press releases have been sent in. And will always lead with a 'business leaders are pessimistic about . . . " As if business people know any more about the future than anyone else.
I certainly agree that far too many interviewers are trying to do a Paxman, regardless of whether the topic under debate merits it, or not.
I have a personal bugbear with the "Text us in your opinions". I don't know if they do this on Today, but the idea that an opinion can hold the equivalent value to years of work/study in a field is ludicrous (c.f. the Autism/MMR 'debate'). Some of them are factually inaccurate, which puts BBC presenters in the position of reading out factual inaccuracies.
Howeve, what we don't need are government 'overseers' in the newsroom. I heard Chris Patten talking yesterday about the 'toxic' opinions about the BBC isn't one I recognise. It sounds like something being put in place to justify more government interference.
AnneDon
4 July 2011 3:44PM
Apologies for using 'factual inaccuracy' twice - wish there was an edit button!
LondonManc
5 July 2011 2:22PM
Then there's the disdain for Britain. Endless coverage of minor foreign stories.
er.... yeah. Y'see, there's a whole big wide world outside your duvet, y'know, and actually, what some nimbys think of a Tesco supermarket on the edge of their town does pale into insignificance somewhat when set against Thai elections - and the potential for huge military backlash - the state of the Greek economy and what it means for the Euro, and so on.
Notwithstanding that, I think there are a couple of good points in this column, and it is great to see someone shining a light on the Today programme; unfortunately, it just comes across as another dig at the BBC from another ex Talk Radio-er. Why they all seem to have an axe to grin with the BBC in a way that people from Absolute, Capital etc don't I really don't know...
blowup
3 July 2011 10:21PM
This piece is sorely lacking in examples.