bbc commissioned a report by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot which was sent to the BBC in November and has now been published. It had this title:
Although I’m not a huge fan of Andrew Dilnot’s objectivity, Michael Blastland seems to have a good track record on this topic, and the report is worth reading. I think it’s a genuine attempt to address the flaws in reporting the issues noted in your title.
I will attach the summary pages of the report to the end of this post because they are worth looking at. Instead, what I want to highlight are some of the issues raised in it that might be overlooked.
The overall finding was that there was a weakness in the report, but the resulting biases were to the left and to the right, although I have to say that I don’t think the report supports that claim: most of the weaknesses noted seem to me to suggest understanding. report the concerns of those who might be on the left.
The reasons for this, if you read the report carefully, are:
- Economic reporters do not have economic confidence;
- These reporters are all too willing to have what they report dictated by political parties and, especially, by other media;
- Those biases aren’t challenged often enough, and neither are assumptions that suggest the reported problems are the real causes for concern;
- There are very few voices on the BBC, especially those inclined to offer an alternative opinion, which implies that neoliberal hegemony is reinforced;
- Inappropriate emphasis can be placed on numbers that appeal to those seeking to set the news agenda rather than those who are affected by it.
I insist, these are my interpretation, but I think I have also tried to be fair. A couple of examples illustrate my points. This one is about domestic analogies:
The points are well raised, but there is no discussion of how the alternative should be presented.
Another example comes from the underreporting of bus travel.
As a metaphor for the voices of many people not being heard because journalists live in a different world, this was powerful.
So was this about the overemphasis on income tax:
These two sections alone speak to deep class and regional biases that suggest significant bias. As they point out, the balance between the front benches is not enough:
The report correctly pointed out that the BBC needs to emphasize that many of the so-called facts in economics are just options:
Too often they imply that the BBC is suggesting that such an option does not exist, when in fact it does. This comment on fiscal rules is illuminating on this:
Fiscal rules are invented. They are not rules at all.
But perhaps the most telling comment that didn’t get enough emphasis was this, about the fact that most journalists don’t get retained in economics, even when they’ve been commenting for years:
There is, in other words, a bias towards the ‘norm’, which is the majority opinion because the experience to question it is lacking.
I think the report is more critical in reality than it appears to be on the surface. And the bias is to the right, whether the authors appreciate it or not (and they may not be seeing the bias in their own work). The BBC has a lot to do to get this right. But they are not alone.
Appendix: The main findings of the report, in summary
