5455
So that people know - and this report doesn't mention it - the BBC requires all of us involved in making programmes to sign up to the Trust Agenda, as it's known. This came in the wake of the scandals over the TV programme about the Queen appearing to walk out in an interview (?) and Alan Yentob showing what looked like a face to face interview but wasn't.
So, we were all given (well, I was) a 40 minute talking to, face to face, one on one, on what was the new trust agenda. We had to win back the trust of the viewer/listener by behaving in certain ways.
I don't remember the exact details but it was made clear to each of us that we mustn't ever appear to be interviewing or talking to someone if we weren't, we mustn't ever 'create' situations that are false or untrue and pass them off as untrue, we mustn't do anything to bring the BBC into disrepute (as Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand had apparently done).
This particular situation with the resignation can be dressed up as 'news' as much as the BBC likes, but there is no question that the appropriate way for someone to resign is with his or her party. That's where you start. Clearly, that's his choice rather than the BBC's, though these matters are always mutual, and if this resigner is so full of himself and so excited that he's got his moment in the sun, there are of course always always always willing media people ready to put the glow on this moment. (As an aside, what a cock if for a second he thinks that the media going to do him or his views any favours as and when he comes to stand in the election, when, as usual, the media will crawl all over Labour coming up with stories about the dreadful mishandling of bacon sandwiches and unsuitable wearing of jumpers. He, like the rest, will be toast. Media love-ins last as long as the dagger he's stuck in Corbyn's back.)
Meanwhile, back with the beeb, there is no question in my mind that a situation has been constructed so that the BBC can have some sort of scoop. He's 'their' resignation. I would be very interested to hear from other broadcasters (in front of behind the microphone) who think that this is appropriate or not. To my mind, I think it's completely inappropriate. It's halfway down the slippery slope of constructing news which journalists have been accused of e.g. handing rioters a stone and filming it.
Reply
Report
That's certainly how it looks, and what the blog post appears to suggest. As you add further up, it's probably not really a question of balance. But if we take the blog post at face value it appears to be a question of ethics.I'm also concerned that they don't seem to think it's problematic to do this right before PMQs. The focus was entirely on the strength of the scoop and there doesn't appear to have been any thought given to the advantage it would hand the PM moments later. That's a problem. Seems to me that it's one thing to break stories that do political damage, another to construct a stunt that disadvantages someone at the despatch box.
If you think that at this very moment there is some serious thinking and talking NOT going on in the BBC about whether this was appropriate or not, think again. Why do you think the post on the BBC's site taking down?As for suggesting that I would be more or less bothered if it was another news outlet, why would you think that?! I'm merely pointing out the guidelines under which I work. I don't think I would be able in my area of work be part of a situation in which we became the news. The point is the BBC hates being the news. This was not merely 'reporting' or merely 'commenting on' or merely 'being there when it happened'. They provided the space and means for it to happen. That is not how the BBC is supposed to do things. They will be worried that they might have brought the BBC into disrepute with this, even if you're not. They will almost certainly get away with it. No one will be censured. People like me will appear to be bad losers (or something) and the slow, slow, drip feed of people (out there) will continue to think that what the media do in relation to politics is a mix of dull, tedious and 'they're all in it together'.
I have always respected you...you know me as well I sit in the other House...but...it seems to me that your saying that the BBC shouldnt scoop?....this was an open secret I posted here about it at 8 on Tuesday...it was rife in PH and in the MarquisSo if it's an open secret is Corbyns Comms Director to be taken to task?
It seems Laura had confirmation of this resignation full 2 hours before he 'announced' it , live on TV and a few minutes before PMQs therefor wrong footing Corbyn's team and giving something for the Tories to play with . So why didn't Laura and the BBC report this fact earlier knowing full well the delay would cause maximum damage to the Labour leadership team ? And if the BBC are so cavalier in their attitude to maintain 'balance' , why should we continue to fund it ?
I genuinely don't understand what you're talking about.People decide things all the time, and clever journalists persuade them to make the announcement exclusively to them. This is what the Daily Politics did. You may not like the fact that Corbyn was embarrassed by it, but there was nothing anti-Corbyn here, just the usual desire for a journalist to make as big a splash as possible. The BBC would do the same to any party, given the chance.What you appear to be requesting is for the BBC to stop being a news organisation, and instead structure its news as it structures its entertainment programmes, and somehow prep people before they make an announcement of the organisation's values. That would be an absolutely dreadful dreadful idea. MPs are grown-ups, and can look after themselves.IMO, you'd be better off asking Corbyn why he so consistently looks like a wally, than criticising the people who point it out.
I don't know if I know you.The BBC can scoop as much as it wants. The question is whether it's the job of the BBC to hold someone's coat while they're having a fight. As I say, if you think this is going down well in the corridors of the BBC, think again. We were all asked to sign up to something that this is, if nothing else, right on the very edge of the appropriate/inappropriate border. If you think the BBC likes even being on the edge of such things, not so - no matter how many press releases they put out defending the action.Whether or not you respect me is by the by.
"news organisations' can indeed do what they want - and do, the hacking saga being the case in point. The BBC is governed by a charter, and - to repeat - everyone who works for it has to sign up to this trust agenda. As far as I know, (correct me if I'm wrong) other news organisations don't have anything as elaborate. This was because of what happened with several BBC 'stories' before when it appeared as if the BBC was 'constructing' the news or constructing stories rather than reporting them.As I've said, I think this is on the border of 'appropriate/inappropriate' and the BBC hates even being there. They will of course say it was fine. Meanwhile, they have to deal with the fact that a) yes it has brought the organisation into disrepute with large number of people (us) (who can of course go blow as far as some people are concerned) and b) - and this is the real crisis - the mainstream media of all kinds - newspapers. radio, TV (in the news and current affairs areas) are losing audiences on a massive scale. One reason is because people like my grown-up children are scornful of it all as being a massive cooked-up, dull shouting match that has very little to do with their lives.
I've worked for the BBC quite a lot over the years and have no idea what this trust agenda you signed is. It certainly sounds quite BBC to waste everyone's time with a pointless piece of bureaucracy, but I can't imagine why you're making so much of it. Those things are best ignored, in my opinion. You're right, of course, that the BBC probably is uncomfortable right now. They hate being criticised, and get all in a tizz. That isn't something to be happy about, however. Journalism should be on the edge all the time. 'Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations,' as quite a famous leftist writer once said.It may have brought the organisation into disrepute for you, but for me, it made them look like a proper news organisation and I was delighted. I wish they'd do things like this again, again and again, and stop worrying about offending precious folks who can't bear to see Salmond, Farage, Corbyn or whoever called out for being the wallies they are.As for how this creates some kind of media crisis, I have no idea what you're talking about. Everyone would have forgotten all about it if twitter hadn't got all steamed up.
The reporter in this case appears on that programme at that time every week.
She had a good story which the BBC could run with when she was on the programme.
Doughty only resigned shortly before he went on the programme and agreed to publicly announce it when he went on the programme.
How Doughty chooses to resign is entirely a matter for him and he was entirely free to publicise his resignation via any other means.
Part of the BBC's job is to attract viewers and listeners and the reporter was doing her job.
If Doughty had told her a month ago he was going to resign and they'd somehow saved it up for the first PMQs of the year it would be questionable.
But he told hour a couple of hours before the programme and hadn't at that point told Corbyn. I would expect the reporter quite possibly agreed not to run the story at that point.
There's an increasing danger some people are seeking to undermine the media because they can't accept the near daily messes created by Labour's leadership.
The problem is with the message, not the messenger.
the mainstream media of all kinds - newspapers. radio, TV (in the news and current affairs areas) are losing audiences on a massive scale. One reason is because people like my grown-up children are scornful of it all as being a massive cooked-up, dull shouting match that has very little to do with their lives.Thanks for articulating the nub of it so well. This thing is a storm in a Westminster teacup, of course, for the usual Britpol wonks to get excited about, but the issue is much wider. I long since gave up listening to anything said by the awful Kuenssberg, or her predecessors, or indeed any of the pap the BBC News churns out, because it bears absolutely no relation to anything which is going on out here in the real world. None. Even the little coverage I saw of the floods struck me as petrified, desperate to show "plucky" communities fighting back to normal asap, rather than the full scale of the issue we're facing. No analysis, no connections to people's lives. And the net result is, no one I know, old or young, watches it or trusts it. This is just another nail in the coffin.I sometimes think the BBC news wonks don't even care if it's publically owned any more. They probably think the game's up, and are salivating at the thought that when it gets sold off, they'll get the franchise and make a ton of cash. But good public broadcasting this is not.
I don't think I would be able in my area of work be part of a situation in which we became the news. The point is the BBC hates being the news. This was not merely 'reporting' or merely 'commenting on' or merely 'being there when it happened'. They provided the space and means for it to happen. That is not how the BBC is supposed to do things.
That is exactly the point. Thats how Kuennsberg has abused her priveliged position. But its not the first time. Other BBC colleagues, with her, and Stratton manufactured the 'my finger will not go on the nuke button' right at the end of Corbyns first party conference as leader, in order to create a story of disarray at the end of a conference which had gone reasonably well. Kueensberg ambushed shadow cab members as they trundled through the hotel corridoors, and got them to condemn the statement, Stratton gleefully rerported on 'disarry' on twitter they were congratulated by Nick Robinson for engineering this (my words) and if I call correctly Michael Crick also tweeted that he wished he'd done it...
The focus was entirely on the strength of the scoop and there doesn't appear to have been any thought given to the advantage it would hand the PM moments later.What concerns me, and makes this situation unacceptable, is that the deleted blog post makes it clear that thought very much WAS given to handing the PM that advantage.
Well, I really admire your chutzpah...though it's interesting that you're posting here anonymously. Feel free to knock BBC 'bureaucracy' other than it came about because of two pieces of crass deception - Queen doc, and Yentob's 'noddies'. No BBC execs too the hit for those, nor indeed for allowing Ross and Brand to chat away in the small hours of the morning without their programme being 'signed off' properly. Indeed, I forgot to add that that was part of the 'trust agenda' document that was read to me. Henceforth all programmes would have to fit a 'compliance' arrangement and be signed off by management of that programme. If you've never come across this, then I would suggest you're not talking to the right people or the right people are not talking to you. Every word you say or edit or film on the BBC has to be 'compliant'. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.The key thing about this episode is that a) it was compliant and b) the bloke who put up and then deleted his post about how they ensured they got Stephen D in the studio was also 'compliant'. So was it compliant before he posted it or after he had deleted it?No one will ask this question - partly because a lot of people - including you, have no idea what I'm talking about. And even if I am talking about it, I am wrong.Rock on.
I'm not sure why you're pursuing this one. Do you think I've met these MPs? When? How? I hardly ever meet MPs. The last time I did, I was asked to give evidence at the Education committee, sub-committee on Holocaust education and all I got was rudeness, and aggression from Ian Austin MP.
