Dear BBC,
I am writing to raise a matter of concern regarding the manner in which particular areas of political policy are often reported on the BBC and in the media in general. I am greatly worried that, during coverage of the next general election, these policy areas will be described and presented by the BBC in an incomplete and inaccurate way, which – it must regrettably be observed – is a not infrequent occurrence on a day-to-day basis. If this were to happen, the Corporation would be failing egregiously in its duty as the UK’s leading public-service broadcaster with an obligation to inform the public about matters of interest to it.
The areas of legislation and policy to which I am referring are those that have been devolved in varying degrees to separately elected parliamentary bodies and administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. One consequence of devolution is that when the same matters are discussed, and laws relating to them are enacted, in the UK Parliament, they very often relate to England only – or to England plus one or more of the other UK nations, depending on the subject matter of the legislation; but always to England.
In the context of the general election, this means that many of the major areas of party policy that will be discussed and presented to the electorate will concern England only. These include: education; health; local government and communities; policing, crime and justice (which includes Wales, too); regional and local transport policy; planning; housing; culture and sport; the environment and farming; etc. The main UK-wide political parties generally try to obfuscate the fact that, as far as the Westminster Parliament is concerned, its competence in these areas is limited to England. They do so, in the main, either by misleadingly referring to the country to which their policies on these topics are addressed as ‘Britain’ (implying the whole of Britain, which is simply not true), or by vaguely invoking ‘this country’ – thereby letting people believe they mean Britain when in fact they’re referring to England, but avoiding having to say so.
Why the political parties don’t want to admit openly that, of necessity, their proposed legislative programmes in these matters relate mainly to England alone is a matter of debate. One obvious reason is that, by making it explicit that so many of the key election issues affect only England, this would call into question the whole legitimacy of an election process that allows people in the other countries of the UK to vote on them. It would potentially be hugely embarrassing and confusing for the parties to have to admit that they were canvassing the support of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on issues that affect only the people of England.
But that is no reason to allow them to get away with it. The parties are basically practising a deceit on the British public – well, actually, two deceits: 1) pretending to English people that their policies on England-only matters also affect the other nations of the UK, so that they won’t object to people in those countries voting on them; 2) allowing politically uninformed people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to think that the representatives they will be sending to Westminster can influence decisions on these matters that will affect them, whereas they can’t: those matters are now dealt with by the separately elected devolved administrations.
It is surely the duty of the BBC to cut through all this duplicity to report the parties’ policy proposals accurately and impartially. If parties’ manifesto pledges relate to England only, the BBC should report them as such even if the parties themselves try to avoid referring to England. In order to do this really well, perhaps the BBC should consider making clear divides, within programmes and news bulletins discussing the election campaign, between UK-wide issues and England- (or England and Wales-) specific ones. This should not be too complicated: it would be simply a case of, say, devoting the first 15 minutes of a half-hour programme clearly and explicitly to UK-wide matters (and perhaps throwing in those that relate to England plus Wales); and then dedicating the last 15 minutes to England-specific subjects. Presenters should clearly flag up the ‘geographical extent’ (as the government puts it) of the policies that are going to be discussed at the beginning and end of each section, and at the beginning and end of each policy area that has been debated. When coming to the England-only topics, the script could draw viewers’ / listeners’ attention to the fact that the rest of the programme relates directly to England alone; and it would even perhaps be appropriate to apologise to people elsewhere in the UK: ‘we apologise to viewers not in England that the discussions throughout the rest of the programme relate to policy proposals for England only’.
It should not be too difficult for the BBC to differentiate between UK-wide and England-only policy areas: the responsibilities of the devolved administrations and, correspondingly, the England-only competencies of UK-government departments are well documented. Some of these departments deal with England-only matters in some areas but UK-wide ones in others, e.g. the Department of Culture, Media and Sport: culture and sport, England; media UK. But then the BBC would just have to make sure that any debates dealing with policy on the arts or sport are clearly demarcated as England-specific, and those concerning media policy are dealt with under the UK rubric. If in doubt, I feel sure that someone from the Campaign for an English Parliament, or an academic expert on devolution, or even I myself would be prepared to act as a consultant to help the BBC separate out the English issues from the UK ones.
I cannot stress too highly how critically important it is to get this right. In the absence of a separate English parliament to deal with legislation affecting England only, a UK general election is the only opportunity the English public are given to express their views – however imperfectly under the present electoral system – on the parties’ policies for them. As a public-service broadcaster, it is the BBC’s duty to help the public to understand and scrutinise how parties’ proposals may affect them, and how they will not. And an essential component of this public-service function must surely be to inform the English people that some proposals affect them only, and to inform UK citizens living outside England that those same proposals do not in fact concern them. In this way, voters in England can use their votes as an expression of their wishes and priorities for their own country – England – alongside their preferences in matters affecting the whole of the UK. And voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can be helped not to waste their vote on policies that are irrelevant to them.
Yours respectfully,
David Rickard
I hope someone from the BBC reads this and takes it on board. But I shan't hold my breath.
There's not a day that goes by without the BBC misrepresenting policy in this way. Take today's you and Yours on on Radio Four. They were discussing higher education a subject with stark differences between the home nations. The differences were mentioned once or twice but after that not mentioned again - and they completely failed to mention the discrepancies between Scottish and English higher education to the woefully inadequate Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property (for England) David Lammy.
The BBC know full well the issue, but they have their own agenda and that agenda is similar to the British Government's; Britishness at all costs.
Take a look at the British Brainwashing Corps board of directors http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/bbc_trust_members/index.html. There's one trustee for England and one for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - absolutely no consideration of the populations involved and if you look deeper you'll see that that the English trustee is also the weakest in terms of experience.
The English are getting a very raw deal from the BBC.
Very very good article.
When the BBC gts it wrong we should complain to them, eventually they will get fed up and report properly on these matters.
The BBC know the argument and have had many complaints on this issue.They choose to ignore these complaints and are complicit in mis- representing the facts. England does not suit the BBC either.
As bad as the BBC undoubtedly are, ITV, Sky, Channel 4 etc. are much worse. At least when the BBC are discussing a subject that applies to England they sometimes mention the fact. The rest, especially ITV whose journalism is so dumbed down it is unbelieveble NEVER mention when a policy affects England only. In my view the commercial media is far worse and should also be put under pressure to report the facts about devolution and how it affects England.
The BBC can get it right when they apply their minds to it. Agree that it's actually the commercial broadcasters who are now worse than the BBC (the BBC has changed mainly in response to Scottish nationalist pressure for a Scottish Six).
David makes an excellent case for more accurate broadcasting with particular reference to the general election. Given the importance of given correct information to the electorate, I wonder if this is something that could be referred to the Electoral Commission? It could also be usefully copied to the leaders of all the political parties who are likely to contest the election as well, as others have suggested, to other broadcasters. At the very least perhaps CEP should put it out as a press release?
Agreed that the issue of a Scottish six is the main reason the BBC makes an effort to the extent that it does, but pressure for a Scottish Six is not nationalist per se. Kirsty Wark, famously said it was just a matter of time, and this was one of those issues where the same Scottish establishment that was involved in the Constitutional Convention had made its mind up was a good thing. The obstruction of this by the BBC has been to the advantage of the SNP.
Unlike its commercial rivals the BBC has to record and respond to complaints and comments from individuals. This has exerted a certain pressure to report devolved matters accurately. I notice in that peculiar article in The Times of 14 August re the Lockerbie bomber, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, that The Times once again had decided (following its special report on devolution 10 years on)there is no such thing as Welsh devolution:
“There might be good reason for Scotland to have different priorities in social policy from England and Wales ...”
But then Northern Ireland gets no mention at all. I’m not quite sure what The Times has been trying to convey of late. That divergent social policy has only come about because there’s a SNP government at Holyrood? Or have the Welsh annoyed the old digger in some way?
Thanks for all the comments. I was motivated to write this by my indignation at the way the recent row over the (English) NHS has been treated by the media and, surprisingly, by bloggers: absolute blanket ignoring of the fact the debate relates to England alone. Obviously, I've been fuming about this whole syndrome for a long time, as well. I'll take on board the comments about the independent broadcasters, and will send the letter on to them as well as the BBC. Also, the Electoral Commission - good idea, that.
Not sure if anything will be done; but if you don't ask . . ..
David Rickard
I support and agree with what you have stated about the BBC.
Not withstanding that 24 hour TV has completely ruined the opportunity for better viewing, we have to understand however that the Government control the BBC now and they in
turn are controlled by the European Union. Without departing too much from the subject matter, it must be understood that the vast majority of voters still fail to realise or are unable to understand that the European Union is not a benevolent club comprising of co-operating nation states- it is unequivocally a new legal and political order wielding absolute power over member states and its citizens controlled by an unelected political hierarchy with supreme powers. The EU is about centralising power and the subservience of elected Governments like ours. They the EU control our media and so we have to put up with this wishy washy often ineffectual BBC. A Sad and very frustrating situation.
If we could harness the efficiency of the BBC for the good of the people rather than politicians then we could really make progress. Somehow I can't see that happening. It's the old story, the politicians tell us that we have the best of everything... well from their point of view it is probably a true statement. So where does that leave us? I'm beginning to think that something is amiss, or to put it another way it looks a bit fishy!
I have now emailed the BBC as follows.
I am writing in support of David Rickard concerning the "Open letter to the BBC on reporting policy debates at the next general election". I believe it is grossly unfair to the people of England and misleadingly unfair to the rest of the people of the UK that matters affecting England only are presented in a way that implies that some election issues relate to the whole of the UK.
Furthermore I believe that the BBC would be acting illegally in misrepresenting these matters to the English people either knowingly or unknowingly. I must emphasize that I believe any misrepresentation of clearly defined election issues could ultimately cause the people of the United Kingdom to vote incorrectly in a General Election. I therefore demand that the Trustees of the BBC instruct all reporters to deal with these matters in a clear, concise and unbiased way.
Thanks, Bobby. I have just re-emailed the BBC Trust, to whom I sent a link to the Open Letter two weeks ago, as follows:
Dear Sirs,
I am forwarding to you below a complaint I have just sent to the Radio Four Today programme about their inadequate reporting yesterday (and on previous occasions) of a debate regarding funding and potential staff cuts in the NHS in England. This completely failed to mention that the discussion related to England only, not the whole of the UK.
This relates to the concerns expressed in my Open Letter to the BBC, to which I sent you a reference in the email below two weeks ago, and of which I have not received an acknowledgement. These are serious issues that need to be addressed. The English public are being grievously misled by the political parties and the 'national' British media into thinking that a whole raft of policy areas that will be debated at the next general election affect everyone in the UK, whereas they in fact relate to England only. The BBC has got to get this right, otherwise it will have failed in its duty to inform and report impartially. Please pass on this complaint to someone who might actually respond to it.
Here is the complaint sent to the Today programme today:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to complain about the article on the NHS on yesterday morning’s programme immediately after the 8.00 news.
The entire discussion and interview made absolutely no mention of the fact that the NHS in question was the English one, as it is only the English NHS that Westminster politicians have anything to do with; and it is only the English NHS that will be debated about at the next general election.
To discuss options for reducing expenditure and cutting jobs in the NHS without mentioning that it is only the NHS in England that is being talked about represents a regrettable lack of editorial rigour and journalistic accuracy. Surely the options for the English NHS cannot and should not be discussed in isolation from the various solutions and priorities, and the funding, for the NHS’s in the countries with devolved governments. For example, do we in England actually want more privatisation and market mechanisms in the health service, along the lines already introduced by New Labour, while the NHS’s in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland continue along more traditional public-sector lines, thanks in part to the greater per-capita expenditure their systems enjoy by virtue of the Barnett Formula?
And what will the impact of the proposed real-terms increases in NHS funding in England be for the other UK countries? Could it be that they may result in or require decreases in spending elsewhere? And how will the devolved administrations continue to maintain the generous funding they have received to date? This would be a discussion about the NHS in Britain as a whole. If we’re talking about England, on the other hand, we should say so. Then the English people might realise they have a choice for what they want in England and should not feel beholden to a spurious notion of what the UK as a whole can afford or to a misleading idea that the NHS is a single cross-UK organisation where only one model of health-care delivery can be implemented. Once people in England are adequately informed about the diversity of current approaches to health care, not only between the UK and other comparable countries, but within the UK, they can then begin to make informed decisions about which party’s policies for the English NHS they wish to back.
I recently complained to the Today programme on this same issue but have received no reply or acknowledgement. The substance of this complaint is related to an ‘Open letter to the BBC on reporting policy debates at the next general election’ I have posted on the ‘English Parliament Online’ website, and which I have forwarded to the BBC Trust. I am also copying the present complaint to the Trust, from whom I have also not received any response.
This is an issue that the BBC must address. Its reporting of English political affairs and policy discussions is woefully incomplete and misleading at present. The English people deserve to be better informed on the policy issues that affect them.
Yours faithfully,
David Rickard
I received an automated reply from the beeb, I will capitalise it to Beeb when they are deserving enough.
I have now received a reply from the BBC Trustees and they, understandably, have passed the buck. Perhaps David Rikard will write again to the BBC and I will then write in support of him.
This is what they said.
Thank you for your email of 3 September to the BBC Trust. I am responding as Correspondence Adviser in the Trust Unit, which provides advice and support to the BBC Trust.
I have noted your concerns about the BBC’s coverage of election issues. I should explain however that the role of the BBC Trust as set out in the BBC’s Royal Charter is distinct from that of the BBC’s management and it has no role in day to day editorial matters. The Trust’s role is to set the overall framework, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, which set out the values and standards that all BBC output should meet. Responsibility for the BBC’s editorial content within these Editorial Guidelines rests ultimately with the Director-General, as Editor-in-Chief.
There is a BBC complaints process in place to deal with instances where audiences feel that there has been a breach of these Guidelines. This requires that complaints must be dealt with in the first instance by the BBC’s management; the Trust’s role in this process is to consider appeals from complainants should they be dissatisfied with the response that they have received from the BBC’s management. Full details of the complaints process are available on the BBC’s complaints website: bbc.co.uk/complaints. This includes information on, and the criteria for, escalating complaints if unhappy with the BBC’s initial response.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Lucy Tristram
Correspondence Adviser, BBC Trust Unit
I received verbatim the same response from the Trust. I then used the web form at bbc.co.uk/complaints to re-submit my email of complaint. Several days later, on Friday 11 September to be specific, I received the following, grossly inadequate reply from the BBC:
"Thanks for your e-mail.
Unfortunately we're unable to comment on articles from external sources. The role of this department is to respond to comment, query or criticism concerning the BBC and our output, therefore I'm unable to provide the information you require on this occasion. However, thanks again for your interest in contacting the BBC.
Regards
Ciaran McConnell
BBC Complaints"
This is probably another standard reply and is a complete passing of the buck. Incidentally, this is the same Ciaran McConnell referred to in a recent post on the CEP blog, who dismissed a complaint about presenters on BBC's 'Breakfast' show slipping seamlessly from references to English animators to 'British' by referring to this tendency at the BBC as "instinctive" behaviour.
Obviously, I wasn't going to let the matter rest there. So I've now re-submitted the complaint, including the whole text of the Open Letter preceded by the following letter:
"Dear Mr McConnell,
Thank you for your reply. I wonder, however, whether you took the trouble to read the article for which I sent you a link in my original complaint. This article, which in fact is written in the form of an open letter to the BBC, does precisely contain "comment, query [and] criticism concerning the BBC and [its] output", to borrow your own words. If I had taken the text of the article in question as the body of my letter of complaint, I feel you would have regarded it as falling clearly within your rubric.
With that in view, I am including the text of the article within this email (see further below). The issues raised are matters of serious concern to the public and involve grave questions about whether the BBC is failing in its duty to report on news and current affairs accurately and impartially. I feel that these issues need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, given the importance of insuring that reporting at the next general election should accurately convey to the public an understanding of the issues affecting them that the politicians they elect are - or are not - empowered to influence.
I would therefore be grateful if you could look into this matter further.
Yours sincerely,
David Rickard"
We'll see if that gets a response. If not, or if the response is similarly inadequate, I'll find out what is the next level to which I can escalate it. If necessary, we can always send the complaints direct to the Director General, which in a way would be fitting, as it's clearly a systemic and cultural failing on the part of the BBC; or, as others might put it, deliberate policy on the part of the BBC in cahoots with the political establishment.
Yes, the plot thickens! I will write to Mr McConnell but just to put things in perspective and without making any comment here is a piece on the origins of the name.
This ancient Scottish and sometimes Irish surname is recorded in the spellings of MacConnal, MacConnel, MacConnell, the short forms commencing 'Mc', the specifically Irish O'Connell and McGonnell, and sometimes without any prefix at all! However spelt the surname is claimed by the Scots to be a derived form of "MacDhomhnuill", the modern MacDonnell, through dialectal assimilation of the letter 'd'. The name literally means "the seed or race of Donald", and it is claimed that all descend from Donald, the eldest son of Reginald, the first MacDonald, and Lord of the Isles, in the 10th century. The Scottish MacConnel(l) clan is largely to be found in the counties of Ayr, Argyll and Wigtownshire, and the first known recording of the name in any acceptable modern spelling is that of William McConnil, from the parish of Urray in 1649. It seems that he was a soldier on the kings side, and therefore in the parlance of the day a rebel! This was during the various civil wars of the 1640 - 1660 period. The Irish beg to differ claiming that the descent is from Cathasach O'Connail, bishop of Connacht, in 1180, and that the origin is from the first name Daniel. This suggests that even when the surnames have the same spelling, the origins are quite different. The first recording as a hereditary spelling is believed to be that of Therthelmac Makdonenalde, a witness to a land charter in Lesmore, Scotland, in the year 1251. This was during the reign of King Alexander 11nd of Scotland, who reigned from 1249 to 1286. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling.
I wonder...
I have again written to the BBC. Here it is.
Dear Sir/Madam,
It is with growing dissatisfaction that I am writing to you to protest against the manner in which issues concerning the Nation of England are reported by the BBC. I have already written to the Trustees and they have referred me to you. I understand that your department is responsible for dealing with complaints concerning content and policy. This email is concerning policy and I will not comment on individual complaints on content, of which there are many, at this stage.
There is a page on your website entitled "About the BBC" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/statements2009/).
"Over the coming year we are looking to strengthen our performance in the nations and regions of the UK, improving the quality and diversity of the services we offer. We plan a new network of specialist reporters to enrich the BBC's coverage of local government, more knowledge-building programming in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a new regional football programme in England. We will also complete the roll-out of the redesigned BBC Local sites, focused on local news, sport and weather and with links to a wide range of external local sites.".
It is clear that the BBC has achieved it's aims and has successfully strengthened it's performance in the Regions of England. You have also been successful in strengthening your performance in the Nations of Scotland, NI. and Wales. Unfortunately you are failing dismally to strengthen your performance when English matters concerning the Nation of England are reported.
You have stated in your document "Building Public Value" the following.
"Accountability to the British public is about ensuring that the BBC is responsive and accountable to the people who pay for it. It is through consultation and discussion with audiences that the BBC can understand and respond to their concerns and needs. Currently, the BBC has one of the widest networks for public consultation of any broadcaster in the world. Over 500 people from across the UK regularly contribute their views on the BBC as part of a network of advice, ......"
The bodies listed are as follows.
The Broadcasting Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Regional Advisory Councils.
The Local Advisory Councils.
The Religious Advisory Councils.
Again, it is clear from the above list of bodies that you are failing the Nation of England as a whole and thereby failing in your stated aims of being accountable to the public. I would respectfully suggest that an advisory board is set up which can advise you on matters affecting the Nation of England.
In the conclusion to this document it is stated "In our paper, Building public value, we have tried to show how an independently and effectively governed BBC, focused on its vision and its values yet open – to new ideas, to justified criticism, above all to the views and priorities of its audiences – could play a decisive role in establishing public value in this new digital world. But, while the BBC has a duty to contribute its ideas to the debate, it also knows that the question of its future is not one that it itself can or should decide. That decision rests firmly with its owners, the British public.".
Following devolution it is clear that responsibility for many issues, such as health and Law and order are dealt with by National assemblies in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. These matters are dealt with for the Nation of England by the National Parliament of the UK, although this is not the fault of the BBC I believe it is imperative that when matters are dealt with that affect the Nation of England and England alone, the BBC should make this fact absolutely clear. I also believe that because a General election will take place next year these matters should be dealt with in a transparent manner. Failure to do so, will result in the failure by the BBC to inform the people of England, and indeed the rest of the UK, to properly understand these important issues. I would go as far as to say that if the BBC, as a leading Broadcaster in the UK, fails to report these matters accurately they would be failing in their duty to inform the British public, but more importantly they could potentially influence people to vote on issues in a manner that does not reflect their true political beliefs and aspirations.
So in summary I commend the BBC for introducing regional accountability but I must strongly protest at the way issues affecting the Nation of England are dealt with and call upon you to rectify this unsatisfactory situation without delay. There are many bodies in England who can assist you and I know that many have already written to you.
Please be clear that this is an open letter and I expect a proper response and respectfully demand that the extremely important matters put forward here are given due consideration without delay and certainly well before the next General Election.
Yours respectfully,
Not surprisingly I have received a standard reply from the BBC. I wait with hope. Here is their reply.
Thank you for contacting the BBC.
We wanted to let you know that we've received your recent complaint and will respond as soon as possible, however we hope you understand that the time taken to do so can depend on the nature of your complaint and the number of other complaints we're currently dealing with.
We issue public responses to concerns which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at:
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email - in the meantime, we would like to thank you again for contacting us with your concerns, we appreciate your patience in awaiting a response.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Nicola Maguire
BBC Information