Laura Kuenssberg did misinterpret Corbyn, but the BBC doesn’t care

Support us and go ad-free

The BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, is guilty of breaching its own impartiality and accuracy guidelines. According to the BBC Trust, Kuenssberg fell short of the guidelines in her reporting of Jeremy Corbyn’s views on a shoot to kill policy.

But the director of BBC News, James Harding, dismissed the findings. He stated that he “disagreed with them” and that “BBC News formally notes the Trust’s finding”.

The complaint

The complaint focused on accusations that Kuenssberg had misreported Corbyn’s comments in November 2015. Kuenssberg asked Corbyn:

But if you were Prime Minister, would you be happy to order people – police or military – to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?

Corbyn responded:

I’m not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.

Kuenssberg’s question was general. It was about a shoot-to-kill policy in general, not about a specific attack. But she interpreted this response as Corbyn not being willing for police to shoot in a Paris-type attack. She also omitted an earlier response in the interview where he was asked specifically about a terrorist attack in London. Corbyn replied:

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Of course you’d bring people on to the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society, much better that’s done by the police than security services, much better we have strong and effective community policing, neighbourhood policing and a cohesive society that brings people together.

The findings

The BBC Trust agreed with the complainant. It found that it:

was wrong in this case to present an answer Mr Corbyn had given to a question about ‘shoot to kill’ as though it were his answer to a question he had not in fact been asked.

And while the Trust fell short of accusing the BBC of bias, it stated:

The breach of due accuracy on such a highly contentious political issue meant that the output had not achieved due impartiality.

It also stated that the impartiality was “compounded” by Kuenssberg claiming that Corbyn’s words “couldn’t be more different” from the Prime Minister’s.

Harding’s response

But the BBC rejected the findings and is not taking further action against Kuenssberg. Harding stated that:

While we respect the Trust and the people who work there, we disagree with this finding

BBC News reported on the leader of the opposition in the same way it would any other politician. It is striking that the Trust itself said there was ‘no evidence of bias’. Indeed, it also said the news report was ‘compiled in good faith’. The process is now concluded and BBC News formally notes the Trust’s finding.

In fact, not only is Harding not taking action over Kuenssberg’s impartiality, he is continuing to praise her as:

an outstanding journalist and political editor with the utmost integrity and professionalism.

Bias

As previously reported in The Canary, this isn’t the first time Kuenssberg has been accused of bias. And while the BBC was cleared of bias in this instance, there is a fine line between misinterpretation and bias.

It is a shame the Trust’s findings carry no weight. The BBC is not obliged to take any action over them. And judging by Harding’s comments, it clearly won’t.

Unfortunately, the BBC is not alone in this. And findings such as this one, combined with the BBC’s response, show how important new and alternative forms are media are.

Get Involved!

– You may like to make an official complaint about BBC bias here.

– You might also like to remind Laura Kuenssberg very politely about her responsibilities as a public service broadcaster.

– Support The Canary, so we can continue to step in where mainstream outlets like the BBC fail.

Featured image via Wikimedia and Flickr

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed