Disinformation, misrepresentation, and bias oh my! Navigating the BBC in today’s media vacuum

Advances in technology and the overwhelming increase of news reporting outlets means we now have unprecedented access to information. Every day we encounter different narratives and framings of what is happening in our world. With this excess it becomes increasingly difficult to pick out fact from fiction, reality from misrepresentation. Only 32 per cent of adults in the UK trust the news media at least somewhat. In the wake of public suspicion of ‘fake news’ and dubious information outlets, the BBC has strived to mark itself out as a beacon of truth and impartiality in an otherwise divided world. As a publicly-funded media outlet, many within the UK and across the world look to the BBC to provide unbiased facts and news stories they can trust. And yet, how far can we truly put our faith in the legitimacy of the BBC’s editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality to provide news we can trust? And in today’s increasingly complex and polarized world, is objective truth viable?

Impartiality often comes alongside independence. However, the BBC depends on the government for its funding and for its survival. It has a long history of close ties to the government of the day and a strong establishment presence that ultimately influences its working culture and its reporting policies. Historically, the strong affiliation between BBC and state emerged during World War II. During the war, the BBC lost the majority of its independence. Government ministers had the final say over broadcasting policy and the Ministry of Information regulated the content of the political statements and news coverage. The BBC became the government’s official channel of communication, an instrument of war to be used to preserve morale and shape public attitudes on the home front. Following the end of the war, the BBC made efforts to diverge from the government’s influence by instigating discussions of post-war society at odds with official policy. In 1944 the BBC ran two radio series focused on housing and unemployment after the war, Homes for All and Jobs for All, taking up the concerns of the public despite pressure from the government. In doing so, the BBC marked its intention to reclaim itself as an independent outlet, free from government influence in its political reporting. While the BBC’s relationship with the state has since become increasingly dynamic and complex, its independence is limited by its funding and structure. The BBC is publicly funded which gives it independence from corporate and outside influences. However, it has never fully shaken off government influence. As the fate of the licence fee crops up ever more frequently in government debate, it is becoming more clear upon which entity the BBC’s survival ultimately depends upon. 

Further consideration of BBC bias acts as a reflection to which we can examine our own standards of truth and impartiality. The general reaction to the BBC’s coverage of the 2019 general election was that it was disappointingly flawed and biased. Debates about the coverage were rife with claims from both sides of unfair reporting and party bias. Criticisms that the BBC’s coverage was more favourable towards Boris Johnson’s party included complaints that the BBC edited a clip from a debate where they cut out an audience laughing at Boris Johnson, and allowing him to evade an interview with Andrew Neil where opposition candidates were subject to tough lines of questioning. However, the BBC actually received more official complaints of bias against the Conservative party from those who thought political coverage favored Jeremy Corbyn’s party. 

It is this kind of prevarication which suggests that as an attentive public we are at a loss to come to a consensus about what truth is in politics. It is this increasing skepticism of the presence of truth in news coverage which can have disastrous consequences in the pursuit of accuracy and impartiality. The fierce anxiety of allegations of bias that exists within the BBC can in turn lead to false and misleading reporting. The BBC’s current model for reporting to ensure impartiality generally involves describing the political scene and then reporting competing or contrasting claims and counterclaims. When Boris Johnson issued false statements during his campaign in 2019 the BBC explained its coverage of Johnson by saying they were willing to identify the prime minister’s “untruths” as part of their broadcast, but would not say that he was “a liar.” In September of last year, one of the BBC’s anchors, Naga Munchetty, broke from the model when she criticized Donald Trump on the BBC Breakfast show for his remarks that four American congresswoman should “go back” to the “broken and crime-infested places from which they came.” Munchetty described the remarks as racist and was subsequently rebuked by the BBC for breaking its impartiality rules. The BBC’s attempts to avoid bias by eliminating opinion or withholding analysis does not then always result in objectivity or truth. What has been termed a “he said, she said” approach can give a platform to narratives based in misinformation without unpacking these claims and the context within which they operate. In trying to present a report removed of all bias, the BBC has inadvertently contributed to the propagation of misrepresentation in the media. 

In a society that is increasingly becoming disenchanted with mainstream media platforms, it is essential that the BBC remains dedicated to the active pursuit of objective and unbiased information. The variety of outlets we have access to, all advancing their own narratives and framing of the facts, presents us with the nigh impossible task of discerning unbiased and accurate information. New, unreliable modes of getting our information through unregulated social media platforms has bred a growing distrust of any source purporting to present a fair and objective version of events. It is within this context that the BBC must continue to operate and continue to strive for impartiality and objectivity - but not at the cost of compromising vision, opinion, and truth. 

Cover image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=fake+news&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:The_fin_de_siècle_newspaper_proprietor_(cropped).jpg