Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

July 19, 2007

‘You have every right to be angry that these lapses have cast a shadow over the integrity of the BBC’

Dan Sabbagh

Producers of Comic Relief and Children in Need are to be suspended by the BBC after the corporation was forced to admit yesterday that winners of phone-in competitions on both charity broadcasts had been faked.

The BBC also decided to suspend all future competitions while it conducts a review of its most serious crisis since the Hutton affair. Up to ten producers are expected to be suspended until the investigation is completed.

An investigation discovered irregularities across the BBC’s operation, with audiences deceived by programmes on BBC One, BBC Two, children’s television, the radio station 6 Music and the World Service.

Mark Thompson, the Director-General, said that viewers and staff had “every right to be angry, as I am angry, that these and the earlier serious lapses have cast a shadow over the wider integrity of the BBC”. He admitted that viewers had been deceived on a scale far greater than previously thought.

He was speaking after a crisis meeting of the BBC Trust, the regulatory body, which heard how on a series of occasions employees pretended to be the winners of competitions in order to maintain an illusion that the competitions had been conducted correctly.

As many as ten senior producers will be asked to “stand back from their duties” by the end of the week, meaning that in reality they will be suspended. However, the proposed action provoked an angry response from trade unions, which believed that bosses should take responsibility.

On Comic Relief, shown on BBC One on March 16 of this year, viewers were invited to call in to win prizes while they were being invited to donate to the charity. The first two callers guessed wrongly, while the other waiting callers were lost in the telephone system.

A third caller was heard answering the question correctly, but the caller “was in fact not a viewer, but a member of the production team”, a BBC statement said.

A similar incident occurred at the BBC’sSport Reliefin July 2006, where management found evidence that the fake caller system “was planned as a contingency in advance”, and in a competition run as part the Scottish segment of Children in Need’s 2005 campaign.

Children in Need is the BBC’s own charity. Dating from 1927, it raised £30.1 million last year. Comic Relief and its sister charity Sport Relief, although not BBC charities are the only other organisations for which the BBC is permitted to campaign, and all three represent landmark viewing events in the year.

There were also instances of winners at three other BBC programmes, including TMi, a children’s programme on BBC Two, and on the Liz Kershaw show on BBC 6 Music, where in prerecorded programmes with faked phone-ins were broadcast as if they were live. The BBC said it was reviewing the position of Kershaw.

The breaches are the latest scandals in a crisis-strewn fortnight for the BBC, which was fined £50,000 last week for faking the winner of a phone-in on Blue Peter, and was then forced to admit that a promotional clip of the Queen had been misleadingly edited to make it appear that she had stormed out of a photoshoot with Annie Liebovitz.

The BBC Trust released its own statement saying that the latest revelations “shows further deeply disappointing evidence of insufficient understanding amongst certain staff of the standards of accuracy and honesty expected, and inadequate editorial controls to ensure compliance”.

There were, however, no calls by trustees for the resignation of Mr Thompson, or of Peter Fincham, the Controller of BBC One, who released the misleading footage of the Queen at a promotional event for the programme.

Insiders said that there was no question of either man resigning and Sir Michael Lyons, the chairman of the BBC Trust and successor to Michael Grade, backed his Director-General at the meeting yesterday morning.

The meeting began at 9am in the BBC’s Central London base at Broadcasting House. Sir Michael participated by telephone because he was honouring a speaking engagement in New Zealand, dating back to his period as Gordon Brown’s adviser on local government finance.

Trustees, who were expecting to hear last week about how footage of the Queen had been misleadingly edited, had begun to learn from Friday that there were further, damning revelations. Late on Tuesday full details became clear, and gossip was spreading around the Corporation had to brace itself for a shock.

At the Trust meeting Sir Michael canvassed views from trustees, including Chitra Barucha, a former NHS executive who is the vice-chairman, Richard Tait, who was once an ITN editor, and Dame Patricia Hodgson, the principal of Newnham College, Cambridge.

They endorsed an action plan put together by Sir Michael, creating an independent investigation into how the Queen trailer was produced, and the new breaches.

John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons Media Select Committee, said: “This isn’t just the odd lapse, these are astounding deceptions in some of the best-known shows that the BBC puts out.

“Taken with the Ofcom report, the whole credibility of the television industry is now under question. Ofcom has already fined the BBC overBlue Peter, but it will have to investigate and demonstrate how serious these new cases are.”

Meanwhile, in a strongly worded statement, Ed Richards, the chief executive of Ofcom, said that the legitimate editorial tricks of the television trade had spilled over into “falsification and an abuse of the viewers’ trust”.

He added: “Scandal then ensues. It happened most infamously with the rigged quiz showTwenty Onein America in the 1950s and it has erupted again over the past year with participation television.”

Mr Richards was speaking on the publication of a separate report examining the crisis in phone-in competions across all Britain’s major broadcasters, but in the knowledge that his words were relevant to the latest set of BBC’s admissions. Both he and the BBC gave warning that that the scandals exposed yesterday may still be only the tip of the iceberg.

In his damning report into premium-rate television services for Ofcom, Richard Ayre concluded: “The number of would-be participants who may have been ignored, misled or unfairly charged cannot be guessed at, and nor can the costs they have incurred. The figures may run into millions.”

Neither Mr Thompson nor Mr Fincham are completely off the hook, after the trust added ominously in a statement released soon after the meeting broke up at lunchtime that “we are not ready to draw a line under what has happened today”. Each of the breaches will be examined by the Trust’s editorial standards committee, and information was demanded on any disciplinary action.

When Mr Thompson arrived, after the Hutton crisis of 2004, the pressure was on the Corporation to tighten up its news reporting. Three years later, though, it emerged that where the real problem was now in the rest of its output, where the line between entertainment and fact had become dangerously blurred.

Suddenly, Michael Grade’s warnings in recent weeks of a decline in editorial standards on the production floor looked uncommonly prescient. At the beginning of the month the ITV chairman, who did the same job at the BBC until the end of last year, argued that “trust is not sufficiently valued by today’s programme makers”. Nevertheless, as the new Trust, formed at beginning of the year, faces its first crisis, it seems unlikely that there will be any senior casualties. Such a display of machismo may be excessive, but Jeremy Hunt, the Tories’ culture spokesman, asked yesterday: “The bottom line is not just can we trust the Beeb, but can we trust the Trust?”

Series of errors

Comic Relief, transmitted on March 16 on BBC One
In a section of the appeal programme, viewers were invited to donate money and informed that, by calling in, they could win prizes that belonged to a famous couple. The first two callers taken on air gave incorrect answers. The other waiting callers were lost and a third caller was heard on air successfully answering the question. This caller was not a viewer but a member of the production team

Sport Relief, transmitted on July 15, 2006, on BBC One
Viewers were led to believe that a member of the public won a competition, but the caller was in fact a member of the production team. The BBC has found evidence that this action was planned as a contingency in advance and that the physical infrastructure of the competition meant that it would have been impossible for it to be run as was described on air, and warnings about potential difficulties in conducting the competition were ignored. This incident was not referred up nor was it declared to a BBC audit in March

Children in Need, transmitted on November 18, 2005, on BBC One Scotland
In a segment called Raven: The Island in the BBC’s Children in Need appeal’s Scotland broadcast, viewers were led to believe that a phone-in competition, open to the audience, had been won by a viewer, when in fact, because of a technical mistake, calls from the public did not get through and the name of a fictitious winner was read out on air

TMi, transmitted on September 16, 2006, on BBC Two and CBBC
After a production problem with a live competition, viewers were led to believe that a member of the audience was involved and won a competition open to the public. In fact, the caller was a member of the production team. The programme team failed to seek proper advice before running the competition

The Liz Kershaw show, transmitted in 2005-06 on BBC 6 Music
In prerecorded programmes, presented as if they were live, a competition was announced which appeared to feature genuine listeners phoning in to take part, one of whom would win a prize on air. In fact, in recorded programmes, there were no competitions or prizes and all of the callers were members of production team and their friends. A new producer took over the programme in December 2006 and stopped the practices as a matter of priority

White Label, transmitted on World Service until April 2006
A weekly pop music preview programme on the English Service. On more than one occasion a fake winner was announced for the CD prize when no winning entries had been received

The BBc are as corrupt as any organisation you will find, thinking itself beyond reproach and a left wing organisation that shows bias which is staggering in it's anti anglo-saxon approach to events. How it gets away with it's behaviour is amzing. Who is driving it and why is it allowed to happen?

Drive the cheats out before it is too late, or is it already too late?

D.Wood, Wilby,

The bias of the BBC is principally for its own self-preservation. All the drivel it emits might service some cultural assumption or another of the BBCâ€™s staff, but the idea of the BBC is basically that there should be a BBC. Most of those who spend their lives complaining of BBC bias - Zionists, eurosceptics, fox hunters, etc., etc., etc., etc. - are merely annoyed that it is does not share their biases. But these biases are incidental, unimportant and boring. The point about the BBC is its self-obsession. The imperative is that there must always be a BBC. This is why it spends so much of its time telling us how much we love it (while maintaining a private army of inspectors to prosecute welfare mothers who are short of Â£135.50 for the TV licence). I rather doubt that current events, involving merely the defrauding of its viewers and the traducing of the monarch, will prove sufficient to bring the necessary reforms.

Jonathan Miller, Cranleigh, England

The Beeb is in deep crisis. There is a crass disregard for the truth and for broadcasting the truth. It runs right throughout the organisation. It is not limited to cheap game shows or kids entertainment. It is endemic in the newsroom too for which they have already been raked over the coals for extraordinary bias eg against the US.

No doubt some junior production staff are for the chop. But the BBC is in denial. Senior heads must roll. They just donot care how they treat their customers, the viewers, any more. Clear out the lot of them!

Andrew Graham, London, UK

The BBC is behaving like a second rate commercial channel. I do not see why I should be paying a compulsory "licence fee" for that.

Martin Evans, Newmarket, Suffolk

Sara Ambler of Indiana says "You (Britain) have the BBC and we (USA) have Bush. We'll be rid of ours next year. Hope you fix yours as soon." Hang on there Sara. The BBC is basically a highly effective highly competent institution that is respected around the world for its objectivity and high standards. This is just a minor abberration in a long history of achievement. It's insulting to even mention George Bush in the same breath. He is a total disaster, lacking in moral and physical courage (why did it take him 2 days to get to ground zero after 9/11?) and lacking in judgement and intellect. Yes its good that he will be going - that cannot come too soon. Hopefully the BBC will remain as one of the UK's finest institutions. There is a need to examine some of its current standards and practices but unlike Bush it has a solid core of great achievement. Bush on the other hand has almost single handed turned the so called war on terror into a worldwide disaster. His legacy is appalling.

Kevin, Kent,

Garth Rex -

The "scandals and gaffes" you refer to are more than gaffes; they are evidence of institutional corruption and dishonesty.

The BBC distorts the news. It lies to us. It fails to report some important news altogether, and emphasises other items in deference to a built-in bias.

On top of that it runs phony competitions which swindle the viewers.

These are the real issues - and you're concerned about a presenter's make-up? Personally, I'd rather have truth in a paper bag than lies in a jewelled casket.

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

The BBC does not have to earn a living. It does not understand what is involved in earning anything.

All this talk of trust and integrity is meaningless.The BBC is now like the third generation of a self made millionaire's family ; out of touch with the effort and values that created the wealth in the first place. Oblivious and content to squander its easy inheritance.

Robert Persey, Faversham,

Even if the footage of the queen had been true and correct (as the BBC thought), why on earth would they want to embarras the queen, the Head of State and someone who is completely trustworthy (unlike the BBC), and who is unable to retaliate. Come on you politically correct idiots at the BBC, represent us - the British. You are only apologising and grovelling now because you've been caught in incompetence and deceit and want to keep your jobs. I suggest that those responsible just go quietly and then replace them with people with values. British ones.

David Cramp, Tauranga, New Zealand

Mark Thompson, the Director-General should go and quickly. Who's in charge? Who lays down the standards ? who has a team of people helping him to do his job. He must go and all the hangers on who knew what was happening. Who made all the money from the scandal .I don't think any figures are ever produced.
What a shambles.
What a mess this country is in we have no standards left after Blair.

D thorn, Bristol,

The BBC is so concerned with Political Correctness , that it has taken its eye off what really matters. It doesnt represent me or the majority of its viewers interests..i want my licence fee refunded!

paul, london,

A storm in a teacup. Surely programme makers must have discretion to implement a strategy to keep the programme moving on as expected in cases where there are unexpected events/technical failure? I would expect no less. Keep on with the broadcasts; you do a good job (I rarely find anything I want to watch on other channels). Maintain standards, avoid drivel and we shall be pleased. Enough navel-gazing, already!

Gill, London,

You (Britain) have the BBC and we (USA) have Bush. We'll be rid of ours next year. Hope you fix yours as soon.

Sara Ambler, Greenfield, Indiana

This is absolutely appaling. The DG needs to resign, nothing less will do

simon ward, london, uk

In the grand scheme of things a few fictitious phone calls and prize winners do not amount to an earth shattering problem. However, like most of Britain I have grown up with the BBC. It should represent what is best in British values - honest, informed and informative, moderate, essentially decent. It is 'our' BBC. It tells the truth when our Government lies. It gives us the news without bias or spin. We trust it.
Because of this these revelations are deeply worrying. How can the BBCâ€™s culture have become so shallow, so 'contaminated' by trivia, so lacking in judgement? Perhaps the problems stem from the pressures to be commercial. How many of these programmes were devised and staffed purely by full time BBC employees rather than being contracted out? Perhaps it is time for the BBC to move back towards its original core values, to be, dare I say it, more intellectual, more middle class, striving to shape and improve values and standards not just reflect the lowest common denominator?

Kevin Miller, Penshurst,

In view of the farcical situation that prevails at the BBC, I assume that we will shortly be reading that all those responsible have been fired.

Mike Trendell, Gloucester,

What is happening to the BBC? Why do they think they have a divine right to be all things to all people in broadcasting by chasing ratings, funded by a poll tax.
They should be given a Public Service Broadcasting remit, strictly enforced, the Licence Fee should be reduced by a few percent each year until it reaches Â£100 and they should then have do do with that.
Perhaps then they will leave the employment of highly paid ,talentless, foul mouthed presenters to the commercial sector and concentrate on delivering a first class Public Service.

G.J.Edwards, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire

Who's the lucky "member of the production team" who seems to have won all those competitions? Is this a BBC perk of the job?

stuart, london, uk

i havent trusted the BBC for years
how can any objective observer say the BBc reporting of the middle east is not bias
just look at how the BBC dealt with the hamas terrorist organization who were behind the alan johnson kidnapping in the 1st place
disgraceful!
untrustworthy reporting untrustworthy quiz shows ; the whole bohemoth stinks
privatise the whole thing
and good riddance

steve lewis, salford, uk

Find the guilty and fire them. Or don't and thus prove that the BBC is, as we suspect, treating the paying public with contempt.

al, weybridge, uk

While we're getting all the skeletons out of the cupboard, what about the many "voting" programmes, several of whom have viewers calling in their millions on premium rate lines? I know for a fact that a lot of them are rigged - the producers have decided in advance who the "winner" will be. The actual voting itself might not be rigged (though we are never told the actual numbers, are we, and constantly told "it's very close - so vote again!!")? But the production is carefully engineered to manipulate public opinion to produce the desired result.

And when you look at the "XXp of every call goes to charity" claims, that still leaves a lot out of the real call
cost, making for a real incentive to maximise the votes.

Having discussed (with TV industry people) the particular programme of which I was made aware, I'm told this practice is endemic - particularly around the very high profile vote-driven programmes. "But it all makes for a more entertaining show..." is the excuse...

A Cavanagh, London, U.K.

why is it that no one gets fired from the BBC - it always seems to be someone else's fault within the organisation. The reason is that the BBC has an old bureaucratic management structure that protects jobs at any cost - get a job at the BBC and you will have it for life and gain annual salary increases for just beening there. I consider my license fee as just another tax now - and when I was an expat for many years I used to be so proud of the BBC - what a shame to see it all go down hill

Gwilym Ashworth, Pulborough, West Sussex

It is a tragic spectacle that unfolds in the BBC. However, I am afraid this may be a tip of the iceberg. In most european countries there are now "interactive" shows that is an extra channel of income that may blur the editorial integrity and objectivity.

What about shows like X-Factor, Big Brother and Idol?
These are programmes that are maid for profit by profitseekers - if BBC have a problem, is there a a particular reason that these programs should not?

I guess the lesson is: Question everything...

Carl F, Oslo, Norway

Who cares about fake phone ins?

How about the cowardly circus that is Question Time, which deliberately invites future Musim terrorists to spout hatred in the name of 'balance' week after week?

The BBC lost me on 13 September, 2001, when invited Muslims praised the 11 September attacks in front of the American ambassador, while the king of the BBC establishment Dimbleby (a Dickensian name if ever there was one) smirked and said nothing.

The BBC is the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, the famous soft left that can't tell a democrat from a dictator.

No wonder why they are loing the publc's trust.

Richard Block, London, UK

Although the game shows and phone - in programmes have been highlighted in these recent revelations, it is the BBC's news and journalistic coverage particularly in the Middle East which has been questionable and of editorial misrepresentation, more so with regard to trust with news content and coverage that is at issue as highlighted in recent reports and the Balen Report which has yet to be released 3 years after its issue.

I am sure that although these half dozen instances of misrepresentation and contrival that have been disclosed now, only represents the tip of an iceberg in an organisation which has been abusing its charter of fairness in its editorial policy for many years.

Albie, London, UK

How about a one-off windfall licence fee reduction equivalent to the money fraudulently taken from those who trustingly entered these 'competitions'?

Paul, Reading, UK

Remarkable word 'lapse'...it brings to mind a sought of forgetfullness, a sought of.....'oooppps'. But the BBC didn't have a lapse of memory, it had an absolute party of a one...and over many, many years! Infact it wasn't a lapse at all, it was something done at the highest levels deliberately.

The BBC wantingly set out to deceive its viewers and did so time and again, without the slighest hesitation. This is nothing more than criminal deception and should be pursued via the courts without delay!

The more I think about this issue, the more it reminds me of the Blair and Brown years in power. The BBC will do its level best to sweep the affair under the carpet and just like the Labour Party; will probably get away with it. I can just see that smug look of Blair written large across the faces of the BBC Generals when questions about their dishonesty.

PS

I'm still awaiting a response to my official complaint to the BBC about the open biase of 'Live Earth'...fat chance!

David Downes, Chester, UK

Soliciting money through false pretence.
I thought this was a criminal offence.
The sooner the draconian licence fee is scraped and true unsubsidised competition is introduced the better.

Andrew, York, UK

Our suspicions should have been aroused, when the nation's most trusted presenter, Sir Terry Wogan, announced the "wrong" result for the U.Ks entry for the U.Ks entry in the European Song Contest. Was it a Wogan whimsy or more likely, did someone get cold feet at the last minute? It took Her Majesty's displeasure to bring the whole sorry mess to the fore, culminating in Marrk Thompson's blood letting and full admission of his producers misdemeanours to the aptly renamed BBC Trust.
The BBC has a major problem, the genuineness of its phone-ins being the least of them. Does the arrogance that abounds within the Corporation, and which takes its captive paying audience for fools, run through to its news programmes?. Are we to believe the pictures on our ever widening TV screens are true, or the subjective and biased views of their editors and producers? To say that these people need retraining in the basic ethics of truth and honesty is laughable.In G-d we trust, in the BBC we do not.

M. Fishman, London,

Sorry Garth ,you are thinking about the old BBC,the new BBC with fat cat salaries to our servants -yes that is what they are! have let us down badly .Producer's of show's instinctively know what is good for us and when questioned defend theirselves to the hilt and are never wrong(ho ho ho ).The hard earned aspect comes from the people who have to fund this megalomanic organisation with our hard earned pennies.Let the people of the UK have a referundum on whether we are forced to pay the licence fee ,I wish for pay for view myself.

Stephen, Carlisle, England

What about the BBC's so-called 'balanced' reporting of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Barry, Chertsey,

In my view, the integrity of the BBC was compromised when it started the premium rate phone ins in the first place. This is part of a worrying trend to encourage gambling - lottery, phone ins and then super casinos.

I have never participated but cannot feel smug about this because I suspect that the majority of participants are people in the UK who can afford it least.

Brenda Wilkinson

Brenda Wilkinson, Greater Manchester, UK

I am disgusted! I remember my daughter - a mad raven fan - begging me to donate during the Raven segment (C i N, 2005, above) and, despite my warnings, being dreadfuly upset that she didn't win. Now we discover that no-one won. How many other children were conned by this? And what happened to the prizes? Hopefully they were quietly given to children from so-called disadvantaged backgrounds and not the families of BBC staff.
I worry that such worthwhile causes will be damaged by these appalling deceits.

E. WALLS, Dollar, Scotland

If I were to directly fund a criminal organisation that deliberately deceived and/or defrauded people I would be culpable of aiding and abetting the offender.
Since the manadatory requirement to have a licence to operate a televsion is to directly fund the BBC, I am therefore guilty of aiding and abetting this deception.
Can I have my licence fee back, please? I do not want to have anything to do with such an organisation, which has nothing to do with public broadcasting, but plenty to do with overpaid executives, so-called celebrities and dishonesty.

Dexter Welton, Derby,

Why does the law insist that we all, regardless of how little we use it, have to pay an annual fee to an organisation which has so little integrity - quite apart from all the other cogent arguments against a license fee?

James Wheeldon, Louth, UK

People who think they can do no wrong will do wrong.
Who said that?

John Carty, Medellin, Colombia

STOP THESE SCANDALS!

The BBC is surely one of Great Britain's national treasures. It's a fair bet that no other institution in the world commands the worldwide renown and respect that the BBC enjoys. The BBC is, and has been, the standard by which all other broadcasters in the world
are judged.

The recent incidence of a series of scandals and gaffes threaten to destroy the BBC's hard-earned reputation. This must be a cause for alarm and apprehension among all who take pride in being British...and among all those in every corner of the Earth who have traditionally looked to, and depend on the BBC for the highest quality of reporting, objectivity and integrity that the world has to offer.

I was recently appalled to see a presenter on BBC TV
news whose dress, make-up, appearance and attitude appeared to be...shall we say, less than world-class.

It's time for strong, forceful action to end the slide and to restore quality and the pride to the BBC!

Garth Rex, Glendale Heights, USA/IL

The most worrying honesty failure in the BBC is not this trivial business with quiz shows. Nobody with the wit they were born with ever imagined, from the start, that they were straight.

The real problem is with the news and current affairs programmes. Dishonesty, institutional bias, tendentious choice of words, selection and rearrangement of facts which amount to deliberate deception; all of these have been BBC norms for many years.

They have nothing to do with the outsourcing of programmes. They have everything to do with a BBC culture which sees the world through the filter of its own bias, and which privileges the corporation's prejudices above the truth and above accurate reporting.

The inevitable happened some time ago. No one - even those who find it a useful ally - trusts the BBC any more. I do not know how this situation could be remedied.

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire