Bias at the Beeb? The Rt Hon Sir John Redwood MP on broadcast journalism

Seven ploys which distort meaning and obscure the debate

© Brexit Facts4EU.Org

With kind permission, we re-publish Sir John Redwood’s recent article on broadcast media journalism

In our editor's tell-all book about the battle for Brexit, (to be published after the end of the Transition Period on 31 Dec 2020), several politicians are featured. One of those singled out for particular praise is the Rt Hon Dr Sir John Redwood, MP for Wokingham, former Secretary of State, and former Single Market Minister in Margaret Thatcher's government.

The whole topic of establishment media bias has been raised increasingly over recent years, and especially so since the December 2019 general election. At that point the United Kingdom was finally delivered of a House of Commons which more accurately reflected the Brexit majority in the country at large.

In his article below, Sir John offers some nuanced thoughts on his own experiences with the broadcast media.

© John Redwood

"Ploys to make a politician look bad"

By John Redwood | First published: 17 Mar 2020

I try to accept interviews on topics I know something about and have well based or distinctive views on. Usually the media want to offer an interview on a topic where I am not an expert or where they think I will have difficulty supporting the position of my party or government so they can create a split which does not yet exist. When I do get an offer that is worth accepting I spend my preparation time not on the topic itself, because I know the subject and know what I wish to say. I spend the time thinking about all the other things the interviewer might wish to deviate to in the hope of ensnaring me.

There are a series of regular ploys.

  1. The creation of a caricature. The BBC often claims to know the views of the interviewee better than the interviewee knows them himself. When the person explains their view to them they counter argue by asserting the interviewee must believe something else, because they have invented a caricature of the person as a “right winger” or “left winger”, or “Eurosceptic” or whatever. It makes the interviews foolish, with the BBC setting out their version of the person’s view and the interviewee denying it. The BBC then seeks to suggest that their version of the view is the real view and so the interviewee is in some way dishonest to say otherwise.
  2. Undermining by false association. The BBC quickly diverts the interview of a politician who is doing well into an interview about the worst or stupidest thing some other member of that person’s party has said or done recently. The interviewee is forced to deny what the person has said or done, to avoid contamination. An original interview about an important subject then becomes instead repeated pressure to get the interviewee to set themselves up as the moral arbiter and disciplinarian for their party with questions about whether the person who misspoke should be sacked, prosecuted etc.
  3. Subverting from past quotations. Someone setting out a cogent and appropriate case for current conditions is confronted with something they said or wrote many years before in different circumstances. It may be that the two views are fully compatible because circumstances are different, but precious interview time is lost trying to establish that. It may be that the interviewee has changed their mind owing to new facts and insights. This should not be a crime unless it is one of those cases where a party does do a major U-turn in a dishonest or flagrantly political and self-serving way.
  4. Setting the interviewee up against others in his or her party. Someone making a good recommendation or providing informative background to policy may suddenly be faced with a contradictory quote from another senior person in their party, as if this invalidates their position.
  5. Quoting so called 'experts' and insisting that because they are experts their opinion is correct and the politicians must be wrong. The politician is never allowed to debate with the experts and will not have advance warning to be able to explain why these particular experts may have flawed judgement or be coming at the problem from a biased vantage point.
  6. Mistaking fashionable viewpoints in media circles like Remain and a particular version of Green for facts and attempting to shout down or crowd out a politician who has a considered but different opinion.
  7. Trying to ascribe base motives to any politician expressing a different view from those deemed acceptable to the BBC. The interviewer alleges motives of personal career advancement or party interest when someone is putting forward their best judgement of what is in the public interest or in the interests of their constituents.

© Sir John Redwood MP, re-published by kind permission

Observations

[Please note: These are the thoughts of the Brexit Facts4EU.Org team and are not those of the Rt Hon Sir John Redwood MP.]

Over the past few years we have watched interviews with Sir John and other pro-Brexit MPs which amply demonstrate the points he makes in his article.

One of the problems with broadcast media bias in particular is its insidious and subtle nature.

We are completely in favour of tough questioning of politicians, naturally. If a public figure cannot defend their position then this should be shown up to the public by journalists. Unfortunately there is a world of difference between this form of intelligent scrutiny and the hectoring, agenda-led, ignorance-fed interviews we have all seen and heard on our televisions and radios over recent years.

Sir John makes the point that he is always pleased to give interviews on topics he knows something about. One of the reasons he impressed us so much during the Referendum campaign and its aftermath is that he was one of the few politicians who was always in absolute possession of the facts.

Sir John's encyclopaedic knowledge, however, was in stark contrast to the 'Janet and John' approach of the vast majority of interviewers on the BBC, Sky News, and ITN. Not only were most of them arch Remainers who could barely conceal their contempt for Leavers, but they were clueless on top of this. Even some of the highest-paid in the BBC such as Andrew Marr seemed to have a small knowledge and understanding of anything remotely connected to the EU and Brexit - the biggest political topic for years.

One of the BBC's jobs is to inform. To do this effectively it would help if BBC journalists were themselves informed. If a very well-informed man such as Redwood is your interviewee, then you had better know your stuff.

Perhaps that is why the broadcast media have to resort to some of the ploys which Sir John describes in his article above.

We do not sit behind a paywall – you can read our well-researched and factual reports each week for free.

Since 2015 we have researched and published more than any other Brexit organisation

Hundreds of thousands of people read our work. Please become one of the very few who decides to support freedom of speech with a donation to us today. You will receive a personal ‘thank you’ email from a member of our team.

Making a donation is quick, simple, and secure, and you can choose one of the links below this article. Thank you so much.

[ Sources: Sir John Redwood | John Redwood's Diary ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Tues 31 Mar 2020

Click here to go to our news headlines

And please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.

Share this article on

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

Donate

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

Subscribe

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly