An Oxford University professor has given a damning assessment of the BBC’s reporting on Brexit. And he pulls no punches, saying the public service broadcaster should be “ashamed” of the coverage it gave to a pro-Brexit study.
Hard Brexit bias?
Simon Wren-Lewis is a Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford University. And he has taken to his blog to pull apart the BBC’s coverage of an economic study on the impact of Brexit, comparing its reporting to that of a medical cure that was proven wrong. He said the BBC would have given “sufferers” of an illness “false hope”.
The article in question was called ‘Hard’ Brexit offers ‘£135bn annual boost’ to economy. It concerned a study called From Project Fear to Project Prosperity, co-authored by Professor Patrick Minford of Cardiff University. And as the BBC detailed, it broadly says that a ‘hard’ Brexit is “superior” to a ‘soft’ one, as “eliminating tariffs, either within free trade deals or unilaterally, would deliver huge gains”.
A damning assessment
But Wren-Lewis has taken aim at the way the BBC framed Minford’s study. He raises two main points about the BBC reporting, saying:
First… Minford is no expert in international trade. He is a macroeconomist… He published a very similar argument about the benefits of unilateral trade liberalisation during the referendum campaign. It was heavily criticised by individuals or groups that are experts in international trade.
Second, at no point… is there any mention that the overwhelming consensus among academic economists is that Brexit would be harmful to the economy. We just have reports that give two opinions, with no context whatsoever about which opinion is the consensus view and which is the maverick… Again to draw on my analogy, it is like reporting a miracle cure and failing to say that nearly all doctors thought this was rubbish.
Read on...Support us and go ad-free
BBC – “bad journalism”?
He argues that because the BBC only asked for the opinion of one other expert, it failed to note the “large errors” in Minford’s study. And he says that it was “bad journalism”, noting that the caution the BBC would apply to its reporting of, say, a medical story goes “out of the window” in this case. He also accuses the BBC of ignoring the “clear consensus” from experts during the whole of the EU referendum campaign.
But Wren-Lewis makes a wider point about the media. He says that:
There is no quality control in most of the media when it comes to giving publicity to a report like this. There is a very simple reason for this, and that is the primacy given to immediacy. In a better world… journalists would spend a few days ringing around to see what the reaction of other experts were, or nowadays just look at reactions on Twitter.
And it is this “quality control” that the BBC has been lacking in the past.
Not fit for purpose
As The Canary has documented, allegations of BBC bias are deep-rooted. For example, a study from Cardiff University revealed that the BBC is pro-business and conservative-leaning in its coverage. Its research showed that 11% of news sources quoted were from business and finance, compared to Channel Four News who used just 2.2% from the sector. And specifically on BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespeople by 19 to one.
Wren-Lewis’ intervention is another in a long line of complaints about the impartiality and quality of the BBC. And while the evidence of ‘BBC bias‘ mounts, it is endemic of the wider UK media in general. Because while the British media languishes at 40th in the world Press Freedom Index, we all suffer. Wren-Lewis quotes The Independent’s Economics Editor, Ben Chu, as saying:
The legitimate news story around Minford’s work is how bad science can survive and thrive when it supports the desires and prejudices of powerful people in our society… the BBC… has become part of the problem.
The BBC is indeed part of the problem. And it’s high time the licence fee-paying public demanded a solution to it.
– Read and support independent news outlets that hold the powerful to account. Here are some we recommend. Please add more that you like in the comments:
The Canary, Media Diversified, Novara Media, Corporate Watch, Common Space, Media Lens, Bella Caledonia, Vox Political, Evolve Politics, Real Media, Reel News, STRIKE! magazine, The Bristol Cable, The Meteor, Salford Star, The Ferret.
Featured image via The Canary
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?