Memorandum from BBC News (TS 32)
THE ROLE OF BBC NEWS IN COVERAGE OF TRANSPORT
SECURITY
1. INTRODUCTION
From a purely broadcast perspective, one of
the most significant aspects of the events of 7 July was that
it marked a gear change in the relationship between the public
and broadcasters. It was a day when the "citizen journalist"
became essential to the reporting of developments as never before.
That this was the case was in part due to the cautious nature
of official statements by the transport authorities and the Metropolitan
Police, which were initially out of kilter with the eye witness
accounts. Given the importance of maintaining public trust in
the BBC's reporting, there are clearly implications for future
coverage of security crises.
This note focuses on these and other lessons
that BBC News believes can be learned about its role in the immediate
coverage of one-off events like 7 July; followed by a summary
of the BBC's view of its responsibility in reporting transport
security risks generally.
2. LESSONS ARISING
FROM BBC COVERAGE
OF 7 JULY
Relationship with audiences
"When it comes to rolling news—reporting
unconfirmed facts is fine, in the heat of battle as it were, as
long as they're signposted clearly.
`They're levelling with you ... Taking little
risks on informed opinion', male 65+, Leeds
The ideal relationship is one of mutual respect,
honesty and openness. In this context, as long as the BBC is doing
its best to get the facts to its audience then everything's OK."
Qualitative focus group research carried out
by Sparkler agency on behalf of the BBC—September 2005
On 7 July, BBC News received images of the first
blast within minutes and had some 50 images within the hour. Over
the next 24 hours, we received about 1,000 still pictures, 20
pieces of amateur video and 20,000 emails. Now, with the benefit
of hindsight, one of the key issues for BBC News is whether we
should have made better use of the public's information in the
early stages when the authorities were attributing the cause of
the explosions to a power surge and, later in the day, when it
became clear that official estimates of casualties were conservative
in the extreme.
The issue is complex not least because the authorities
themselves may inadvertently give out exaggerated information
(at one point, for example, reporting seven explosions) while
eye witness accounts need to be subjected to proper checks and
may not be reliable.
Radio 5 Live was a model in the way it combined
official and "unofficial" information, signposting the
sources very clearly to the audience. We have concluded that there
was, however, a problem in our television coverage in the way
that the on-screen straps of information were at times at variance
with the commentary; the straps tended to emphasise the official
version as, for example, at 1015 when one read, "Police:
power surge possible cause", even though the presenters and
guests had stopped mentioning this. Given the way 24-hour television
news channels are used as background information in offices (and
to some extent homes), we are looking into ways of better exploiting
on-screen text material.
Recent audience research suggests that notions
of "trust" are changing; it's no longer just about ensuring
audiences trust in the facts, it's also about ensuring their trust
in the relationship with the BBC. Audiences are increasingly sophisticated
and we believe that in future we can afford to take a bit more
of a risk on breaking news stories.
"In the major bulletins, audiences expect
a very high level of accuracy and they are very unforgiving if
we get things wrong. But with 24-hour news people understand that
stories unfold and change. As long as we are trying as hard as
humanly possible to get it right, they are happy."
BBC News Director, Helen Boaden, speaking
at News Xchange conference, November 2005
The explosion of user generated content in itself
shows that there is a more intimate relationship between BBC news
and the public than in the past. The complex journalistic issues
raised by the role of the "citizen journalist" are beyond
the scope of this note, but it is clear that if handled wisely
this growing interaction between the public and broadcasters has
immense potential for building trust—and therefore also
public confidence in the event of security challenges.
Relationship with authorities
The BBC is clear that it has an essential role
to play in delivering urgent advice and information directly to
the public in the event of terrorist attack or other security
threats. Although there were mixed feelings, co-operation with
the authorities on 7 July worked well enough and the work put
in since 9/11 by the Media Emergency Forum, organised by the Cabinet
Office, seems to have paid dividends. The BBC hosted a paper exercise
of a catastrophic attack on London in May 2004, including representatives
from ITV, BSkyB, GMTV, Press Association, the Society of Editors,
GICS Ops, the Home Office, No 10 Press Office, London Resilience,
Metropolitan Police, Grampian Police, ACPO, ASA and the London
Fire Service. Although the threshold was too high—in that
7 July was not a catastrophic attack—the exercise put us
in good stead for understanding the requirements and pressures
on each other.
There are however some real areas of concern
about the relationship with the relevant authorities.
(a) Use of Transport for London cameras
TfL's legal department complained about the
BBC's use of traffic camera images around the events of 7 July
and 21 July and objected to their being used for anything other
than traffic management. From the broadcasters' perspective, the
cameras are not a substitute for our own newsgathering, but at
a time when all sorts of rumours are running, it provides a means
of telling an audience hungry for facts exactly what is going
on. The cameras are locked off and cannot be manipulated so that
the information they provide is straightforward.
As a result of the Media Emergency Forum planning
exercise, there was a recommendation that a protocol should be
developed about access to the cameras in "exceptional circumstances".
However this protocol has not been forthcoming despite BBC requests
for a meeting to resolve this.
(NB With regard to travel updates, BBC News
24/BBC 1 ran half-hourly round-ups from BBC LDN and constantly
relayed travel information on the ticker.)
(b) Greater transparency
"The combination of the 24-hour news cycle
and public involvement means it's a new ball game for the authorities.
The official sources were slow with information—and there
were suspicions in some quarters that they were doing that to
calm fears. In fairness to them they had never faced this before
and there was much confusion. But next time round the eye witness
accounts will be taken more seriously so the authorities should
take a strategic view that they need to be more open".
Kevin Bakhurst, Controller, BBC News 24
The BBC's role as a public service broadcaster
is never more in evidence than at times of national crisis. BBC
News 24 is automatically carried on BBC1 (or on occasion BBC2)
whenever there is a big event. It is a unique proposition, committed
to factual, accurate, clear information carried in a sensitive
and sober way. More people—56% of the population—watched
the joint coverage on News 24/BBC1 on 7 July than Sky and ITV
combined. If pressure on resources is a factor in the restriction
of the information flow, it would be worth the authorities considering
the use of BBC News 24 as the pool conduit for information to
other broadcasters—as well as to all the BBC platforms.
— 31 million watched at least 3 minutes
of TV coverage across BBC1/News 24.
— 22.5 million watched at least 3 minutes
on ITV1.
— 5 million watched at least 3 minutes
of Sky.
3. REPORTING
RISK
Paragraph 41 of the House of Commons Transport
Committee preliminary report on UK transport security is an apt
summary of the BBC's own view of its responsibilities in relation
to the reporting of transport security risks. We endorse this
view entirely.
Likewise we are very encouraged by the sentiment
expressed in Paragraph 42 since media exposure of security weaknesses
may be key to the implementation of improvements. In any case,
it seems fanciful to think that potential terrorists sit at home
waiting for broadcasters to point out ways of exploiting security
loopholes; is there any evidence that terrorists have used media
reports?
That said, the BBC is conscious of its role
as the major source of public information in the UK and instils
in its managers a responsibility not to engender panic or endanger
public safety. We take a realistic view of the impossibility of
100% security.
BBC News has taken a lead in developing guidance
for journalists on reporting risk, working closely with Professor
Ragnar Lofstedt, Professor of Risk Communication at King's College,
London and Visiting Professor at Harvard University. The guidelines
were launched at a number of seminars internally and externally,
and have attracted significant interest at home and abroad.
— What exactly is the risk, how big
is it, who's affected?
— How has the risk been measured, how
big is the sample, who funded the research, how reputable is the
source?
— If we are reporting a relative risk,
have we made clear what the baseline risk is (eg a 100% increase
in a problem that affects one person in 2,000 will still only
affect one in 1,000).
— Have we asked: "How safe is
this?" rather than "Is this safe?"
— If a scientist or a victim takes
a view counter to majority scientific opinion, is that clear in
the report and in the casting of and questions in a discussion?
— Have we told the audience how they
can get more information?
— Can we find a comparison to make
the risk easier to understand (eg it's as risky as drinking a
pint of beer).
— Is the scale of reporting in proportion
to the extent of the risk?
— Have we given the audience information
to put the risk in context? (eg if during a pill scare women stop
taking the pill, they face higher risks from abortion or pregnancy).
— Can we use a story about a specific
risk as a springboard to discuss other related risks? (eg train
safety-road safety).
BBC Risk Guidance for Journalists, Sue Inglish
and Roger Harrabin, July 2003
4. SUMMARY
— In the immediate aftermath of a terrorist
attack or any other threat to transport security, BBC News has
a key role to play in relaying advice and information to the public.
The more transparent the authorities can be with us the better;
public fear grows in the face of rumour.
— Likewise the BBC must be very clear
about the sources of information and the extent to which it can
be corroborated. We should be careful to check the credentials
of eye witness reports and images.
— Public trust in BBC reporting is
an essential element in the maintenance of public confidence at
times of crisis.
— The BBC is committed to contextualizing
terrorism and security risk in the longer term.
— It remains nonetheless important
to hold government and authorities to account just as we do in
any other area of journalism. When people die using public transport,
it is right to ask if anything more could have been done to protect
them and what might be done in future to limit the scope for further
attacks.
January 2006
|
