BBC News Director Helen Boaden's reply RE: Paxman’s connection w/British American Project

Dear Mr Zamparini

As explained by Andrew Martin in his email of March 3rd, your complaint about Jeremy Paxman’s connection with the British American Project has been escalated to divisional level for a Stage 2 response.

If I may summarize your concerns, you believe that Mr Paxman’s association with the BAP gives rise to a conflict of interest and “casts serious concerns about his ability – as a BBC journalist – to remain objective and neutral on many important topics.” You cite in support of your view a section from the BBC’s Conflict of Interest guidelines:

Presenters and reporters primarily associated with the BBC.
Those known to the public primarily as presenters of, or reporters on, BBC news programmes or programmes about current affairs, must be seen to be impartial. It is important that no off-air activity, including writing, the giving of interviews or the making of speeches, leads to any doubt about their objectivity on-air. If such presenters or reporters publicly express personal views off-air on controversial issues, then their on-air role may be severely compromised. It is crucial that in both their BBC work and in non BBC activities such as writing, speaking or giving interviews, they do not state how they vote or express support for any political party express views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate advocate any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate exhort a change in high profile public policy.
If, in an exceptional case, such a presenter or reporter writes or speaks off-air in favour of one position on an issue of current public controversy, this could give rise to concerns about impartiality. The relevant Director or Head of Department should give very careful consideration as to whether there is an actual conflict of interest and whether they should declare their interest on-air or not present items or conduct interviews on the issue.

Permission must be sought from the relevant Director, Head of Department or their nominee before outside writing or speaking commitments are undertaken about current affairs or matters of current public controversy or debate.(See section 3 below).

In your email of February 2nd, you suggest that the fact that the British American Project is non-party political is not relevant in this context. But, in my view, it is entirely pertinent; amongst its members and associates, the BAP brings together people from a wide range of political viewpoints and professional backgrounds who meet in order to pursue a dialogue. I do not believe that Jeremy Paxman is a very active member of the organisation (indeed it came as a surprise to him that his picture was being used on their website) but, even if he were, it can only be helpful for presenters to be informed about all sorts of different perspectives.

It seems to me that the nub of your concern is the fact that the BAP “exists to help maintain and enrich the long-standing relationship between Britain and the United States” and you compare it with a notional pre-1989 Polish Russian Project which seeks to promote soviet communism. But such an analogy is false as the thrust of the BAP is about exploring the British-American relationship, “.. one which we believe is important, whether challenged or celebrated through time.” And membership of the BAP does not mean that interlocutors are therefore against their countries’ relationships with different countries.

In conclusion, I do not think there is any conflict of interest in the way you suggest and I hope that I have addressed your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News

***

I'm grateful to Helen Boaden for this reply. Just a few comments:

"I do not believe that Jeremy Paxman is a very active member of the organisation (indeed it came as a surprise to him that his picture was being used on their website) but, even if he were, it can only be helpful for presenters to be informed about all sorts of different perspectives."

This is rich. Maybe too rich. Why does Boaden feel she has to specify that Paxman is not "a very active member of the organisation"? The second part of the paragraph is hilarious: should then all BBC journalists be part of BAP "to be informed about all sorts of different perspectives"? Which "different perspective" I wonder. Besides, these BAP guys must be really naughty if they used Paxman's picture on their website's homepage to propagandise their network without asking Paxman first.

"It seems to me that the nub of your concern is the fact that the BAP “exists to help maintain and enrich the long-standing relationship between Britain and the United States” and you compare it with a notional pre-1989 Polish Russian Project which seeks to promote soviet communism. But such an analogy is false as the thrust of the BAP is about exploring the British-American relationship, “.. one which we believe is important, whether challenged or celebrated through time.” And membership of the BAP does not mean that interlocutors are therefore against their countries’ relationships with different countries."

In other words, "the analogy is false" because we are the good guys. I'm sure the Director of the Polish TV pre-1989 would agree with Helen Boaden.

BBC Editorial Guidelines reads:

"Presenters of News and Current Affairs programmes
In the case of those known to the public primarily as presenters of, or reporters on, BBC news programmes and programmes about current affairs, there is a greater possibility of conflict of interest. Care must be taken to ensure that they remain impartial when speaking publicly (see section 2.1 above) and do not promote any political party, campaigning organisation or lobby group which may jeopardise their status as an impartial broadcaster. The chairing of conferences may well be acceptable, but it is essential that the conference is not a promotional exercise or one-sided on an issue of public controversy. They should consult the relevant Head of Department about the suitability of public appearances and conference work. The onus is on the presenters and reporters to inform the relevant Head of Department about the range of public appearances which they undertake."

I wonder why the BBC has these rules if then they do not care to apply them. Just another case where the rule of law is good for you but not for us. This is the BBC, paid for by our money.

***

This was my e-mail to Andrew Martin, Divisional Advisor, BBC Complaints:

Dear Andrew Martin,
Divisional Advisor
BBC Complaints

Thank you very much for your reply.

I understand that BAP is non-party political but this has nothing to do with my complaint. Again, the BBC Editorial Guidelines reads:

"Presenters of News and Current Affairs programmes
In the case of those known to the public primarily as presenters of, or
reporters on, BBC news programmes and programmes about current affairs,
there is a greater possibility of conflict of interest. Care must be
taken to ensure that they remain impartial when speaking publicly (see
section 2.1 above) and do not promote any political party, campaigning
organisation or lobby group which may jeopardise their status as an
impartial broadcaster. The chairing of conferences may well be
acceptable, but it is essential that the conference is not a promotional
exercise or one-sided on an issue of public controversy. They should
consult the relevant Head of Department about the suitability of public
appearances and conference work. The onus is on the presenters and
reporters to inform the relevant Head of Department about the range of
public appearances which they undertake."

In your reply you mentioned that the BAP is non-party political but the BBC guidelines expressly mention - together with “political party” - “campaigning organisation or lobby group”.

Jeremy Paxman is a very well known and well respected BBC's journalist and the BBC is a public service paid for by public money.

This money comes from people who may or may not appreciate the British American Project, may or may not share its ideology and the role of some of its members have had in recent events (just one name, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects of the illegal invasion of Iraq).

Paxman's membership to such a project casts serious concerns about his ability - as a BBC's journalist - to remain objective and neutral on many important topics, especially when those topics may include the BAP and its affiliates and projects.

The fact that the BBC Editorial Policy Unit do not feel Jeremy's involvement represents a conflict of interest, far from explaining and reassuring, adds concerns on the role of the BBC in providing a fair, impartial, honest and non-ideological information, where all points of views are treated equally.

Your reply strongly confirms the view of those who see in the BBC an ideological institution and its journalism - in spite of the professionalism and honesty of BBC's journalists - permeated of that ideology.

In a secular, open society, why those people who do not share that ideology are called to support it with their money? Is it the role of a modern, secular State to provide an ideological information? That’s called indoctrination and has nothing to do with presenting the paying viewers with facts and opinions.

It seems that the conflict of interest is so grave that even the BBC Editorial Policy Unit cannot see it; maybe because even that Unit share that ideology? Imagine if one of the most famous Polish journalists working for the national broadcasting service in Poland in the '70s had joined a Polish Russian Project and given his face to propagandize that Project. Probably a Polish broadcasting service Editorial Policy Unit would not feel that journalist's involvement represented a conflict of interest... Then the Wall fell.

Thank you for your reply but I feel the BBC still has a grave conflict of interest problem to resolve.

Respectfully,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

***

See also Official complaint to the BBC about Paxman and the British-American Project