Blue Peter, the Queen, and now Gordon Brown

[Teddy Bear]

While to many people it will appear that the recent BBC scandals are just coincindental, and just occur in a 'group of three'. We here know that it is really the tip of the iceberg, and that there are many more. These are just the ones that the BBC got found out about - BIG TIME!

BBC in row over doctored TV footage with Gordon Brown
By SIMON WALTERS - More by this author »

Last updated at 15:08pm on 15th July 2007

The BBC was at the centre of a new row over doctored TV footage after it admitted that its flagship Newsnight programme changed the sequence of events in a film highly critical of Gordon Brown.

Mr Brown's officials have complained to the Corporation about an 'unfair, unbalanced, unnecessarily personal, and disingenuous' film which they claim was altered in an attempt to make him look like a thug.

Newsnight editor Peter Barron has admitted that a sequence of events had been reversed in the film, but refused to apologise. BBC chiefs have defended the film as 'a cross between Louis Theroux and gonzo journalism'.

May 16: Jamie Campbell shakes hands with Gordon Brown at Barlow Hill Nursery School in North London. This scene, in which Campbell says, 'Hello Gordon, I'll be following your campaign,' was shown first by the BBC

May 15: Police challenged Campbell at the CBI dinner. Sources says he was questioned because police were not previously aware of him, despite the impression given on Newsnight

May 15: Treasury Press Officer Belshan Izzet. Campbell suggests she rang police to harrass him after their clash - but the clash happened later

Click here to see the video footage that offended the Prime Minister (taken from BBC's Newsnight)

It is a near carbon copy of the row over the BBC's claim that the Queen had 'walked out in a huff' when she was asked to remove her tiara during a photoshoot. The Corporation apologised after it was revealed that the footage purportedly showing the Monarch storming out actually occurred before the photo session.

The new row involving the Prime Minister is likely to fuel claims that the BBC is 'sexing-up' news programmes in a desperate attempt to boost viewing figures.

The latest storm was prompted by a film in which provocative TV journalist Jamie Campbell ambushed Mr Brown as he toured the country last month in an attempt to secure an interview.

In the 12-minute documentary, Mr Campbell is shown clashing with Mr Brown's Press officer. The film – which was broadcast on June 26, the day before Mr Brown became Prime Minister – goes on to suggest that the 'next' time they met, the civil servant summoned police and insisted they question him under anti-terror laws – seemingly in retaliation for the earlier confrontation. But the two events happened weeks apart, and in reverse order.

June 4: Brown meets Muslim leaders in London. Campbell says Izzet stood in his way and gives impression it's their first meeting. But event was nearly three weeks after CBI dinner

June 16: Oval cricket ground, London. Campbell's camera switches to pavement level to film Brown's head of security admitting his boss is 'very shy and introverted'. Sources close to Brown say policeman was filmed secretly. BBC denies it

In the film, Mr Campbell – who hosted his own ITV1 celebrity interview show, 24 Hours With... in which he once appeared naked – accused Mr Brown of using heavy-handed tactics to avoid answering questions.

But in stark contrast, the documentary maker praised Tory leader David Cameron as being 'affable and courteous'.

Mr Brown's Treasury officials complained to the BBC, claiming that as well as doctoring the film, Newsnight wrongly accused the Press officer of abusing her position and used a hidden camera to trick Mr Brown's head of security into making indiscreet comments.

In the film, Mr Campbell is first seen on friendly terms with Gordon Brown, shaking him warmly by the hand. But later, the journalist vents his frustration after Mr Brown's 'absurd' Press officer, Balshen Izzet, blocks his way when he tries to question Mr Brown as he arrives at an event.

In the next scene, Mr Campbell mocks Mr Brown's speech to a CBI dinner and conspiratorially suggests 'the same Press officer catches sight' of him and summons police.

In fact, the CBI dinner at London's Grosvenor House Hotel took place first, on May 15, and sources say police had no choice but to confront Mr Campbell as he was not known to Mr Brown's entourage. The handshake did not actually occur until the following day – while the incident with Ms Izzet occurred on June 4, nearly three weeks later, when Mr Brown met British Muslim leaders in London.

A source close to Mr Brown said: 'Newsnight doctored the film to make it appear as though the Press officer called the police because Mr Campbell had clashed with her earlier that night. 'It is totally untrue. The events happened two weeks apart and in a different order. Newsnight changed it to make it more damaging.

'Ms Izzet did not call the police as Mr Campbell alleged. And to dupe one of Mr Brown's policemen into giving a TV interview is not on. The BBC should not be employing “gonzo journalists” on serious programmes like Newsnight.'

Gonzo journalism is the name given to the deeply personal style of reportage invented by late American writer Hunter S Thompson, who chronicled his drug-fuelled escapades in books such as Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas.

In Mr Campbell's film, still featured on the Newsnight website as a 'video highlight', the journalist triumphantly claims to have discovered the truth about Mr Brown in an off-the-cuff chat with his senior Special Branch bodyguard, declaring: 'Brown's head of security finally gives me the insight I'm looking for.' The police officer is heard to confide: 'To be honest Jamie, it's hard enough for us to speak with him...He's just a shy and introverted sort of person. It takes all sorts, I guess.'

Government sources say the policeman did not know he was being recorded. The interview was filmed with a camera held at pavement level and his muffled words are subtitled.

In contrast, Mr Campbell praises David Cameron for 'answering every single one of my questions. The two discuss rock music – and Mr Brown's supposed elusiveness about asking questions.

Elsewhere, Mr Campbell says: 'It was good to see Dave and to speak to him but when I come to film Gordon Brown again, I am shut out completely.' He concludes: 'I get the feeling that with Gordon Brown's Press officer refusing to speak to me, with his head of security unable to communicate with him himself and with Prime Ministerial office imminent, it is unlikely that I will ever manage properly to get to Gordon.'

A BBC spokeswoman said: 'We have acknowledged that the sequences in the film were not shown in chronological order. There was no intention to deceive anybody. The commentary does not suggest that the two are chronological and that one led to the other. The sequences would have had the same meaning if we had run them in the reverse order.

'It has been suggested that the film maker may have employed dishonest tactics in using a hidden camera. The camera was visible at all times and the film maker was completely open about his intentions.' Another BBC source added: 'The film was a bit unconventional, but we did not intend to be unfair to civil servants or show any disrespect to Mr Brown and we do not believe that we did.'

[Teddy Bear]

They've found more sleezy and suspect incidents, so now the Beeb is banning ALL call-ins.

Last Updated: Wednesday, 18 July 2007, 16:46 GMT 17:46 UK

BBC to suspend phone competitions

A crew member posed as a winner on Comic Relief in March
The BBC is to suspend all competitions after an inquiry unearthed a fresh batch of faked phone-ins.
Serious editorial breaches were found in six shows, including Comic Relief. Director general Mark Thompson said the incidents were "totally unacceptable".

Mr Thompson has outlined a "zero tolerance" approach to any future lapses in editorial judgement.

He also ordered an independent inquiry into footage that wrongly implied the Queen walked out of a photo session.

All phone-related competitions on BBC TV and radio will cease from midnight on Wednesday, while interactive and online competitions will be taken down as soon as possible.

Director general Mark Thompson said he would not resign

The faked BBC phone-ins
Key points: Thompson speech
BBC phone-ins: Q&A
Asked about refunds for callers to the faked competitions, Mr Thompson told BBC News 24: "If there is a way of recompensing then we will do it."

The BBC Trust said it was "deeply concerned that significant failures of control and compliance within the BBC have compromised the BBC's values of accuracy and honesty".

'No excuse'

BBC One's Sports Relief in July 2006, Comic Relief in March 2007, Children In Need on BBC Scotland in November 2005, The Liz Kershaw Show on BBC 6 Music and CBBC programme TMi were all found to have breached editorial standards.

Mr Thompson said: "It is right that we are open with the public when we have fallen short and that we demonstrate that we take this very seriously indeed," he added.

"There is no excuse for deception. I know the idea of deceiving the public would simply never occur to most people in the BBC.

NEW BBC MEASURES
All competitions suspended
All staff to be trained on safeguarding trust
Independent inquiry into the Queen documentary
Commissioning from the Queen documentary production company RDF "paused"
Some editorial leaders asked to "stand back" from their duties
Contracts with staff and suppliers revised to emphasise editorial standards
Promotional materials must meet the same standards
Have your say on TV phone-ins

"If you have a choice between deception and a programme going off air, let the programme go. It is far better to accept a production problem and make a clean breast to the public than to deceive," he added.

The Trust, the BBC's governing body, said: "The public has a right to expect the BBC to set the standards for editorial integrity in broadcasting and expect those in charge of the Corporation to protect the reputation of their public institution."

It added that Mr Thompson's report highlighted "further deeply disappointing evidence of insufficient understanding amongst certain staff of the standards of accuracy and honesty expected."

"We have made clear that we regard any deception or breach of faith with our audiences as being utterly unacceptable."

Other measures outlined in Mr Thompson's action plan include mandatory training for 16,500 staff.

But he denied that the issue of resignation had arisen at his meeting with the BBC Trust.


The BBC was fined £50,000 for a faked winner on Blue Peter
He also told BBC News 24 no offers of resignation had been received by him, nor had he sought any.

He has also called for a workshop involving other broadcasters to discuss issues surrounding editorial standards and training.

'In denial'

Earlier on Wednesday, a report by media regulator Ofcom said there had been a "systemic failure" in the way TV channels had run premium rate phone services.

An inquiry found that broadcasters were "in denial" about their responsibilities to viewers and saw phone-ins as a way to generate revenue.

Last week Ofcom fined the BBC £50,000 after the children's programme Blue Peter falsified the results of a phone-in competition during a live show.

The BBC also had to apologise over the clips from a documentary about the Royal Family that implied the Queen had walked out of a portrait session with a photographer.

The programme's makers, RDF Media, subsequently admitted that it was "guilty of a serious error of judgement".

[Teddy Bear]

An article today in The TImes highlights the lack of integrity shown by the BBC, as well as details the particular scams that have come to light, apart from those already mentioned. Worth reading the readers comments following the article on the Times website too.

As you can read, Thompson of the BBC tells the public that they have "every right to be angry, as he is", but is really doing nothing else about it but posturing. HEADS SHOULD ROLL - but will they?

From The TimesJuly 19, 2007

‘You have every right to be angry that these lapses have cast a shadow over the integrity of the BBC’

Dan Sabbagh
Producers of Comic Relief and Children in Need are to be suspended by the BBC after the corporation was forced to admit yesterday that winners of phone-in competitions on both charity broadcasts had been faked.

The BBC also decided to suspend all future competitions while it conducts a review of its most serious crisis since the Hutton affair. Up to ten producers are expected to be suspended until the investigation is completed.

An investigation discovered irregularities across the BBC’s operation, with audiences deceived by programmes on BBC One, BBC Two, children’s television, the radio station 6 Music and the World Service.

Mark Thompson, the Director-General, said that viewers and staff had “every right to be angry, as I am angry, that these and the earlier serious lapses have cast a shadow over the wider integrity of the BBC”. He admitted that viewers had been deceived on a scale far greater than previously thought.

He was speaking after a crisis meeting of the BBC Trust, the regulatory body, which heard how on a series of occasions employees pretended to be the winners of competitions in order to maintain an illusion that the competitions had been conducted correctly.

As many as ten senior producers will be asked to “stand back from their duties” by the end of the week, meaning that in reality they will be suspended. However, the proposed action provoked an angry response from trade unions, which believed that bosses should take responsibility.

On Comic Relief, shown on BBC One on March 16 of this year, viewers were invited to call in to win prizes while they were being invited to donate to the charity. The first two callers guessed wrongly, while the other waiting callers were lost in the telephone system.

A third caller was heard answering the question correctly, but the caller “was in fact not a viewer, but a member of the production team”, a BBC statement said.

A similar incident occurred at the BBC’sSport Reliefin July 2006, where management found evidence that the fake caller system “was planned as a contingency in advance”, and in a competition run as part the Scottish segment of Children in Need’s 2005 campaign.

Children in Need is the BBC’s own charity. Dating from 1927, it raised £30.1 million last year. Comic Relief and its sister charity Sport Relief, although not BBC charities are the only other organisations for which the BBC is permitted to campaign, and all three represent landmark viewing events in the year.

There were also instances of winners at three other BBC programmes, including TMi, a children’s programme on BBC Two, and on the Liz Kershaw show on BBC 6 Music, where in prerecorded programmes with faked phone-ins were broadcast as if they were live. The BBC said it was reviewing the position of Kershaw.

The breaches are the latest scandals in a crisis-strewn fortnight for the BBC, which was fined £50,000 last week for faking the winner of a phone-in on Blue Peter, and was then forced to admit that a promotional clip of the Queen had been misleadingly edited to make it appear that she had stormed out of a photoshoot with Annie Liebovitz.

The BBC Trust released its own statement saying that the latest revelations “shows further deeply disappointing evidence of insufficient understanding amongst certain staff of the standards of accuracy and honesty expected, and inadequate editorial controls to ensure compliance”.

There were, however, no calls by trustees for the resignation of Mr Thompson, or of Peter Fincham, the Controller of BBC One, who released the misleading footage of the Queen at a promotional event for the programme.

Insiders said that there was no question of either man resigning and Sir Michael Lyons, the chairman of the BBC Trust and successor to Michael Grade, backed his Director-General at the meeting yesterday morning.

The meeting began at 9am in the BBC’s Central London base at Broadcasting House. Sir Michael participated by telephone because he was honouring a speaking engagement in New Zealand, dating back to his period as Gordon Brown’s adviser on local government finance.

Trustees, who were expecting to hear last week about how footage of the Queen had been misleadingly edited, had begun to learn from Friday that there were further, damning revelations. Late on Tuesday full details became clear, and gossip was spreading around the Corporation had to brace itself for a shock.

At the Trust meeting Sir Michael canvassed views from trustees, including Chitra Barucha, a former NHS executive who is the vice-chairman, Richard Tait, who was once an ITN editor, and Dame Patricia Hodgson, the principal of Newnham College, Cambridge.

They endorsed an action plan put together by Sir Michael, creating an independent investigation into how the Queen trailer was produced, and the new breaches.

John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons Media Select Committee, said: “This isn’t just the odd lapse, these are astounding deceptions in some of the best-known shows that the BBC puts out.

“Taken with the Ofcom report, the whole credibility of the television industry is now under question. Ofcom has already fined the BBC overBlue Peter, but it will have to investigate and demonstrate how serious these new cases are.”

Meanwhile, in a strongly worded statement, Ed Richards, the chief executive of Ofcom, said that the legitimate editorial tricks of the television trade had spilled over into “falsification and an abuse of the viewers’ trust”.

He added: “Scandal then ensues. It happened most infamously with the rigged quiz showTwenty Onein America in the 1950s and it has erupted again over the past year with participation television.”

Mr Richards was speaking on the publication of a separate report examining the crisis in phone-in competions across all Britain’s major broadcasters, but in the knowledge that his words were relevant to the latest set of BBC’s admissions. Both he and the BBC gave warning that that the scandals exposed yesterday may still be only the tip of the iceberg.

In his damning report into premium-rate television services for Ofcom, Richard Ayre concluded: “The number of would-be participants who may have been ignored, misled or unfairly charged cannot be guessed at, and nor can the costs they have incurred. The figures may run into millions.”

Neither Mr Thompson nor Mr Fincham are completely off the hook, after the trust added ominously in a statement released soon after the meeting broke up at lunchtime that “we are not ready to draw a line under what has happened today”. Each of the breaches will be examined by the Trust’s editorial standards committee, and information was demanded on any disciplinary action.

When Mr Thompson arrived, after the Hutton crisis of 2004, the pressure was on the Corporation to tighten up its news reporting. Three years later, though, it emerged that where the real problem was now in the rest of its output, where the line between entertainment and fact had become dangerously blurred.

Suddenly, Michael Grade’s warnings in recent weeks of a decline in editorial standards on the production floor looked uncommonly prescient. At the beginning of the month the ITV chairman, who did the same job at the BBC until the end of last year, argued that “trust is not sufficiently valued by today’s programme makers”. Nevertheless, as the new Trust, formed at beginning of the year, faces its first crisis, it seems unlikely that there will be any senior casualties. Such a display of machismo may be excessive, but Jeremy Hunt, the Tories’ culture spokesman, asked yesterday: “The bottom line is not just can we trust the Beeb, but can we trust the Trust?”

Series of errors

Comic Relief, transmitted on March 16 on BBC One
In a section of the appeal programme, viewers were invited to donate money and informed that, by calling in, they could win prizes that belonged to a famous couple. The first two callers taken on air gave incorrect answers. The other waiting callers were lost and a third caller was heard on air successfully answering the question. This caller was not a viewer but a member of the production team

Sport Relief, transmitted on July 15, 2006, on BBC One
Viewers were led to believe that a member of the public won a competition, but the caller was in fact a member of the production team. The BBC has found evidence that this action was planned as a contingency in advance and that the physical infrastructure of the competition meant that it would have been impossible for it to be run as was described on air, and warnings about potential difficulties in conducting the competition were ignored. This incident was not referred up nor was it declared to a BBC audit in March

Children in Need, transmitted on November 18, 2005, on BBC One Scotland
In a segment called Raven: The Island in the BBC’s Children in Need appeal’s Scotland broadcast, viewers were led to believe that a phone-in competition, open to the audience, had been won by a viewer, when in fact, because of a technical mistake, calls from the public did not get through and the name of a fictitious winner was read out on air

TMi, transmitted on September 16, 2006, on BBC Two and CBBC
After a production problem with a live competition, viewers were led to believe that a member of the audience was involved and won a competition open to the public. In fact, the caller was a member of the production team. The programme team failed to seek proper advice before running the competition

The Liz Kershaw show, transmitted in 2005-06 on BBC 6 Music
In prerecorded programmes, presented as if they were live, a competition was announced which appeared to feature genuine listeners phoning in to take part, one of whom would win a prize on air. In fact, in recorded programmes, there were no competitions or prizes and all of the callers were members of production team and their friends. A new producer took over the programme in December 2006 and stopped the practices as a matter of priority

White Label, transmitted on World Service until April 2006
A weekly pop music preview programme on the English Service. On more than one occasion a fake winner was announced for the CD prize when no winning entries had been received

[indikit]

The BBC Trust released its own statement saying that the latest revelations “shows further deeply disappointing evidence of insufficient understanding amongst certain staff of the standards of accuracy and honesty expected, and inadequate editorial controls to ensure compliance”."

The longest way of saying "The BBC are liars" I have ever heard.

[Teddy Bear]

;D Thanks for the chuckle Indi
A comedian could have tons of material with 'BBC Speak'.

An ex BBC employee reveals some of the pressures on the production staff, which leads to the dishonesty that we here know is the present day watchword of the BBC. For some reason she thinks Mark Thompson has integrity. Whatever future courses BBC employess will have to undergo in 'ethics and integrity' it will only teach them how to better cover up the crap they do.

Television might now mend its ways
By Alison Cahn
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 20/07/2007

When I saw the story about the BBC and the Queen, my immediate reaction was not surprise but relief. Relief that at last the routine manipulation of events and casual blurring of drama and reality which are now endemic in some parts of television may finally be properly exposed.

It was one of the reasons that I walked away from television - a job I loved - after 20 years as a current affairs journalist and documentary maker.

I think there is a thread that unites the mis-editing of the Queen with the dishonest use of phone-in lines by the BBC. It is the pressure now put on programme makers to deliver the desired programme at all costs, so that honesty and fair dealing, with both audiences and participants, is no longer seen as the rock on which programming is based.

advertisementFor me, the experience of moving from more traditional documentaries to making "reality"-type TV was invigorating but ultimately depressing. I remember a Channel 4 commissioning editor asking me to alter the chronology of a piece of interview, which would "sharpen up" the story by making a woman look heartless. I refused.

On another occasion I was told by a BBC executive producer that I wasn't ruthless enough because there were things I wasn't prepared to say or do to deliver the programme he had in his head.

I remember sidling up to another producer on the project and saying, almost shamefacedly, "the truth matters to me, you know". Luckily, it mattered to her, too, but it was telling that it felt almost like confessing to a weakness to say so.

I am not against reality television; it can be very revealing about people and the world we live in. But it needs genuinely to be based on reality.

I produced the series in which politicians stepped into the shoes of ordinary people for a week, including the one where Michael Portillo took on the responsibilities of a single mother.

Of course, we choreographed the week to a certain extent, so that Michael would experience a lot of the stresses and difficulties that someone bringing up four young children by herself would experience.

But when Michael appeared to be doing well early on in the week, there was a discussion about whether we should slash his tyres to make things more difficult for him. I felt this was unfair to him and the viewers, because it was too extreme and unlikely an event.

I did agree, however, that we should arrange for the children's school to send a request for £5 for a school trip, because this is the kind of unexpected expense that hits all parents regularly and is a real problem for those on very low incomes.

Programme makers need to be trained to think about these dilemmas carefully, instead of just going in a knee-jerk fashion for the extreme option. Apart from questions of morality, I think it makes for better television.

If you open yourself to reality, interesting things happen. Who would have thought that the high point of the Michael Portillo series would have been him trying to get an eight-year-old girl to read her homework book? You can't choreograph that.

One aspect of the reaction to the BBC fiasco concerns me. There has been a tendency to blame a new breed of junior staff not schooled in the values of the BBC. I think that is unfair.

It is true that, often, they may be the people who make the mistakes, but this is only because of the pressures put on them, and because they are told to deliver at all costs.

What are the editors and executive producers doing, or those who commission programmes? They should be testing the material which their researchers and producers bring back, asking questions about what happened, telling their staff what standards they expect, and helping them through the difficult process of making good programmes honestly.

When I was a researcher, I worked on a programme called Death on the Rock, about the killing of three IRA terrorists in Gibraltar.

It came under political attack from the then Conservative government and was the subject of an independent inquiry, like the one being carried out into the Queen documentary. The producer, reporter and editor questioned me about my work; I knew how they expected me to behave.

When I rang up the producer to say that I was uneasy about pursuing a witness any further because it began to feel like harassment, he said: "That's fine, back off." Would that happen today? I doubt it. Well maybe it will from now on, after this shock.

The BBC has editorial guidelines; they have been there for years and can be read on the BBC's website.

They offer an excellent blueprint for honest and proper programme making, covering everything from impartiality and fair dealing to secret filming and the circumstances in which it is acceptable to deceive participants (though never the viewers).

Perhaps, they'll now be dusted off and become common currency again.

I am delighted by the steps Mark Thompson has announced to crack down on dishonest television. Although it may be a difficult time for those working in the BBC and broadcasting generally, I think it is a good time, too.

Because, with any luck, this is a watershed that will mean that the majority of honourable programme makers who want to do honest programmes should be allowed to do so without fearing for their careers.

It should also mean that the viewers not only get television they can trust, but also better television, because reality is so often more interesting than invention.

Alison Cahn is a former BBC documentary maker