The British Forces Broadcasting Service also seem reluctant to talk to me. I emailed their press office on the 9th of March:

> "David Miller" 15:07:20 09/03/2005 >>>

Dear Sarah, Can you tell me what kind of editorial rules govern the news output of the BFBS services? Are the bulletins required to be objective and impartial or subject to the Broadcasting Act etc like the BBC and ITV? Perhaps you could send me a copy of any written guidelines you might have?

Thanks

David Miller

_____________

Two days later I got this:

 ---------- From: "Sarah Dornford-May"

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:54:53 +0000

To:

Subject: Re: BFBS

Dear David Thank you for your e-mail. Please could you let me know why you need this information? Please forgive my directness in asking this - I know I will be asked the same question when I solicit the answers.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sarah Sarah Dornford-May

PR & Media Manager

SSVC - Services Sound & Vision Corporation

E: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Website: www.ssvc.com

_________________

I replied that 'I am doing some research on broadcasting services other than the mainstream BBC/ITV. I wondered if there were guidelines in the same way or if different rules applied.' Since then, nothing.

I have also written to the BBC to see what they have to say. To Helen Boaden (Head of News) I wrote:

---------- From: David Miller

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:26:19 +0000

To: Bcc:

Subject: BFBS and the BBC

Dear Helen Boaden, I am writing to ask about the use by BBC Scotland of news reports from the British Forces Broadcasting Service. Full details are pasted below in an article I have written for Spinwatch. I am writing to ask how many times this has happened on BBC News in the past year and if you will take steps to ensure that this does not happen again? It seems to me that, for whatever reason, the reports which have been broadcast have crossed a line. It is possible to debate with the BBC how well it has covered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But when the BBC takes to broadcasting reports by journalists whose wage are paid by the MoD very different issues arise. Can you let me know what you think of this episode and whether it is regarded as acceptable to use military funded journalists' reports? As you will be able to tell from the report below, this has already caused a good deal of consternation inside BBC Scotland from journalists concerned for the reputation of the BBC. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

David Miller

______________________

I also wrote to Stephen Whittle, the Controller, Editorial Policy, who is the most senior 'editor' in the corporation. His potted biog on the BBC website notes that 'From 1993 to 1996, as BBC Chief Adviser, Editorial Policy, he helped to write the first edition of the BBC Producers' Guidelines which set standards for programme makers.' So, in my letter I highlighted the key passages in the guidelines which appear to be relevant to this case:

_____________________

From: David Miller

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:17:22 +0000

To: Bcc:

Subject: BFBS and the BBC

Dear Stephen Whittle, I am writing to you about the use of reports from British Forces Broadcasting Service on the BBC. Full details are pasted below in an article I have written for Spinwatch. As you will be aware the BBC producers guidelines discuss this kind of problem. They state: 'Increasingly, official bodies, commercial companies and campaigning organisations provide broadcasters with video or audio news releases or other material. Sometimes the material will have been recorded by the organisation itself, sometimes by others acting on their behalf. Such material may purport to cover stories from an objective standpoint, but is usually slanted to promote the viewpoint of the supplier. We do not normally use any extracts from such releases if we are capable of gathering the material ourselves. If we do use such material for sound editorial reasons we should always ensure that it is clearly labelled on-air.' In the case under discussion, it is not simply the use of a clip from an audio news release that was used but an entire report. In addition the guidelines note that 'we must be wary of using a News Release to illustrate a story about the organisation which provided it, particularly if it gives an unrealistic or overly favourable impression of the organisation. We should normally use such material only to illustrate the way in which the company or organisation is promoting itself' http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/producer_guides/text/section5.shtml

This seems an eminently sensible guideline and I wonder why it seems not to have been followed in this case? Furthermore I note that the guidelines state that 'There may be occasions when the BBC decides to enter into a formal contractual agreement with an information supplier. This agreement may include a provision that the BBC will reflect the source of the information. Any formal agreement about credits should be made for editorial rather than commercial reasons. Arrangements of this kind should be made only with the approval of the relevant Director or Chief Executive.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/producer_guides/text/section5.shtml

I accept that this is not the sort of case that the guidelines are really designed for, but I wondered if you could tell me what the contractual basis of the BFBS reports on Radio Scotland were. Was the BFBS paid for its report or did it offer it for free? In either case doesn't this raise difficulties for the BBC reputation for impartiality? Finally, I wonder if you think that the producers guidelines are able to cope with this kind of use of propaganda material? Perhaps there needs to be new guidelines to cover the kinds of cases we have uncovered? I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

David Miller

____________________________

So far no response. But the more interesting lack of response is from the mainstream media. The Guardian said they were interested, but didn't do a story. Press Gazette phoned, maybe they have covered it, I don't know yet. The only UK source to cover it was the Big Issue Scotland. Meanwhile the story has been posted on counter punch in the US, Scoop in New Zealand and Indymedia in Argentina and lots of others. It also increased traffic to our site by a factor of 8. I went on 'Voice of the Cape' FM in Cape Town to discuss it (for half an hour), But not a word of interest in the UK media. This is the same experience we had last year over the 'd' notice served on all of the UK media asking the media not to give coverage to claims made by Rose Gentle about MoD negligence. After four papers showing interest (including the Guardian, Evening Times and the Sun(!)) nothing appeared. Eventually the Independent mentioned the existence of the 'd' notice in one sentence. And, er, that was that. (See the 'd' notice at Spinwatch: http://spinwatch.server101.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=195)  

Let's see if the mainstream media can manage more than a sentence on this in the coming days...