Countryfile does more good than harm
The BBC has been criticised for putting out anti-agriculture, biased programmes.
Of particular note was the edition of Panorama that exposed flaws in the SFP system showing how non-farmers could buy rights to payments and the scale of aid going to some rich aristocratic landowners.
Watching it at home, I didn’t enjoy it either. But I couldn’t deny a system intended to help insulate genuine farmers from volatile world markets while holding down the cost of food, but at the same time allowing speculators to cash in, leaves a lot to be desired. It’s the kind of story investigative reporters dream of telling and, as they see it, if they leave out a few details to make their point – tough.
Another programme, normally applauded by farmers, but which on this occasion was criticised, was the edition of Countryfile that compared the standards underpinning labels on food. Let’s face it, there are a lot of them but Countryfile chose just three: the Red Tractor, the RSPCA’s Freedom Foods and the Soil Association’s organic label.
As has been pointed out by others, it was the equivalent of comparing apples with oranges and bananas. And little was made of affordability or the fact that prices associated with each label reflect the cost of achieving the standard.
As presenter John Craven said on the programme, the Red Tractor tells the consumer that the goods under its label have been produced to standards that, at a minimum, comply with UK national law. But it also indicates that the methods of production have been independently verified. And that is all many consumers can afford.
The other two labels featured aim for higher and/or different production standards but cost more and are therefore aimed at wealthier customers. Again, corners are cut and details omitted as programmes are put together. But it could be argued that the report may have helped consumers recognise the labels featured and increased their knowledge of what they buy.
It is, I suggest, worth remembering that the remit of programmes such as Countryfile is to produce reports of interest to the majority of viewers – and that, in recent years, it’s been transmitted at primetime on Sunday evenings, so has to entertain and inform as many people as possible. Programmes are judged by broadcasting executives on their ratings and Countryfile regularly has seven million or more viewers. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t survive in that time slot.
The other thing we have to remember is that before Countryfile, the BBC used to broadcast a TV weekly series called Farming on Sunday lunchtimes. I was one of its presenters. In those days the programmes were made by farmers, for farmers, and although we enjoyed a somewhat surprising “over the shoulder audience” of non-farmers interested to see what we got up to, we made few concessions to them.
Today, Countryfile is made by non-farmers, for consumers, about farming and that makes it very different. Most of the time, I suggest, what they transmit is sympathetic to our industry and presenters such as Adam Henson ensure the producer’s feet stay on the ground – most of the time.
Further, I believe such programmes have contributed to greater public understanding of farming in recent years. If they get it a bit wrong or dumb down occasionally, I think we should tolerate it and not complain too loudly. The programmes have the potential to do us more good than harm and the BBC should be encouraged to continue putting farming on the nation’s screens at primetime.
David Richardson farms about 400ha (1,000 acres) of arable land near Norwich in Norfolk in partnership with his wife, Lorna. His son, Rob, is farm manager.
What do you think about Countryfile and other TV programmes about farming? Have your say on our website forums.