Letter in Daily Telegraph 23 December 2008
This is the latest in a series of letters concerning the future of the BBC's Russian service (cf openDemocracy Russia 9 November, 14 November and 27 November)
Sir,
We are grateful to Andrew Pierce for his informative article about how the
Foreign Office minister misled parliament with regard to the advertising of the
post of Director of the World Service (Ed:
article printed below) .
The Foreign Office minister was, no doubt, himself misled by the BBC
management. He has, so far, shown great faith in them - nearly all that
he said in the Westminster Hall debate of 16 December was taken straight from
letters by Nigel Chapman. Might it not now be time for the Foreign Office
to adopt a more questioning attitude towards Chapman's bland reassurances?
It is clear from even the most cursory comparison of present and future
broadcasting schedules that Chapman's (and the minister's) claim about
‘increased cultural output' is entirely empty; all longer features about
literature, history, British culture, etc, are to be axed. It is equally
clear - contrary to another of the minister's claims during the same debate -
that there is more than enough evidence of pro-Kremlin bias in the output of
the Russian Service. Their refusal to publish the Russian text of Anna
Politkovskaya's last book on their website is one example of such bias.
As for the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko - the Russian service gave far
more air-time to the views of the Kremlin than it did to those of its critics.
More shocking still, the producer of the only programme to give fair
coverage to all points of view received an official reprimand from the World
Service management - even though this programme was far milder in its criticisms
of the Kremlin than a later Panorama documentary.
To maintain the BBC World Service's reputation and credibility, the new
Managing Director must be chosen through a fully open selection process, with
full consideration of the availability and qualification of external
candidates. In addition, a new managing director must be authoritative in news
and current affairs, have wide international perspectives, must be capable of
resisting pressure both from the UK government and from other governments and
should not believe that the World Service can be founded on the perceived
importance of marketing. To impose a closing date for applications of
January 4, 2009 is to foreclose all these options.
Yours Sincerely,
Robert Chandler (translator of Russian Literature)
Teresa Cherfas (TV and radio documentary producer; features producer, BBC
Russian Service 1985-88)
Sergei Cristo ( BBC radio journalist, 1994-2000)
Martin Dewhirst (Honorary Research Fellow, University of Glasgow)
Greg Hands (MP for Hammersmith & Fulham)
Diran Meghreblian (former current affairs editor of BBC Russian Service)
Donald Rayfield (Emeritus Professor of Russian and Georgian, Queen Mary,
University of London)
John Roberts ( Director of the Great Britain-USSR Assn/Britain-Russia Centre
1974-1993)
Elisabeth Robson (former Head of BBC Russian Service)
Irina Shumovich (Producer, BBC Russian Service 1989-2003)
Sir John Tusa (Former Director, BBC World Service)
From The Daily Telegraph 19 December 2008
BBC in £300,000 'jobs for the boys row' over director's post
The BBC is embroiled in a "jobs for the boys row" after
refusing to consider external candidates for a £300,000 director's post.
By Andrew Pierce
The decision to exclude outsiders for the director of the World Service, which
is funded by the Foreign Office, will put the corporation on a collision course
with the government.
On Tuesday Bill Rammell, the Foreign Office minister, was challenged by the
Tory MP Greg Hands, in a Commons debate about then world service, about the
next director.
Mr Rammell insisted the job would be open to everyone. He said: "He asked
me... whether the advertising process for the director of the World Service
will be open, and open to external candidates. I can reassure [him] that, on
both points, they will."
Yet the very same day the job description was published in Ariel, the BBC's
in-house newspaper, which made clear that it was an internal appointment which
would not be publicised externally.
The closing date for applications, January 4, has given only 11 days for
candidates to apply creating the suspicion that the BBC has already decided who
it wants to run the World Service which broadcasts in 32 languages to different
parts of the world.
Mr Hands said: "This does sound like a jobs for the boy stitch-up. On the
very day that the minister was misleading me and the House of commons the BBC
was saying only internal applicants need apply.
"This is an important public appointment with a huge salary. I am afraid
this does not look right. Only hours after the debate a key ministerial
reassurance is not being upheld. I have written to the Foreign Office to demand
an explanation."
A BBC spokesman said: "The position of Director, BBC World Service, will
be advertised internally. This is standard BBC practice and if no suitable
candidate is found through this process then the search will be widened."
When Nigel Chapman, the outgoing director, announced he was resigning from the
World Service, a group of historians issued a statement urging the BBC to take
care with the appointment. It said: "We hope that the BBC will now appoint
to the post of World Service director someone with a genuine respect for the
intelligence of listeners, a good knowledge of international affairs and a
determination to defend the World Service against attempts by any government to
interfere with its independence."
Comments
ReplytoTheDailyTelegraph,26.12.2008
SIR – The letter from correspondents with an interest in Russian affairs (Letters, December 23) makes the erroneous assumption that the BBC World Service’s decision to stop a number of feature programmes means there will be no place for radio output about arts and culture.
We have expressly told the writers of the letter that these important subjects will have a higher-profile place in daily output, especially at weekends, when audiences will be most likely to listen.
They will also feature prominently on BBCRussian.com – with the potential to dwarf the reach of radio, which has declined markedly in recent years.
The BBC rejects suggestions of pro-Kremlin bias in the output of the Russian Service. The priority of the BBC Russian Service is impartial, balanced news and current affairs to Russian speakers, on radio and online. It adheres to the same standards as any other part of the BBC.
The letter suggests that we should have published Anna Politkovskaya’s last book online. The BBC generally does not publish books on its websites. The service reported Anna Politkovskaya’s murder, and has continued to report the impact of her death in Russia and around the world.
The letter also claims that coverage of Alexander Litvinenko’s death was not impartial. Alexander Litvinenko’s last radio interview, discussing his poisoning from his hospital bed, was with the BBC Russian Service. Many prominent critics of the Russian government, including Vladimir Bukovsky and Oleg Gordievsky, have been interviewed about Litvinenko’s death. A formal complaint that the Russian Service covered this story in a biased way was investigated by the BBC and was not upheld.
The BBC Russian Service remains our second-biggest language service after Arabic in terms of budget and hours of radio broadcast. The BBC has great commitment to the BBC Russian Service
Your correspondents also mention the process for the appointment of a new Director of BBC World Service. Following a high degree of interest, the job will be advertised externally in January.
Richard Sambrook
Director,BBCGlobalNews.
From Robert Chandler:
Richard Sambrook (cf letter to Daily Telegraph published as comment below, 2.1.09) seems not to have taken in either our various letters to the press or the clear and strong statements made recently in Parliament by the MPs Greg Hands and Doctor Julian Lewis.
The BBC website should not be seen as an alternative to radio. The number of people with Internet access is indeed growing in Russia, but it is still small compared to the West; the number of people with broadband is, of course, smaller still. Chapman’s ‘rebalancing of priorities’ cannot be justified even by financial logic; internet with video is far more expensive than features.
It is essential to do more research into new possible ways of strengthening radio relays, such as with the use of satellites, broadcasting from transmitters in neighbouring countries, and by investing in digital short wave technology. It is unlikely that any single method is invulnerable and it is therefore important to consider as many options as possible. It is important that the Russian Service should learn from its disastrous experience with FM partners from 2003 to 2007; it cannot speak with an independent voice if it makes itself dependent on the Russian authorities. It would not be difficult for the Russian government to block access to the Russian Service website.
The question about pro-Kremlin bias can be answered only by people with a knowledge of Russian. Most of the large number of people who have signed our various letters do know Russian – and they have little doubt about this bias. With regard to Anna Politkovskaya’s book, Sambrook writes that ‘the BBC generally does not publish books on its websites’. No doubt this is true, but the Russian service website had already published on its website Tom de Waal’s book about the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Tom de Waal’s book was already published in Russia, whereas Politkovskaya’s was not. I am glad that the Russian Service acquainted its readers with this fine analysis of the conflict, but if a book already published in Russia could be published on the BBC web-site, surely there was an even stronger case for publishing a book that had not been published – and could not be published – in Russia?
As for Litvinenko’s tragic murder, Bukovsky and Gordievsky were indeed interviewed by the BBC Russian Service – but only for one programme. And the producer of this programme received an official reprimand from the BBC management. Gordievsky, a close friend of Litvinenko, phoned the Editor-in-Chief of the Russian service several times, asking to be interviewed for other programmes. The Editor-in-Chief repeatedly refused.
The World Service management seems unable to understand that brief news items about cultural events are no substitute for the 25- or 13-minute ‘features’ which are soon to be axed. The depth – and the variety of viewpoint – is sure to be lost.
A month ago I was asked to contribute to a features programme in honour of the fourth centenary of Milton’s birth. After saying a little about the many reasons why he is no longer fashionable, I dwelt at length on his ‘Aereopagitica’, his pamphlet against censorship, saying that I thought his arguments had never been bettered. Milton’s central point is that, in an open contest, Truth has nothing to fear from the Lie – and that there is therefore no reason to censor even what one considers to be a lie. Given that press freedom has all-but disappeared in Russia, I was more than grateful for the chance to say all this. It saddens me deeply to think that such programmes may soon disappear from the BBC’s output.
Yours,
Robert Chandler
Post new comment