About the BBC Feed

Impartiality is in our genes

2010-09-20T14:10:43+00:00

'I always think that impartiality is in our DNA - it's part of the BBC's genetic make-up.

Anyone who thinks differently doesn't really understand how the organisation works and how seriously we take issues around balance and impartiality.'

Over at The Editors, Helen Boaden, director of BBC News, defends the impartiality of our journalists after an article in the Daily Mail claims the BBC is biased against the Government spending plans.

Planning the BBC's election coverage

2010-04-04T12:00:00+00:00

Whilst in some ways it feels like the campaign has already started and the date has been announced, Westminster and the wider world are waiting with bated breath for the General Election to be formally called.

Like the political parties, our preparation and planning will have been in development for months before the Prime Minister finally drives to the Palace and asks the Queen to dissolve Parliament.

And, more than any election before it, this will be a television and digital election - the historic prime ministerial TV debates being the biggest and most obvious example.

The public looks to the BBC's expertise to help them navigate and make clear some of the political complexities they face. It is one of the BBC's key responsibilities and is arguably the most important and serious duty the BBC has. The BBC is the crucible where the big debates about the future of the country inevitably take place and where many opinions will be shaped. Above all, the BBC will aim to be the standard-bearer for fair, accurate and impartial journalism across the UK. We will provide election coverage that is both independent and unique offering unprecedented breadth, depth and insight.

This could be one of the closest and therefore most ferociously fought elections in living memory. With the stakes so high for the political parties, it would not be surprising if they were in contact about how we were covering what they do and say. Whilst we will always take seriously any accusations or questions about our even-handedness and accept any mistakes if we get things wrong, we will show neither fear nor favour in how we report the election.

It is vital that the BBC is able to provide a strong and independent space where the big debates can take place, free from political or commercial influence. In this public space, everyone can have access to the lifeblood of healthy democratic debate - impartial news and information. The strength of our impartial public service broadcasting, combined with a strong newspaper tradition, is what makes us distinct from most democracies around the world.

So how will our coverage be different from previous years?

Firstly, audiences will be able to put the politicians and their policies under the microscope and scrutinise them in more detail than ever before. The Prime Ministerial Debates will enable the public to engage in the campaign in a new way, with the BBC hosting the final debate on the economy. In addition, there will be special programmes on each night of the debates, with focus groups, specialist correspondents and party pundits providing the first full analysis and reaction. And, as in previous years, we will also try to secure on BBC One one-to-one interviews with the leaders of the main political parties.

The Daily Politics will be extended to 60 minutes, Monday to Friday, throughout the campaign. It will host nine 'Cabinet Contender' debates which will provide a unique opportunity for the public to compare and contrast what each party has to offer on the issues that matter most to them. The programmes will be broadcast during the last three weeks of the campaign and will be presented by Andrew Neil and an independent policy expert and BBC specialist correspondent.

In Scotland there will be two election debates in Edinburgh and Glasgow, broadcast on BBC One Scotland, and Newsnight Scotland will be extended for four nights a week for the election coverage and an election night special with Jackie Bird, Glenn Campbell and Brian Taylor. Noel Thompson and Jim Fitzpatrick will lead the coverage in Northern Ireland, reflecting the local and national election picture as results come in. BBC Newsline will have a series of special reports and political debates from around the constituencies, and of course there will also be a Leaders debate. BBC Cymru Wales will host three election debates from around the nation, including a Welsh Leaders debate. On election night, Huw Edwards will lead proceedings on BBC One Wales. A range of Welsh language content will produced for radio, TV and online, including three Welsh language debates. In addition, across England, towards the end of the campaign, there will be 12 regional television debates with politicians, each focusing on issues that matter to the region, in front of a live audience.

Finally, we will offer the most comprehensive coverage in trying to energise and engage different audiences in the democratic process. Audiences tell us they look to the BBC to unpick the complexities of policy and bring clarity to difficult issues. We'll be doing this through the use of our trusted expertise of our specialist editors including Nick Robinson, Stephanie Flanders and Robert Peston.

This means a quality offer not just on our flagship news and current affairs programmes - Today, Newsnight, The World At One, Jeremy Vine and many other key programmes, but to other audiences through Newsround, Radio 1 and Newsbeat. Digital and online will also play a central and enhanced role. A special General Election site on bbc.co.uk will bring the most immediate developments, showcase the best of our content, and provide depth and analysis on the key issues. There is no better example than the General Election, with our online coverage being a cornerstone of what the BBC should be about.

Of course this is not the totality of what we will do. Campaigns, and the coverage of them, can evolve and change based on events. And every campaign always has those unexpected and sometimes defining moments.

Every day the BBC seeks to inform. During a General Election campaign that responsibility increases. Whilst our attention will be on the political parties - reporting their policies, holding them to account and analysing their announcements - our focus will be on serving the British electorate. Our recent Strategy Review was about making the BBC more mission-focused so that we deliver the best service for licence fee payers. Providing the best journalism in the world - through independent, impartial and authoritative content which the electorate can trust - is one of the main reasons why the BBC exists, and it is exactly what we will seek to fulfil in the weeks ahead.

Question Time and the BNP

2009-10-22T08:14:06+00:00

The decision to invite Nick Griffin, the British National party leader onto tonight's edition of Question Time is obviously an editorial judgement - and one for which the BBC and I will certainly be called to account. But it is not a decision like the running order for this morning's Today programme or the line-up of stars on this season's Strictly Come Dancing.

Those who argue that the BBC is right to feature BNP politicians occasionally on the air but is nonetheless wrong to have invited them onto Question Time fail to understand not just the programme itself but the reality of what the BBC's central principle of political impartiality means in practice.

Question Time is an opportunity for the British public to put questions to politicians of every ideological hue. Politicians from the UK's biggest parties appear most frequently, but from time to time, representatives from parties with many fewer supporters, from the Scottish Socialists, and Respect to the Green party, also take their seats on the stage. Question Time is the most prominent programme of its kind on British TV and we carefully study the support gained in elections by each of the parties, large and small, before deciding who to invite and how frequently they should appear.

It is a straightforward matter of fact that, with some 6% of the vote and the election of two MEPs in this spring's European elections and with some success in local elections as well, the BNP has demonstrated a level of support which would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time. It is for that reason, not for some misguided desire to be controversial, but for that reason alone ï that the invitation has been extended.

For the BBC to say to the BNP (or indeed to any political party), 'yes, you've met the objective criteria for appearing on Question Time, but we have decided that in your case it would be more appropriate if you didn't, but instead appeared on Newsnight or Panorama,' would be for us to deny them parity with other parties, presumably on the basis of our own, or somebody else's qualitative political judgement about the BNP.

That isn't impartiality, it is its opposite. It would be contrary to our obligations under the BBC's Charter and contrary, I believe, to the British public's expectations of us. It would be wrong.

Does that mean that we believe the BNP should not be challenged? Of course not. They should be challenged as tenaciously and as searchingly as any other political party ï and I believe they are when they appear on the BBC. From news coverage to hard-hitting, and indeed award-winning, investigative journalism, we have probed both the BNP's stated policies and some of the views of the party's leaders and supporters which are expressed only behind closed doors.

But Question Time is the public's chance to challenge the politicians - that is why it is so important that they should sometimes be able to hear and interrogate politicians from the relative fringes as well as from the mainstream.

Political parties of course have the right to be treated fairly and evenhandedly by the BBC. But the central right we are upholding in this decision is the public's right to hear the full range of political perspectives, to hear other members of the public putting those perspectives to the test, and then to form their own conclusions. Excluding any party with demonstrable popular support from taking part in the programme would be to curtail this public right.

The case against inviting the BNP to appear on Question Time is a case for censorship ï the case, in other words, that (in the opinion of those who make it) the BNP's policies are so abhorrent and so liable to sow hatred and division that they should be excluded from this form of public discourse altogether.

Democratic societies sometimes do decide that some parties and organisations are beyond the pale. As a result, they proscribe them and/or ban them from the airwaves. The UK government took exactly this step with specific parties and organisations in Northern Ireland in the 1980s.

Many of course would argue that proscription and censorship can be counter-productive and that it is usually better to engage and challenge extreme views than to try to eliminate them through suppression. My point is simply that the drastic steps of proscription and censorship can only be taken by government and parliament. Though we argued against it, the BBC abided by the Northern Ireland broadcasting ban in the 1980s and, if the BNP were proscribed, the BBC would abide by that decision too and the BNP would not appear on Question Time.

But that hasn't happened and, until such time as it does, it is unreasonable and inconsistent to take the position that a party like the BNP is acceptable enough for the public to vote for, but not acceptable enough to appear on democratic platforms like Question Time. If there is a case for censorship, it should be debated and decided in Parliament. Political censorship cannot be outsourced to the BBC or anyone else.

At the heart of public service broadcasting is the idea of public space ï of programmes and services which are available to all and within which people can encounter not just ideas and attitudes which accord with their own, but ones which are utterly different from theirs and with which they may profoundly disagree. As the present debate about Question Time demonstrates, maintaining this space is sometimes difficult and controversial. It is also essential, if we really want the public to engage in the democratic debate about the great issues of the day.

(This article appeared in today's Guardian)