CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES BLAIR’S EU-TURN A CASE STUDY IN BBC PARTIALITY Kathy Gyngell and David Keighley THE AUTHORS Kathy Gyngell is a director of Minotaur Media Tracking. Formerly Features Editor at TV-am, she has also worked in the Features and Current Affairs Department at London Weekend Television and was a Research Fellow at the Centre for Television Research at Leeds University. David Keighley, also a director of Minotaur Media Tracking, is a former BBC and newspaper journalist who was publicist for the BBC’s news and current affairs output. He was also director of public affairs of TV-am and is the founder of News World, an international conference for news broadcasters. Kathy Gyngell and David Keighley are the co-authors of An Outbreak of Narcolepsy: why the BBC must improve its coverage of the EU. The aim of the Centre for Policy Studies is to develop and promote policies that provide freedom and encouragement for individuals to pursue the aspirations they have for themselves and their families, within the security and obligations of a stable and law-abiding nation. The views expressed in our publications are, however, the sole responsibility of the authors. Contributions are chosen for their value in informing public debate and should not be taken as representing a corporate view of the CPS or of its Directors. The CPS values its independence and does not carry on activities with the intention of affecting public support for any registered political party or for candidates at election, or to influence voters in a referendum. Centre for Policy Studies, June 2004 ISBN No: 1 903219 72 8 Centre for Policy Studies 57 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QL Tel: 020 7222 4488 Fax: 020 7222 4388 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.cps.org.uk Printed by The Centre for Policy Studies, 57 Tufton Street, London SW1 CONTENTS SUMMARY FOREWORD 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. THE U-TURN 4 3. A BULWARK AGAINST A EUROSCEPTIC PRESS? 23 APPENDIX I: MONITORING STATISTICS APPENDIX 2: BACKGROUND TO THE PAPER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The research on which this paper is based has been funded by Global Britain, a cross-party think tank whose principals are Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Harris of High Cross. The authors have worked on an entirely independent basis throughout. Global Britain has not had any influence in the content of the research work, other than in matters of fact. The authors are also extremely grateful to Andrew Jubb who has been responsible for the detailed monitoring of the BBC’s output in this and other papers. SUMMARY ! On Tuesday 20 April 2004, Tony Blair formally announced his decision to hold a referendum on whether to accept the proposed EU Constitution. This announcement had been expected since Thursday 15 April. It was a major change of direction of Government policy. ! In the light of well-publicised concerns over its coverage of the EU, the BBC now had an opportunity, and the obligation, to achieve coverage that was balanced, fair and authoritative. ! On the day of the announcement the BBC’s coverage was carefully monitored to see whether this was achieved. Airtime Imbalance ! Of all the flagship news and current affairs programmes surveyed on Radio 4, BBC1 and BBC2, 38.4% of airtime was devoted to the referendum story. ! There were 62 contributions by outside speakers, totalling 88 minutes. Of this total, Europhile contributions took 61%. Eurosceptic contributions, which included the Conservative response, accounted for only 30% of the total airtime. This imbalance is hard to understand. ! From the three main parties, 65% of the spokesmen came from the Government; (31 minutes); 27% from the Conservatives (12 minutes 42 seconds); and 8% from the Liberal Democrats (4 minutes). ! 6 minutes 48 seconds were given to the Prime Minister’s House of Commons soundbites while only 1 minute 47 seconds were allocated to Michael Howard’s refutation. i ! Of the eight guest speakers on the Today programme of 20 April, only one was a recognised Eurosceptic (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). He was allotted only 37 seconds. Three were strongly Europhile (Donald Anderson MP; Simon Buckby and Jack Cunningham MP); two were from broadly Europhile publications (The Independent and The New Statesman); and two were mildly Eurosceptic. Presentational bias ! The Government’s presentational strategy at the time of the announcement was to try to depict those arguing against the Constitution as advocates of withdrawal from the EU. As the Prime Minister declared to the House of Commons: "It is time to resolve once and for all whether this country, Britain, wants to be at the centre and heart of European decision-making or not; time to decide whether our destiny lies as a leading partner and ally of Europe or on its margins. Let the Eurosceptics whose true agenda we will expose, make their case.” ! This line was, whether intentionally or not, consistently reflected in the BBC’s coverage. For example, Michael Ancram was questioned aggressively on the World at One on this subject “Are you happy to fight this battle on the terms Tony Blair has dictated, exposing your wider anti–European agenda, as he puts it?”; whereas Baroness Williams’ statement that “there are a lot of people who are going to support the ‘no’ side, who really do want to get out of the European Union altogether” was allowed to pass unchallenged. ! The Conservative arguments for a referendum were barely covered. Today and The World at One paid little attention to the Eurosceptic arguments, while PM demoted its sole Eurosceptic contribution to the last minutes of the programme. In the 10 o’clock News, there was no reporting of the Eurosceptic dimension at all nor was there any report of the Conservative response. Poor journalistic standards ! The Constitution was presented solely and uncritically as a requirement for enlargement. Many Eurosceptics would argue that, while administrative reforms may be necessary for the EU, enlargement does not depend on the adoption of the Constitution as presently drafted. ! There was misleading and inadequate reporting of developments relating to the Government’s ‘red lines’ between December 2003 and April 2004. For example, the BBC accepted without analysis the Government’s claim that it had secured its red lines in the Brussels summit in December 2003. ! In the consideration of Mr Blair’s U-turn, the BBC did not challenge the one- sided Europhile interpretation of the lessons to be learned from the Irish referenda on the Treaty of Nice. ! Conservative policy was mis-represented and identified too closely with the UKIP policy of withdrawal. ii FOREWORD Since 1999, Minotaur has monitored in detail more than 2,000 hours of BBC output, made more than 2,000 programme transcripts and written 15 separate reports. The reports have found consistent areas of bias which chime closely with what was found during the period surveyed in this paper.1 This reinforces the claim that the findings of these two days are not a one-off aberration. Minotaur’s reports were all sent to the Chairman of the BBC, since the Chairman and Governors are ultimately responsible for the BBC’s discharge of its public service remit. A serious problem has been that the Chairman passed them to the BBC’s management for adjudication, which dismissed them as unfounded (see correspondence between Lords Harris of High Cross, Pearson of Rannoch and Stoddart of Swindon with the BBC Chairman 1999-2004 at www.globalbritain.org). It is encouraging to learn that in future the Governors may be advised in this vital area not by the managers themselves but by people who are independent of management. It is most encouraging to learn that in future the Governors may be advised in this vital area not by the managers themselves but by people who are independent of management. It will be seen, however, that much still needs to be done if the BBC is to achieve balance in its coverage of the EU. 1 The key findings of earlier reports can be found in Appendix 2. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION We broadcasters are stranded in a European no man’s land – certain to come under fire from both sides. The pros declare our job is to counter the myths of the antis. That of course is not what we are in the business for. Yet if we don’t we will be accused of following the agenda of the Eurosceptic press… What is the answer then? To admit that there is no single truth: …in other words to shun the current allergy to debate and disagreement. Nick Robinson, political editor of ITV News, The Times, 23 April 2004 It appears that the BBC has taken on board some of the criticisms made of its low level of coverage of the European Union.2 It has acknowledged that the EU-related output needs monitoring and has commissioned a six-month independent review,3 ahead of an expected referendum on the proposed EU Constitution. And it would also appear that awareness is permeating down through the editorial hierarchy: discussing the recent Centre for Policy Studies paper, An Outbreak of Narcolepsy, BBC Radio 4’s ‘The Message’,4 deputy director of News and Current Affairs, Mark Damazer acknowledged that the BBC’s coverage of the EU needed to be improved: 2 For details of the low level of coverage, and the lack of attention to detail to EU- related issues, see An Outbreak of Narcolepsy: why the BBC must improve its coverage of the EU, Centre for Policy Studies, 2004. 3 Daily Telegraph, 5 May 2004. 4 30 April 2004.