On Friday evening, Robbie Gibb, Deputy Editor of Newsnight,

posted Putting things in order on BBC Views Online’s The Editors blog, where he said:

Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis. For example we sometimes get politicians making complaints about an interview or a particular film.

Uh huh. Where’s this going?

We had a recent correspondence from the Treasury about an item made by the independent film maker Jamie Campbell which threw up precisely these kind of issues…

You mean you’ve had a complaint. I remember the film. It was the one that made it look as if Gordon Brown’s team (ab)used the police to obstruct a journalist rather heavy-handedly, under the pretence of security.

…although in this instance the film didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.

Well that’s alright then. So why are you telling us now?

They were unhappy with the film in general but directed their complaint at how the film portrayed a Treasury press officer claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.

Oh. You’re guilty as charged then.

However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same. Check out the film for yourself here.

So, that would make editing ‘creativeness’ alright would it? Why not show events chronologically then? Or explain in the film about the re-ordering of events and the reason for doing so? Anything else would, at best, appear highly questionable wouldn’t you say?

The sequences to look out for are the incident where the then chancellor’s car arrives when the press officer and Jamie are talking and the incident at the CBI. Chronologically the CBI event happened first.

But what you still haven’t told us is why you re-ordered events. Why did you purposely change the order of events? Presumably there was a purpose. What was it?

Watch for yourself and let me know if you think the meaning is remotely affected by the order.

Okay, we will. So far one comment has made it onto Robbie’s post, from a Mike S., who wrote:

I enjoyed watching this film when it first aired on Newsnight and I remember being appalled by the police being used to obstruct Jamie at the CBI.

It seemed obvious to me that the press officer had remembered him from the car incident. Involving the police in this way (when she already knew who Jamie was) seemed an unethical escalation of tactics on her part.

However, viewed in the correct chronological order my impression is different. The CBI incident was Jamie’s first meeting with the treasury press officer. Suddenly it seems much more reasonable to have asked the police to check him out.

If the film had shown these events in the chronologically correct order my view of the press officer’s behaviour (and by association Gordon Brown) is significantly less negative.

To conclude, the order did make a difference to me.

Oh dear. I’m sure Mike S. won’t be the only person who views the film in a different light now. By the way, just why did you re-order the events? You still haven’t told us…

The Daily Mail has also picked up this story. Simon Walters writes BBC in row over doctored TV footage with Gordon Brown. Here are a couple of extracts from his report:

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.’

Hmmm. The other side of the story is quite revealing. Here’s the BBC again:

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.

Okay, but that still doesn’t explain why events were re-ordered does it?

‘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.’

Well, it sounds, and appears from the film, as if the police officer was unaware he was being recorded, doesn’t it, so it would seem underhand to film the officer whilst holding the camera as if it wasn’t in use, wouldn’t it, unless there were strong reasons to justify tricking the officer.

This does all smack rather of being a good (Fri)day to bury bad news – get the confession in first, play it down a bit, deny it would have made any difference anyway, hope it will all blow over by Monday, etc.

But the thing I still don’t understand, even if the BBC view of events is correct, and they are innocent, is just why they re-ordered the sequence of events then. What was the point of it, if it wasn’t to change the impression given by the film? It wasn’t edited by the same butter-fingers at RDF that ‘made a mistake’ with the footage of the Queen was it?

I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this one.

Thanks to commenters pounce and jg for links.