CChange - The Guardian of The Airwaves? Bias and The BBC

Document1.
qxd 9/26/2003 17:18 Page 1
The Guardian
of the
Airwaves?
Bias and the BBC
Martin McElwee
and Glyn Gaskarth
Document1.qxd 9/26/2003 17:18 Page 2
First published in October 2003 by Cchange
Cchange
Clutha House
10 Storey's Gate
London SW1P 3AY
Tel: 020 7340 2660
www.cchange.org.uk
© Cchange 2003
All rights reserved
ISBN 0 954561 11 2
Typeset by Politico’s Design, design@politicos.co.uk
Printed in Britain by Heron, Dawson and Sawyer
Contents
Biographical Notes 4
Introduction 5
Programme Case Study: Panorama 12
Subject Case Study: Grammar Schools 55
Conclusion 69
Martin McElwee was Deputy Editor at the Centre for Policy Studies
and edits the Bow Group’s magazine Crossbow. He is the author of
The Great and Good: the Rise of the New Class (CPS, 1999);
Leviathan at Large: a New Regulator for the Finacial Markets (with
Andrew Tyrie MP, CPS, 2000); Keeping Ministers in Check (Bow
Group, 2002) and Statism by Stealth (with Andrew Tyrie MP, CPS,
2002). He curently works in the City.
Glyn Gaskarth has worked as a researcher for Rt Hon Oliver Letwin

MP. He is currently a student of International Relations at the
London School of Economics.
Introduction
This has not been an easy year for the BBC. 12 months ago the
corporation was basking in the glow of its rating successes. Now it
finds itself under fire from all sides. The Conservatives started the
ball rolling with a complaint, since settled, that the coverage given to
their local election results was biased. This though was as nothing
compared to the Kelly/Gilligan/Campbell affair that has dominated
the summer.
It seems likely at the time of writing that none of the parties
investigated by Lord Hutton will be entirely exonerated.
Resignations or sackings may yet be required. What is clear,
though, is that journalistic standards at the BBC have come
under scrutiny as never before. This paper is written as a contri-
bution to that scrutiny. It may be critical but it aspires to be
constructive. Its essential thesis is that, despite being a publicly-
funded broadcasting organisation with a statutory duty of
impartiality, the BBC’s output demonstrates a bias to the left.
That is to say that it often reflects the world view of the Guardian
6 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?
newspaper and only rarely, if ever, gives expression to the

opinions of, say, the Daily Telegraph.
Balance of biases
One of the few upsides, from the BBC’s point of view, of the Kelly
affair is that it has given the Corporation and its supporters a
ready answer to those who have claimed that it is biased against
the Tory Party. Such allegations, of course, have a long history,
from the Falklands War and Norman Tebbit’s interventions in the
1980s to the complaints levied against the local election coverage
in 2003. The upshot to this most recent controversy was the
announcement by the Conservatives that they were compiling a
dossier of examples of anti-Tory bias on the BBC.
The Corporation’s response has been quite clever, if somewhat
disingenuous: it is that the disagreements with the Blair govern-
ment, which have reached an intensity quite beyond those with the
Conservatives, prove that the BBC is not biased. It is willing to take
on, where necessary, politicians from any part of the political
spectrum.
As far as it goes, this riposte probably has some virtue. Apart
from some isolated incidents, the BBC appears to give fair coverage
to the Conservative Party. It is generally conscious of the need to
allow both major parties to present their cases. Insofar as the
Liberal Democrats have obtained a larger share of the vote and a
larger number of MPs, it is also fair that they be given a greater
share of airtime, and here too the BBC meets its obligations.
Of course, there are jarring incidents when the Conservative
Party is treated unfairly. The absence of a Conservative from the
panel on one notable edition of Question Time in 2000 merited a
protest and rightly led to an apology. The local election coverage
Introduction // 7
this year certainly failed to move beyond the pre-results assump-

tions of the presenters and displayed anti-Conservative Party bias.
That complaint seems to have resulted in an apology, at least of
sorts, and a settling of the issue between Smith Square and
Television Centre. But bias against the Conservative Party as an
institution is generally little in evidence on the BBC and this paper
does not seek to make that case.
A deeper problem
However, the absence of formal animus against the Conservative
Party does not tell the whole story. Viewers as much as political
parties would be alert to bias against a particular party. What is
much more insidious, but in the end much more damaging, is an
institutional bias for or against a particular political value set.
The argument of this paper is that the BBC possesses just such a
bias. It leans institutionally to the left.
This bias can most readily be seen not in the airtime allocated to
Conservative spokesmen, but in the presentation of BBC reporting.
It creeps in through the choice of interviewees and the way in
which they are introduced (for example, where a right-winger is
given a ‘health warning’ and a left-winger is not by framing their
contribution and implying objectivity or otherwise). It is also
apparent in presenter-led editorial comment on current affair
programmes such as Panorama, which is analysed below. It
manifests itself in the very choice of topics that are deemed worthy
of examination.
The summer’s troubles between the BBC and the government do
not undermine this theory – indeed they tend to support it. Even
left of centre commentators have been of the view that the BBC’s
coverage of the war in Iraq suggested an underlying opposition to
military action. The Guardian’s David Aaronovitch, for example,

commented that:
The impression has been given, on the BBC in particular, that public
and expert opinion is strongly opposed to military action.
In so far as the military action in Iraq can be placed within the

limiting confines of the political lexicon, it may be said that Tony
Blair’s war in Iraq was clearly too ‘right-wing’ for the BBC. The
BBC’s opposition to the Government on this was entirely consis-
tent with its other ideological impulses.
The same phenomenon can be observed in an analysis of the last
five years’ editions of the Panorama programme. There is no
suggestion that there is any pro-Labour bias in these. Indeed, the
programme was on several occasions highly critical of the
Government. However, as will be seen below, the criticism is
consistently drawn not from those to the right of the Labour
Government, but from those critics situated to its left.
Is the BBC ‘institutionally’ leftist?

This author makes no apologies for borrowing the terminology of
the Macpherson report on the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence.
While many on the right have taken issue with his assumption that
an organisation is of its nature capable of displaying such qualities
– be it racism or otherwise – it is difficult to dissent from the
suggestion that the collectivity of those who make up an institution
may so shape the approach it takes that their attitudes become
those of the institution itself.
Lord Macpherson refers to ‘institutional racism’ being a ‘collec-
tive failure of the organisation’ – a point which is quite fairly made
Introduction // 9
in the context of the BBC. It is not the voting preferences of

individual reporters, editors or producers which is at issue here. No
sensible critic would advocate the late Woodrow Wyatt’s
harebrained scheme that all BBC reporters should be made to
declare how they vote in elections.
Indeed, it seems appropriate to note the professionalism and
capability of individual BBC reporters and staff. It is worth quoting
the words of the Campaign for Racial Equality in relation to insti-
tutional racism:
If racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs or

practices, that institution is racist whether or not the individuals
maintaining the practices have racist intentions.
Exactly the same point may be made of BBC staff. While they
almost never display an active intention to disregard, undermine or
ridicule right wing thinking, the totality of their output is such that
it must be regarded as left-wing.
The future of the BBC

This paper is not designed to make any case in relation to the future
funding or structure of the BBC. Many of its critics are keen to
deprive the Corporation of its income from the compulsory licence.
However there is a strong case for maintaining the status quo – but
only if a broadcasting output that genuinely reflects the diversity of
opinions held by those who pay the levy can be achieved.
The BBC’s output remains distinctive from commercial
programming and it is difficult to see how it could retain this
distinctiveness if its funding was placed on a different basis. In a
sense, the BBC is currently a victim of its own Dyke-led success. Yet
were it to be less successful, it is likely that other (or even the same)
voices would be questioning the value of the licence fee.
The role of this paper, then, is quite different from any which
seeks to analyse the funding or future of the BBC. It seeks quite
simply to demonstrate – by means of the broad case studies below
– that there is a consistent left-wing bias at the heart of BBC current
affairs reporting. It seems most likely that this will be remedied not
by altering the funding arrangements of the BBC but by a sustained
period of self-reflection and self-assessment by an institution
which has thus far been too confident in the unfailing objectivity of
its own agenda. It is to be hoped that such a period will be under-
taken following this summer’s events.
Methodology
This paper falls into two sections. The first is a programme case
study. As the BBC’s self-described ‘current affairs flagship’,
Panorama is an appropriate choice to examine for political balance.
The transcripts of all editions of Panorama over the past five years
were reviewed. The results are presented in Chapter 2 below.
The second is an issue case study. This was designed to see how
the BBC’s coverage of a single issue – rather than the wide range of
issues covered by Panorama – stacked up. Care was taken to select
an issue on which there was clear water between right and left. The
issue of grammar schools was chosen. While the Blair Government
seems to have largely ceased to care about the continuing existence
of grammar schools, their abolition remains a totem of the left. By
contrast, their retention is regarded as an article of faith by the
Telegraph-reading right. We analysed accessible coverage of this
issue – primarily from the excellent BBC website – over a number
of years. We also analysed coverage of the same issue in the
Introduction // 11
Guardian and the Daily Telegraph – which might fairly be said to

represent left and right-wing journalistic perspectives – over the
same period. The BBC’s coverage was then compared to these two
divergent and ideologically contrasting approaches to the same
topic.
Programme Case Study

Panorama
Panorama programming is marked by a consistent left

wing bias. It is anti-free market, anti-business, pro-regulation,
pro-increased public spending, anti-US, anti-Bush and
anti-war.
Panorama is billed as the BBC’s ‘flagship current affairs

programme’. With nearly 50 years of broadcasting behind it, it
describes itself as ‘the longest running public affairs TV
programme in the world’.
Panorama’s own standards

The Panorama website describes the standards to which it aspires:
• to make programmes with authority which make waves and

withstand scrutiny.
Introduction // 13
• to report the world we live in with a depth of understanding often

missing in many other programmes.
• to scrutinise the use and abuse of power, both public and private.
• to get to stories first.
• to make the stories we tell relevant, accessible and engaging for the
audience.
• to treat fairly the people with whom we deal.
Methodology
We examined the transcripts of all the episodes of Panorama for the
past 5 years (Autumn 1998-Summer 2003). This period covered a
number of key events, including the 2000 US Presidential Election,
the 2001 UK General Election, the terrorist attack on the World
Trade Centre in 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq war.
All of these events were dealt with by Panorama, as well as a wide
range of other domestic and international stories. There was a good
balance between the domestic and international across this period.
Summary of findings
It should be stressed at the outset that there was no evidence of
anti-Conservative Party bias over the period examined. Of neces-
sity, there was a much greater focus on the Labour Party and
Labour government, often to the exclusion of the Conservative
Party and its spokesmen. This, though, is a reasonable reflection of
the Labour Party’s position in government and their effective
dominance of politics in this period.
On some high profile topics, the programmes were notably fair. On
Europe and the Euro – a subject on which the BBC has already found
itself under considerable scrutiny – there was an impressively even-
handed approach. The Iraq war debates hosted by David Dimbleby

were consistently well-balanced (which, as noted below, contrasted
with a large part of the non-debate war reporting from Panorama).
However, our analysis has revealed a consistent left-wing bias
which imbued a large number of topics, both in the UK arena and
internationally. This bias can be broken down into a number of
recurring themes:
1. Anti-free market
The operation of market forces is consistently opposed in
Panorama, with benefits ignored and costs magnified. This is
evident both in the topics chosen (and not chosen) and the manner
in which they are presented.
2. Pro-regulation
This is mirrored in a oft-repeated theme that more government
regulatory action is required to solve those problems identified by
Panorama. A recurring motif is criticism of regulators for failure to
take stronger action and criticism of government for failure to give
regulators more power or to get regulatory legislation on to the
statute book more quickly.
3. Anti-business
Another aspect of Panorama’s anti-free market bias is its approach
to business. Ignoring the well-documented costs on companies
introduced by the Labour government and the natural vicissitudes
of the business world, the programme takes a blinkered approach,
which displays little appreciation of commercial realities or of the
benefits which efficient businesses bring to society. This is most
evident in the themes chosen and the voices allowed to dominate
the debate.
Programme Case Study: Panorama // 15
4. Pro-increased public spending

Apart from regulation and intervention, Panorama’s other
solution to problems it identifies is more government spending.
This is particularly evident in its approach to the Labour govern-
ment, which is damned for sticking to Conservative spending
limits in its first two years in office and for failing to spend more
on public services since then. The cost to the private sector and
to the individual of high taxes and the inefficiency of this
method of funding are never considered. In particular, private
provision of public services is only ever given a highly critical
mention.
5. Anti-United States
A general anti-American bias imbues much of the Panorama
reporting. America is regularly presented as an aggressor, with
voices opposing this notion generally confined to a small number
of neo-conservative ‘usual suspects’. A not terribly subtle ploy to
insulate the programme against charges of anti-Americanism is
often deployed: using maverick Americans to voice the criticisms. A
British TV audience could not be expected to be aware of the fact
that someone presented as ‘an experienced observer’ may well be
the US equivalent of Paul Foot.
6. Anti-Bush
The most noticeable aspect of the generally anti-American
approach which has featured in Panorama programming has been
the remarkably naked anti-Bush bias. Such a view is, of course, a
hallmark of the left in the UK and internationally. Many commen-
tators have expressed the opinion that even BBC News reporters
appear biased when commentating on left/right isues in the US.
7. Anti-war
As noted above, the debates led by David Dimbleby were generally
even-handed. Similarly, the edition presented by Jane Corbin on The
Case Against Saddam was also well-balanced, giving the right degree of
coverage to the allegations against Saddam Hussein, but also giving air
time to those who had reservations about the evidence. However, as
the war drew closer, the reporter-led Panorama editions on the war
against Iraq became marked by a clear anti-war bias. Difficulties were
magnified, successes were underplayed. Voices opposing the war were
given an undue degree of prominence whilst voices explaining a legit-
imate rationale for action were given very limited airtime indeed.
Justitification?
It is evident from this range of observations that, as already noted,
anti-Conservative Party bias is not in issue here. But it is not good
enough to point out that the programme (as it does) regularly criti-
cises the Labour Government. When it does, it criticises from the left
rather than the right. Nor is it good enough to say that the
programmes are focussed only on ‘the use and abuse of power’, which
inevitably leads to extra scrutiny of ‘big business’, the Republican
administration in the US and the like. All of these are, of course, legit-
imate targets for scrutiny. However, the choice of angles from which
these parties are scrutinised – however deserved the scrutiny – makes
clear a conscious or unconscious left-wing bias. What is missing is
precisely the depth of understanding that the programme’s standards
refer to: it is simple to take leftwing pot shots at easy targets; it is more
difficult to explain the often complex economic and political realities
which lie behind controversial decisions. In other words Panorama
deploys a kind of left wing populism but never examines issues from
a right wing populist perspective.
In general a clear patern emerges. As goes the left, so goes
Panorama. Once an issue achieves salience in the pages of the New
Statesman and the comment section of the Guardian then it is likely

to appear as a story idea for Panorama. Yet if the Spectator and the
Telegraph become preoccupied with a subject it is far less likely that
Panorama will take it up.
1. Anti free market

(a) Choice of topics
Economic issues have been visited by Panorama on a number of
occasions over the past five years. The choice of topics is telling.
Programmes have focussed exclusively on the downside of free
markets – for example, the fact the firms can lay off workers with
relative ease, that some firms end up closing, that people get into
debt, that people are paid low wages or that some find it difficult to
get onto the housing ladder.
The upside of free markets goes unheralded: for example, the
increase in the number of people in work, the importance of
competitiveness to British industry, the advantages that a
relatively deregulated marketplace brings, the increasing
prosperity of the UK.
Equally, programmes on problems in highly regulated sectors
invariably deploy analysis not from the point of view that they
might benefit from a freer play of market forces but from the point
of view that they should be less free.
(b) Sample programmes
Closing Down (30 November 1998)

The 1998 programme, Closing Down, provides a prime example of
the Panorama approach to free markets. The programme relates to
the effect of a downturn in the economy.
The presenter (Vivian White) introduces the programme with a

critical reference to globalisation – the bugbear of the liberal left. He
refers to ‘things they [workers] feel powerless to control, global forces,
decisions taken by Ministers and by the Bank of England [which] are
hitting them and their confidence in the future personally’.
The programme begins by eliciting our sympathy (quite rightly)
for those who have suffered job losses, but White then adds an
extraordinary explanation for their plight: ‘Andre [who has lost his
job] and a lot of others say they’d like their jobs to be protected, but
the government believes in open international markets.’ To deploy
free markets and high levels of employment as opposites is a piece of
remarkably old fashioned socialism. Later, White blames Tony Blair’s
‘policy of stability’ (for which, read a refusal to use interest rates to
drive down the pound) for continued job losses. The inflationary
danger of any other course of action is ignored.
The voices in the programme are entirely anti-free market, pro-
government intervention. White demonstrates an underlying
assumption that intervention by the government is the only solution
in a remarkable question to workers. He asks: ‘What could they [the
government] have done? What should they have done about it [the
economy and job losses]? Do you think it’s all wrong what has
happened? What could they have done?’ It is no surprise when the
answer (which goes unanalysed and unquestioned), comes: ‘Given us
more support, stepped in, show a bit more muscle, just let them
[business] know that they cannot do this [lay off workers].’
The Prime Minister’s alleged approach – to focus on new indus-
tries and to refuse to subsidise old failing industries – is portrayed in
the most pejorative light. White comments that: ‘The Prime Minister,
who’s a North East MP delivered a judgement on industries like
Gary’s [heavy industry]: they belong to the past’. The programme
nods in the direction of acknowledging the success of new industries
in creating jobs, but chooses, rather unfairly, to focus on a Fujitsu

plant which was forced to close due to overseas competition.
White concludes with some open criticism of flexible labour
markets (with no acknowledgement of their benefit): ‘What’s on
offer is a world of uncertainty, jobs that come and go with the work
not lasting quite as long as it used to… And jobs in new high-tech
industries don’t guarantee long term security either’. His damning
conclusion is that ‘experiencing this sort of flexibility can hurt’.
Workaholics (28 September 1998)

The work-life balance is unquestionably an important subject, and
one which has been given considerable government attention.
Indeed, this programme was screened to coincide with the intro-
duction of the 48 hour maximum working week through the
application of the Working Time Direction.
It is, however, a subject which has two very distinct sides: the
impact on family life of a culture of long hours and the (perhaps
less palatable but no less important) impact on business and
prosperity of the regulation of working hours.
This edition of Panorama focuses almost exclusively on one side of
the argument on free labour markets – the side that supports greater
regulation. It centres on the impact on family life, children, unborn
children, and general health of working long hours – and in all cases
the negative side is accentuated. The choice of interviewees (not least
academic ‘experts’ who support the regulation of working hours) is
particularly skewed, and little opportunity is given to business to cite
its case. The benefits of a flexible labour market go unstated.
Absolutely Fabulous Prices (12 April 1999)

This programme maintains a superficial pro-consumer stance
while displaying an ignorance of the principles of the protection of
intellectual property which underlie successful economies and are

central to developed free markets.
European intellectual property law rightly gives brand owners
(such as Levi) the right to decide where their products may be sold.
This is a reward for their investment in their product and repre-
sents an incentive to invest. This approach has been supported by
the European Court of Justice. It is on the leading European case,
the Silhouette judgment, that the programme focuses.
The parallel traders who import from outside the EU to get round
intellectual property rules are described as ‘victims’. The main inter-
viewee is Sheila McKechnie of the Consumers Association, who takes
the unsurprising but short termist view that the EU rules preventing
this allow the owners of brand names to fleece consumers. No
independent voice speaks up in favour of the brand names.
Throughout, the programme displays no understanding of the
economic issues which underlie intellectual property protection or
of the value of such protection in a free market.
The House Price Lottery (28 June 1999)

and The Housing Ladder (30 June 2002)
These two programmes are fixated on the idea that the government
should intervene to correct the fluctuations of the housing market.
Both programmes have a clear agenda that the free market in
housing creates ‘more losers than winners’.
The 1999 programme begins with the demonisation of a
homeowner who has benefited from rising property prices. Paul
Kenyon, the reporter, suggests to the homeowner that he ‘has made a
really substantial amount of money here without getting out of bed’.
The notion that such a gain is illegitimate has scarcely been heard in
Britain since the days when Old Labour taxed ‘earned’ and ‘unearned’
income differently; the BBC, though, seems still to cling to such pre-
Thatcher notions. Even when the homeowner points out that he took
a significant risk in borrowing to fund it, Kenyon puts it to him that
‘it’s the same house really that you bought ten years ago – it’s just
worth significantly more now’.
The programme’s title – itself a pejorative representation of the
market forces at work in housing – is repeated throughout, without
any appreciation that a market which responds to supply and
demand is a legitimate and healthy one.
‘Buy-to-let’ buyers attract particular scorn from Kenyon. Despite
the fact that many such buyers are responsibly investing for old age,
Kenyon portrays them as a ‘new breed of buyer’ whose actions have
‘damaging consequences’ – buyers who have ‘locked out’ the poor and
who have caused the countryside to be built over. Kenyon seems to be
oblivious to the fact that to bring down property prices, the law of
supply and demand requires that more houses be built.
Kenyon praises, by contrast, a government-subsidised (to the
tune of £250 million) mixed housing scheme. His other demand of
the government minister whom he interviews is that he reverses the
southwards migration trend. Again, the free play of market forces is
apparently an anathema.
David Lomax continues the same theme in his 2002 report. His
descriptions of the free housing market range from a ‘nightmare’
through ‘hysteria’ to ‘a huge ogre’. His solution is that the govern-
ment must take action. His regretful conclusion though is that ‘for
the government, influencing it is not going to be easy’.
2. Anti-Business
Britain’s businesses are clearly newsworthy and a legitimate subject
for a major current affairs programme. While some businesses
undoubtedly indulge in practices that are to be condemned, there

is also an important story to be told about their contribution to
national prosperity and the difficulties they face in trying to
succeed. Over-regulation of business is a particularly big problem.
These issues are never addressed on Panorama.
Instead, the focus is consistently on the theme that big business
is out to ‘get’ the consumer. The profit motive is maligned (ignoring
the argument that business profits fuel expansion and job creation
and underpin pensions). Among the allegations made are that
business is cavalier with workers, is cavalier with consumer safety,
is exploiting employees, and owes public duties which it is failing to
execute.
Are You Being Served? (23 November 1998)

The dominance of the big supermarket chains has not gone
unnoticed in the last few years. This programme was screened to
coincide with an Office of Fair Trading investigation into their
practices. It is interesting to note that the in depth investigation
conducted by the Competition Commission which led on from the
initial OFT investigation found that supermarkets were not making
excessive profits at the expense of the consumer. The Commission’s
considered approach can only be said to contrast with the superfi-
cial anti-business mud-slinging of this Panorama episode.
No mention is made in the programme of the argument that the
success of supermarkets is good for employees, shareholders,
pension funds and, in the long run, for consumers. Instead a parade
of witnesses is lined up to criticise supermarkets for their alleged
practices, including various ‘experts’. The experts selected for the
programme all oppose the practices of the supermarkets. No

independent voices are heard giving the opposite case; the only
defence comes from a representative of Safeway, whom the viewer is
hardly going to treat as an impartial source of information.
David Lomax lists some of the features of supermarkets almost like
a charge sheet: ‘Many display more than 2000 different products.
They’re open seven days a week, sometimes 24 hours a day.’ The
accusatory tone is backed up by the principal ‘expert witness’,
Professor Tim Lang of the Centre for Food Policy (Lang is well known
as a long standing critic of supermarkets). Lang tells the viewer that:
Supermarkets now have immense economic power and I think

people haven’t quite realised the extent to which this is now posing a
threat rather than a boon to the consumer. Twenty years ago I think
supermarkets became too powerful.
Lomax then moves on to an allegation of what is known as ‘price

following’ – the practice of monitoring competitors’ prices in order to
follow them – with an implicit suggestion of price fixing between the
big players. A less jaundiced view would be that it represents normal
competitive behaviour by businesses which do not wish to be undercut
by local rivals. Indeed, the Competition Commission report explicitly
found that this practice did not operate against the public interest.
The next allegation is that prices in Britain are much higher than
in continental Europe. The effect of a high pound at the time of the
comparison is not noted. By contrast, this factor was rather more
carefully analysed in the Competition Commission report, which
concluded that:
International price comparisons, though they have generated consid-

erable interest and controversy, do not provide any evidence that the
UK grocery multiples are acting in an anti-competitive manner so as

to generate higher prices than would otherwise be the case.
It should be noted, in fairness, that the Competition Commission did

find that a number of the supermarkets’ practices operated against the
public interest – including two identified by Panorama1 – and remedied
this with the introduction of a code of practice for the supermarkets.
Cheap Labour (14 June 1999)

This programme, continuing the anti-free labour market theme
noted above, is an analysis of the then newly-introduced minimum
wage. Again, this is a story with two important sides, which were
widely explored in the press at the time of this scheme’s introduc-
tion: the cost to business of the minimum wage and the benefits to
low-paid workers. Whichever side of the fence one comes down on,
it is easy to see that there are two sides to this story.
Panorama deals only with the latter side, and concentrates exclu-
sively on the ways in which companies are failing to pay what
workers believe they are due. Symptomatic is the worker who blames
her employer’s approach to the minimum wage on ‘ignorance and
greed’. This assertion is invited by the interviewer (Vivian White) nd
goes unchallenged. At no point in the programme are the costs to
business, and indirectly to the consumer, of introducing and admin-
istering the minimum wage addressed.
Seeing Red (4 October 1999)

Britain’s clearing banks have come under critical scrutiny from the
left since 1997. Panorama follows suit. The premise of the
1 These were the practices of requiring payments for prime siting of products in the store and
delisting of suppliers. A third Panorama allegation, that supermarkets required their
suppliers to make charitable donations was found not to operate against the public interest.
programme is that it is scandalous that major banks are declining to

take on customers who are going to be loss-making. The
programme’s agenda is identical to the thinking of those on the left
(including some government ministers) that private companies such
as banks have a primary public interest obligation akin to a charity.
Banks throughout are presented as greedy institutions screwing
customers and ignoring their duties rather than ordinary companies
trying to be successful in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
The focuses of the programme are on branch closures (with the
presenter melodramatically attempting to get a closing branch to open
its doors for an old lady), bank errors and, finally, the main topic,
deselection. In a crass demonisation of free markets and the banks, the
presenter, Adrian Chiles, refers to how ‘in this profit-driven age’,
customers should ‘prepare…for what’s darkly called ‘de-selection’’.
Chiles admits that ‘industry research suggests that more than a
quarter of [banks’] customers are unprofitable’. Symptomatic of the
approach taken is that rhetorical question asked by the presenter:
‘Who’s going to protect us consumers in this fast-changing, profit-
driven, high-tech world?’. A balanced view would include the
opinion that there might be a need for more regulation but also the
alternative perspective that the market would itself act to protect
consumers, who, free to move their custom and quick to notice a
bad press for a bank, would keep the banks’ practices in check.
Panorama ignores the latter point of view, and condemns self-
regulation out of hand. The presenter damns the (Labour)
Government’s paper on financial exclusion as ‘not exactly a radical
call for action’ as it fails to demand greater regulation. Indeed he
ridicules the document which suggests that public information and
market forces might work best for consumers:
‘In fact, it’s got some rather peculiar conclusions. Remember
Hazel in Liverpool who couldn’t open an account for love nor
money? Well it says here, ‘If people were better informed about
what was available, fewer of them might choose to remain
unbanked.’ So Hazel, if you’re watching, I’m terribly sorry but the
Treasury thinks it’s your fault you don’t have a bank account. And
as for the idea of actually passing laws to oblige banks to provide
services to all sections of the community, the Treasury concludes
‘the case for doing this is weak’.’
Even a Labour government’s approach to banks, it seems does
not come close to the Panorama world view.
Gang Masters (19 June 2000)

In this programme, the practices on some farms of employing
cheap illegal labour to bring in crops is blamed, as so much else is,
on big business – the supermarkets again. Paul Kenyon, the
presenter, admits that ‘the supermarkets wouldn’t endorse it’, but
takes the highly subjective view that ‘it’s their activities right at the
top of the food chain that encourage it’. The programme’s resident
expert is a TUC researcher who, unsurprisingly, is in favour of
paying higher wages. He too blames the supermarkets who have, he
claims, ‘the most responsibility’. The programme concedes in the
end that the supermarkets are introducing guidelines on this and
all oppose such practices; the tone of the entire programme,
though, paints them in a very black shade.
The Borrowers (28 January 2001)

Rising levels of debt in Britain in 2003 have drawn attention to the
problem of individuals and families who allow themselves to
borrow far beyond their means. This edition of Panorama deserves
praise for highlighting the issue rather before it became headline
news, but its approach is wildly biased. It is the lenders alone who
are blamed for individuals who get into excessive debt. Mortgage
and other lenders are damned for lawful commercial behaviour,

while individuals who freely incur debt they know they cannot
support are treated as victims of a corporate conspiracy.
Sarah Powell’s introduction sets the tone, revealing the ‘law that’s
powerless to protect people in debt’ and lenders that are ‘targeting
the vulnerable’. In a common Panorama approach, the programme
focuses initially on a hard luck case – a family which has got in over
its head. The Rozaks borrowed £7000 on the basis that ‘comparing
[their house] to the rest of the street, it was looking quite tatty and
we just thought, ‘Right, new windows is a must.’’ The Rozaks were
already in arrears on their mortgage. Powell, though, places the
blame for their subsequent inability to pay not on their own
decision but on the lenders: the Rozaks may have been in financial
trouble, ‘but the loans pages of the tabloids were full of lenders
offering easy credit, no questions asked’.
The programme goes on to describe what it refers to as ‘the
world of the sub-prime’ – loans to sub-prime borrowers. Powell
quickly tells us that ‘the sub-prime world can be a harsh one’, and
later refers to it as ‘the wild west’. The role that such sub-prime
lenders play in allowing perfectly legitimate borrowers (who might
otherwise find it difficult) to find a lender is not mentioned.
The programme goes on to examine another family, the
Barneses. These borrowers knew that ‘money would be tight’ when
they took their loan, but did so ‘because they were worried they’d
lose their chance to buy their council house’. The relatively high fee
of the lender is attacked, ignoring the fact that it is inevitable that
lenders will charge higher fees in such cases to cover the fact that
their risk is so much greater. With another borrower, Powell says
that ‘There seems to be no limit as to how high debts can go’,
ignoring again the fact that it is quite within the control of the
borrower to limit their borrowing.
The programme’s call is for tougher laws to regulate lenders. A

remarkable call for ‘a new criminal offence of lending at high
rates’ is left unquestioned. Powell goes on to praise other
countries which ‘take consumer protection more seriously’
whereas the British laws are damned as ‘so weak’. The costs of
regulation to legitimate business – and ultimately to the
consumer – is unmentioned.
How Safe is your Pension? (17 November 2002)

Following on from programmes on banks and mortgage lenders,
the programme moves on to the pension industry. The programme
highlights the unfortunate case of workers whose companies have
gone bust and whose pension funds have gone under with the
company. However, Vivian White spends the programme whipping
up mistrust against employers, pension providers and the interna-
tional markets in his efforts to find a scapegoat.
A succession of unreliable witnesses are paraded without contra-
diction to support this thesis – for example, a holder of a personal
pension who says that he’s sceptical about his pension provider: ‘It’s
trusting someone with your money at the end of the day, and I
don’t think we’ve got that trust.’
White gives implicit editorial backing to this thesis of mistrust of
business with his question to an independent financial adviser who
states that saving for pensions remains a sensible option: ‘You want
us to go on saving and saving more, and trust to the markets long
term in a world that’s risky?’ A risk-free world might well encapsu-
late the Panorama utopia, but it reveals the anti-market bias that is
noted above.
Other interviewees continue the same theme: people who say
they can’t take any risks because ‘they’re working class’, an employee
without a pension who is allowed to state uncontested that ‘these
big companies…are ripping people off…Can you tell me for sure

that they ain’t ripping them off?’ The question goes unanswered by
White nor is any positive evidence given to contradict the intervie-
wees’ message.
The programme concludes with its anti-business coup de grace:
when asked who they trust to provide their pension, be it their
employer, the pensions industry or the government, 59% answer
this rather loaded question by saying that they trust no one.
3. Pro-regulation
From food to mortgages, Panorama brings to light what it views as
failings in the system. Its consistent answer is that greater regula-
tion of the system is required. The choice of topics – ones which
tend to highlight this view – is noticeable. There has been, by
contrast, no programme highlighting the adverse effect of
increased government regulation on small businesses, on the care
home industry, on schools or on councils. Only in one programme,
Fiddling the Figures (29 June 2003), on NHS targets, is this topic
even touched on.
Poison on your Plate (25 January 1999)

In the last few years food safety issues have enjoyed a high profile
and a relatively high priority on the Government’s agenda. The
introduction of the Food Standards Agency by the Labour
Government has been a double edged sword – it has increased
levels of protection but at the same time it has increased the regula-
tory burden on small producers and shops at a time when they are
already under considerable pressure.
Panorama once again takes an entirely one-sided approach to
this question, ignoring the costs of regulation and instead
demanding more. David Lomax begins by referring to Labour’s
promise to ‘make food safety a priority’ but quickly damns the
government for failing to introduce regulation quickly enough:
‘protecting public health has had to stay in the hands of the old
system which the government promised to overhaul’.
Lomax’s expresses outrage that ‘formal training in hygiene [for
all employed in food retail] is not compulsory’. To demand that
every person doing a weekend job in a supermarket undergo
Whitehall-programmed hygiene training is symptomatic of a
centralist approach.
The programme’s main interviewee is the alarmist Edwina
Currie, who presents it as scandalous that the Ministry of
Agriculture (as it then was) is close to the food industry – surely a
key role for a department responsible for its welfare as much as it is
responsible for public health. The range of interviewees,
meanwhile, is drawn almost exclusively from victims of food
poisoning. In the entirety of the programme, only 20 seconds is
given over to a quote provided by a representative of the food
industry explaining the costs of more regulation.
Lomax’s pro-regulation agenda is clear. He complains that
‘without a food standards agency, blood testing of poultry flocks is
still voluntary’ (ignoring the benefits of self-regulation) and that the
‘fundamental problem’ of the egg ‘lion quality mark’ scheme is that
‘not everyone is in it’ (ignoring the fact that consumers are now
perfectly well informed as to the relative safety of the eggs they buy).
His panacea is more regulation: ‘ A food standards agency would
have powers to make sure that the poultry industry was properly
regulated’ and ‘would be able to enforce better hygiene under a

licensing system’.
Frankenstein Foods (17 May 1999)

The very title of this programme gives away the closed mind of the
Panorama team on the topic of genetically modified food. The
words chosen in Steve Bradshaw’s introduction encourage the
viewer to join the scepticism, particularly the repeated references to
‘Frankenstein foods’:
People are confused about Frankenstein foods. Government advisers

insist they are safe, but some scientists are worried.
Bradshaw goes on to declare that there is ‘nationwide opposition’ to

genetically modified food. His consistent theme is that the govern-
ment and its scientific committees did not take into account in
giving permission to GM foods that the public did not want them.
He tells us that ‘key issues like whether we really want GM were
simply not addressed’ and later puts it to Jack Cunningham, the
responsible minister, that his scientific committees ‘don’t represent
the public’. This populist attitude ignores the point of scientific
committees (to decide on a scientific basis that the technology is
safe) and indeed the role of government (not to ban things on the
basis of supposed public opinion, but to regulate, where necessary,
new developments to ensure public safety).
Bradshaw attacks the various committees who approved the
introduction of GM food for failing to take into account the views
of consumers. The scientific committee, the Advisory Committee
on Novel Foods and Processes, for example, is criticised for the fact
that most of its members are ‘scientists with connections to the
food or biotech industry’. This is highly pejorative: a committee on
‘Novel Foods and Processes’ made up of scientists with no experi-

ence of food or biotechnology would be rightly criticised for
lacking crucial experience. Bradshaw goes on to complain that
‘there was just one member to represent consumers’. Again,
Bradshaw lacks fairness: this cannot be surprising in the context of
an essentially scientific committee.
Bradshaw goes on to complain that the scientists on the
Committee (and another committee, the Advisory Committee
on Releases to the Environment) did not include any members
who were known to oppose GM foods. Again this is a red
herring. Why those holding a minority view in the scientific
community should be given a place on a scientific committee
regardless of expertise and just because of that view is not at all
clear. It would, indeed, represent the quasi-politicisation of
supposedly objective science.
His second complaint was that the remit of the Committee was
too narrow. The Chairman explains it thus: ‘We were not asked
whether we were in favour of the technology. We were asked whether
the foods were safe.’ Again it is difficult to argue that this is an unrea-
sonable question to ask a scientific committee. Policy decisions on
the desirability of the technology are best taken elsewhere.
The programme’s conclusion is unsurprising in the light of the
biased eye it has brought to the subject: ‘Few people now trust the
Government and its array of committees to do what’s best for
them’. What the reporter means is that he doesn’t trust them to take
the decision that accords with his own views.
Private Risks (20 September 1999)

It is impossible to argue with Panorama’s exposure of a number of
failings in private hospitals. It is right that these events should be
brought to public attention.
The main interviewee in this programme is Baroness Emma

Nicholson, the Liberal Democrat peer. Baroness Nicholson’s
husband died in a private hospital in circumstances which left the
hospital open to extensive criticism. It is perhaps unsurprising that
Baroness Nicholson’s view is that they should be more extensively
regulated. The presenter, Vivian White, tells us that:
Emma Nicholson is determined to open up private hospitals to full

public inspection. She has been amazed to discover that at present
they are not legally registered and regulated not hospitals at all, but as
nursing homes.
Baroness Nicholson goes on to say:
I want all private hospitals to have to be registered by law. This would

open them up to automatic inspection by the local health authority.
This is a legitimate response to the tragedy of her husband’s death,

but it is a suggestion that has a downside – increasing the private
sector’s bureaucracy to NHS levels – as well as an upside. This point
is not made.
Moreover, Baroness Nicholson then goes on to make a
complaint about the fact that some private hospitals cannot cope
with emergencies and have to send their patients to NHS hospitals
for, for example, intensive care treatment. This, says Baroness
Nicholson, is ‘repugnant’. Vivian White appears to share her view,
as he suggests that private patients are somehow leeching off the
NHS:
They estimate that there are at least 500 cases of transfer from
private hospitals into NHS intensive care beds every year. These
beds cost over £1500 a day and when private patients take them up
it can cause the NHS problems.
A spokesman from BUPA is only given a very short space of time

(particularly in comparison to Emma Nicholson’s extensive
coverage) to make the point that these are people who have already
paid their taxes and are therefore quite entitled to use NHS services.
They are in no sense leeching off the NHS.
Speed (14 February 2000)

This edition deals with the dangers of speeding. The answer to this
problem lies primarily in the hands of police and individuals. The
Panorama approach, though, is to call for more government regula-
tion and, indirectly, to blame business.
Throughout, the focus is on what government must do. Roger
Harrabin, the presenter tells us that ‘pressure for change is building
on the government’. Moreover, the motor manufacturers are
accused of impeding safety by blocking tougher standards. This
allegation is unsubstantiated. In a remarkable twist of logic,
Harrabin manages to blame business more generally for the failure
of councils to introduce lower speed limits. It is plausible that
discouraging traffic harms business. However to place the blame
for speeding injuries on business is a major leap. He takes the
example of Manchester:
Manchester is rebranding itself as a major international business

location. The council can’t afford to appear anti-car. It faces tough
competition from other cities and out of town shopping centres.
Where Harrabin’s sympathies lie is made perfectly clear in his

choice of words in his summing up of the Manchester segment:
They [the council] won’t make Manchester Britain’s only safe

speed city.
Once again, the solution the programme advances is central

government intervention. The programme strongly promotes the
idea that Whitehall should lay down a speed limit of 20mph for all
cities. Lord Whitty, the responsible Government minister, sensibly
refuses this extreme piece of centralising regulation. Harrabin
though concludes with a piece of subjective comment that again
makes his pro-intervention views evident:
It’s clear in Manchester what this means. Neither government nor

council want to grasp the nettle of cutting speed on some of the most
dangerous city streets for fear of upsetting motorists and harming the
local economy.
Casualties (17 January 2000)

The subject of the training and organisation of paramedic services
is one which is Panorama should be congratulated for investigating.
This relatively unglamorous branch of the health service deserves
more attention.
The Panorama approach to this complex topic, though, is
predictable. The main complaints are twofold.
Firstly, there are disparities in what ambulance services around
the country are permitted to do and what drugs they are permitted
to administer. This is presented as a scandal which requires
national governmental regulation and coordination. No considera-
tion is given to the view that it may be more appropriate for such
decision to be taken at a local level, where it can be more respon-
sive to local needs and accountable to local people.
Secondly, the programme applauds the new system of state
registration for paramedics. Indeed, it takes credit for forcing the

Government into action on this when Ministers became aware that
the programme was being made.
The Mortgage Timebomb (22 May 2000)

This investigation into the mortgage industry again comes to the
conclusion that the solution requires government regulation. The
presenter, David Lomax, makes his view plain by referring to
tougher regulation as ‘proper regulation’. The other side of the coin,
that borrowers might benefit from the lower costs of light touch
regulation or self-regulation is not examined.
Dot.Com Fever (3 April 2000)

Another regulator in the sights of the Panorama team is the
Financial Service Regulator, one of the largest and most powerful
regulatory bodies ever created in the UK. In this investigation of
the internet phenomenon, Tom Mangold concludes that the net
requires tougher regulation and that the FSA isn’t up to the task. He
tells the viewer:
The authority for policing the net and catching the cheats and
conmen who have discovered its potential is the FSA, the Financial
Services Authority. It has a good bark, but sadly its mouth is all gums.
Promises, Promises (16 February 2003)

The bus industry was deregulated such a long time ago that it
scarcely registers in the public consciousness any longer. However,
Panorama reporters still believe that re-regulation is required. John
Ware, in a critique of government transport policy, complains that
John Prescott has not seen fit to reverse the deregulation put in
place by the Conservatives.
The Chicken Run (22 May 2003)

This investigation of the bulking up of chicken reveals a multitude
of malpractices. It is a good piece of investigative journalism. The
problem lies in the presenter’s alarm that the Food Standards
Agency’s approach of insisting that full information on product
contents is given to customers is not enough. The regulatory power
of the informed consumer in the marketplace is simply not counte-
nanced by presenter, Bestan Powys, who treats with incredulity the
FSA’s statement that the important thing is that products are
correctly described. The programme insists that this cannot be an
adequate solution, calling in a talking head academic from City
University who declaims the FSA policy thus:
I mean, how naïve can you get? This isn’t what we expect the FSA to
do. We expect the FSA to not just say, put the information on the
label, but to sort it out.
No comparable expert is brought in to put the opposing case that

the FSA’s consumer information approach is a perfectly legitimate
and cost effective one. Powys goes on to demand that the FSA take
the bulked up chicken ‘off the shelves’.
4. Pro-increased public spending

Increased public spending is a legitimate answer to many problems.
However, it is not the only one. Nor is it one without adverse conse-
quences.
Over the past five years, Panorama has not investigated the rising
burden of taxation, the increasing numbers of people in receipt of
state benefits, or the impact on business of higher costs (not least
national insurance). Nor, more remarkably, has it seriously investi-

gated the effectiveness of pumping large sums of public money into
the public services. In the main programme on the success or other-
wise of the Labour approach to the public services, the complaint
throughout, as seen below, is that not enough money has been spent.
There is only one programme in the past five years that has
investigated non-spending answers to public service issues – an
investigation into the effect of the government’s culture of targets
on hospitals. There is no investigation of the effectiveness of
bringing private or voluntary sector providers into the provision of
public services.
Indeed the only programme which deals with private sector
involvement in the public services is the programme already
mentioned above highlighting failings of private hospitals.
Spin Doctors (13 March 2000)

Panorama’s investigations of practices in the NHS are often
commendable. However, this programme, presented by John Ware,
fails to look beyond the simplistic argument that all the NHS needs
is more public money. There is no investigation of how greater use
of private investment or greater autonomy for hospitals could
improve outcomes. Indeed, the only mention of the use of private
initiatives is in a nakedly biased statement from Ware:
By using old-fashioned Tory crisis management techniques such as

spending hundreds of millions on operations in private
hospitals…Labour claimed they’re beating what seemed like an
intractable problem.
The use of private providers where appropriate may not fit Ware’s
views on the NHS, but many experts – although not those
consulted by Panorama – would argue that it is often a sensible
and prudent option which allows patients to get their operation
more quickly. Ware’s implication is that it is somehow a waste of
money.
Labour’s multiple announcements and double and triple
counting of investment are cogently and rightly subjected to
sustained scrutiny. But Ware’s pro-public spending agenda comes
to the fore again when he describes Tony Blair’s statement that
health spending should rise to the European average as ‘the most
important statement in the history of the NHS’.
There is no analysis of whether the required taxation and
spending to achieve this target is appropriate or prudent. This
would also have been an appropriate juncture to point out that a
much greater proportion of health funding in other European
countries is private sector driven. This point is not made. Instead,
Ware takes the Government to task for still not spending enough:
he criticises the fact that the Government’s plans will raise health
spending only to the unweighted European average (which gives a
lower figure) than the weighted average (which is higher).
Underwater Britain (19 November 2000)

and In Deep Water (18 March 2001)
This duo of relatively proximate programmes looks at the floods
which hit certain areas of Britain in 2000. The thrust is a call for
hugely greater public spending on flood defences.
Vivian White takes John Prescott to task in the first programme
for his Department’s failure to spend enough on flood defences. He
puts it to Prescott that he needs to spend not millions but
‘hundreds of millions, billions’.
In the second programme, David Lomax explains that the

Government did provide £51 million, but goes on to say that ‘for
some, this wasn’t enough’. The programme’s chosen ‘expert’, from
Middlesex University, goes on to state that much more than this is
needed – ‘upwards of £61 million a year’. There is no questioning of
this huge increase in spending. Lomax goes on to claim that
‘climate change will need an even bigger public investment’. The
academic claims that this will be of the order of £1 billion per year.
Again this goes unquestioned.
The programme, it should be noted, rather undermines its own
pro-higher spending line by giving evidence that councils are
already getting substantial sums of money but are failing to spend
them on flood defences. Ignoring for the moment the point about
legitimate local autonomy and accountability, this rather suggests
that the problem is not a lack of public funds.
Underwater Britain is also notable for its line that insurance
companies are failing in a perceived public duty by refusing to offer
cover to homes in flood-hit areas. White asks John Prescott: ‘Are you
going to let insurance companies declare some people uninsurable
because flood defence is not adequate?’ Prescott’s reply shows that he
shares the idea that insurance companies owe a charitable duty: ‘The
insurance companies do, I believe, have an obligation in these matters
and they shouldn’t get out of it simply because there are more floods.’
That the same insurance companies would be failing in their statutory
duty to look to the best interests of their shareholders by taking on
business they knew was likely to be loss making is not considered.
The Labour Years (3 June 2001)

Whatever one’s view of the first term of the Labour Government,
Panorama’s assessment of it in this pre-election programme
displays remarkable tunnel vision. Giving little credit for achieve-
ment and no consideration to alternatives, it is simply an attack on

the Government’s failure to spend more over its first four years. It
is a classic left wing critique of Labour governments
John Ware begins by stating that Labour ‘inherited decades of under-
investment’, a contentious and partisan statement presented as fact.
He first looks at the Government’s record in the Health Service.
Issues such as the dismantling of the internal market, the targets
culture and the centralisation of the Service are ignored. Instead,
Ware’s analysis is as follows:
How much was available to recruit extra doctors and nurses? Not
much. At least not at first. New Labour’s initial priority was to lay the
ghost of Labour’s spending profligacy and economic incompetence
and demonstrate its new credentials. So for two years, the manifesto
pledged to stick to the tight spending limits set by the Tories. Well,
New Labour certainly stuck to that promise. In its first two years,
health spending only grew at half the rate of the Major years.
When the analysis turns to Blair’s huge spending pledge to raise

health spending to the European average, there is once again no
analysis of whether this is appropriate. Instead, there is just
scepticism from Ware that enough will be spent to reach the
target, in a statement that impliedly belittles the extent of the
extra spending:
Even that [meeting the target], seems unlikely. New Labour are
committed to their present spending increases only until 2004.
Ware then interviews Malcolm Bruce of the Liberal Democrats on

their pledge to spend £2 billion more per year on health than the
Labour Government. Again, this is belittled:
Two billion sounds like a lot of money, but actually it’ll only increase
health spending as a share of national wealth by 0.2% per year. That’s
not as much as it sounds.
Once again, the main expert interviewee is one who supports higher
public spending. John Appleby of the King’s Fund, is given a series of
slots in which he states that there needs to be higher funding over a
longer term. The programme then moves on to Labour’s education
record. Here once again, there were a number of issues which could
have been discussed: the dismantling of grant maintained status, the
grammar school ballots, the target setting for schools, the impossible
complexity of the funding system. But once again, an allegedly low
level of public spending gets the blame for all ills:
The answer [to why there were teacher shortages] lies with New
Labour’s manifesto pledge on spending. As with health, it committed
the Government to stick to Tory limits for the first two years.
Once again, the Conservative record is presented in a deeply

negative light:
Over the last four years, the education system that has been under-
funded for so long has been increasingly overwhelmed.
Andrew Lansley is questioned on the Tory record and plans:
You kept education spending on a very, very tight rein during the 18
years of Conservative Government – why should be believe you [that
you will match Labour education spending]?
This is factually incorrect, and serves to perpetuate the myth that

the Tories cut education funding in their time in office. In fact it

rose substantially.
Only the Liberal Democrats, with the pledge of £3 billion more,
get Ware’s approval. But it is qualified approval: he subsequently
derides their total £8 billion increased spending pledge as ‘a tiny
amount’.
Ware sums up with a reiteration of his theme:
Why did Labour achieve less on public services than it set out to? The
answer lies in the decision to establish economic credibility by sticking
to the Tory spending plans for the first two years.
No other aspect of Labour’s record is considered in a programme

whose title, ‘The Labour Years’, suggests so much more.
5. Anti-United States
The war in Iraq has dominated coverage of the US in the period
covered by this study. Most of the programmes in relation to the
war itself are dealt with in the section below, which details
Panorama’s practically non-existant airing of support for the US’s
policy on military action. Insofar as President Bush should be
identified with the US at this point, the consistent anti-Bush tone
of the choice of programming is also important.
There are no programmes on non-military aspects of United
States life or behaviour. While this is in part unsurprising given that
this is the area in which the US’s actions have most impinged on
UK life over the past five years, it is worth mentioning that there
would not have been a shortage of good news stories had Panorama
wished to go looking for them: the higher prosperity of the US
relative to the eurozone, US support for Africa (recently praised by

Bob Geldof) or the manner in which the Bush administration has
resisted the isolationist impulse to ignore the rest of the world.
Deep Down and Dirty (2 December 2001)

Peter Taylor’s programme begins with the distasteful statement that
following 11 September the US ‘burned with anger and demanded
revenge’. Revenge is a particularly emotive word which seems unfair
following an unprovoked terrorist outrage: it may be a cliché to
suggest that ‘justice’ would be more appropriate but Taylor’s
wording must certainly be faulted.
The programme focuses on the activities of the CIA, which Taylor
variously describes as ‘running free’, having ‘meddled’ abroad and,
repeating the title, ‘deep down and dirty’. It is most notable for the
sympathy it shows for a Guatemalan Marxist guerrilla leader
(described in almost romantic terms by Taylor as a man who ‘left his
village to fight the regime that oppressed his people’).
Taylor moves on to more recent activities following 11
September. He is drawn to comment that ‘terrorists are not bound
by laws or restrained by moral scruples. They play dirty’. Fair
indeed. But Taylor immediately follows this with a statement that
appears to give the activities of the terrorist and the CIA something
close to moral equivalence: ‘And the CIA can play dirty too, often
using covert action’. This suggestion is again highly tendentious.
After Saddam (13 April 2003)

This programme – which employs more mainstream BBC news
correspondents than the average Panorama edition – is fairly well
balanced on the war. John Simpson, for example, explains that ‘off
the record, you will find that a majority, a clear majority of Arab
governments will be absolutely delighted that Saddam Hussein has
gone.
There is, however, one section of the programme which
displays a view of the US that owes little to fair analysis. Gavin
Esler allows it to be introduced with the words ‘What is America
really up to?’. The suggestion of a hidden underlying agenda is
made in more than one Panorama programme, but only here is it
given the credibility of being promoted by the presenters
themselves. The accompanying graphic is ‘The New American
Empire’.
Esler quotes sources claiming the US wants ‘world domination’
before giving air time to talking heads from round the world. An
Egyptian claims that they US has a ‘broader strategy of complete
and absolute domination all over the world’. Two UK interviewees
speak of the US’s ‘bully boy tactics’ and ‘this policy of one country
having the free will to invade another country’.
There is no evidence of such an agenda in the US. Indeed, the
main liberal criticism of the first years of the Bush administration
was that it was failing to engage with the rest of the world. It is left
to another news correspondent, Matt Frei, to say (in a statement
that itself contains the implication that the US ‘hawks’ are extrem-
ists) that ‘even’ the White House hawks are not interested in
‘imperial occupation’.
6. Anti-Bush
George Bush and his administration are a legitimate target of
scrutiny. Given their current dominance of the American political
scene, it is unsurprising that Panorama focuses its programming

attention on Bush and the Republicans rather than the Democrats.
It is not the choice of topics, therefore, but the tone adopted which
raises concerns here.
The Accidental President (21 January 2001)

The title of this programme, focussed on Bush himself, gives a
ready clue to the Panorama approach to Bush, containing as it does
a strong suggestion that his election was illegitimate.
The anti-Bush theme is immediately introduced, with presenter,
Gavin Hewitt’s statement that ‘doubts have followed him all the way to
the White House’, backed up with two talking heads. The first, David
Gergen, who most recently worked for the Clinton administration,
tells us that: ‘If he were not a Bush he would not be President today’.
The second, a Texas Democrat, Elliott Nashtat, informs the viewer that:
‘He doesn’t read books and he doesn’t read magazines, except sports
magazines.’ This is allowed to set the tone for the entire programme.
Going through Bush’s past, Hewitt tells us about the ‘family
connections [that] came to his help’ and about his ‘confrontational’
approach (rather at variance with most of the evidence about the
Bush personality).
His first serious examination of Bush the politician relates to his
record in Texas. Two examples are chosen to present Bush in the
most negative light possible. The first is his environmental record –
presented using only anecdotal evidence. Hewitt cites an industrial
plant in Texas which is blamed by locals for causing ill health. He is
forced to concede that ‘it is difficult to link the plant directly to
poor health’, but claims tendentiously that ‘the community has an
unusual number of sick people’. His comments once again show the
endemic pro-regulation assumptions of Panorama presenters:
As governor, George Bush has the opportunity to enforce tougher

environmental standards, but chose instead to allow these plants to
largely regulate themselves.
Hewitt then moves on to the use of the death penalty – a punishment

that marks a bright line between the liberal left and the conservative
right. Having concluded that Texas under Bush was top of the list for
pollution, he tells us that ‘Texas holds first place in something else as
well: executions’. He goes on to describe Bush thus:
It’s been reported [where?] that George Bush gave on average 15

minutes to reviewing each death penalty case. He is a politician who
rarely reflects on his decisions.
This is a remarkably pejorative way of describing a man who is by

common consent in the US impressively decisive.
No evidence on other more positive aspects of Bush’s guberna-
torial record is presented.
The Texas Democrat, Elliott Nashtat, is then brought back with
an introduction from Hewitt which tells us that: ‘Some of those
who worked with him during his six years as governor felt he lacked
the depth, the commitment to reach an informed decision’. To
present a Democrat to back this up must be regarded as unsatisfac-
tory. Nashtat’s quote about Bush’s reading material gets a second
airing, as does Gergen’s.
Hewitt then recites various canards about Bush – the (unsub-
stantiated) cocaine rumours, the interview where Bush was unable
to identify the leader of Pakistan, and his famous ‘Bushisms’.
He then returns to the theme of the legitimacy of his election,

describing his victory as being ‘with a little help from the conserva-
tive majority on the Supreme Court’.
The final piece of evidence brought against the President is
another bugbear of the left: the ‘Son of Star Wars’ programme.
Hewitt makes a very partial assertion: ‘It will rely on tracking facil-
ities in Britain without necessarily protecting British citizens’. This
is unfair: the US has made it clear that it is happy to extend the
protection of the shield to Europe if European countries so desire.
To suggest that Bush is taking advantage of Britain while not
offering it anything in return is simply false.
The War Party (18 May 2003)

Another programme on right-wingers in the US – and another
pejorative title. Steve Bradshaw sets the tone with his introductory
question: ‘Tonight: will America’s superhawks drag us into more
wars against their enemies?’
This rhetorical question deserves analysis on its own. The phrase
‘superhawks’ immediately gives the impression that the people
involved are extremists. While, at most, one of those on whom the
programme focuses could be so described, most are thoroughly
within the mainstream of US conservative thinking. Throughout,
though, the programme seeks to present them as an extremist right
wing cabal. The idea that Britain will be ‘dragged into more wars’ is
similarly suspect. It contains the implication that we were dragged
into action in Iraq: in fact, of course, Britain was the US’s most
staunch supporter. And the assertion that such wars will be against
‘their enemies’ ignores the fact that the countries identified by the
‘superhawks’ in the programme have the potential to menace us all.
They are certainly not the enemies only of the ‘superhawks’ nor
indeed only of the US.
The choice of interviewees throughout is superficially balanced

– the neo-conservatives and their opponents each get plenty of air
time. However, the neo-conservatives are consistently given a
pejorative descriptor by Bradshaw: ‘shadowy’, ‘mysterious’, ‘ultra’,
‘godfather’, ‘hardcore’. By contrast, a clearly anti-neo conservative
journalist, Jim Lobe, is presented as a voice of objectivity
throughout. Indeed, he is helpfully described as a ‘long standing
opponent of anti-Semitism’ to give him a further degree of objec-
tivity when he tells us that ‘the majority of neo-cons have been and
remain Jewish’. Moreover, this claim, which must surely be worthy
of scrutiny given its alleged bearing on the Middle East sympathies
of the neo-cons, is not challenged by Bradshaw.
Even more extraordinarily, comments from one Jay Marx, a
demonstrator from the ‘National Peace Lobby’ are given no health
warning or descriptor to describe his standpoint on the political
spectrum.
Marx is, in fact, given an incredibly easy ride, permitted to call the
US ‘imperialist’ and ‘terrifying’ without challenge, to claim that
‘foreign policy has essentially been hijacked by a group of neo-
conservatives’ without any analysis of whether what he says is correct
or not. His ‘National Peace Lobby’, moreover, is aggrandised;
Bradshaw tells us that ‘Marx’s band of protestors are joined by 30,000
others’. Bradshaw then makes a carefully constructed contrast with
the pro-war camp, telling us that: ‘A few blocks away the pro-war
patriots hold their own rally. The turnout is just a thousand or two.’
It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that this contrived juxta-
position is meant to suggest that Marx is the authentic voice of the
American people. This, of course, could not be further from the
truth: support for American action far outweighed opposition.
Bradshaw’s political views become further apparent in another
remarkable statement:
The neo-cons have been backed by entrepreneurs, corporations and

rich right-wing foundations, which has led people to claim that
they’re being used to export not democracy but capitalism.
Bradshaw then goes on to interrogate William Kristol, the editor of

a neo-con journal, saying to him ‘You know, you’re backed by
Murdoch, Fox TV’ and accusing him of being a ‘front for
capitalism’. It is surely a mark of the values at the heart of Panorama
thinking that the export of capitalism is treated as an insult.
Throughout, the neo cons are treated as an aggressive, Mafia-esque,
extremist sect – not a movement that represents the views of many
millions of Americans and which has the support of the President.
Bradshaw describes Richard Perle as the ‘godfather’, and puts it to him
that the neo-cons ‘scare the hell out of a lot of people’, puts to another
neo-conservative the suggestion that ‘the [Bush] administration has
been hijacked by a group of often pro-Zionist intellectuals without any
real popular backing’, refers to them as ‘ideological shock troops’, refers
to them as ‘plotting’ the weeks agenda, allows a representative of the
Islamic Institute to describe them as ‘a gang – the mafia’. In all these
small ways, littered throughout the programme, Bradshaw allows a
biased picture to be painted. In this edition, Panorama sounds less like
the Guardian and more like Socialist Worker.
7. Anti-war
Some of the Panorama Iraq war coverage is admirably balanced.
This is particularly true of the debates chaired by David Dimbleby.
The certainties of Richard Perle and the like on one side are well
balanced by those who oppose the war on the other. Similarly, Jane
Corbin’s report on The Case Against Saddam is fairly presented,
giving air time both to those who believe that the evidence merits
action and those (such as ex-MOD civil servant, Sir Michael
Quinlan) who believe that the case is not made out.
However, the number of programmes which centre on the
opposition to the war and on ‘the case against war’ (the title of the
8 December 2002 edition) is not balanced by programmes which
make a positive case for military action. The Case Against Saddam
is rather more balanced than its title would suggest. Indeed the only
programme which the pro-war lobby gets to itself is the War Party
edition (discussed above) which paints the ‘hawks’ in the most
negative light possible.
The Case Against War (8 December 2002)

The agenda of this Panorama edition is clear from its very title.
Bradshaw claims in the introduction that:
We’ve examined the case against Saddam. Tonight we assess the case
against going to war with Saddam.
This seems on the surface to be quite fair. The difficulty is that the two
strands are approached on an entirely different basis. The ‘case against
Saddam’, as noted above, is presented in an even-handed fashion, with
anti-war voices mixed with those who believe that the evidence is
strong enough to merit action. This programme is not so balanced.
It focuses on seven figures who put the case against war – figures
whom Steve Bradshaw tells us ‘you might not expect to hear
making it’. This fits neatly with the more general theme across the
Panorama programmes that the war is being led by a group of
ultras in the US without general support. This view, indeed, is put

directly by an ex-CIA man, Steve Baer, who, Bradshaw tells us,
‘believes that the war with Saddam is being sold to President Bush
by right wing hawks, so called neo-conservatives, who started
promoting the war against Iraq long before the 11th September last
year’. Panorama’s animus against the neo-conservatives is examined
elsewhere.
Each of the seven figures puts the case against war. There is no
alternative view stated in this programme.
The Race to Baghdad (6 April 2003)

This programme was aired once it was clear that the war in Iraq was
progressing quickly. The problems that have continued to occur
since then show that it was right to avoid any sort of triumphalism:
an objective approach was correct. John Ware’s negative, anti-war
programme steps over the line of objectivity, however.
Ware begins with a statement that is deeply negative and
distrustful of the US:
Every night on TV we are witness to a huge gamble, what some

American insiders say are just the opening shots of a fourth world
war, a series of perpetual wars.
Who, one may ask, are Ware’s ‘insiders’? Throughout, the focus is
on the resistance to the American army and the alleged ‘gamble’ of
Donald Rumsfeld (always referred to as the ‘hawkish’ Rumsfeld).
Ware shows his antipathy quite clearly in one remarkable passage:
The Americans have called this war Operation Iraqi Freedom, though
no one asked the Iraqi people if bombing was the price they were
willing to pay for liberation from Saddam. It’s hard to know exactly
The New Battle of Ideas // 53
what the Iraqi people are thinking but so far as one can tell, the
prevailing mood looks more muted than joyful.
This can easily be contrasted with the scenes following Saddam

Hussein’s eventual removal. Whatever the travails of the country,
Iraqis who did not welcome the arrival of the Americans in
Baghdad seem to be few and far between. Ware’s view appears in
retrospect rather blinkered.
An anti-war, anti-American attitude is also evident in his state-
ment that ‘this war has never remotely been a fight between equals’.
His suggestion that the US is a bully boy rather than a liberator is
unfair. The flip side, that Saddam Hussein is victim rather than
oppressor is equally implausible.
No interviewees save for Geoff Hoon (who will scarcely be
regarded by the viewers as an independent witness) are given air
time to suggest that the war has been successful or to the benefit of
the Iraqi population.
Blair’s War (23 March 2003)

On its own admission, this programme is focussed on those who
opposed the war. The absence of a similar programme on those in
favour of intervention has already been noted.
Pro-war voices (apart from footage of Blair himself) are almost
entirely absent, as are voices critical of those who opposed the war
or their arguments. The imbalance of the interviewees is quite
stark.
Of all the interviewees, only one, Martin Linton MP, a Labour
backbencher, makes clear his support for military action. Even Jack
Straw (whether by reason of the questions asked or otherwise)
concentrates entirely on Blair’s determination and personality
rather than support for military action. John Lloyd , the former
editor of the New Statesman, and Christopher Meyer, the erstwhile

diplomat, are broadly neutral.
All the rest of the interviewees, are opposed to the war. The
programme works its way through the usual suspects – Short,
Cook, Tony Benn and Tam Dayell, through an anti-war
Conservative – Ken Clarke – to individual members of the Labour
Party. Various representatives of the Muslim community, an anti-
war American and even members of the Socialist Workers Party are
paraded as representatives of the allegedly extraordinary coalition
which opposed the war. The references to the Socialist Workers
Party are particularly noteworthy: unlike the presentation of the
alleged right wing extremists in the War Party programme, they are
presented without a health warning of any kind. Indeed they are
given implausible credit for the anti-war movement: Vivian White
alleges that they ‘built a coalition in the middle ground from Blair’s
supporters’.
Subject Case Study

Grammar Schools
The BBC’s coverage of grammar schools – their social effect,

the mechanism for their abolition and the failure to secure
their abolition – has much more in common with Guardian
coverage of the issue than Telegraph coverage.
Grammar schools mark a clear dividing line between the right and
the old left. Views on them divide fairly neatly into two camps.
The first – what we may call the Telegraph view – is that
grammar schools are a thoroughly good thing, that the government
was wrong to introduce a mechanism by which they could be
abolished, that this mechanism was biased against the grammar
schools and that the failure of all of the attempts at abolition has its
roots in the fact that parents want to retain them
The opposing view – which may be termed the Guardian view –
is that they are a backward piece of social engineering which disad-
vantages the less well off and which provides a poorer education on
average. The government, according to this view, should have taken

a stronger line against them; the fact that none have been shut is
due to the excessively complicated ballot system put in place by a
government that didn’t want to upset middle England.
The coverage of the grammar school issue since 1997 is reflective of
these viewpoints. Newspaper coverage in the Guardian and the
Telegraph is, in both cases, slanted towards their particular viewpoint,
as will be seen below. This case study examined where the BBC’s
coverage fell – towards the Guardian view, towards the Telegraph view
or somewhere in between. This analysis was performed on materials
obtainable from the BBC’s (excellent) website, an increasingly impor-
tant and influential source of information from the BBC.
The results of our study showed that the BBC coverage cleaves
closely to the Guardian coverage. The voices who get the greatest
degree of prominence are identical. The editorial tone (where
present) is similar. The stories covered are similar.
The Telegraph line is, unsurprisingly, quite different.
The Guardian’s view, it should be noted, is to the left of the Blair
Government. The Government seems no longer to care about
grammar schools, and indeed is giving tentative support to diver-
sity within the school system. The BBC’s coverage, with its
Guardian-like approach, must be said to be similarly to the left of
the Government. This is not to say, of course, that all coverage from
the three sources is biased; a significant proportion is neutrally
presented. However, in a large number of cases in all three sources,
the editorial view of the source concerned is clear.
Background
On coming to power, the Labour Government introduced a scheme
whereby local parents in areas where grammar schools still existed
Subject Case Study: Grammar Schools // 57
would be balloted on whether the school should remain selective.

The ballot system involved an initial petition which had to get suffi-
cient support from local parents; if such support was obtained, a
ballot would be held.
In the event, only one ballot has ever been held. This took place
in Ripon. Parents voted to retain the grammar school by a two to
one majority.
The Daily Telegraph

The themes which characterise the Telegraph coverage are as
follows:
(a) Coverage given to the National Grammar Schools

Association
Twenty five per cent of stories on grammar schools in the Telegraph
contained a quotation from a representative of the National
Grammar Schools Association, the body which represents
grammar schools (and which opposed their abolition). The NGSA
spokesmen are consistently critical of any plans to abolish
grammar schools/end selection. (This compares to less than two
per cent of stories carried by the BBC and six per cent of stories in
the Guardian which refer to the NGSA.)
(b) Coverage for pro-grammar school studies

Numerous academic or quasi-academic studies on the merits of
grammar schools were published in the period examined. The
Telegraph carries no stories about studies critical of grammar
schools but does give coverage to an NGSA study showing that
there are insufficient grammar school places available for those
who want them. The study suggests that over 30,000 children who
passed the eleven plus exam were unable to get a place at a

grammar school due to a lack of places.
(c) Ballot rigged against retention of grammar schools

The view that the ballots were rigged against the grammar schools
(chiefly by means of wording that did not refer to their abolition but
to the ‘introduction of admission arrangements which admit children
of all abilities’) is given considerable coverage in the Telegraph. A Tory
campaign on this subject, led by Damian Green and Theresa May, is
given the Telegraph’s attention. Similarly, the fact that parents at the
local grammar schools are not given votes is opposed by the Telgraph
– such parents being almost certain to back retention.
(d) Failure of ballots due to parental preferences

The Telegraph is quite clear that the failure of the grammar school
ballots (both in Ripon and in those areas where the ballot scheme
never got off the ground) was due to the fact that parents did not
support the abolition of the local grammar school.
Reports tells the reader, for example, that ‘opponents of selective
education are struggling to win support’ and that there has been ‘no
backing for ballots to abolish grammar schools’. Notably, the anti-
grammar school camp is habitually referred to as ‘campaigners’
rather than ‘parents’ (in contrast to the Guardian coverage).
(e) Abolition of grammar schools rather than an end to selection

In the majority of cases, the Telegraph refers to plans to ‘abolish
grammar school’ rather than to ‘end selection’. This is backed up
with coverage for a statement from Damian Green that most
grammar schools were ‘too small to be comprehensives’ and would
therefore have to close.
The Guardian by contrast tends to refer to ‘ending selection’.
(f) Emphasis on academic success of grammar schools

The Telegraph is at pains to stress the academic success of the
grammar schools. Its headlines refer to them as ‘top schools’,
fleshed out with statistics such as the fact that ‘exactly half the top
200 places in this year’s A-level league table of schools’ were
captured by grammar schools.
(g) Emphasis on social diversity of grammar schools

‘Millionaires sit alongside pupils with parents on income support’
tells a Telegraph report on a grammar school in North London. The
headmaster points out that ‘thirty two per cent of our pupils speak
English as a second language’ and explains that grammar schools
bridge the ‘primary schism’ between comprehensives and private
schools. No suggestion of divisiveness is made in the Telegraph.
The Guardian
The themes which characterise the Guardian’s coverage are as follows:
(a) Coverage given to anti-grammar school bodies

Two anti-grammar school bodies, Stop the Eleven Plus (STEP) and
the Campaign for State Education (CASE) are given more coverage
in the Guardian. STEP spokesmen are quoted calling the grammar
school system ‘anachronistic’, while CASE representatives state that
grammar schools lower overall standards. Nearly 30 per cent of
Guardian stories contain quotes from a representative of STEP or
CASE (and often both). This compares to less than 20 per cent of
stories in the Telegraph.
(b) Roy Hattersley

Roy Hattersley, a long time opponent of selective education,
conducts a high profile campaign in the Guardian against grammar

schools. Hattersley opposes the ballot scheme as a cop-out – in his
view the Government should abolish selection outright (a step he
describes as ‘catching up with the modern world’). Since he is a
regular columnist, the space he is given is unsurprising.
(c) Coverage for anti-grammar school surveys

A number of studies – all of which may be characterised as being
anti-grammar schools – are given coverage in the Guardian. These
include a 1999 survey by the Local Government Association saying
that the contention that grammar schools offered a ‘ladder of
opportunity for working class children’ was false, a York University
study purporting to show that closing grammar schools would
improve overall exam results, a London University study which
stated that there was no evidence that bright children were better
served by grammar schools and two reports by left wing think
tanks, Catalyst and the IPPR which oppose grammar schools. No
pro-grammar school survey is covered.
(d) Coverage for Kent

Kent is one of the few counties which does retain grammar schools.
However, its results are less than impressive and this fact is regularly
deployed by anti-selection campaigners. A critical OFSTED report
on Kent’s education authority and a report commissioned by a
Labour MP on its failings are given prominence, backed up by an
article by Roy Hattersley.
(c) Ballots rigged against anti-selection campaign

Considerable coverage is given to complaints that the ballot process
is rigged against anti-grammar school campaigners. This is due to
the fact that parents from some private feeder schools are
permitted to vote (and are alleged to have been given ‘dispropor-

tionate influence’), the high number of signatures required in order
to secure a vote and excessively complex petition forms. One
campaigner is quoted as referring to the process as ‘unfair and
undemocratic’. Roy Hattersley, meanwhile, says that the ballots
‘were devised in such a way as to make it impossible for the
comprehensive campaigners to win’.
The blame for this is largely put at the feet of a government
which feared that the abolition of high-flying schools ‘could harm
Labour’s image in middle Britain’ in the period before a general
election. To back this up, one report by the Guardian’s education
correspondent, Rebecca Smithers, describes how ‘parents failed’
[emphasis added] to close Ripon Grammar – a quite different line
to that taken in the Telegraph, with its focus on how parents voted
to keep it open (and ‘campaigners’ wish to shut them).
(c) Failure of ballots due to complexity

The failure of the anti-selection camp to win in Ripon or even to
get sufficient support for a ballot in other areas is consistently put
down in the Guardian to the complexity of the system imposed by
the Government. This line is initially promoted by anti-grammar
school campaigners who call it ‘a bureaucratic nightmare’ and
‘unnecessarily complicated’. The theory is later apparently adopted
as fact, with references in reports to the ballots’ ‘complexity’ being
to blame.
(d) Government was cowardly to introduce ballot scheme and

should abolish grammar schools now
The blame placed on the Government for the failure of the ballots
has already been mentioned. Roy Hattersley, for example, says that
the ballot scheme was simply a means for the Government to
‘sidestep the controversy’. Coverage is also given to the notion that,

having failed to secure abolition by means of parental ballots, the
Government should act more decisively by banning selection
outright. Following the Ripon failure, campaigners from STEP and
CASE, as well as Roy Hattersley, all call in the pages of the Guardian
for the Government to ban selection altogether.
(e) Emphasis on divisiveness of selective education

The reports and studies covered by the Guardian, as well as commen-
tary pieces by Roy Hattersely and Polly Toynbee, regularly stress the
divisive nature of a selective system. The report by the think tank,
Catalyst, which merits two articles is quoted as referring to the current
system as ‘polarising’. Frank Dobson is quoted saying that ‘selection is
socially and educationally divisive’. Moreover, a comment piece by
Geoff Stanton, which states that ‘most informed opinion is firmly
against [selection]’ goes on to bemoan ‘the long term effect on the
self-esteem and ambition of those not selected’.
(f) An end to selection rather than the abolition

of grammar schools
This campaign is consistently referred to in the Guardian as being
‘anti-selection’. Indeed, a CASE representative is quoted as saying
that the campaign is against selection, not grammar schools per se.
BBC Coverage
The themes which characterise the BBC’s coverage are as follows:
(a) Coverage given to anti-grammar school bodies

Over 35 per cent of grammar school stories on the BBC website
quoted spokesmen from CASE or STEP, the two major anti-selection
campaign bodies. This, as noted above, with a figure of less than 30

per cent in the Guardian and less than 20 per cent in the Telegraph.
The NGSA is given coverage in less than two per cent of BBC stories.
(b) Roy Hattersley

Guardian columnist, Roy Hattersley, is given a similarly high profile
in the BBC coverage. There are no less than five stories on his anti-
selection campaign, with reports of his statement that grammar
school practice ‘educational apartheid’. Lord Hattersley gets no
coverage in the Telegraph.
(c) Kent
The relatively poor results of grammar schools in Kent are, as with
the Guardian coverage, given a high profile. A 1999 story on
OFSTED’s critical report is followed up with a story quoting a
STEP spokesman’s condemnation of the county’s ‘backwardness’
and a further 2001 story complaining about its selection process.
Extensive coverage is given to a 2002 report which suggests that the
Kent system ‘is failing pupils’ – and although the story notes that
the report was commissioned by an anti-selection Labour MP, it is
treated as entirely objective in the BBC coverage. Both the Labour
MP in question and a representative of STEP are quoted exten-
sively. No pro-grammar spokesman is quoted.
There is also a special feature in 2003 on ‘Kent’s selective schools
compared’, which points out the county’s failings again. Another
STEP representative is quoted. The only contrary statement is from
a Kent councillor who rather unsatisfactorily states that it is ‘much
ado about nothing’.
(d) Coverage for anti-grammar school studies

The BBC coverage gives considerable prominence to anti-grammar
school surveys. The first of these is a survey specially commissioned

by BBC News Online to discredit a claim by Damian Green that
closing grammar schools would costs £500 million. The survey
finds that no other authority apart from Kent, on which Damian
Green based his figures is ‘firmly predicting additional expense’.
Only one, in fact, states that there could be ‘possible savings’. This
is presented in rather exaggerated fashion in the article’s headline
as ‘Getting rid of grammars could save money’.
Subsequent coverage of academic and quasi-academic studies
mirrors that in the Guardian. The London University study
purporting to show that grammar schools ‘make little difference’
gets covered, as does the study commissioned by Stephen Ladyman
MP (mentioned above) on Kent’s schools. A 2003 report by The
Education Network (funded by LEAs) which says that a selective
system is socially divisive is also given a long story, as is the 2003
IPPR report.
There are no reports on pro-grammar school studies.
(d) Ballot rigging

Some coverage is given to allegations on both sides of the grammar
school divide that the Government’s ballot system was rigged
against them. The pro-grammar schools campaign’s allegation is
given an airing in a 1998 report where Damian Green declares the
system to be ‘rigged’ because the question does not mention the
abolition of grammar schools. John Bercow is later given a brief
mention in a 1999 report making the same allegation.
More coverage, however, is given to allegations that the system is
rigged against the anti-grammar school camp. This begins with an
early 1999 report complaining that ‘thousands of parents who live
close to grammar schools could be denied a vote in any ballot to
decide their future’. The report does not properly explain that the
reason these parents do not have a ballot is that their children do

not go to feeder schools for the local grammar. The same article
quotes pro-abolition campaigners as saying that the government
‘has deliberately made the process so cumbersome that it is almost
impossible to hold any ballots at all’ and goes on to state that
‘parents…feel the odds are stacked against them’. The implication
that parents would prefer an end to selection but are being held
back by the rigged system is clear. The BBC report (not quoting a
campaigner, but in the text itself) states that ‘the threshold is so
high’ that few campaigns are likely to be successful.
Following the Ripon result, the BBC reports the views of the
disappointed pro-abolition campaigners that ‘the eligibility rules
unfairly favoured the pro-grammar supporters’. A subsequent
report quotes a spokesperson from the self-styled ‘Barnet Parents
Federation’ saying that they ballots were ‘rigged in favour of those
who want to keep selection’.
Remarkably, an end of year report by education correspondent,
Mike Baker, gives the editorial imprimatur to this view, stating that
the system makes it ‘so difficult to trigger a ballot that no other part
of the country [apart from Ripon] has come close’. This is married
to an even more remarkable statement that when Labour came to
power ‘some sections of the media began a scare story over the
threat to grammar schools’. Mr Baker’s agenda is thus made quite
clear in this article.
(e) Failure of ballots

The headline announcing the Ripon result, ‘Parents vote to keep
grammar school’ suggests the view that it is parental choice which
has determined the result. Elsewhere though the tone of the
coverage is such that the impression is clearly given that the failures
in Ripon and in other areas where insufficient signatures were
gathered is due to the complexity of the process. For example, the

report on the failure in Barnet states that the anti-grammar school
movement described itself as ‘’powerless’ due to the complex voting
system introduced by David Blunkett’ (note that only the word
‘powerless’ is put in quotes by the BBC). A pro-abolition
campaigner is later quoted as saying that they would have been able
to win ‘if there were a moderately fair balloting system’.
Education correspondent, Mike Baker’s view that the system
makes it impossible to trigger a ballot has already been noted
above, and he later elaborates on the same theme, telling the reader
that ‘the mechanism proved to be so complex that only one ballot
has been held’. A later report on the process in Kent, which refers
again to the ‘government’s complex regulations’ gives coverage to
campaigners protesting about the ‘bureaucracy and cost’ involved
which makes it difficult for them to win.
(f) Fair approach to grammar school results

The BBC reporting gives largely fair coverage to grammar school
results, with a 2003 report on exam results headlined ‘Selective
schools top league tables’. To balance this, the leader of the
Secondary Heads Association is quoted referring to the league
tables as ‘crude’, ‘unfair’ and ‘lies’. Moreover, presentation of the raw
results must be put in the context of the multiple quasi-academic
studies cited which purport to show that grammar schools do no
better than comprehensives.
(g) Emphasis on socially divisive nature of grammar schools

Two studies by anti-grammar school body CASE are given partic-
ular prominence by the BBC coverage. The two almost identical
studies which compare the number of pupils getting free school
meals both get articles headlined ‘Grammars ‘exclude the poor’’.
These two (rather parti pris) studies are joined by Roy Hattersley’s
regular statements (June and October 1998) that grammar schools
represent ‘education apartheid’ and that the system ‘cruelly disad-
vantages’ many children. He is also quoted as saying that selection
is ‘arbitrary and shamefully inaccurate’.
The Education Network’s report (mentioned above) also gets
extensive coverage. This report also claims that selective schools are
‘socially divisive’ that they ‘are perpetuating a polarisation of
society between the haves and the have nots’ and ‘do not reflect
their communities’. Tellingly, the article tells the reader that the
study has been released in advance of a conference ‘aimed at
improving secondary school admissions arrangements’. It is clearly
taken for granted that the limiting of selection is synonymous with
‘improvement’ in admissions policy. No pro-selection voices are
quoted in response to this study.
By contrast, very limited coverage is given to any argument that
grammar schools are socially diverse and benefit bright working
class children. A brief statement is presented from headteacher of
Altringham Grammar School, David Weedon, who points out that
selection by parental ability to pay high house prices would replace
the current selection system were his school to be converted into a
comprehensive.
Conclusion
The Labour Government’s position on grammar schools may have
wavered over its time in office, but it is fair to say that taken as a
whole it has adopted a middle of the road path – allowing parents
to choose whether the grammar schools stay open and seeming to
lose interest in the issue when the ballots failed. Both the BBC and
the Guardian coverage could both fairly be characterised as being

to the left of the Blair Government. The coverage given to Lord
Hattersley – the Government’s foremost critic from the left on this
issue – for example, is highly telling. A position to the left of the
Government is fairly comfortable for the Guardian but it cannot be
regarded as a wise or safe position for the BBC.
Conclusion
The BBC’s Charter requires that its current affairs coverage be

‘comprehensive, authoritative and impartial’. This is amplified and
expanded upon in its Guidelines for Producers, which states that:
In practice this means that the BBC aims, over time, to give due
prominence to all the main strands of argument and to all the major
parties
It is important to note that this stipulation contains two elements.

On the second, that the major parties are treated fairly and given
adequate coverage, it seems to be the case that the BBC works hard
to ensure that it does so. For this, it deserves credit.
However, it is on the first element that the BBC appears to have
lost its way. The BBC’s coverage of major issues does not give a fair
degree of prominence to ‘all the major strands of argument’. In
practice, left of centre messages are privileged and right of centre
messages are ignored, sidelined and sometimes even ridiculed. A
left-leaning culture seems now so deeply ingrained among many at
the BBC that there is no awareness that a bias may exist. It is partic-
ularly telling to note that when the BBC has come under sustained
criticism from what can broadly be described as rightist single issue
lobby groups objecting to its Guardian-style editorialising it has
responded intelligently, albeit after an initial period of Pavlovian
denial of any bias. On both Europe and hunting the corporation’s
previously left-wing reporting has given way to a much more even-
handed approach. However unless there is a well-organised group
like the Countryside Alliance or Business for Sterling pushing the
BBC to be fair and balanced then the reflexes of Guardian readers
on most left/right issues tend to find their way into broadcasts
unchallenged.
The fact that editorial lines have changed on Europe and hunting
in response to criticism is clear evidence that the initial approach
taken to these issues was flawed but the adjustment also gives hope
that a broader objectivity and pluralism can, in time, come to
represent the norm.
The BBC’s response to a summer which has seen it placed under
unprecedented pressure will be crucial in ensuring that it regains
the trust of viewers and that it meets the requirements set out in its
own Charter and Guidelines. The initial ‘batten down the hatches’
approach of the Governors to the criticism that followed the
Gilligan report seems now to have been premature and may be
regarded as unfortunately symptomatic of an organisation with an
excess of confidence in the quality of its reporting and the impar-
tiality of its agenda. A similar approach to the conclusions of the
Hutton Enquiry will not be politically or publicly acceptable.
It is likely that the BBC knows this already. It would be highly
surprising if the Corporation attempted to brush off criticism.
However, the self-examination which follows should not be
restricted to any points made by Lord Hutton – whose enquiry is
Conclusion // 71
necessarily limited in scope. The Gilligan affair may be exceptional

in its scale but it is not so in its character: the over-confidence
which has drawn the BBC into this morass is a habit that goes far
beyond one reporter’s statements on one programme.
The institutionally left-of-centre nature of BBC political and
current affairs coverage is another facet of the same problem. It is
to be hoped that the BBC has a capacity for self-renewal sufficient
to allow it to recover from its current crisis and play the crucial role
in British and international broadcasting for which its history and
its resources equip it.

CChange - The Guardian of The Airwaves? Bias and The BBC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CChange - The Guardian of The Airwaves? Bias and The BBC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document1.

qxd 9/26/2003 17:18 Page 1

First published in October 2003 by Cchange

Glyn Gaskarth has worked as a researcher for Rt Hon Oliver Letwin

6 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

newspaper and only rarely, if ever, gives expression to the

this year certainly failed to move beyond the pre-results assump-

8 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

military action. The Guardian’s David Aaronovitch, for example,

In so far as the military action in Iraq can be placed within the

Is the BBC ‘institutionally’ leftist?

in the context of the BBC. It is not the voting preferences of

If racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs or

The future of the BBC

10 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

Guardian and the Daily Telegraph – which might fairly be said to

Programme Case Study

Panorama programming is marked by a consistent left

Panorama is billed as the BBC’s ‘flagship current affairs

Panorama’s own standards

• to make programmes with authority which make waves and

• to report the world we live in with a depth of understanding often

14 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

handed approach. The Iraq war debates hosted by David Dimbleby

Programme Case Study: Panorama // 15

4. Pro-increased public spending

16 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

Programme Case Study: Panorama // 17

Statesman and the comment section of the Guardian then it is likely

1. Anti free market

(b) Sample programmes

Closing Down (30 November 1998)

18 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

The presenter (Vivian White) introduces the programme with a

Programme Case Study: Panorama // 19

in creating jobs, but chooses, rather unfairly, to focus on a Fujitsu

Workaholics (28 September 1998)

Absolutely Fabulous Prices (12 April 1999)

20 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

intellectual property which underlie successful economies and are

The House Price Lottery (28 June 1999)

Programme Case Study: Panorama // 21

22 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

undoubtedly indulge in practices that are to be condemned, there

(b) Sample programmes

Are You Being Served? (23 November 1998)

Programme Case Study: Panorama // 23

programme all oppose the practices of the supermarkets. No

Supermarkets now have immense economic power and I think

Lomax then moves on to an allegation of what is known as ‘price

International price comparisons, though they have generated consid-

24 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

UK grocery multiples are acting in an anti-competitive manner so as

It should be noted, in fairness, that the Competition Commission did

Cheap Labour (14 June 1999)

Seeing Red (4 October 1999)

Programme Case Study: Panorama // 25

programme is that it is scandalous that major banks are declining to

26 // The Guardian of the Airwaves?

Gang Masters (19 June 2000)

The Borrowers (28 January 2001)

Programme Case Study: Panorama // 27

and other lenders are damned for lawful commercial behaviour,