CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) 7

73-86

MINL°I'ES OF THE BOARD MEETING

Thursday 17 July 2003, 09 00-13 :00

in the Sixth Floor Suite, Television Centre

PRESENT :

Gavyn Davies Chairman

Richard Ryder Vice-Chairman
Ruth Deech
Dermot Gleeson
Sarah aogg
Merfyn Jones
Fabian Monds
Pauline Neville-Jones
Angela Sarkrs
Robert Smith
Ranjrt Sondhi

Greg Dyke Director-General

Andy Duncan
Caroiyn Farrbairn
Ashley Highif eld
Richard Sambrook
John Smith
Caroline Thomson
Director, Marketing, Communications & Audiences
Director, Strategy & Dishtbution (from mmate 75)
Director, New Media & Technology
Director, News (for minutes 73 to 75 only)
Director, Finance, Property and Business Affairs
Director, Public Policy

Sunon Mrlnei The Secretary

Tina Stowell Heac ol Business Administration

APOLOGIES :

There ~.vere no apologies .

73. MINUTES OF AND MATTERS ARISING FORM THE BOARD

MEETING HELD ON 19 JUNE 2003 BG(03) 110 & BGi1'I(03) 6

a Minutes
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) 7
73-86

74. DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S REPORT ORAL

a Relations with the Conservative Party

Greg Dyke reported on his recent meeting with the Conservative Party Chairman
(attended by other representatives fiom the BBC and the Consen~attve Party) to
discuss primarily the BBC's coverage of the Local Election results m May this year
The meeting; was constructive and Greg Dyke had been frank, saying it had not been
the BBC's finest hour and mistakes had been made . Theresa May had followed-up
their meeting with a positive letter and Greg Dyke intended to reply, repeating the
comments he made at the meeting. He recognised t[us would enable the Party
Chairman to demonstrate to her colleagues that the BBC had taken the matter
seriously and that his letter would almost certainly be made public

He was in no doubt that mistakes had been made, but he did not believe the
progratnme team had set out to take an anti-Conservative position Rather, they had
decided what the story of the night was at l Opm and had stubbornly stuck to that
position rather than change as the results emerged throughout the night . More
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) 7
73-86

generally on election results programmes, the BBC needed to make clear flat it was
reporting results based on psephology and not actual numbers

h Weapons ofMass Destruction -Andrew Gilit2an

The rest of the month had been taken up by the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
story and preparing for the launch ofthe Annual Report On the former, the Board
noted Andrew Gilltgan would appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee m private
session that afternoon at the Committee's request . He would not provide further
information about the source of his report m response to their questions . The Board
noted there were precedents for non-disclosure of witnesses before Select
Committees

75. REVISED PROPOSAL FOR A REVIEW OF IMPARTIALITY

BG(U3) 119

The Board welcomed Stephen NTV7iittle- Controller Editorial Policy and Anne Sloman
Chief Political Adviser

Caroline Thomson introduced the item saying that the Executive Committee had
found the seminar on impartiality held on I July v ery helpful They had discussed the
conclusions and endorsed the recommendations for measuring impartiality going
forward outlined m the paper .

Anne Sloman outlined the options identified m the paper, 2, 3 and 4 not being
mutual I), exclusive

I Do nothing
2 As already planned, undertake in depth and robust "peer review" studies on a
six monthly bais of a particular subject The first of these on Rural Affairs
was underway and its conclusions would be presented to the Executive
Committee and Board of Governors in October and it would seek to include
statistical analysis
3 Commission a long-term trac!ang survey of audience perceptions
4 Put in place mechanisms for quick turn-around content analysts of one-off
issues as and when required

Tendering for the long-term tracking survey would commence that day if the Board
approved It would seek answers to questions about impartiality generally, but also
look in more depth at what drove people's perceptions The survey would be carried
out monthly and it would be possible to attach a series of questions on topical subjects
if required . All this would require rigorous testing to ensure the language and
questions were apptopnate for the information we were seeking to achieve . Results of
a pilot would be available to the Executive Committee and Board m November, with
the survey starting formally in January 2004

Leading the Governors' discussion, Dermot Gleeson saia he too had found the
seminar very helpful and had noted the points made by experts m the limitations of
measuring impartiality That said he believed it right to introduce a long-term
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) 7
7T-86

tracking study, but we must be cautious in claiming what it would achieve He

rejected option 1 and supported options 2, 3 and 4. On the proposal to drill down on
what drove perceptions, he recommended that Conservative voters be a priority at this
time. He did not support publication of the data, but recogmsed that the Board would
come under increasing pressure to do so In expectation of this, the results must be
clearly explained each month with a health warning about what could be derived from
the data

Questions raised during this part of the discussion included

Was measuring authority and comprehensiveness in addition to impartiality too

ambitious9
Would the survey extend beyond news into drama and entertainment?

Anne Sloman said it was difficult to measure impartiality without questioning

people's views on authority and comprehensiveness of reporting, and these were
important aspects when exercising journalistic judgement . She confinned that the
survey would extend beyond news, but that area of the BBC's output would be the
f Deleted :Anne Slomanagreedte
priority mscuss offlme with Saras Hogg
the statistical analys,s of the Rural
Other issues raised by Governors included A~fatrs repon std tie methods by
whmhtheq,iesttonsforthe
trackmg survey would be
Fairness was ~,ery important and should be added to the criteria for measuring de-eloped ---

impartiality Audiences often felt that an interviewee was not treated fairly . Case
studies of historic mtervtews could be instructive m this area
Trammg ofjournalists about impartiality was very important and -how was that
ensured, especially for those recruited from other news organisations?
What steps were being taken to stop the growing trend of reporters expressing their
opmion9 Was fierce competition between news bulletins behind attempts to push
the boundaries m this area? Could tralrung be developed forjoumaltsts and
producers to tighten-up this area')
Increasingly, journalists were employed as `news creators' rather than reporters.
How was this affecting the culture of BBC News? A divide was perceived
between radicals and traditionalists who hankered back to the days ofPa .heAtews.
Sometimes journalists' reports were -coloured' mapproprnately, with things like
music by more senior editorial staff.
The BBC's imparttaltty was judged primarily by its output on Today

Leading management's response, Greg Dyke said R should not be assumed that news
creators could not be impartial. A combination of both them and reporters was
necessary, but the standards of reporting for both must be the same The increasing
use of "2-ways" between anchors and journalists m the field was leading reporters to
offer their opinion inappropriately. A distinction was needed between those whose
experience, seniority and authonty permitted them to express an opinion on the wider
context of the story they were reporting, and more junior reporters who should go no
further than explaining the context of the report they were filing As to 'colounng' by
editorial staff; he believed this was fine ir; say, the music chosen was appropriate
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) 7
73-56

Stephen Whittle said the BBC's basic culture was towards fairness and impartiality,
but it was true that the debate about what this meant sh:$ed around . The vast majority
of staff subscribed to the BBC's bedrock ofjournalistic principles, but training was
important and a lot of it took place. For example, as part ofthe on-going process of
making Producers' Guidelines more accessible, all staff would be required to go
through training of the new interactive online service about to be introduced Each
new member of staff attended the BBC's Upfront induction course which included
sessions on the BBC's values and Producers' Guidelines and on the job training was
conducted on the programme teams

Richard Sambrook said that 15 years ago a huge leap fonvard occurred when the BBC
decided to increase its investment m News and asked that it extend from reporting to
analysis and interpretation. Also News had experienced an explosion in terms of
hours of output in recent years and the technological advances had caused the whole
industry to increase its use of live links, generating more 2-ways.

He and his senior managers were firm m their belief that the BBC's journalism must
be accurate, fair, impartial and based on verification On joining BBC News, new
reporters no longer worked alongside more experienced journalists in the way they
had in the past But very, few members of staff were recruited from tabloid or Sunday
newspapers and discussions about editorial themes occurred constantly on programme
teams . Editorial tramingwas continually in operation within the division and the
workshops on legal issues were being examined as possible templates for workshops
on impartiality

On the deployment ofjoumalists' judgement when offering opinion . Richard Sambrolc

said he would take on board the comments made and this would be examined
carefully, alongside the increasing use of 2-ways . He agreed that journalists spent too
much time 'interviewing each other' m bulletins and the dangers of this Fmally,he
counseled against Pathe News being considered a gold-standard of broadcast
journalism, times had moved on. Also, former BBC employees perceived as radicals
promoting an agenda ofnews creation should not be taken seriously; they were
rejected by the system and management because their agenda d.d not fit the BBC's

Concluding this part of the discussion . Gavyn Davies sad the Board accepted the
recommendations for measuring impartiality and asked that options 2, 3 and 4 of the
paper be implemented. He did not supporr publication ofthe tracking survey results
or the external i eviews of output on a specific subject, the data was to inform the
Board's judgement ofthe BBC's imparualth- . The Board might choose however to
include some data alongside its judgement when published m the-Annual Report As
requested by Governors, the tracking survey must be clearly explained each month
with a health warning about what could be derived from the data.

Simon MIIner noted a comment that publication might be necessary under the terms
of the Freedom of Information Act A small team had been established in GRA to
identify the implications of the Act on the BBC and a paper would be brought to the
Board in the autumn In pieparation for this, he would ask the team to use this data as
an example of Board decision-making so they could establish if the documents would
be exempt
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFI BGM(03) 7
73-86

In response to a question about whether the tracking survey would be linked or

tracked to the BBC's approval rating, Andy Duncan said it might be possible to
identify a longtetm trend, but he doubted approval would be influenced by views on
impartiality month-by-month.

Finally, Richard Sambrook confirmed that a paper on the rules permitting BBC
journalists and presenters to write newspaper articles would come forward to the
Board m September . He said the Board should be aware however that it would be
impossible to prevent every journalist and presenter from writing newspaper articles
and in one or two cases, we might choose to allow them to continue to avoid nskmg
theu departure Reviewing these articles was ver;, time-intensive and it might be
necessary to employ someone full-time to manage this. In the meantime, he assured
the Board that even greater care would be taken to ensure the current rules were
followed . As to the article by Andrew Gilligan m the .'vlail on Sunday of 1 June 2003,
Richard Sambrook clarified that the editor of Today, Kevin Marsh, had reviewed an
early draft, but had not seen the final text prior to its submission to the newspaper He
was, however, aware of its contents and therefore accountable for it
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) 7
73-86
CONFIDENTIAL DR,-1FT BGnI(03) 7
73-86
CONFIDSNTL4L DRAFT BGM(03) 7
73-86

vszc .1 o-~ 004-S

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BUM(03) 7
73-86
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) 7
73-86

17

"S ?:~ c I pj' ` o047

COA~FIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) -,,
73-86
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) 7
73-86

13

?) I C-~ 1 q-' ( O o 43
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BG'.vI(03) 7
73-86
CONFIDENTIAL DRAr"T BGM(03) 7
73-86

(3~,C~~ I 41 ~~51
~tS~b
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT BGM(03) 7
73-86

16

ITS Cl 1 + I oO SZ