Bias and the BBC
Friday, February 7, 2014 at 8:57 
On BBC Breakfast this morning.
The clip doesn't show the whole item but it's laughably one-sided.
Funnily enough, when the media storm about smoking in cars broke last week I discovered that BBC Breakfast was planning to interview someone from the British Lung Foundation on his own.
"That doesn't sound very balanced," I said.
"Don't worry," I was told. "The presenters will play devil's advocate. It will be fine."
I wasn't happy and made my views known. Eventually they invited me to go up to Salford so I could go head-to-head with the BLF.
I wouldn't expect to be invited back so soon but the result of having just one side of the debate in the studio is there for all to see.
And no sign, from this clip, of the presenters playing "devil's advocate".
It's pure propaganda which the BBC has quickly posted online, unlike last week's more balanced interview featuring me and the BLF.
See: Smoke effect '11 times worse' in enclosed spaces
See previous post for more media reports about smoking in cars carrying children.
Reader Comments (5)
The BBC output on health is shamefully biased and frequently factually inaccurate. The bias is obvious, massive and reason enough to seriously question the corporation's ethics. It is very influential but utterly irresponsible in its approach to this subject. Effectively it is a mouthpiece for extremist public health views and favoured charities, which unfortunately include the political wing of CRUK and the loonies at WCRF. It is a national disgrace that is in my view undermining the morale of the nation. There is hardly a day goes by without the BBC ratcheting up some public health scare and blaming it on the population courtesy of spin doctors and activists.
I'm on BBC News at 6pm and 10pm on Monday. The interview will be pre-recorded so the BBC may cherry pick it out of context but saying something is better than not being heard at all.
Spot the mistake!
I had to adjust the volume on this because his voice was so butch.
So, Peter Mackereth is a ‘tobacco specialist’ at the Christie Hospital. Let me imagine then, he’s not a Dr or clinician or an epidemiologist. In which case what expertise about smoking in cars could he possibly bring to the table?
I’m sure you’ve all spotted the obvious discrepancy between his words and those of Shadow public health minister Luciana Berger, who quotes in an interview for the so well balanced BBC on the 29th January, the figure of 23 times more toxic etc. I’m sure you also remember Dr Douglas Noble from the BMA's public health committee, whose stunning figure was a whopping 27 times etc.
Since Mackereth and Berger were both interviewed on the BBC you would have thought that such a glaring difference in figures would have been picked up by our cardboard cutout ‘devils advocate’ Charlie Stayte on BBC Breakfast. It has to be said neither he nor Susanna Reid are capable of asking searching questions, particularly on this issue at least.
PS What is a ‘tobacco specialist’?
Surely if there is blatent editorial bias in a BBC news item you are entitled to complain to the BBC Trust aren't you?
It was the same from me and ITV. They asked me to appear this morning and instead just asked me for a statement from me to be read out.
"When you are legislating for the consumption of a legal product in a wholly owned private space, it is a matter of grave concern from a civil liberties point of view. What then would stop the government banning smoking in the home?
What next, the state expelling pupils for having Mini Cheddars in their lunch box?
The 23x "factoid" that a car can contain more toxins than a bar has been often repeated in the last few weeks. We would have more confidence in the medical establishment if they got their facts right.
“CORRECTION TO BMA briefing paper: Smoking in vehicles… is 23 times greater... THIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH: "Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle could be up to 11 times greater than that of a smoky bar”.
http://web.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wall/7250F86A0A0F03348025794B0058F590?OpenDocument
It is not as if parents are not behaving responsibly.
University College Dublin and its Public Health studied 2,230 cars coming in and out of Dublin and found “Eight adult passengers and just one child were observed as being exposed to a smoking adult driver.”
Just one. The figure would be zero if it was an electronic cigarette.
Holden Pearmain on behalf of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association surveyed 1,000 smokers and drivers. They found that 76% did not smoke in the car with children and 11% would ask.
How five hundred thousand children are exposed is a figure illusionist Derren Brown could only conjure up.
This is just another waste of taxpayer's money spent on unneeded laws just so smokers can be bullied, denormalised and made social outcasts. Any other minority subject to this level of discrimination would be rightly condemned.
Orwell's 1984 was a warning not an instruction manual."