Mike's Minute: The BBC scandal shakes the roots of journalism

I'm trying to work out what the ratio would be. 

How much squeaky clean, beyond doubt, rock solid truth would the BBC need to deliver to offset the one gargantuan cock up that has seen the Director General and Head of News quit? 

Or in this day and age, where doubt and mistrust is so high, is it a futile exercise and the damage is permanent? 

Like all these stories you can dilute its seriousness – the Panorama programme wasn’t actually made by the BBC, it was a contract company, so was the bias external not internal? Obviously I am clutching at straws. 

Does a resignation mean the organisation is no longer biased, or perceived as biased? I would have thought not. 

How do you prove inherent bias? Which is an ongoing charge not just at the BBC but a number of public broadcasters all over the world. 

I cited the Radio New Zealand example yesterday, out of the boot camp report, their headline read the conclusion was of a ‘rushed’ exercise. 

That wasn’t the conclusion. It was an observation, not a conclusion. But even if you argued the observation was a conclusion, that would mean there were many conclusions. Why pick that one when there were positive ones to choose from as well? And is that inherent bias or just a busy journo looking to publish a story? 

Are we the punter inherently biased and therefore whatever we see and we don’t like must be biased? 

The BBC bit is of course indisputable. It's not about inference or emphasis, it is about making something seem real which factually wasn’t – they made it up. 

Why would you do that unless you had an agenda? Why would the BBC not spot it? Too busy or too biased? 

The Culture Secretary said now more than ever the need for trusted news is essential to our cultural and democratic life. Which is what they say when they have carnage to deal with using taxpayers' money.  

The BBC were already booked in this week, ironically, for a parliamentary inquiry into their coverage of trans rights and Gaza, cementing in many people's minds what they already suspected. 

My summation is basically: it's over. The jury is in, the verdict is guilty, and the people are always right. Whatever the media might once have had by way of respect and trust is largely, if not completely, gone.  

And two resignations cemented any remaining doubt. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now I'm trying to work out what the ratio would be.

(00:03):
How much squeaky clean beyond doubt, rock solid truth would
the BBC need to deliver to offset the one gargantuan
cock up that has seen the Director General in the
head of News quit Or in this day and age
where doubt a mistrust is so high, is it a
futile exercise and the damage is basically permanent? Like all stories,
you can dilute its seriousness. I mean, the Panorama program
wasn't actually made by the BBC, It was a contract company.

(00:25):
So was the bias external not internal? Obviously I'm clutching
it straws here. Does a resignation mean the organization is
no longer biased or perceived as biased? I would have
thought not. I mean, how do you prove inherent bias anyway?
Which is non going charge not just at the BBC
but a number of public broadcasters all over the world.
I mean I cited the Radio New Zealand example yesterday
out of the boot Camp report. Their headline read the

(00:46):
conclusion was of a rushed exercise. That wasn't the conclusion.
It was an observation, not a conclusion. But even if
you argue the observation was a conclusion. That would mean
there were many conclusions. Why I pick that one when
there were positive ones to choose from as well? Is
that inherent bias or just a busy journalist looking to
publish a story? Are we the punter, inherently biased and
therefore whatever we see we don't like well must be biased.

(01:10):
The BBC bit is, of course indisputable. It's not about
inference or emphasis. It's about making something seem real, which
factorally wasn't. I mean, they made it up. Why would
you do that unless you had an agenda? Why would
the BBC not spot it? Too busy or too biased?
The Culture Secretary said, now more than ever, the need
for trusted news is essential to our cultural and democratic life,

(01:33):
which is what they say when they have carnage to
deal with using taxpayers money. The BBC were already booked
in this week, ironically, for a parliamentary inquiry into their
coverage of trans Writes and Gaza, cementing in many people's
minds what they already suspected. My summation is basically, it's
over the juries and the verdict is guilty and the
people are always right. Whatever the media might once have

(01:54):
had by way of respect and trust, is largely, if
not completely gone, and too resign cemented any remaining doubt.
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast listen live to
News Talks at B from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio