Were BBC journalists under orders to lionise woeful Kamala Harris?

Yet, in such a sprawling organisation that must be on top of literally thousands of stories as they unfold across the planet, there will always be some issues regarding its objectivity. 

However, I still think the BBC is fully deserving of the trust we place in it to provide impartial news and analysis.

This presidential election, though, was not one of its finest moments. Long before the end of its two-day coverage, it was clear it was struggling badly to comprehend the enormity of Donald Trump’s victory and to offer any cogent and mature analysis as to why he had won so convincingly. It started badly and went downhill rapidly.

An early report by Sarah Smith, the BBC’s North America editor, was absurdly one-sided and set the tone for what would follow. Ms Smith is a fine broadcast journalist and I was delighted when she landed this prestigious posting. I can only imagine that she and the rest of the BBC’s team were under strict instructions to lionise Kamala Harris, the woefully inadequate Democrat candidate. 

Mr Trump’s speeches were becoming “more erratic”, Ms Smith claimed. “Here he is, telling voters things will get nasty if he’s re-elected to the White House.” And then with sepulchral gravity: “He did not explain what he means by that.” 

What Mr Trump had said was that the next four years, if he’s re-elected, “are gonna be the four greatest years in American history: it’s gonna be so good; it’s gonna be so much fun. It’ll be nasty a little bit at times and maybe at the beginning in particular”. 

It was basically similar – if less eloquent – than Sir Keir Starmer telling the British electorate that “tough choices” would have to be made at the start of his premiership.

Ms Smith then pointed out the apparent paucity of attendees at Mr Trump’s rallies. “For a man who prides himself on the size of his crowds, the empty seats at his closing rallies will be a worrying sign,” she said. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris was “deliberately giving a more joyful message in the last hours of campaigning”, according to Ms Smith. Joyful it may have been, but it was also incoherent.

Sarah Smith, the BBC’s North American editor, was ‘absurdly one-sided and set the tone for what would follow’ Sexist silliness
As it began to dawn on us all that Donald Trump would become the 47th US President, the BBC’s coverage became shrill and partisan. One of its presenters began to infer that the US electorate was sexist. 

A senior Washington analyst disagreed, pointing out what had become clear after a few weeks of the campaign: that Ms Harris was concentrating far too much on slaughtering Mr Trump and not enough on outlining new policies. 

In a lamentable exchange just before dawn, three BBC correspondents attempted to explain why so many women had rejected Ms Harris’s insistence on making reproductive rights one of the main pillars of her offering. Joe Biden had gathered more female voters in 2020 than Ms Harris in 2024: 57% to 54%. 

At this point, one journalist felt moved to make a subtle qualification: that support for Ms Harris was higher among “college-educated” women. The inference was clear and the disdain almost palpable.  

At no point did any of them dare mention what was yelling out at the rest of us: that many working-class American women, while perhaps agreeing with Ms Harris on reproductive rights, just don’t think they should be extended to men. 

Tariff troubles
ON and on it went, well into Thursday afternoon. That’s when a BBC business journalist was interviewing Marco Forgione of the Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade about the president-elect’s attitude to tariffs. “Do you think he understands how tariffs work,” he asked the momentarily stunned trade boffin. 

It was asked in a chummy and supercilious tone as though the president-elect was a feckless naif in such matters. It was embarrassing and amateurish. 

The much wiser Mr Forgione replied: “He [Mr Trump] says his favourite word is ‘tariffs’. I think he’s very clear about what he’s trying to do, which is to drive investment into the US; to bring manufacturing back into the US; and to have a protectionist environment that stops countries like China being able to undercut American production.”

In the interests of fairness, I should point out that Gary O’Donoghue was the epitome of authoritative rectitude throughout proceedings. 

The BBC’s incomparable North American chief political correspondent reported from the Republican camp in Washington with clarity and purpose. 

He is a major asset for the BBC on these occasions.

Beeb did badly
OF course, there were several very tough questions to be asked of Republican supporters and activists as they took their turns at being interviewed throughout the night. It’s just that, well … no-one at the BBC seemed prepared or knowledgeable enough to ask them properly. 

Mr Trump may indeed have read America’s blue-collar voters much better than Ms Harris. The rest of us, though, are still entitled to question why the patriotic Republicans put forward a man who effectively attempted to foment a violent coup against the democratic institutions of the US government four years ago. 

Or why, even if they backed his stance on illegal immigrants, Mr Trump insists on using the most disgustingly foul terminology to dehumanise them. 

Or, on the basis of what he did between 2016 and 2020, will he be a president once more almost exclusively for the rich and the powerful?

One question loomed large over all the others: why were the Democrats so clueless and arrogant about their most disadvantaged communities that they drove them into the camp of a sexist and xenophobic criminal who will serve only his own interests and those of
his family, and of his corporate backers?