The BBC is determined to paint a picture of enthusiastic royalists

Another YouGov poll conducted two weeks earlier showed only 15% were ‘very interested’. With no more than 15% enthusiastic about the forthcoming parade, you might think the media would be reflecting on why this is, and what it means for the future of the monarchy.

It might be reasonable to expect the indifferent and those opposed to the monarchy to have their views widely expressed through our national broadcasters, particularly the BBC. You might also expect the BBC to step back, to deliver coverage which is entirely impartial and independent.

Yet if you watch the BBC’s coverage of the coronation it carries on regardless, determined to paint a picture of a nation of enthusiastic royalists gearing up for a national celebration. 

READ MORE: Humza Yousaf: Attempts to thwart diplomacy 'undermine devolution'

Over recent weeks I’ve had BBC producers on the phone, saying that they want to show that “not everyone” is celebrating. When I point out that their framing of the question is back-to-front, that those not celebrating are in the majority, a point which should be reflected in their report, they go quiet and I don’t hear back from them.

Support for abolition of the monarchy is now over 30%, up from a typical 20% in previous years. Yet inclusion of republican voices remains an afterthought, a last-minute attempt at “balance”.

At the time of the jubilee last year, the BBC’s website carried more than 400 celebratory stories and just one about the republican opposition, which led with criticism of Republic’s campaign. So far its coverage of the coronation shows all the signs of business as usual.

A culture of deference toward the monarchy appears to be hardwired into the BBC and it’s time that changed. I’ve written to David Jordan, the BBC’s director of editorial and policy standards, strongly condemning its royal coverage. I met Jordan 12 years ago, after we wrote to him criticising coverage of the 2011 royal wedding.

The BBC promised to achieve balance “over time”. More than a decade later, we’re still waiting.

Yet it’s not just a matter of balance, but one of impartiality.

Not every royal story needs a republican voice, but at all times the BBC must report with impartiality and detachment. With royal reporting it fails spectacularly.

Part of the problem is the sheer volume of royal coverage, reporting on every trivial detail of the coronation and the comments and engagements of the royals, regardless of legitimate news value.

And that coverage is entirely sympathetic. The BBC barely made mention of protests at recent engagements, such as the Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey last month.

Instead it reported the King’s speech at length, without any critical assessment of what he said.

The same was true of the King’s attendance of the Maundy service in York, playing down opposition and focusing on promoting the line issued by the palace press operation. All broadcasters routinely make use of so-called royal experts, who are almost all royalist and will always put the most positive spin on their questionable analysis.

As often as not, that analysis is nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking, and when it comes to the more serious issues such as charges of royal corruption, funding and the role of the monarchy in our constitution they are usually out of their depth. Very rarely the BBC invites more impartial or thoughtful analysis. Where royalist commentators are introduced as “experts”, implying their views hold a certain value, this isn’t the case with republican commentators.

BBC collusion with the Palace is commonplace. David Dimbleby, speaking late last year, said that during the coverage of the Queen’s funeral the Palace was sending minute-by-minute instructions to the BBC on what footage could be re-used. This is a direct attack on the independence of our national broadcaster, but as ever the BBC simply rolled over and complied.

The result of this collusion and complicity in promoting the monarchy is that the BBC does not hold the monarchy or the monarch to account; it does not accurately reflect public opinion; it routinely misleads the public and misrepresent the issue and they exclude the views of millions of people around the UK.

Given that republicans and those who are largely indifferent or apathetic – when combined – form a clear majority in the country, the result of the BBC’s coverage is to serve the interests of a shrinking minority – around 15% – who could reasonably be called royalists. In doing so they do a disservice to the whole nation.

I put the BBC’s failures down to a cultural bias and a lack of awareness rather than conspiracy, but there are determined and conscious efforts on the part of some to ensure the BBC sells the royal line, not least from the Palace itself.

READ MORE: BBC accused of lack of impartiality in royal coverage

That they attempt to control and manipulate our national broadcaster speaks volumes about the monarchy and how vulnerable to criticism they are. That the BBC allows itself to be used and manipulated by the Palace speaks to a wider failure in the corporation, one that needs to be addressed with some urgency.

Graham Smith’s new book Abolish The Monarchy: Why We Should and How We Will is out on June 1.