Comment

The BBC and Medialens: a match made in heaven?

Michael Barker

For the past six years, the media watchdog, Medialens, has been regularly drawing the British public's attention to the role the liberal media (i.e. the Guardian, the Independent, and the BBC) plays in preserving the status quo. They suggest that this is possible because the so-called liberal media create an illusion of media 'neutrality' which they note 'often serves to hide systematic pro-corporate bias' (see Alex Doherty 'Propaganda and the BBC,' February 7th 2005, www.zmag.org). This has meant that a large number of their regular media critiques (which they call Media Alerts) have deliberately focused on bankruptcy of the BBC's media coverage.

Traditionally, the BBC and its staff would simply respond to Medialens' critiques discretely by email and that would be that - although these replies were then often incorporated into another Media Alert, or posted on Medialens' website. But recently the BBC has (partially) broken its media blackout of Medialens existence, and has even begun to speak positively of their work (through their website at least). BBC Newsnight editor Peter Barron wrote in November 2005: 'In fact I rather like them. David Cromwell and David Edwards, who run the site, are unfailingly polite, their points are well-argued and sometimes they're plain right'. That said, Peter was not too happy that Medialens encouraged their readers to criticise the BBC (one of their main purposes) - a process he refers to as 'One of Medialens' less ingratiating habits'.

In a recent article on bloggers, BBC news correspondent Paul Reynolds highlighted Medialens as a 'blog' that to its credit 'does seek debate'. While clearly not a glowing reference, it is a veiled recommendation none the less. Although worryingly Paul goes on to say that he has found that he has 'rapidly develop[ed] a very thick skin' to criticism: not really a very healthy response to criticism.

In April 2006, Newsnight even invited Medialens to participate in one of their programs: an invitation that Medialens chose to decline, for obvious reasons. This led to a number of email exchanges, which prompted Newsnight correspondent, Paul Baron, to describe Medialens as a 'very helpfully [sic] critical watchdog of media bias' on his BBC blog, although he went on to question why Medialens thought they should not appear on Newsnight.

Earlier in the year, Paul Reynolds also quotes Richard Sambrook, head of the BBC World Service and Global News Division, saying that 'The BBC should proactively engage with bloggers'. Indeed, the BBC could certainly enhance its accountability to the public if it actively engaged in an open debate with external critiques from organisations such as Medialens. However, this budding relationship between the BBC and Medialens would most likely blossom if the BBC offered Medialens thematic instead of episodic media coverage. Perhaps to start with, Medialens critiques of the BBC could be placed alongside the relevant news stories on the BBC's website. This would allow the BBC's online readers to judge for themselves whether the BBC is adequately fulfilling it democratic role as a major news provider for the British public.

Now is the time for the BBC to prove its democratic credentials to its British and global audience. How can the BBC expect politicians to accept and engage with criticism, if they themselves, the lifeblood of our democracies, maintain that they (as the guardians of democracy) are above criticism?