This charming woman is why the BBC is so irritating

On 29 May I asked "Why is the BBC so irritating?". It was probably one of my fatuous rhetorical questions, given that, going by my choice of listening and watching, I am an ardent BBC supporter. But now I know why.

News-Watch published a report recently which concluded that the BBC coverage of Brexit, which had been pretty well balanced up to the referendum, has abandoned all pretence at even handedness subsequently and has been 'heavily biased' against Leave. I was actually slightly surprised at the quantification in the findings, because the Question Time audience (not a bad barometer of how hard the BBC is trying) has been remarkably balanced to my ear.

The study looked in detail at the Brexit collection, a series of 31 programmes and features on Radio 4 and iplayer. The BBC presumably thought it was balanced and, with eleven and a half hours of broadcasting, you'd think a degree of balance would not be difficult. But News-Watch found that, overall, there were no attempts to explore benefits of Brexit, which came under sustained attack. 23% of contributors were for Leave, 58% for Remain and 19% neutral/factual. Even the 2 programmes which were eurosceptic in tone did not explore possibilities opened up by Brexit. They concluded that they range of anti-Brexit opinion was 'astonishing, light years away from any definition of impartiality, with no balancing pro-Brexit material. Negatives were pushed to the maximum extent with extreme claims unchallenged'.

As a result of the report a cross party group of MPs and peers wrote to the BBC DG to protest. I looked on the BBC website for any reference to this report but, of course, zilch. Not on message.

One of the key News-Watch findings was that there was a tendency to try to balance the debate by a disproportionate amount of vox pop for Brexit, compared with more expert speakers for Remain. Indeed, News-Watch identified a preponderence of northern voices from social groups D and E amongst those favouring Brexit on the programmes they monitored. (Nowt wrong with that, lad, but it might indeed colour the views of listeners). Now some of you will say that the broadcasters just can't find enough (or any!) expert speakers favouring exit. This is total tosh, even leaving aside the experts that exist who would give a balanced commentary. My proof? Step forward Helena Morrissey CBE. Who she? Well, according to a profile I read, she is one of the most senior women in the City and one of its most recognisable faces. She is the boss at Newton Investment Management, one of the bigger companies with nearly £50bn of assets invested, where she has been CEO a long time - since 2001. She made her name in the mid 1990s with a contrarian investment in long term British gilts when there were fears that an incoming Labour government would devastate the public finances. Which, of course, they did, but not quickly: when Brown pledged to stick to Ken Clarke's spending plans and the Bank of England was given independence, gilts flew. Aside from her job and achievements, there are three notable things about Morrissey. Firstly (and it's almost not PC to remark on it, but it is unusual) she has nine children. She accepts that her stay at home husband enabled her to pursue her career and that it would have been harder had she been a corporate finance lawyer with the notorious all-night shifts working on deals. Secondly, she founded the 30% club to encourage companies to appoint more women to senior positions. Teresa May was it's first guest speaker in 2010. Since then the number of female directors on FTSE100 company boards has increased from 13% to 26% - still short of the 30% target but a rapid shift. Finally, and of more relevance here, is that she is known as "the City's Mrs Brexit" for her pro-Leave tweets during the referendum campaign. Indeed, she regularly lambasted the media and questioned how David Cameron could say there were no credible voices advocating quitting the EU.

Was Helena on the BBC during the campaign - or since? Yes, but it seems only once. A search of the BBC website shows she was an interviewed guest on a Nick Robinson programme " In or Out: the EU referendum", broadcast on BBC1 on 22 February. And that's it. Crikey, they kept her well out of it all the way through to June and beyond, didn't they!

For what it's worth, Helena thinks Brexit will prove benign for the City. And for me she embodies the BBC's institutional bias. Since, even if she was too busy to appear (which I doubt, given her Twitter profile, for example 14 tweets on 28 October), she could have been name-checked and quoted. But I had never heard of her. It was always clear that there were heavyweights who would speak for Brexit if asked, even if they are in a minority - which doesn't mean they are wrong. After all, Helena was in a minority when her boss, Stewart Newton, the founder of the business, asked her morning after morning for months to explain her decision on UK gilts.

Of course total balance on every issue is impossible. And anyway, I don't know what it really means - 50:50 even handedness, or reflecting the views of the population? For me the real reason the BBC is irritating is because either it thinks it is unbiased, when it clearly isn't, or it knows it is biased and is trying to manipulate public opinion. Probably a bit of both, I reckon. What it actually is is holier than thou, we know best, why can't you lot all be more like us - or stick to Strictly Come Dancing, where you belong.

The News-Watch report was published on its website on 11 October. There is a summary and a downloadable version of the full report.
The Sunday Times profile of Helena Morrissey was in the Business section published on 17 July 2016. And yes, of course I called her "This Charming Woman" because her name is Morrissey