BBC news impartiality is a vexed question. The corporation has long been the locus of a left-right tug of war with each side accusing it of favouring the other.
It should be said straightaway that the BBC’s defence of its neutrality by pointing to accusations of bias from both the left and the right is invalid. These opposing directions of criticism don’t mean the BBC enjoys an impartial resting point in the middle. The accusations are perfectly compatible with one, not the other, being correct.
However, there is a strong case for regarding BBC news coverage as having a predominantly right-wing bias. The insistence that BBC bias is ‘left, not right-wing’ is, arguably, just another preposterous instance (as per the ‘free speech’ debate) of the right’s tendency to disguise its tracks by attributing its own failures to ‘the enemy’.
The people and the research
The BBC’s rightward leanings are evident in its board members. These include Robbie Gibb, a Tory party affiliate appointed by Boris Johnson and described by Emily Maitlis as an “active agent of the Conservative party”. Closely linked with the Jewish Chronicle, Gibb was described by over 300 media figures as instrumental in the BBCs pro-Israel coverage of the Gaza conflict.
The BBCs director general, Tim Davie, is a former Conservative party councillor and deputy chairman of a London branch. BBC chairman, Richard Sharp, donated over £400,000 to the Conservative Party. Sharp resigned after failing to disclose his role in an £800,000 loan to Johnson. The current chairman, Samir Shah, co-authored a Race Report with Johnson dismissing institutional racism in the UK.
Research also highlights these rightward leanings. Cardiff University found a clear preponderance of right-wing panellists in BBCs Question Time, corroborating the evidence of our own eyes. During the referendum the BBC failed in its duty to inform the public about Brexit’s implications. The BBC now gives disproportionate coverage to Reform over the Lib Dems, a party with over fourteen times as many MPs, and is currently exploring how to attract more Reform supporters. There are other causes for concern but these points alone suggest that the BBC isn’t valiantly striving for greater balance and impartiality but simply maintaining its right-wing positioning.
Behind the words
News bias research covers many types of variables. In line with Spinde et al’s linguistic studies, it’s useful to explore some qualitative aspects of BBC textual meaning and significance by putting the day-to-day linguistic tactics used by BBC journalists under the microscope. Adopting this fine-grained approach, text samples can be highlighted that display subtle nuances of insinuation, subtext and alternative meaning at play.
To this end, I’ve selected two sample articles from high-profile BBC journalists (Laura Kuenssberg and Chris Mason). Both concern Labour’s recent Spending Review delivered on 11 June. Kuenssberg’s right-wing bias has been noted elsewhere; but it’s instructive to take a dispassionate look specifically at her editorial style. The observations here aren’t generalisable to all BBC news articles, but do represent common trends.
Little digs
A right-wing emphasis in much of Mason’s writing is evident in his Spending Review account. He informs us that the numbers in the presentation were delivered:
“After plenty of words about the government’s priorities”
This wording sounds innocent; but in ‘plenty of’ there’s a quiet allusion to ‘empty words’. This, in turn, signals suggestively that the government fails to fulfil promises. It’s a gentle, ambiguous insinuation but the first step in Mason’s veiled drip-feed of discreditation.
He goes on:
“We can expect ministers to claim that much of what it has done in its first year in office has been about fixing the foundations. This is code for the tricky stuff”.
Again, this sentence sounds carefully neutral. But “claim” takes it uncomfortably close to the aspersion that “ministers are pretending to have fixed the foundations”, the convenient invisibility of which explains a seeming lack of progress. So does the subsequent reference to “codes about tricky stuff” which additionally insinuates that truths might be being concealed from us.
Similarly, Kuenssberg wields her knife deftly where her article begins by describing:
“Huge fights inside government about the Spending Review”
Competitive tension over the departmental allocation of resources is inevitable. But the inflated notion of “huge fights” serves a different purpose by conveying a ‘rats in a sack’ vision of Labour as internally unstable and damagingly disputatious.
What train crash?
At this juncture, both writers could pause to outline the unprecedented hurdles facing Labour. But the BBC rarely explores the enormity of Labour’s train-crash legacy or the deep conundrum of presenting a positive future whilst attempting to resuscitate a nation devastated by 14 years of austerity.
Labour’s spending task is to allocate funds across systems such as courts, prisons, the NHS, education, policing, social care, mental health, benefits, housing, special educational needs, migration, defence, councils, transport and further education, all comprehensively trashed and all gasping for life-saving injections of funds. Labour is squaring this circle on a nation stuck in an economic doom loop of protracted low living standards and growth.
This is not in any way to ignore how astonishingly and worryingly tin-eared some of Labour’s first year cuts were. However, the spending review could have been a ‘balancing’ moment for journalists, one that also acknowledged some of Labour’s successes, together with the fiscal miracles required by any governing party in 2025.
Hyperbole and innuendo
Instead, Mason moves straight to reminding readers forcefully about Labour’s unpopularity, describing the “whack suffered”, a “rare” descent from its “whopping” majority sending it “a long way backwards”. Labour’s popularity has declined since coming to power. But there’s an added dimension of unseemly relish here in Mason’s lavish iterations.
This hyperbole sounds gratuitously added to remind readers about ‘how disliked the party is’ and to keep them negatively disposed towards the aims of the spending review.
Kuenssberg’s account is similarly laced with phrases that stealthily mock and impugn Labour’s aims. The Treasury is:
“Already trying to convince the public the review is about significant investment … Reeves boasted of funnelling billions more taxpayers’ cash … You can bet they’ll want to use every chance they have to say they are spending significantly more than the Tories planned”.
Kuenssberg could simply have said the review concerns significant investment. But the preface “already trying to convince” gives the sentence multiple new layers of meaning. “Trying” implies possible motives of desperation and deception. The phrase “try to convince” implies resistance and likely failure. And “convince” is itself loaded. It means ‘to make someone believe that something is true’ or ‘persuade’. Common synonyms are ‘cajole’ and ‘wheedle’.
“Boasted” lends Reeves a Truss-style egocentric rashness, whilst “already” implies that Labour habitually pushes Kuenssberg’s insinuated deceptions onto the public.
Kuenssberg could also have stated simply that Labour plans to spend more than the Tories. But her preface ”You can bet they’ll want to use every chance”, overlays her exposition with a tone of fevered gossip that undermines Labour’s competence and intentions, painting it again as desparate (”needing every chance”) and predictably opportunistic (“you can bet”).
Sweet micro-aggressions
Kuenssberg’s wily castigations continue: “Frankly Sir Keir Starmer arrived in government without having worked out what he really wanted to do.” “Maybe”, she adds with poisonous cod-optimism, “the idea of this lacklustre government that didn’t have a plan will be blown away by July?“
Damning defeatism then ensues: the “rosy view of how the chancellor might be able to play a difficult hand … might not be reality.” Along the way, she takes further potshots at Reeves as a chancellor in whom city confidence is both “diminished and diminishing”.
She ends with a final stab at Labour’s insufficiency: “A senior Labour source said, Wednesday will be ‘the moment this government clicks into gear, or it won’t’. There’s no guarantee.”
Here Kuenssberg’ journalistic use of overblown cliff-hangers is framed by negativity. Her chosen source lends her sentence authority whilst portraying Labour as still not functioning properly (clicked into gear), and whose odds for success are essentially precarious.
The voice of authority
Why is this kind of bias particularly destructive?
The analysis presented is just a tiny snapshot of the steady, daily injection of anti-left-wing nuance that pervades much BBC news output, the subtlety of which helps it evade detection. In the articles considered, emotive hyperbole, insinuation and ambiguity isn’t mere journalistic licence to keep readers engaged. These devices are doing considerable extra work in portraying Labour as incompetent, unstable, untrustworthy, weak and dysfunctional. Taken individually the phrases look innocuous, but they contribute to setting a tone, across articles, topics and time, that is cumulatively formidable.
The right-wing gutter press wears its prejudices on its face and its dangled red meat is easily spotted. Whereas the subtlety of BBC bias makes its influence far more insidious and far-reaching. Beyond the spending review, a similar tone of muted discreditation features in the BBC’s coverage of other issues now rendered ‘infamous’ such as Labour’s ‘U turns’, EU and migration policies. Since BBC news is consumed by 68% of UK adults and is our most popular news source, its subtle editorial flow of anti-left bias has immensely powerful reach.
This, in turn, raises the question of whether BBC anti-leftwing nuance plays a self-fulfilling role in Labour’s low polling. When articles relentlessly insinuate in veiled language that a party is incompetent, deceptive, disliked, uncontrolled, this ‘attack drip-feed’ spreads into the political water supply, working its way into public reaction and the polling data. The result arguably, is partly an outcome of the BBC’s own powerful reach in ‘nudging’ public perceptions – its commentaries on Labour’s low popularity become reflections on a predicament significantly of its own making.
Equally concerning is that anti-left nuance in BBC news content is masked by its lingering but seriously outdated reputation for impartiality. This reputation amplifies the assault on the left by creating a presumption of accuracy and fair play which excuses consumers from scrutinizing what they read.
Much more independent in-depth research is needed on BBC news content. In the meantime, it’s unlikely the BBC will reform itself, but I hope this article will at least raise awareness of some of the micro tactics behind this ‘revered voice of authority’.
Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
.jpg){kind=link}