Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair

[Jan Klimkowski]

As a former BBC journalist (I'm aware that may appear oxymoronic), allow me to deconstruct the BBC's defence by the BBC's own code.

This will be somewhat tedious. However, every word of the official BBC position has been pored over by committees and lawyers, and deliberately chosen.

Section 4: Impartiality

Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements will vary.

The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.

The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editoria...roduction/

In practice this means that interviewers should be neutral, balanced, "objective", and give all sides the opportuntiy to put their views etc. The role of the interviewer is to draw out the key claims of the interviewee and challenge them, or allow them to be challenged by another participant holding an opposing viewpoint, where appropriate.

Section 4: Impartiality
Controversial Subjects

4.4.5

We must apply due impartiality to all our subject matter. However, there are particular requirements for 'controversial subjects', whenever they occur in any output, including drama, entertainment and sport.

A 'controversial subject' may be a matter of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters entirely.

4.4.6

In determining whether subjects are controversial, we should take account of:

the level of public and political contention and debate
how topical the subjects are
sensitivity in terms of relevant audiences' beliefs and culture
whether the subjects are matters of intense debate or importance in a particular nation, region or discrete area likely to comprise at least a significant part of the audience
a reasonable view on whether the subjects are serious
the distinction between matters grounded in fact and those which are a matter of opinion.
Advice on whether subjects are 'controversial' is available from Editorial Policy.

4.4.7

When dealing with 'controversial subjects', we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.

(See Section 4 Impartiality:4.4.2)

4.4.8

Due impartiality normally allows for programmes and other output to explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed. When dealing with 'controversial subjects' this should be clearly signposted, should acknowledge that a range of views exists and the weight of those views, and should not misrepresent them.

Consideration should be given to the appropriate timeframe for reflecting other perspectives and whether or not they need to be included in connected and signposted output.

If such output contains serious allegations, a right of reply may be required, either as part of the same output, or in a connected and clearly signposted alternative.

(See Section 4 Impartiality: 4.4.25 - 4.4.28 and Section 6 Fairness, Contributors and Consent: 6.4.25 - 6.4.28)

4.4.9

In addition, we must take particular care and achieve due impartiality when a 'controversial subject' may be considered to be a major matter. 'Major matters' are usually matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy that are of national or international importance, or of a similar significance within a smaller coverage area. When dealing with 'major matters', or when the issues involved are highly controversial and/or a decisive moment in the controversy is expected, it will normally be necessary to ensure that an appropriately wide range of significant views are reflected in a clearly linked 'series of programmes', a single programme or sometimes even a single item.

(See Section 4 Impartiality: 4.4.25 - 4.4.28)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editoria...-subjects/

OK - note particularly (my emphasis boldened) "When dealing with 'controversial subjects', we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active", and "If such output contains serious allegations, a right of reply may be required, either as part of the same output, or in a connected and clearly signposted alternative."

ENSURE a WIDE RANGE of SIGNIFICANT VIEWS.
A right of reply may be REQUIRED.

The viewpoint opposing Jody McIntyre's claims is that of the Metropolitan Police. However, the rozzers refused to put an officer up to discuss the claims, instead issuing stonewall statements.

In most circumstances, where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing (in this case mobile phone footage independently corroborating McIntryre's claims of being dragged from his wheelchair by cops), the fact that the accused organization refuses to put up a spokesperson or otherwise respond to the accusations, would then be severely (and in Paxman's case probably derisively) commented upon by the interviewer.

In this case, the BBC has failed to place sufficient weight on the failure of the Metropolitan Police to defend or attempt to explain the actions of their officers (allowing them to get away with the stalling for time defence of "we are investigating the incident").

Instead, Ben Brown conducted a robust, arguably aggressive and dismissive in tone, interview with McIntyre, epitomised by:

Ben Brown of the BBC tried his best, when he interviewed Jody McIntyre, the man who was dislodged, and said aggressively: "There's a suggestion that you were rolling in the direction of the police."

This is a complete abuse of the concept of journalistic "impartiality".

Jody McIntryre was in a wheelchair, not driving an armoured car.

The content and tone of the interview were, in my judgement, a breach of the BBC concept of impartiality, especially since the Metropolitan Police, the perpetrators of the alleged assault on Jody McIntyre, were allowed by BBC journalists to avoid any meaningful contribution to the investigation of the matter.

Mark Steel articulates perfectly why the coppers didn't put up a chief officer to defend their actions:

The police like to set their public relations department a special Christmas challenge, don't they? Because that's the only explanation for them being filmed on the anti-fees demonstration, chucking a disabled man out of his wheelchair and shoving him along the road, unless it was to enjoy telling their PR team, "Stick a positive spin on that for us, could you?"