Meanwhile...
Before going out wining and dining tonight, I transcribed the following. It's from today's Feedback and saw Roger Bolton putting various points from clearly ardent Remain-supporting Radio 4 listeners to Gavin Allen, the BBC's Head of News Output. (Very Radio 4).
Roger Bolton: One of the key executives who has to solve this conundrum is the BBC's Head of News Output Gavin Allen, who joined me earlier to answer your questions. I began, however.with the general election coverage. Will it be different this time?
Gavin Allen: I think there are certain elements that inevitably will underpin what we do. So to be trusted, to be accurate, obviously to be duly impartial, etc, to explore policies I do think we are constantly looking at the audiences and trying to work out what is it that audiences need from us, what essentially is useful about our coverage. So I do think there will be an even more relentless focus on, when we are doing something, when we are asking a question in an interview, when we're pulling together a piece, what is of use about this to our audience and if we're doing it again that sort of Inside the Beltway way - to win an argument, to score a point - I do think that's the point we have to row back and think 'Hold on a sec. What are we doing that question for?'.
Gavin Allen: I think there are certain elements that inevitably will underpin what we do. So to be trusted, to be accurate, obviously to be duly impartial, etc, to explore policies I do think we are constantly looking at the audiences and trying to work out what is it that audiences need from us, what essentially is useful about our coverage. So I do think there will be an even more relentless focus on, when we are doing something, when we are asking a question in an interview, when we're pulling together a piece, what is of use about this to our audience and if we're doing it again that sort of Inside the Beltway way - to win an argument, to score a point - I do think that's the point we have to row back and think 'Hold on a sec. What are we doing that question for?'.
Listener 1: My name is Alan Walker. I am deeply concerned about the misleading use of vox pops in virtually all news bulletins. These vox pops are routinely presented as representative opinions but in statistical terms they represent nothing.
Roger Bolton: So do you accept Alan Walker's point that vox pops are in statistical terms...they represent nothing?
Gavin Allen: Yes, in a word, of course...
Roger Bolton: (laughing) But why do them? Why do them?
Gavin Allen: But of course they're not statistically representative, but there are indicative. And, look, I'm not going to sit here and defend every vox pop that the media does. I think almost the caricature of a vox pop of 'I'm for a general election, I'm against general election, I'm not sure what I think about the general election' is sort of useless. I totally accept that. But, equally, we don't mislead the public. I think a lot of people do get their views from hearing opinions from other people, not just from politicians or from people in authority.
Gavin Allen: But of course they're not statistically representative, but there are indicative. And, look, I'm not going to sit here and defend every vox pop that the media does. I think almost the caricature of a vox pop of 'I'm for a general election, I'm against general election, I'm not sure what I think about the general election' is sort of useless. I totally accept that. But, equally, we don't mislead the public. I think a lot of people do get their views from hearing opinions from other people, not just from politicians or from people in authority.
Listener 2: Lucy Deech. I feel very strongly that the BBC is perpetuating the myth of People versus Parliament and that you, the BBC, need to take responsibility for the way you are choosing to report the current national crisis. By always interviewing members of the public who voted Leave and who hold extreme views and use extreme language it is giving the impression that these people represent 'the public'.
Roger Bolton: What's your response to Lucy Deech?
Gavin Allen: We do have to take responsibility for what we do, of course, but I think we should be careful about using words like 'extreme'. Is it 'extreme' to be pro No deal? Is it extreme to want a second referendum or to just simply remain?
Gavin Allen: We do have to take responsibility for what we do, of course, but I think we should be careful about using words like 'extreme'. Is it 'extreme' to be pro No deal? Is it extreme to want a second referendum or to just simply remain?
Roger Bolton: (interrupting) It might be extreme to express those views in terms like 'surrender', 'betrayal' and these sort of terms, which worry a wider audience. I mean, Lucy has a particular point but, more widely, there is a worry about this sort of language. Can you do anything about it?
Gavin Allen: Well, if it's being spoken by the Prime Minister, barring the idea of we just veto what he's saying it and somehow censor it, you have to put it into context. Everything is about explanation in context. And, so, even the framing of People versus Parliament, it's not the BBC that is framing it in that way. We are trying to convey that in the case of the Government they are clearly or were clearly trying to portray it as a People versus this dead Parliament in their views. So it's important that we're explaining that to the public. But there's a difference between explaining something - conveying it and giving it context and, indeed, giving it the sort of rebuttal side to that - and the BBC itself espousing that view.
Gavin Allen: Well, if it's being spoken by the Prime Minister, barring the idea of we just veto what he's saying it and somehow censor it, you have to put it into context. Everything is about explanation in context. And, so, even the framing of People versus Parliament, it's not the BBC that is framing it in that way. We are trying to convey that in the case of the Government they are clearly or were clearly trying to portray it as a People versus this dead Parliament in their views. So it's important that we're explaining that to the public. But there's a difference between explaining something - conveying it and giving it context and, indeed, giving it the sort of rebuttal side to that - and the BBC itself espousing that view.
Roger Bolton: Some of our listeners are bothered that you're giving too much emphasis to the more extreme points. Often the middle is squeezed. Do you think there's a danger that has happened and continues to happen?
Gavin Allen: I think, more widely than that, I think there is a danger that the media generally does love issues that it can portray as black or white when, truth be told, almost all issues are pretty grey and there are nuances to everything. So whilst I think it is true that we can oversimplify, I don't think with the case of Brexit that hearing from people at, I think, the sort of polarities of the argument...I don't think think it's extreme again....but I don't think we've hollowed-out the middle. What's interesting is that if you talk to psephologists they will say that, actually, a lot of opinion is congregating at one end or the other. But that doesn't mean that we ignore though who aren't at those ends. You have to hear the full breadth of views.
Listener 3: My name is Peter Ward and I'm calling from West Wales. We often hear on BBC News reports of 'sources' or 'comments made off the record'. I am really impressed by your correspondents' inside knowledge, but the constant drip, drip of unattributed briefings, primarily from within the Government, which they report, is distorting the boundaries between news, speculation and carefully targeted misinformation. My question is: Will the BBC consider a policy of refusing to report unattributed gossip, speculation and manipulation?
Roger Bolton: So, Gavin Allen, will you?
Gavin Allen: Well, obviously, we're not going to report gossip, in that way, in those bold terms, but the sort of short answer, again, is probably 'No' to that commitment. I think sources, unattributed sources or anonymous sources, it is a really difficult area for journalism - much more wide than the BBC - and it is important we are as clear as we possibly can be with audiences of who is saying this - Is this a junior minister. Is this someone close to Boris Johnson? - which is terribly vague, and often means Boris Johnson himself or his senior advisor. Even terms like 'special advisor to' is probably alien to most people. But, equally, you also have to accept that people like Laura Kuenssberg are expert at what they do as the Political Editor of the BBC. She makes a judgement. She doesn't just get a comment from Person A and just parrot it blindly. She's bouncing that off against whatever other information that she's getting, where does that sit within the sort of political viewpoints that she's hearing, and makes a judgement as to how to convey that to the audience. But she's not just saying it's a fact. She is saying that Number 10 is briefing that dot, dot, dot.
Roger Bolton: Do you believe that we should, the BBC in particular, should pay less attention to off the record briefings? Or, in a more radical sense, say "unless I can report who said this I'm not going to say it"?
Gavin Allen: I think the latter is....Look, in an ideal world, yes, of course, everyone would be on the record, everyone would give their name and we would simply report what they said or they'd say in their own words. The truth is you won't get briefings on that basis, and there are a lot of briefings that are incredibly useful for the audience to know. But the key is we are not blind to the fact that, yes, of course, people are trying to play us, people are trying to frame the debate in exactly the way they want it framed. But that is about the expertise of our journalists to see through that, to make that judgement.
Listener 4: James Fairnam. At this year's Edinburgh Festival Dorothy Byrne, head of Channel 4 News, said news organisation should "call out liars". In this general election, will the BBC stand up for the truth and "call out liars"?
Gavin Allen: Going back to the Dorothy point, it was a brilliant speech, it was a funny speech, it made a lot of very important points but, no, I don't think it helps in... in fact, I really, firmly, don't think it helps...for the BBC to wade in to what is already a pretty toxic, at times, political discourse and public discourse and be calling people out as "liars" and imputing motives behind them. Absolutely, via Reality Check, we'll say really clearly when something is inaccurate, untrue, misleading, etc. but "liar" is such a weighted word. And it's not timidity. I just think you undermine your own impartiality, undermine actually what is useful political discourse - to hear other people's viewpoints without calling someone "a fascist" or "a liar". I so see how that serves the public or the public debate.
Roger Bolton: My thanks to Gavin Allen, Head of BBC News Output, who came in on his birthday to do that interview. Must have made his day!
I don't think I even want to play the game of saying whether what Gavin says is sensible. We all know where he's coming from if he thinks Dorothy Byrne's execrable speech was "brilliant".
ReplyDeleteGavin may be the Head of News Output but there will be a Head of Radio, Head of TV, Head of Radio 4, Head of Diversity, Head of Equality, Head of Sound, Head of This-That-And-The-Other. So what he says is not even authoritative.