John Humphrys and the BBC’s problem

The BBC prides itself on its reputation for impartiality and objectivity – an image of itself not shared by some overseas listeners and viewers, who judge it as either too close to government (ask your friends in Dublin or Paris) or too critical (ask your friends in Washington or Warsaw).

Of course, the BBC itself will cite such contrary views as proof of its independence and even-handedness. Yet the recent debate over an unscripted speech by one of the BBC’s most tenacious interviewers John Humphrys (oddly enough, on a cruise ship hosting a conference for PR executives) has mostly missed the point.

The organisers of the event foolishly provided their own video of the speech (made without Humphrys’ knowledge) to a Downing Street advisor, Tim Allan, who promptly fed a transcript to a journalist on the Times, Tom Baldwin, whose reputation as a Blair supporter goes back many years.

The ensuing 2 September splash in the Times focused on some gentle mockery of current or former British government ministers (Gordon Brown, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson) and the view that some politicians and ministers have no compunction about lying. Humphrys also asserted that the BBC had been substantially correct in its reporting of the notorious Iraq dossiers, despite the contrary conclusions of Lord Hutton’s inquiry, which triggered the resignations of the BBC’s chairman and director-general in January 2004.

openDemocracy writers examine the conflict between the BBC and the British government over the Iraq war:

David Elstein, “Hutton and the BBC” (January 2004)

Tom Bentley, “Tall tales and home truths” (February 2004)

John Lloyd, “Media power: telling truths to ourselves” (February 2004)

David Marquand, “Tony Blair and Iraq: a public tragedy” (February 2004)

If you find this material valuable please consider supporting openDemocracy by sending us a donation so that we can continue our work and keep it free for all

A question of politics

Even as the Times retreated, with a leader column noting that there was nothing in the speech worth worrying about, the BBC’s chairman since April 2004, Michael Grade, called for a full report. The BBC’s director-general, Mark Thompson, commissioned this from his deputy, and received it within days. It concluded that Humphrys’ remarks had been injudicious, and might have risked putting his impartiality (though not the BBC’s) into question. This was conveyed to Humphrys in a telephone call, and the matter was seemingly put to rest.

Yet if the BBC had little choice but to chide its star radio presenter, and try to prove that instinctive defensiveness in response to challenges to its journalism was firmly in the post-Hutton past, it was the silence from Downing Street that was most chilling.

No minister chided Tim Allan for his egregious pursuit of Humphrys, whose scalp was one of the few the government had not captured in the fall-out from Hutton. Allan criticised Humphrys for calling all ministers liars in his speech (he actually only implied some were) – yet just a few weeks earlier, a former Blairite secretary of state, Stephen Byers, had not only admitted lying to parliament over his forcing a private company (Railtrack) into administration, but could not even remember why he had done so: suggesting that this lie was not so unusual that it was etched in his memory.

The decline in the quality of political debate in Britain has been blamed on the cynicism and personalisation endemic in media coverage (John Lloyd of the Financial Times has led this attack), but also on New Labour’s emphasis on spin and focus groups rather than ideology. This little spat has provided fuel to both sides of the argument. Indeed, Humphrys in the past was indirectly criticised by a previous BBC director-general (John Birt) for over-aggressive interviewing.

Yet what Humphrys most dislikes is not politicians as such, but humbug. Some politicians relish their encounters with him – foreign secretary Jack Straw, for instance – because he clearly takes politics seriously. Others, like Tony Blair, avoid him at all costs.

Nor is Humphrys shy of criticising his own employers, the BBC, if he finds them at fault. When in October 2003 he recorded an interview with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and secured some revelatory responses on the Iraq war, he loudly complained when the BBC agreed to excise those replies on the grounds that Iraq was not one of the pre-agreed subject areas for the interview. Even if the BBC’s independence is sometimes questioned, there is no doubting that of Humphrys himself. Indeed, although he is notably opinionated, even his closest colleagues have no idea how he actually votes.

A corporation under pressure

In a year when the BBC’s charter is up for another ten-year renewal, rocking ministerial boats is not at the top of the corporation’s agenda. John Humphrys continues to grill politicians of all parties on the BBC’s best-known radio programme, Today, but frank expression of his personal view of politics, even in semi-private sessions, is unwelcome. All BBC employees and contract presenters (including Humphrys) were forced to give up their lucrative newspaper columns in the wake of the Hutton inquiry, if these involved comment on current issues. Caesar’s wife must not only be pure, but must be seen to be so.

In trying to turn Tim Allan’s flank, Humphrys has argued (with some reason) that this nuisance attack is part of a continuing desire on the part of government to mute the BBC, whereas (in his view) the BBC, as the nation’s dominant public-service broadcaster, is duty-bound to challenge, or at least question, those in authority.

Few would deny that – especially when the official (Conservative) opposition is in continuing disarray – a not-for-profit, independent, publicly-funded national broadcaster is likely to find its journalism perceived as the most reliable source of challenge to government. But that is not actually the role of the BBC, or its journalism.

After all, if BBC journalistic inquiry were to find graft or incompetence amongst the opposition Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, that would be a legitimate source of material. The fact is, though, that governments overwhelmingly make the running in politics, and in ways that make accurate reporting increasingly difficult: spin and news management are deployed to control the news agenda, to remarkable effect. Not surprisingly, many journalists – even BBC ones – are motivated to expose this process: hence the Andrew Gilligan report in May 2003 on a government dossier about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and the extraordinarily fierce reaction from a New Labour machine seemingly caught out in an elaborate deception to justify an arguably illegal invasion.

Suggesting ministers lie (even when there is proof that they do) touches on Downing Street’s deepest sensitivities. That Tim Allan’s ham-fisted attempt to “expose” John Humphrys only backfired – on both him and the Times – should not obscure his motivation.

As commercial pressures progressively squeeze current affairs and challenging documentaries out of the schedules of the BBC’s broadcast rivals, the BBC’s journalistic role and reputation become ever more important and contested. The reform of the BBC’s governance system – creating clear separation between the governors who regulate and the executives who operate – has been a particular cause for concern. Despite the overwhelming evidence, from the Hutton process and elsewhere, that reform was necessary, there were fears that it might create yet further opportunities for ministers to cause mischief.

Was Grade’s instant call for an inquiry into the Humphrys comments evidence of such mischief? Or was it an attempt by the BBC hierarchy to demonstrate, not so much the BBC’s independence, as that of the governors as regulators?

Objectivity and impartiality (however tricky they might be to achieve) are the cornerstones of the BBC’s journalistic existence. In the Humphrys case, they were swiftly and dutifully upheld. Yet in other areas the BBC continues to breach these standards, and when exposed refuses to investigate or even acknowledge them. For all the cosmetic changes and protestations to the contrary, the evidence that the BBC defends its errors is still there, and the case for external regulation – as is applied to all other British broadcasters – grows stronger.