This week the director of editorial policy at the BBC admitted on Twitter that journalist “overstepped the mark” when it came to reporting on Brexit. David Jordan, BBC editorial director, told the House of Lords digital and communications committee, that journalists had significant issues around “tracking the rise of Euroscepticism”.
The group that monitors Broadcasting has put together a complaint saying: “Considerable bias by omission, with central issues ignored or under-reported, and EU news afforded low priority and downplayed”
The group even pointed out that there was “systematic and long-term under-representation of anti-EU and Eurosceptic guests voicing their opinions.”
Former BBC News producer revealed that even as far back as 1999 Pro-EU voices had more airplay and favours in interviews compared to those with a eurosceptic stance. This stance by the BBC on being out of touch with majority opinion has seen calls for the license to be decriminalised and has motivated group who want the end of the license fee (Defund the BBC).
The claims made by the Broadcasting watchdog said: “the case for withdrawal from the EU was heavily ignored or presented very narrowly, often through the prism of divisions within the Conservative Party, or through focusing primarily on perceived problems within the withdrawal camp.”
“The argument for leaving the EU, when linked to immigration issues, has been routinely projected as xenophobic, racist and ‘extreme’.”
Continued: “The BBC so-called Reality Check unit was not impartial on this issue and in many ways became a vehicle for expressing remain or anti-withdrawal opinion.
“The core of the Complaint supported by recent case-law is that the BBC has wrongly interpreted its obligation of ensuring ‘due impartiality’ and as a result has breached its long-standing Charter obligation ( which goes back to at least the Television Act 1954).
“Rather the BBC is obliged to proceed by identifying the main strands of opinion within the public discourse and give each a fair opportunity to be heard so as to provide ‘a level playing field for competing views and opinions so that those views and opinions are expressed, heard, answered and debated’.”