Mark Damazer’s excuses for the BBC

Whether it was the failure of the BBC to deal with Gary Lineker more quickly, the abject failure to deal with Kneecap and Bob Vylan’s vile appearances at Glastonbury, the constant bias against Israel in its news programmes or the failure to call Hamas a terrorist organisation, the reputation of BBC News has plummeted in the past few years.

Worse still, however, is the complete failure of the people who run BBC News and the BBC itself to address the problem. Executives have not been sacked. They have not even explained what’s happened to the BBC. It’s not as if they don’t have the data. They know that the ratings of the BBC’s best-known news programmes have fallen like a stone.

The final straw was a piece in Saturday’s Financial Times (5 July) by Mark Damazer. He is a former editor of The Nine O’Clock News, Head of Current Affairs and then controller of Radio 4, before going on to become a Master of an Oxford College. If anyone should have a clear and thoughtful analysis of what’s gone wrong at the BBC since he started out there in the 1980s and 1990s, surely Damazer should.

His article started promisingly: “Another day, another crisis. The BBC can always be guaranteed to provide fodder for outrage – perceived [sic] bias in the corporation’s news coverage…, egregiously misbehaving male stars, workplace bullying on wholesome family entertainment shows, the grizzly mess of Martin Bashir’s interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, Gary Lineker in all his social media glory.”

So far, so good; but note one sure sign of trouble: “perceived bias in the corporations’s news coverage”. The biggest problem at the BBC for some years has been not “perceived” but actual bias, especially but not only on Israel. Critics of BBC News rage against its refusal to call Hamas a terrorist organisation, its reliance on mortality statistics from Hamas (or the Palestinian Health Authority, as the BBC usually call their source of information), its uncritical interviews with NGOs contrasted with the very critical interviews with Israeli government spokesmen and women.

Mark Damazer, former Head of BBC Current Affairs, can’t even bring himself to address these issues. He blithely calls BBC News “still the most trusted news source”, without producing any evidence at all for his assertion. “In the round people like it even more than they are annoyed by it.” Says who? Again, where’s the evidence? He goes on to write, ”Yes – they pay for it, but they are not forced to watch, listen or download.” Actually, we are forced to pay for an annual licence fee, which is the main source of income for the BBC. 

Damazer writes, ”it is fatuous to present the BBC as forever staffed by lions led by donkeys.” Again, argument, no analysis, just name-calling. But this is exactly what the BBC has become. It is “led by donkeys”, from the Director-General to the BBC’s Board of Governors. Again and again, in recent years the BBC has failed to appoint a smart Director-General who grasps the key issues facing the organisation. How is it to compete with the new world of streaming channels who provide better drama, better arts programmes and often better news coverage than the BBC? When is it going to deal with the growing accusations of bias on its news programmes, which used to be the jewel in its crown? Why do people at BBC News think listeners on Radio 4 want to hear endless reports about Black Sabbath’s last concert, the reunion of Oasis or about what was until recently an obscure Northern Irish band fuelled by hatred — as its name suggests?

Finally, Damazer concludes, “Here’s what it boils down to. Is the BBC good at nurturing British talent? Does it … provide an invaluable forum for debate in our democracy and does it demonstrate a respect both for truth and doubt?” Damazer obviously thinks the answer to these questions is a resounding yes. This may go down well at Broadcasting House or on High Table at St. Peter’s College. But how many viewers and listeners believe the BBC does still “demonstrate a respect both for truth and doubt”? Last week I heard a BBC radio newsreader refer to Hamas as ”a militant organisation”. Seriously? Interviewees on BBC News programmes trot out words like “war crimes” and “genocide” and are not properly questioned. 

On the day Chancellor Rachel Reeves was seen uncontrollably crying in the House of Commons, that evening’s Newsnight brought in Barry Gardiner, a Labour MP, and the Democratic Unionist peer Arlene Foster to discuss the issue that dominated the news headlines all evening and nearly all the newspaper front pages the next morning. With all due respect to Baroness Foster, who is undeniably impressive, does this strike you as a sufficiently high-powered panel? Would an economist have helped produce an analysis of the response of the market that afternoon, how the Government would be able to fill the hole in its public finances over the coming months or who might be best suited to replace Rachel Reeves? With all the speculation bouncing around about an angry exchange between the Speaker and the Chancellor, might a top political journalist have something to say about this? Or would a historian like Peter Hennessy help answer the question, has a Chancellor ever cried in the House of Commons during PMQs before? 

Returning for one last time to Mark Damazer, it is worth noting that he never mentions the BBC’s Chairman, the Director-General or the Head of BBC News and Current Affairs by name, nor indeed says anything thoughtful about any of them or their record in office. Just the usual “nothing to see here”. 

In the meantime, the BBC spends hours of airtime allowing John Simpson to sing the praises of his new programme on the BBC News Channel, Unspun World with John Simpson , which the BBC News website calls, “An honest, unvarnished review of the week’s global news stories.” Bear in mind that Simpson was one of the first BBC News reporters to refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organisation. It also gives just as much time to the news presenter Clive Myrie to sing the praises of the BBC’s news coverage. When did you last hear a BBC news reporter or presenter criticise the corporation’s news coverage or openly investigate accusations of bias on its news programmes? Perhaps they could ask Mark Damazer to present such an analysis? Or better still, perhaps they could ask Andrew Neil or David Elstein, two of the smartest people ever to work for the BBC? 

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.