The Right to Know?

Amidst everything going on at the moment - graduations, preparing for a whole new semester of in-person teaching, examining a PhD, writing a chapter, reviewing a book and being part of an AHRC project, I found time to write a complaining letter to the BBC about its news coverage. I know, I felt my own heart sinking as I realised I've become that kind of pompous bore-cum-conspiracist. 

In my defence, I did write to The World At One first hoping to discuss the issue with them rather than make a formal complaint, but there was no reply, so off I went to the dispute service. What was I complaining about? Well, on this show, the presenters discussed the upcoming withdrawal of the emergency £20 per week benefit uplift, which is raising widespread concern on both sides of the political divide. WATO tried to get some Conservative MPs to comment on air, but none would - draw your own conclusions. 

If the piece had ended there, I'd have been satisfied. But WATO found a Conservative MP to give them a statement in support of the government's policy, on condition that he remain anonymous - they went so far as to have it read out by a member of the production team. 

A Conservative MP, yesterday

Now there's definitely a place for anonymity in news broadcasts: if the BBC were talking to an Afghan in Kabul who'd worked for UK forces, someone in hiding from an abusive partner, or a whistleblower, I think we'd all agree that anonymity was essential for their personal safety. The BBC has rules about protecting contributors:

We should consider whether a contributor/contestant might be regarded as being at risk of significant harm as a result of taking part in BBC content. We should conduct a “contributor due care” risk assessment to identify any risk of significant harm to the contributor, unless it is justified in the public interest not to do so. 

This guidance does not apply to individuals who appear in our news coverage when they are caught up in current events. 

It is concerned with contributors to BBC content where we owe due care to contributors or potential contributors who may be caused harm or distress as a result of their contribution, including in News and Current Affairs and Factual content where the BBC has approached someone to be a contributor in situations where there may be a significant risk of harm.

I can't see that any 'significant harm' ensues from an elected representative endorsing the government s/he supports. A member of parliament is different from a vulnerable source because s/he has power and privilege. They're elected by a specific group of people on the basis of their views, specific or general. There's no expectation of privacy when it comes to political opinion. Constituents are entitled to know what their MP thinks so they can take it into consideration when the next election comes round. 

The BBC is pretty clear on what counts as a 'vulnerable' person - here's one definition:

they are not used to being in the public eye

whereas 

We must judge this taking into account the editorial content, the nature and degree of the individual’s involvement and their public position

There's no question that this MP was in danger of nothing more than reduced popularity and perhaps some stiff emails. S/he was clearly too cowardly to openly support a policy he believes in being put into action by the government he put in power. I know this sounds really pompous, but I genuinely believe that the BBC affording anonymity to an elected representative in no meaningful danger to promote government policy is a distortion of the democratic process. MPs are rightly held to greater standards of openness than - to pick a random example - a pseudonymous blogger because they have real power. If the state broadcaster allows elected representatives to hide behind anonymity to support or oppose mainstream decisions and views, the electorate is denied the chance to make an informed decision. 

The BBC has some guidance for producers about anonymity, and it doesn't feel like they were followed when this article was put together. 

The decision to grant anonymity should be taken with great care. The programme maker must consider why the person wishes to remain anonymous.  

The most important question to pose to someone requesting anonymity is “Whom do you want to be anonymous from - from the general public or from people who know you well?

On the whole they're not keen on it: 

Sources and contributors should speak on the record whenever practicable and their identities and credentials made known to the audience so that they can judge the source’s credibility, reliability and whether or not they are in a position to have sufficient knowledge of the subject or events.  

The decision to grant anonymity should be taken with great care. The programme maker must consider why the person wishes to remain anonymous. Do they have something to hide beyond their identity?  

When it is not self-evident to the audience we should explain to them the reasons why the production granted anonymity to a source. The strongest rationale for granting anonymity is simply to protect the contributor from illegitimate retaliation, harassment or undesirable consequences for providing information.

I don't think this case is justified at all, and no explanation was given on air, but it seems to me that the bar was set too low. How are we to know if the next MP to be given this treatment on some public issue doesn't have a monetary interest in the outcome, for instance? It could have been my MP, Stuart Anderson, a man with legal and moral issues of his own in a marginal constituency. Knowing his view might tip the balance in either direction, but we'll never know whether it was him or not. 

The BBC guidance is far more focussed on the protection of justifiably anonymised contributors - people with social or psychological vulnerabilities or potentially open to persecution: there's nothing in the guidelines about the public interest, which is deeply concerning. 

A member of parliament is elected by a specific group of people on the basis of their views, specific or general. Constituents are entitled to know what their MP thinks so they can take it into consideration when the next election comes round. There's no question that this MP was in danger of nothing more than reduced popularity and perhaps some stiff emails. S/he was clearly too cowardly to openly support a policy he believes in being put into action by the government s/he put in power. I know this sounds really pompous, but I genuinely believe that the BBC affording anonymity to an elected representative in no meaningful danger to promote government policy is a distortion of the democratic process. MPs are rightly held to greater standards of openness than - to pick a random example - a pseudonymous blogger because they have real power. If the state broadcaster allows elected representatives to hide behind anonymity to support or oppose mainstream decisions and views, the electorate is denied the chance to make an informed decision. How are we to know, for instance, if the next MP to be given this treatment on some public issue doesn't have a monetary interest in the outcome, for instance? 

An MP too ashamed to support his/her own party's policy or government's decisions should take a long look at her/himself, not demand and be given protection from public opinion. For the MP to ask for this is shameless enough, but for a broadcaster with legal responsibilities of impartiality and ethical behaviour is a serious dereliction of duty. The BBC's responsibilities include this stirring statement:

We must always scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account with consistency and due impartiality. 

4.3.14 Contributors expressing contentious views, either through an interview or other means, must be challenged while being given a fair chance to set out their response to questions. 

4.3.20 We should ensure that appropriate scrutiny is applied to those who are in government, or otherwise hold power and responsibility

How can this happen if an elected member of parliament is allowed to hide behind the protections ordinarily afforded to whistleblowers to endorse something as mainstream as a government decision, and is allowed to provide a statement rather than face scrutiny in the form of questioning? 

Maybe this is a very small hill to die on, but I really do think that if you want to exercise real democratic power, you should put your name to your beliefs, and you shouldn't be aided and abetted by the most powerful media organisation in the country when you want to avoid public scrutiny.