Complacency, thy name is James

James Stephenson

The online reviews for BBC News Editor James Stephenson haven't been positive after his less-than-deft performance on this week's Newswatch. One of the kinder ones said, "James Stephenson is so full of excuses and seems to be skirting each question. He should be a politician. Talk about drowning during that “interview”." Anyhow, here's a transcript: 

Samira Ahmed: With me now to discuss this is News Editor James Stephenson. A lot of issues raised. Let's go through some of the specific complaints then. The mini-blimp in the Victoria Derbyshire studio, was that disrespectful?

James Stephenson: No, I don't think it was disrespectful. It was an item  - for those of your viewers who saw the item - about the protests. We knew protests were going to be a feature of the visit. The item featured someone who was organising the protests and had brought that mini-blimp with them and someone who was a supporter of Donald Trump in the studio. So it was an item about that and it was part of the production of that item.

Samira Ahmed: The war of words with London mayor Sadiq Khan caused some concern that the BBC's coverage of this focused on Mr Trump's response, the "stone cold loser" phrase, not on the original article the Mayor wrote which the President appeared to be reacting to.

James Stephenson: Well, I think it was a pretty striking phrase, and the timing was pretty remarkable. As we were all preparing to cover the landing of Air Force One into Stansted up came this tweet. We are familiar with President Trump tweeting, but perhaps not tweeting at that kind of moment, right before touchdown on a state visit. So I think, inevitably, it got a great deal of attention in the early hours of the coverage. But then we obviously progressed onto other aspects of the state visit, as they developed.

Samira Ahmed: Was there enough context though around that tweet?

James Stephenson: Yeah, I think they was. As it developed, and certainly as we moved into the packaged form of telling the story, we referenced the fact that Sadiq Khan had attacked President Trump himself, and we know there's been a long-running transatlantic spat between the two of them. So I think the initial news reporting was pretty dramatic...of quite a dramatic intervention at that moment I thought was fair. We developed the coverage as we went along.

Samira Ahmed: We saw a clip there of historian Simon Schama, who was commentating during the gun salute. Viewers complained there were too many anti-Trump voices like him holding forth during the visit. Do they have a point?

James Stephenson: I hear what your contributors are saying. I don't think that was true of the coverage overall. So, for example, we had the American ambassador to the US was on Andrew Marr's programme on Sunday, the day before the visit. Simon Schama is a hugely distinguished historian, British historian, and knows about these events and so he seems like the right sort of guest to have on an occasion like that. I think we know that President Trump is a hugely controversial and divisive president, both in his own country and here, so I think there's going to be a bit more colour to some of the commentary than you might have on a different occasion with a different president.

Samira Ahmed: They were a number of these moments over the course of the state visit, like some of the insulting anti-Donald Trump placards and caricatures that the BBC showed, Politics Live putting up a caption that said 'The Donald has landed' which again some viewers feel just added up to a tone of disrespect. Do you think the BBC might have got it wrong with this state visit?

James Stephenson: I don't think we did. And I think we had a huge amount of coverage on a range of all our platforms - TV, radio and  online - of the visit, the many dimensions of it, the state visit with the Queen and the state banquet, the politics of the second day, the D-Day commemorations down in Portsmouth and Southsea. So I think that taken as a whole, I feel we did a very good job. And we've had a lot of reaction to suggest that's the case. The occasional moment of levity, or a  script line or two that members of the audience don't like, I'd hope they won't let that overshadow a general perception of what we thought was a good week of coverage.

Samira Ahmed: I suppose what people are wondering is did it all end up with the criticism being too personal about Trump, rather than respect for the office of President?

James Stephenson: Well, I think there is a little bit of a division in the public between those who think that they don't like President Trump and he shouldn't have been afforded the kind of honours that he was - and you saw that reflected with the attitudes of some of the opposition main parties in the country - and those who feel that, as your contributor said, whatever people think about President Trump, it's a state visit with a very close and important ally and he ought to be treated with...as a representative of America and leave aside more of the personality. So I think opinions differ about that. Your contributors have tended to be of the people who thought he should have been shown more, as it were,  deference, because of his position. There are many people who are very, genuinely, upset and offended by his views and some of the stances he has taken. So we're trying to report these things fairly and reflect the wide range of views.

Samira Ahmed: James Stephenson, thank you.

The back with two beasts

Below you'll find two transcripts concerning the BBC's editorial policy regarding climate change. 

I'll use this post then to shove in my tuppenceworth. 

I've said before that I find that BBC TV's Newswatch and Radio 4's Feedback are different beasts. You're more likely to hear complaints of the kind we make on Newswatch than you are on Feedback. And Newswatch tries to project a more impartial style than Feedback, with Samira Ahmed taking more care to appear even-handed than Roger Bolton. And Feedback does seem to me to be more agenda-driven than Newswatch. 

So here you'll see that Newswatch features viewers' opinions from both sides of the climate debate while Feedback features just one side. And you'll see Samira Ahmed put questions from both sides too (albeit rather half-heartedly from the 'deniers' side') while Roger Bolton is relentlessly one-sided in his questions. And Feedback has been banging this one-sided drum for a long time now, leading the charge against 'deniers' being allowed on the station for at least a couple of years. 

That said, it was Roger Bolton who really made the BBC boss squirm this week. You'll note that both James Stephenson and Richard Burgess (one of whom said much the same as the other!) were reluctant to admit that the BBC got it wrong despite the BBC itself already having said that they got it wrong, with Mr Stephenson wriggling in particularly awkward ways and Roger calling him out on his use of weasel words and then embarrassing him even further by pointing out to listeners that he didn't look comfortable answering a particular question. All credit to Roger Bolton for not being a lickspittle there. 

And credit to Feedback too for highlighting the scientific ignorance of BBC Radio 4 journalists - bulletin writers and senior presenters, including Feedback bete noire John Humphrys and Sarah Montague. (That was the thing James Stephenson got particularly uptight about). It was a serious lapse in accuracy on Radio 4's part - and if both John and Sarah were involved that didn't mean it was simply a problem with one programme. It must have been both Today and The World at One. 

To end: One thing that unites both Feedback and Newswatch is their consistent use of 'denier', without inverted commas. This old term of abuse is evidently now an acceptable description for BBC presenters and editors to use. You'll see that in both transcripts. Why is that acceptable?

Transcript: 'Feedback' 12/10/2018, James Stephenson on the BBC's climate change coverage

James Stephenson

Roger Bolton: Hello. We're back for our Autumn run. If this is Autumn. The weather is behaving very strangely - sunshine here, floods in Majorca. And is there any real doubt about the cause? 

Newsreader: Climate scientists have issued what's being described as the most comprehensive statement yet on the dangers of rising global temperatures.

The BBC admits it has got climate change coverage wrong in the past. Is it getting it right now? 

Listener: I think BBC News and in particular the generalist reporters and producers and editors are struggling and often get things wrong.

I'll be talking false equivalence with a senior BBC news executive...So let's get on with the show and we begin with a BBC mea culpa:

Climate change has been a difficult subject for the BBC and we get coverage of it wrong too often.

That's a direct quote from an editorial policy note distributed to BBC staff last month. The note goes on to say to:

To achieve impartiality you do not need to include outright 'deniers' of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you wouldn't have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.

BBC staff are also being encouraged to enrol on a course detailing the do's and don'ts of covering climate change. All of which is rather timely since on Monday the UN's IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - published a stark warning that urgent action was needed to avoid a global catastrophe. Cue a steady stream of politicians and scientists filling the BBC airwaves with their take on the significance of the report and what actions need to be taken - with no deniers anywhere, on radio at least. Some listeners and green campaigners see that as a distinct change in tone from the BBC, compared with previous times when the issue has been in the news, and they welcome it.

Listener 1: My name is Rachel Platt and I'm from Winchester. I think it is a very positive development and I've noticed the change already. I thought Monday's coverage of the IPCC report was clear and decisive, I felt, in a very, very new and refreshing way.
Listener 2: Wanda Lubneck. I usually avoid BBC news but stumbled into it this morning. They're talking climate change with two people up, both saying it would be disastrous. No deniers. What's going on?
Listener 3: My name's Dr Matt Prescott. I'm a zoologist and I work as an independent environmental consultant. I think it's patchy. I think generalist reporters and producers and editors are struggling. I think it is extremely welcome that the BBC's offering climate training to journalists. There are thousands of scientists working on different facets of climate change and no journalist can be expected to understand everything, or to know it all, just like I would struggle if you ask me about opera.

I'm now joined by James Stephenson, the News Editor for BBC News and Current Affairs. So are listeners right in detecting a change of editorial policy in climate change coverage? Your position, your starting position, now is the argument is over?

James Stephenson: No, I don't think they're right in detecting a change of policy. I mean, it's obviously in the ear of the listener to determine whether they are hearing different tone or whatever, but in terms of policy we've had a policy for a long time that the science on climate change is well established, and that our output should proceed from that point of view.

Roger Bolton: Well, I mentioned there were no climate change deniers on BBC radio but on Newsnight there was Myron Ebell, who's a former environmental adviser to Donald Trump who's known for depicting global warming as a hoax. Why was he given air time?

James Stephenson: Well, I think, I'm glad you asked me that because I think that touches on a very important dimension of this. While the climate science is a settled matter - although you know there are people who dispute that, but they're to the margins of the overwhelming scientific opinion - the same can't really be said of climate change policy, and the the question of what governments around the world are going to do about it. And,obviously, America is a huge player in all of this and, you know, it's no secret that the Trump administration takes a very different view of climate change. And so we wanted to interview someone who was head of the transition team for the Trump administration in this area, so we thought it was important, the programme thought it was important, to have him on because the science only takes you so far. The question of government action, particularly by the biggest polluters, is the crucial next dimension of this, and that was an important thing to interrogate on the programme, as Evan did on on Monday night. We're not in a position where we're saying that people are out-and-out excluded from our output, and we don't think that would be the right thing to do. What we do think is important is to identify why we're speaking to people, and to make sure that is editorially justified, and if it's editorially justified to do it in a rigorous and robust and challenging manner.

Roger Bolton: Does that mean that you will never put on a climate denier when you're talking specifically about climate science?

James Stephenson: We will not have the kind of discussions that you've heard occasionally in the past, where you have someone who is outlining the scientific position on man-made climate change and someone else who says that's not the case. We've moved away from that and beyond that, on the basis that while they're entitled to their opinion, and those opinions definitely still exist, they are to the margins of the scientific consensus, and we don't want to be giving the audience the impression that it's a sort of 50/50 arm-wrestle between those two positions.

Roger Bolton: Can we move on then from the policy you've announced to the way in which you're trying to make sure that your journalists understand it? How widespread is this going to be? Is every journalist in the BBC now going to have to take. as it were, an examination on this issue?

James Stephenson: No, no. We expect all our journalists to be prepared for the work they're doing and we're offering a training course for journalistic staff in this area, so...

Roger Bolton: (interrupting) Presumably you want all your journalists to understand these issues, so you want them all to be educated in this? 

James Stephenson: We certainly want all our journalists who will be handling this editorial subject matter to be familiar with it, and overwhelmingly to be confident in doing what is and important, and likely to be an increasingly important, part of our editorial agenda. It's a complex area, it's a scientific area. Many of our staff don't have that sort of a scientific background. They need the tools to do the job, and this is just one of the ways in which we provide our staff with the tools to do the job.

Roger Bolton: And you accept, well the BBC does formally accept, that it does accept, that you got this wrong in the past? And your own director of news, I noticed, talking to staff accepts this... you got it wrong in the past?
James Stephenson: There are occasions on which we haven't got things quite right and that's...

Roger Bolton: (interrupting) Not just that. Badly wrong.

James Stephenson: Well, that's the spirit in which we're approaching this. This is a difficult area. We've got a lot of journalists and producers who we want to encourage to be confident in this area. We're trying to provide them with the tools to be confident in the future.

Roger Bolton: We have talked about producers, but some would say presenters need to be educated as well. A number of listeners picked up on the fact that John Humphrys and Sarah Montague seem to get confused between percentages and degrees centigrade. Here, for example, is Professor Martin Parry. He's a former co-chair of the IPCC. He emailed us to say this:

Well, I was listening to the BBC's reporting and stunned, on four occasions I think it was, to hear this misread by newsreaders and presenters not as a 1.5 degree increase but 1.5% increase - which is totally different.

John Humphrys: The report by the intergovernmental panel of scientists says we must stop global warming rising to more than 1.5% above pre-industrial levels...
Sarah Montague: It says if world temperatures go up by one-and-a-half percent then we are dicing with the survival of mankind.

It's not sort of nerdy and trivial this. It's pretty important, because it seems to me to represent just a complete misunderstanding and, in a way, ignorance of the issue.

Roger Bolton: Do you accept that was wrong, and are you worried that your presenters got it wrong?
James Stephenson: Well, it clearly wasn't accurate but it speaks to my point...

Roger Bolton: (interrupting) It was wrong. It was wrong. 

James Stephenson: It was wrong, and we've clarified that and corrected it and apologised for the error. It speaks to my point though that this is an area where we need people to be aware of the material that they're working with, and that's the spirit in which we've made this course available. And in both those cases, the bulletins made clear that it was one and a half degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, so I think the audiences would have recognised that it was a slip and not something...

Roger Bolton: (interrupting) A slip by two presenters? Maybe a slip by one, but two of them?
James Stephenson: Well...

Roger Bolton: You're looking not that comfortable about answering that question, I have to say.

James Stephenson: Well, I wasn't quite clear that it was a question but...

Roger Bolton: (interrupting) Well, it is a question. You know, it's one thing to get a bulletin, written presumably, perhaps by a young producer, and have two senior presenters look at it and both not spot the problem.

James Stephenson: We've apologised for the error. I not sure I can add...keep adding more to that.

Roger Bolton: Some people would say that what that illustrates is that in this extraordinary complex area, and generalist interviewers are always going to be liable, if you like, to make a mistake, and what you need is really expert ones. And Dr Matt Prescott has a suggestion. He says he thinks the BBC needs a small team of internal experts available 24/7 who have the time and the availability to help all BBC programmes, not just news. Is that something you would consider?
James Stephenson: We do have a small team of experts. We have a science editor, David Shukman, and we have a team who work in this area. So we do have that expertise, and we bring that expertise to bear on the coverage we do in this area. And that's the way we think that this is best handled.

Roger Bolton: James Stephenson, News Editor for BBC News and Current Affairs, thank you very much. 

James Stephenson, News Editor, BBC News and Current Affairs, on the BBC's Telford coverage (again)

James Stephenson

So, this week's Newswatch with Samira Ahmed carried the BBC's second big interview of the day with James Stephenson, News Editor, BBC News and Current Affairs, about the BBC's coverage/lack of coverage of the Telford Muslim grooming gangs scandal. 

How did this one go?

Well, I think Samira Ahmed did a decent job. I did wonder if she or someone in her Newswatch team has been reading this blog. She was right in there with that "15 second read" point about Tuesday night's fleeting mention on the story on the BBC's News at Ten, momentarily putting Mr. Stephenson off his stride. 

And it was interesting to hear from Samira Ahmed that the BBC has received "hundreds of complaints" about the BBC's Telford coverage - a sign, I think, of the scale of the public's disgust at the BBC over this and why the News Editor of BBC News and Current Affairs felt the need to go on both Feedback and Newswatch on the same day to defend the Corporation's honour. 

In that light I doubt that his complacent "No, I think we are doing the right thing" line will have gone down too well with viewers. 

As an aside, in that complaints response from the BBC to Tabs at Biased BBC, BBC Complaints replied that:

On Monday, our paper reviews again linked to the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror’s analysis of the investigation, followed by detailed articles which were on our News website front page.

Given that so many people insisted that they'd never seen it on the BBC News website's Home page on Monday, I thought that was untrue but couldn't think how to prove it. James Stephenson has now (inadvertently) proved that it was untrue whilst trying to slyly skate over Samira's point: 

Samira Ahmed:  I was wondering, when did the story appear on the front page of the website? 

James Stephenson: So, there was a story on the website on Monday. That was on the England index. 

In other words, it wasn't on "the front page of the website", it was only on the England page - just as the BBC's critics said.

Also, when James Stephenson says "And it was widely covered in our paper review, prominently on the Sunday", he's seriously over-egging the pudding. That was five paragraphs near the bottom of what was originally a long paper review page (they pruned it later in the day to take out all the images of the front pages), and that that was the sum total of the BBC's online coverage of the story that day before burying later articles (on Monday and Tuesday) in 'Shropshire' (or 'England', if we take Mr. Stephenson's word for that). And don't forget, the Andrew Marr show didn't even put the Sunday Mirror on its table of newspapers, never mind mention or discuss it last Sunday. 

Anyhow, here's a transcript of the whole thing:

Samira Ahmed: Now, last weekend, the Sunday Mirror said it had uncovered Britain's worst ever child grooming scandal, with claims that up to 1,000 girls had been abused since the 1980s. Over the next two days, other newspapers followed that up extensively. But there was only limited mentions on BBC News. Scores of people wondered why - with one of them, David, leaving us this phone message on Tuesday morning:

Hi, I woke up this morning to the horrific stories about the child abuse in Telford, so I thought I'd go on to the BBC app, which I use regularly. And lo and behold, there was nothing about it. Your top five stories on the website. There's one about pork pies and one about the danger of Chinese takeaways. Are you going to cover this scandal? 

The BBC was accused in the press of ignoring the story, and Adam Paulson agreed, writing...

I hope the BBC will provide a full account of their decision not to cover the latest Telford revelations. As it is, it looks like an egregious and appalling lack of editorial judgement.

Andrew Vaughton e-mailed... 

It seems the BBC is no different to the local authorities and police in turning a blind eye to an extremely important issue that is clearly in the public interest. Shameful. 

Well, on Tuesday, the Victoria Derbyshire Show interviewed a victim of child exploitation in Telford. But it wasn't until Wednesday that BBC One bulletins ran a report on the subject, from Sima Kotecha. 

Sima Kotecha: Night-time in Telford. Recent reports say up to 1,000 girls could have been sexually abused in the town over the last four decades. The police here say at the moment they are dealing with less than 50 cases. 

For many though, the BBC's reaction was to little, too late. Trevor Bell thought... 

It is an absolute disgrace how BBC News has suppressed coverage of the events in Telford. If it has been white males who had committed these acts, it would have been lead story for days.

And Robert Leather tweeted this question...

Can you explain the BBC's lack of response?

Well, let's put that to James Stephenson, the BBC's News Editor, who joins me now. Can we start with... The story broke in the Sunday Mirror. When did the BBC national news think it worth reporting? 

James Stephenson: So, immediately we could see that it was a good and strong piece of journalism by the Sunday Mirror. And it was widely covered in our paper review, prominently on the Sunday. And we saw it was a story that we needed to follow up, and we began to do that. So as early as Monday morning, the Victoria Derbyshire Programme was leading its output on this story. And later that day, The World at One interviewed the leader of Telford Council to challenge him about what was going on. 

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) Which is radio. 

James Stephenson: So, we quickly saw it was a story that needed to be covered, and that it needed our original reporting effort to follow up, and that's what we did. 

Samira Ahmed: We heard from a viewer there who said he used the news app. I was wondering, when did the story appear on the front page of the website? 

James Stephenson: So, there was a story on the website on Monday. That was on the England index. There were various developments in the story as the week has gone on. I'm sure you've seen and the viewers have seen how the story has developed. So, the initial suggestion was that possibly 1,000 victims, and that was based not on hard information, but on an extrapolation based on work with an academic. So, we pursued it. And we weighted the story. We looked at it in depth. And it's probably worth saying, to address your point directly, that we're in the middle of this huge spy drama and scandal, the poisoning scandal in Salisbury, and that's consumed a huge amount of our airtime, as has the death of Ken Dodd, and then later in the week Stephen Hawking. So even in a busy news period, this has been an exceptionally busy news week, and we've tried to cover the Telford story in the mix amongst all of the other things that we've been doing. 

Samira Ahmed: I suppose audiences would say, a really busy news week, this is a really important new story. 

James Stephenson: That's certainly true. And I'd like to sort of challenge an idea that I think probably viewers might be left with by the sequence they've just seen. This is a scandal that's been unfolding in Telford over many years, and we have been covering it in great depth and with great prominence during that time. So, the Operation Chalice brought to life the scale of abusing in Telford. There was then the criminal prosecution, which saw seven men being sent to prison a few years ago. So, we have consistently been reporting this story as it's gone along, and we've done so again this week. 

Samira Ahmed: The TV bulletins are where millions of people go expecting to be told what are the big, important stories, and it wasn't until Wednesday, three days later, that there was an actual report about Telford on the national bulletins. Why? 

James Stephenson: So, it was covered in brief on the News at Ten on Tuesday night... 

Samira Ahmed: (interrupting) A 15-second read. 

James Stephenson: Well, some stories...We have a relatively... As I've already explained, we've got a very busy news period and there's a limited number of stories we can cover. The reason it became a network TV bulletin story on Wednesday was because of partly our journalism. So, we interviewed the police in Telford, we interviewed a social worker in Telford, it was raised at Prime Minister's Questions, and the Prime Minister reacted to it. So, even, as I say, in this busy period, that obviously deserved the attention that it got on the main TV bulletins that day. 

Samira Ahmed: You will know what BBC viewers are saying, and we've had hundreds of complaints into the BBC. It's that it looked like the BBC felt awkward giving this story prominence because it was about white victims and Pakistani-heritage abuses. 

James Stephenson: I know that's a view that some people hold. I really don't think it's the case. We've done a great deal of coverage of this area of abuse, both in - and this terrible story in Telford, but also elsewhere in the country. The BBC has just won a Royal Television Society Award for the excellent documentary, incredible documentary, about abuse in the north-east of England, based around Newcastle. That was the second story in the TV news three weeks ago. So we've done a great deal of work on Rotherham, where a lot of this stuff initially - this terrible situation came more fully to light. So we've certainly committed to covering what is a harrowing and terrible story, and we've done it consistently over time. 

Samira Ahmed: You will know, because Newswatch has debated it before, that coverage of the previous grooming scandals with this racial element, viewers every time feel the BBC runs shy of reporting these stories prominently. Do you think the BBC needs to have a rethink about how it runs and reports on these stories? 

James Stephenson: No, I think we are doing the right thing, and I think we are very determined to get to these terrible and dark and difficult stories, not just this one, but across the whole range. What I do think is true to say is that before the full nature and scale of what was going on in Rotherham and Rochdale and Oxford and other places came out, there was not as great an understanding of how, you know, profound a problem and how deep this ran. And I think - so if you go back a decade, I think you can definitely say that the story or the issue didn't get the attention it probably deserved at that point, and that is something everyone has had to reflect on. 

Samira Ahmed: James Stephenson, thank you. 

James Stephenson, News Editor, BBC News and Current Affairs, on the BBC's Telford coverage. Do you believe him?

I was waiting for tonight's Newswatch with Samira Ahmed to tackle James Stephenson, News Editor, BBC News and Current Affairs, about the BBC's coverage/lack of coverage of the Telford Muslim grooming gangs scandal, but tonight's Radio 4 Feedback with Roger Bolton got in there first. 

It is to the BBC's credit that they broadcast such self-flagellating interviews, but such things raise as many questions as they answer.

Listening to it, I was alarmed by the tone of Roger Bolton's introductory framing. 

It included dismissive language about "social media" being "awash with accusations" against the BBC and about "Twitterstorms" accusing the BBC of being too over-cautious and "PC" in its coverage/non-coverage of the Telford paedophile gang scandal.

Curiouser, however, was his weird language of "alleged widespread sexual abuse in Telford" and the use of "claimed" as far as the "Asian" background of the bulk of the grooming gang perpetrators is concerned. Are such things still in any doubt?

So I expected the worst but, to be fair to him, Roger then went on to also do himself credit by putting to the BBC high-up some of the questions I wanted putting. 

He even raised the 'religion' question - without, however, daring to name the religion (Islam)!

As for James Stephenson, News Editor, BBC News and Current Affairs, well, he certainly talks a good talk. 

And, yes, his basic message was the usual and depressingly predictable 'We got it about right'.

But, still, I think he made a pretty good fist of defending the indefensible. He said all the right things, and sounded as if he was being sincere, and some of his points struck me as being reasonable.

His fixation on the Victoria Derbyshire show's strangely mawkish coverage as the 'evidence of impartiality' of choice was cleverly chosen.

But I think the picture he painted of the BBC's coverage is woefully short-sighted and complaisant. His idealistic-sounding assertions about what the BBC 'did' aren't, for the most part, in tandem with the reality of what the BBC actually did (or didn't!). He was just asserting the BBC's impartiality. 

And, I'm afraid, I don't buy his cherry-picked examples of the BBC 'doing the right thing' (backed by Roger Bolton). They are pretty rare cherries, and - if he's being truly honest about it - he should have admitted that. 

And I don't buy his claim that "we are not shying away from these kind of difficult issues. We are advancing towards them". This blog this week (and in previous weeks, months and years) has, I think, providing copious evidence to the contrary. 

Anyhow, please judge for yourselves by reading on and thinking about the following transcript:

Roger Bolton: Hello. Did the BBC under-report the sexual grooming and abuse scandal in Telford? Social media is awash with accusations that the BBC is running scared of the story for politically correct reasons. The corporation's news editor is here to respond...

We begin with a Twitterstorm with the BBC at the centre. The charge is that the news division failed adequately to cover a story about the alleged widespread sexual abuse in Telford in Shropshire, and that it did so because it is politically correct and afraid of charges of racism, since it is claimed by the Sunday Mirror that many of the offenders come from an Asian background. This story appeared in the paper under the headline 'Britain's worst ever child grooming scandal exposed'. The Sunday Mirror went on to suggest that up to 1,000 young girls were abused as the authorities had failed to act over a period of 40 years. On Wednesday Superintendent Tom Harding, who is in overall charge of policing in Telford, said he feels the story had been "sensationalised" and significantly disputes the figure. The Sunday Mirror's abuse story was picked up by a number of news outlets but, initially at least, not by the BBC -  though it was mentioned in the online newspaper review. This lack of coverage was quickly picked up by, amongst others, Nigel Farage on Twitter, Nick Ferrari on rival Radio station LBC, and in a column in the Spectator by Douglas Murray titled 'The BBC's shameful silence on the Telford sex scandal'. Cue a furious exchange of tweets as thousands of people pitched in, on both sides: 

• The BBC ignores a paedophile scandal involving more than 1,000 girls over 40 years in Telford. Even the local BBC website ignores it, presumably for fear of racial controversy.
• The BBC have done interviews with actual victims. It is shameful that people are trying to use the abuse of children in Telford just to attaFck the BBC with no concern for the victims of abuse.
• I have undertaken a long journey. I've argued for public service broadcasting. I value Radio. But I finally cannot switch on Radio 4. The BBC has abandoned Brexit voters and have ignored Telford. It no longer has a moral compass. 

And even when it was pointed out that the BBC had covered the story - online, on the Victoria Derbyshire show, and The World at One on Monday and then on Woman's Hour many felt it still wasn't enough. As tweeter St.John Smythe put it:

• The near-silence of the BBC on a story about the abuse and rape of hundreds of young women is a disgrace. It's clearly in the public interest. The BBC are no longer fit for purpose.

So was the BBC slow to cover an important story and did it not give it enough prominence when it did? Questions for James Stephenson, the BBC's News Editor who joins me now. James Stephenson, were you late coming to this story?

James Stephenson: I really don't think we were. And I know that's suggested by other people but I don't think it's the case. If you look, for example, at the Victoria Derbyshire programme at 9 15 on Monday morning, it was leading on that story, as it happens, led again with it the following day. The World at One, as you've already said on Monday, interviewing the local council leaders. So I think the answer is 'no'.

Roger Bolton: But all of those things are on Monday and Tuesday. The Sunday Mirror comes out on a Sunday, and they're making the point in the evening bulletins, or even if they look at the BBC News website - I have a copy in front of me - that story is not running. Why?

James Stephenson:  So, yes, you make a fair point there, and the Sunday Mirror did a great piece of work, and they've talked to a large number of people in Telford and, credit to them, they've tracked that story over quite a period. With stories like that we need time to check them, put our teams on them, put our correspondent on them, work on them. I think it's a reasonable amount of time for a Sunday story to be coming back strongly with our own content and our own journalism it on by Monday morning. You would be the first to acknowledge that it's important for journalists when they are presented with a story that they they do their own work on it. We put our own journalism together, and then we run it. And I think that's what we've done in this case.

Roger Bolton: You seem to be suggesting that it's not very important for the BBC to be first. You want to be accurate. If necessary, you're going to wait 24 hours. But, on the other hand, you're a news organisation. Everybody goes to you first when they hear this story...when they heard about this story on (sic) the Sunday Mirror, and on Sunday they want to know what you think.

James Stephenson: We definitely aspire to be first, and I think if you...a fair-minded listener would  see that we are on many occasions the first with with original journalism. In this case the original journalism wasn't ours. It was the Sunday Mirror's - and credit to them. When you're following up a story the process  of following up - particularly a complex and difficult story - then you need to get that right and you need to publish when you're ready.

Roger Bolton: But there is widespread concern - you may say it's not well-founded - but on issues where there is a racial element the BBC is very reluctant, or very nervous, about getting involved. Was the fact that in this case a number of the alleged perpetrators were from an Asian background? Do you think that did have an impact in slowing down what you were doing because you are particularly concerned about race relations?

James Stephenson: No. This is an important piece of new journalism but the story and the scandal and the horrors really of what's unfolded in Telford have now been brought out over quite a period. And if you look at the BBC's coverage, we have given full coverage to the unfolding revelations of the terrible things that have happened in Telford - most significantly, most prominently, I would say, that the outcome of Operation Chalice that, as you know, was launched in 2011 and gave rise to prosecutions and a conviction of seven men in 2013 - and we covered that prominently, as you would expect. And, no, there's absolutely no question of us flinching away from difficult areas. I'd say the opposite. I think we are committed to going to the most difficult stories in the UK and around the world and covering them as clearly, as fairly, as accurately as we can, difficult or otherwise.

Roger Bolton: Now some of our listeners think, again, the problem in the background here is the religion of some of those involved, and they want to know: what are the editorial considerations in deciding when to mention an accused person's race or religion in stories about grooming and sexual abuse? 

James Stephenson: Well, this is one of the more challenging areas of editorial decision-making and it's a matter of judgement. And the judgment is about where it's relevant. Where it's relevant to the story we include it. Where it's not relevant we don't. And, you know, that's easy to say; it's actually quite hard to implement  because you have to make the decisions based on the facts as they are presented, as they appear, in a particular story.

Roger Bolton: Can we look at another aspect, about the white working class again? And, again, an allegation, for example, made by Lucy Allan MP, who said this week that the BBC is "not strong on standing up for white working class" and, again, the suggestion is that in the case, this case we've been talking about, the fact that the girls involved were white working class made the BBC less interested in them.

James Stephenson: Again, I don't think that is the case. I mean, obviously, Ms Allan is the MP for Telford. She is entitled to her view. She's pushing rightly at these issues. But I don't think it's a description that I recognise. We're committed to honest, accurate, fearless journalism - and going where that takes us.

Roger Bolton: But you have acknowledged in the past....former Directors General have acknowledged in the past...I'm thinking now of Mark Thompson...about the dangers of a groupthink. a liberal groupthink. With the best of intentions. But it can permeate newsrooms. And we have in our audience still this suspicion that the BBC is part of that groupthink. And you've got to deal with that suspicion, haven't you?

James Stephenson: We absolutely have. And I'm sure that's part of the reason why you've chosen to take on this subject on the programme today. We have looked long and hard at our own coverage and our own understanding of these issues, and I can really give an assurance that we are not shying away from these kind of difficult issues. We are advancing towards them. And, yes, you're right to say that in any organisation, and any journalistic organisation, any newsroom, there's a danger of people having a shared view of stories. We work really hard, as part of our our commitment - which is a genuine commitment to impartiality - to challenge our own thinking, to be open to other's input and other sources. And that includes external contributors who challenge what we're doing. And they ask the kind of questions that you're asking about 'were we fast enough?' 'did we consider it to be important enough?' 'was it prominent enough?'. Of course, we've been a period of extraordinary news - and not just in recent weeks but in this week itself - so the space in setting up some of our more prominent output has been squeezed. I really do discourage people from the idea of thinking that there's some hidden agenda. Our agenda is journalism. And we don't always get it right, but we are always seeking to do an honest job.

Roger Bolton: Our thanks to James Stephenson, the BBC's News Editor.

One for the diary

Newswatch tomorrow...

So what will James have to say for himself? Will he say: (a) "Yes, your viewers have a point Samira" or (b) "All in all, I think we got it right"?

I know which one I'm expecting.

We dont need no thought control

Meanwhile, over on Radio 4's Feedback: 

Reading what I do, I know that lots of people in this neck of the internet and elsewhere were appalled at the idea of the BBC expanding its Reality Check function to police and pronounced judgement on social media, so I wondered if Feedback would reflect those concerns.

Not a bit of it.

To summarise what actually happened: 

(1) Roger Bolton's introduction described 'fake news'  and 'dodgy statistics' (including mention of the £350 million for the NHS figure).

(2) Then two 'concerned' listeners were featured. The first asked for the BBC to "educate people" over the facts. The second asked for the BBC to become "the place of choice to go for people who want to know what is happening in reality", especially when faced by false news on social media.

(3) Then Roger talked to BBC News Editor James Stephenson about the BBC's plan for Reality Check to counter all of the above, and answer those listeners' calls. Mr Stephenson made the case for Reality Check (also mentioning the £350 million figure), and Roger Bolton's questions simply reinforced the BBC man's points rather than challenged him about them.

So that was two Radio 4 listeners, a senior BBC editor and the presenter of Feedback all singing from the same hymn sheet over the need for Reality Check's expanded role and no questioning of it. 

Thank God for the internet!

"Mishal Husain will be looking into migration"

That edition of Samira Ahmed's Newswatch included an interview with James Stephenson, News Editor for BBC News and Current Affairs (the man who has just made anti-UKIP Jasmine Lawrence his deputy). During the interview he said that the BBC will be broadcasting more EU referendum-related programmes like Europe: Them or Us over the coming weeks, and that "Mishal Husain will be looking into migration". 

Wonder if that's anything to do with the BBC's World on the Move Day - an all-day, multi-platform 'event' focusing on migration that will fill the BBC's airwaves on 16 May? The BBC's press release says that Mishal Husain will have an important role in that too - though it doesn't connect the event to the EU referendum. 

Promotion for BBC News Channel anti-UKIP tweeter

Well, here's a thing (with a firm tip of the hat to Biased BBC)!...

Do you remember Jasmine Lawrence (known at the BBC as Jasmine Williams), the BBC News Channel editor who was taken off election duties for the BBC and forced to delete her Twitter feed during the 2014 local elections after tweeting the following to the world (in breach of the BBC's editorial guidelines)?:

#WhyImVotingUkip – to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views, totally under represented in politics today— 

Jasmine Lawrence (@journomummy) May 21, 2014

Well, James Stephenson, News Editor for BBC News and Current Affairs, has (Biased BBC informs us) now sent out an email to BBC staff:

Dear all, 

I am delighted to announce that Jasmine Williams has been appointed as Deputy News Editor on a year’s attachment. She is currently an Assistant Editor on the News Channel, where she has combined editing with a substantial planning role. Jasmine has a wealth of experience working across platforms as a news editor and deployment editor on the desk, planning editor and assignment editor. 

Jasmine will be sharing the weekend news editor role and the planning editor role with Toby Castle, rotating between the two sides of the job each month. She will be taking up her new role in May. 

James

 Just in time for the EU referendum!