Carelessness for truth, and selective bias in reporting information, is corrupting decision making and public ability to assess reality. Its standing could relaunch the BBC to become a beacon of information integrity, if it will embrace the challenge. Improving the validity of information is perhaps a top priority without curtailing freedoms.
The BBC, not just the TV channel but also its other platforms such as its internet offerings and radio, is the UK’s most commonly used source for news, by a long way. Even among the 16 to 24 year-olds for whom Instagram and Facebook are the biggest sources, the BBC is highly used. Amongst all adults, with a heavier weighting the older the adults are, the biggest source remains television. Ofcom’s 2022 and 2021 News Sources Reports clearly evidence these statistical truths, with a lot more detail than is suitable to quote here. But the social media, particularly Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and even the Chinese owned TikTok have, it will surprise few, gained ground. However, these media too are dependent to a considerable degree on TV and newspaper journalism for their news content. Notably, TV, newspapers and their websites are also found to be, by a long way, the most trusted for accuracy, but still in the best case with only just above 50% credibility. Even though the BBC is a worldwide news force, there is a lot of room for improvement.
But it is axiomatic not to believe everything one reads in newspapers, or sees on TV, so how much more should that cynicism apply across social media. In this world there is so much misinformation, with so many abusers operating on the multiple communication platforms, whether malicious countries and their agencies or individuals or action groups, seeking to spread discord; and so the organisation which can palpably up its game to be trusted in its home country and worldwide almost universally is sorely needed. The BBC should be that organisation. Does not the UK, if truth, not spin, is once again to be the standard, need the BBC to embrace improvement? With a budget imminent which is vital to financial stability and hopefully the start of quick progress to growth, with determined action to reduce emissions to stop climate change vital from COP 27 and with defeat of the evil Putin’s armies of war crimes a vital necessity to restore some global order, and with the likes of China threatening force in Asia, the defeat of misinformation and real objective analysis has never been more urgent.
WHO CAN BE TRUSTED TO SPEAK ECONOMIC TRUTH?
Can respected and responsible people be trusted? Not always.
The Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, as he raises UK interest rates, warns of a period of UK suffering, perhaps prolonged recession for 2 or 3 years, no growth and likely contraction of the UK economy. Tarnished by failure on inflation and inaction in the recent past, are his ultra-caution and gloom his own protection against the risk of criticism of getting it wrong again? After all, if things turn out better than he predicts, his “wrong” prediction will be forgotten. Several economists have commented that he is being unnecessarily cautious, more likely they say for stagnation to last maybe into the second half of 2023, but not for years.
Mark Carney, ex-Governor of the Bank of England, gratuitously but publicly pronounced some days ago and was widely quoted, that the UK economy was now 70% of the size of Germany’s compared to 90% in 2016, and Brexit being responsible. The whole comparison as explained by several others, such as David Wighton in the Times, was presented in a wholly misleading way. The relative change is a function it seems of exchange rates not actual economic reduction. Roger Bootle in the Daily Telegraph explained that, on a constant exchange rate basis, the UK grew faster than Germany. Selective statements can easily mislead, and misleading impressions once made can be hard to dispel.
Guy Hands, long-established private equity fund manager, forecast Britain to become the poor man of Europe and the need for an IMF bailout to be inevitable unless Brexit was renegotiated. Hardly any serious expert seems to agree, with Bootle considering Brexit an irrelevance compared to the shock of the pandemic and the dreadful Putin war. Yet the Brexit consequences are constantly brought up, with for example Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday grilling the Chancellor to admit Brexit is a major cause of the UK stalling, with Jeremy Hunt citing rather the calamities of war and Covid. This is not to say who is correct just that spurious assertions easily gather momentum which only challenging and balanced media can temper.
UK growth in the last quarter was 0.2% negative, but the mourning for the Queen accounted for some of that. Were strikes not relevant too? The consequent recession prophets may have over played that statistic. The Chancellor constantly cites difficult choices to be made in the Budget: hard to argue with it but maybe there is a risk of excessive caution again and damage to future growth, which universally all agree is the key to prosperity. For example, Jagjit Chada, Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, perhaps reasonably independent and certainly well established, on SKY News was adamant that, while protecting those at the “bottom of the pile” was essential, there is no need for extreme actions. Again, there is no right science: the picture being painted however by journalists and broadcasters is perhaps demonstrating very little balance, and, as in Covid, excessive emphasis on worst case.
THE DISINFORMATION DISEASE IS THE FRIEND OF THE MALEVOLENT
There are strong suggestions that countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and others have disinformation campaigns to create disruption in other nations.
It seems accepted widely outside Russia that it is impossible to trust any information whether of fact, analysis or intent which emerges from Putin or his acolytes or sources he controls. Russians themselves are brainwashed about the outside world, bar the breakthrough of some Internet communications from outside. Is it not much the same in China, where the declared policy of the Communist party is world hegemony and the depletion of Western Democratic power, so that information is centrally controlled internally with campaigns externally to disrupt. Hong Kong is living evidence of its disregard for commitments it has made. Yet governments such as Germany’s, led by Chancellor Scholz openly seek to mollify “Emperor” Xi, blinded by trade dependence on China. Will they learn from their Russian energy dependence experience?
Then still in the West the biggest political lie in memory that Biden did not win the last US Presidential election is still promulgated by Trump and some of his Senior Republican allies, though recent mid term election results may evidence some steam disappearing from the lie. Twitter remains a source of individuals who want to cause chaos being facilitated in doing so. Perhaps it too will wither under Elon Musk. It is gratifying that the Ofcom reports do not suggest Twitter is deemed especially reliable by the UK public. That is true too of other social media which is run by platforms whose algorithms are designed to feed to users more of what they like, not objective truths. As Tik Tok expands its influence among the young, it is surprising not to see more concern over its content: an organisation owned by China must surely carry a serious risk of being a mouthpiece for Chinese controlled information reflecting their political objectives. Concern in Universities in the UK about Chinese influence is well documented.
COP 27
In Cooling the Planet, COP26 and Global Cooperation Sherbhert cited the really important commitments made by major countries to reducing carbon emissions and helping the poorer countries of the world transition to non-fossil fuel. It is clear from the extreme language of Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General, that at least in his view “at the present level we are doomed”. Richer nations have failed in their promises to cut emissions and aid the poorer nations – the $100 billion a year commitment to them is just thin or hot air. But what is happening at COP 27? 40,000 delegates with 2 weeks of chatter are producing what? It is to be hoped that by the end some new serious commitments emerge but to date most debate reported in the UK seems to be around the agenda of blame, various so-called developing countries requiring “reparations” from countries like the UK for the carbon consequences of the Industrial Revolution. The modern-day obsession almost with historic behaviour going back centuries and seeking to calculate who should pay damages to whom could be a major distraction at COP. There is no point in such a debate: it has even brought out an argument that on that basis maybe the world should be paying the UK for the benefits of the Industrial Revolution!
Some of the developing countries are among the biggest emitters of carbon during recent decades. That India and China are still ranked among developing nations beggars belief. Focus here leads nowhere. The idea however that it is morally right that wealthy nations should assist the poorer with financial aid to combat climate change damage, such as floods, should perhaps have legs and be progressed. But there again, should that include nations like India and Pakistan who spend fortunes on nuclear weapons. India has for example numerous multi billionaires – one might imagine public uproar in some paying countries if a nation such as India or China were to benefit from any damage fund – China for example has over 1200 individuals with wealth over $700 million. It must be right too that wealthy nations of the world, including China, should assist the poorer to build sustainable non-fossil fuel energy sources. However, whenever certain nations benefit from this wealth sharing, structures are needed to ensure corruption does not steer benefits away from the people to the corrupt elites.In so many countries after all, the core reason for poverty and keeping people in poverty is that the powerful syphon off the national wealth to themselves.
Getting the best out of COP27 and pressurising for real action can be seriously influenced by media such as the BBC but they need to report objectively and not get diverted away from the big issues by interest groups with their own agendas, or causes which sound righteous but in fact self-serve rather than serve global interests. It was Tim Davie, Director General of the BBC, who said around the time of COP 26 that climate change is not a political issue. Perhaps they should reconsider: everything around climate change has political motives and ramifications, which need objective unmasking by the media.
CAN THE BBC GRASP THE NETTLE?
Undoubtedly the BBC is one of if not the best and most respected news source in the world. It could be the undoubted world beater, see Sherbhert, THE BBC’s Big Opportunity. Its moral superiority was shredded after the Dyson report concerning the Bashir and Diana interview. To regain it, its objectivity and that of their news casters and interviewers must be beyond reproach or suggestion of bias. Also, it suffers somewhat at least in the UK from following the same formulaic approach to news as many TV channels. That is for example when addressing matters such as people suffering whether from Covid, waiting for NHS service, or being poor or otherwise, or the impact of government decisions, it spouts the generalisation that “this affects people’s lives” or similar, as if a revelation and special when in fact every material decision and action affects people’s lives. It arranges interviews with one or two people of the relevant category, such as a person who lost a loved one, or a person who struggles to make ends meet. The BBC ensures the interviewee cites an experience as if it validates the news item; and, in reality, it is just the subjective reaction of someone whose background and context generally is unknown and is in fact meaningless to prove or validate anything. It is simply not news. The negative or positive experience of one or two members of the public, though of course important to those individuals, is not proof of a wider generalisation. Rather is this formula designed to play on emotion in order to distract from rational analysis?
Likewise, when interviewing an expert, say an economist or an academic, so often the interviewee is allowed to make a speech, given a soap box for statements which may be entirely spurious, or which reflect a personal agenda or political bias, left entirely unchallenged, but thanked for their insight. In analysing the serious issues and choices around for example the coming budget or the climate change resolutions which may emerge from COP 27, perhaps the BBC could refrain from over egging the importance of such interviews and ensure a balanced analysis. It would perhaps be a step forward too if the BBC could differentiate itself by not seeking to ask Ministers and other leaders questions which are framed as if they are responsible for the daily lives of individuals and every malaise a person may suffer; and refraining from the ludicrous question asking them to guarantee what will happen in the future. Perhaps too they could make clear to the public with every future prediction that all forecasts and predictions are uncertain, and, when the source of any opinion or presentation of information may carry a bias, a health warning as to its independence.
The BBC also sorely needs to address complaints, admit mistakes, apologise and learn from them. Ofcom recently criticised its failure on impartiality, following its guidelines and serious editorial misjudgement in reporting the attack on Jewish children in the UK in November 2021. Like all organisations it should learn from mistakes which will be difficult unless it recognises those mistakes.
Perhaps most challenging but fundamental to news integrity and future standards is the need for the BBC to adapt its presentation to appeal to the young, without compromising accuracy and completeness. The frequency with which the BBC and other news broadcasters quote and so reinforce people’s tweets, which so often carry no argument or value, is astounding. Perhaps the BBC should be replacing Twitter not publicising it?
There is an almost desperate need for an organisation which presents facts, not selectively or with a view to achieving an end other than to inform, so that the public can discern what is the real world. The BBC has a head start on everyone else and it can either cement itself as that organisation to the benefit of the nation as a whole, or with complacency, self-congratulation and group think, join the ranks of the untrusted purveyors of half-truths. For freedoms sake, censorship or state control of information would be a disaster. However, if the BBC became an unquestionable gold standard, perhaps the carelessness for the truth displayed by other media platforms would be so spotlighted that they too would embrace facts and the value of not misleading and not being selective, to produce a sector of more trustworthy platforms, and a much better-informed public of all ages.
