Blast from the past

Further to my previous post about media bias.

From 1985 to 1990 I was director of the Media Monitoring Unit which was founded by political campaigner Julian Lewis (now MP for New Forest East) with the support of former Labour defence minister Lord Chalfont.

The aim of the MMU was to highlight serious and persistent cases of political bias on British television which in the Eighties featured several high profile current affairs programmes, Panorama (BBC1) and World in Action (ITV) being the best known examples.

It's difficult to appreciate now, when there are so many channels and heavyweight current affairs programmes are either non-existent or exiled to the graveyard slot, but 35 years ago flagship programmes like Panorama and World in Action were not only broadcast in prime time, they could be hugely influential and make headlines in their own right. (Remember 'Death On The Rock' broadcast by This Week?)

Anyway, as I've mentioned before, the MMU generated a considerable amount of press coverage. We annoyed the broadcasting establishment (BBC, ITV and Channel 4) and our annual reports prompted front page headlines including my favourite: 'YES! THE BBC IS BIASED'.

We bowed out in 1990 with a short but damning analysis of the Today programme (commissioned by the Daily Express) but independently, in 1989, I also researched and wrote a report called 'Smoke Out: How the quality press covers the smoking debate'.

Published by the short-lived Centre for Media Research and Analysis which I set up in the vain hope of running a commercial operation alongside the MMU, the 120-page report came to the (shock!) conclusion that the media was biased in its coverage of the smoking debate.

I still have a copy and the overall message hasn't dated at all. Here's a passage from the introduction:

It is always the hard cases and unpopular causes that best serve as a litmus test for media standards. Of course newspapers are perfectly entitled to adopt strong editorial opinions but that does not entitle them to distort facts or ignore one side of a debate in order to justify those opinions. If the quality press is unable to inform its readers of the facts and the arguments on both sides of a debate it is no better than the tabloids which it so often derides.

If the health lobby gets its way Britain could become a 'smoke-free zone' by the 21st century. In a democracy, however, before you ban anything it is surely right that you offer people as many of the facts and arguments as possible so they can make up their own minds based on the evidence before them. In a democratic process the media plays a vital role.

Smoke Out therefore is a critique not of scientists, doctors, nor even the politically active health or tobacco lobbies, but of journalism and newspapers. Smoking is not illegal and it is a matter of genuine debate whether the arguments against it on health grounds should outweigh the financial arguments in its favour, or whether the rights of smokers to indulge in a personal habit should over-ride non-smokers' preference for 'clean' air.

It is not for this report to say which view is right or carries more weight. What is important is that the press should portray fairly – even if it does not agree with – the conflicting arguments because ultimately the responsibility of a good reporter is to inform readers to the best of their ability without allowing personal judgements to take precedence. After all, if the rights and wrongs of any debate are so obvious the general public will draw their own conclusions based on the evidence and arguments that are put before them.

I concluded the report by writing:

It is clear from our analysis that standards of journalism have fallen well short of what is required for the fair coverage of a controversial issue. Analytical, non-partisan articles are extremely rare.

Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the smoking 'debate' has been conducted via a series of 'news' reports, the majority of which are simply the result of a press release or story handed 'on a plate' directly to the journalist or news desk concerned.

Alarmingly, the journalist is often prepared to accept such 'news' at face value. On relatively few occasions does he quote those who might be expected to hold opposing views. Since much of what passes for 'news' in the smoking debate is generated by those attacking smoking, the result is a 'debate' that is woefully one-sided in favour of the anti-smoking lobby.

The report also highlighted the major protagonists in the debate in the UK in the Eighties:

Principal spokesmen for the health lobby are the British Medical Association (BMA), the doctors' trade union; Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), a pressure group funded largely from the public purse; and the government-sponsored Health Education Authority (HEA), formerly the Health Education Council (HEC).

The tobacco lobby is represented by the Tobacco Advisory Council (TAC), representing the five major tobacco companies in the UK (BAT, Gallaher, Imperial, Philip Morris and Rothmans); and Forest, a 'libertarian' pressure group funded by the tobacco industry.

Regarding ASH, I also noted that:

Known to its supporters as the "most vociferous and experienced of the tobacco industry's opponents, though lacking the BMA's prestige and infrastructure" (Smoking Out the Tobacco Barons, 1986), critics complain that ASH are either busybodies, fanatics or, on occasion, both.

No change there then!

PS: From Julian Lewis’s website (Monitoring works, letter to the Telegraph, July 3, 1999):

I was co-founder (with Lord Chalfont) of the only media-monitoring unit ever to have produced effective, regular and comprehensive reports of the extent to which whole series of BBC and ITV programmes failed or succeeded in maintaining due impartiality on politically controversial subjects. I can therefore assure her that the job can be done at a very modest level of expenditure.

All it requires are one or two experienced analysts to produce clear results, based on substantial evidence. We did this repeatedly between 1985 and 1990 for an outlay equivalent to the salary of a typical party research officer.

The measure of our success was to be seen in the marked improvement in fairness shown by such programmes as Panorama during that period.

Dr Julian Lewis MP
Cadnam, Hampshire

See also: Pedigree of a TV watchdog (Daily Telegraph, November 26, 1986)

Update: In 1997, long after the MMU was wound up, our work considered to be done, Julian was elected Conservative MP for New Forest East.

Last year however he had the whip removed after he was elected chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee in preference to Chris Grayling, the Government's choice.

As it happens, I have just found a three-week-old report in his local paper, dated December 30 – New Forest MP Lewis welcomed back to Tories after being axed for committee rebellion.

I am delighted for him. There are very few MPs with his integrity and intellectual rigour and I can't think of anyone who is better qualified to be chairman of the intelligence committee.

One thing surprises me. Given the publicity the story generated when Julian was kicked out of the party six months ago, why hasn't the restoration of the whip been reported more widely?

To the best of my knowledge it's not been mentioned by a single national newspaper.