On March 26th this year, a web developer called Nick Fitzsimons sent a Freedom of Information request to the BBC. He asked how many copies of each national paper it had bought in the most recent year for which figures were available.
The corporation response went beyond the brief and also listed the amount spent on each title in 2014. The BBC had bought more copies of the Mail than any other paper, and its Guardian order had fallen behind those for Times, Independent, Telegraph, Sun and Mirror to a total of 45,672 at a cost of £63,061.
The numbers made a lead for the Press Gazette website and a diary note for the Guardian's Media Monkey, but generated little coverage beyond that.
That seemed about right - fascinating for media wonks, but hardly general interest news.
Unfortunately, however, the Beeb got its figures for one title wrong - and for an organisation constantly accused of being a leftwing hotbed, it couldn't have chosen a more slippery banana skin. It understated its Guardian consumption by almost 50%.
While the Mail found no interest last month in the fact that the BBC had bought 78,463 copies of its own product, the corrected information reinstating the Guardian as the most-purchased title (80,679 copies) is today page-lead material.
This indulgence cost the BBC £127,643 - or 900 licence fees as a Freedom Association dial-a-quote described it - making "the Left-leaning newspaper" the "most popular title in its offices by far", media and technology editor Katherine Rushton reports.
The corporation response went beyond the brief and also listed the amount spent on each title in 2014. The BBC had bought more copies of the Mail than any other paper, and its Guardian order had fallen behind those for Times, Independent, Telegraph, Sun and Mirror to a total of 45,672 at a cost of £63,061.
The numbers made a lead for the Press Gazette website and a diary note for the Guardian's Media Monkey, but generated little coverage beyond that.
That seemed about right - fascinating for media wonks, but hardly general interest news.
Unfortunately, however, the Beeb got its figures for one title wrong - and for an organisation constantly accused of being a leftwing hotbed, it couldn't have chosen a more slippery banana skin. It understated its Guardian consumption by almost 50%.
While the Mail found no interest last month in the fact that the BBC had bought 78,463 copies of its own product, the corrected information reinstating the Guardian as the most-purchased title (80,679 copies) is today page-lead material.
This indulgence cost the BBC £127,643 - or 900 licence fees as a Freedom Association dial-a-quote described it - making "the Left-leaning newspaper" the "most popular title in its offices by far", media and technology editor Katherine Rushton reports.
The startling figure is nearly 45 per cent higher than its bill for any other title, despite the Guardian accounting for a tiny fraction of Britain's newspaper sales. It sells just 176,000 copies a day, according to official circulation figures.
By contrast, the BBC spent £40,482 on the Daily Mail, which sells an average of 1.63 million copies daily.
The "only" is implied in that last sentence - which might equally well have said "By contrast, the BBC spent £22,730 on the Sun, the country's best-selling paper with an average circulation of 1.86 million".
The story goes on to dissect the BBC's Guardian habit in terms of copies and cost per week. It also lists the annual totals for the Sunday titles, but it doesn't mention how many Mails the BBC bought. Or that the Times and Telegraph were also in the same ballpark.
Nor does it consider cover prices. The Guardian cost £1.60 on weekdays and £2.50 on Saturdays last year, compared with 60p and 90p for the Mail. And the profligate BBC didn't spend even that much on the Mail - had it paid the full cover price, its bill for the paper (at 1,509 copies per week, against 1,551 of the Guardian) would have been more than £50,000.
That's still a long way short of its spending on the Guardian, but does anyone believe that our public service broadcaster should allocate its newspaper budget on the basis of circulation (in which case it isn't buying enough copies of the Sun), cost (in which case it isn't buying enough copies of the Star) or both (in which case it is shamefully neglecting the i and over-indulging in the Independent)?
At the foot of its original FoI response, the BBC asked publishers and broadcasters using its statistics to include the following statement:
The story goes on to dissect the BBC's Guardian habit in terms of copies and cost per week. It also lists the annual totals for the Sunday titles, but it doesn't mention how many Mails the BBC bought. Or that the Times and Telegraph were also in the same ballpark.
Nor does it consider cover prices. The Guardian cost £1.60 on weekdays and £2.50 on Saturdays last year, compared with 60p and 90p for the Mail. And the profligate BBC didn't spend even that much on the Mail - had it paid the full cover price, its bill for the paper (at 1,509 copies per week, against 1,551 of the Guardian) would have been more than £50,000.
That's still a long way short of its spending on the Guardian, but does anyone believe that our public service broadcaster should allocate its newspaper budget on the basis of circulation (in which case it isn't buying enough copies of the Sun), cost (in which case it isn't buying enough copies of the Star) or both (in which case it is shamefully neglecting the i and over-indulging in the Independent)?
At the foot of its original FoI response, the BBC asked publishers and broadcasters using its statistics to include the following statement:
The largest number of newspapers delivered come from News UK. As an impartial international news broadcaster with 3 rolling TV news channels, 28 foreign language services, daily paper reviews as well as various radio and TV current affairs programmes our viewers rightly expect our presenters, journalists and expert contributors to be across all the day’s stories in all the UK newspapers.
The Mail duly obliges. But there was a further sentence in the statement that got lost - a sub cutting from the bottom would be the kind interpretation:
The BBC has secured a discount through its service contract ensuring value for money.
This may all sound very nit-picky, but when you omit relevant facts such as the numbers of other daily papers bought, the different cover prices and discounts, then insert red herrings such as circulation figures, you turn straightforward information into a propaganda tool.
So here, without comment or spin, is the detail of the BBC's annual trip to the newsagent:
So here, without comment or spin, is the detail of the BBC's annual trip to the newsagent:
Well, maybe one question - who gets the Sunday Sport?
RSS Feed
