The bbc can say what we all feel — a response to david herman | thearticle

I like reading David Herman’s pieces enormously — he’s a highly valued contributor to this site. And I disagree with him on a good many things. He knows this very well, just as I know he

disagrees with much of what I write. But that’s what TheArticle is here for. Today’s piece was no exception. In it, David explained his unease at Emma Barnett’s recent remarks on the grime

artist, Wiley, who put out a slew of anti-Semitic comments on Twitter. Wiley backed these up with an equally unpleasant interview in the _Voice_. Barnett said his words “burn deep, are

deeply dispiriting and play on a very well hidden fear a lot of Jewish people have — that some day anti-Semitism will rise up once more”. David agreed whole-heartedly with Barnett’s Radio 5

monologue — but he did not feel she had a right to deliver it. As David wrote: “It is not the job of BBC news presenters to editorialise or to give their opinions about news stories, or

about their feelings in response to these stories.” I can see why David would draw this conclusion and I also understand why the BBC’s rules on impartiality are so important. But I think his

argument misses two points. The first is that, ultimately it is impossible for anyone to conceal their own views, especially when their job requires them to speak into a microphone for

hours on end every day. The second factor David fails to consider is the unique character of Radio 5 and talk radio in general. Radio 5 is not like the Six O’Clock news. If in the middle of

reading a news story about the government Huw Edwards suddenly looked into the camera, sighed and began sounding off about what he really felt about Dominic Cummings, then heavens yes — that

would be remarkable and appalling. But Radio 5, like “Newsnight,” which Barnett also presents, is not a straight news programme and never has been. It is discursive, informal and highly

combative. Newsnight especially has always gone far beyond the boundaries of the conventional newscast. Take for example the famous and still unbearable interview in which Jeremy Paxman

skewered Michael Howard. It was a moment that showed more clearly than anything the interviewer’s contempt for his subject — Paxman’s “view” of Howard was quite clear. But there was no

comparable uproar at the time about this intrusion of personal opinion into the Newsnight studio. If anything, it was welcomed — just as many people, including David, have welcomed Barnett’s

words on anti-Semitism. The strict rules on impartiality that we have in the UK have been crucial in saving us from the sewer of US-style political newscasting. But I don’t think that

Barnett’s remarks, or indeed those of Naga Munchetty on racism or Emily Maitlis on Dominic Cummings threaten to take us in that direction, even if they do breach the letter of the BBC’s own

laws. The real reason they have become inflated in significance is that all three women touched on issues at the centre of the UK’s current flirtation with “culture wars” — Trump’s racism,

Cummings (and therefore Brexit) and now anti-Semitism respectively. The swirl of the culture war, however, is deceptive, a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The real test, I

believe, is whether any right-minded person could be found to oppose Barnett’s remarks. Ask yourself this: does the individual exist who could appear on the BBC to explain why she was wrong

— who could mount an argument _in defence of anti-Semitism_? The answer is very obviously “no”. The BBC exists to reflect Britain’s values back to itself. It often gets this wrong, as it did

over Brexit (but that didn’t seem to make much difference, did it?) But when something comes along such as anti-Jewish racism, a subject on which the argument is settled, it’s reasonable

for BBC presenters to say what we all feel. Barnett was right in what she said, and she was right to say it. We should welcome that.