John Stonborough F.C.I.P.R.

Once more into the breach, of ethics

In one of those blokish ho-ho moments in the newsroom, reporters nudge each other and say ‘never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?’ They might even add a knowing wink. But the facts getting in the way can be catastrophic if its going to kill the story. Especially so in TV when there’s a large gap to fill, just minutes before transmission.

There is nothing for it in these dire times but for brave men and women to gather round in a huddle. If you listen carefully you can hear phrases like ‘what else have we got? Or, ‘will they sue etc’ rising from the scrum. Then, provided the answer is negative to these and other searching questions, the editor will jump up and cry God for England, Harry and St George, lets run it anyway!’. Relief and hugs fill the Edit suite and its coffees all round.

Well, I have this vision of the Tonight with Trevor Macdonald team acting out just such a Henry V moment as they faced the abyss last Monday night (ITV1 8pm September 25th).
The story was billed as being about ‘partners’ hiding the true state of their financial indebtedness from their ‘partners’. These partners looked much like husbands and wives to me, only fatter.
At the heart of all that blubbing blubber confessing, was a story about a lady whose husband killed himself two years ago, unable to reveal to her that he had run up debts of £130,000 on 22 credit cards. Yes £130,000 on 22 credit cards!

Martin (Money Saving Expert, 34-year-old ultra specialized journalist ….in constant media demand, including his own ITV1 series ‘Make Me Rich’) Lewis was the presenter and as patronizing and agitated as ever. He’s a sort of calculator wrestling Steve Irwin.

He explained how this ill-fated bloke earned just £15,000 a year but had had to borrow money for his wife’s operation. Things had gone from bad to worse, using one card to pay off the next etc assisted by the egregious banks, who demanded repayment on one card, while upping his limit on another. (is there no depth to their knavery and shame?). And all the while this man kept his misfortune from his dear wife. You get the picture? QED The banks killed him.

Not so fast! In case you are wondering if you had a similar Kleenex moment recently, the same story was on Panorama in July and in the Guardian..

But lets keep the Bard’s metaphors alive a little longer – all that glisters is not gold. I do not wish to rubbish the wife’s obvious grief at her loss, the man is dead. But, surely she must have known something was amiss? They were enjoying a comfy middle class existence, with, I understand, the odd trip to France, maybe to pick some booze and few fags? All on his measly income?

And then there was his bankruptcy and his appearance in connection with a faked signature on a mortgage document at Bristol Crown Court and even his severe diabetes. All this is in the public domain, waiting for a researcher on Panorama or Tonight with Trevor to uncover. And if they didn’t. You have to ask why? Why didn’t they talk to his first wife? She wrote to the Daily Mail about it and copies were given to the Granada programme? Why weren’t we told, or why didn’t they drop the item until they had checked it out far more carefully.

A note to Trevor, you have had a cracking career and you are much respected – but if you are going to take the cash for topping and tailing a programme, you might want to keep an eye on the content, or you are doing your fans a very great disservice. They trust what you are telling them is the truth and not just a convenient selection.

A real lack Ofcom-mon sense

I like double takes – you know the ones. The best are in cartoons. Tom is running purposefully on some mission when he spots Jerry (doing something cheeky) out of the corner of his eye. His head whips back and forth twice and he screeches to a stop mid stride, as his legs go furiously into reverse. It gets a laugh every time.
Well I did a Tom and Jerry ‘double take’ recently. I was sitting on a plane going on holiday. With the restrictions you can’t take too much, so for light reading I tucked the Aug 21 edition of the Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin (67) into my regulation no liquids, no guns, no nail clippers, travel bag.
The report which caught my eye was about Boomerang TV broadcasting Tom and Jerry cartoons with scenes involving smoking. A viewer had complained. Yes just one – but listen to this.
“Following the recent complaint, Turner Broadcasting (owner of the kids channel Boomerang) conducted an extensive review to assess the volume and context of smoking and proposed editing any scenes where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamourised or encourage imitation.”
Can this be serious? They propose reworking –what are indisputably works of art, often nearly half a century old, made for all age-groups, shown in every cinema, to satisfy a complaint from just one viewer. Quite apart from the cost and expertise required in defacing 25 frames per second. It is wrong.
Think about it for a moment. Where does it stop? We have already had a movement (successful I believe) to extinguish Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s cigar. What about Popeye’s pipe – come to think of it, I think Popeye is a pretty disagreeable name – maybe the poor chap had some iodine deficiency which caused his eyes to bulge and hence the epithet.
Rule 1.10 of the Broadcasting Code says smoking (and other drugs including Alcohol) must not be featured in programmes made primarily for children or broadcast before the watershed.
Fair enough, sounds like good common sense – but how about a bit of Ofcommon sense over this. Their response to Turner’s vandalism – a fusion of PC and PR - is to say, get your sticky hands off those cartoons. Either don’t broadcast them or if you have to, then put a health warning at the start. How about ‘This Cartoon Classic contains scenes of smoking.’ That’s All Folks!

Congratulations

Congratulations Eloise: 4 A grades at A level plus 2 AEA Distinctions.

Doorstepping Daniel Today

Once again, have the BBC – this time the Radio 4 Today programme – breached their own Guidelines?

Jon Manel’s investigation into illegal immigrants working with the full knowledge of the Immigration Service was a great public interest story.

Jon, armed only with a digital tape recorder, paid an unscheduled visit to the home (private property) of an illegal immigrant, called Daniel. As a result Daniel - a very polite African? - got nicked and pleaded guilty to using a forged document to get work. Good investigative stuff?– well perhaps not entirely.

Daniel is here, and working, with the full knowledge (and arguably the consent) of the Immigration Service who did nothing about him until the BBC got involved.
But what about the Door-Step interview – or as its called in the Guidelines: Door-stepping for factual programmes without prior approach

Approval will normally only be given if there is:
- clear evidence of crime or significant wrong doing and
- good reason to believe that an investigation will be frustrated or allegations avoided if the individual is approached openly.

I am not arguing that Daniel (and the many thousands like him) was not a ‘criminal’. But where was the evidence that the BBC had good reason to believe the investigation might be frustrated or the allegations avoided if they had asked Daniel about it openly, instead of ambushing him.

I don’t think there was any. You know what I think? I think Jon Manel of the BBC picked on this little guy for the drama of doorstepping him and in my book (BBC Producers’ Guidelines), that is not on. (See Newsnight-mare below)

I wonder if I can invite Jon Manel to respond?

‘Send the Rat Pack Packing’ Help-Line

No promises that this works, but here is a number and a note from the PCC about being harrassed by the media :

The broadcasters and the broadcasting news organisations have agreed with the Press Complaints Commission that in a situation where an individual feels harassed because large numbers of print and broadcast journalists have congregated to cover a news story that the following emergency number: 07659 152 656 (which operates 24 hours a day) can be used by a person affected to notify the relevant organisations of their concern. Whether to withdraw is then a decision for the relevant organisations.

I tried the number - its a paging service. I will have another go tomorrow. J

Ofcom’s new fairness guidelines

The Communications Act 2003 empowers Ofcom to adjudicate on programme fairness and privacy complaints. This Ofcom document, effective from 1 June 2006, outlines the procedures that Ofcom will normally follow. Separate guidelines exist for the handling of standards complaints.

Newsnight-mare

Had an urgent call from Zaria Pinchbeck MD of Z-PR (www.z-pr.com) last week. One of her major retail clients had been ‘secretly filmed’ by an undercover reporter from the BBC Newsnight programme – the client had done nothing wrong (true) and was pretty incidental to the Newsnight story, but what really mattered was that a young member of their staff had been filmed unknowingly.

Zaria had four hours to sort it. One option was do nothing. A short statement perhaps, but she wanted that secret filming out of the item.

Without getting too technical, broadcasters cannot use secret filming just to add drama. There has to be actual evidence of serious or significant anti social or criminal behaviour and it must be in the public interest. According to Zaria, there was NO evidence of serious or significant anti social behaviour by her client and certainly not by the young shop assistant. Sounded like drama to me as the BBC like nothing better than nailing some big name company.

I suggested she ask the producer for immediate written answers to the following, NB, she should do it, not the lawyers:

1. Was there actual evidence of serious anti-social behaviour? If so what?

2. Why did they not approach the client openly – the company had nothing to hide.?

3. How did (her client’s) behaviour sufficiently justify this invasion of privacy? A shop is private property even if the public has access

4. How was the young person filmed, sufficiently responsible to identify them in a TV investigation on Newsnight?

It worked (after a bit of horse-trading and lots of BBC bluster)– the reference to Zaria’s client was so fleeting you’ld have missed it and the young shop assistant’s face pixilated beyond even her mother’s recognition. Zaria had a happy client and credit to the BBC too. They didn’t have grounds to push their Guidelines to the limit and backed off.

Welcome

The purpose of this blog is to share information and hints about media relations issues.