With Corbyn promising ‘a reckoning’ with unscrupulous sections of the British elite, is it any wonder the Establishment-friendly BBC is unwilling to give the Labour leader a fair hearing, asks IAN SINCLAIR
THE morning after a draft of the Labour Party manifesto had been leaked, Andrew Gwynne MP, Labour’s general election co-ordinator, was interviewed on the BBC Today programme in the high-profile 8.10am slot. T
en minutes earlier, the 8am news bulletin had reported that the manifesto promised to “nationalise the railways as franchises expire and to abolish tuition fees in England … to return Royal Mail to public ownership, to bring in an energy price cap and introduce a levy on companies with large numbers of staff on what it calls ‘very high pay’.”
“It looks like a great big wish list… that no government could possibly push through in five years or even 50 years,” stated presenter John Humphrys, interviewing Gwynne. “It is just unrealistic, isn’t it? It’s also far too to the left, far too much to the left for the British public to stomach, don’t you think?”
Some listeners may have swallowed the subtle assumptions behind Humphrys’ question but luckily a poll released the next day inserted some reality into the debate. Far from being “far too much to the left for the British public,” the Independent’s report on the research was titled “British voters overwhelmingly back Labour’s manifesto policies, poll finds.”
According to the ComRes survey 52 per cent of people support the state ownership of the railways (22 per cent opposed), 49 per cent support the state ownership of the energy market (24 per cent opposed) and 50 per cent of people support the renationalisation of Royal Mail (25 per cent opposed). In addition, 71 per cent said they back Labour’s proposal to ban zero-hours contracts, while 65 per cent supported Labour’s plan to increase income tax for those who earn £80,000 or more.
These findings are not a one-off — a November 2013 YouGov poll found 67 per cent of people thought Royal Mail should be run as a public service, 68 per cent supported nationalising the energy companies and 66 per cent wanted to nationalise the railways.
Humphrys’ attempt to dismiss Labour’s policies fits with the broader media coverage of Jeremy Corbyn. Analysing press coverage during the two months after he was elected Labour leader, a 2016 London School of Economics study observed: “An overall picture of most newspapers system atically vilifying” Corbyn, “assassinating his character, ridiculing his personality and de-legitimising his ideas and politics.”
Other left-wing leaders have received negative press attention, though “in the case of Corbyn the degree of antagonism and hatred … has arguably reached new heights.”
Another study conducted by the Media Reform Coalition “indicated how large sections of the press appeared to set out systematically to undermine Corbyn with a barrage of overwhelmingly negative coverage.”
The supposedly neutral and objective BBC, the most trusted news source in Britain, has played a key role in this political denigration and exclusion with Sir Michael Lyons — chair of the BBC Trust from 2007 to 2011 — arguing in May last year there had been “some quite extraordinary attacks on the elected leader of the Labour Party.” Lyons continued: “I can understand why people are worried about whether some of the most senior editorial voices in the BBC have lost their impartiality on this.”
One such senior voice could well be BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, who was found to have erroneously edited a November 2015 interview with Corbyn to make it look like he didn’t support a shoot-to-kill policy during an ongoing Paris-style terrorist attack. The interview breached the BBC’s impartiality and accuracy guidelines, the BBC Trust found.
More recently, the Today programme’s Nick Robinson dismissively tweeted: “No-one should be surprised that @jeremycorbyn is running v the ‘Establishment’ & is long on passion & short on details. Story of his life.”
Rather than being aberrations, this bias against Corbyn arguably reflects the BBC’s wider politics. “Its structure and culture have been profoundly shaped by the interests of powerful groups in British society,” Dr Tom Mills argues in his 2016 book The BBC: Myth of a Public Service. Unsurprisingly then, the BBC’s news output “has overwhelmingly reflected the ideas and interests of elite groups and marginalised alternative and oppositional perspectives.”
Analysing the number and type of guests invited onto the programme, research conducted by Cardiff University’s Dr Mike Berry into the BBC Today programme’s coverage of the financial crisis, confirms Mills’s thesis. “It was clear that the people who had caused the crisis — the bankers and the politicians — were overwhelmingly the voices charged with defining the problem and putting forward solutions,” Berry told me.
With the Labour Party running on a transformational manifesto and Corbyn promising “a reckoning” with the unscrupulous sections of the British elite if he is elected prime minister, is it any wonder the Establishment-friendly BBC is unable or unwilling to give the Labour leader a fair hearing?