You are here:   Civilisation >  Screen > The Shabby Deceit of BBC Journalism
 

On the face of it, the BBC remains stuck with the self-regard of the last century. Newspapers and broadcasters could assume then that they were the sole source of news for their audience. When a rival secured a scoop, they could get away with passing off the story as their own, and engage in what journalists call "byline banditry".

In the age of the internet, their audiences can see through such shabby deceits within seconds. The best editors know it. They exploit the potential of the web and insist that their writers link to published sources. The readers can then check for themselves and read more if they wish.

But there is more to the suppression of sources than mere vanity. If the BBC were to report honestly, its viewers and listeners would realise how few stories the corporation breaks, even though it has thousands of journalists working for BBC News. You get a sense of the scale of the operation at the refurbished Broadcasting House in central London. On the ground floor is the largest newsroom in Europe. Above it are floors of studios stretching up to the sky. It is a magnificent sight, and houses many fine journalists. Right-wingers who loathe the BBC would do well to listen to Radio 4 from the Today programme through to the Shipping Forecast. If prejudice did not blight their minds, they might then grasp how much of British life would pass unnoticed if the BBC did not exist. Yet however indispensable the BBC is to the national culture, it does not break hard news.

Panorama has had only one genuine exclusive in years: its superb investigation into the abuse of mentally-handicapped patients by staff at the Winterbourne View care home. BBC Newsnight, once the pride of British television journalism, is now a sorry sight. BBC managers have starved it of resources. Channel 4 News has taken its place as the unmissable current affairs show.

It is not just "the cuts" that explain the corporation's failure of nerve. Investigative journalism is dangerous. It destroys BBC managers' careers. This month is the tenth anniversary of the scandal about the Today programme's claim that Labour had sexed up the dossier that justified Britain helping to overthrow Saddam Hussein. In hindsight we can see that the BBC was right to say that the government had spun the evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass-destruction, but wrong to imply that it lied. 

At least some of us know that both the BBC and New Labour treated David Kelly, the government scientist who had briefed the Today programme, abysmally. His Whitehall superiors forced him to deny the BBC's story. The BBC committed the most unforgivable sin a journalist can commit and compromised its source. Dr Kelly committed suicide shortly afterwards.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
James In Footscray
October 27th, 2013
5:10 AM
I love Nick Cohen! But Nick Butcher is right. This use of 'it' is an impersonal expression, not a passive. But impersonal expressions are indeed useful to avoid saying who found something out ('It appears that ...', 'It has come to light that ...').

Nick Butcher
September 7th, 2013
5:09 PM
It's true,as Nick Coen states, that the passive voice is a useful tool for euphemists, but the example he uses, 'it has emerged', is not an example of the passive but of the present perfect. A passive structure would be something like, 'It has been claimed that...'. Passive sentences always contain a form of the verb 'be' and a past participle.

Hzle
June 29th, 2013
9:06 AM
I've noticed a rapid decline in the quality of BBC journalism recently. It's been ridiculously biased for ages. Noone thinks the Guardian is impartial, but some still trust the BBC, which employs more and more Guardian or Guardian-type people. So they seem to have made a decision to get more biased not less. At the same time there has been a move towards LOTS of sensationalist news coverage from not very well educated journalists - who may have been employed for the wrong reasons (gender parity, or the "correct" views)

grimm
June 5th, 2013
9:06 PM
Interestingly "Anonymous" comment about the Panorama investigation neglects to mention that it was a combined effort carried out with the help of a newspaper - The Telegraph. The fact that BBC's "flagship" investigative current affairs programme needs the help of the press tends to reinforce Cohen's point.

grimm
May 31st, 2013
10:05 PM
With the enormous scale of its operations what does the BBC News actually do? Just spend a bit of time watching its 24 hour rolling news program running like a 30 minute loop and you will probably conclude 'very little'. Even Al Jaziera can produce more compelling content. Perhaps the BBC's defenders (those people who fond of using the word 'excellence' in describing its news reporting) could indicate where this excellence lies. Considering this article alongside his recent criticisms of the NHS is Nick Cohen finally waking up to the possibility that such massive public-funded organisations, with their well paid and protected jobs, eventually degenerate into a mere provider of employment (equal opportunity of course) rather than a provider of the service they were created for?

Anonymous
May 31st, 2013
7:05 PM
Ironic article on the day an MP quits a party because of... A Panorama investigation.

Seepage
May 30th, 2013
2:05 PM
The BBC has 7,000 journalists and will long outlive most, if not all, Fleet Street and local newspapers with its website delivering the coup de grace to the print media. It however lives off the efforts of the press which foolishly allows it use its first editions late at night so that they appear old news by the morning.

Gordon Fraser
May 29th, 2013
10:05 PM
I'm so over the BBC. Waste of money and nothing but a sheltered workshop for pig trough leftist tyrants.

John Oakes
May 29th, 2013
7:05 PM
WHat is equally breathtaking is the BBC's constant refusal to pay any fees whatsoever to freelancers offering hard,dependable and well-researched exclusive news;coupled with an arrogant insistence that it would somehow be morally wrong to do so,and that it is a freelancer's duty to surrender his hard-won facts to the monopoly he subsidises anyway.This goes some way to explain its lack of exclusives.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.