On September 24th, the BBC reprimanded newscaster Naga Munchetty for overstepping the broadcaster’s editorial guidelines. The reprimand came in response to Munchetty “deviating” from a neutral standpoint after a segment of BBC Newshour hosted a supporter of Donald Trump to defend comments the US President had made to four sitting congresswomen – Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Priestley and Rashida Tlaib. Trump tweeted:
Three of the four congresswomen Trump targeted were born in the United States. Ilhan Omar is a naturalized citizen, and came to America when she was a baby. She has no memories of Somalia. Trump’s grandfather was a German, and he himself is married to a Slovenian wife.
However, they were women of colour, and therefore it’s easier for Trump and other white people who find it acceptable to express those sentiments to use the “go back to your country” line.
Trump also express belief in and propagated the Obama birth citizenship conspiracy theory in 2011, demanding that Obama present his birth certificate. It should be obvious to everyone that the man currently sitting in the White House is a racist. However, other racists – who seek to mask their racism in palatable discourse, play the language of obfuscation and, on occasion, red-baiting.
Sometime after the segment, Dan Walker expressed incredulity that the president of the United States could make such statements publicly, providing an anecdote on a person – likely a woman of colour – who said that in her experience, “go back to where you came from” comments were a regular experience but she has never been told by the POTUS prompting Naga Muchetty to concur and agree with those sentiments in this exchange:
Munchetty: “…And every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go home, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism. Now I’m not accusing anyone of anything here, but you know what certain phrases mean.”
Walker: “Are you still told that, do you hear it quite regularly?”
Munchetty; Yes. Well, not as regularly, but I have been told it.”
The BBC Twitter page on July 17th 2019 posted a tweet of the segment, presumably for its followers to consider the strength and seriousness of the discussion – presenting it as a watershed moment. However, the BBC received a complaint from a viewer who saw the presenters comments as a breach in its neutrality, reading:
“Blatant political bias from both presenters. Dan Walker, whilst interviewing a guest about President Trump’s recent tweets regarding 4 Democrat politicians in the USA, repeatedly expressed incredulity that anybody could defend Trump’s tweets. Very unprofessionally, he then asked his fellow presenter Naga Munchetty for her personal opinions on this news story! She foolishly complied with his request and launched into an attack on Trump, including that she was personally furious with his comments.
These two presenters have never made any secret of their left-wing and anti-Trump bias but usually in more subtle ways, such as eye-rolling and looks of exasperation when reporting on news stories. However, personal commentary on controversial news stories is surely going too far and is outside of their remit. They are employed as presenters not political commentators and as such, should at least feign impartiality. It’s about time they were reminded of this.”
The complaint surely came from a reactionary and a racist. The reason why I make this charge is that the basis of their complaint was a personal anecdote of one of the presenter’s personal experiences of racism, and the dog-whistles that were used in them. In other words, the discussion wasn’t about Trump. It was about how Trump, or others use dog-whistle terms.
It’s about the term “go home”/”go back to where you came from”. The segment is about the degree to which Trump and his support base understand that expressing those sentiments convey a racist and xenophobic worldview. Trump supporters and indeed, the person who issued a complaint in this instance – often perform mental gymnastics and display cognitive dissonance in defending these comments if they understand that racism is objectionable – but the very person they support acts and says things that are racist. I once ended a friendship with someone who failed to explain how Trump can’t be a racist (I gave him the trap of proving a negative proposition) – one claim he made was that Donald Trump was previously married to a Mexican woman (which was false) and he gave unsourced opinion pieces.
The complaint charged Walker and Munchetty with attacking Trump, which they didn’t do, and instead danced around the elephant in the room, to protect BBC’s commitment to “neutrality”. The evidence for “left-wing bias” as “rolling eyes” in segments the person was unable to provide as examples. It suggested that Munchetty was acting foolish in giving a personal account of her experience of racism in response to a comment of Walker’s, and charged that Munchetty was personally furious with Trump, even though she gave no such personal view of Trump, and even refrained from naming anyone she thought was a racist. She said Trump’s comments were racist. Which they are. The complaint therefore is from a reactionary and a racist, who like many racists – is more concerned with the “r-word” (racism) on his/her/their TV than tackling racism.
However, the BBC apparently thought that a complaint from this racist was enough to take seriously, presumably to protect its image of neutrality. Its Executive Editorial Complaints Unit came to the ruling that Naga Munchetty overstepped her boundaries, and breached its guidelines, issuing a reprimand of her conduct. Dan Walker received no such punishment. This speaks to a wider issue in which people of colour, particularly women of colour being vocal about discrimination and the prejudice they experience working in the media industry. Much of BBC’s staff rallied to the support of Naga Munchetty, with some even arguing that the Editorial Complaints Unit was filled with old white men, who do not understand what those comments signal to people who navigate life as an ethnic minority. Management even told its staff to refrain from tweeting support of Munchetty.
However, on 27th September 2019, an open letter to the BBC was published by the Guardian, expressing its solidarity with Naga Munchetty and demanding it overturn its decision to censure her. The letter was signed by over 60 BAME figures of the entertainment and media industry, including Lenny Henry, Afua Hirsch, Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Ayo Akinwolere. The saga also provoked commentary from Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid, and Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn in Munchetty’s support. The political pressure exerted forced the BBC to rescind its censure on Munchetty.
While for some this does issue questions on confidence of the BBC’s impartiality, particularly if its pressured to rescind a decision it has made, for me it confirms one clear fact – the BBC is not, and never has been, impartial. The editorial line of the BBC is in line with the hegemonic discourse of those with power – caters to those with power, and goes out of its way to mollify frustrated right-wing cranks. There is a reason why Nigel Farage – a persistent critic of BBC’s “left-wing bias” has appeared over 30 times on BBC Question Time. Authors who complain about the “left-wing bias” of the broadcaster, have a high-chance of appearing on their station. Complaints about the BBC being “anti-business” is the reason why it stopped broadcasting union strikes, in favour of business reports – even in the early morning. All the better for business elites flying over to the UK to get their dose of information relevant for them. It will not report on Sisters Uncut or for the London Renters Union.
The BBC is not neutral. The BBC did not replay the late Darcus Howe’s comments on the 2011 London riots – and Fiona Armstrong even went as far as to suggest he was “no stranger to riots” (She offered a public apology). This is victory, but a small victory in a much wider struggle in reporting in public broadcasting – the mildest and most personal accounts of racism by one of its flagship presenters can quickly get shutdown by the BBC because it’s more concerned about maintaining its illusory of balance and giving way to rightist gripes than defending its own staff. It decided to pull rank because it felt that for more far-right guests and enablers to use its platform, it would have to punish its own, and what better than an uppity black woman talking about racism?
A truly leftist media platform cannot occupy these corporate mouthpieces “to change from within” – a counter-narrative is required to investigate the issues affecting the marginalised in society – this in of itself would represent a critique of media discourse in the UK. Novara Media seems to be a good example of this criteria, but it’s early days. Bias is everywhere, and every mouthpiece has it. The BBC’s attempts to hide its bias in response to a right-wing griper is far more insidious than any extremist media outlet.
See also:
- The BBC and neoliberalism (coming soon)
- Darcus Howe and the BBC (coming soon)
- “Neutral news sources” (coming soon)
- Ideological warfare (coming soon)
- Stuart Hall’s How to Read the Media (coming soon)
- A history of Black people in broadcasting (coming soon)
- How to tell if someone is a racist (coming soon)
- What right-wingers perceive as far-left (coming soon)
Because It Doesn't Affect You 