Media commentators have questioned whether broadcasters were adequately impartial in their coverage of the Queen’s death.
Critics at Birmingham City University’s media department said there had been “little critical analysis” of the succession, and that the BBC had provided “nothing short of a sanitised perspective” of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign in its royal coverage.
The comments run contrary to those of Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan, who said on Tuesday that the BBC had done a “tremendous job” in its coverage of the royal funeral, showing “the true value of the BBC”.
Dr Rachel-Ann Charles-Hatt of the Birmingham City Institute of Media and English argued that the BBC had failed to meet impartiality standards imposed in its Royal Charter.
Related
“Since Queen Elizabeth II’s death, BBC News’ broadcast, radio and online coverage has delivered nothing short of a sanitised perspective of her legacy, with very little reportage of the unrefined side of her monarchy,” said Charles-Hatt, who is deputy course director of undergraduate journalism at Birmingham City University (BCU).
“The analysis of the Queen’s legacy by BBC News so far has been largely concentrated around local and global tributes, her life and its connection to Britain and the world, and some discussion about what happens next to the Royal Family.”
Charles-Hatt claimed BBC News had “de-prioritised critical narratives such as the Queen’s role in the exploitation of former colonies through the Commonwealth…
“This conversation is crucial, particularly at a time where many countries are having discussions about removing the Monarch as their head of state.”
The UK has seen non-stop coverage of the Queen’s death both through the national mourning period and immediately after. The day after her passing, national newspapers published some 426 pages of coverage of the Queen’s reign; hundreds more followed the funeral on Monday.
The BBC said it captured pool footage of the funeral from 213 remote and manually-operated cameras and used 14 outside broadcast trucks, ten locations and two studios to piece together its funeral coverage.
BBC royal coverage ‘may not reflect the complex range of views people have’
On Thursday last week former BBC current affairs executive producer Marcus Ryder made similar critiques to Charles-Hatt’s, directing criticism at the wider British media over royal coverage.
“The UK media have mostly taken the same editorial line that the Queen’s death has plunged a nation into mourning,” Ryder wrote on the website of the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity, a body for which Ryder works and which sits within BCU’s media department.
“There has also been little critical analysis of the proclamation of King Charles III.”
Ryder argued that “the four nations have very different relationships with the monarchy,” adding that polling from before the Queen’s death has indicated “that UK media coverage may not reflect the complex range of views people have about the monarchy”.
Asked to comment on Charles-Hatt’s criticism, the BBC said: “Our coverage of the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has reflected the strength of feeling this has generated from across the country and around the world…
“It is important that our reporting includes a range of perspectives, so we have also heard from those who do not believe in the institution of monarchy, their reasons for this, and their views on the accession of the King Charles. We have offered detailed analysis on what this transition means for the future of the monarchy.
“We believe our reporting has been fair and duly impartial, reflecting the impact Queen Elizabeth II has had on public life and the historic nature of the end of the reign of the longest serving monarch in British history.”
[Read more: Michelle Donelan – What has the new culture secretary said about media?]
Baroness Tina Stowell, chair of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Select Committee which in July published a report on the future of BBC funding, told Press Gazette she thought “the BBC and the other broadcasters have done a good job over the last ten days”.
Stowell disagreed that the UK’s public service broadcasters, including the BBC, Channel 4 and ITV, had failed to meet their impartiality requirements.
The monarchy, she said, was “not a contested issue. It’s not like we have a political party that has a position to overturn our system here in the UK and people are voting for that.”
“From what I’ve seen on the broadcasters, they’ve all covered… countries [that are] part of the Commonwealth that may want to move away from having as head of state [the monarch]. And I think the broadcasters have also referenced the fact that not everybody feels the same way.”
Stowell argued that public service broadcasters have other requirements besides impartiality.
“The public service broadcasters – part of their purpose is to unify the nation. They’re not meant to encourage division. My starting point would be: if there was a political party that was campaigning for something, that would open up a different kind of debate.
“I don’t think we should be looking to the public service broadcasters to try and encourage a division which has not yet been properly reflected in a democratic process.”
But she also warned that “the challenges that face the future of the BBC remain. They haven’t changed, and therefore what would be disappointing would be if there was if the BBC thought that it could somehow avoid the proper debates about its role in this part of the 21st century, how it’s funded or what have you, just because there’s been a widespread acknowledgement of the excellent coverage of the last ten days.”
BBC director-general Tim Davie has sought to put impartiality at the centre of his leadership of the corporation, telling staff in his maiden speech in the role: “If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC.”
Picture: Stephane de Sakutin/AFP via Getty Images
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
