Wednesday, July 23, 2003

The Daily Mail, the BBC and the Right-Wing

One of the delights of being a member of Fitness First gyms is that you get a free copy of the Daily Mail each time you go. I have therefore on more than three occasions this year had the pleasure of reading it. Until now I've generally agreed with Ross Mckibben, who noted in the LRB, the best advice with the Daily Mail is to act like Stanley Baldwin, "never take any notice of the Daily Mail and, when stuck, publicly abuse its owner".


Reading it on a regular basis for the first time (at least since I was a child) has been a revelation (though I still agree with Ross McKibben).

First it appears pro-criminal. It is currently serialising some ludicrous diaries by an ex-prisoner (sample - Has there ever been a person in British history to be convicted before even seeing a policemen, let alone a court, sample II - I said call me Jeffrey or Lord Archer, never Jeff) who breaks all the rules, doesn't admit his guilt and yet thinks he's victim of some terrible miscarriage of justice.

Second, it is definitely pro-BBC, often slavishly. This extends not just to Stephen Glover, its media correspondent, but also to the leader column, which decribed the BBC as a 'great national institution', with a reputation for 'objectivity'. Yesterday it even uses a phrase something like public-spirited broadcasting at its finest.

This of brings us onto the BBC. I have (in general) been a defender of the BBC's reputation for honesty, objectivity and political neutrality. But even I am finding it hard to stick to this view in light of the current situation. First, the Daily Mail's fulsome support. Second, the attack on the corporation from David Blunkett -- yes that David Blunkett -- for being too right-wing when it comes to immigration.

Is it too much to ask that the public broadcaster attempts to curb its rightist tendencies and works harder not to find itself the best friend of the David Mail and where it is to the right of Daily Blunkett (or whatever)?