The BBC has more journalists than any other media outlet in Britain, but out of those 4,000 men and women, yes 4,000, precisely none of them work in an investigations unit. The Sunday Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Mail have far less journalists between them but they all maintain centralized investigations units.
At the same time the BBC thinks it right to employ between 150 and 200 press officers. Yes, the BBC’s budget is being squeezed mercilessly, but it is about priorities. Newspaper hacks are judged by their ability to find news. They complain that many BBC journalists go through whole careers without breaking a story.
Back in the 2000s I was asked to draw up a plan for a BBC investigations unit, to take on the papers. I wasn’t necessarily interested in running it but I was interested in writing the blueprint and working in it. It was because we had created something similar on a smaller scale at the BBC’s ‘flagship’ current affairs show Newsnight. I had previously worked in radio (on Today, World at One and PM) and on moving to Newsnight I was shocked at how little journalism TV producers really did. The production demands of television meant that booking guests, getting crew to the right places, finding pictures, and ordering graphics took precedence over finding out what the story was.
Some of the reporters had managed to carve out a little space to follow their own leads on occasions, and I decided to invent the post of Investigations Producer and appoint myself to it. My logic was that if it was a success, the bosses would go along with it and take the credit.
It is not that the BBC doesn’t have brilliant journalists, it does, and I’ve been lucky enough to work with them on Newsnight and the documentary programme Panorama. Their foreign correspondents are excellent at flying in to stories as they happen around the world, and making you care about what’s happening thousands of miles away. The producers also put their lives on the line to make that happen. The Home Affairs Unit is packed with people who have the ability and aptitude to dig, but all too often are dragged into just feeding the sausage machine with agenda stories. There are individuals scattered in radio and TV programmes, in the regions, and all over the institution, who are trying to do investigations often in their spare time and with little support. Typically managers see them as a problem.
Even Panorama, which was once seen as a primarily investigative programme, now spends much of its time on analysis, although it still occasionally makes great programmes like the undercover investigation into G4S’s cruelty to youth inmates.
BBC managers like on-agenda stories that can be planned ahead. Court cases, parliamentary debates, press-released events, and reports all appear on diaries weeks ahead. They are predictable and if you spend the time and money you will always get something you can put on air, and the people you do stories about are usually happy. Their PR teams will invite you to flash lunches and the best corporate Christmas bashes.
Investigations aren’t like that. They are hassle. You’re more likely to get named on a writ than invited to the party. You might spend the money and get nothing, or be stopped by the lawyers from broadcasting a scoop. If you broadcast, you will be attacked by your targets, and accused of bias. You may be dragged through the courts and tied up in the internal complaints machinery, sometimes for years, and then there’s the BBC Trust as a final pointless court of appeal. The sooner the Trust is abolished and the BBC brought under OFCOM, like other broadcasters, the better.
As Investigations Producer at Newsnight, I had space to make investigations a core part of the programme, pulling in great reporters and screening them from the demands of daily coverage, sometimes getting a leaked report on a running story to feed into that night’s Newsnight, or spending a couple of weeks on something more substantial, but simultaneously working on complex investigations which could take a year.
This is what a BBC investigation unit would also have to do. It would need to feed into daily programmes but also come up with the big sledgehammer stories. It would need a core team of experienced investigative journalists, but others who had good ideas, or great contacts, could be attached to the unit for as long as it took to get the story out there. You wouldn’t want a hard wall between the investigators and other journalists. You would want to encourage every journalist to chase stories and help them do that.
I had already put together resources on the web, primarily aimed at new BBC journalists but available to all, on how to do investigations, as well as running classes for the BBC College of Journalism and others.
But the proposal for an investigations unit foundered at an early stage amongst infighting about who would run it and where the budget would come from. From the outside, the BBC looks like a monolith, but inside it is more like Game of Thrones with feuding factions fighting for power, and neglecting the White Walkers gathering at Westminster.
The BBC is culturally inclined against investigations. The BBC’s official motto is “nation shall speak peace unto nation” but the unofficial second line is “and decide how little the people should be told about what’s really going on”. Newspapers, and other broadcasters like Channel 4, trust their lawyers to keep an eye on any compliance issues. The BBC has all that and another layer of control, the Editorial Policy unit (Ed Pol), intended to provide guidelines, but often seen by journalists as unnecessarily interfering and obstructing. One time when I was investigating sex assaults in schools Ed Pol told me I couldn’t knock on the door of a paedophile (who had been convicted the previous year), because it would be infringing his human rights.
With the BBC’s byzantine management structure no-one knows who is really in control. At one point I watched three different managers in Current Affairs, above Editor level, independently rewriting script lines in a Panorama. But if everyone’s responsible, no-one’s responsible, which means that on the big decisions, like killing the important Jimmy Savile investigation, or running the McAlpine allegations without checking, the BBC makes disastrous calls. Jimmy Savile was one of the BBC’s most popular DJs and TV performers. Twenty million would watch his shows. In secret he was also one of Britain’s most prolific paedophiles. I led the team that made the 2011 Newsnight investigation to reveal this abuse, which was then pulled, plunging the BBC into four years of scandals. The latest this week was the leaking of a BBC report, the Janet Smith review, which showed that members of the BBC’s management knew as early as 1973.
There’s another problem. Investigations aim to hold power to account, and one of the most powerful institutions is the government. People ask me is the BBC biased, and my answer is that the fundamental corporate bias is pro-government, regardless of party. It’s the licence fee – stupid. Of course, not every story will be pro-government but the overwhelming narrative will be.
When I was on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in the late ‘80s I’d regularly get calls from Margaret Thatcher’s party chairman, Norman Tebbit, while the programme was on air. He’d ring up to try to influence the daily agenda. Alistair Campbell and his merry men were equally effective under Tony Blair and their humbling of the BBC after the David Kelly affair only made the corporation more submissive. And now there’s a Tory government so the BBC is pro-Tory. Take the junior doctors’ strike this month. Newsnight, to its credit, ran a MORI poll showing 66% public in favour, 18% against. But on the day of the action Today trawled for anti-strike patients, and the BBC News at Ten ran two negative voices from ordinary people, and no-one in favour.
The only periods when I saw the BBC’s loyalty to the government wavering was under John Major after Black Wednesday, and during the Gordon Brown administration. In each case a cynic might say the corporation could see the PMs were dead on their feet, and the other side was about to be elected and control the BBC purse strings.
Increasingly new media, including Buzzfeed, Vice, and Exaro are outflanking traditional outlets on investigations. Not everything they do will be good, but it is a real challenge. And it is not just new journalism outlets but other opinion shapers advancing into the investigations area which has been vacated by the BBC.
I spent the last six months helping Greenpeace set up an investigations unit, and they won’t be the last charity to do that. It makes you go back to basics and think what is needed, what resources, what framework, how do you treat whistleblowers, what should the rules be? Essentially we came to the conclusion that at Greenpeace there should always be a discussion about whether an investigation was in the public interest and whether that justified any subterfuge like deception or secret recording. But the new media, and organisations new to this field like Greenpeace are not regulated as tightly as public broadcasters.
They do have the capability to go out on fishing expeditions where they think, but can’t prove, that wrongdoing has happened, and go and find the evidence. They’re not scared of what they’ll find out. As the BBC retreats into caution, the new wave can beat them to the stories, although they may need to partner old media to get the coverage, as Buzzfeed did with the Tennis match-fixing story.
Greenpeace will back whistleblowers a hundred per cent, but alarmingly the BBC now throws them to the wolves. Karin Ward was the first of Jimmy Savile’s victims to go on camera and blow the whistle. We interviewed her in 2011 and she was let down when Newsnight pulled our Savile film. She was let down again after appearing on the Panorama programme “Jimmy Savile: what the BBC knew.” She was sued for libel by comedian Freddie Starr, who was on Savile’s show, for comments she made on the programme. Last July, a high court judge threw out the libel case and said he categorically believed Karin Ward and the other women who testified.
All the time I worked at the BBC I was able to say to whistleblowers “If you’re sued for libel for what you say on our programme, the BBC will back you in court”. But in this case, the BBC threw all that trust away by leaving Karin in the lurch, giving her no financial support in a libel case that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. The message to whistleblowers was “you can no longer trust the BBC to back you.”
So how can the BBC get back into investigations? In my view they need to apologise to Karin and guarantee support to whistleblowers, and scrap the Editorial Policy unit and the BBC Trust. Finally, they need set up a proper investigations unit funded by cuts in the press office and the other futile departments, and fully back those brilliant investigative journalists who are left in the corporation.
Meirion Jones is an investigative journalist and producer, and former head of investigations at BBC Newsnight. He won the London Press Awards Scoop of the Year prize for his part in the investigation into Jimmy Savile. @meiriontweets. This story was originally published on openDemocracy and is cross-posted with the author’s permission.
This makes for really depressing reading.
I don’t live in Britain any more so don’t follow the BBC’s television output, but I do catch some investigative journalism going out on Radio Four: Face the Facts springs to mind. Meirion’s critique is pretty devastating so far as the BBC’s coverage of the Savile affair is concerned. But surely there is still some good work of the kind he champions being done at the BBC? (And surely it’s fewer journalists, not less?)
Even Face the Facts is no more
Where are the Tom Mangold’s of today?
This is simply not true for the BBC as a whole. It may very well be the case in London but BBC Scotland has a reasonably large specialist investigative unit which works for the network and BBC Scotland programming, including Panorama. It has three front of camera journalists, an editor, four producers and four researchers. It makes 3 x 60 mins and 13 x 30′ programmes a year. Its best known reporter is Mark Daly, who made the award-winning and agenda-setting Panorama on doping in athletics, which implicated Mo Farrar’s coach Salazar. The BBC is a very long way from perfect, and it clearly does have an issue with its investigative investment, but it is also bigger than just London.
Utterly ludicrous comment about the English Broadcasting Corporation’s propaganda unit in Scotland. Shows like Misreporting Scotland are strictly party political broadcasts where Labour politicians are interviewed about Labour press releases with back up from Labour Think tanks which are portrayed as academic or independent. During the Referendum thousands protesting right outside the BBC were totally ignored for hours. It lives in a UK OK bubble in which the party a majority of Scots back doesn’t exist. It has no redeeming features whatsoever. Its sole role is to try to manufacture consent for what the UK requires of it.
Interesting to balance Severin Carrell’s factual post against Andy Fletcher’s baseless assertions and refusal to take on basic realities. Which one would qualify as an investigative journalist? Not you. Andy
Interesting, but not surprising. This is something I have asked myself in the past – the way news outlets get their stories.
With the BBC they seem to quote Reuters, report on political leaks, repeat newspapers, send Steph McGovern to TATA steel or fill time with her Irish dancing. All very easy things.
Three way debates commonly consist of the BBC (often biased) arbiter, chairman of the Americas Logging Foundation and some spokesperson for Protect the Rainforests, or two people politically very left and very right discussing immigrants.
It’s nowhere near that balanced any more. I rarely bother watching, but was directed last week to a This Week piece. It was Andrew Neil, Liz Kendall and Portillo all sounding off in an echo chamber of mutual agreement between endless fluff segments.
The headline”How the BBC Abandoned Investigative Reporting” is GIJN’s not mine. The original headline when I wrote it for OpenDemocracy https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/meirion-jones/bbc-savile-and-investigations a month ago was “The BBC, Savile, and Investigations”. It did what it said on the tin.
My purpose was not to knock the work done by investigative journalists in the BBC – and I have nothing but respect for Mark Daly and his team and Face the Facts – but to strongly argue that an organisation employing 4,000 journalists should be breaking far more stories, and to identify some of the problems. The fact is that BBC investigative journalists like Mark Daly and Face the Facts cannot now assure whistleblowers that the BBC will protect them, because the BBC management has shown with the way it treated Karin Ward that it cannot be trusted. If whistleblowers are sued for what they say on the BBC the BBC will no longer guarantee to protect them. And lastly… Jonny Jacobsen you’re fighting a losing battle if you think anyone is going to be joining you in the “Eight items or fewer” queue at the supermarket. Banning less in that context was a Georgian confection – the OED traces “8 items or less” all the way back to King Alfred.
But you wrote the following: “The BBC has more journalists than any other media outlet in Britain, but out of those 4,000 men and women, yes 4,000, precisely none of them work in an investigations unit.” If that number includes BBC Scotland staff – which it should do to properly report the BBC’s output, your statement is simply not true. It’s pretty clear that the BBC is doing far, far less than it should and that you have the chops to complain about that, but the article is inaccurate and is being reproduced as gospel all over Facebook by other journalists. I know Daly and his colleagues, and have worked on the same stories, and I think it unfair to them that this goes uncorrected. You cite the Guardian: that’s where I work and if I’d published this, our readers editor would’ve been all over me like a rash.
The first paragraph says the main newspapers “all maintain centralized investigations units”. The second paragraph deals with plans to set up such a unit. That’s called context for the phrase “investigations unit”. I’m not knocking BBC Scotland’s efforts – far from it – I know and rate Mark Daly very highly, but the BBC has 4,000 journalists – most of them based in London – and produces scandalously little original content. Without a commitment at the centre to do something about that nothing will change. You also don’t comment on the failure of the BBC to stand up for its sources which will now impact on the willingness of whistleblowers to go to the Beeb whether they’re in Scotland or London in the same way that they lost confidence in the Guardian after the Peter Preston / Sarah Tisdall incident which took years to repair.
Didnt File on Four investigations break the tennis doping story on BBC two weeks ago?
So you took BBC money for years then left or were no longer required. Then turned on the corporation. Well done! You are completely wrong. Thank God the BBC doesn’t do things the way newsnight did when it was completely discredited. The BBC is doing independent investigation in every newsroom from every radio station to regional documentary unit file on 4 sport and I would put the excellent work by Richard Bilton up against any investigative journalists of the last 60 years. The BBC has as much investigative journalism as it ever had and its 4000 staff work hard bringing the news. I noticed my last post was removed something that shows that somebody has realised that if this “article” is the level of your journalism, the license payer is better off without it. Shame on you for stabbing hard working journalists who you have never met in the back.
in the states, jfk was a coup d’état, and journalist gary webb the coup de grace – this is something to keep in mind as we recall what happened when a bbc reporter accidentally did investigate something: when david kelly spilled the beans about ‘wmd’s in iraq’ being a deliberate fraud, and was suicided soon after (on the same day condie made the big announcement, by coincidence)
I think the problem here is in saying “precisely none” of the 4000 journalists work in an investigations unit. Many work in teams like File on Four, 5 Live Investigates, the various regional Inside Out teams and the Scotland investigative unit mentioned in the comments. There’s also a new centralised investigations unit with Paul Myers and other units which have an investigative focus.
I agree with the central thrust – the BBC needs to explicitly make a promise to whistleblowers (who generally wouldn’t trust the BBC), EdPol is a major barrier, and the flagship TV shows need re-focusing.
But I think commenters are right to pick up on the factual error: if the context is London, and TV not radio or online, then the figure should be London based journalists in TV.
This also touches on another issue with the BBC, which is that it is widely perceived to be London-dominated and doesn’t do enough to cross-report stories uncovered in one part of the corporation like radio or online.
Completely agree with the thrust of this article. The BBC regularly fails to counteract the general media trend towards the ‘dumbing down’ of society. Sound bites, non-stories, poor/compliant interview techniques and lack of balance are all too frequently the sum total of daily output.
Meirion Jones and Edmund McFaddeb are entirely right. Jones’ main complaints are a general pro-government bias, a timidity bordering on satire, a tangible fear of controversial subjects and any kind of committed policy in defense of independent critical reporting of major issues. Where was the coverage of the Snowden documents, the detailed disclosures of illegal spying and the role of GCHQ in lieing to the public about the degree and quantity of mass surveillance; Where was the coverage of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks that wasn’t uniformly hostile; How many WikiLeaks documents were shown or quoted at any length? How has the BBC reported the claims against British soldiers in murder, rape, torture and brutality in Iraq, Afghanistan. Why has the BBC never produced a single programme examining the staggering history of deaths in police custody. And on McFadden’s accurate portrait of the dumbing down, the mindless interviews, the non stories – where would you even begin?