Wee Ginger Dug: What the Dyson report tells us about the BBC and anti-Yes bias

Bashir used a graphic designer to create fake bank statements which were used to convince Diana’s brother that people close to her were leaking receiving payments from the intelligence services. The interview took place during a time of intense speculation about the state of the princess’s marriage to Prince Charles. Since the publication of the report, the couple’s elder son has blamed the BBC for fuelling his mother’s paranoia and worsening his parents’ already rocky relationship.

Despite the corporation knowing that Bashir had used deception in order to obtain the interview, the BBC rallied behind its reporter. It not only later promoted him to the position of religion editor, but also apparently blacklisted the unwitting graphic designer whom Bashir had used to create the documents.

READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Promoting 'British values' is the last the thing the BBC should do

A former Panorama producer, Mark Killick, who had also raised concerns with BBC management about how the interview was secured was “let go” from the programme after being told that only “loyal people” were wanted on the corporation’s flagship current affairs programme. Killick told the inquiry that the response was a part of a “culture of fear” established by senior management which may have contributed to later scandals which beset the corporation, most notably the one surrounding the predatory sexual abuse committed by Jimmy Savile.

The fall-out from the Dyson report has left the BBC reeling from revelations which have hit the corporation hard. On Sunday, Home Secretary Priti Patel said the reputation of the BBC had been seriously damaged. Being called out for reputational damage by the moral vacuum that is Priti Patel is like the UK’s Eurovision entrant telling the Beatles that their music really isn’t that popular.

Patel said on the Marr Show that the BBC will have to “learn lessons” from the Dyson report. Anyone holding their breath for Patel to learn lessons from the Windrush scandal, the public opposition to forced deportations in Glasgow or the threatening letters sent to naturalised British citizens will very quickly be bluer in the face than Murdo Fraser when he’s tweeting about his favourite football team.

She had the gall to say that the BBC “cannot mark its own homework”. Who marks the Conservatives’ homework? This is a government where the Prime Minister lies with impunity, and where Patel herself broke the ministerial code without suffering any consequences.

The many hypocrisies of Priti Patel aside, there can be no doubt this episode has proven extremely damaging to the BBC. However, the affair has only exploded because it has affected powerful and well-connected people.

Here in Scotland, there has been for many years considerable public disquiet and concern about the management, ethos and standards of the BBC, but these concerns have rarely, if ever, got further than the stonewalling of the BBC’s public complaints process because they do not concern the interests of rich, powerful, and well connected individuals. During the independence referendum campaign of 2014, numerous concerns were raised about the BBC’s news reporting.

There were a number of complaints about allegedly preferential treatment being given to proponents of the anti-independence cause while pro-independence voices and arguments were sidelined and marginalised.

These included the infamous occasion when Nick Robinson claimed on the Six O’Clock news that Alex Salmond had failed to answer a question about the currency of an independent Scotland when he had in fact given a fairly lengthy and detailed response to the question.

They also included the significant airtime and publicity given by the BBC in prime time to a suspiciously well funded “grassroots” anti-independence organisation “Vote No Borders” despite the fact the group appeared to have no grassroots presence at all. Meanwhile genuine grassroots initiatives from pro-independence groups went unmentioned and unnoticed. It was not just independence campaigners who complained that the BBC’s behaviour during the referendum campaign fell far short of its much-vaunted standards of accuracy and impartiality.

Following the campaign, the respected journalist Paul Mason, who was formerly a senior BBC editor said: “Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this. So glad I’m out of there.”

READ MORE: BBC’s pro-Union bias is a much bigger issue than any activities of 1995

Naturally the corporation rejected all the complaints alleging bias. However, the BBC still suffers from a much lower standing among the Scottish public than it does elsewhere in the UK. Analysis from audience councils and focus groups in the year following the independence referendum found that just 48% of people in Scotland thought the BBC is good at representing their life in news and current affairs content, compared with 61% in England, 61% in Northern Ireland and 55% in Wales.

Nothing much has changed since. BBC Question Time continues to be dogged by allegations that audiences are planted with right-wing individuals who can be relied on to push anti-independence messaging. The BBC continues to give the impression that its idea of a fair and balanced discussion of Scottish independence is to have one SNP politician up against three representatives from anti-independence parties.

It cannot be stressed enough that when a public body such as the BBC loses the trust of the public, it’s the public body which needs to change, not the public. However the BBC shows little sign of changing.

All that this latest controversy teaches us is that in the UK it’s only when the rich, the powerful, and the well-connected are affected that it’s possible to hold a public body to account for its inappropriate behaviour.

If Martin Bashir had deceived some ordinary member of the public instead of a senior member of the royal family, he’d still be employed by the BBC and the corporation would still be asserting that it was those doing the complaining who were in the wrong and not the BBC.