A memo of misdirection and right-wing politics: The Prescott Report and the BBC

Recently, the BBC has come under intense scrutiny around the core tenet that makes it what it is: its impartiality. This has come from right-wing political leaders such as Nigel Farage, Kemi Badenoch, and even Donald Trump himself, along with less overtly political figures like Michael Prescott, former independent adviser to the BBC. Prescott recently leaked a supposed memo he provided to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board, which he had worked with for three years until he left this June.

In this memo, he alleged that the BBC was inherently biased, specifically calling it out for supposed anti-right-wing bias, as shown by editing in a Panorama documentary that made Trump’s speech on January 6 2021, the day of the storming of the Capitol, seem more violent than it actually was. As well as this, he also pointed to what he called “sloppy journalism” around immigration that downplayed illegal immigration, and also to an apparent pro-trans propagandistic stance that celebrated “the trans experience”. As a final claim, he also attacked the Arabic correspondents of the BBC, especially around the Israeli genocide in Gaza, about which he said that the BBC was pro-Hamas.

This memo has been highly consequential: it has led to President Trump threatening the BBC with a $1 billion defamation lawsuit, along with the use of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to investigate the BBC. It also directly led to the resignation of two of the most senior figures at the BBC, Director General Tim Davie and head of BBC News Deborah Turness. Most of all, a political windstorm has been generated around the BBC and the topic of impartiality, one that is perhaps the most pernicious moment in the BBC’s history.

However, when MPs summoned Prescott to a Commons Select Committee that was following up on his memo, his tune on the BBC seemed to change entirely. In fact, when asked, he said that he thought the BBC, and specifically Mr Davie, “seemed to me to be doing a first-rate job across 80 or 90% of the portfolio”, and he specifically did not think the BBC was actually institutionally biased, despite his memo claiming so, and being weaponised politically to reinforce this claim.

To address the truly important topic of this scandal, that of the memo: its contents, veracity, and whether it is a political tool more than anything else, we first shall look at the major issue within it that has led to so much chaos: the Panorama Trump documentary and the BBC’s wider coverage of Trump and the 2024 Presidential Election.

The claims made about the Panorama documentary are also laughable in terms of their veracity because they ignore the truth of the editing, specifically the fact that it was not a substantive change

The Trump-based accusations of the memo have been the most talked about by the media, perhaps because of their importance, or more likely because they make for a more sellable and usable scandal, because they seem so dramatic. They focused on the idea that the BBC’s coverage of Trump was apparently biased against him because they covered his wrongdoings and negatives, and did not match their coverage of Kamala Harris’ campaign to the same degree. But this is a laughable claim, as the BBC’s coverage of Trump had reason to be more negative than its coverage of Harris. Trump was a far more scandalous candidate, and his campaign ran on a combination of fascism and corruption.

The claims made about the Panorama documentary are also laughable in terms of their veracity because they ignore the truth of the editing, specifically the fact that it was not a substantive change. Whilst it may have made Trump seem more offensive in his rhetoric to drive the crowd on, the truth is that he still said those words, and his intent was to drive his followers to violence. Peace was not his plan; chaos was.

The Prescott memo also raised concerns about the BBC’s output on trans issues, condemning their overall supposed positivity, something which Prescott attacked vehemently. However, this claim, like the Trump claims, again does not match the reality and the facts.

Many on the left have been saying for so long now that the BBC is, in fact, overtly pro-Israeli in its reporting, being a factor in opposing claims of right-wing bias in the BBC

In fact, polling is clear in showing that trans people do not think that the BBC is positive towards them at all, with one poll specifically showing that 70% of trans people think BBC News is outright “hostile” to them. These opinions are backed up by the fact that the BBC itself didn’t even cover this survey, despite its relevance and the clear call for change that it should serve as. Further to this, the BBC has recently had to admit to clear breaches of standards when reporting on trans news, with sensationalist and damaging claims about the trans community, and also about individual trans people themselves, being concerningly common.

Similar reverse bias is also true in terms of the memo’s claims about immigration; the BBC itself has not exactly been pro-immigrant or pro-illegal immigration. In fact, its coverage of migration and racial diversity has served only to stoke the flames of the culture war and channel the political rhetoric of the racist, xenophobic fascists and populists into the mainstream, not exactly behaviour that in any way could be considered to be positively biased.

The final major topic that the memo accused the BBC of being biased on was regarding Israel and Palestine, accusing the BBC of being pro-Hamas. This accusation flies in the face of the fact that many on the left have been saying for so long now that the BBC is, in fact, overtly pro-Israeli in its reporting, being a factor in opposing claims of right-wing bias in the BBC. This is factually evidenced by the airtime the BBC has been allocating to UK political parties, with Reform being given far more coverage than the Liberal Democrats and nearly, if not often more, coverage than Labour or the Conservatives, something that makes no logical sense within the bounds of impartiality.

With the issue of Israel and Palestine, studies have shown that the BBC has been systemically biased; having humanised Israeli casualties whilst dehumanising Palestinian ones. This shows a clear imbalance in its coverage of the fatalities on either side, and passivises the role that Israel has played in the deaths in Gaza, avoiding treating the topic like the genocide and ethnic cleansing that it is.

More than anything else, this memo and scandal have made it clear just how much the right-wing has desired to be able to use scandals and culture wars around the BBC

Beyond its flawed contents, the memo itself is also highly flawed in terms of how it formed its analysis, with many of its opinions being referenced from private studies by David Grossman, a noted right-wing commentator. Grossman’s “proofs” cited evidence from “independent expert bodies” such as History Reclaimed and UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI); two organisations that are deeply embedded in the populist right and who both have been working within the culture wars.

Furthermore, where the memo did interrogate issues, it did so in a wholly unacademic way, avoiding ideas of proper research with clear questions, methodology, time and method sampling, and, most crucially of all, analytical framework. As such, its claims about “systemic issues” must be treated with serious doubt, as no systemic interrogation actually occurred.

In line with this, Caroline Daniel, an adviser who served and worked alongside Prescott, testified to the Commons committee that Prescott’s view was indeed flawed in terms of not providing a truly holistic view, and was more than anything else, a personal account formed by his own personal opinions. Prescott himself even admitted that his review did indeed fail in terms of being properly scoped, so as to allow for systemic commentary, while avoiding discussing the impacts his personal politics had on the memo.

More than anything else, this memo and scandal have made it clear just how much the right-wing has desired to be able to use scandals and culture wars around the BBC, not only to attack the left, but also to distract from the right-wing bias that the BBC has. After all, studies have shown very clearly in all areas that there is no evidence for any of the biases alleged against the BBC in the Prescott memo.