Minefield for journalists
- Alistair Burnett
- 2 Feb 07, 03:51 PM
Is Iran supplying advanced weapons to Iraqi insurgents and Shia militia who use them to attack American and British troops? Is Iran getting North Korean help to prepare a nuclear test? Have Iranian weapons experts been helping Hamas in their fight with Fatah in Gaza? These are just some of the allegations that have been made against Iran and reported in various media over the past few weeks.
On the other hand, is the US administration making allegations against Iran and feeding disinformation to journalists in order to prepare public opinion for an attack on Iran?
Forgive the metaphor but reporting the - so far rhetorical - escalation of tension between Washington and Tehran is a minefield for conscientious journalists, especially as we need to remember what happened in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
Then a lot of claims were made by the US and British governments about Iraq's weapons’ capabilities and intentions which were reported widely and could well have helped swing public opinion behind confrontation with Iraq. As we know, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and critics of the war have accused many journalists of being too credulous and not rigorous enough in reporting such claims.
In our editorial meetings we have discussed several times how we should cover the growing tension between the US and Iran - and there are some hard facts such as the US naval build up in the Persian Gulf - but we are aware of the need to be very careful which claims and counter-claims we report, and the need to tell listeners when we don't know things as well as when we do know.
This Wednesday (listen here), we decided to report that the Americans are stepping up pressure on Iran, and ask whether what we have been hearing from officials, former officials, analysts and journalists means the US is preparing the ground for an attack on Iran.
The former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, known for his hawkish views, had given an interview to BBC World Service saying the US may need to take - unspecified - action against Iran over its nuclear programme, while the former US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, now more dovish than when he was in office, told the Today programme there are members of the Bush administration who want to take military action against Iran and maybe trying to provoke the Iranians over their role in Iraq to justify that action.
We used extracts from these two interviews to show there is a debate in Washington over its policy towards Iran, and then we asked the respected analyst, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, whether the US is preparing an attack. He said on balance he didn't think so because the groups advocating such action do not have enough influence on the White House. He also said Iran has a limited presence inside Iraq and that the US knows Tehran is still years away from developing nuclear weapons.
What we try our best to avoid when doing this kind of story is reporting claims we can not substantiate, whether made by journalists, officials or politicians, about what the US and Iran are up to without first assessing their credibility and then making clear that they are just that - claims - and explaining the political context within which the claims are being made so that listeners can make up their own minds.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
How green should we be?
- Peter Barron
- 2 Feb 07, 02:30 PM
One of the consequences of 'Paxman slams the BBC on climate hyprocrisy' has been a prominent posting on Biased BBC, a website devoted to pointing out what it sees as the politically-correct institutional group-think of much of the corporation's output.
This time they weren't accusing Jeremy of bias - they've elevated him to their role of honour for his honesty in saying: "People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago" (more here).
So, what constitutes impartiality on this issue? Should we, every time the issue of climate change is raised, include someone like Myron Ebell from the US Competitive Enterprise Institute, who argues that while climate change may be happening there's no evidence that it's caused by human activity and absolutely no need to reduce carbon emissions?
Some members of our team hold more or less that view and indeed we had Mr Ebell on the programme only last week, but we don't put such figures on every time. To do that would be a massive distortion of the scientific opinion which is overwhelmingly of the view that climate change is being influenced by human activity.
But if Newsnight stands for anything it should certainly stand against group-think, so while the broad thrust of our coverage accepts the orthodox view, we are also open to dissenting opinions. Indeed, Justin Rowlatt's latest film looks at how the production of food may be doing more damage to the environment than burning fossil fuels.
Talking of Ethical Man, is it our job to encourage people to be greener? I don't think so. There's currently huge interest among the public in leading more sustainable lifestyles and we should reflect and explore that. Jeremy may well be right that the BBC as an organisation should do more to get its house in order. But I don't think it's the BBC's job to try to save the planet. Do you?
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
Live from Eton
- Richard Jackson
- 2 Feb 07, 01:12 PM
The controversy over our decision to take the Breakfast programme to Eton for the morning (which you can see photos of here) even got them talking on rival outlets. The boss of another early morning show wanted to know "what on earth is the point of broadcasting live from Eton on Friday? Madcap idea and a waste of our money highlighting a bunch of irrelevant toffs whose parents wouldn't know what Radio Five Live was, never mind listen to it. Sounds like some Tristram at the BBC thought it would be a wheeze."
So why were we there? Well, we've always tried to take the programme to places you don’t normally hear from. We did the first ever live programme from inside a young offenders' institution, we spent one morning with teenage mums at a special help centre in north east England, we broadcast from inside an army camp - and we took the programme to the home of a Muslim couple angry at the media portrayal of their religion.
Each gives a glimpse (we hope) of a part of life that few of us experience first hand. And being at Eton also brought to the surface some of those age-old tensions. Should we give airtime to the privileged few? Why weren't we at a failing school on a sink estate? Who cares about these toffs? The texts and emails came thick and fast.
But there were many supporters of Eton too. I was surprised by the number of former - and current - pupils who posted on our blog. Others said that they had no time for the old style class "envy" of those fortunate to get such a first class education.
And so the debate goes on. I think it was a tremendous wheeze. And I've never met Tristram.
Richard Jackson is editor of Five Live Breakfast
BBC in the news, Friday
The Guardian: "A strong performance by Radio 2 veterans Terry Wogan and Steve Wright helped the BBC extend its advantage over commercial radio with a market share lead of 11.2 percentage points." (link)
Financial Times: Reports on Gavin Esler’s response to Newsnight colleague Jeremy Paxman’s critique of the BBC’s green credentials. (link)
Guaranteed to divide
- Harriet Oliver
- 1 Feb 07, 10:26 AM
We managed to upset our listeners yesterday during a series of interviews with rape victims. We were asking if too many men get away with rape.
According to the experts, the attitude of jurors is a big obstacle in securing a conviction and for many, presenter Matthew Bannister was typical of male bias in his questioning. When one victim described being attacked after inviting a man she knew home for coffee, Matthew asked, "Isn't ‘come in for coffee’ generally code for something else?".
Should he have asked what many people - indeed lots of jurors - probably think? Not according to many listeners who bombarded us with texts and emails of which this was typical: "Coffee does not mean sex just as no does not mean yes. Issues of consent are best addressed by men understanding that women do not need to speak 'in code' and that if they are unsure of what a woman is thinking, the solution is to ask her. I thought your comment about being asked in for coffee was appalling."
There is no topic guaranteed to divide the audience quite so neatly down gender lines as rape. It was women who objected to the coffee remark while men generally thought it was a fair point. I think it's hard to get a consensus on this one. I suspect juries have the same trouble.
Harriet Oliver is an assistant editor at BBC Radio Five Live
BBC in the news, Thursday
Daily Telegraph: Reports that the iPlayer proposals have been approved by the BBC Trust for later this year. (link)
The Guardian: Reports on Spectator article by Lord Puttnam, who says he will not be applying for BBC chairmanship. (link)
The Sun: Leader article criticises BBC bulletin’s coverage of Birmingham terror raids. (link)
BBC in the news, Wednesday
The Guardian:"BBC News could face further strike action within days". (link)
Daily Mail: Comments on Jeremy Paxman's criticism of BBC environmental standards. (link)
Substantiating stories
- Gary Smith
- 30 Jan 07, 10:39 AM
There's always a certain nervousness when you hear that the competition has got a story. Just before six o'clock last Thursday evening I happened to be visiting the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh with some other BBC editors when I got word that Tom Bradby had a cash for honours exclusive on the ITV News at 1830.
BBC Scotland's political editor, Brian Taylor - our guide for the day - showed his usual resourcefulness by piloting us into the members' bar, and getting the TV switched over to ITV (apparently MSPs generally prefer the BBC!).
A group of us gathered round the screen. Bradby had to compete with a nearby piper tuning up for a Burns Supper, but we managed to hear the gist of his story - that there was, he claimed, a second computer system in Downing Street, from which important e-mails appeared to have been deleted.
This sounded strong in the headline, but it turned out there wasn't much more in the piece beyond those two lines. And his story included Downing Street's absolute denial that this was true.
Our political correspondents back at Westminster checked it out, but couldn't stand up the story for themselves. So we reported it through the evening on our various programmes as Downing Street denying a report that... etc etc.
This caused the Daily Mail at the weekend to launch an attack on the BBC for "burying" the cash for honours story.
Sorry chaps but that's just nonsense.
This was a story on ITV News and in the Daily Mail. The rest of the newspapers reported it as we did - someone else's journalism that couldn't be verified independently, and that had been denied.
We're as keen on good stories as anyone else. As the BBC's deputy director general, Mark Byford, says in yesterday's Independent: "We want to break stories of significance and inform our audiences of new lines and developments. What matters is whether the stories stand up and can be substantiated." This one didn't and couldn't.
It's perhaps worth reminding people of a couple of other stories on the cash for inquiries inquiry where we were ahead. Allegations of offers of "a k or a p" (knighthood or peerage) which formed part of Bradby's story were originally a BBC scoop and lead story on the Ten O'Clock News before Christmas.
And more recently, the BBC was first to break news of the arrest of Downing Street aide, Ruth Turner, the most significant (and substantiated) development in the cash for honours inquiry since Christmas.
We're as keen to broadcast an important story as any other broadcaster or paper - but only if we're happy it's true.
Gary Smith is editor, political news
BBC in the news, Tuesday
The Times: Tim Montgomerie comments on the BBC's influence in setting the political agenda. (link)
The Independent: Reports on Lord Puttnam statement on being chair of BBC Trust, ahead of the application deadline tomorrow (as mentioned here and here). (link)
Daily Mail: Article on Panorama's investigation into the drug Seroxat. (link)
What to ask the PM?
- Gareth Butler
- 29 Jan 07, 04:09 PM
Prime ministers don't give long, sit-down interviews for domestic TV very often - this is Mr Blair's first (which you can watch here) since Sunday AM in September.
Given that they're so rare, you might think there would be all kinds of shenanigans from the No 10 side - you can't ask questions about this or that, you can only have x minutes, it has to be such-and-such a location or whatever. Actually, in my experience such negotiations aren't nearly as common or extensive as people think, and there certainly wasn't anything like that in this case: we were allowed to ask Mr Blair whatever we wanted (although as viewers will have seen, he could still refuse to answer!). We were told he was likely to agree to speak to us over a fortnight in advance, and planning the interview began then.
The difficult thing with these planned interviews is finding the right balance between questions which you have always wanted to ask, and questions which you feel you have to put to him this particular weekend. Our first draft had no questions about the Home Office, and a big section on health. The day before the interview we more or less tore up our plan and started again.
The questions in the end were overwhelmingly topical. We had a list of about 30 we wanted to ask, and we had rejected many more; 25 minutes is very long for an interview, but it's never long enough for the man who oversees every area of government activity. The commonest complaint we receive about interviews is "why didn't you press him/her on such-and-such? Why no follow-up question?". Often a follow-up is absolutely the right thing to do, but viewers have to understand that for every time you batter away a second and third time on a particular subject, a potentially important question is squeezed out of the end of the interview. On this occasion, I hope we got the balance right.
Gareth Butler is editor of The Politics Show
BBC in the news, Monday
Daily Mail: "Lord Puttnam has revealed he is considering a formal approach from the BBC to be its chairman." (link)
The Independent: Executive producer of BBC Current Affairs, Dominic Crossley-Holland, asks whether a programme's success should be judged by the number of complaints it receives. (link)
The Guardian: Interview with BBC Sports News Editor Mihir Bose. (link)
The Guardian: Letter from BBC Director of Vision Jana Bennett on current affairs programming. (link)
BBC in the news, Friday
The Guardian: An opinion piece criticises a recent attack on the BBC (as discussed here, here and here). (link)
The Guardian: A columnist debates the merits of news on Radio 4, as opposed to Radio Five Live. (link)