Q: Why quote ASH and ignore opponents of ban on smoking in cars? "Why not?" says BBC
Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 13:20 I've just had a long chat with a journalist on the BBC News website.
Last week, while I was abroad, health minister Anna Soubry spoke in favour of a ban on smoking in cars carrying children. The BBC News website ran a report (Ban smoking in cars, says health minister) that included comments by Soubry, a supporting quote from ASH, the information that "A host of other health groups have also called for a ban in cars", but no hint that anyone anywhere is opposed to the idea.
Even in a mojito/daiquiri induced haze I was so disgusted that I sent the journalist concerned the following email:
Dear xxxx,
I was very disappointed to read your one-sided report 'Ban smoking in cars, says health minister' (26 February).
Apart from quoting the minister, you quoted a representative of the anti-smoking group ASH, which supports the move. For good measure you added that "A host of other health groups have also called for a ban in cars, including the British Medical Association and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health".
In contrast there was not a single comment from anyone opposed to the measure, nor even a suggestion that legislation to ban smoking in cars is a highly contentious issue that is opposed by many MPs.
Unforgivably, anyone reading your report would have been ignorant of the fact that there is any opposition to a ban on smoking in cars (with or without children present). For example, had you contacted Forest, not only could we have given you a direct quote ourselves, we could have given you the names and contact numbers of others opposed to the measure, including members of parliament.
I have been abroad this week but you could have contacted me by phone, email or text. If you had got voicemail you would have been given the contact number of my colleague Angela Harbutt. Similarly, had you called our Cambridge office (01223 370156) you would have been given Angela's number. (I have checked and there is no record that you called our office.)
As it happens Angela appeared on BBC Radio Two (Jeremy Vine Show). Opponents of a ban on smoking in cars were also represented on Radio Four (PM) by Mark Littlewood, director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and local radio stations so this complaint is directly firmly at you, and BBC News online, not the BBC in general.
BBC News online is read by millions of people worldwide. Like the BBC as a whole you have a duty to be impartial on matters of public policy. Ignoring one side of the debate (in the very week that a private bill on smoking in cars with children could receive a further reading in Parliament) demonstrates a disturbing lack of impartiality.
In fact, bias by omission is so serious that I would be grateful if you or one of your colleagues could respond to this complaint and explain why no-one from BBC News online contacted Forest (or, it seems, any other group or politician) for a comment opposing a ban on smoking in cars.
I finished by asking for an "assurance that in future you will report smoking-related issues (especially those that involve the threat of legislation) in a far more even-handed way".
The email was sent on Friday. As of this morning I still hadn't received a reply, hence my telephone call.
I got a fair hearing but this is not the first time I have had to call the online news desk to complain about BBC bias and it won't be the last, I'm sure.
If there was one jaw-dropping moment it was when I asked why the report included a quote from ASH but didn't include a single comment from anyone opposed to a ban on smoking in cars with children.
"Why not?" came the reply.
Why not, indeed.
You can be certain of one thing. Had I not called the BBC this morning I would still be waiting for a response to my complaint.
PS. I have just emailed the BBC as follows:
Thanks for speaking to me this morning. Can you confirm that my complaint has been registered and that it has been brought to the attention of the news desk?
I'll let you know if I get a reply.
Update: I did.
Reader Comments (6)
Hope you had a good trip Simon.
I have to say that while most presenters seem to be impartial, today I debated on BBC Radio Humberside, Professor John Britton on passive smoking. Someone tweeted to me who heard the show "You against two was hardly a fair fight was it? :) The Prof didn't seem to relish a challenge either....... "
Anyway I am waiting for the recording of the show and people can make their own minds up.
Please do keep us informed. There is a reason the BBC is meant to be impartial.
Splendid challenge, Simon. As for the question 'Why not?', it illustrates the extent to which social engineering and propaganda have debased and diluted the concept of impartiality and the moral imperative to exercise it, whatever one's own views.
Maybe when he said "why not" he genuinely didn't know.
BBC News. The UK State News Service by any other name.
The BBC's attitude to smoking it the same as their attitude to climate change and global warming. The science is settled and there is a consensus so they do not have to handle the opposite point of view.