One of Tim's problems is that he thinks he understands how his newsrooms work; and then, when relaxed, thinks he can explain it to the general public. Tim's clarity of internal thought maybe laser sharp, but when they come tumbling out in conversation, what may have been searing insights are buried in word salad.
We don't have a full transcript of BBC DG Tim Davie's session at the Cheltenham Literary Festival, with interrogator Matthew Syed, but the snatches about 'no room for personal politics' are muddled.
“You cannot have any assumption about where people are politically. You leave it at the door and your religion is journalism at the BBC. And the problem I’ve got is that people react quite chemically to that.”
“So you can’t come into the newsroom with a Black Lives Matter T-shirt.
“We stand absolutely firmly against racism in any form. I find some of the hatred in society at the moment utterly abhorrent, and personally really upsetting.
“But that is a campaign that has politicised objectives, therefore is not appropriate for a journalist who may be covering that issue to be campaigning in that way,”
“And for some people joining the BBC, that is a very difficult thing to accept. And it has not been an easy thing to get done this, and we wrestle with it every day. "
“I feel very, very strongly that if you walk into the BBC newsroom, you cannot be holding a Kamala Harris mug when you come to the election – no way, that’s not even acceptable”
What on earth is this problem that Tim Davie says he's got? Journalists are 'reacting chemically' to not being allowed to wear political slogans in the newsroom? That's not a problem for the DG; that's an issue for newsroom managers: go home & either come back dressed appropriately, or don't come back. Tim, you do realise news staff were leaving their politics and religion at the door of the newsroom long before you arrived, and the vast majority still are? This is equally true of ITN, Sky, Global. But really, are slogans on t-shirts and mugs the substantive issue? They're not allowed but can anyone be surprised that journalists are political? - that's why they work in news, for goodness' sake.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is, Davie thinks impartiality is all about things looking right, when it is in fact all about the output, not what the people who write it are wearing. He's obsessed with outward appearances; news staff have to declare their political affiliations (and those of their families and friends, for goodness' sake) to their managers, and they are told how to behave in the BBC's Impartiality Guidance:
'Do not express a view on any policy which is a matter of current political debate or on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other "controversial subject." '
Why? Well, thinks Tim, because that journalist could be accused of bias if he let slip an opinion. But no-one doubts that, even when dutifully unexpressed, the forbidden political thoughts still exist inside the heads of journalists. Do those thoughts therefore inevitably influence what he or she writes? Millions of words written by journalists in BBC and other newsrooms every day demonstrate that they do not. I worked in news for 36 years and I could criticise the output in several ways, but it is not grossly or even moderately afflicted by bias. You simply wouldn't get away with it. Never mind managers, your colleagues would howl you down. Lefty journalists report the views of right-wing parties and politicians fully and fairly, and vice versa. Vegan journalists write accurately about meat and eggs. Catholic journalists write truthfully about Protestantism, or atheism. This is because broadcast journalism is overwhelmingly practised as a trade, not as activism.
We should never surrender to the simplistic and asinine idea that a person is automatically a slave to his or her opinions - i.e. if you're a journalist who is known to support a particular party, then the political news you write must be untrustworthy - yet Tim Davie surrenders to it, and wants his news staff to behave as if they are political eunuchs, shorn of anything that might be taken for an opinion on anything that matters. He is, of course, trying to avoid negative stories being written about the BBC by the Daily Mail, but if he were a journalist he would understand that that is an impossible ambition: shafting Auntie is what the Daily Mail is FOR.
With you all the way
ReplyDeleteI may have to scrumple up my earlier comment & chuck it in the bin if the Panorama Trump Edit allegation turns out to be true. In all my days with the Corp, I've never done, or been asked to do, such a dishonest edit, and quite frankly I'd have flat refused and reported it. If this happened, well done whoever did it & all who knew & said nothing, you've just taken a dump on the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteI still don't believe political opinions automatically influence what journalists write, or the way they edit what others say, but whoever is responsible for this - if it's true - has given ammunition to people who want the public to believe it. It's one dishonest edit among a million honest ones, but that won't help.
ReplyDelete