Posts
A BBC TV News report on 14 February 2018, led by Kamal Ahmed,
the powerful BBC Economics Editor, attempted to show that EU GDP growth was outstripping
that in the UK with the clear inference that, economically, the EU would be
better off remaining in the EU. I was
outraged by the careless use of statistics which seemed to me to have been
selectively manipulated to derive the desired editorial conclusion. I complained to the BBC under the category of
“Bias” and citing inaccurate EU export figures and selective statistics as the
basis for my complaint. This is what I
said:
“Kamal Ahmed claimed “nearly 50% of our exports
go to the EU” on the BBC News on 14 Feb 18. According to the House of commons
Library, in 2016, UK exports to the EU were £236 billion or 43% of total
exports. The EU may, overall, be “our largest trading partner,” but that
statement does not mean that the majority of our exports go there – the
majority of our exports go to trading partners outside the EU (and this trend
is increasing). I believe you should have made this clear. Ahmed then went on
to lard up his message displaying a graph to show a comparison of GDP growth
between UK and the EU from about 2007 to the present. The pattern displayed
correctly showed the rate of growth diverging in favour of the EU over the last
couple of years. This apparently reinforced the BBC’s consistent editorial line
that leaving the EU will be an economic disaster. However, had he shown a
growth comparison over a more statistically significant period, the graphic
would have portrayed exactly the opposite to his preferred interpretation. In
fact, between 1980 and 2007, just before the crash, the average annual growth
rate was 2.1% for France, 1.6% for Germany, 2.4% for the Netherlands, and 1.8%
for Italy. Meantime, growth in the UK averaged 2.4%. If you extend the period
to 2012, the six original signatories of the Treaty of Rome grew at only 1.6%
compared to the UK at 2.0%. Finally, as the graph did show, by the end of 2013
the UK was recovering strongly from the crash whilst the EU continued to
languish behind. The source for these figures is “The Trouble with Europe” by
Roger Bootle. Sadly, and to the detriment of the education of their audience,
these statistical inconveniences appear to have been overlooked by Ahmed and
the rest of the BBC editorial staff. In the interests of impartiality and
balance, I expect the BBC to publicly acknowledge and correct the misleading
impression they have given.”
Nearly 6 weeks later, the BBC have favoured me with a reply,
a lot of which is an apology for their delay in replying. This is what they said:
“Thank you for contacting us about
‘BBC News at Ten’ on February 14.
First of all, we’d like to offer
our sincere apologies for the delay in responding. An admin error at our end
led to the delay in you receiving an answer. We’re sorry you had to wait and
appreciate that it prompted you to get in touch again recently in CAS-4846842.
We’re offering our first reply here – thanks for bearing with us.
You raised concerns about the
range of dates chosen for the business analysis on EU exports. As you pointed
out, Kamal mentioned that “nearly 50% of our exports go to the EU” – so we
didn’t suggest that it receives a majority of the UK export trade.
We appreciate you felt the
overall picture was misleading and that a different angle could have been
offered, if the data had been handled differently.
The latest report from Eurostat
was clearly sourced and was the context of this latest development – given that
it had been ten years since both areas responded to the crash of 2008. That was
the timeframe and scope, with no intention to pose a negative angle – we’ve
featured a range of statistics, expert statements and commentary on policy
which look at the pros and cons of different Brexit scenarios for the UK
economy. We hear a range of outlooks over time, though we realise you feel this
was a missed opportunity to tell a different perspective.
We hope this explains the
approach – please be assured that your original points were made available at
the time to relevant BBC News staff and senior editors. Audience reaction
informs our ongoing work and we’ll continue to look at the financial impact of
the Brexit agreement in due course.
One again, we’re sorry for the
unusual delay and appreciate you taking the time to make your concerns known.”
You may agree that the BBC has completely overlooked my
claim of bias by manipulating statistics.
You may also agree that their patronising put-down, “we hear a range of outlooks
over time, though we realise you feel this was a missed opportunity to tell a
different perspective,” betrays the virtuous self-righteousness of the BBC
editorial position on Brexit. In the topsy-turvy
world of the BBC, it is me, the complainant, who is out of step with opinion
and, since my views are by their definition “extreme,” they may, apparently, be
ignored in the debate. I consider that
the BBC is in contravention of its own editorial guidelines and shall be
appealing to the BBC Trust accordingly.
I should be most grateful for any comments that may assist
my crusade?
