Sometimes even we are still surprised by the complacency and arrogance shown by elements of the BBC when dealing with important rural issues. To find condescension on a level anywhere near that shown by some within the hugely well-rewarded BBC elite, you have to go back to the Raj or the poorest administrators in what was the Belgian Congo. 'Take me to your Leader, my good man, and careful with the tiffin box' is the sort of level the BBC operates at.
A good friend understandably complained to the BBC about the appalling propaganda piece they recently produced on bTB, fronted by the old rocker Brian May. The response he got was revealing to say the least.
Let's start with the origins of the programme. Before it was aired the BBC was a little coy, and it wasn’t clear how much they had been involved. All we knew was that Brian and an independent production company had produced it, and the BBC was going to air it. Now, confronted with having to be honest, they make it clear that they were up to their necks in the programme from day one.
'The documentary, made by an independent production company for the BBC was a first-person piece authored by Sir Brian May.'
So there is no doubt. This is a BBC programme. It was made by an independent, but it was commissioned by the BBC. We were therefore right when we blamed them for the disgraceful nature of the programme. It was not something that was dropped on them unbidden, it was always a BBC project.
They go on to make clear that:
'At all times, the production team were aware of the need for the programme to comply with the BBC’s requirements on due impartiality, particularly on such a controversial issue.'
So not only are we now clear that it's a BBC programme, we now know that they consider that it was produced under their guidance, meets their standard of impartiality and is, as they say, a controversial issue. But they are also clear what the purpose of the programme was.
They state that:
‘To achieve due impartiality, a range of appropriate voices were included. A number of contributors were clearly critical of Sir Brian’s thesis that badgers were not responsible for Bovine TB.’
So the BBC were clear that Sir Brian's motive in producing the programme was to persuade people that badgers were not in any way involved in the transmission of bTB to cattle. That the old rocker and astrophysicist Brian May thinks that a huge body of science and epidemiology is completely wrong is hardly surprising, but that the BBC knowingly gave him an hour of prime-time TV to promote his unscientific nonsense is not merely surprising, it is shocking.
They continue to explain how wonderful their unbiased approach had been:
‘Its purpose was to reflect a sensitive and emotive issue in a responsible way. It featured numerous perspectives and voices in this debate, including farmers and scientists. Commissioned in 2018, the documentary shared discoveries and tragic stories, including one farmer who lost his entire herd to the disease – an insight into how devastating TB can be for the farming community.'
Strangely they forget to mention that as far as Sir Brian was concerned its purpose was mainly to get viewers to believe that badgers have nothing to do with transmitting bTB, that the badger cull was having no impact whatsoever on the disease and should be stopped immediately. This is strange because anyone who had a conversation with Sir Brian on this topic or had seen any of his previous statements would have been in no doubt whatsoever about what he wanted to get the viewers to believe.
Furthermore, when the BBC commissioned this in 2018, what sort of conversation did they have with Sir Brian that led them to think that a programme on the badger cull, fronted by the arch-opponent of the badger cull, would be a perfect example of unbiased impartiality?
But ah! None of this was a problem because:
‘At all times, the production team were aware of the need for the programme to comply with the BBC’s requirements on due impartiality, particularly on such a controversial issue.‘To achieve due impartiality, a range of appropriate voices were included. A number of contributors were clearly critical of Sir Brian’s thesis that badgers were not responsible for Bovine TB.’
This is of course disingenuous. The central thesis was put to none of the 'appropriate voices'. Their involvement was merely to create an impression of impartiality. The BBC makes television programmes. We just watch them, but that does not stop us understanding how they try to cook the books.
If the central thesis was, as the BBC now admits, to promote Sir Brian's long held view that badgers have nothing to do with passing bTB to cattle, surely any reasonable and intelligent person would have thought it sensible to find out what the scientists and vets who consider that badgers do transmit bTB to cattle thought of his idea? And more importantly, why?
During the 7 years that the programme was in production it should have been possible for a production team who were 'aware of the need for the programme to comply with the BBC’s requirements on due impartiality', to find someone of considerable scientific stature to answer the question. But instead they asked farmers in varying degrees of distress all sorts of questions – but never the right one.
Let us be very clear. In the countryside this is a very important issue. Bovine TB is ruining people's lives. Generations of animal breeding are being destroyed and a way of life, already under attack by militant vegans, is in danger of collapsing. People are killing themselves.
The BBC decided to pick a side. They decided to promote an opinion which is extreme even by the standards of the more rational elements opposed to the cull. They decided to use, as a means of promoting this extreme position, someone who is seen by the community directly affected by the appalling consequences of the disease, as one of the most unpleasant and vitriolic of the animal rights campaigners dedicated to stopping the badger cull at any cost.
The themes of the programme were:
1. Badgers play no part in the continuing transmission of bTB,
2. The badger cull was therefore achieving nothing in terms of incidence of bTB in cattle,
3. The primary reason for the persistence of bTB in cattle is that impacted farmers are operating at low standards of on-farm hygiene and are therefore largely to blame for the continuation of the disease.
4. The skin test is not fit for purpose.
No authoritative figure was permitted to address these questions directly. The farmers who were used to provide a screen of impartiality were in no position to address them and were not given the chance. Despite this, the BBC considers that the programme was impartial because it featured some farmers who were not asked the key questions, who were not scientists, and who were not permitted to understand the context in which their remarks would be used.
Any programme that sought to give a balanced and impartial view of a subject as sensitive as this is in the countryside would have provided an opportunity to challenge the key claims, not only because they once again blame the victims, but because they are demonstrably factually incorrect, and seen as embarrassing even by the more informed opponents of the badger cull.
The BBC is hampered in its assessment of the programme by its inability to see rural issues in the same light as mainstream urban and international ones. What they have done by giving Brian May an hour of prime-time BBC TV to promote his views on bTB can reasonably be likened to commissioning George Galloway to produce a programme on Gaza or Putin's war in Ukraine. In such an unlikely scenario, would the BBC consider that they achieved balance and impartiality by the use of a few people of a different point of view being chatted to about their suffering, but not being asked to address the key issues?
In such circumstances, it can be guaranteed that the BBC would insist that serious and informed people would be lined up to address the programme's themes directly and authoritatively. If that is the case when they deal with an issue they see as important and which they understand, why do they not operate the same standards for one of the most damaging issues in rural Britain, of which they know little?
If we return to the key themes of the programme. The BBC could have discovered very easily, had they bothered, that the central themes of the programme they commissioned were so dubious as to demand challenge.
1. To not allow a serious scientist to make clear that the science overwhelmingly demonstrates that badgers can and do transmit bTB to badgers, is akin to excluding Sir Chris Whitty from a programme about the evils of vaccination.
2. Similarly, allowing viewers no means of knowing that the incidence of bTB in cull areas is declining for the first time in decades and by over 50%, when the programme intentionally creates the impression that the cull has had no impact, would not be tolerated in any other context.
3. The idea that bTB can be eliminated by improved on-farm hygiene completely ignores the central question because May and the BBC cannot answer it. If two species both act as reservoirs for the same disease and share the same habitat, can you eradicate the disease by dealing with just one of those species?
Every informed person engaged in this problem knows that this is the central issue. Had the BBC taken any interest in ensuring that the programme addressed the topic impartially and authoritatively, they would have ensured that May had to explain how it could ever be possible to release bTB cattle onto pasture used by badgers excreting the bTB organism with no risk that the cattle would be infected.
To ignore the biggest question, as the programme does, and replace it with an unchallenged assertion is frankly shameful, and would be seen as such by the BBC in any other context. Would they allow George Galloway, or some anti-vaxxer the same liberty to avoid a key question? Of course not – but it's only farming, so who cares?
4. One of the great reveals of the programme is the 'discovery' that the skin test is not perfect, is therefore not fit for purpose, and largely prevents the successful eradication of bTB. This great discovery is nothing of the sort. No one has ever claimed that it is perfect, but what is beyond doubt is that it works well enough to enable the eradication of bTB. Any examination of the historical context of bTB in the UK demonstrates that, until bTB became endemic in the badger population, the skin test had enabled the almost total eradication of bTB in cattle across the UK. It is unclear if the BBC bothered to enquire about the historical context in which their programme claims were set, or whether they simply allowed the producers to ignore it. Either way, the result is the same.
Probably the worst element of the whole debacle is the idea that once again the victims are to blame. That this was the intention is obvious to any person with normal faculties, so we must assume that the BBC were happy with this outcome. According to the BBC, despite a mass of unequivocal scientific evidence, it is impossible for badgers to infect cattle. According to the BBC the problem is caused by the farmers themselves. If they were only more interested in hygiene there would be no bTB, no badgers would be killed, and everything would be lovely.
This is clever nonsense. Of course farms are full of the consequences of keeping large animals. Of course that sometimes results in transmission. Of course some places could be better. But farms are not operating theatres and never can be. Nevertheless, many of the farms operate at the highest practical levels of farm hygiene and still get infected by badgers. Even more tellingly, in the 50s and 60s, when farm hygiene was hardly discussed, but before bTB became endemic in badgers, we were able to eradicate the disease over all the country that was free of infected badgers.
So the BBC, the state broadcaster, is clear. Despite the evidence (the evidence that they excluded from the programme) the human victims of this massive tragedy are the cause of all their own troubles. Be in no doubt that this appalling victim blaming has worked. Only a few hours ago we saw this canard being promoted by some of the usual suspects on social media. Again picture this in a different context. Imagine a BBC programme on human migration avoiding the historical context or key facts, so as to put the blame for the problem squarely on the victims. Where is the difference?
The BBC response was as clear about what the programme was supposed to do:
'Its purpose was to reflect a sensitive and emotive issue in a responsible way.
If that was the purpose we have to say that by any objective measure it failed abysmally. The programme, for all its hand ringing and 'I just want to help', was as impartial as a 1930s film promoting a Stalinist Five Year Plan.
Bizarrely the only people who think that this was impartial are the BBC. Even Brian May must disagree or he would hardly have been involved at all. Are we really expected to believe that someone who is opposed to the killing of any animal and who has opposed the badger cull every step of the way was going to produce a programme that looked at the complex issues impartially? Why would he? Are we really expected to believe that the BBC genuinely thought that the old animal rightist was the ideal person to produce a programme to reflect a sensitive and emotive issue in a responsible way?
It is bad enough that the BBC produced a piece of propaganda masquerading as an impartial documentary. Now to see them defending the indefensible in their inevitably arrogant and patronizing manner, seemingly oblivious of the pain, offence and damage they have caused, is intolerable.
Comments