Criticism of the BBC
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) took its present form on 1 January 1927 when John Reith became its first Director-General. Reith stated that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism in its broadcasting. Allegations that the corporation lacks impartial and objective journalism are regularly made by observers on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. Another key area of criticism is the mandatory licence fee, as commercial competitors argue that means of financing to be unfair and to result in limiting their ability to compete with the BBC. Additionally, accusations of waste or over-staffing occasionally prompt comments from politicians and the other media.
This article is about criticism of the BBC. For controversies in general, see BBC controversies. For (infringement of) its independence specifically, see BBC independence.20th century[edit]
Thatcher government[edit]
Accusations of a left-wing bias were often made against the corporation by members of Margaret Thatcher's 1980s Conservative government. Norman Tebbit called the BBC the "Stateless Person's Broadcasting Corporation" because of what he regarded as its unpatriotic coverage of the Falklands War, and Conservative MP Peter Bruinvels called it the "Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation".[1] Steve Barnett wrote in The Observer in 2001 that in 1983, Stuart Young, the "accountant and brother of one of Thatcher's staunchest cabinet allies", David Young, was appointed as BBC chairman. After him, in 1986, came Marmaduke Hussey, a "brother-in-law of another Cabinet Minister.... According to the then-Tory party chairman, Norman Tebbit, Hussey was appointed 'to get in there and sort the place out'".[2]
Controversies continued with the likes of the Nationwide general election special with Thatcher in 1983, a Panorama documentary called Maggie's Militant Tendency, the Real Lives interview with Martin McGuinness, the BBC's coverage of the US 1986 Bombing of Libya and the Zircon affair. In 1987, the Director-General of the BBC, Alasdair Milne, was forced to resign. Thatcher later said: "I have fought three elections against the BBC and don't want to fight another against it".[3][4][5] In 2006, Tebbit said: "The BBC was always against Lady Thatcher".[6]
Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC, said in 2010, "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality".[7]
Allegations of bias[edit]
South Asia[edit]
The journalist Christopher Booker has criticised the BBC for its coverage of India-related matters. He concludes that the BBC's efforts to reinforce stereotypes of South Asians has been directly responsible for damaging the image of India and encouraging racist incidents against Indians, such as the Leipzig University internship controversy.[80] In 2009, presenter Adil Ray had espoused that Sikhs should not always carry their kirpan, a ceremonial dagger and key item of their faith. The BBC rejected the charge but deleted the show from its website.[32]
Writing for the 2008 edition of the peer-reviewed Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Alasdair Pinkerton analysed the coverage of India by the BBC from India's 1947 independence from British rule to 2008. Pinkerton observed a tumultuous history involving allegations of anti-India bias in the BBC's reportage, particularly during the Cold War, and concluded that the BBC's coverage of South Asian geopolitics and economics showed a pervasive and hostile anti-India bias because of the BBC's alleged imperialist and neocolonialist stance.[81] In 2008, the BBC was criticised for referring to the men who carried out the November 2008 Mumbai attacks as "gunmen", rather than "terrorists," used to describe the attacks in UK.[82][83][84] In protest against the use of the word "gunmen" by the BBC, journalist M.J. Akbar refused to take part in an interview after the Mumbai attacks[85] and criticised the BBC's reportage of the incident.[86]
In 2011, the Cable Operators Association of Pakistan (COAP) accused BBC World News of "anti-Pakistan propaganda" and banned it, after it aired a documentary which accused Pakistan of failing to meet its commitments in the war on terror.[87][88] BBC condemned the ban as an attack on its editorial independence and many Pakistanis criticized the ban as a violation of freedom of speech; while COAP responded that it was not legally obliged to allow foreign channels.[87] Later, Pakistani PM Yousuf Raza Gilani called for more freedom of speech in Pakistan and that he wanted BBC to operate in Pakistan.[89]
It alleged the Indian Army to have had stormed a sacred Muslim shrine, the tomb of Sheikh Noor-u-din Noorani in Charari Sharief and retracted the claim only after strong criticism.[90]
A 2016 report from the BBC accused India of funding Pakistan's Muttahida Qaumi Movement and providing weapons and training to its militants, citing the statements of various Pakistani sources, including officials and a senior Karachi police officer.[91] The report was rejected by both the Indian government[92] and the MQM,[93] and others, such as journalists Barkha Dutt.[94] A 2017 study stated that the BBC story received considerable media attention in Pakistan, while it was downplayed by the media in India.[95]
In 2019, the BBC (along with Reuters and Al-Jazeera) reported that large scale protests had broken out in Indian Kashmir in response to the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian government initially criticized these reports of being "fabricated",[96][97] but later acknowledged the protests did take place.[98]
A 2019 BBC report accused the Pakistan army of committing human rights abuses during Pakistan's war on terror in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The Pakistani armed forces rejected the report,[99] and the Pakistani Ministry of Information registered a complaint with the British office of communications.[100]
In 2021, a BBC interview with political scientist Christine Fair was interrupted and Fair dismissed by News presenter Philippa Thomas when Fair began to elaborate on links between Pakistan and the Taliban. This invited further accusations of pro-Pakistan bias on the part of the BBC on social media.[101]
Inaccuracy and misrepresentation[edit]
Inaccurate reporting by Jeremy Bowen[edit]
In April 2009, the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust published a report on three complaints brought against two news items involving Jeremy Bowen, the Middle East Editor for BBC News.[262] The complaints included 24 allegations of inaccuracy or partiality, of which three were fully or partially upheld.[262][263][264] The BBC Trust's editorial standards committee found that Bowen's radio piece "had stated his professional view without qualification or explanation, and that the lack of precision in his language had rendered the statement inaccurate" and that the online article should have explained the existence of alternative views and that it had breached the rules of impartiality. However, the report did not accuse Bowen of bias. The website article was amended, and Bowen did not face any disciplinary measures.[265]
Primark and child labour fake news[edit]
In 2011, after three years of Primark's effort, the BBC acknowledged that its award-winning investigative journalism report of Indian child labour use by the retailing giant was a fake. The BBC apologised to Primark, Indian suppliers and its viewers.[266][267]
"Terrorist house" misrepresentation story[edit]
In January 2016, stories originating from the BBC alleged that the Lancashire Constabulary had taken a young Muslim child away for questioning on anti-terrorism charges after he accidentally spelled "terraced house" as "terrorist house". The story was widely reported in the British[268][269][270] and international media.[271] The police force in question criticised the BBC's coverage of the story by stating that it was "untrue to suggest that this situation was brought about by a simple spelling mistake"[272] and adding that the incident "was not responded to as a terror incident and the reporter was fully aware of this before she wrote her story" and that "the media needs to take more responsibility when sensationalising issues to make stories much bigger than they are and to realise the impact they can have on local communities".[271] A statement from the police and local council also said that it was "untrue to suggest that this situation was brought about by a simple spelling mistake. The school and the police have acted responsibly and proportionately in looking into a number of potential concerns using a low-key, local approach".[271] Other pieces of work by the student, including one where the child wrote about his uncle beating him, were allegedly other reasons for the police questioning over the safety of the child.[273]
One-sided documentary on racism during Euro 2012[edit]
Eleven days before the tournament took place, the BBC's current affairs programme Panorama, entitled Euro 2012: Stadiums of Hate, included recent footage of supporters chanting various racist slogans and displays of white power symbols and banners in Poland and Nazi salutes and the beating of South Asians in Ukraine.[274] The documentary was first commented widely in the British press but was accused of being one-sided, biased and unethical. Critics included the British media, anti-racism campaigners, and black and Jewish community leaders in Poland, Polish and Ukrainian politicians and journalists, England fans visiting the host nations and footballers (Gary Lineker, Roy Hodgson and others).[275][276][277]
Jonathan Ornstein, the leader of Jewish community in Kraków and a Jewish source used in the documentary, said: "I am furious at the way the BBC has exploited me as a source. The organization used me and others to manipulate the serious subject of anti-Semitism for its own sensationalist agenda... the BBC knowingly cheated its own audience – the British people – by concocting a false horror story about Poland. In doing so, the BBC has spread fear, ignorance, prejudice and hatred. I am profoundly disturbed by this unethical form of journalism".[275]
A reporter from Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's biggest left-wing newspaper, questioned Panorama's practices and stated, "I am becoming more and more surprised with what the BBC says. So far it has denied two situations I witnessed. I would not be surprised if the BBC prepared a statement saying that the Panorama crew has never been to Poland".[276]
The anti-racism campaigner Jacek Purski said, "The material prepared by the BBC is one-sided. It does not show the whole story of Polish preparations for the Euros. It does not show the Championship ran a lot of activities aimed at combating racism in the 'Respect Diversity' campaign. For us the Euro is not only about matches. The event has become an opportunity to fight effectively against racism and promote multiculturalism. There is no country in Europe free from racism. These are the facts".[278]
The nations fined by UEFA for racism were not the hosts but the visitors from Spain, Croatia, Russia and Germany.[279] The Royal Dutch Football Association issued a complaint to UEFA after monkey chants were thought to be aimed at their black players during an open training session in Kraków, but UEFA denied the chants were racially motivated.[280]
False claims about Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko[edit]
In 2019, the BBC agreed to pay damages after being sued by the then-president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko for publishing libellous reports that Poroshenko had made a $400,000 bribe to Michael Cohen, lawyer of President Donald Trump.[281] The BBC apologized and admitted that the story was not true.[282]
[edit]
In July 2021, social media influencer Jason Lightfoot pointed out that BBC had manipulated a photo of him to look dull and colourless and shared a comparison between the version of the photo shown on a BBC article and the original, an allegation that was amplified by Zhao Lijian on social media.[283]
In December 2021, the BBC published an English and a Chinese-language version of a 17-minute video on the city of Wuhan one year after its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.[284][285] In response, the BBC was targeted by "Chinese trolls and fake news websites", which cybersecurity company Recorded Future says are "likely state-sponsored", claiming the broadcaster had applied "a gloomy or 'underworld' filter" to the imagery in its reports to make the country look "dull and lifeless".[286] Foreign Affairs ministry official Zhao Lijian and Chinese state media outlets have repeated allegations of a "gloom filter."[286][283] The
Global Times posted a comparison between the Chinese version and English versions of the BBC video, pointing out a difference in coloration between the two.[283]
Organizational practices[edit]
Climate change[edit]
The BBC has been criticised for hypocrisy over its high carbon footprint despite the amount of coverage that it gives to the topic of climate change. Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman argued that its correspondents "travel the globe to tell the audience of the dangers of climate change while leaving a vapour trail which will make the problem even worse".[287] Paxman further argues that the 'BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago'.[288]
At the 2007 Edinburgh International Television Festival, Peter Horrocks, the head of television news, and Peter Barron, the editor of Newsnight, said that the BBC should not campaign on climate change. They criticised the proposed plans for a BBC Comic Relief-style day of programmes on climate change. Horrocks was quoted as saying, "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". Barron was quoted as adding, "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".[289]
Horrocks later outlined the BBC's position on the BBC Editors Blog ("No Line").[290]
The plans for a day of programmes on environmental issues were abandoned in September 2007. A BBC spokesperson said that it was "absolutely not" because of concerns about impartiality.[287]
In July 2011 a BBC Trust review cited findings of an assessment by Professor Steve Jones of University College London. Jones found there was sometimes an "over-rigid" application of the editorial guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which failed to take into account what he regarded as the "non-contentious" nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving "undue attention to marginal opinion". Jones gave reporting of the safety of the MMR vaccine and more recent coverage of claims about the safety of genetically-modified crops and the existence of man-made climate change as examples.[291] In 2017, the BBC apologised for allowing climate change denier Nigel Lawson to claim that global temperatures had not risen in the past decade on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, which the organisation acknowledged breached its editorial guidelines.,[292] and in 2018, Carbon Brief released an internal notice sent by Fran Unsworth, the BBC director of news and current affairs, that argued that the BBC's coverage of climate change often went against its own guidelines on accuracy and created a false balance with regard to impartiality: "Manmade climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it.... To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2–0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken".[293]
The BBC is alleged to have attempted to cover up a climate change seminar that is credited with shaping its coverage of the environment.[294]