BBC editor had cheek to say The National is ‘propaganda’

It was difficult not to conclude this when listening to BBC Scotland’s economy and business editor, Douglas Fraser, on a recent edition of The Media Show.

There, he described the publication you’re currently reading, The National, as having a “strong propaganda approach to supporting independence”, adding that it “makes some waves politically through its propaganda”. 

“Like most papers, The National has a political stance,” as your understandably aggrieved editor Laura Webster put it.

“Where is your disdain for the right-wing, pro-Union ones, Douglas?” And here really is the fundamental point.

READ MORE: BBC Scotland editor brands The National 'propaganda' multiple times

In the independence referendum, for example, almost every single Scottish newspaper actively supported No, even though nearly 45% of the Scottish people opted for Yes.

Here is just one example of the democratic deficit in the British media. Would the BBC have described, say, The Daily Mail as “propaganda”? Indeed, while the corporation has no qualms in stigmatising and deglitimising progressive opinions, the same standard does not apply to the right-wing media ecosystem which dominates across the UK.

During the referendum campaign, Scottish trust in the BBC plummeted. This is hardly, as we will see, a phenomenon specific to north of the Border. But on a UK level, we have one of the most partisan right-wing newspaper industries in the Western world.

They are overwhelmingly owned by extremely wealthy moguls who have a vested interest in defending an economic and social order from which they personally profit, from low taxes on the well-to-do, to anti-union laws.

Rupert Murdoch was a keen flag-waver for Thatcherism for a reason, and relished being able to use anti-union laws to smash striking printers in the Wapping dispute back in the 1980s. We are told we have a free press: sure, our government doesn’t own newspapers – we are not North Korea, though our ambitions should be rather higher than that – but instead our media outlets are often mere playthings for rabidly right-wing businessmen.

Most newspapers have a long tradition of not only editorially endorsing the Conservatives, but actively campaigning for them. That involves monstering those deemed to be obstacles to their partisan ends. Jeremy Corbyn was all but presented as the spawn of Lucifer himself.

(Image: UK Parliament)

Look at how Ed Miliband was monstered for the crime of eating a bacon sandwich, or how his dead father was traduced. Gordon Brown was torn apart for a condolence letter written to the grieving mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan because of poor handwriting – he is visually impaired.

Trade unions may be the biggest democratic movement in the country, but they are largely ignored, or demonised when they’re mentioned at all, their democratically elected leaders disparaged as “union barons”.

According to polls, political positions such as increasing taxes on the rich, public ownership of utilities, public investment and improved workers’ rights have overwhelming public support, and yet most newspapers disparage such views as ludicrous and extreme.

Take the genocide in Gaza: polls consistently show that most believe Israel has committed war crimes, that there should be an immediate arms embargo, and that Benjamin Netanyahu should face arrest for war crimes: yet, again, such views are marginalised and denigrated.

Instead our newspapers actively campaign for, say, cuts to public services or reducing taxes on the well-to-do as if that is simply economic common sense from which we all benefit.

From The Sun to The Daily Mail to The Telegraph, these are newspapers which overtly and unapologetically politically campaign. If this is not propaganda, then what is?

But when did a BBC journalist last dismiss such a newspaper for propaganda?

What is even more egregious is that the BBC’s output is shaped by such newspapers. It is an open secret that the corporation frames much of its own reporting priorities around the main headlines of the British press. That means that these right-wing newspapers – and their propaganda – have an outsized influence in the BBC’s own coverage.

Alas, that does not include The National: more’s the pity, given this newspaper should be applauded for rightly calling out the egregious crimes committed by the Israeli state against the Palestinian people, and the BBC has monstrously failed in that regard

It is noteworthy that in 2003, 81% of the public trusted BBC journalists to tell the truth: that has now collapsed to just 38%.

The BBC sometimes claims that it is criticised by both sides, and that shows it is neutral. This is a logical fallacy – neutrality is not determined by how much criticism is received from different viewpoints.

Rishi Sunak was criticised from the right – for example, by Nigel Farage – and from the left – for example, me. Does that mean he is in the “centre”?

The reality is we have an aggressively right-wing media industry which regards anything but the most full-throated right-wing zealotry to be unacceptable, and use their dominant position to police the BBC’s output – with much success, it must be said.

That the BBC attacks The National in a fashion it would never dream of doing with the right-wing press – well, that tells its own story, as the BBC continues to promote what should rightly be described as right-wing propaganda.