‘Too many journalists lack an understanding of basic economics.’ That’s the most depressing finding of the Review of the impartiality of BBC coverage of taxation, public spending, government borrowing and debt by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot. But it’s not surprising. As one interviewee says, ‘we’re a sort of team of arts graduates’.
As an arts graduate and a journalist, I know it doesn’t need to be this way. But I also know just how difficult it is to arrive at impartiality.
It’s important to note that the authors did not find evidence of political bias. The problem lies more in underlying assumptions, such as ‘debt is bad’ or ‘tax cuts are good’, and in gaps in knowledge. The blindspots include a lack of understanding of context, history and uncertainty.
Meaningless statements
The ‘debt is bad’ assumption colours coverage of government borrowing, for instance. Yes, the absolute number – about £2 trillion – appears huge. But this is meaningless without a discussion of whether it is affordable, which requires a comparison with income and an awareness of the cost of debt. Until recently, governments could borrow at very low interest rates – and are still doing so at negative real rates because of the rise in inflation.
Being honest about trade-offs is one of the most difficult aspects of any debate
Historical context is also important. I’m with the interviewee who railed against the phrase ‘since records began’. The starting point can be recent history. Even where there are long-run records, they are rarely used to provide perspective. The retail prices index hit 11% last year, but it was more than twice that in 1975.
One of the consequences of a simplistic view is that it can be contradictory: tax cuts are good and so is public spending. This doesn’t compute – unless you have a more sophisticated debate about government borrowing.
Being honest about trade-offs is one of the most difficult aspects of any debate, and the report is to be applauded for calling for more economic input into coverage that tends to be led by politics.
People are often attracted by the ‘gee whizz’ aspects of news stories
The BBC has an educational remit and it does carry explanatory pieces – about the rise in the cost of living, for instance. Analytical pieces have the space to bring in a variety of expert views. But news is not so easy. People often only read the first few paragraphs and they are attracted by the ‘gee whizz’ aspects of stories, not by a measured approach that captures the uncertainty around ‘how’ and ‘why’.
Journalists are as subject to group-think as any other set of humans. Worse, there are some subjects – Brexit, gender identity – that require courage to go against the mainstream view. How many branches of the media actively seek to recruit people with a diverse range of views? And how many conduct training in economics, finance and business? Too few.
In a perfect world, economic and financial literacy would be as important as being able to read. Even numeracy is not what it should be among the general public. The consequence is partial decision-making by both governments and individuals – and that costs real money.
