Adrian van Klaveren is tasked with defending the BBC’s decision to air the Tom Stephens interview. The criticism has come chiefly from lawyers, but I’ve already outlined my concerns about their decision. Here’s what he writes:

…we took the decision to transmit the interview on the basis that there had been an exceptional change in circumstances. The anonymity, which Mr Stephens had sought to preserve by making the interview for background only, no longer applied.

Who knows what Stephens’ motives were for not wishing to speak on the record? All we can be sure of is his request that the interview not be broadcast. That surely is something to be respected. The material he posted publicly on the internet is entirely open to examination. The Sunday Mirror obtained Stephens’ consent for an on the record interview.

It’s worth remembering in future that the BBC reserves the right to broadcast an off the record interview in exceptional circumstances.

The exceptional circumstances regarding Tom Stephens are these:

• He was arrested
• He gave an interview to the Sunday Mirror

Anyone who read the Mirror‘s interview would be frankly amazed by the defence that “we felt there was a compelling public interest in letting the public hear what he had to say…”

I struggle to see the compelling public interest in trying to play catch-up with old material. The impression remains that news executives simply could not bear the fact that they were sitting on a six-day old interview with Tom Stephens, an interview in which he said nothing that he did not repeat at greater length and in greater detail and on the record with the Sunday Mirror‘s Michael Duffy.

If the BBC had a track record of making public off the record interviews with powerful figures for reasons of compelling public interest, it might be in a stronger position to make its case. Sadly, these decisions are easiest when the individuals in question are weak and vulnerable.