BBC balance

James Harding (Director [sic] of news) defends the BBC coverage of the referendum in the Observer today in an article revealingly subtitled '...don't blame us for Brexit'.That indicates the intended audience pretty clearly.

The general public liked the BBC coverage, Harding claims but notes some complaints from Brexiteers -- rather mild complaints it appears:

On the one hand, some Leavers have said the BBC reported impartially and accurately through the course of the campaign, but, since the vote of 23 June, we have returned to what they say are our true EU-luvvie colours and our reporting of the prospects for Brexit Britain has been gloomy or hysterical.

So no Brexiteers complained during the coverage? I know I did. Or some did but they are not to be mentioned? Harding says the BBC will report the debates in future with impartiality:

In the months ahead, our job is to understand what Brexit actually means – without relish or alarm.

 This is the attempt to pose as impartial after the event, as in Newsnight's coverage noted earlier. As for the recent past:

...inasmuch as the EU referendum was about the economy, it was about forecasts more than facts. It was not a contest of hard truths but an argument over whose predictions of the future you preferred. The BBC was abundantly clear that the overwhelming weight of expert economic opinion advised people to vote Remain. But the BBC, at all times, should be open to those who may challenge a consensus – not all such opinions stand the test of time. (And, for the avoidance of doubt, that does not mean any crank heretic can come along and think they can take a pop at a point of historical, scientific or social fact.)...

No one who watched the BBC during the campaign could have been left in any doubt that President Obama, the governor of the Bank of England, the IMF, OECD, IFS, CBI, prime minister, chancellor and, yes, both David Beckham and Jeremy Clarkson believed Britain should remain in the EU.

The bulk of the piece then focuses on Remainers's complaints. Here it is the issue of 'false balance' that is addressed -- the way opinions are given air time if they are false or wacky (as in climate denial -- an episode from which the Beeb learned about false balance says Harding). Harding is able to cite 5 examples of aggressive 'forensic' interviewing of Brexiteers in defence. One includes 

Kamal Ahmed on the 6pm and 10pm bulletins saying: “The economic consensus is on one side of this debate.” I could go on and on.

There are no examples of forensic interviewing of Remainers. The BBC was not open to those who may challenge the particular consensus that Ahmed announced. But then Harding only said it 'should' be open, not that it was.

The piece ends with the usual stuff that the BBC is not saying it is perfect and it will try harder in future. Having chucked its hat in the ring,no doubt speaking 'for the nation',  and got egg on its face (mixing metpahors), it now wishes to pose as detached expert again.

to report, to host the argument and to interrogate the participants. We aim to inform our audiences, not seek the approval of politicians or pundits.

There is no need to seek explicit approval, of course, if you share the same ideology.