#BBCswitchoff: The Myth of Media Impartiality

One of the most surprising camps among critics of the BBC are the activist Left, many of whom think that the BBC is biased towards the Conservative Party and slanted against Jeremy Corbyn.  On reflection, they do have a point.  It makes sense that the BBC would give more favourable coverage to the neo-Blairite and pro-Zionist Theresa May and her government than is warranted, while at the same time looking unfavourably on Jeremy Corbyn's putatively anti-Zionist Labour Party.  But then some of the bias has gone the other way at times.  For one thing, there has in the past been favourable coverage of Jeremy Corbyn by the BBC.  For another, there is the fact that Zionists have in the past excoriated the BBC over their coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict.  We could go on listing the incongruities, but won't.

The BBC Switch-off campaign of the last few days, mainly concentrated in Scotland, was started by the Left.  It has included a Twitter trend and also an outdoor demonstration.  RT covered it and it does seem to have caused the BBC some public embarrassment.  Predictably, our state broadcaster has declined to cover the demonstration or the campaign itself, which called on people to stop watching the BBC at 6 p.m. on Thursday 9th. August 2018 - 6 p.m. being the usual time of broadcast for BBC One's daily flagship news programme.  It seems the aim of the campaign has been to protest (among things) the BBC's bias against all the usual Leftist shibboleths, including Jeremy Corbyn and the NHS, also to challenge what the Left see as bias pro-Zionist coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and furthermore to highlight a neo-liberal agenda on foreign affairs that many Leftists attribute to the BBC.  These complaints are not without justification, but one thing we have noted is that very many supporters of the BBC Switch-off campaign are Scottish Nationalists (in fact normally members of the SNP).  Among such people, our impression is that the concern with the BBC is less about specific biases, and more that the British Broadcasting Corporation does not cater to the interests and concerns of Scotland.

No doubt many of these campaigners are simply playing the political game and putting pressure on the BBC in the hope the broadcaster will dance to their tune.  Their objection to bias is purely partial and self-serving: they are not concerned with upholding the principle of impartiality, they simply want the BBC to be biased towards them rather than the other side of whatever is the dispute or controversy. Of course, some anti-bias campaigners are genuinely naive and muddle-headed and actually think that the BBC can somehow be studiously impartial.

Whatever, the BBC's famed 'impartiality' has to be seen for what it is: a fig leaf for vested interests to hide behind.  Professional impartiality is a myth, not just at the BBC but throughout media.  Therefore, if we allow the BBC to go on, we are allowing the perpetuation of a deceit on the public, many of whom still implicitly trust that the BBC is fair and impartial.  

Broadcasters and the media cannot be impartial.  They can, however, be balanced.  They can present both and multiple sides of an argument.  The BBC often does not even achieve balance, and when it does at least offer notional balance in features and discussions, it tries to make out that this is evidence of practical impartiality.  It isn't.  Balance and impartiality are not at all the same thing.  Impartiality is an ideal that can never be fully achieved, and in the case of the BBC (like most other media organisations) is only paid lip service to.  Balance is more of a realistic goal, but even that depends to a large extent on having competitive media, some of whom will actively strive for institutional balance in what they do, others of whom will be openly slanted on the basis that balance is embodied in the availability to viewers and listeners of a multiplicity of outlets.  The state can help by ensuring there is genuine media plurality and choice, so that viewers and listeners are able to receive information from different sources and weigh things up.  How might the state achieve this?  Easy - by doing one simple thing.  The state needs to get out of media and broadcasting and start treating us like adults.

Our solution is simple: abolish the BBC, end state involvement in information, and allow the disciplines of the free market to bring fuller transparency and balance into media and broadcasting.