As I observed the other day, there has been a strong response from some to defend the BBC from what is perceived to be an attack from the political right. One of the arguments I’ve seen deployed runs along the lines that the BBC will be attacked by some for being too right wing and others for being too left wing. This must surely prove that its coverage, after all is fair and balanced. The BBC is seen as occupying the neutral centre ground.
This picks up on a mistake that is frequently made, particularly when we step into political discourse. We think of politics working on one linear spectrum with the far right at one end and the far left at the other. We like to think that there is a moderate/neutral centre ground and generally speaking, most of us like to think of ourselves as sitting there. This means two things. First, that what is seen as the centre can shift with a society, particularly as politics shifts. So, back in the 1980s, the centre tracked to the right as left wing politics were seen as extreme and out of touch and as the offer from the right of lower taxes, home ownership, curbing of union powers and strong defence against the Soviet threat were seen as positive. This meant that Tony Blair had to lean to the right in his political presentation to get Labour elected, even presenting himself as Thatcher’s true heir. There was then a more leftward drift as privatisation was seen as having negative consequences for under-funded public services and as foreign military adventures ended badly. We may well be seeing a resetting of that again with the rise of Reform UK or we may be seeing a greater polarisation with no one wanting to occupy the so called centre. It is perhaps too early to tell. However, Christian thought leaders will do well to keep an eye on the trends.
The mistake though is caused because first of all, politics doesn’t just sit onto one linear spectrum. There are multiple factors including individualist v collectivist, monetarist v Keynesian, nationalist v internationalist, isolationist v internventionist, free markets v state intervention, socially liberal v morally liberal and so on. It’s not so simple as a left right divide and further, the idea that the supposed centre ground is somehow a neutral position between extremes does not work. You end up with a political philosophy or ideology that groups together different positions on those spectrums and creates a world-view.
So, I want to suggest that this is one of the crucial things that has happened. The BBC and its defenders presume that because the Beeb’s editorial policy sits distinct from current party politics in the UK that it is therefore neutral and balanced. Now note that the BBC is not required to be neutral but it is meant to be impartial and the specific views of its presenters and reporters are not meant to come through. I think the point there though is less to do with taking a position on political philosophy and more to do with not being seen as either a vehicle for the Government as a state broadcaster nor over reacting and becoming an instrument of political opposition. It’s not the BBC’s duty to convey they Government’s message as a propaganda machine, the government are meant to do that themselves, nor is it there to hold the government to account, that is the job of MPs and specifically the opposition.
I think that sometimes those involved in the BBC have forgotten this latter point. They see themselves as there to hold politicians to account. They are frustrated with the democratic process and furthermore, they have a high confidence in their own ability to get to the truth and to stand by the truth. In so doing, they forget two things. First, they forget that they are fallible and can be wrong too.
Secondly, they forget that they are not, as individuals and as an institution that they cannot be neutral. Note, that institutions often, indeed usually will tend to draw together likeminded people and so create their own culture and worldview. This means that there is a culture and worldview at the BBC. It’s not a leftwing worldview as classically understood in terms of socialism (though some people within the organisation may be socialist) nor is it right wing (though again there may be reporters and presenters who vote right wing). Rather, I think it is best described as secular/liberal/pluralist. And that affects how it treats sources and reports news.
Some aspects of this particular worldview are first that it tends to divide the world into oppressive majorities and oppressed minorities. Secondly, it is anti-colonial. Now, it’s not a bad thing, it’s a good thing to be against oppression and on the side of minorities and to recognise the wrong and the harm of our colonial past as well as the dangers of modern forms of colonialism. However, the risk is that this creates a lens through which you see everything and so, you assume for example that Israel are colonial heirs oppressing a minority which means that as their enemies, Hamas (even if there are things you don’t like about them) are at heart freedom fighters. You are also likely to treat uncritically the claims of Nigerian Government advisors especially when in reaction to what looks like a colonialist intervention from President Trump.
What it also means is that the way you report things and the output of your analysis will tend to fit your worldview and culture. The result is that sometimes you will say things that disagree with the Left and sometimes stuff that disagrees with the Right. This doesn’t mean that you are neutral, it simply means that you have your own bias.
Faithroots 