Global Journalism Review

After Kelly: dilemmas raised by changing nature of BBC journalism.

by Nicholas Jones

Away from the frontline of the unprecedented confrontation between Alastair Campbell and the BBC, there is definitely some serious soul searching going on among broadcasters in the wake of the tragic death of the government scientist, Dr David Kelly. His family's plea that all those involved should think carefully about the consequences of this highly-charged affair has raised some disturbing questions.

By confirming that Dr Kelly was the "principal source" of Andrew Gilligan's report accusing Downing Street of having "sexed up" the intelligence assessment of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the BBC has ended up dividing opinion within its own staff and in provoking the anger of groups defending journalists and whistleblowers who believe sources should never ever be identified.

Having been a BBC correspondent for thirty years, I know from former colleagues how seriously they are debating such issues. I felt that Dr Kelly's apparent suicide, and the anguish of his relatives, made this an exceptional special case. If the family wanted clarity, I believe the BBC had a moral duty to assist their process of closure.

If I had been involved in the story personally, I would have been deeply troubled to think that a continued reluctance to talk openly about what had happened might somehow contribute to the perpetuation of a cloud of uncertainty over the family. Nonetheless I realise the strength of the argument put forward by the National Union of Journalists and other trade unions, about the long-term threat this might pose to workers and others who are prepared to risk their own jobs and who do give information to reporters on an unattributable basis.

Obviously the government's role in all of this is paramount. By disclosing Dr Kellys' name, the Ministry of Defence triggered the events that led to the demand that he should appear before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and ended in his death. The ability of three newspapers -- The Times, Financial Times and Guardian -- to get his identity confirmed by the MOD raises other important questions about manipulation of the media, issues which will have to be probed by Lord Hutton's inquiry.

I would venture to suggest there are some more immediate lessons for the BBC. In some respects, the row over Gilligan's report was an accident waiting to happen because it illustrated all too clearly some of the potential pitfalls of the changing nature of BBC journalism.

In Britain’s media-driven society, reporters are judged increasingly on their ability to deliver exclusive stories. These competitive pressures could not have been ignored by the BBC. By and large the Corporation's response over recent years has been admirable.

Programmes such as Today, World at One and Newsnight have established formidable reputations for their independent and original reporting. Producers and correspondents have been encouraged to break stories in order to offer listeners and viewers distinctive and sometimes different accounts of the day’s news.

A diversity of approach has undoubtedly been a tremendous strength. Nonetheless, looking back on my final years with the BBC, I would have to say that in my final decade this did result in a marked shift of power: control over the editorial agenda has moved progressively from newsrooms to the individual programmes.

Instead of BBC newsrooms imposing a standard line, the editors of each programme have been given the last word: they can decide what to headline and can also determine the content of any news bulletin which is incorporated within their output. Specialist BBC units, staffed with their own correspondents and researchers, are there to provide material for use across the output, but these units can also be upstaged by exclusive stories.

Inevitably the greater freedom being exercised by programme editors has intensified the rivalry between competing strands: Today is keen to set the agenda, putting the World At One at a disadvantage; Newsnight is anxious to show it can outdo the Ten O’clock News.

One casualty of this push for a greater divergence in the way events are investigated and reported is that sometimes there can be impatience with the more cautious approach adopted by newsroom staff who are compiling news bulletins over a twenty-four hour period, not just for the short window of a particular programme.

Gilligan’s solo operation for Today exemplified that free-wheeling approach, driven as it is by an insatiable demand for exclusive, agenda-setting stories. In earlier years there would have been a greater degree of overall control; programme editors would have been told to share information; specialist units, like BBC Westminster, would have had to be consulted.

We now know that three BBC correspondents - Andrew Gilligan, Susan Watts (Newsnight) and Gavin Hewitt (Ten O’clock News) -- spoke to Dr David Kelly on separate occasions. The management has since taken pride in the fact that these reporters acted independently, each putting a different emphasis on how they reported their conversations.

I think in retrospect, it would obviously have been better if these three correspondents had worked together and pooled their knowledge; the resulting story would have been far stronger and much more authoritative. After all, the government was being accused of taking Britain into war on the basis of a lie.

Until the row over Gilligan’s report, my concern was directed at the ease with which government spin doctors have been able to manipulate the competitive pressures which have been unleashed within the BBC.

Broadcasts based on unattributable sources have become more commonplace. The tag line, ‘The BBC has learned…’ is almost a daily occurrence. I fear we have sometimes been in danger of devaluing our own reporting.

In reality these exclusives are often based on briefings given by the government on an off-the-record basis. The aim of the spin doctor is to trade information in return for favourable coverage. Journalists are so hungry for exclusives we can find it hard to resist being fed a line; our dependence on off-the-record conversations can also lead to exaggeration.

I think broadcasters owe it to listeners and viewers to be far more disciplined. Stories based on a single, unidentified source should be the exception rather than the rule. I know from experience how easy it is to exaggerate a political story on the basis of just one conversation. I plead guilty to having fallen into that trap myself.

Global Journalism Review 1998-2003 Brennan Publications