As an experiment, I thought I’d pick a single story from yesterday’s news and follow it throughout the course of the day on the BBC News Channel. I thought I’d choose whatever was the BBC’s ‘Cuts Story of the Day’. Yesterday it was the government’s proposal in a consultation paper to cut the benefits of any drug addict who refuses treatment. A sensible-sounding idea you might think. Well, I’m not so sure now. Why? Because I watched every interview on the subject on the News Channel between 7.00am and 11.00pm and, with just one exception, they all said it was a big mistake.
Breakfast set the agenda:
“Drug addicts on benefits must seek treatment or they could have their
welfare taken away. That’s the hard line being considered by ministers trying to
cut government spending. A similar policy was dropped by the previous Labour
government because of fears that addicts could be driven to crime to support
their habit.”
In that single statement, there’s a subjective judgement that this is a “hard-line” policy, as well as a presumption that the reason for any such policy is purely “to cut government spending” – not also to help tackle a major social ill.
First to be interviewed was Martin Barnes of the charity DrugsScope. He was critical of the proposal. Clearly a decent chap, he resisted the bait in Kate Silverton‘s loaded question: “Do you think this is about dealing with drug addiction or saving money?” He said it was the former. Oh well, a beeboid can but try!!
As the News Channel-proper began rolling at 8.30 Tim Willcox interviewed…Martin Barnes of DrugsScope, who made the same criticisms again. To his credit, Tim did put several good questions to him (unlike Kate).
The same interview was reprised in full at 9.45.
So nothing but criticism of the government’s ‘hard-line’ proposal so far.
At 11.45 Richard Tilt, from “the independent Social Security Advisory Committee” was interviewed. He too was also critical of the government. He went on to regret its decision not to bring up the issue of the de-criminalisation of drugs.
At 12.15 the criticism was ratcheted up, with Kirsty Douse, a young woman from the drugs agency Release, being highly critical of the proposal.
At 12.35 the one and only supporter of the proposal appeared – the Labour MP and former home office minister Alan Campbell (who I’d never heard of). Mr Campbell came across very well, refusing to play party politics. The nearest he came was to express, in passing, a hope that the government was doing it for the right reasons. This comment took up about 5 seconds in a 4 minute interview.
The interview with Mr Campbell was reprised at 1.40, though the most supportive first minute was cut! Worse, beeboid Julian Worricker introduced the truncated clip like this: “Well, earlier I spoke to Alan Campbell…and he told me the scheme would only be successful if it was done for the right reasons”. Trust the BBC to pluck out of context a passing comment! Pure narrative-spinning!
The report by beebette Jude Kelly on the One O’clock News featured a reprise of some of the earlier criticisms. In a sop to impartiality it featured a tiny excerpt from an interview with Tory minister James Brokenshire. This interview was never broadcast on the News Channel & must have been done just for the One O’clock News. Why was the full interview never broadcast on the News Channel (or anywhere else?). What else did Mr Brokenshire say? We’ll never know.
The criticism was ratcheted up even more at 2.10 as Mark Linnell from the drugs charity Lifeline denounced the government’s proposal as “a terrible idea” and a “policy written on the back of a fag packet” (a phrase beloved of Labour, coincidentally).
At 3.10, Howard Garrick, a recovering addict, and Savvas Panas (Howard’s helper) from the Pillion Trust appeared. Howard said that if his benefits had been cut he’d have resorted to crime to get the money to feed his habit. Mr Panas was very critical of the government’s proposal too, saying “this new policy is going to push those people further underground”.
On the Six O’Clock News (seen by millions. Shame on them when The Simpsons is on Channel 4!!), Jude Kelly‘s report dropped Mr Brokenshire and any pretence of impartiality. Her report was prefaced by this: “Charities have warned that addicts will increasingly turn to crime and prostitution to feed their habit without proper support.” Jude’s report featured Barry Woodward, a former drug addict & dealer, who said the government’s proposal wouldn’t work. She went on, “Some who are familiar with the drugs world condemn what they call the blunt stick approach of benefits cuts”. For ‘proof’ she turned to Ettan, a former addict, who condemned the proposal, saying it will lead to more homelessness & crime. No-one else was featured, no defence given.
The only new interviewee to appear on the News channel after that came at 8.15, and it was someone from the organisation I was expecting to appear all along – Steve Rolles of the pro-legalisation campaign group Transform. He, in conversation with the very fragrant Sangita Myska, also strongly attacked the government’s proposal. (Sangita didn’t fail to mention “swingeing cuts“).
There are two different conclusions a News Channel watcher might draw from this. On the one hand it could be the case that only politicians support this proposal. Everyone else, including all drugs charities, thinks its a very bad idea. So it is a very bad idea. Or you might instead suspect that the BBC has deliberately ignored all other supporters of the proposal in order to pump out nothing but anti-government propaganda all day long and that there might be a valid case for doing as the government proposes after all, even though we haven’t heard it on the BBC. (I’ll leave Martin to suggest another possible reason why the BBC might be resistant to the idea of a cutting the benefits of drug addicts!!)
