COPY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO BBC
AND REFERRED TO IN THEIR REPORT 'EU IMPARTIALITY', 2004
euimpartiality@bbc.co.uk/helen.nice@bbc.co.uk
To: Ann Sloman and members
I believe that the five members of the committee contain two eu-philes and two eu-sceptics. I do not know the exact stance of Nigel Smith and Rodney Leach but as the Chairman and principal progenitor of the 'NO' Campaign to save the £, whose slogan was "Europe Yes, Euro No", it is reasonable to conclude that their views would be eurosceptic and not eu-withdrawal.
Indeed, the theme of this submission is that too often the BBC sees the contest as between eu-philes and eu-sceptics. Eu-scepticism contains a range of opinion on reforming the EU, taking some of the powers of the EU back to the nation states or opposing further political integration. Nevertheless eu-sceptics and eu-philes share a belief in, and acceptance of, the main thrust of the EU. It is also true that Westminster does not contain many eu-withdrawal MPs and, indeed, this is the reason for the existence of the UK Independence Party, to elect to Westminster MPs who are in favour of eu-withdrawal.
I would like to draw the committee's attention to the MORI sequence of polls going back to 1978. This asked, at regular intervals, the question: "If there were a referendum now on whether Britain should stay in or get out of the European Union, how would you vote?"
Since 1990 the NO's have always scored at least 40% in this poll and, since 1999, around 50%.
Bob Worcester is the head of MORI and, of course, advised the Labour Party in its strategy in the 1975 referendum. He also, for a long time, believed that Britain would enter the euro after the 2001 election when a referendum would give consent. He, therefore, can only be considered at least friendly to the eu-phile position. Nevertheless he is also a professional.
He has written regarding the 2001 election:
"Undoubtedly the Tories were hampered in establishing Europe as an issue on the agenda by the apparent acceptance by much of the media of Labour's argument that eurosceptic positions - ruling out joining the Euro for ever, especially ever contemplating leaving the EU - were 'extremist'. On several occasions during the Parliament, we and other pollsters, produced polls finding a narrow plurality saying they would vote to leave the EU if there was a referendum. On each occasion it was met with virtual incredulity.
Media memories can be short when the facts do not fit the preconceptions and the next time it happened it was the same story over again. It was almost as if we had produced a poll showing that the British through the world was flat.
Most of the public keep an open mind in the European issue; we're not sure every journalist does."
[Note: The MORI sequence of polls and Bob Worcester's comments come from his book "Explaining Labour's Second Landslide" published in 2001 by Politico's]
My own view is not that there is a 'conspiracy central' ignoring the views of the British people and forcing a prepared pro-EU stance in every programme.
What Bob Worcester refers to as the 'incredulity' of the media may be due to the sourcing of recruitment of broadcasting staff, their social and political milieux, the heavy London and professional class bias of media activities, all cutting the media off from contact with the 50% of British electorate who are pro-eu-withdrawal. Therefore a wider selection of broadcasting staff and programme participants is required to give balance.
I believe there are three problems which are the source of the inadequacy of the BBC to reflect the views of the half of the British people who express a withdrawal view.
The first of these I have already alluded to. It is the confusion between eu-sceptic and eu-withdrawal. It must be emphasized that, for example, the Conservative Party is not an eu-withdrawal party. Michael Howard, John Redwood and others have repeatedly gone on record on this.
The second is that main news programmes are dominated by Westminster-based correspondents who rarely meet eu-withdrawal MPs, if ever.
The third reason is that there is a great deal of ignorance among the media as to the influence of the EU. Indeed, the question of 'Europe' is put in a separate box apart from issues of domestic policy.
"This consistently overlooks a vast range of other major policy areas which there is presumably little point in discussing because they are now run by 'Europe'. Consider the areas where we are no longer free to make our own policies, because 'competence' has been handed over to Brussels. They include the full range of environmental issues, from water and air pollution to waste disposal; fisheries; employment and business law; agriculture (including such issues as genetically modified organisms and foot and mouth); public health; health and safety; food safety; weights and measures; consumer protection; rules governing every kind of manufacture and food production; international trade policies. The EU now has huge influence over regional policy including the breaking up of the UK into regions; transport policy; allocations of scientific and defence funding; public purchasing; collection of statistics; macro-economic policy including budget strategy and general tax policy such as VAT rules; 90 percent of our foreign policy; Britain's overseas aid programme and, increasingly, judicial and police matters." [Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph] (Booker may not be right in every instance but he is generally correct.)
Among recent issues which are EU driven, but where EU influence is rarely mentioned, are:
- the cutting of fishing quotas;
- the 'fridge' mountain;
- the spending review with its explicit targeting of the Maastricht criteria of debt not being over 40% GDP and a 3% maximum Budget deficit;
- Regionalisation. The attempt to set up an assembly in the North East;
- the high price of food caused by EU membership in 'rip off' Britain and its disproportionate effect on the poor and pensioners. Somehow this never gets mentioned in 'poverty' programmes.
- ID cards.
The most useful action would be for higher standards to be imposed so that every news story on domestic policy is traced back to its origination. In many cases, this will be shown to be EU driven. Care should be taken in training, in briefing materials and in programme preparation, to understand the sources of the consistent 50% pro-eu-withdrawal showing in opinion polls. There should be more contact with, and featuring of, eu-withdrawal advocates. Selection of stories has been very poor with endless Westminster-based items on Conservative Party "splits" while many of the critical areas, such as the relative future shrinkage of the EU, the demographic crisis in some of the EU states, and the huge fiscal and political problems of the unfunded pensions in major EU states, never explored. In general, the BBC's covereage of the EU issue has been weak and superficial.
The email address of the committee is 'euimpartiality'. I am not clear if it is the BBC's aim to be 'impartial' on Britain's continued membership of the EU. If it wants to be impartial in the sense that it reflects, in news stories and media appearances, the steady 50% of the electorate who wish to withdraw, then it is far away from this.
[EVIDENCE GIVEN BY ANTHONY SCHOLEFIELD ON BEHALF OF THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY and emailed 28 December 2004 13:30]
FUTURUS/28 December 2004
To: Ann Sloman and members
I believe that the five members of the committee contain two eu-philes and two eu-sceptics. I do not know the exact stance of Nigel Smith and Rodney Leach but as the Chairman and principal progenitor of the 'NO' Campaign to save the £, whose slogan was "Europe Yes, Euro No", it is reasonable to conclude that their views would be eurosceptic and not eu-withdrawal.
Indeed, the theme of this submission is that too often the BBC sees the contest as between eu-philes and eu-sceptics. Eu-scepticism contains a range of opinion on reforming the EU, taking some of the powers of the EU back to the nation states or opposing further political integration. Nevertheless eu-sceptics and eu-philes share a belief in, and acceptance of, the main thrust of the EU. It is also true that Westminster does not contain many eu-withdrawal MPs and, indeed, this is the reason for the existence of the UK Independence Party, to elect to Westminster MPs who are in favour of eu-withdrawal.
I would like to draw the committee's attention to the MORI sequence of polls going back to 1978. This asked, at regular intervals, the question: "If there were a referendum now on whether Britain should stay in or get out of the European Union, how would you vote?"
Since 1990 the NO's have always scored at least 40% in this poll and, since 1999, around 50%.
Bob Worcester is the head of MORI and, of course, advised the Labour Party in its strategy in the 1975 referendum. He also, for a long time, believed that Britain would enter the euro after the 2001 election when a referendum would give consent. He, therefore, can only be considered at least friendly to the eu-phile position. Nevertheless he is also a professional.
He has written regarding the 2001 election:
"Undoubtedly the Tories were hampered in establishing Europe as an issue on the agenda by the apparent acceptance by much of the media of Labour's argument that eurosceptic positions - ruling out joining the Euro for ever, especially ever contemplating leaving the EU - were 'extremist'. On several occasions during the Parliament, we and other pollsters, produced polls finding a narrow plurality saying they would vote to leave the EU if there was a referendum. On each occasion it was met with virtual incredulity.
Media memories can be short when the facts do not fit the preconceptions and the next time it happened it was the same story over again. It was almost as if we had produced a poll showing that the British through the world was flat.
Most of the public keep an open mind in the European issue; we're not sure every journalist does."
[Note: The MORI sequence of polls and Bob Worcester's comments come from his book "Explaining Labour's Second Landslide" published in 2001 by Politico's]
My own view is not that there is a 'conspiracy central' ignoring the views of the British people and forcing a prepared pro-EU stance in every programme.
What Bob Worcester refers to as the 'incredulity' of the media may be due to the sourcing of recruitment of broadcasting staff, their social and political milieux, the heavy London and professional class bias of media activities, all cutting the media off from contact with the 50% of British electorate who are pro-eu-withdrawal. Therefore a wider selection of broadcasting staff and programme participants is required to give balance.
I believe there are three problems which are the source of the inadequacy of the BBC to reflect the views of the half of the British people who express a withdrawal view.
The first of these I have already alluded to. It is the confusion between eu-sceptic and eu-withdrawal. It must be emphasized that, for example, the Conservative Party is not an eu-withdrawal party. Michael Howard, John Redwood and others have repeatedly gone on record on this.
The second is that main news programmes are dominated by Westminster-based correspondents who rarely meet eu-withdrawal MPs, if ever.
The third reason is that there is a great deal of ignorance among the media as to the influence of the EU. Indeed, the question of 'Europe' is put in a separate box apart from issues of domestic policy.
"This consistently overlooks a vast range of other major policy areas which there is presumably little point in discussing because they are now run by 'Europe'. Consider the areas where we are no longer free to make our own policies, because 'competence' has been handed over to Brussels. They include the full range of environmental issues, from water and air pollution to waste disposal; fisheries; employment and business law; agriculture (including such issues as genetically modified organisms and foot and mouth); public health; health and safety; food safety; weights and measures; consumer protection; rules governing every kind of manufacture and food production; international trade policies. The EU now has huge influence over regional policy including the breaking up of the UK into regions; transport policy; allocations of scientific and defence funding; public purchasing; collection of statistics; macro-economic policy including budget strategy and general tax policy such as VAT rules; 90 percent of our foreign policy; Britain's overseas aid programme and, increasingly, judicial and police matters." [Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph] (Booker may not be right in every instance but he is generally correct.)
Among recent issues which are EU driven, but where EU influence is rarely mentioned, are:
- the cutting of fishing quotas;
- the 'fridge' mountain;
- the spending review with its explicit targeting of the Maastricht criteria of debt not being over 40% GDP and a 3% maximum Budget deficit;
- Regionalisation. The attempt to set up an assembly in the North East;
- the high price of food caused by EU membership in 'rip off' Britain and its disproportionate effect on the poor and pensioners. Somehow this never gets mentioned in 'poverty' programmes.
- ID cards.
The most useful action would be for higher standards to be imposed so that every news story on domestic policy is traced back to its origination. In many cases, this will be shown to be EU driven. Care should be taken in training, in briefing materials and in programme preparation, to understand the sources of the consistent 50% pro-eu-withdrawal showing in opinion polls. There should be more contact with, and featuring of, eu-withdrawal advocates. Selection of stories has been very poor with endless Westminster-based items on Conservative Party "splits" while many of the critical areas, such as the relative future shrinkage of the EU, the demographic crisis in some of the EU states, and the huge fiscal and political problems of the unfunded pensions in major EU states, never explored. In general, the BBC's covereage of the EU issue has been weak and superficial.
The email address of the committee is 'euimpartiality'. I am not clear if it is the BBC's aim to be 'impartial' on Britain's continued membership of the EU. If it wants to be impartial in the sense that it reflects, in news stories and media appearances, the steady 50% of the electorate who wish to withdraw, then it is far away from this.
[EVIDENCE GIVEN BY ANTHONY SCHOLEFIELD ON BEHALF OF THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY and emailed 28 December 2004 13:30]
FUTURUS/28 December 2004