If editorial integrity at the The Telegraph is questioned - what about radio newsrooms?

Here's a great interview question to pose to a candidate for a radio station MD post. 

Your Head of News has rushed in to say they are about to carry a less than complimentary story about your biggest-spending advertiser.  The hungry journalist is insistent on its accuracy and relevance, just as your understandably huffy sales director is similarly determined that significant revenues will be lost at a stroke.

It's a dilemma which has been exemplified in press this week, as Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator resigned, accusing the dear Telegraph of a "form of fraud on its readers" for its coverage of HSBC and the Swiss tax-dodging scandal.  He suggested in his lengthy valedictory note that the paper did not give due prominence to the HSBC story because of commercial interests.  Meanwhile, the man from the Telegraph responded that "distinction between advertising and our award-winning editorial operation has always been fundamental to our business", and they refuted allegations to the contrary.

If such questions challenge the mighty British newspaper titles, surely local UK radio stations will simply bow down and ask the journalist to press 'delete' firmly with their sweaty forefinger on coverage of any story which might appreciably affect income.

It's not my experience, thankfully.

Every now and again that text book situation has arisen at radio stations I have worked at over the years, to the letter.  Similarly, there have been calls from clients after a story has been carried, demanding it be removed, not because it was inaccurate, but because it was unhelpful. After all “we're your partners, and we spend a lot of money”.

On every occasion, having scrutinised the facts of the story, and ascertained that it is fairly balanced, accurate and relevant to the audience, it has been duly carried.

I don't blame the advertisers for their pleas. If I owned their company, I'd likely be just the same.  Neither do I blame the committed sales executive, hitting target is what they've been born to do. And I don't blame the news teams for pursuing a decent story for which they are getting hassle. It's all thoroughly understandable.

Sensible news editors, and all mine have been sensible without exception, are sufficiently sympathetic to alert management to the looming risk; and to give the nod to the relevant sales executive, so that they are across the facts when their client's name flashes up on their mobile. They are prepared for the fallout.

In my experience, where the story is solid it has indeed been carried. And long-term business has rarely been lost or affected. 

Maybe we’re lucky.  In the calm of the following week, after emails in bold have been exchanged, phones have been slammed down and dummies spat out, decent clients quietly recognise that the trust that radio enjoys, and the reason why listeners trust radio advertisers is partly because of the integrity of its news service.  It's not for nothing we are more trusted than press, online or TV. (OFCOM 2010)

What's more, if that anxious client really believes that one 20" nib in one 11.00 news bulletin on one station one morning is powerful enough to ruin them, then maybe they should be paying a great deal more for their 20" ad spots.

"News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality". (OFCOM Broadcasting Code March 2013, Section 5.1)



Other news-related blogs:
What future for the radio news bulletin?
The Art of Newsreading 
And a very good morning to you

Grab a copy of my book 'How to Make Great Radio', published by Biteback

Pointless rules

In that ‘gritty’ episode of Coronation Street, when the Rovers Return burnt down, there was a lovely ‘P’ on the credits; suggesting a healthy dash of ‘product placement’. 

Given the symbol was shown nowhere near the moment when the ‘placement’ happened, I’m still blissfully unaware what the commercial message was. Putting to one side the fact that the  mystery advertiser’s money would have been clearly better spent on radio, it does illustrate the folly of this ‘P’. Most viewers either don’t notice it; or don’t understand what it means. And, frankly, aren’t much bothered.  In OFCOM research*, over half of viewers appeared not to know Placement exists, let alone how it appears. Did C & A pay for Deirdre's lovely Crimplene frock? Who can tell.

There is a regulatory desire in the UK to separate ‘commercial communications’ from any other sort.  It’s a pointless pursuit, and one which stems from a heady mix of beautiful English conservatism and, to some extent, European regulations.  Regulators rarely move radically, they adjust things incrementally. In radio, it’s taken thirty years to get from the IBA’s menacing intervention to a regime of radio rules which are much more sensible, thanks in no small way to some thoroughly pragmatic folk at OFCOM.

In truth, the distinction between commercial and other communications can never be clear, as long as PR companies place stories, TV companies invent stories about themselves to grow their business, and most sporting events are riddled with advertising hoardings. Just about everything we see and do now has a commercial connection for which someone is paying a bill, and someone is benefiting.

If a Tweet is an 'ad', they’re supposed to say it has been paid for, but if a company influences some viral social content, then it’s fine. Maybe it’s time to give up and let most sensible people make up their own minds about whether there has been a commercial influence or not.

In radio, we're obliged to credit clients who’ve paid us with a pithy phrase like ‘our friends at’.  It’s a neat way round, and I thank OFCOM for the recent freedoms, but I’m not awfully sure that this ‘friends’ business shouts ‘we’ve been paid’ to any listener.  And the fact that we still have to ‘separate’ ads from, well, presenters talking about the ads is a bit crazy, really.  It’s all fine, and the regulations are, thankfully, sensibly implemented, but I’m not awfully sure they do anyone any good.

Then there’s the small print.  Those crazy disclaimers on credit ads. If listeners could press a  magic button on their radio and sign up instantly for a credit agreement, I’d understand the caution, but given there's a mountain of paperwork before any credit agreement is entered into, there’s ample opportunity for the detail to be considered. The obligation to carry this is a nonsense; and it makes things less clear not more clear. Not least when the material is delivered as quickly as if the VO is trying to get away to the pub.  Those who draft regulations should maybe pause to understand how radio works; and the depth of listeners' recall. 

Let's be honest, do the words 'terms and conditions apply' serve any useful purpose?  Do they really protect the listener; or merely the advertiser?  And if we are going to warn listeners of every possible implication of any product or service, should we not add 'kids may misbehave' on the fostering ads?

There was a time when the use of premium phone lines did indeed warrant tighter regulation.  Some stations were acting thoroughly improperly.  When I arrived at my grey, dusty desk at the Radio Authority in the early '90s, there was no rule in the Programme Code which required fairness in competitions. I drafted one, and I’m pleased that my legacy wording remains, about competitions being ‘conducted fairly to rules which are appropriately made known’, in the extant OFCOM code.

In those days though, the costs of calls ‘under 50 pence’ did not need declaring. Now, any possible incremental charge needs declaring.  Even a 25 pence charge for general texting requires a disclaimer every so often, to a formula best understood by Phonepay Plus. And don’t you just love the BBC announcements about landline numbers which might be free, or might not be. It’s all gone too far. I'm surprised our holiday advertisers don't have to declare that your holiday might cost you more if you live further from the airport.

I think listeners understand that when you pick up a phone, there might be a small charge. If it’s an appreciable one, then, yes, we should say something about it. The rules can be as simple as that.  

In bygone days, we never announced the price of a stamp for a write-in comp, or the price of a landline call when they were, actually, formidably expensive. Now, everyone e-mails rather than sends letters; and phone calls are proportionately much cheaper, yet we have this rampant catalogue of disclaimers.

I have a theory that every time there is a new regulation, the extra protection diminishes the original protection, which means that consumers see and hear less, not more.  Witness the 27,000 words in the i-Tunes terms and conditions.  The more rules and protective 'noise' there is, the more innocently we sign up to what we’d rather not.

*UK audience attitudes to the broadcast media, OFCOM. August 2012.