An extract from transcript of the interview with
Stephen Whittle, BBC Controller of Editorial Policy, 27 August, 2003
How do BBC journalists and editors learn about BBC ethical standards?We have what we call Producers Guidelines which are a complex of set of guidelines which have been drawn up on the basis of the BBC experience over many years. Which kind of set out really the BBC’s ethical ethical standards for its journalists and the guidelines are part of the contract that everybody who works here so its a part of the contract so guidelines that they both know about and they also observed guidelines so apart of this heavy book which there expected to have read and to understand and to implement they also have access on the BBC intranet to advice and to all of that of guidelines. In addition to that to that they would have an opportunity through both regular training and attending the Editorial Policy monthly meetings. To understand better, the meaning of guidelines in practice in particularly in relation with news situations, they develop.
So for example, with the Iraq war we have hold a serious briefings for all of our output people across all around different services from World service, domestic, radio, television.
Looking at the implications of the war for them in terms of how would cover it how they would schedule the program, what would be our appropriate response the situations as they developed how we reflected by national and international debate about whether or not the war was a good thing.
So this kind of continual conversation going on if you like. At least into the background and in the program teams there are more formal conversation taking place through seminars and regular meetings. As well as an actual guidelines text of these themselves.
You took part in writing the first edition of the Producers Guidelines. Are there any changes between the first and the present versions, I mean in terms of coverage of terrorist acts.
Um I think not a great deal. I think the thing of course one,every all time you learn from experience. so For example,the war guidelines we had for coverage the war in Iraq sort of stand in a line between the first Gulf war in 1991 through to the current conflict in Iraq but passing by way of the Balkans, Belgrade, Kosovo, Afghanistan. And each time they've been changed slightly. Their essence of them is not to change but as we have learnt from experience. There have been these little alterations based on say on the experience and try to insure that we keep up with the challenge of changing events.
So in coverage of terrorism again that originally I suppose our guidelines originally grew out of our domestic experience in terms of Northern Ireland. We also had to learn because of the way of the nature of terrorist activity has developed and changed internationally. How to handle things. For example, I think in Northern Ireland nobody took hostages or I don't remember single instance in Northern Ireland when hostage were taken. That did become more common phenomenon in other parts of the world and again you would have people trying to ring you to broadcast, to get them into the air. Hostage takers as part of their, as part of their, as part of their whole operation and so this rise a new questions which have to be addressed in the guidelines
The hostage taking in Moscow what happened was there the terrorists who are hostage takers rang directly I think to the Central Asian Service of the BBC and got on to air by mistake. This was not BBC policy. It was somebody who was inexperienced, and sometimes it cause you find yourself in a tricky situation because for example, recently, in Pakistan, people delivered a threaten letter to the BBC office in one of the cities of Pakistan. Saying unless you broadcast this tape we will blow you up.
And you know, we sometimes do find in hostage taking situations you get hostage takers trying to get on to the BBC airways and saying as they don't succeed getting on to the air, then they will kill someone. And this is very difficult dilemma. Obviously we try to resoles that dilemma by reporting the fact of the threat rather then putting the individual on to the radio or television. Because in that way it becomes like a reported speech, or report rather than giving them a platform.
Do you have special rules for covering national events in comparison with domestic ones?No we try to apply essentially the same rules about accuracy, about fairness, about impartiality, about respect for victims of terrorism. On whole we taken the same view we wouldn't broadcast any interview with an active terrorist without very careful consideration.
Um obviously one of the concerns with the domestic situation as potential of our rage and offence. Or for example, if we were at the height of Northern Ireland to have an interview with member of IRA, an organisation which have killed many people both British as well as Irish there would have been understand considerably outrage.
The idea terrorism been given that kind of opportunity and although for example, in the case of Chechnya. It doesn't have an immediately direct an impact on people in the UK. We would still be conscious of fact that these people who have committed the atrocities which have you know shocked other nations not on this one and where people have very strong feeling about the nature of what happened and why.
What kind of mechanisms of regulation is more effective making journalism more ethical? I mean laws, codes, self-regulation. What do you think?Well, I think no rule or regulation can enforce ethical standards or ethical judgment. That has to begin in the culture of organization the culture of a newspaper or radio or television station. It has to be about where that individual pieces of the media whatever newspaper or radio or television what they think the values and the standards of that particularly outfit are.
And then it is about encouraging and educating and persuading the journalists within that organization to to be signed up the values and deliver those values. Regulation can be helpful so far. You of course can write rules and of course you can write regulations. But if there is not real understanding why there on the first place the ethical damage of journalism might be. Than the rules can not help you very much in fact of everything careful rules bread ever less responsibility as wouldn't have been you know your own experience whole history.
In Russia you have rules and you obey them but in the end nobody feels that they can trust the result, and now you got in that sense the opposite of much great of freedom, without necessarily thinking through all of the consequences of and responsibilities of being ethical journalists.
+11
