BBC must reflect public concerns about immigration, according to landmark review

The BBC must reflect public concerns about immigration, according to a landmark review of the broadcaster’s news coverage.

The review, conducted by the director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, looked at the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s content on migration.

It found that some BBC journalists were anxious that reporting on local concerns about migration, or covering topics such as immigration fraud, could appear “hostile” to migrants.

However, the review, commissioned by the BBC board, stated: “It is not racist to be concerned about the impacts of migration or to prefer more restrictive policies. BBC coverage should have equal empathy for migrants and UK residents who worry about the impacts of migration.”

The BBC management has endorsed the key points and will tell journalists: “It’s not biased to hear directly from migrants, just as it’s not racist to air concerns about immigration.

“Audiences want to know why people move and appreciate hearing from them – though not to the exclusion of hearing other voices.”

Responding to the review, a Downing Street spokesman said that “the BBC’s reporting is one for them” and Rishi Sunak was “acutely aware of the frustrations of the British people” over small boat arrivals.

The spokesman added: “He’s also acutely aware of the pressures that these crossings are placing on local communities and public services. That’s why he’s taking the action that he has to break the business model of criminal gangs.”

The review was authored by Dr Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory. She conducted the bulk of it with Samir Shah, who stepped down in December after being nominated as BBC chairman.

It involved more than 100 contributors from inside and outside the BBC, including journalists and senior management, and a study of 1,500 pieces of television, radio and online content. While it concluded that the corporation produced much excellent content on migration, it said there were also weaknesses.

The review found no consistent bias towards Left or Right in the broadcaster’s coverage but identified “risks to impartiality that point in multiple directions”.

The biggest single topic about which audiences said they wanted to hear more was the social and economic impact of migration, both positive and negative.

“Coverage should pay more attention to how migration affects communities, public services, housing and the labour market,” it said. “All audiences in our research were interested in these questions, but particularly people with concerns about migration. By focusing primarily on political developments, BBC coverage can overlook some of these concerns.”

“Journalists were sometimes anxious about taking on topics they felt could appear hostile to migrants, such as immigration fraud or local concerns about migration. When these topics are covered with sufficient depth, however, it is possible to prove the issues at hand while also being respectful towards the people involved.”

The review found that “for the most part, story selection appeared to be driven not by deliberate choices to cover or not cover certain topics, but by the culture of following the political agenda.

“However, some BBC journalists said that some stories felt more risky to cover, particularly if the topics could appear unsympathetic to migrants or migration. One BBC journalist also said that if it was seen as ‘not a nice story’ it was less likely to be promoted across other BBC outlets or reposted on social media.”

The backgrounds and liberal beliefs of BBC staff may also affect coverage, the review suggested, adding: “BBC journalists and senior management told us that staff come disproportionately from groups that are more relaxed about migration.

“Several pointed out that it would be easier for the BBC to represent different views convincingly if staff had a wider range of backgrounds and political opinions. They might also feel more confident exploring all relevant views without worrying that they are stereotyping or patronising them.”

One BBC insider told the review that inexperienced colleagues worried about what language to use when covering migration issues in case they were “accused of racism by the Left [or] accused of being the ‘wokerati’ by the Right”.

Another said that “one of the problems is we all want to seem like we’re nice, caring people, and it’s easier to care for things in the context of migration ... and not necessarily caring in terms of the communities in which they have an impact.”

Some journalists said they had been told by colleagues that immigration fraud was “not a story you should be looking at”, although those stories were published.

The most common problem identified by the review was that the BBC often told migration stories “through a narrow political lens, reporting what high-profile people are saying without really getting under the skin of the issue”.

Audiences need more explanation, the research found, with people struggling to put migration numbers into context and finding the Rwanda policy difficult to understand.

The review said the BBC should provide more context when presenting numbers, for example the number of boat arrivals, and to explain whether or not the UK is unusual in the number of migrant arrivals or the Government’s attitude towards them.

“A single daily number for boat arrivals is usually meaningless,” it said. “It’s not just that audiences learn nothing from a single day’s statistics – or even a week’s statistics, for that matter. The figures can actively mislead. This creates an impartiality risk.”

Dr Sumption said the BBC’s coverage often failed to distinguish between migrants and asylum seekers, and sometimes gave the false impression that most migration to the UK takes place via small boats.

On that topic, many participants said they wanted to know more about how people in small boats get the money to pay smugglers, but one BBC journalist said they would be “reluctant” to ask that in case it appeared “hostile” towards asylum seekers.

Audiences, regardless of their views on migration, also wanted more context on why people move to the UK – their back stories, reasons for leaving their home countries, and reasons for choosing the UK over other destinations. The report said:“They wanted to hear directly from migrants themselves.”

The research found that people wanted more in-depth coverage of migration, rather than stories only being covered because politicians were talking about them. BBC coverage should add more nuance and “represent the full range of opinion, not just the strongest views”, it said.

In response, the BBC Board said it would take the review findings board to “further improve editorial standards and audience impact”.

A spokesman said: “We note that the review found that the BBC produces a lot of excellent content on migration and has highlighted important best practice. Significantly, the review found no consistent bias towards one point of view on this topic. However, it did identify risks to impartiality that point in multiple directions.

“We welcome the practical illustration of the challenges BBC teams face in serving a wide range of licence payer interests and ensuring that we cover this subject with precision and depth and draw on the full spectrum of experience and views.

“We believe that the analysis will particularly help the BBC in broader and more creative story selection and appropriate framing of migration stories. It also highlights the valuable role that the BBC can play in increasing understanding of these issues and how they affect all audiences.”

The Board has asked Tim Davie, the director-general, to address the issues raised.