|
BBC Reports: "Sentence First. Verdict Afterwards?"
February 4, 2004
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
When it comes to investigative journalism, the dangers can often outweigh the promise. The BBC has discovered this to its sorrow. There are some lessons to be drawn from this misadventure for other journalistic organizations, including NPR.
The Hutton Inquiry into the BBC concluded that the world's most reputable public broadcaster let politics get in the way of good journalism. Specifically named is BBC Radio's flagship news program, where reporter Andrew Gilligan stated that Prime Minister Blair's office "sexed up" (made appear more dangerous) intelligence reports in order to pull Britain closer to the United States in the lead up to war in Iraq.
Gilligan didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Lord Hutton concluded that his report was not based on any credible evidence.
Heads are rolling at the BBC with the recent resignations of the chairman, the director-general and the reporter himself.
Journalistic Defensiveness
But other reactions seem to indicate that journalistic defensiveness and denial are the operative responses.
Last week, BBC journalists walked off the job in solidarity with their disgraced leaders.
Other commentators rushed to the defense of the BBC. One British columnist called the Hutton Report an overreaction, akin to a "second-rate burglary resulting in the demolition of the house."
These reactions miss the point entirely.
What seems to be at stake here is why the BBC allowed a hard-driving reporter free rein to put anything he liked on the radio without benefit of either editorial oversight or managerial responsibility.
In the words of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, BBC's investigative journalism seemed to take the approach: "Sentence first. Verdict afterwards." The need to prove Tony Blair's collusion with the Bush administration overrode the basic rules of investigative journalism.
Hard to Manage
Investigative journalism projects are notoriously hard to manage and they sometimes don't produce the results hoped for. At the BBC, there seems to have been a general assumption of wrongdoing on the part of the government. No one in any position of editorial responsibility was prepared to ask the most important question in any investigative journalism: "How do we know?"
At the same time, relations between the Blair government and the BBC were troubled and getting worse through 2003. The BBC would receive, on average, a complaint a day from the Prime Minister's Office over the political coverage. A lot of complaints on a single issue tend to blur the ability of any journalistic organization to determine which complaints are journalistically valid and which are politically motivated. It's tempting to dismiss them all.
Running an Investigative Team
When an investigative project gets launched, there are great expectations. Leads look promising. Off-the-record interviews are tantalizing. Sources say they can and will deliver the proof. Reputations start riding on this one.
After a while, time and money get spent without much return on investment. Senior managers in charge of budgets want to know why a reporter is spending money without producing a story. Pressure to produce comes from editors who have been waiting eagerly for results. Fellow journalists start to snipe about "boondoggles." Eyes roll whenever the "investigative unit" is mentioned.
On the other hand, there are many strong investigative units -- many in public television -- that produce results. The BBC's Panorama has a strong reputation. PBS' Frontline and the CBC's Fifth Estate are other good examples. But to be successful, they need time. Good editors give their reporters room to pursue the story. Editors have to manage "up" and "down" by making sure that the pressure from senior managers is kept away from the investigative team. At the same time, editors have to make sure that the team is producing results.
Rules for Investigative Journalists
There are serious dangers that journalists, managers and the public need to know about when it comes to investigative reporting. So here are some rules for would-be investigative reporters:
- Toronto Globe and Mail Editor-in-Chief Ed Greenspon put it best: "Reporters need to be courageous and vigilant. Editors need to be vigilant and courageous."
- Edit ruthlessly. In my experience, investigative reporters, in general, never met a fact they didn't like. They want to keep everything in their story.
- Keep your senior managers involved. The last thing you need is for your boss to disavow any knowledge of what you are doing.
- Keep conjecture to a minimum. Andrew Gilligan's downfall happened when he was asked his opinion. He gave it, saying the Blair government "probably knew the intelligence was false." Wrong answer. The right answer is "I don't know, but this is what we have reported..." It's OK to let the listener draw his or her own conclusions.
- Admit any errors quickly. Many an investigative project has been saved by stating what is apparent to the rest of the world. The BBC looked defensive and arrogant by not acknowledging the critics. Moreover, a lack of any independent mechanism or institution (such as an ombudsman) to handle the early allegations from the Blair government made the Hutton Inquiry inevitable.
BBC in America: Still Credible?
Some listeners have been quick to point out that NPR relies on BBC reporting. They ask if it is still wise for NPR and NPR member stations to keep broadcasting the BBC in light of recent events.
Jim Clafee writes:
The tenor of BBC coverage of world news has been anti-USA for a long time. Now that it has been revealed that the BBC is of the Jayson Blair school of reportage, wouldn't it be reasonable to drop them from NPR?
Nathan Dodell writes:
NPR should discontinue its use of the BBC, in the exercise of responsible journalism, just as The New York Times had to dispense with the services of Jayson Blair.
Many public radio stations broadcast BBC programs, especially as part of their overnight service. The decision to broadcast the BBC is made by the local stations and is not part of NPR's program offerings to those stations.
NPR News does air occasional reports from the BBC, mostly in the hourly newscasts. This does not occur as often as it once did, when a larger proportion of NPR's overseas reporting came from the BBC. Now NPR has more of its own reporters, correspondents and freelancers overseas. Fewer than 2 percent of NPR news reports now come from BBC reporters. NPR will call on a BBC reporter only when news occurs in some far-flung corner where NPR may not have its own reporter.
Strong but Damaged
In my opinion, the BBC, like The New York Times, is still strong but damaged. Both are capable, I hope, of repair and learning from what happened. NPR and NPR listeners can and should continue to rely on both those institutions. But for all our sakes, and not just of their own reputations, both the Times and the BBC must find ways of restoring our trust.
For now, I'll keep reading the Times and listening to the BBC on my local public radio station.
But I am disappointed and more skeptical than before.
Listeners can contact me at 202-513-3245 or by e-mail at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
