BBC Radio 4 Today programme editors – wolves in sheep’s clothing


Did anyone catch this morning’s main headline on the Today programme? The item of greatest public concern this morning was “the British public are becoming more liberal with respect to sexual ethics but more conservative economically”. The BBC’s social policy correspondent reported that in 1983 62% of the population thought homosexual sex was unacceptable and only 36% think so today.

At 8:10, the main morning debate, Justin Webb discussed attitudes to homosexually with Michael Cashman a founder member of Stonewall and a Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of The Sun. Again, the message was “social attitudes have been transformed”.

The “news” was read impartially, in the spirit of the BBC, and the debate conducted honourably. What is interesting about these “headlines” is not primarily their content or the manner in which they were delivered, but their timing in relation to the defeat, yesterday, in the House of Lords of the equality bill.

Without initially mentioning the house of Lord’s debate, Radio 4 listeners were first exposed to the fact that our nation’s moral standards on homosexual sex have swung in a short period of time and (for anyone making the connection), therefore, the Lords are out of touch with public opinion. Then, with these statistics in place, the debate at 8:10 was teed up for Michael Cashman to slate the church and claim that one day attitudes in church will be changed as he battles on.

Ignoring any debate on the tyranny of the majority verses the rights of the minority, the editorial positioning of these news items reveal a deeply partisan ruling class at the BBC. The editors are obviously not scared to bias the “news” to promote a their own social agenda. What seems to have escaped them is that this sort of biased redaction has brought about changes in societies morals. If you keep saying loudly enough, on a national platform, that homosexual sex is morally acceptable, eventually attitudes will swing. After all, who will stand up against a national mood? We all want to fit in.

The complex relationship which exists between national broadcasters and the public mood must be taken into account when statistics are analysed. More than that, the role of the established national press needs consideration. What is news and why did these statistics even make headline news at all? Unless of course the editors think it is important to keep campaigning against the Lords decision.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Other matters and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to BBC Radio 4 Today programme editors – wolves in sheep’s clothing

  1. John Turtle says:

    I disagree. This was a soft, lazy approach to the stats, and allowed TODAY to field a couple of the usual suspects. The programme seems to have gone soft-centred – and in the present economic and political climate is not what it was. It was, in any event, an extremely boring part of a not-very-interesting edition. I doubt there is a conspiracy or overt partisanship, though – particularly before an election quite likely to bring in a Conservative government. There were many more interesting items to be derived from these stats, for instance the attitude to voting – but did Stonewall ring up and get their press release in front of a short-handed team together with an easy five minutes to set up, yes of course they’ll come into West London to do it live and so on? I wonder………..

    • neilrobbie says:

      Hello John, and welcome to TG. I hesitate to argue with a former BBC head of department about the editorial content and timing of this “news”. Was the content of Today soft and lazy or deliberately designed to keep a social campaign alive? I don’t know but I would like to ask why the editors chose to make a report on a broad rage of social attitudes headline news only to follow that headline with a polarised debate singling out British attitudes to homosexual sex the morning after the Lords vote on the equality bill. Perhaps there is no conspiracy but, as there were other more interesting statistics, the chosen debate at least revealed the pre-occupation or bias of the editorial team.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s