to report some shockingly biased BBC reporting concerning some comments of his.
Hannan blogged on Thursday, ‘Cast-iron guarantee’ must not rust, about how the Conservatives should handle the EU Treaty. In it he called on his party to make sure they play no games on the issue, saying:
My party calls Gordon Brown a liar because of his sophistry over Europe, and we are right to do so. Let us play no games of our own.
There was no criticism of David Cameron, and in fact nothing but praise for him. But the BBC reported this as Pressure on Cameron over EU poll:
Daniel Hannan MEP told Mr Cameron to “stop playing games” on the issue.
As Hannan writes today, My BBC Barney:
the Beeb made up a false quotation and attributed it to me. This is the sort of thing you get fired for at the Telegraph.
Will anyone at the BBC be fired or at least disciplined for this fabrication?
Whilst it is possible to read Hannan’s original blog post as very oblique criticism of Cameron that’s very much a matter of interpretation and a big stretch at that. But that is beside the point. The BBC quotes Hannan saying that Cameron should “stop playing games” – something Hannan did not say.
The BBC’s fabrication has been online, unamended according to Newssniffer, since 6pm on Friday. The BBC should at the very least correct this story – and publish their correction with the same prominence as the original story, rather than the usual sleazy BBC stealth edit, and issue a public apology to Hannan.
All in all, a fine example of the BBC’s dreadful propensity for making up the news – the BBC wants to push the BBC line about Pressure on Cameron over EU poll, so the BBC scouts about for material to back the BBC line, and then just makes up a quote to hang their story on anyway. Appaling.
The BBC will leave it there for another day at least before ‘correcting’ it – after dropping the article way down to the Politics – Miscellaneous – Ignored section.
Well Mr Reynolds how do you excuse yet another example of the BBC ‘lying’ to its customers.
Isn’t it possible to sue the BBC for libel?
Tom: “Isn’t it possible to sue the BBC for libel?”
Yes indeed Tom, but, thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded it’s not an option anyone would undertake lightly…
Have the BBC not done this before, by that I mean putting up a story blatantly slanted story at the start of the weekend and then rephrasing it on the monday when there’ll be “somebody in the office”?
This is almost beyond belief; well it would be were it not exactly the sort of thing we have come to expect from the BBC.
I just hope people are busy e-mailing the editors with complaint as much as making themselves heard here.
Telford
I must say I’m surprised that at 10.15 on Monday morning this story appears unchanged, particularly when an MEP has pubicly complained that he’s been misquoted.
Perhaps the Editors blog will explain all.
Meanwhile – a modest proposal.
Those of us involved in the real business of broadcast journalism (making TV and radio) get a bit narked by the way you guys keep judging the whole of the BBC on the basis of small but significant shortcomings of the News Website.
Though the internet may well be the major platform of the future, at the moment the News website is a relatively small part of BBC news – employing only around 130 people for a 24/7 and 7/7 operation.
Maybe any deficiencies could be more easily corrected if the audience could complain even more easily than now – and in a more focussed way.
I notice that HYS has a button saying ‘alert a moderator’.
If every news story had a similar button at the end saying ‘alert an editor’ – problem sorted, n’est ce pas?
Hell, it might even put you lot out of business. 😆
threaten to sue for libel unless they remove the article and publish an appology
John Reith:
Those of us involved in the real business of broadcast journalism (making TV and radio) get a bit narked by the way you guys keep judging the whole of the BBC on the basis of small but significant shortcomings of the News Website.
Bit arrogant there, Sir John.
Though I’m sure we’re all glad you admit the News Wesite’s “shortcomings”, a casual reading of the entries (and responses) on this site would reveal wide evidence dissatisfaction with the “shortcomings” of not just the _whole_ news division, but with most of the BBC itself.
John, perhaps you could spend the time you waste here, coming up with ever more ridiculous excuses for the BBC, in doing something about the faults of the BBC. Like, for example, getting that story corrected.
John Reith | 29.10.07 – 11:35 am |
“Meanwhile – a modest proposal.”
Why should an ‘alert an editor’ complaints procedure work?
The existing one • ‘alert a moderator’ • that you hold up as an exemplar, already has a proven track record of disregarding, explaining away and manipulating any complaints it doesn’t like?
I’d accuse you of naivety, but that wouldn’t fit at all, would it?
They’ve fixed it. Took long enough.
I love the whole supercilious de haut en bas tone of Reith’s posts. Those uppity proles, eh, having the nerve to question the leftist crap we’re blackmailed into paying for! Here’s a patronising little slap round the chops, now cut along chaps!
Wish I could talk down like that to my customers, but unfortunately, if they defect to my competitors, I don’t get paid. Unlike the “customers” of al-BBC.
To be blunt there is no way that Biased BBC could be put out of business. And you have to be serious about HYS, many people refer to it as NHYS. I no longer bother but I do have a friend whose highest rated comment on the 15 sailor issue was just deleted, he was rather shocked to say the least at this sort of behaviour.
But I will give credit that you actually changed the web page and gave an explanation at the bottom, well done, progress.
Now if we can just see the report on BBC bias against Israel then we will really be getting somewhere…
Since I have been mentioned by name, I will simply say “storm” and “tea cup”.
Not only that Nick, but it seems this storm actually belongs in somebody else’s teacup.
The page now has this note added:
Earlier versions of this story suggested Mr Hannan had said Mr Cameron must “stop playing games”, a quote supplied by a news agency. He has pointed out he did not use those words so the quote has been amended to “let us play no games of our own”.
Which agency, I wonder?
From Press Association National Newswire – 26/10/2007 (474 words)
By Daniel Bentley, PA Political Correspondent
David Cameron was today urged by a Conservative MEP to “stop playing games” and pledge a retrospective referendum on the EU Reform Treaty if it is ratified before the Tories come to power.
the Beeb made up a false quotation and attributed it to me
Telford quotes Daniel Hannan as saying.
Now, m’learned friend LLB • who should be sueing whom for libel?
Extract from the ‘How to get out of jail manual’, by defenders of the BBC:
If left and right complain about a story – ‘it shows we are balanced'(deployed very frequently).
If there is a major mistake – ‘it’s a storm in a teacup – if you check elsewhere everything else is fine'(a particualrly fine example of this by Mr Reynolds today).
If the website is wrong – ‘it doesn’t matter because only 130 journalists are involved, it’s not an important part of our output, it’ll be solved by putting up a correction button’ (with full acknowledgements to John Reith).
If there’s clear evidence of bias in a particular item – ‘You’re wrong – if you checked the whole of our ouput, you find that other programmes redress the balance’.
If terrorists and other muderous thugs are called ‘insurgents’ – ‘that’s not our label, it’s what someone else thinks’.
Watch for variations on these themes. They crop up all the time!
So the BBC is again revealed to be just rehashing agency material which it didn’t even bother to check. So why are we having to pay them?
Don’t be naive, John. Just because the BBC wasn’t the originator of the made up quote, the fact that they repeated it and published it makes them equally liable for it.
The fact that the BBC is buying in copy from news agencies doesn’t absolve it of all responsibility for running those news stories, as I’m sure you’re aware.
It’s all very well saying it’s been corrected, which it has, but it’s only been corrected because Mr Hannan himself complained. I’d rather the thorough checking procedure took place before a complaint rather than after one, wouldn’t you?
Rob Clark | 29.10.07 – 5:59 pm
No, the whole point of the PA is that it doesn’t {read: shouldn’t} need to be fact checked.
In times gone by, the BBC rule used to be that the corp didn’t run a wire-based story unless it was corroborated by a second newswire.
After a long and exhaustive quality test, the rule was changed to accept PA stories without any back-up.
Which is fortunate really, ‘cos most – if not all – of the rival domestic wire services have gone bust.
The BBC has done nothing culpable here.
But Daniel Hannan and Biased-BBC have jumped to unwarranted conclusions and blamed the wrong organization for this so-called ‘fabrication’.
Saying “We don’t check our sources” won’t wash. Try telling that to a libel court. (Not that this case involved anything libelous, it just placed Mr Hannan in an awkward and embarrassing position, which no-one at the BBC seems to give a damn about).
Ah John, I do see what you’re saying and I know enough about the business to realise that you can’t possibly double-check everything that is provided to you by the PA, ie I accept there is a dichotomy between what is achievable in the real world and the ideal.
But what I meant was that, legally speaking, the “oh it wasn’t us guv, we just used material provided by another news source, blame them” has about the same validity as “I was only taking orders.”
If you repeat a libel, you are equally culpable as the originator of that libel (legally speaking, at least).
The BBC pay an agency who did nothing but summarize what Hannan said in a blog post, and they even managed to get that wrong. That’s value for money!
Interesting.
Not evidence of bias of course but makes me wonder why people bother to rewrite agency copy when the original blog post is presumably freely available.
Not being a journalist by training this is the kind of strange practice that I find hard to understand.
Why not just link to the blog post if it really is worth reading.
Rob Clark | 29.10.07 – 7:09 pm
But m’learned friends tell me there’s nothing defamatory in reporting (albeit wrongly) that Daniel Hannan had the courage to speak plainly to his leader.
There is something defamatory in accusing an organization Charter-bound to honesty and impartiality of ‘fabricating’ a quotation.
John Reith:
There is something defamatory in accusing an organization Charter-bound to honesty and impartiality of ‘fabricating’ a quotation.
That’s a trifle rich isn’t it, Sir John?
If the BBC WAS actually, unwaveringly, honest and impartial, your tone of injured self-righteousness might sound a little less false, but, as this blog daily demonstrates, the BBC seems anything but committed to its Charter requirements, and seems frequently to play fast and loose with the facts.
John Reith said “There is something defamatory in accusing an organization Charter-bound to honesty and impartiality of ‘fabricating’ a quotation”.
Hah! It’s like a comedy where some grand lady is staunchly defending her honour with every bit of dignity she can muster, but no-one takes her seriously any more because they’ve all seen her acting like an old tart every day.
John Reith
Only a BBC fan could come up with the words “…only around 130 people…” for the staff of a website who have to hand the entire output of the largest news organisation in the world as source material.
Ha! Nice try John (and I do detect that your tongue is lodged in your cheek), but the BBC have already accepted that Hannan was misquoted as they have issued a correction.
The BBC weren’t the instigators of the misquotation, true, but by repeating it I’m afraid they become equally liable. Still, as Hannan seems to ahave accepted the apology with good grace, I guess we should let the matter drop too.
Sorry the excuse that ‘it wasn’t our fault because we were merely quoting the PA’ simply won’t wash. The BBC did not ‘quote’ the PA. Where in the article is the PA referred to? The BBC stated the words as fact and Hannan was quite right to accuse the BBC of lying. The fact that the BBC simply rewrote copy without checking it doesn’t excuse the fabrication.
Mr Reynolds, storm and teacup to you but to me it erodes still further the reputation that the BBC used to have for honesty and factual accuracy. I have now reached the position after many years that I no longer believe anything that appears on the BBC without first finding some other independent corroboration.
Arthur Dent | 30.10.07 – 2:28 am
The fact that the BBC simply rewrote copy without checking it doesn’t excuse the fabrication.
The BBC isn’t supposed to check stuff from the PA. That’s the whole point of the PA: to supply facts and quotes that don’t need to be checked. It’s for that service that the BBC – and every major newspaper – pays its subs to the PA.
Hannan was quite right to accuse the BBC of lying
No, he was quite wrong. The BBC acted throughout with the good faith.
The BBC believed Hannan had given that quote to the Press Association, just as every day it – together with newspapers across the globe – believe that dozens of others have given certain quotes to the Press Association.
To give you a major example – since Hansard isn’t published ’til the day after the events take place – pretty well all of the ‘same day’ verbatim reporting of what goes on in the Commons and the Lords comes off the PA.
Hannan should not have rushed to blame the BBC. A moment’s investigation – or a single phone call – would have confirmed that it was not the BBC that fabricated the quote.
The role of the Telegraph in all this is interesting. Hannan works for the Telegraph as a leader writer. The Telegraph publishes his blog.
As subscribers to the PA newswire, the Telegraph would also have received Daniel Bentley’s copy with the ‘fabricated’ quotation in it.
Yet, the Telegraph allowed Hannan to go ahead and post a false allegation against the BBC without (presumably) tipping him off.
A murky business.
I wonder if the fact that the Telegraph’s former political editor – George Jones now works for PA has any bearing on the matter?
I await the next installment of Private Eye with avid anticipation.
Long time lurker, first time poster flushed out by this –
“A moment’s investigation – or a single phone call – would have confirmed that it was not the BBC that fabricated the quote.”
I find this criticism astonishing given that the BBC quite clearly failed to carry out “a moment’s investigation – or a single phone call” to check with Mr Hannan if the words attributed to him were actually said by him. Mr Reith, you clearly feel that Mr Hannan has a greater duty of care towards the good name of the BBC than the BBC has towards the good name of Mr Hannan. Why is this precisely, and why should the rest of us accept this?
It’s my understanding that the BBC has traditionally placed a good deal of store in it’s reputation for honesty and impartiality. Are you really arguing that this is no longer the case, and that any such duties have now been farmed out to the PA? This story was reported as a BBC story after all, not as a PA story that the BBC was passing on unaltered. “Don’t look at us, guv” is really not good enough.
Mr Reith
If the BBC accepts (astonishingly) the word of a third party as gospel why do they employ so many Journos? After all if all you are going to do is re-hash someone elses words …
Just to be unusually fair to the BBC this could explain why many of it’s stories are so biased. They are taken from a biased source and unchecked. The BBC are guiltless,if incredibly lazy & trusting. Huzzah!
‘Hannan should not have rushed to blame the BBC. A moment’s investigation – or a single phone call – would have confirmed that it was not the BBC that fabricated the quote.’
John Reith, I thought we were having a sensible discussion about this yesterday, but this is the single most ridiculous statement you have yet made.
It is not, repeat not, Hannan’s responsibility to check that he has been quoted correctly, that is an utterly stupid suggestion.
The quote as it was used by the BBC was wrong, they made a mistake. End of story. Hannan saw the BBC quote and complained, the BBC changed it (thereby tacitly acknowledging the mistake).
The original source for the quote is neither here nor there.
If you can’t accept the basic premise that the BBC made a mistake (despite the fact that the BBC themselves have admitted as much), then clearly there isn’t much point trying to hold a sensible discussion about this.
If the BBC had said “The PA reports that Daniel Hannan said blah blah blah” then it would have been fine. This is the way lots of blogs operate. You report that A said B said blah blah blah, and you provide a link to where A said this (if there is one). Ideally you also provide a link to B’s original speech if this is online.
But the BBC didn’t do any of this. It just said Hannan said blah blah blah. (And this despite the fact that Hannan said it on his blog, which was easily checkable).
Of course, most mainstream media do this, not just the BBC, but the BBC is the only one we have to pay for.
They used to get away with it, because this sort of thing wasn’t easy to check in the past. Now it’s usually a lot easier to check.
Rob Clark | 30.10.07 – 11:21 am
Hannan chose to accuse the BBC of ‘fabricating’ a quote. That is lying, intending to deceive, making it up.
Why the BBC? Why did he not accuse one of the other media outlets that used the same offending quote that was being circulated by the Press Association?
The Guardian, for instance, used it in this story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7027570,00.html
It is not, repeat not, Hannan’s responsibility to check that he has been quoted correctly, that is an utterly stupid suggestion.
You have misunderstood what I was saying.
The point I was making was that it jolly well was Hannan’s responsibility to check who really had fabricated the quote before (falsely) accusing the BBC of doing so.
One phone call (even to his own Telegraph newsdesk!) would have elicited the truth – that the story was on the wires under the by-line of Daniel Bentley of the PA.
Hannan has now posted the text of the e-mail he got from the BBC. Despite this – he continues to imply that the BBC made up the quote and so far has not acknowledged the true culprit.
Dear Mr Hannan
Thank you for your e-mail. The quote you complain about was a direct quote in a press agency report of your comments. We did not have any other source for your comments so presumed you had spoken to the agency in question. We wrote the story and included the quote in good faith.
Having had people subsequently e-mail us, we have seen the blog article which the report appears to have been based on. As soon as we were aware of that we amended the wording of the quotes from:
* you telling Mr Cameron to “stop playing games”
To
* you warning Mr Cameron “let us play no games of our own”.
We have also put a line at the end of the story to clarify the change that has been made.
We can assure you we did not invent the quote. Like most news outlets we do have to rely on agencies from time to time for quotes. The agency concerned is highly respected and used by all the UK’s major newspapers and broadcasters and has an impeccable reputation for accuracy.
You may be interested to look at this page from Google News to see how widely the aforementioned quote was used.
We hope that answers your questions. Notwithstanding all that we seek at all times to achieve the highest standards of accuracy so please accept our apologies for the incorrect wording of the quote being published on our site.
Kind regards,
BBC News Website
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/october/sorry.htm
RPW | 30.10.07 – 11:00 am
Mr Reith, you clearly feel that Mr Hannan has a greater duty of care towards the good name of the BBC than the BBC has towards the good name of Mr Hannan.
No, each has an equal duty to the other.
In this case, the BBC cast no aspersions on Hannan’s character.
If the BBC were to plan to accuse Daniel Hannan of deliberately lying, fabricating a quotation (as he accused the BBC of doing) – then it would take the utmost care to check it had good grounds for doing so. In fact, any accusation of serious wrongdoing or moral turpitude of this kind against someone like Mr Hannan will normally be referred to a senior advisor in Editorial Policy before broadcast and a lawyer will almost always be consulted too.
Mr Hannan, by contrast, just fired off his accusations without bothering to check whether he was right or wrong.
And even now, several days afterwards, has neglected to correct the record.
As for the BBC’s relationship with PA – the BBC buys information from PA (including quotations) on the understanding that they are accurate and properly sourced.
The BBC also buys TV pictures from ….say, abc or Reuters – on the understanding that they are what they purport to be.
The BBC cannot have a man with a microphone or a camera everywhere in the world at any time. It therefore uses agencies – like everyone else. It takes care to pick the most reputable suppliers.
The BBC are having their cake and eating it too.
The liberal use of PA copy all over bbc.co.uk without attribution is bad practice. Its done to hoodwink the public into thinking beeboids are actually doing some work. The BBC are liable to Mr Hannan and the PA are liable to the BBC.
As for “storm” and “teacup”, well, surely this is representative of a wider truth 😉
“Hannan chose to accuse the BBC of ‘fabricating’ a quote. That is lying, intending to deceive, making it up.”
Based on the evidence available to Hannan at the time – the BBC article – he had no reason to think it had anything to do with the Press Association. Similarly, based on the evidence available to the BBC at the time (The PA article) the fabricated quote was what Hannan was alleged to have said. Clearly, neither did much fact checking.
“Mr Hannan, by contrast, just fired off his accusations without bothering to check whether he was right or wrong.
And even now, several days afterwards, has neglected to correct the record.”
The BBC, by contrast, just fired off a fabricated quote without bothering to check whether it was right or wrong. Pot calling the kettle black, John. Why should Hannan be in any greater rush to correct the matter then the BBC have been?
“[The BBC] therefore uses agencies – like everyone else.”
In this case, no, not like everyone else. Others regurgitate PA articles and acknowledge the source. The BBC cherry picked parts of a PA article and included them in one of their own stories.
If it weren’t bias at the root of the BBC’s false quotation, Would JR admit that it was incompetence?
Messrs Reynolds and Reith should attempt to face the fact that there is enough dodgy (falselazybiasedincorrect)material emanating from the BBC to keep a site like this busy 24/7 every day of the year. The main reason I come here is to find out what the BBC omits from its reports on Israel, the US, the EU and the RoP, and this trail is but one example.
moonbat nibbler 30.10.07 – 12:38 pm Gareth | 30.10.07 – 12:40 pm
Allan@Oslo | 30.10.07 – 1:00 pm
Based on the evidence available to Hannan at the time – the BBC article – he had no reason to think it had anything to do with the Press Association.
The BBC article was not the only evidence available to Hannan at the time.
Hannan is (inter alia
moonbat nibbler 30.10.07 – 12:38 pm Gareth | 30.10.07 – 12:40 pm
Allan@Oslo | 30.10.07 – 1:00 pm
Based on the evidence available to Hannan at the time – the BBC article – he had no reason to think it had anything to do with the Press Association.
The BBC article was not the only evidence available to Hannan at the time.
Hannan is (inter alia) a Daily Telegraph leader writer and journalist. He has all the resources of that great newspaper available to him.
Including its PA feed.
And the Google news page with details of many other uses of the false quote by a variety of other news outlets.
More pertinently, it was the Daily Telegraph who published Hannan’s false accusations against the BBC.
The Telegraph was certainly in possession of the PA copy.
Besides – as Hannan well knows – it is correct form to contact anyone you are about to accuse of serious wrongdoing, put the allegation to them and invite a response.
It looks very much as if Hannan went ahead and accused the BBC of lying without contacting the BBC newsdesk for an explanation.
And though eventually he did print the BBC’s explanation, he has neglected to update the original blog post containing the false accusation.
The BBC, by contrast, just fired off a fabricated quote without bothering to check whether it was right or wrong. Pot calling the kettle black, John.
For the umpteenth time, BBC news subs are not supposed to verify PA quotes.
There’s a good reason for this.
Imagine you were, say, William Hague and you wanted to get a line out to the media. You’d give it to PA and they’d deliver it to every newsroom in the country.
If then your phone were to ring 200 times (quite possibly in the middle of the night too!) with callers saying “I’m from WXYZ news, just checking you actually said the quote attributed to you on the wires…….” you’d soon slam the phone down and start screaming.
Using PA quotes without verification is a standard industry practice.
If it weren’t bias at the root of the BBC’s false quotation, Would JR admit that it was incompetence?
No. Not on the part of the BBC at any rate. See my answer immediately above.
I repeat: this all occurred because of the practise indulged in by a lot of the mainstream media, including the BBC, of passing off agency copy as its own work, without acknowledging the source. As I said, blogs generally don’t do this.
As long as a media organization does this it will understandably be accused of any faults in the original piece. Don’t think that’s fair? Then stop passing off agency copy as your own work. (Especially if you have a license-fee — you’re supposed to be above that sort of thing).
‘The point I was making was that it jolly well was Hannan’s responsibility to check who really had fabricated the quote before (falsely) accusing the BBC of doing so.’
You’re wrong, it isn’t. As I tried painstakingly to explain yesterday if Mr Hannan read the story on the BBC website where at no point is it made clear that it was a newswire story, he is clearly entitled to infer that it is a BBC story.
Ironicall, the Guardian link that you provide makes it abundantly clear that it is a PA story; if the BBC had done the same, than your postings on this subject would be perfectly reasonable. As it is, the BBC wanted to imply that it was their story and when someone takes them at their word, you try to weasel out of it saying it wasn’t our story. Not good enough, I’m afraid.
‘It looks very much as if Hannan went ahead and accused the BBC of lying without contacting the BBC newsdesk for an explanation.’
In the absence of any attribution to the PA (or anyone else), Hannan is entitled to make this assumption. It is not incumbent on him to check the original source as there is no indication anywhere that the BBC wasn’t the original source.
‘Using PA quotes without verification is a standard industry practice.’
Indeed, but using them without attribution isn’t and by doing that the BBC can not later offer the explanation that ‘it wasn’t us, guv.’
Reith
We pay for the BBC, not the PA. Don’t blame the subcontractor. You are the publisher, you take the rap.
It would be fair for the BBC to have a go at the PA, but that’s not the job of the victim.
In this case the original article
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/october/cast-iron-guarantee-must-not-rust.htm
was available for the BBC to see and use without any need to misquote.
John Reith | 30.10.07 – 1:34 pm
“The BBC article was not the only evidence available to Hannan at the time.”
Certainly. But each and every instance of libel is actionable. It could be argued the BBC did invent that instance of the quote as there was nothing in the BBC article to suggest it originated from the PA.(Regardless of what Hannan could have found out for himself. That is not his responsibility.)
Had the BBC attributed the quote as having come from the PA, Hannan could not have claimed the BBC fabricated it.
There are a couple of paragraphs that have been lifted from the PA in this instance. Just how much can be copied before you are required to point out the copyright?
Gareth | 30.10.07 – 3:45 pm
each and every instance of libel is actionable.
True, but….as a number of commenters have agreed above… the BBC didn’t say anything defamatory. Therefore the only libel here is Hannan’s false accusation.
there was nothing in the BBC article to suggest it originated from the PA
Quite so. Why should there be? There’s nothing on a pack of Sainsbury’s chicken Korma that tells you which farm the chicken came from either.
The BBC policy is to attribute a line to a news agency only when there’s doubt and the substance remains unconfirmed.
lifted …. point out the copyright?
You’re clearly not up to speed on what news agencies are for. See my William Hague example above.
1. “Using PA quotes without verification is a standard industry practice.’
2. “Indeed, but using them without attribution isn’t.”
Without an encyclopaedic and permanently updating verbatim knowledge of the content of the entire PA service, which I’d guess runs 24 x 7 x 365 and comprises scores of stories per day (maybe hundreds?) how would you know when a PA report has been carried without attribution?
The BBC screwed up. Reith is just trying to shift the blame (one of his many and varied propaganda tactics).
And the BBC haven’t been libelled any more than Hannan was. (Ask a libel lawyer whether he thinks there’s a case there).