Skip to main content

BBC hatchet job shoots at the wrong target

A friend of mine, who used to be the Editor of Newsnight- the BBC's flagship current affairs programme once said to me "Of course you must understand that television is essentially a tabloid medium". Yet, amongst the increasingly bland litany of "human interest" reality TV, celebrity wankfests and all the dross on our screens, you might have hoped that news and current affairs could hope for a greater ambition.

But No.

On Newsnight this week- which I caught when it was rebroadcast on BBC World- there was a spectacular example of a journalistic hatchet job, which The Sun would have been proud of.

The purported scandal was that "London based investment banks"- boo hiss- were knowingly mis-selling swaps to Italian and other local government institutions.

 In order to make the story stick, you need to know how a swap- conceptually- works. On cue, up came a slide that was supposed to show this. Err.. it was meaningless. It was, literally, a bunch of arrows that might as well have come from the opening credits of Dad's Army. So the first thing we need to know is that the journalist- Joe Lynam- can not explain a swap because he does not understand what a swap is.

The rest of the programme was a series of ever more laughably obvious cliches- the shiny towers of the City contrasted  with sunny Italy, even an interview conducted with an actors voice to protect the identity of "John"- not his real name.

We were supposed to be shocked that some swaps contracts had been voided because of faults which the wicked "London based investment banks"- a formula used in nearly every sentence of the piece- knew about but would not admit. Yet this was totally meaningless too: in a market of tens of thousands of transactions every day, it would be nothing short of a miracle if some transactions were not voided- for a whole variety of reasons- but apparently this journalist expects a level of perfection in financial transactions that no-one else even dreams of.

The portentous tone of the piece grew increasingly like one of The Day Today's best skits. 

It was crap. It was dangerous crap.

I worked over 20 years in the City of London. I am well aware that there are serious issues of business ethics, competence and sound practice that need to be addressed across the financial services industry. Yet the idea that "London Based investment banks" were praying on innocent government bodies in Italy just won't wash. Government treasurers are not usually inexperienced innocents- many have just as much knowledge of the market as anyone else. Banks in fact simply act as intermediaries in the swaps markets, between the different principals- but remember the journalist, Joe Lynam, doesn't understand swaps, so is unlikely to know this. He also does not understand how the regulatory system works- transactions between market counterparties are mostly a function of contract law- and therefore the regulatory role of the FSA is necessarily highly limited, so his criticism was aimed at the wrong target.  

In the end the villains of the piece may well not be the banks at all, but rather the governments of Italian regions that are trying to welch on duly contracted debts which they entered into fully understanding the risks.

Oh and Italy isn't a formal Federation either- but general knowledge was just another thing missing in the terrible piece.

So a pretty low grade sub-tabloid journalism engaging in a bit of cheap banker bashing. Pity it had to be shown on the BBC's flagship current affairs programme.

You can watch the fiasco here. The full definition of a swap is here.

The motto of the BBC used to be "to inform, to educate and to entertain". Joe Lynam and Newsnight think it is "to bluff, to bullshit and to lead a witchhunt by the ignorant". It was a truly disgraceful piece that should never have been broadcast. 

Still, at least our hero got a nice sunny trip to Milan at the public expense. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...