Examination of Witnesses (Questions 511-519)
TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003
MS CAROLINE
THOMSON AND
MR FRASER
STEEL
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming
to see us and thank you for the material you have sent us. I will
ask Michael Fabricant to start.
Michael Fabricant
511. Before we get on to the subject of privacy
I just want to ask you, as you are the Programme Complaints Unit,
whether you can understand sometimes the frustration from people
who make a complaint against the BBC which may or may not be justified
when the BBC answer that complaint and say—perhaps rightly—that
the complaint is not justified, and can you understand that maybe,
if an external watchdog was saying that the complaint was not
justified, it might just be that little bit more believable?
(Ms Thomson) It is a great pleasure to
be here, by the way, and to be talking about this—
Mr Fabricant: I am sorry, I cannot hear
you.
Chairman
512. Mr Fabricant having made that point, can
I say that we moved to this room because we thought the acoustics
would be better and we have found out they are not, so could you
shout?
(Ms Thomson) Yes. On the issue of people having greater
confidence in the BBC system, we hope people do have confidence
in the BBC system because we have set it up to be entirely separate
from the programme making departments and that is why I am here
as the Director of Public Policy rather than you having a head
of programmes here to talk about it, and it answers to me. We
do accept, however, that in this day and age you do need greater
transparency and people always need the right to go somewhere
else, which is why in the Communications Bill provisions we have
agreed that Ofcom should have the right to hear complaints against
the BBC in all circumstances, not just as at the moment where
you have the Broadcasting Standards Council on taste and decency.
Michael Fabricant
513. That is very helpful. As you know, the
inquiry is on the subject of privacy and the BBC in its statement
has said that you believe people would have a reasonable expectation
of privacy. Could you expand on that? For example, when there
are examples of football hooliganism and the director in the scanner
says, "We will cut to people in the crowd" and you might
cut to someone who is just standing there, it could be argued
that their privacy is being invaded because there is an implication
that they have been involved in football violence when merely
they are standing there as a bystander. How can you control live
broadcasting in such a way that that reasonable expectation is
realised?
(Ms Thomson) We seek to control it by having very
clear guidelines, and the principle of one of the premises on
which the BBC system works was referred to by Chris Bryant in
an article in Guardian Media this week which is that prevention
is better than the cure. So we have tough guidelines which should
prevent instances like that happening which would not just be
a question of invasion of privacy but would be defamation if you
showed pictures of totally peaceful spectators and alleged they
are hooligans, and these are people in a public place so by that
nature know they are likely to appear on camera. But we would
seek to make sure that always it is the case that references to
actions fit the pictures and not the other way round.
514. Last week we were interviewing a series
of editors and one editor, whom I will not name but who is nevertheless
on the record, said, "We don't doorstep people; it is the
broadcast media that do". Would you like to make a comment
about that, first of all? Is it true? Is it broadcast media at
fault? Where does the BBC stand on this?
(Ms Thomson) It is slightly unseemly to get engaged
in a slanging match about who does what, and I would not seek
to do that. The truth is in all journalism there is some element
of doorstepping which is perfectly legitimate. For example, if
Clare Short has been on the radio the night before announcing
she is intending to resign it is perfectly legitimate to have
people on her doorstep seeking to get a comment from her as she
leaves the house the next morning, and I do not think anyone would
ever dissent from that.
515. How do you differentiate between a public
person, if you like, and certainly a senior politician is a public
person, and a private person? Where do you say, "We would
not doorstep"?
(Ms Thomson) We say if a person is already in the
public domain and they have put themselves there either from the
nature of the job they do or by seeking publicity in the sense
of pop stars and so on, then they might legitimately expect to
be able to cope with the business of having camera crews on their
doorstep but we do recognise that it can be very distressing for
other people. We would always seek with private individuals to
withdraw people if ever the police request it. At Soham, for example,
we withdrew the minute there was any suggestion that the presence
was going to be intrusive and, in terms of doorstepping other
people we were making programmes about, we have very strict rules
about how it can only be done, for example, where there is prima
facie evidence that they might have done something wrong and where
all other attempts to interview them have failed. We have a set
of rules in the producer's guidelines, and to doorstep someone
who is not in a Clare Short situation, even if they are in the
public eye, has to be referred to the head of department before
it gets agreement to be done.
516. Could I ask you about the present situation
in Iraq? One of our colleagues, Linda Gilroy, the Member for Plymouth,
Sutton, raised this with the Defence Secretary last week, and
she has talked about reports from Plymouth suggesting—and
I am reading from Hansard—that some of the members
of the national press—she says "press" not "broadcast
media"—are doorstepping families of people who are
bereaved, families of soldiers who have been killed or lost in
action. What would be the BBC's attitude towards that? What is
the BBC's current policy towards this whole issue of privacy during
the Iraqi crisis?
(Ms Thomson) It is clearly absolutely key at the moment
because people are losing their lives, and wives and husbands
and children, their loved ones, are facing that sort of danger
and the last thing we want to do is cause them any extra grief
or hassle. Our policy obviously is we never name anyone or give
indications about them until it is clear that the next of kin
have been informed. I would hope and believe that no one from
the BBC would be harassing anyone on the doorstep, and if anyone
has evidence of it I would like to hear it because it would be
absolutely contrary to both the spirit and the letter of our guidelines.
517. What about agency material that you may
receive not from the United Kingdom but from Iraq maybe of prisoners
of war or British soldiers who have been injured or killed and
are identifiable from the film? What is the BBC's policy towards
showing that, possibly before relatives have been informed?
(Ms Thomson) Our policy is we should never show it
before relatives have been informed. Obviously there is a stage
where we need to verify it and try to be clear that it is what
the Iraqis say, as well as the problem of the relatives being
informed. It is the case that with the American prisoners of war
footage, which was so distressing, not only the BBC but also the
American networks had the difficulty that it came in a live feed
which up to then had been completely different, so we took it
off the air immediately when we realised as the Americans did
what it was, and we stopped it.
518. Have you considered using a delay?
(Ms Thomson) Since then our policy on it has been
that, because it is substantially in the public domain, we do
not feel we can not use it at all but we have sought to use it
in a very minimal way so as to make it clear that the pictures
exist but not to humiliate the guys there any more, because obviously
one does not want to do anything that causes any more distress.
Chairman
519. Just following on from what Mr Fabricant
has said before I call Mr Bryant, those particular circumstances
that you have just been discussing everybody would agree are very
difficult to sort out, instant television utterly uncontrollable,
et cetera, but there is another issue and it is an issue that
the old National Heritage Committee under my chairmanship looked
at in the days when, very sadly, British soldiers were being killed
in Northern Ireland and, sadly, already we have some British servicemen
killed in Iraq and there are going to be funerals. What guidelines
have you got about coverage of those funerals? Would you in every
case make sure that the widow, parents, relatives, would welcome
cameras there before you decided to cover funerals?
(Ms Thomson) Yes. We have no specific guidelines just
for coverage of those funerals but we would seek to govern them
by our ordinary producers' guidelines. We would never cover a
funeral in any degree if we were specifically asked to stay away.
For example, it is a different case, but in the recent case of
Milly Dowler the family had specifically requested privacy, then
there was the bit in the street where the poor girl had been kidnapped
or whatever it was and we covered that public bit which they were
happy with and then left it, and we would adopt exactly the same
policy for these.
|
