BBC balance and banality

Some Remainers are still cross, some even in denial. Keegan in the Guardian is still in denial, still insisting the referendum was only 'advisory', that accepting the result would be 'craven' and a disregard of the sovereignty of Parliament (surely the oddest argument of all from an EU admirer). He feels bad personally as people he meets on holiday in Europe laugh at him --maybe he needs to meet more people because even the BBC now manages to meet a few Brexit supporters. He is predicting long-term crisis despite the recent optimism about the UK economy

Catherine Bennett in the Observer is still hurt too. She still thinks it was all based on the £350 m per week 'lie' and Gove's  appalling rejection of expert economic advice -- even from Nobel laureates she points out.

This time she crystallises another theme that has been bubbling under -- the BBC's responsibility for not exposing these lies. 'Balance' is not enough, she says, if a lie is allowed to balance a truth. One example is when creationism is given equal time with evolutionary theory.

There are obvious problems here:(1) Bennett sees the case for Brexit as a lie, deserving no exposure or ruthless critique --but not the case for Remain. Luvvies will determine what is a lie? (2) Balance,what balance? Brexiteers were routinely slagged off and yelled at on the BBC, especially if they were not professional politicians (3) Experts to be allowed full rein,especially if they have prestigious prizes?

Nevertheless,there is a grain of sense in what Bennett says.The BBC has played its part in dumbing down debates and patronising the audience, 'enabling an often asinine level of argument', as she puts it. The experts that appear tend to be asked to speak in soundbites, to adopt different positions so as to have a lively debate,and to turn into arm-waving enthusiasts. Some people are introduced as experts even though their credentials are dubious -- Bennett mentions Steve Hilton who suddenly appeared as a Brexiteer.

Interviewers are allowed to be populists, to take sides and to demand simplification. If they are specialists in anything these days, they are not expected to reveal this. They often ask experts to comment on things outside their expertise too --notoriously what other people might be thinking. They freely summarize and simplify for us thickos.

As a result we get 'balance' between two artificially contrasted sides, not allowed to explain anything without rapid interruption,expected to 'communicate' in the apprpriate BBC manner,and likely to have their 'debate' preceeded and followed by some trivial item about a new rap star, a chatty interview with a novelist or a review of an exhibition available only to Londoners