tv The Media Show BBC News September 26, 2022 1:30am-2:00am BST
1:30 am
the new culture secretary called the bbc�*s efforts "phenomenal" and "spot on". so, did the media get the tone right? were a range of views about the monarchy represented? and amid the pageantry and commentary, was there room forjournalism? i'm joined by marcus ryder, who's head of external consultancies at the lenny henry centre for media diversity, baroness stowell, who's conservative chair of the house of lords communication and digital select committee, lord vaizey, a former culture secretary who was in the david cameron government at the time of the 2012 olympics, emily bell, professor of professional practice at the columbia university graduate school ofjournalism, and stefanie bolzen is the uk correspondent of germany's die welt newspaper. welcome to you all, thank you so much for coming on the media show. and if we could start with you, tina stowell, what is your assessment of how the british media has done over the past two weeks? i think it's done a very good job, actually. i think it's reflected both the importance and the significance
1:31 am
of the death of our monarch after 70 years�* reign. i think it has reflected the emotional reaction that there's been amongst many people. but it's also, i think, been able to capture how britain has been on display in such a way where we've showed the best of all of us, really, and what we've been able to do is demonstrate that this is a modern country which is still a great country and is proud and is not shy in putting front and centre all that we stand for. so, ithink... you know, i understand and would be able to appreciate that, for some people, sometimes there's probably been more than they wanted — not everybody would've wanted to watch it all day, every day. even the most ardent of monarchists need to have a bit of variety in their diet.
1:32 am
but no, i think it's been good. marcus ryder, it has been the story, certainly in the way it's been told, of a nation united in grief. is it that simple, do you think? thank you so much for inviting me on. unfortunately, i don't think this has been britain's finest journalistic moment. for example, i work and i look at media diversity and that's diversity of opinions and views in all the full range, and if you look at scotland and the polls that were taken at the time of the queen's jubilee — earlier in the year — 36% of scots did not want the monarchy to continue after the queen's death. these figures are rather consistent. a year a similar poll showed 37%, so it's gone down a bit, didn't want the queen to continue. if you look at young people in wales, 80% of adults under the age of 30 did not want
1:33 am
the monarchy to continue after the queen. now, this is not a republican or monarchist argument, but those kind of views were simply not reflected in a really important constitutional moment. yes, it was the queen's funeral. _ yes it was the queen's death, but it was also a very important constitutional moment here, when the king was ascending to the throne, and at that point, good journalism makes sure that we reflect all the views of the uk and different parts of the uk have very different and complex relationships with the queen. i didn't see that variety and diversity being reflected. i should say the bbc said those voices were in their output. and that we have heard from people who do not believe in the institution and monarchy, for example. but i guess ed vaizey, i'd ask a bigger question which is, taking on marcus�*s point, was it the right time do you think to ask those questions in the last 10, 12 days?
1:34 am
i have a lot of sympathy- with what marcus has to say and i hate it- when there is a sort of prevailing political opinion that excludes every other. voice, particularly one that . takes the moral high ground. i think we experienced it obviously in spadesl during brexit, when anyone dared to question the will. of the people, and the winners' take on what brexit should be i were sometimes even called traitors, so i completely- understand where marcus is coming from. _ however, what i would say- in terms of the queen's death, to put it in very crude terms, a woman who had served - her country for 70 years - selflessly, died and was going to have a funeral, those - ten days were about her funeral and the nation, as it. were, saying goodbye. there was no question - in my mind that in the way that that was conducted as it were, in the public - _ i won't call it a debate, j in the public press as it were — that that excludes a future debate about - the future of the monarchy
1:35 am
and the commonwealth, . whether king charles - will remain head of state in some of the countries. where he is head of state. all of those will be debated, i but i think it would have done a disservice to those - who want their voices heard if it had been conducted during those ten days. i that was a completely closed period where we knew - what was going to happen. a woman had died, she was going to have a funeral, - she was a remarkable head of state and that was that. l marcus? it's not about having the debate. just as ed just said, she was a remarkable head of state. there are voices who don't think that she was remarkable, and i think that the wall—to—wall coverage, which for the most part — yes, of course we can point to exceptions — but for the most part we were talking about how remarkable and amazing she was. there were reports on the bbc where people were talking unchallenged with regards to how she was instrumental to bringing down apartheid. there were voices that were unchallenged.
1:36 am
once you stray into the apartheid debate, it's very hard not to bring in, and you should bring in, the critical voices with regards to what was the role of the monarchy in africa. some of those voices were being heard in praise of the monarchy, but once you start to stray into those very contentious political waters, it's very hard — not about having a debate, but making sure all the views and opinions of the uk are represented. emily bell, you were nodding there. how do you judge the coverage? you live in the us, how different was it in the us? well, i arrived by plane overnight on sunday, so it was very interesting coming from new york, which is full of many voices that were quite ambivalent. but a lot of them were very engaged with the debates around empire and exploitation and slavery and the role the crown played.
1:37 am
into an environment which felt, i think, if you are covering a different country — north korea or russia — with that kind of coverage of a head of state's demise, you would cover it very differently as the bbc. so, it was quite a shock, even for somebody british used to this kind of thing coming in here. i do think two things can be true at the same time. i think the bbc could've done a magnificently superb technicaljob. i think huw edwards, say if the queen was alive she should give him a medal. but you can also say that journalism basically went on holiday for a fortnight and my feeling is marcus is right. there were not, notjust not the dissenting voices, but there was not the challenge, there was not the journalistic challenge. and i think something else interesting happened over that time as well, which is, take the queue.
1:38 am
the queue was largely a media event. the length of the queue, the concentration of the queue, i'm fairly sure would've been different if it had not been covered in the way it was by the media outlets. i guess we'll never know. you're sort of being told how to feel and what to think, and i think there's a really interesting question here. the queue became a thing in itself. people went to it and then everyone else was fascinated about the people who went to it. and what it did tell us about our country and all of that. did the bbc stray in that moment from being a public service to being more of a state broadcaster? i think that's the thing that left me slightly uneasy about the coverage. i would like to bring in stefanie quickly because we could be talking forever and not get a perspective from abroad. stefanie bolzen from die welt, what about in germany? were people interested in this story in germany, and how interested ? they were certainly very, very interested, but more obviously on the day the queen
1:39 am
died on september 8th and then again this monday on september the 19th. four public broadcasters simultaneously showed the funeral and the processions from nine o'clock in the morning until six o'clock in the afternoon. it was absolutely overwhelming. for me being a correspondent in london. _ i felt overwhelmed these whole ten days. simply because this was the magnitude, if you are a correspondent in london, this is the very biggest event ever. but also because it was a crash course, you had to learn so many things, and i think i wasn't alone with that, a lot of british people didn't know what was going to happen next. now it's the acclamation and the king is in parliament, and then scotland and the procession from buckingham palace. it was overwhelming. it was an insight into a world, that is for sure. yes, and i think because it was so archaic at times,
1:40 am
it was also, and the queue, it was a bit stereotypical, so it transported a certain image of britain, of these amazing people who don't mind queuing 24 hours in the rain and also are unquestionably in awe of her majesty. i of course share that, but i also share what marcus said, that at times, i wish it wasn't such a single issue, and more diverse ideas and perspectives. being respectful all at the time would have been shown. tina, if i could bring you back in here. a little bit earlier, emily bell talked about a dearth ofjournalism. in a sense, once the queen had sadly died, did you think this in a sense did stop being treated as a news story and became a national event that broadcasters and the media more generally had long planned for? yeah, i guess that's true. it was more of an event. it didn't feel like it was an exercise in journalism. it was coverage of a massive event, a massively important event, the kind of which we
1:41 am
just haven't seen before. and i do think that there was always that danger of the way in which the queen was spoken of as if she was canonised in some way, where this was somebody who was portrayed as somebody who was almost nonhuman. but i think that wasn't. .. i don't think that was a widespread problem and there was a lot of that. but i take what marcus was saying about if there were people trying to ascribe to her majesty responsibility for all sorts of international events in the past that was disproportionate in terms of her contribution, if that wasn't challenged, that's a bit odd. but again, i just think overall, i think we have to see this as an event and recognise
1:42 am
that is what it was and the coverage, the extent of it and the positive nature of that coverage was, for me, i think appropriate for the significance of the moment. but that doesn't mean, as ed has already said, that there isn't an opportunity, or shouldn't be an opportunity in the future for debate about the future of the monarchy or indeed, if there is any event or any occasion where members of the royal family conduct themselves in a way that should be subject to scrutiny, comment and criticism, for sure. butjust not over the last ten days. ed, you were nodding. i would like to talk specifically about the bbc. it has come out already of course, because it pulled out the stops in its coverage and was responsible certainly forfilming and sharing the funeral with the other media. it had more than 200 cameras dedicated to the funeral alone. ed, could ijust ask you whether yes, it was stunning, of course it was,
1:43 am
and very popular, more than 32 million people tuned in at some point on monday to the bbc, but if we look more broadly at the period of mourning, do you think journalism lost out to ceremony? no, i don't, and i would echo exactly what tina said. - i think this is a reallyl interesting discussion by the way and a really - important discussion to have. when tina described it as an event, _ i thought about the olympics. there's a lot we can talk about at the olympics, i the cost, the impact on the host country, the corruption that we're - talking about at the moment. but you wouldn't do it - while the olympics are on, i think that's _ an interesting parallel. the bbc, i won't exaggerate by saying it was a live or die| moment, but we know this i government is not particularly friendly to the bbc, i and there are certain media outlets that are very not friendly to the bbc. _ and the bbc played, - to put it in crude terms, pretty much of a blinder. what we should remember, i suspect a lot of us - are bbc one watchers, but radio 1, 6 music, l they all had to navigate this
1:44 am
and they could easily - have fallen over. and i gather there were easy decisions to make, - like not having the start| of strictly come dancing and more difficult decisions, as do you show paddington i the movie? but the bbc flexed on quite i a lot of its platforms in terms of the content it showed, - and when we think how many platforms — notjust the range of radio stations and local- radio stations — the fact - that there hasn't been a single item that has been held up i as a catastrophic bbc mistake is a huge testament to the organisation. j we are in the realms- of holly willoughby being chastised forjumping a queue. i gather bear grylls being chastised for| smiling near the catafalque, so you know people can become tabloid fodder for messing up. l i hold to my position, j although i completely understand the nuances of the other guests, - that the bbc played - a completely straight bat.
1:45 am
this was an event that started with the death of her majesty| and ended with her interring. and they played it straight. marcus, was it a straight bat? i think there's a few things that we need to unpack there. first of all, there is a narrative which is beginning to form. tina and ed have voiced this narrative that the last ten days was not the time for this debate. we can have it afterwards. there's a danger in that, because the danger is that the last ten days was a national moment. if certain people are excluded from key national moments, and this is disproportionately scottish people, disproportionately welsh people, disproportionately people of colour, if their views and opinions are disproportionately excluded from the national moment, then we're kind of saying implicitly — not deliberately — you're not really british, you haven't really caught
1:46 am
that national moment. when the national moment has finished, we'll bring you back in. that's kind of the implicit argument that i'm beginning to hear, and it's notjust ed and tina. i've heard it from other places as well. yes, for the last ten days, when it was really nationally important, we sidelined you, we sidelined the diversity, and then after the national moment, we bring back the diversity. unfortunately, diversity and inclusion doesn't actually work that way. we have to have diversity and inclusion in all its messiness at the most important times, not at the least important times. emily bell, what would you say to that? also i suppose on the bbc, is there a kind of special case when it comes to the monarchy for the corporation and are there different expectations for the national broadcaster? i'm100% with marcus on there is no... the idea that there is a time where you don't
1:47 am
confront the uncomfortable as a journalist, i find that a very difficult concept. i think that marcus�*s point was made in an excellent article as well. when you start excluding those voices and communities, they go elsewhere. and often, the places they end up going, because they trust them more, because they see a version of themselves which is more accurately reflected, don't necessarily have the journalistic values as the bbc at other times. but i have some sympathy. i think the bbc�*s been under tremendous political pressure and it's had a very difficult relationship with the royal family. so, i think that this imperative to tow the line must have felt like the kind of... i think actually the bbc and the monarchy are lashed together in mutual existential anxiety at the moment.
1:48 am
they are both these storied institutions who are having quite difficult questions asked about them, their future. so i do think there is a sort of exceptionalism, but i also think they literally have the bandwidth to accommodate all of this in an elegant way and in a journalistic way. i woke up this morning to literally one of putin's advisers shouting about nuclear war, and it was almost like we had had ten days of this serenity. you're getting up quite late! that was definitely after eight o'clock, wasn't it? jet lag! but it was that there are a number of really important things happening in the world right now, and i think that we should have allowed a little bit more space for those voices, but also a little bit more recognition that other really important things are happening right now. tina, i'm going to bring you in, because you're not just a conservative peer, you were also very senior to the bbc for ten years and adviser to various bbc chairmen.
1:49 am
i'm sure you have insights here. i was just going to say, about this point about not hearing from voices, different voices and opinions over the last ten days, i thought one thing that was quite striking about the bbc coverage was the fact that there was quite a lot of diversity on screen and on air, and different people who in different contexts do represent a different perspective. different historians or... i saw simon woolley on one programme. yeah, exactly. and mark drakeford and nicola sturgeon were interviewed. there are elected people or other people who are renowned spokesmen who express different perspectives who were on air. it wasn't that there wasn't that kind of diversity. but i come back to, overall, if i look at the bbc�*s performance over
1:50 am
the last ten days compared to — it is not of the same scale, but when the queen mother died and i was working at the bbc then — the bbc did not get that right in the way in which it covered the queen mother's death at that time and was quite rightly criticised for it. this was... for too much? too little? people will not know what you're talking about. at the time, it was not enough. right. they had the way in which the death of the queen mother was announced, people felt that it wasn't done in a suitably respectful way. i remember, i was sat in board meetings afterwards and listening to controllers saying that in their view, there was not this widespread support and respect for the monarchy now as there was and sort of assumptions being made. ok, i was in canada then and it was huge news in canada. i remember. which brings me very nicely i hope on to what i would like to talk about now which is what can we understand about the coverage in terms
1:51 am
of notjust how we see ourselves but the way the world sees us. ed, do you think the media coverage of the funeral has changed first of all how the british public sees the country? the british public? i think everything we've discussed just now, - and i thought marcus, i don't really have - an answerfor marcus, - i completely accept his point. but there are communities that would have felt very _ excluded from these events and they won't necessarily i have changed their. views of our country. and i'm afraid i'm a slightly cynical person, so we havel all this, we're a united - country, scottish independence is going to disappear- overnight, i don't believe that fora minute. i think we are back to politics as normal in spades. - i don't think it's _ fundamentally changed views, and i thinking king charles i will sink or swim based on his performance as our monarch. i thought that the state funeral, it's gratifying i to the british psyche, | british exceptionalism that hundreds countries around the world did do wall—to—walll coverage of the state funeral. i spoke to people onl
1:52 am
various media outlets in kenya, denmark, spain, so that was great. - and to be perhaps even cruder in terms of a marketing - campaign for the uk, i we haven't talked about westminster abbey's role in all this. - i can imagine the average american thinking about i where they're going to go to the summer would be i thinking, "i would love to go see where the queen's - funeral was held." crosstalk emily called it national self—delusion. i was just laughing at the idea of the average american. i think maybe ed's view of what the average american is is slightly different, enjoying the wonders of westminster abbey and in fact being royalist is somewhere wide of the mark. but i do think this point about how the world looks externally, it's very interesting from an american perspective, because a lot of contemporary interest in the british monarchy comes through both the narrative around diana, the interviews
1:53 am
meghan markle gives and the crown, it comes through this fictionalised version of british history. let me ask, stefanie, how do people in germany view britain and did this change anything? i think the funeral is exceptional and that was something that was really the highlight. so many people, i think the market share was 50% on the day for broadcasting the funeral in germany, public broadcasters. but i thought it was interesting and telling, how the king, king charles was presented in germany and how many questions were actually asked about him. if you remember, on the saturday, during the acclamation, he did this very rather rude gesture of being very impatient about some ink pot standing on the table. i hardly didn't see it here in the uk, and that was the main thing at least back in germany, and people are very intrigued about what this king is like.
1:54 am
what is he going to be? marcus, what message do you think the last ten days, what has it sent out to the world? unlike tina and ed, i'm not a politician, so i really don't think i'm qualified to answer that question. what i can say is that my concern is that the young people in wales, 80% don't want continuation of the monarchy. what is their relationship with the bbc? the communities who don't support the monarchy, what is their relationship after those ten days? it's not a republican argument, monarchist argument, i keep on having to reiterate, it's more just how do we ensure that our national media continues to have links with the diverse range of opinions and communities in the uk? tina, as a politician, what message do you think the past ten days send out to the world about britain? i think they send out a really positive message to the world. i think we put on display, as i said at the start, the best of us, really.
1:55 am
i think it's been a fantastic showcase. i think it's important that the bbc, having done so well over the last ten days, doesn't try and think that therefore removes any justification for a debate about its future and all the challenges that it faces, and i think to the point about diversity, for sure, the bbc needs to serve everybody. everybody pays. but it also must never forget the people who have been so pleased with this coverage over the last ten days, cos they too often feel not understood or represented on the bbc these days. most of them, for people on the radio now, are nodding at that point, and that is nodding at that point, and that is a good moment to end it. hello. we will get our first proper
1:56 am
taste of autumn this week, with temperatures below average for the time of year, north to north—westerly winds to begin with, a changeable week in terms of sunshine, during the first half of the week, and then the potential for something quite nasty later on. to start the week we have warm weather fronts clearing away from southern coastal counties, bringing early rain, and that opens the door to a north—westerly airflow bringing arctic air our way, but don't forget it is september, there is still warmth in the atmosphere and it won't feel desperately chilly, and temperatures higher than they were on sunday. but we do start with rain across southern counties of england, the channel islands, just one or two showers later here. ever changing skies elsewhere, sunshine and showers, most frequent across scotland and down western coasts, one or two spots may avoid showers altogether, but quite breezy compared to of late. and of course it all adds up for a cool afternoon,
1:57 am
and out of the sunshine you will notice temperatures of 10—16, lower than of late, and distinctly chilly in the north—east of scotland, 8 degrees cooler than on sunday. through monday night into tuesday, we continue with the strong wind, showers frequent across northern parts of scotland and a bit cooler, particularly in the south and east, but enough of a breeze to stop frost forming to take this into tuesday. the chart for tuesday, low—pressure to the north—east of us, trying to move down, sliding towards the south—west, a bit closer with a chance of some cloudy conditions, outbreaks of rain close to cornwall and devon but otherwise it is sunshine and showers, a different position of showers due to a shift in wind direction, so some eastern areas will stay dry for longer. and in temperatures, ii—is, it will feel cool. the winds starting to ease down a little bit,
1:58 am
longer spells of rain, eastern scotland pushing down, and overall southern and western areas looking a little bit drier and brighter and it won't feel quite as cold given the winds are light. a cold start to thursday, but the quietest day of the week with more places dry, but the potential for some very wet and windy weather on friday.
44 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
BBC News Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on