The Newsroom

BBC Impartiality

Mark Thompson at Downing Street (September 2010)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
JO
Joe
I was just wondering what your thoughts on this whole Mark Thompson at Downing Street thing.

I'm not entirely sure what to think, but it certainly looks terrible and gives ammunition to those who criticise the BBC's neutrality and the licence fee.

The Guardian posted:
Boaden's email went on to provide Thompson with briefing notes on the season – which begins next week across BBC TV, radio and online services – for his Downing Street meeting yesterday. The subject line of the email was "Briefing for Steve Hilton meeting". Hilton is David Cameron's director of strategy.


The director of strategy? Certainly sounds dodgy. If he's supposedly meeting the 'party leaders' as part of routine visits, why is it a meeting with the director of strategy rather than Cameron or a policy director?

I'm not normally one to call for heads to role but this has spoiled my view of one of my favourite organisations somewhat - and for one where impartiality is so important to its existence and the future of its funding, this is potentially disastrous.
BB
BBC LDN
Other than this being the tail end of silly season, I really can't find any justifiable reason for why this is a story.

It's based entirely on what people want to believe; I don't see anything that gives even the slightest hint of impropriety on what can be seen of the email headed "briefing for Steve Hilton meeting"; the fact that a senior party advisor is chairing a meeting at which the DG is present is not in any way proof of impropriety in and of itself; I just don't see what people expect to have happened as a result of this meeting.

While the DG is the senior editorial authority at the BBC, the DG's office does not routinely make the kinds of editorial decisions that would dictate the BBC's soft or hard line on any particular party, but rather tends to make 'retrospective' editorial judgements that help inform future editorial decisions. (e.g. "we should have found at least one independent source before running with that story"; "the complaint made by Mr X was upheld because the language used in the package was extremely ambiguous and may have misled viewers to believe that Mr X was complicit in the crime" etc.)

Any edict handed down from the office of the DG or the DDG (who does have a more editorial role than the DG, and is directly charged with overseeing all BBC journalism matters) that gave even the slightest hint that the BBC should in any way 'go easy' on the sitting Government would without doubt be exposed immediately. Any 'quiet words' that editors or department heads might have with those that want to run stories that negatively portray the two sitting parties or the Government itself would also undoubtedly come to light. Those that work at the BBC are very protective of its independence, and any threat to that independence would simply not be tolerated, and especially given the slightly factious relationship between BBC management and staff over pension considerations, I have no doubt that such attempts to impose partisan editorial decisions would become public knowledge as soon as the words had been uttered.

The only reason I can see for this meeting having been given any attention is because the shadow minister spoke up about it, and decided to portray it in an extremely negative way.

I'm reminded of the recent furore that blew up over the "axing" of NHS Direct, during which I saw a particularly cringeworthy interview with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham; during the interview, he failed to answer most of the pretty legitimate questions asked, such as why he felt the move was such a complete disaster when it had the full and unwavering support of the current head of NHS Direct, why it would be such a bad move when it's expected to save a sizable amount of money, and why he believed it to be a bad move when the service would in fact be replaced with a more efficient service through the new 111 non-emergency number. Instead, he repeated the same three or four lines about twenty times - "cavalier attitude of this government..."; "totally unacceptable to axe this national service without consultation..."; "this government is systematically deconstructing all that is good about our national health service..." and similar soundbites. Not one question posed by the interviewer was satisfactorily answered; Burnham simply repeated the same lines - no doubt a set of lines issued in a briefing memo or email that suggested how best to portray the government's decision.

I sense the same sort of thing is at work here; someone in opposition has decided that this is an opportunity to kick up a stink about something by asking some 'concerned' questions and making some fairly specious arguments about editorial independence and the propriety of this event, but without actually making a single substantial point that might give some concrete justification for these questions being asked.

The DG talking to Number 10 isn't a violation of BBC independence. The DG attending a meeting chaired by a senior political figure at number 10 does not threaten editorial independence. And if it did, how exactly would these editorial limitations be imposed? How would that happen without word getting out about the BBC trying to stop its journalists from running a story against Number 10, or axing an edition of Panorama that might be critical of the Government, or forcing all national news bulletins to exclude all stories that cast negativity upon the Government's policies? There's simply no way that could happen without word somehow leaking out, and then there really would be an uncontrollable sh!tstorm.

You seem to think that this is in some way a disaster for BBC impartiality and independence, but really you're just allowing yourself to be influenced by innuendo, speculation and careful wording.

To use a pop-culture reference - Doctor Who in this case - by way of example of this type of thing, this is much the same as when the Doctor says the words "don't you think she looks tired?" in reference to then-Prime Minister Harriet Jones; she is subsequently brought down from her seat of power by the weight of unfounded rumours of ill health and exhaustion.

A great deal of fuss can be born from innuendo and allusion to negativity under the guise of "just making a point" or "asking the right questions" about something, but there is usually a focused ulterior intention to simply create a terrible stink about something, even when the questions themselves may seem perfectly innocuous and justified. And that's fine - frankly, that's what opposition parties do and it's exactly what the Tories did when they were in shadow government - but let's keep some perspective on things, and not pretend that this apparent concern from Labour over BBC impartiality is anything more than asking questions with a party-political motive.
RR
RR
Probably more interesting were his comments to the New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview about previous BBC bias

Quote:
. "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality.


and almost as interesting, which newspapers played the quote up, and which ones ignored it.
PE
Pete Founding member
Other than this being the tail end of silly season, I really can't find any justifiable reason for why this is a story.


I can. The main meejah story just before this appeared was regarding dear Andy Coulson and his phonehacking skullduggery at the NOTW. Then this appears out of nowehere. It's a nice little distration piece to take the heat off Coulson... again.
JO
Joe
You seem to think that this is in some way a disaster for BBC impartiality and independence, but really you're just allowing yourself to be influenced by innuendo, speculation and careful wording.


You are right - I did. I'm not usually so easily persuaded by newspaper stories, but I was in this case. I didn't, however, look into it properly. I was still very interested in your post though - thank you.
SC
Schwing
I'm inclined to agree with BBC LDN. There is nothing to suggest that the impartiality of the BBC has been compromised in anyway. In reality, the facts (as they are known) and the arguments put forth by Labour and critics of the BBC strengthen the case for saying that the impartiality of the BBC has not been compromised.

At present, we know the following:

1) Mark Thompson was pictured walking along Downing Street.
2) He was carrying an email from Helen Boaden with the subject line 'Meeting with Steve Hilton'.
3) Some of the email referred to BBC programming and the economic and fiscal policies of the Coalition Government.

From these two facts it has been surmised that:

1) Mark Thompson was picture walking along Downing Street to a meeting with Steve Hilton.
2) He was carrying an email from Helen Boaden with the subject line 'Meeting with Steve Hilton' that outlined how the BBC would bend over and be screwed from behind by the Government for the sake of a positive portrayal of the Coalition's policies.
3) Ergo, the BBC has been compromised, is no longer an impartial arbiter of the Labour Party, and nobody should believe a word from the mouths of its correspondents.

I know that some of you may think that I'm splitting hairs over this, but in all honesty we know nothing more than what has a) been represented/reported in the media, and b) what partisan individuals have claimed.

The email refers to the spending cuts of the Coalition Government and refers to BBC programming in which these cuts are discussed. At no point does the email say 'Tell the Government we'll do this for them'. If anything, the details of the email act as a 'line in the sand'. For all that anybody on here knows, the Government may have been bringing pressure to bear upon the BBC for a more favourable depiction. The email may be a response that outlines how many appearances the Government will have on the Today Show or Newsnight and how many special reports will be filed by Mark Easton. This could be used by Mark Thompson for saying that the Government will have ample coverage on the BBC for the spending cuts.

What is most interesting is that the majority of those who have objected thus far are Labour supporters. There has been, and continues to be, a debate amongst the blogosphere as to how far the BBC is beholden to left-wing interests. The most vocal critics of the BBC in the last week, those that have objected to the 'politicisation' of the BBC, have been Labour politicians. Fearful, in all likelihood, that they may no longer have the ear of the BBC, they have objected. This is no different to the 1990s and the transition from the Conservative government to the Labour administration. For a sufficient period of the 1980s and 1990s, the Conservatives did enjoy support from the BBC. However, by 1991, this had waned and would continue to do so. Indeed, the furore over the Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales is an example of this, if one wishes to view it from a political perspective.

The exception to this has criticism has been Tom Watson, MP. In an interview with BBC News yesterday, he did not criticise the BBC. In fact, he was more than complimentary and suggested that they had been more than fair to the Labour government so it was only natural that they reciprocate in kind to the coalition. He went on to say that the facts are not known and, until the day that those facts are revealed by somebody, we cannot say for certain that the impartiality of the BBC has been compromised.

Two things to note: it is difficult in the extreme for the Director-General to stay above politics. It is a political position. He (or she) must be not only the 'editor-in-chief' but also the politician and public relations officer. It is an unenviable position to be placed in. Secondly, these are unusual times, highly so. This is the first coalition government in over 60 years and the first hung parliament in over 30 years and there are very few people on this forum that remember the latter. These are uncertain times and with two parties at the heart of government, not one, it complicates the matter further. As such, I would expect the BBC and the Coalition Government to 'sound out' each other.

Newer posts