In the Independent, in a piece that is part-op-ed, part reportage, Tim Luckhurst questions the BBC‘s cautious reaction to its cash-for-honours story.

A couple of interesting questions arise:

Defending the corporation on Radio 4’s Today programme last week, the deputy director-general, Mark Byford, said any notion the BBC was “sitting back” was “absolutely untrue.” It could not publish before putting the allegations to the individuals involved (Ms Turner and Lord Levy), and “once the injunction was in place, we had to respect it.”

That fails to take account of the hours before it was granted, when the story had been checked and could have been broadcast on News 24 or Radio Five Live. Mr Byford’s Today interview strongly implied that the BBC was satisfied about accuracy and fairness well before the injunction tied its hands.

At what point was the BBC ready to run its story? Could it have run before the injunction process began? It would help the public judge how well the BBC had fulfilled its public duties if we knew…

Greeting the landmark decision of Jameel vs The Wall Street Journal Europe, the WSJ‘s general counsel Stuart Karle said:

The Lords’ decision recognises the effort and care with which the Journal’s reporters and editors produced the story, and the importance of giving news organisations an incentive to produce serious journalism on compelling subjects of public concern without the risk of nitpicking and second guessing by courts years later.

One wonders if the BBC and its lawyers had fully digested the implications of that decision. The BBC’s largely internal review of its own proceedings – the Neil Report – outlines the corporation’s journalistic values:

1. Truth and Accuracy
2. Serving the Public Interest
3. Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion
4. Independence
5. Accountability

What do those journalistic values actually mean in the line of fire? Are they referred to in discussions by editors, do records of decisions made using them exist for reference, or do they exist as a vacant web page that served a historic purpose?

One principle of Neil was to place responsibility with programme editors (executive producers in U.S. news), but Neil conferred responsibility without power. Any meaningful (i.e. controversial) editorial decision had to be referred up the line.

From the outside looking in, it would appear that Neil’s values offer no effective shield. For BBC executives there are powerful perverse incentives in favour of not challenging authority. The charter itself calls for sustaining citizenship and civil society. This is fine, if your mission is defined as simply reporting events [Peter Horrocks: “Providing news information, on which citizens can base their democratic and personal decisions, is the core purpose of the BBC.”] – not fine if your mission is calling authority to account [Peter Barron: “Our aim isn’t to beat the politicians, but always to question the way things are.”], or interpreting that information for a wider audience [Evan Davis: “Would BBC journalism be more useful or more impartial if we simply stuck to facts? Or if we only allowed ourselves to draw the most anodyne of interpretations? Of course not (That’s not a fact, but it is my strong interpretation).”]

As I’ve argued before, I think there’s a fundamental problem with the political compromise behind the rationale for the BBC’s charter. Realpolitik may not require much consideration of that rationale, but when it comes to crunch issues – even over significant incremental stories like Nick Robinson‘s, the lack of “case law” around the BBC’s charter role encourages timidity. Executives who take controversial decisions have no principles on which to make their stand and live to fight another day.

As a final point, the BBC’s journalism (unlike the University where I work, for example) is exempt from Freedom of Information legislation. On running stories there’s obviously a case for protection, but a time-limit on that exemption – say, three years – would allow journalism students and the public to examine decisions and see if the BBC was conducting itself according to its own standards. Such review is currently possible only in the case of the Hutton Inquiry, where I would contend the information released has not fatally weakened the BBC as an organization.

Who knows – the results might even be helpful. They would certainly offer more accountability than is currently offered by an unelected Trust. They might help preserve and strengthen the BBC’s independence. And maybe – maybe – the public interest would be served.