The GOP needs a BBC strategy

The article above (click to enlarge) appeared in yesterday's Daily Mail.  The Mail, although one of Britain's most socially conservative papers, has been consistently hostile to the Iraq war.  Its editorial line has been indistinguishable from the left-leaning Independent.  Yesterday the Mail gave a platform to Gavin Esler, part of BBC2's Newsnight team and author of the programme's US elections blog.

Mr Esler did not hold back in his analysis:

• "The political wisdom in America is that "all politics is local" and that most voters are interested in the issues in their state or city.  Not any more.  This election proved that in the midst of an unpopular war in Iraq, the focus of American politics now is national and international."  It is of course true that national factors made many Republican candidates vulnerable in these elections but there were many local factors that were very powerful.  Without Montana GOP Senator's allegedly unethical lobbying links and Virginia's George Allen gaffes the GOP would still be in charge of the Senate.  The Democrats shifted towards the conservative end of the political spectrum in their choice of candidates in key battleground states.  They picked a pro-lifer in order to win Pennsylvania; a pro-gun military man to win Virginia and a Bible-quoting candidate in their near-miss campaign to take Tennessee's open Senate seat.  Readers of the Mail column would be no wiser about this Democrat tactic after reading Gavin 'public service broadcaster' Esler's piece.  They could have got all of the above from The Guardian.
• "No amount of White House gloss can disguise the evidence that is all around them: Wages stagnating, house prices in a slump and - in the words of one recently published book - a 'War on the Middle Class' is going on against ordinary Americans who cannot afford health care costs or university fees for their children."  Mr Esler does not mention that US unemployment is down to 4.4% - a rate the eurozone can only look at with envy - or that George W Bush has eliminated the Democrats' polling advantage on the economy.  It is true that President Bush has many political problems but the tax cut-driven economic success of America isn't acknowledged by Mr Esler.
• "Even people from the American heartland - places like Missouri and Ohio - have delivered a huge vote of no confidence in George Bush." Not so fast, Gavin.  The article focuses on Iraq but the corruption of Congressional Republicans was a slightly bigger factor according to exit polls.

The British licence fee payer paid for Mr Esler to be in America and I wonder if the fee from The Mail for that piece will end up in Mr Esler's pocket?

The Republican Party needs to wake up to the power of the BBC as a media player in America.   Its online services, in particular, are widely read in the US and BBC foreign coverage informs how many US journalists see the world.  I sat in the White House three years ago and recommended that the GOP develops a strategy to work with London-based media.  I met other GOP officials with the same message earlier this year but nothing GOP appears to have been done.

The BBC remains a respected brand around the world but opinions like those above are not impartial.  They do not amount to a public service.  They could have come straight from editorial pages of The Guardian or The New York Times.

As I listened to the BBC Radio 4's midnight news on Thursday morning I heard two BBC correspondents inform their listeners that the election results amounted to a repudiation of  the whole Iraq strategy.  Perhaps the correspondents were partly right but I can't remember the BBC reporting that Bush's 2004 win over Kerry amounted to a vindication of the Iraq strategy.  When it fits the BBC's worldview they are trigger-happy to draw big conclusions to their audiences' attention.  At other times they are strangely silent.  Funny that.

Related link: We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News

Comments

[SimonNewman]

" I sat in the White House three years ago and recommended that the GOP develops a strategy to work with London-based media. "

Well the BBC will always be unremittingly hostile to the GOP, so a sensible strategy I'd think would be to mark them with a "hostile" tag and ignore them.

BTW on this election, the Left (eg BBC) seems unwilling to admit that the voters voted for conservative candidates, albeit Democrats, because the US electorate is basically conservative. Conversely the Right seems unwilling to admit that those same conservative voters do oppose the Iraq war, because they think it was a bad idea, badly executed. The bulk of US voters don't seem much different from Daily Mail readers - fiscally & morally conservative, but also reality-based and cautious when it comes to progressive intervensionism. Whether that intervensionism labels itself Left (liberal) or Right (neoconservative) is less important.

[SimonNewman]

'interventionism', oops. :)

[Simon Chapman]

Good article Tim. Did you also advise the GOP what its BBC/London media strategy should be? And will you share that insight too?

[Daniel VA]

In your haste to attack the BBC, you seem to have overlooked that Gavin Esler was writing in a personal capacity for the Daily Mail, not on behalf of the BBC.

Making such sweeping generalisations about BBC opinion based on the opinion of one man writing in a personal capacity for a right-wing newspaper might lead some to conclude that it is not just the BBC that is "trigger-happy to draw big conclusions to their audiences' attention".

[Scott Green]

oh for God's sake...... Gavin Estler is the least of our problems.

instead of whining about BBC bias how about we get back to fundamentals?

politics for idiots lesson number 1:

get the policy right and perception issues will resolve themselves.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

*yawn*

[Editor]

Daniel: I mentioned other sources of BBC bias, too, not least the Mail link to the BBC's own US correspondent admitting Corporation-wide anti-American bias. And as for your point about Gavin Esler writing in a personal capacity... I look forward to the BBC reporter - writing in a personal capacity - who praises Bush.

Gerard Baker has written on this subject in this morning's Times:

"Having written off American voters as ignorant dorks for getting it wrong two years ago, the world has been gracious enough to admit them back into the fold of intelligent human beings. You could barely hear the news this week on the BBC for the insistent crowing on the airwaves. When news broke that Donald Rumsfeld had been fired, the joy was undiluted. Democrats win and Rumsfeld goes. It was almost enough to make them all believe in a God again."

[stephan shakespeare]

"a sensible strategy I'd think would be to mark them with a "hostile" tag and ignore them"

Not sensible, in my view. You cannot ignore the BBC, they have far too much influence on public opinion (or at least the 'agenda' of the media which then massively influences public opinion).

America's neglect of British public and media opinion is damaging on two fronts. Firstly, it means Americans don't understand the changes within its key ally; secondly, it means those changes continue apace.

Those like myself who are keenly pro-American do worry about this a lot.

This is astonishing:

"get the policy right and perception issues will resolve themselves"

How can anyone in modern politics think that's all you need!

[scott green]

the iraq policy is a shambles and your first instinct is to argue for a new media strategy?

jesus wept...

so to you it's merely a perception issue?

lol, next thing you'll be arguing the iraq policy has been a stunning success!

We've spent the last 4 years trying to manage perceptions on this issue. The midterms are a stark reminder of the limitations of that approach. Unfortunately, and this is a lesson the current leadership would do well to learn, reality has an unfortunate habit of getting in the way*

*see politics for idiots lesson 1

[toriesdontunderstandculture]

Tim

You are obviously right that the BBC is a cultural and political disaster viz America's attempts to deal with terrorism.

However, given that the Conservative Party (i) has not even tried to dent the BBC, (ii) would not know how to if it did try, (iii) would screw it up etc - why do you think a political party thousands of miles ago will be able to do anything about it?

Your argument is similar to the eurosceptics who tell Republicans to "do something" to scupper the EU - when we cannot scupper it ourselves. The intellectual black hole of the Tories is simply incapable of understanding the CULTURE of modernity, that is why they cannot act - they do not see the problem because they share much of the BBC mindset (Clarke, Patten, Gummer et al).

The real problems are much worse than they seem even to you.

It does not seem to have sunk in inside the Tories that the BBC culture has successfully smashed not just the Republicans, who are v competent relative to UK Tories, but also Blair (ditto). They will easily smash Cameron if he wins.

There is effectively zero chance of the Tories combating the BBC - and it seems extremely unlikely they will try; everything points to them actually swimming with the BBC culture.

Even if Cameron wins, therefore, we will only see a repeat of Macmillan / Major - ie. disaster. Unfortunately the Party has got every big decision wrong for over a centruy (excluding Thatcher obviously, but equally obviously she was not a "true Conservative")...

The comments on this site are v good evidence of the way in which supposedly "conservative" circles are, because of modern education, incapable of understanding why they think what they do and how they are themselves indoctrinated by Modernism.

[atheling2]

"Not sensible, in my view. You cannot ignore the BBC, they have far too much influence on public opinion (or at least the 'agenda' of the media which then massively influences public opinion)."

I can and do ignore the BBC, and so do many other conservative Americans. We're acutely aware of the anti-American bias of the BBC and we have enough of it here with American mainstream media, thank you very much.

"America's neglect of British public and media opinion is damaging on two fronts. Firstly, it means Americans don't understand the changes within its key ally; secondly, it means those changes continue apace."

Hell, most Americans don't understand the changes within their own country, less those of their allies (or should I say ally). That'd be just too taxing.

The only Americans who take the BBC for its word in disseminating the news are the EU-loving, Leftist leaning types because the BBC reflects their values and mindset.

In light of that, now why in the world would Conservatives (i.e. GOP supporters) pay attention to that? Or even consider approaching it? In the long list of reforms that the GOP needs to consider, becoming buddies with the BBC is #1042 out of 1050.

[stephan shakespeare]

No, Scott Green, I'm not suggesting its just a perception issue. But is is ALSO a perception issue - do you think you can implement policies without effective communication? By ignoring the media obstacles?

[ATM]

There is a way to deal with the BBC. Ban state-owned news agencies from broadcasting into the US.

[Go Metro]

Maybe the BBC will stop being so biased towards US issues?

Hahaha. Just kidding.

[scott green]

Stephan:-

No, clearly not. An effective media stategy is essential, obviously. But we're in trouble because of a failure of policy, not advocacy.

Successful policies don't need aggressive advocacy Stephan, they sell themselves. GOP supporters were stuck selling a dud, and the electorate knew it.

Give me a policy I can sell, and I'll sell it. Simple as that. But, frankly, you can stick the Iraq policy where the sun don't shine. No media strategy in the world is going to get those numbers to turn until policy is set on the right path.

[Thomass]

What can we do about it? What kind of strategy can we have?

We've been complaining about US media bias for decades and nothing changes (example: New York Times).

US Conservative’s strategy for the BBC will end up similar to the one for NYT... take anything they say with a grain of salt and expect it to be spun and biased against them... Basically the same, I imagine, as the Brit conservative’s plan for the BBC….

[RodS]

Scrap the BBC - end of story. Even the BNP are now running rings around them.What happened to the well intentioned campaign last year to organise a mass boycott of the licence fee. If tried again I am sure the response would be dramatic. I was staggered to learn recently that the BBC (Like apparently the Olympic Constuction programme) does not pay VAT.

[atheling2]

Thomass:

What can we do about the media bias? Don't buy them and don't listen to them.

The New York Times is in a crisis with record low circulation. They've scuppered their own ship and rightly so.

That's the beauty of capitalism. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, the product will disappear.

[Thomass]

Agreed.

And to the guy who keeps talking about Modernism... not buying them and creating an alterative (i.e., alternative media or counter-BBC-culture media) seems like the best form of counter attack to the BBC's bias... IMO...

First we had talk radio and then Fox… now the MSM is in decline / crisis.

If alernative media gained a foothold (ie, was trusted by many) the old media would thereby have to be distrusted because their visions conflict... and they loose power.

[cf bleachers]

The BBC is anti-America, anti-Israel and anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.

Given Britain's grotesque history with Israel and the "Palestinians"...it's of little moment that they hate America and/or Israel. It's not newsworthy or new.

The only thing that can combat subversive liars...is the truth. It's like Kryptonite to the socialist chic Eurobabblers and their sniveling toadies here on the other side of the pond.

The policy that is needed...is to shine a light on these vampires before they sink their teeth any further into the necks of decent people here.

[SimonNewman]

toriesdontunderstandculture:
"The comments on this site are v good evidence of the way in which supposedly "conservative" circles are, because of modern education, incapable of understanding why they think what they do and how they are themselves indoctrinated by Modernism."

My article on CH discussed this:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2006/10/dr_simon_newman.html

"However, given that the Conservative Party (i) has not even tried to dent the BBC, (ii) would not know how to if it did try, (iii) would screw it up etc - why do you think a political party thousands of miles ago will be able to do anything about it?"

I thought this was well said. The BBC is among the least of the GOP's problems. Of course they're biased, but so is the US MSM. The solution is alternative news outlets; and make sure Fox News is credible - Fox needs to be more reliably honest than the MSM if it's to attract centrist voters. FWIW (not much), my impression of Fox News is that their field reports and basic news are good and reliable, but some of the anchors' comments are so grotesque they will turn away moderate conservatives.

[cosmo]

Scott:

I, too, believe in a policy-first approach.

But we have an economy performing at levels above that of the dot-com-bubble 90's. The deficit's just been halved two years ahead of schedule. All of this largely the result of this administration's policies.

Yes, yes, there are all sorts of structural and other problems to wrestle with -- but it hardly squares with the skewed description Esler provides.

Yet, the average American thinks the economy is positively in the toilet -- largely the result of politically-compromised coverage like Esler's.

[Pangloss]

Simon Newman is right about American conservatives and the BBC. Conservatives already recognize how skewed towards 60's style Che Guevara hero-worship the BBC is. It's too bad, since given their druthers most American conservatives would be anglophiles. But the BBC is no better than Al Jazeera, which brags it has based itself on the BBC. American conservatives don't worry about the Chinese press either, or that of Iran or Yemen, since they know that journalists in those countries, even when they aren't writing government mandated propaganda, are too full of nonsensical ideas to be trusted.

[Don]

As you state Esler really is biased, he is not prepared to present a rounded case.

On top of that his prejudices blind him to some facts.

In a previous Daily Mail column (4 Nov) entitled

"Is George W. Bush the worst president ever?"

he claimed that

"The budget deficit is the highest ever, an enormous black hole that is worrying global economists."

Well the budget deficit is not the highest ever & at 1.9% of GDP is well below the deficits in the UK, France & Germany.

Perhaps he doesn't know his budget from his trade deficit. That would be about par for the course for BBC journalists' knowledge of economics & business.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=414491&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

[marc]

The BBC is a far bigger danger to America and the world than most people realize.

See here.

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html