BBC closes door on newsreaders in Muslim veils

 Add your view

Making news: BBC executives debated Fiona Bruce's decision to wear a cross

Judging by some of the headlines over the past week, there are people out there who think the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

Like all the best conspiracy-theorists, though, they don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. But let's put the myths and rumours to one side and take a quick reality check.

The BBC does not object to newsreaders wearing small religious symbols, whether crosses, crescents or Stars of David.

But we do not believe it would be appropriate for a newsreader to wear a veil over the face, not because we favour one religion over another but because we believe it would distract from the presentation of the news.

Some papers argue that the BBC is systematically biased against Christianity and in favour of Islam. Again, it's hard to square that with the facts.

When the controversy blew up over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, we decided that, without anything like full publication, we had to show enough of the cartoons for our audiences to be able to understand the story.

As a result we showed rather more than any British newspaper did. How did the Press react to this decision? It accused the BBC of 'irresponsibility'.

The BBC has a duty to celebrate and reflect Christian life and belief in this country in programmes from Choral Evensong to The Convent.

Many of those who work for the BBC are practising Christians (I'm one of them). We also have a responsibility to celebrate and reflect other religions and belief systems, including non-religious ones.

To do both requires creativity and fair mindedness, but by enabling audiences to encounter and understand other faiths potentially benefits everyone. But some newspapers purport to see political correctness in all BBC actions and reactions.

When Richard Hammond had his accident, several papers were certain that PC BBC bosses would insist on the immediate cancellation of Top Gear. Do we take health and safety seriously on Top Gear as on other BBC programmes? Of course, and, despite inevitable jokes about form-filling, can you imagine the outcry if we didn't? We are anxious to learn any lessons we can from the enquiries into Richard's crash.

But it's ridiculous to suggest that Top Gear somehow gets broadcast despite the BBC. It's a programme we're incredibly proud of and we know that exhilaration - and yes, risk - are part of the reason for its success.

I've never met a BBC boss who wants to ban Top Gear. And if I ever do, I'll show them the door. As a viewer, I'm not sure I can face life without it.

But a DG who loves Top Gear - or A Seaside Parish for that matter - doesn't fit the stereotype of an utterly politically correct BBC and is therefore air-brushed out of the picture.

So too are Jeremy Clarkson, Libby Purves, John Humphrys, Terry Wogan and Ian Hislop and all the other patently politically incorrect broadcasters with whom the BBC's schedules are full.

The headlines over the past week largely arose from a seminar organised by the BBC's governors. The way it was covered is itself very instructive.

The seminar was an attempt to have as open a dialogue as possible about the question of impartiality and some of the editorial dilemmas which the BBC faces daily.

Several papers insisted the seminar had taken place at a 'secret location' or reported revelations from 'a leaked memo' about its deliberations.

In fact the seminar was open to external participants and many outside guests took part. Far from being secret, it was streamed live on the internet.

The seminar included a number of sessions in which people inside and outside the BBC discussed hypothetical stories and issues. It was a handful of remarks in these 'what if' sessions that sparked the headlines.

But they were just that - off-the-cuff remarks during a free-ranging discussion. They were not, and were never intended to be, a statement of official BBC editorial policy.

Now you might ask if it isn't rather foolish to discuss difficult and sensitive editorial dilemmas in public, knowing that anything anyone says can be attacked in the Press? I believe the BBC has a duty to open up these questions to public debate.

Goodness knows, we're not perfect and some of the issues we face - the role of religious symbols and religious dress is a good example <\<>- are challenges across British society.

The reporting of the seminar has also served to highlight more general concerns about the BBC and bias, and in particular the charge that the BBC is institutionally and systematically skewed to the Left. Here too it's worth trying to disentangle myth from reality.

I've worked with BBC colleagues who have later stood as MPs for all the major parties. There is a far broader range of political and religious perspectives inside the BBC than the 'liberal' myth would suggest.

Perhaps more importantly, every new BBC recruit learns very quickly that, whatever their personal political view of the world, they have to hang that up with their coat when they arrive for work in the morning.

Impartiality is not a state of grace - it has constantly to be striven for. And there is always room for improvement. I do not believe conscious or malicious bias is a major problem at the BBC. Unconscious bias - based on ignorance or a blinkered view of the world - sometimes is.

In the 1990s, for instance, the BBC's coverage of business often seemed to be negative and redolent of the labour relations which dominated the Seventies and Eighties. Profits were sometimes announced as if a minor crime had just been perpetrated against the public.

I believe we've made real progress since then. Our current business editor, Robert Peston, leads a team of correspondents who understand business better and are keen to share their enthusiasm with the public. Programmes like Dragons' Den and The Apprentice may have their critics but they clearly celebrate enterprise and innovation.

When I joined the BBC as DG, I thought our coverage of Europe was deficient. There was too little - and too much of what there was tended to view Europe through the lens of Westminster politics.

By the stopwatch, Eurosceptics may have had their share of the debate but there was too little curiosity about the different shades of sceptical opinion and too little seriousness given to those who believed that the right thing for the UK to do was to leave the EU altogether.

We've responded by appointing Mark Mardell in the new role of Europe editor, by delivering more consistent coverage of the work of the European institutions and by exploring the views of UKIP and other shades of Eurosceptic opinion more regularly and thoroughly.

This is what impartiality feels like in the real world of broadcasting: a thoughtful response to justified criticism, a painstaking and professional attempt to improve output in a particular area.

The British public aren't easily fooled. When the BBC gets it wrong they contact us in their thousands. Some do worry about political bias. But there's no evidence that they give any credence to the idea of vast liberal or PC conspiracies.

On the contrary, when it comes to trustworthiness, they give us the highest rating of any British media organisation.

We live in what feels like bewildering, perhaps dangerous times. We are all confronted with uncomfortable questions and difficult trade-offs - for instance between individual freedom and the needs of society as a whole.

Not surprisingly, a national broadcaster like the BBC finds itself constantly under the microscope. It's more important than ever that the BBC lives up to the highest standards of accuracy, impartiality and open-mindedness in its programmes.

 

What's on today   What's on tomorrow

Receive our newsletter