From the Mail:
BBC screens foreign ‘propaganda’: Corporation accused of breaking broadcast rules by showing programmes that promote charities and governments
The BBC has screened ‘propaganda films’ funded by foreign governments in a blatant breach of broadcast rules, an Ofcom investigation found.
The broadcaster has shown dozens of programmes designed to promote charities, NGOs and governments in what the regulator described as an ‘inherent risk to [the BBC’s] independence and integrity’.
The Ofcom probe revealed the BBC had bought the ‘sponsored’ films for as little as £1 from public relations companies.
Officials found 20 breaches of sponsorship rules by BBC World News, the broadcaster’s 24-hour news channel that is shown across the world.
One programme was made by a London-based media company which was given millions of pounds by the Malaysian government, The Independent reported.
The probe revealed the BBC had failed to declare which programmes were funded, leaving viewers unaware that they were watching ‘propaganda’ from foreign companies.
Here’s part of Ofcom’s decision….there is also a long write up about the BBC’s acceptance of sponsorship for programmes in the Ofcom document….
Ofcom noted BBCWN’s admission that, in hindsight, FBC was not an appropriate producer of the programmes investigated and that there had been a risk to BBCWN’s editorial independence by what it described as “the lack of knowledge” available to it at the time the programmes were broadcast.
Ofcom acknowledges that BBCWN was potentially misled by FBC in its pre-production and pre-transmission checks. However, broadcasters must always seek to apply the utmost rigour in investigating and documenting the relationship between producers and the interests featured in their programming. That third party interests might exploit their role in programming made available to a broadcaster at no charge may not have been inevitable, but its obvious possibility in this case should have been a strong indicator that better care was required.
It is essential that broadcasters take steps to ensure that content is not used as a vehicle to promote the interests of a third party, especially in current affairs content.
In circumstances where broadcasters have acquired programming, they should be able to demonstrate that they have taken adequate steps to obtain all information necessary for them to make appropriate independent editorial decisions. For example, they will need to ascertain how such programmes have been funded to assess whether a funding arrangement has influenced the editorial in a way that would call into question the programme’s editorial independence. We welcome the steps that BBCWN has since taken in this regard to strengthen its compliance procedures, as detailed above, and will invite BBCWN to attend a meeting with Ofcom to discuss further possible improvements.
Here’s the BBC’s own guidelines about Ofcom:
19.3.1
Ofcom has certain powers to regulate the BBC’s licence fee funded television and radio services aimed at audiences in the UK, but not the World Service which is grant-in-aid funded. Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code applies in the following areas:
- Protection of under-18s
- Harm and Offence
- Avoidance of inciting crime or disorder
- Responsible approach to religious content
- Prohibition of use of images of very brief duration
- Fairness
- Privacy.
The Editorial Guidelines reflect the provisions of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code in these areas.
19.3.2
In addition, the BBC’s commercial services (whether broadcasting to the UK, or from the UK to our international audiences) must comply with the whole of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
19.3.3
Where Ofcom finds a breach of the privacy or fairness sections of its Code, it may require the BBC to broadcast a statement of its findings. Where Ofcom considers that the Code has been breached “seriously, deliberately, repeatedly, or recklessly”, it can impose sanctions, which range from a requirement to broadcast a correction or statement of finding to a fine of no more than £250,000.
I’m sure I have stated here before that the BBC’s regular news channel (formerly BBC News 24) seems to broadcast a lot of mini-documentaries featuring emotive music and images. Surely this is contrary to BBC rules of compliance or Ofcom guidance?
News broadcasting isn’t about arousing emotions – it’s about reporting worldwide events in an unbiased and neutral way. If the news channel has a few minutes to fill, then they need to discuss current affairs more in-depth. Perhaps give members of the public more air-time to voice their opinions in the quieter periods when news is slow?
But, of course, that would be far too dangerous in the eyes of the BBC.
Ridden alike by lobby groups, propagandists and dubious commercial and political interests, the BBC is now effectively the British Bicycle Corporation – as I think I’ve suggested before.
Any reputation the Corporation has for truth-saying or effective journalism of the old-fashioned sort, is simply that – a vanishing asset paraded before potential clients, as an ageing tart will flash her fading attributes to drum up business.
Like a tart, the BBC has no shame – it can only be cleared off the streets so that its nocturnal commerce ceases to shame us, also, by association.
– and before ‘Auntie’ catches some dreadful ‘social disease’ which puts us all in peril – for instance the Human Islamophilic Virus, Acute EU Protagonism Syndrome, or the awful Green Rabid Verophobia with its associated offensive foaming at the mouth.
The only caveat I would add to your excellent post, is that the BBC will whore herself out, but only to organisations/governments which have the same political/global agenda as the BBC corporatist executives. I cannot ever see the BBC “selling airtime” for Eurosceptics to push Anti-EU propaganda, or sceptical scientific realism about the causes and extent of climate change, or even the negative portrayals of unlimited immigration.
Yes, you’re right of course, and it does rather spoil the picture I was enjoying, of a raddled ‘Auntie’ with her skirts up! I can’t off-hand think of a way to complete the metaphor..
Since the Savile revelations, I can no longer think of the BBC as “dear old Auntie”…. The BBC is much more like “that creepy old Uncle”. The one that should never be left alone with children.
For the sceptical scientific realism about the causes and extent of climate change, buy a DVD from http://mortensenfilm.dk/documentary
Better value than paying the Licence Fee, and Coxless, both Peter and Brian.
Remember the 2006 BBC film ‘The Girl in the Cafe by Richard Curtis starring Bill Nighy. ”Lawrence, a spindly, self-effacing civil servant, is a senior researcher for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, preparing for a G-8 summit that will determine the scope of the world’s effort to reduce extreme poverty.” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443518/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_53
To compare the BBC to whores is an insult to prostitutes who, at least , do an honest job and , some may say, provide a social service. The BBC does neither.
Fair point, well made.
What is the purpose of the TRust then????????????????????
The Ofcom Report doesn’t list the number or names of PR programmes bought for nothing or a nominal £1 (consideration for contractual purposes). Do you suppose there could be a pattern, indicating agenda?