This is a guest post by Graham Smith, Executive Officer of Republic, a group which campaigns for a democratic alternative to the monarchy:
It has long been felt by a great many people in this country - not just republicans - that when it comes to the monarchy and coverage of the royal family the BBC fails in its duty to remain balanced and impartial. That's why Republic has this week written to David Jordan, the BBC's Director of Editorial Policy, to ask for a meeting to discuss the BBC's coverage of the monarchy in general and the royal wedding in particular.
Specifically, we have raised serious concerns about widespread and institutionalised bias in favour of the monarchy which is evident throughout the BBC's output, whether on air, in print or online - a bias which has the effect of excluding, offending, disparaging and marginalising a substantial section of the British public.
The basis for our complaint is that the monarchy is a contested and disputed institution. Ten to 12 million people in this country would support its abolition; polls indicate more than half of Britons want the taxpayer to stop funding the monarchy; other polls show a majority would prefer that William replace Charles as next in line to the throne; two-thirds want the palace opened up to more scrutiny.
Furthermore this is, by its very nature, a political institution. It is not a benign entity: it is a core part of our constitution and the power structures that exist in this country.
The BBC has failed to convey the diversity of opinion about the monarchy. It has presented the issue as being one-sided and implied that the whole country is excited about the wedding. It has covered the plans and expectations of monarchists (who in a sense are also a minority) while ignoring Republic and republicans.
The BBC's own guidelines state that editors must: "... apply due impartiality to all ... subject matter". Of course we don't expect to see a republican voice in every royal report, but every royal report must be balanced, the tone must be impartial and disinterested, and the content must reflect the monarchy's contested nature. The BBC could also make some effort to cover republican opinion and activity in a fair and balanced way, without resorting to clichés and stereotypes.
I believe one source of this problem is the BBC's failure to categorise the monarchy as a 'controversial issue'. I would stress that even without this categorisation our argument stands up and the Corporation's duty of impartiality applies. However, categorising this issue as controversial is not only appropriate, it would place greater emphasis on the need of editorial staff to ensure balanced and impartial coverage.
To press this point further, look at the BBC's guidelines on 'controversial subjects', which state:
"In determining whether subjects are controversial, we should take account of:
- the level of public and political contention and debate
- how topical the subjects are
- sensitivity in terms of relevant audiences' beliefs and culture
- whether the subjects are matters of intense debate or importance in a particular nation, region or discrete area likely to comprise at least a significant part of the audience
- a reasonable view on whether the subjects are serious
the distinction between matters grounded in fact and those which are a matter of opinion."
On most of these points, the monarchy seems to fit the bill:
The issue is regularly a subject of debate in the media and is certainly contentious. As noted above, opinion is clearly divided on the various issues around the monarchy. A number of MPs support the abolition of the monarchy, including Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party. Parliament has recently debated reforming the finances and secrecy of the institution.
The subject is often topical and there is clearly a need to be sensitive to the beliefs of the one in five people in this country who oppose the monarchy. The issue is clearly of a more sensitive nature in certain regions and nations of the country and carries important connotations within the context of various nationalist movements. Clearly it is a serious subject grounded in fact and opinion.
With a large section of the community believing the monarchy should be abolished, we are entitled to expect our national broadcaster to serve us as much as anyone else. Indeed, the BBC's coverage isn't just a disservice to republicans, it can also be argued that the whole community suffers when a serious issue is not dealt with appropriately and impartially by a trusted and respected institution such as the BBC.
So it is unfortunate that the sum total of the BBC's reporting gives a misleading impression of the monarchy, reinforces misunderstandings about its nature and its role in our country, suggests that all right-thinking and sensible people have positive feelings toward the monarchy, and fails to question or scrutinise those assumptions. The effect of all this is that a substantial body of opinion is marginalised and excluded by the BBC.
Republic is not alone in questioning the BBC's royal coverage: there is a widespread view that the BBC has a pro-monarchy bias, a view even shared by some of the Corporation's own distinguished journalists. Not least, apparently, Jeremy Paxman, who in 2008 accused the BBC of "fawning" over the royal family, adding that the BBC did not know whether to "report" or "celebrate" royal events. I would suggest that the job of the BBC is to report, yet instead it ends up celebrating.
And that is why Republic is seeking a meeting with BBC executives, asking for a review of royal reporting and a fairer, more balanced and more representative take on the issue of the monarchy.
