BBC bosses have rejected suggestions that the Corporation has been biased in the run-up to the in-out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.
Giving evidence to MPs, they revealed BBC journalists would undergo mandatory training in the run-up to the EU poll to ensure they reported on it impartially.
Corporation chiefs dismissed a claim that the BBC was obliged not to do anything to harm the EU after admitting that some of its funding came from Brussels.
MPs were told that £35 million from the EU was put into an offshoot unit, which provided broadcasting training in volatile overseas states and other money was "occasionally available".
Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested the funding would hamper the BBC's ability to report on the in-out referendum impartially.
But David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, rejected the claim.
"The BBC as a public service broadcast doesn't take money from the EU," he told the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee.
During the Scottish independence referendum, the BBC faced accusations of pro-Union bias.
Later, Alex Salmond, the former First Minister, who famously clashed with Nick Robinson, the Corporation’s former Political Editor, accused it of “institutional bias”.
BBC chiefs strenuously denied the allegation, insisting their organisation’s coverage was “rigorously impartial” and in line with its guidelines on fairness.
This week, Ken MacQuarrie, Director of BBC Scotland, also defended the Corporation’s coverage, saying that while some mistakes might have been made, there was no bias.
His defence was made after the BBC came under attack at last week’s SNP conference, when it was claimed by a Nationalist that the broadcaster told more “half-truths and lies” than the Nazis.
In his evidence to the Commons committee, Mr Jordan said £35 million had been put into Media Action, a unit owned by BBC but run independently, which was involved in countries like Afghanistan to develop news and broadcasting skills.
Pressed further about the funds available from the EU, Mr Jordan told MPs: "There is another way in which EU funding comes into the picture and that is in relation to independent companies who, as you know, make programmes for the BBC.
"In some areas independent companies for example in drama may benefit from EU funds to, for example, help location incentives to go to particular parts of the country."
He added: "There are also a couple of budgets which are available for people to do things like, for example, reversion programmes that they have made in English so that they are showable in different European countries around the world."
A clearly irked Mr Rees-Mogg said: "You are now giving me a really different answer from the one you gave before.”
He added: "You gave an answer about overseas aid and now you are saying the BBC does receive money to help with some of its programming and does receive money to translate some of its programming and you are therefore signed up to the contractual agreements from the EU that require you not to damage its interests."
Mr Jordan admitted "other funds are occasionally available" for programming, something the Tory MP claimed the editorial director had initially "denied".
The clash prompted Bill Cash, the committee chairman, to call repeatedly for order, adding: "Can we just calm down a bit?"
James Harding, the BBC’s Director of News and Current Affairs, said: "What is absolutely clear is that the funding for Media Action, as it performs those charitable functions, is entirely separate from the BBC and from BBC News.”
He added: “In the same way that the British government funding for those services is separate, so is EU funding. So, I don't want there to be a misunderstanding about that particular unit, which is Media Action. It is separate from BBC News, in fact it is separate from everything we do as a public service broadcaster in the UK.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel