The BBC News service used to be the gold standard in terms of impartiality and thoroughness. It could be believed above almost any other site. The legacy of Lord Reith was its independence from government pressure. Whilst The World Service still lays claim to such high standards, the domestic news has suffered greatly over the past decade.

What the Cliff Richard story shows is that standards have fallen. There is an emphasis on celebrity and scandal above serious stories. Viewing figures have become more important than integrity. This is a move towards the lowest common denominator rather than a guarantee of quality. In chasing after that story the corporation has done damage to itself and British journalistic standards. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44963548

Then there is the unwillingness to report anything which might cause the government position on any subject to be called into question. It seems the BBC is so frightened of what might happen to the license fee that it approaches any story concerning the government with kid gloves on.

Most worrying to me is the growing habit of false equivalence in reporting stories. A news story appears and experts are called to discuss it. One side has 99.9% of all expert opinion behind it while the other has one person pushing what is almost certainly a false opinion. Yet each are given equal billing. What then happens is that the BBC has allowed misleading and dangerous opinions to be given equal weighting to properly researched and peer reviewed positions. This is the View from Nowhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere

The most egregious example of balance recently was a radio news story about the Electoral Commission sending evidence of Vote Leave being responsible for multiple and gross breaches of electoral law to the police. The story had been leaked by Vote Leave before it was officially released, on the morning after an England football World Cup win. The brief comment on the story was followed by a statement from an ex-chair of Vote Leave saying that they would be appealing, and couched in the terms that were meant to show that the Electoral Commission’s judgement was a mere opinion rather than a judgement.

If the opinion of Vote Leave was required it should have been done as part of a detailed interview, where the spokesman should have been seriously challenged. It should not have appeared in the headlines. It was allowing a criminal to challenge the validity of their arrest and trial. This is the opposite of balance, this is allowing the PR of the criminal to be given unchallenged publicity. Whoever was acting as news editor should be sacked, now.