The Bureaucratic Bungling Corporation
5:59pm
Life is full of little ironies. I am just off to the BBC’s Millbank studios to do some recording for The Week in Westminster. Meanwhile, I have spent much of the afternoon having acrimonious conversations with senior BBC management. The cause? The Corporation has decided to withdraw permission from Emily Maitlis, star Newsnight and News 24 presenter, to be a Contributing Editor at The Spectator. Readers of the magazine will know what a gifted writer Emily is – see last week’s Diary – and I was thrilled when she agreed to become a Contributing Editor and pleasantly surprised when Peter Horrocks, the head off BBC TV news, gave her permission to join our stellar team (other Contributing Editors, as you know, include Rachel Johnson, Anne Applebaum, Peter Oborne, Jemima Lewis, Clemency Burton-Hill and Hywel Williams). So I was more than a little annoyed to be told today, after an overnight leak to The Times, that Mr Horrocks had been over-ruled by Helen Boaden, the director of BBC News, and that Emily could not, after all, hold such a title – deemed to contravene the post-Hutton guidelines. What a yawn, say I.
The position seems to be that Emily can write for the magazine but not hold a title. The Corporation has now apologised officially and privately to The Spectator, and quite right, too. Some have suggested to me that the U-turn reflected internal hostility at the BBC to a right-of-centre publication: they scent an anti-Tory conspiracy. I wish it were that organised. What I see is a fiasco, a prehistoric bureaucracy where the left hand does not talk to the right, and the Beeb is run by graduates of the Vicky Pollard school of management: “Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no”.
And, in all honesty, does it really imperil the impartiality of the Corporation if a newsreader holds a title such as Contributing Editor – one that carries with it no suggestion of political affiliation or support for our editorial position? There was never any suggestion that Emily was going to involve herself in our political coverage, and it was perfectly obvious that she could not do so. Well, Coffee House users, you pay the licence fee. Do you think to-ing and fro-ing and sending memos to one another about such bans is a sensible way for BBC managers to spend their time? Let us know.
Update: I imagine this will be one of the subjects I discuss with Iain Dale on 18 Doughty Street live tonight between 10pm and midnight. Join us there!
Previous
Comments
Anthony C
July 11th, 2007 6:31pmI'm instinctively sympathetic with the case you put forward here, but (and it's a very big but) in the interests of intellectual honesty I ought to point out that if I found out a prominent BBC presenter was taking on a role as contributing editor of the New Statesman, I'd probably go absolutely bananas. So...
A.D.Johnson
July 11th, 2007 7:00pmThe irritation of witnessing their mindless internal politics is compounded by the fact that we HAVe to pay for it. It is done in our name. ADJ
Malcolm Knott
July 11th, 2007 7:43pmI know one should always prefer the cock-up to the conspiracy theory but I can't help wondering whether the same problems would have arisen had she written for the New Statesman, The Guardian, or the Independent.
Chris Rose
July 11th, 2007 7:51pmI am puzzled by this one. Why is Emily called an Editor? From what you say, she doesn't seem to do any editing; she writes an article once a week. I quite agree that the BBC seems to be making a fuss about nothing, but nevertheless I find the terminology strange, and perhaps it misled the BBC. Is it possible that The Spectator is using overblown titles for its staff? Do readers take any notice of authors' titles? If not, why not have less grandiose ones?
James Hannam
July 11th, 2007 7:54pmYes, yes, I agree the BBC have made fools of themselves. But isn't it impossible for the Speckie look beyond the borders of loviedom for new contributors. I'm sure that Ms Maitlis is massively talented but I am also sure that there are very many far better writers who don't have jobs appearing on TV each day. Actually, they may not have jobs at all. Fact is, if I sent you an article, it would be rejected no matter what it was like unless I already had 'profile'. The same article from Jon Sumption would be accepted (we're both medievalists, you see). But publishers won't touch me because I don't have journalistic connections. So I lack sympathy for journos getting tripped up for holding down multiple jobs. http://bedejournal.blogger.com
Perry
July 11th, 2007 8:09pmSeems to hint at a culture of corporate fear, not unusual in large organisations with a closed, risk averse, follow-my-leader mentality - though it would never be recognised or admitted as such by the ruling elite or their entourage. Fear? – of what? An independent mind? Someone speaking or writing out of turn? Of that which-we-do-not-know-or-name, but which we feel overshadowing us? These and other attractive qualities draw a spotlight to Emily, and such people must be checked!
Praguetory
July 11th, 2007 8:16pmYou may not smell a conspiracy but the episode is grist to the mill for right-wing bloggers 97% of whom believe the Beeb to be left biased according to this report" (see page 16).
matt d'ancona
July 11th, 2007 8:36pmChris Rose raises an interesting question about the Contributing Editor title. This is commonplace on US magazine titles, Chris, and has been imported to this country among the glossies (eg I, Boris, and Rod are all Contributing Editors at GQ). I introduced the practice at the Spectator last year. You are right that the word "editor" is not literally appropriate, since CEs do not actually edit copy. But the title is offered to distinguished outsiders whom we want to associate with the magazine, typically those who will act as ambassadors for it even though they cannot contribute every week. Anne Applebaum, who is a Pulitzer Prize winner, is a case in point. So too Peter Oborne, who very kindly agreed to retain his association with the Spec as a CE. Hope that clears it up!
James T Kirk
July 11th, 2007 9:04pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributing_editor From this definition, the CE title would seem to have fitted Emily perfectly. Peter Horrocks surely overstepped the boundaries set by the post-Hutton guidelines. However in any event, the BBC still suffers from the sugary attitudes suffered by most organizations which don't have to fight in the marketplace for their income. Did it really require two levels of management to be involved in this decision?
J H Holloway
July 11th, 2007 9:28pmMr d'ancona
Depressssing. Able, but media-friendly, metro, glamourpuss joins the Spectator.
But Miss M is hamstrung as far as writing really powerful punchy POLITICAL pieces is concerned, surely?
I've been reading every week for years, but have recently been buying the New Statesperson because it packs such a powerful punch - even if it is a left hook.
I need new ideas and steaming polemic, not a presenter who is hamstrung by her BBC contract into telling us about her charming child: how can Miss M ever deliver much more than any of the other 'working media mums' that litter the press?
If she can't stiletto in print Cameron or Brown, she's 'neither use nor ornament' as we say in Leyland.
Chuck Unsworth
July 11th, 2007 10:07pmDoes a title really matter? Clearly it does - to the moronic 'management' at the BBC. To anyine with any sense it matters not one jot. What's more important is what the lovely Maitless writes, rather than her nomenclature.
David Stevens
July 11th, 2007 11:50pmHave to agree with Mr Holloway. She's pretty and intelligent, but she can't really say much of interest, so why is she in the Spectator? I'm left of centre, but I read the Spectator because it's punchily written. But having glamour names in for their own sake (a look down the list for CEs might suggest another name) dilutes that pungent mix somewhat.
David Stephens
July 12th, 2007 2:14amThe left's bias against anything not just right-of-center but against anything not the bien-piensant left seems to be universal. But take heart, for you at least got your apology.
I live in the small, West Texas town of Pecos, my hometown and that of S., who grew up, went to Harvard, then Harvard Law, and published a few books. When an attorney nearly a decade ago needed a lawyer with writing experience, he tapped S., who produced something you've heard of: The Starr Report. (The juicy bits are the footnotes; the rest is rather dry. A footnote, by the way, is where the cigar appears.)
S. went to an alumni function in Cambridge, MA, and tried to keep a low profile but when he was outed, as understood now, he was snubbed by the high and mighty of American intellectual circles.
What makes the irony quite good is that one of the articles which drew him to the attention of Ken Starr is one on First Amendment rights on the Internet, when the Internet was young. Something to do with (gay) child molestation and another Ken. To research this, he went into a gay bookstore in Washington, where he lived, and for my edification bought me one or two things. Not about kiddie matters, but about being gay.
Which I care nothing for the theory of. I asked him if he wouldn't get a bad reputation going into a gay bookstore or shock his wife, and he said, "David, in my circles, it would be much worse to be thought conservative than to be thought gay."
This was perhaps 15 years ago, a lifetime in America as far as coming out. And coming out, as it was understood then, was earth-shattering in America.
Don't you love the left's open-mindedness? How nice for me to be a double-threat pervert.
TomTom
July 12th, 2007 6:40amI would much rather have Mark Steyn or Theodore Dalrymple or Peter Hitchens or Melanie Phillips....why do I want BBC staff ? Really this metropolitan pool shows the limited talent available and how parochial the circles Londoners move in really are
matt d'ancona
July 12th, 2007 7:49amTomTom - thanks for your comment - all I can say at this stage is watch this space. Literally.
James Hannam
July 12th, 2007 9:42amI'm pleased to see I'm not the only one who feels the talent net could be cast a bit wider. And for what it's worth, I got my blog link wrong. Never write a comment when you are cross. http://www.bedejournal.blogspot.com/
michael m
July 12th, 2007 9:55amWhy is Andrew Marr allowed to write for the Telegraph- although he may be free lance, that does not stop him asserted his political views
Mark Burgess
July 12th, 2007 10:15amI thought the point about Andrew Marr’s musing in the Telegraph was that he was not allowed to talk about politics. Anything remotely political is outsourced to his hamster.
James T Kirk
July 12th, 2007 10:49amWould we be jumping the gun in anticipating the return of Mark Steyn? That would be very welcome as the head-hackers have had it too easy for too long, but his first contribution has to be a reprise detailing the failures for which Donald Rumsfeld has carried the can.
David Muldowney
July 12th, 2007 12:30pmYes, please do bring back Mark Steyn. A wonderfully funny and visionary writer, he is sorely missed.
Steven King
July 12th, 2007 1:33pmI notice in The Guardian today that the BBC is, alongside Unison, one of the official supporters of the 'Rise - London united against racism' concert this Sunday in Finsbury Park. It is being put on by Ken Livingstone in partnership with the TUC and the National Assembly Against racism, a blatantly political front for Socialist Action and Lee Jasper. Will the BBC be an official supporter of the next Countryside Alliance demo or a march against Britain's EU membership? The BBC would respond that anti-racism is above politics. If so, why does the National Assembly Against Racism run campaigns to 'defend multiculturalism'. Or is anyone against multiculturalism a racist in the BBC's book?
Anthony C
July 12th, 2007 2:24pmPersonally, I think the Spectator could rub along quite happily without Mark Steyn. Of the people TomTom listed, I think any of the other three would be more suited, as their output tends to play to the "Broken Society" theme.
Perry
July 12th, 2007 2:55pmOh yes please! Please bring back Mark Steyn, and much more by Dr Dalrymple. Melanie Phillips, Peter H, - too please.
Perry
July 12th, 2007 5:20pmMick Hume also writes effectively.
antifrank
July 13th, 2007 8:02amPlease not Melanie Phillips or Peter Hitchens. The Spectator is at its best when it is challenging its readers' prejudices, not tickling them.
Matt L
July 13th, 2007 11:07amUnleash the Steyn, and hire James Lileks too. One of the funniest US commentators. Oh, and give the boy Delingpole more space while you're at it.
"...distinguished outsiders whom we want to associate with the magazine, typically those who will act as ambassadors for it..."
@Matthew - Hard to see how acting as an ambassador for a political magazine doesn't carry with it ideological implications. But I'm sure as just a contributor she'll be a passionate private advocate for the magazine...which makes it all a bit daft.
Paul N
July 23rd, 2007 6:10amPeter Hitchens would be a great choice I would love to see more of his articles here. Whether you agree with him or not, he is always interesting to read. As for Emily Maitlis, we do not need any more BBC liberals, they are growing increasingly tiremsome we already have to pay a license fee to listen to them.