BBC Guidance On Social Networking
Last week, the Guardian ran an article claiming that the BBC was going to restrict staff online networking.
What has actually happened is that we've published two new guidance notes about the use of social networking sites. We discussed these guidance notes at yesterday's internal BBC Editorial Policy meeting.
The first deals with how BBC programmes can have a presence on social networking sites and explores the issues that need consideration.
The second guidance note explores issues around impartiality when those employed by the BBC use social networking sites in a personal capacity.
This draws on existing BBC policy on conflicts of interest which aims to ensure that our journalistic integrity is not compromised by the off-air activities of our presenters and editorial staff. For example, staff need to be aware that "British Broadcasting Corporation" may appear after their names when they join political groups on Facebook.
Last year, there were some stories on blogs and in the press about Wikipedia entries being edited from BBC IP addresses (Pete Clifton wrote a post about this on the BBC News Editors Blog), and we've included new guidance about this.
What I hope we've created is something which is common sense. It does not restrict BBC staff from conducting legitimate activities on the Internet. But it does raise awareness of how crucial the BBC’s reputation for impartiality and objectivity is.
David Jordan is Director, BBC Editorial Policy & Standards.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
This smacks of spin.
The real issue is the complete cultural (and politically left-of-centre) monoculture in the editorial sectors of the BBC.
I would actually welcome MORE transparency around the political persuasions of the BBC staff, rathen than this sort of effort to hide it.
Only then will the BBC be forced to address this running sore.
It is clear that the BBC is motivated more by the embarrasment of what last year's analysis of BBC staff on Facebook showed than by a desire to live up to its charter commitments to actually BE balanced and impartial.
If you rely on the "finger in the dyke" strategy, you will very quickly run out of fingers. Far better to openly admit what everyone else already knows (that you are fatally compromised by your cultural and political bias) and then deal with it - rather than just to hide it.
I don't see anything wrong with BBC staff having an opinion on anything including the BBC. What is it you are afraid of?
I suggest you read 'The open society and its enemies' by Karl Popper it's a very good read.
To the Admiral, #1
So obviously people can't assess your comment until you have told everyone all about yourself.
Nice try Marko but "must try harder!".
I am not funded by a tax, unlike the BBC.
Also, unlike the BBC, I am not bound by a charter to provide public service broadcasting that is impartial and gives an equal and unbiased airing of all viewpoints.
The BBC has unique access to over £3 BILLION pounds a year for its activities. We have no choice whether to pay. We are threatened with jail if we don't pay.
Therefore it has unique set of requirements it has to fulfil in return for that huge amount of money.
I don't.
Test TX (nor response necessary),
Ive been unable to post comment here-to-for, (whers's the "respond to message" button folks) despite mailing PM/BH/Today etc.
Will this work (holding breath, but expecting nout))???
Bernard
Admiral (#4) I suspect that with your statement “Also, unlike the BBC, I am not bound by a charter to provide public service broadcasting that is impartial and gives an equal and unbiased airing of all viewpoints.” you’re setting up a straw man argument. I doubt the phrase “gives an equal and unbiased airing of all viewpoints.” can be found in the charter. That’s wishful thinking on your part as to what you’d like to see.
I’ve had a quick delve and found the following aims from the 2007-2017 (renewed) version:
‘The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows:
1. (a) sustaining citizenship and civil society; (b) promoting education and learning; (c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; (d) representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities. (e) Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
and [I summarise]: ‘(f) promoting emerging communications technologies and digital television.’
The first part regarding independence I’d take as meaning it’s not intended as a mouthpiece for the state as Chinese or Zimbabwean state funded media is. The Public Purposes are open to very wide interpretation.
As for you desire to see ‘equal and unbiased airing of all viewpoints’.
So the Pope’s Easter address has to be counterbalanced by a Protestant, Muslim, Buddist, Sikh etc viewpoint too. Or that a geology program about how rocks were formed over millions of years has to have a countering program from a creationist viewpoint? Surely not. Even your phrasing is open to wide interpretation.
This comment from a Blog about political leanings at the BBC (we all have them, not necessarily related to party affiliations; I believe in pluralistic democracy, that makes me a dangerous liberal in China!) seems more adult than most contributions to this debate.
“Why can't I be a moderate, liberal conservative? Come on, children, stop allowing your anti-BBC obsession to get the better of you. I worked there for 10 years and, of course, it has a majority of lefties over Tories. But its commitment to balanced reporting is more robust and consistent than any other news organisation in the world, bar none. Get over yourselves, or apply for a job there.”
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/10/there-are-ten-t.html
“The real issue is the complete cultural (and politically left-of-centre) monoculture in the editorial sectors of the BBC.” Comment one.
Just to comment that I watch news from ITN, C4 and the BBC and to be honest I can’t see much difference between them. ITN is a more populist in approach, but in terms of tone and content there’s very little difference. All the main news services cover virtually all the same stories and events and I can’t discern any particular ‘agenda’ from any of them. They take a mainstream approach to issues that may displease some of the fringe rent-a-quote groups that would prefer their views to be presented as being mainstream, but by-and-large I think both ITN and the BBC get the balance about right. The BBC has had major run-ins with both the Thatcher and Blair governments over govt. spin during times of war. As far as I can tell with hindsight the BBC was factually correct on each occasion.
And please don’t lead us down the road whereby every public sector worker (police, teacher etc) has to declare which party they last voted for. As for defining yourself politically – David Cameron has described himself as a “liberal Conservative".
If the accusation is that 1,340 BBC staff described themselves as ‘liberals’ on Facebook - (340 as moderates and 120 as conservatives; presumably the remaining 8,780 are ‘don’t knows’ or ‘undecided’.) then D. Cameron could as easily describe himself as either ‘Liberal’ or ‘Conservative’ were he to be a member. Liberal has a very wide meaning nowadays, not just a party political one. I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal for example.
The ‘conservativehome blog’ states that on Facebook “there isn't a socialist option available, to the chagrin of many (BBC staff)”.
That’s factually untrue, there is no pick-list of options for politics (or religion) at all; the member has to enter words to describe themselves. (I am a FB member, I don’t work for the BBC.)
As for suspicions of a multiculturalist BBC agenda, again all chanels have presenters from different ethnic groups (It could be said ITN lead the way with Trevor McDonald) and black actors in their shows. It public opinion can truly be said to be expressed, it’s in the fact that black singers often do well in the public votes on (ITV’s) X-Factor type shows. The mainstream public don’t object to black performers on TV.
I suspect that the real cause of discontent with the BBC from some quarters is that it is a public body. No-one questions the political leanings of staff working for ITN or SKY news for example, despite their similarity of output to the BBC. If you want a debate over privatisation at least bring it into the open. I have mixed feelings over BBC funding myself, but it is a wholly seperate debate.
Waking up to this has started my week on the best note in about, what, 8 months?
People are safe.
Salute Ya, BBC.
*big grin*
PS - how do I sign out? I got this pop-up box thingy at the botton of my screen when I went into this page 'Enter your user name' etc. So I did, the one I use for the messageboards and that. But I can't seem to get out again.
Oh, well, worse things happen at sea, I suppose.
*looking slightly shaken but not stirred*