Lord Fowler (CB)

My Lords, when I first put down this Motion, it was really to draw the contrast between the amount of attention we are able to give to media issues in the House of Lords compared with the House of Commons. I do not think we have come out well out of that, but you only have to look at the Order Paper today to see the mass of experience we have in this House in media affairs. In the time since I put down the Motion, the world has changed profoundly, not least in the change now facing broadcasting and reporting. The old rules and assumptions have been challenged, and a new world seems to be emerging where it looks as if it is the will of the strongest, rather than the demands for justice, that comes first. The result is that the need for impartial editors and reporters, unbiased and concerned only about the truth, has never been so clear. Otherwise, conflicts disappear in a fog of war. You need only name just some of the conflicts still raging to make the point: Ukraine and Gaza are well established, but imagine what could happen if new conflicts were to break out in, for example, Cuba or Greenland. I should first declare my interest. I was a journalist at the Times for six or seven years. My editor was William Haley, who before that was director-general of the BBC. Later, I myself became chairman of two regional newspapers, including the Yorkshire Post. My views have obviously been influenced by those years, and I have a firm regard for working journalists as well as a firm belief in what their duty should be. Broadcasters should tell the public what is happening as best they can judge from their investigations, and report, above all, honestly. I doubt whether there has ever been a period when broadcasting has been under more scrutiny and attack. There is scrutiny of the broadcasting organisations themselves, of the policies they pursue and of the people running those organisations and working for them. All of them are caught in the spotlight. The BBC programme “Panorama” is symbolic of what has been happening over the past few months. “Panorama” has rightly been criticised for splicing together some of President Trump’s comments to give the impression that he had encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol Building. The error was to put the comments together, rather than leaving any space between them. Tim Davie paid a heavy price for that, because he was forced to resign, as was the head of news. Of course, it also led to the $10 billion claim made by Mr Trump against the BBC. It became an opportunity for a rich man to challenge the whole basis of BBC reporting. It is one example of the new world that we have entered. I hope, incidentally, that the BBC will continue to resist any legal action. What is being claimed is entirely out of proportion to any damage that might have been caused. It certainly does not provide a general condemnation of broadcasting, any more than phone hacking by some of the press provided a general condemnation of all newspapers. The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on around the world. My firm view is that broadcasters should be independent, honest in their reports and not constrained by outside influences, either political or commercial. Broadcasting today is being used as a weapon of war and the danger is that the whole truth scarcely emerges. Those comments are obvious enough when it comes to Russia and China, where no pretence is made of providing a balanced account of what is happening in the world and how balance can be maintained. But elsewhere, the position is more difficult and more complicated. One of the greatest scandals is not what is being reported; the scandal is what is being prevented from being reported. Take Gaza as an example. We have here an area that has been reduced to rubble, but with no journalists there to record this destruction and its impact on human lives. It is not just the broadcasters that should be under scrutiny; it is the organisations and nations that are preventing honest journalism from taking place and depriving the public of knowledge. The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on in this country and around the globe. We should not allow ideological prejudice to get in the way of judgment. We should remember that the BBC continues to be used more than any other media provider in the United Kingdom, with 94% of adults using at least one of its services during an average month. I say this not because of some nationalist pride but because any attempt to make one mistake a general denunciation of the whole organisation is simply wrong. It should be remembered that the BBC often gets it right when others are still at sea. When I was reporting for the Times from Beirut, at the time of the Middle East war in 1967, there was total confusion in the press corps about what was happening. Two American reporters showed the way forward by ignoring Voice of America, or some such station, and turning instead to BBC Overseas for their information. I do not know if that would be the case today, although it seems to me unlikely that even American reporters overseas are going to flock to Fox News. What I do know is that, globally, BBC services reach 450 million people each week, which shows some of the international reach that the corporation has. I believe that, in our uncertain world, it is surely important that there are some services that the public can rely on. We can take pride in what we have achieved. Attacking the BBC has become something of a national sport. Strangely enough, I do not object to that, as it keeps the BBC competitive and on its toes. What is also keeping it looking forward is the competition that it receives from other broadcasters—for example, the new competition from broadcasters such as Times Radio, or the importance of “Channel 4 News”, which must have won more viewers in its reporting of the Middle East in the last few months. It makes the point that British broadcasting is not just the BBC; it is also its strength. It has the long-term competition of ITV and the new services. It has the competition of the streamers, which pick up large audiences. The BBC and ITV have established large home audiences. The streamers have many excellent programmes, but they do not have what I would call the local characteristic. They are, by nature, international providers, operating for an international market. We are fortunate in having, for example, independent production companies based in this country. It adds to the very strength of British broadcasting. This is a short debate, and I make it clear that, although I have talked mainly about news, which is what I know most about, there are independent British companies providing first-class music, both classical and popular, and excellent drama programmes, all in line with the whole purpose of the BBC charter to inform, educate and entertain. Inevitably, then, I come back at the end to the BBC. In the months ahead, we will see fierce debates on the charter and the licence fee. Doubtless, the BBC will receive many suggestions of how to modernise for the future. But for all that, we should remember that we have a unique organisation in this country, which has stood the test of time. It provides an excellent service to the British public and it attracts a big overseas following. It is independent, non-partisan and it has qualities that we respect. My view, quite simply, is that we should be prepared to defend the values in British broadcasting that have sustained us over the last 100 years. I believe, above all, that they have served us very well.