BBC Framing and Distortion: A Case Study

The work of the Glasgow University Media Group has long argued that the news media, including broadcast news, consistently supports the interests of the powerful. This isn't because each and every news report is vetted by a committee for elite interests prior to airing or printing, but because journalists by and large have imbibed their perspectives. Throw away the images of reporters as fearless pursuers of the truth. All too often, their copy sits well within the parameters of what is permitted. No one tells them what to write because they don't need to be told. They know what stories with what angle will satisfy their editors' requirements, and because they like working in the media they'll abide by the unstated rules of the game. Furthermore, when it comes to hiring decisions by news and media organisations, beliefs and values matter the most. Hence why there is now a preponderance of Oxbridge types and nepo babies: their education and their connections are, more than anything else, markers of their suitability. It's a sign before they've uttered or spoken a single word that they can be relied on to produce the correct takes.

This came to mind when I encountered Chris Mason's piece on the standards inquiry into Rishi Sunak. From Dishy to Fishy Rishi, our glorious leader can't help but get himself in trouble. From being ambushed by a cake along with Boris Johnson to "forgetting" that he had a green card for work in the United States, to not wearing his seatbelt during a social media flick, we've known for some time there have been questions marks over his, or to be more accurate, his family's finances. You will recall the pickle Sunak's wife, Akshata Murty, got into for her nondom tax status (still no sign of her paying back monies dodged while she erroneously claimed it). And her holding shares in Daddy's company Infosys, which has significant Russian interests and should, in theory, fall foul of British sanctions. And there was the occasion a fitness firm she had a stake in did well out of her husband's pandemic support for businesses. And, here we are again, Sunak "forgot" to declare an interest Murty had in one aspect of last month's budget: as a shareholder in a child care firm, she stands to gain substantially from the planned subsidy that extends child care entitlements. And he forgot to mention this in front of the Select Committee.

One might be inclined to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt. How can a rich person be expected to remember how many pies they have their fingers in? But Sunak said he had declared all his interests in the normal way. Except the Register of Ministerial Interests has not been updated for over a year, and that means nothing has been declared at all. Indicating that Sunak had misled the Committee, which is not a good look. Especially as his predecessor once removed is in a spot of bother for similar. So yes, this is potentially serious. Whether intentional or accidental, this is a breach of standards and Sunak needs to be held to account for it. Senior politicians have resigned for less in the past.

And yet, encountering Chris Mason's piece - these days the BBC's political editor - rather than treating it as a potentially serious issue, we're treated to his disassembling informal "style" where, basically, he shrugs his shoulders and asks "How big a deal is inquiry into Rishi Sunak's declarations?" Having got over his title he notes that "on the Richter scale of these things, it feels like a rather minor tremor. Think a few loose roof tiles rather than anything much more." And later on, the failure of the Register of Ministerial Interests to be published is referred to as a "a symptom of the chaos at Westminster in the last year or so", as if it was merely the natural turbulence of the chamber at fault. Not Johnson's studied and repeated attempts at dodging accountability and any constitutional conventions that might have stymied him. In all, a bit of sly editorialising that reports on a major news story - the Prime Minister is under investigation for a constitutional impropriety - but the sting is removed by a) suggesting it's not serious, and b) saying no one's to blame for the mess. Even ChatGPT would baulk at producing an article so obviously compromised.

And this is where we come back to the Glasgow point. As the BBC's top politics journalist, Mason doesn't have anyone telling him what to write. It's unnecessary. I'd wager that he's blind to how his framing of the Sunak story has produced a distorted picture of it, resulting in a downplaying of its seriousness and exculpating everyone in government for their responsibility for this state of affairs. And this is of a piece we see day in and day out, where "BBCism" works as a faux impartiality that somehow, always, coincidentally bends in the direction of the powers that be, and is entirely unconscious of its biases.