I am with you that the BBC needs to find the “best obtainable version of the truth” and needs to be impartial. I am with you that you should broadcast things I may disagree with as well as things I agree with. /1
The bit I find troubling is the two Brexit related examples you give and the words you use which manifestly are not the “best obtainable version of the truth”.
You say it is not a fact that sovereignty remains unaffected by the UK’s membership of the EU and point to the existence of debate on the issue in support of your position /3
Why then did this Government, the one implementing Brexit, say in February 2017 that the UK Parliament has always remained sovereign during our membership of the EU? /4 assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Now you may disagree with what being part of the EU means for the UK but it is true that Parliament has remained sovereign. Indeed the fact it has chosen to leave the EU is proof of that. /5
So if that is the position, those claiming EU membership was a loss of sovereignty need to be challenged on it. /6
The other example you give is it is a “debating point” that we control our borders when people from the EU27 can come here “freely”. /7
The other point you make is that it is a “debating point” that we control our borders when people from the EU27 can come here freely /7
Except that is not the “best obtainable version of the truth”. It is loose language on technical points. This may be nit picky and difficult but it is your job to present the points clearly and when you don’t then it creates a perception of bias /8
To break it down. The UK has control of its borders. It is outside Schengen. Even a well known person like you will have to show your passport when you come into the UK. That is border control /9
The concept of free movement is something the UK has agreed to as a member of the EU. But it does not mean EU27 can come to the UK “freely”. /10
They still have to show their passports - because we control our borders /11
They may be entitled to come to the UK but directive 2004/38 sets out the conditions they have to meet /12 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex…
The entitlement to come here is not an unfettered right - it is conditional. And if the conditions to that entitlement are not enforced, that still does not justify the word “freely”. /13
Or if you think it means “freely” you need to explain what you mean by freely - eg the UK not applying the conditions. Because that would be the truth. Indeed the best obtainable version /14
So that is why there is frustration. Because the language you use is imortant. It may not be easy to get right but your article defending the BBC itself shows the problem. /15
Of course some people may not like free movement and that should be debated. But using the term “freely” suggests some bias. And the question then is that intentional or not /16
It may not be but the task then is to be precise however boring that may be. Because ultimately that is what will help the BBC be considered the impartial well regarded institution it is /17
And when the BBC says it is impartial but uses loose language and then chooses to cover Nigel Farage throwing dead fish into the Thames but not thousands marching up and down the country who oppose or wish to mitigate the impact of Brexit, it does not look impartial /18
Especially when on the same day the BBC covers a march in another country. Both marches are significant and newsworthy. But not reporting one of them looks questionable /19
