BBC documentary: role of tobacco control group questioned
Thursday, May 29, 2014 at 16:16 Ahead of tonight's BBC2 documentary, Burning Desire: The Seduction of Smoking, an eagle-eyed reader spotted something rather odd:
According to the Salford City College website (March 10, 2014):
Media students from Salford City College’s Walkden Sixth Form Centre will make their small-screen debut in May as part of a BBC2 documentary focused on exposing the UK's tobacco industry ... The opportunity was organised in conjunction with Tobacco Free Futures, who are working alongside the BBC in creating the documentary.
"Working alongside"? Whose programme is this?
The BBC may not famed for its impartiality on smoking-related issues but even they wouldn't go that far, would they?
My informant didn't wait to find out. She wrote to Emma Willis, Head of Commissioning, Documentaries BBC One, Two and Four, with the following observations:
Tobacco Free Futures is a state-funded lobbying group. According to the Department of Health report on the 2013 consultation into standardised packaging (July 2013), Tobacco Free Futures co-ordinated a massive, publicly funded, campaign response to the consultation into standardised packaging, supporting the proposal. Their campaign delivered 66,406 postcard responses and 65,756 email responses.
This organisation is also reported to have co-ordinated a campaign "Smoke and Mirrors" as part of the same drive to raise signatures supporting plain packaging of tobacco and, according to Tobacco Free Futures website, they "also gathered strong support from local authority and NHS organisations".
Plain packaging of tobacco is highly controversial - a policy under active consideration by the current government, with a further consultation due to be announced shortly.
BBC editorial guidelines, she continued, "are very clear on the matter":
Section 4 of the guidelines states:
4.4.7 When dealing with 'controversial subjects', we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.
4.4.9 In addition, we must take particular care and achieve due impartiality when a 'controversial subject' may be considered to be a major matter. 'Major matters' are usually matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy that are of national or international importance, or of a similar significance within a smaller coverage area. When dealing with 'major matters', or when the issues involved are highly controversial and/or a decisive moment in the controversy is expected, it will normally be necessary to ensure that an appropriately wide range of significant views are reflected in a clearly linked 'series of programmes', a single programme or sometimes even a single item.
4.4.12: News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to impartiality).
Section 10 of the same guidelines document states:
10.2.1 We must treat matters of politics and public policy with due accuracy and impartiality in news and other output.
10.2.2 We must not express an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.
10.2.3 We must not campaign, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign.
Any bias in the programme toward the policy under consideration will rightly raise the question of the BBC’s impartiality and further questions regarding BBC’s editorial judgement.
I hope that you can confirm that the Salford City College website is inaccurate and the BBC has not worked in conjunction with Tobacco Free Futures in any fashion at all. Or, if the BBC has done so, then it has also worked alongside other groups with differing views, in your strenuous efforts to produce a fair and balanced programme.
In response my correspondent received a reply from Lucy Hetherington, Executive Producer, Current Affairs. It read:
Your letter of 21 May 2014 to Emma Willis has been passed to me, as I am the Executive Producer of "Burning Desire: The Seduction of Smoking".
During production of the series we spoke to a large number of organisations and invididuals with a wide range of views on smoking and smoking-related issues. Among them was a cigarette manufacturer – two senior executives are interviewed in the programme – and Tobacco Free Futures.
However, none of these organisations or individuals have had any editorial control over the series. We have listened to what they have to say and, where appropriate, included it in the programmes, which have been made in accordance with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.
We are not responsible for what appears on Salford City College’s website, but we have been in touch with the college to point out that their blog could be interpreted as implying that Tobacco Free Futures had some editorial input to the series, which it has not [my emphasis].
So Salford City College and by association Tobacco Free Futures have been caught out and had their wrists slapped for making exaggerated claims about their role in the production of the programme.
Or perhaps they were telling the truth and made the rookie mistake of boasting about it online.
(Tobacco control groups seem to make a habit of this. Remember Health Secretary Andrew Lansley being listed as a 'Supporter of Plain Packs' on the Plain Packs Protect website during the 2012 public consultation? See How stupid is Plain Packs Protect?)
Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see whether the programme meets BBC editorial guidelines or is yet another nail in the coffin for this bloated, politically disruptive organisation.
Meanwhile, perhaps oblivious to this correspondence, Tobacco Free Futures has just tweeted:
Watch new BBC TWO documentary 'Burning Desire: The Seduction Of Smoking' tonight 9.30pm-10.30pm featuring TFF staff.
We will, believe me, not least because we want to find out how taxpayers' money (and the licence fee) is spent in the name of tobacco control.
H/T Angela Harbutt
Reader Comments (6)
Lansley was a supporter though. He also promised to drive the tobacco industry out of Britain and ensure thousands of industry workers were put on the dole. He succeeded.
My guess is the smokerphobic bullies at TFF are right - but they can't stop themselves boasting about how much they love their jobs persecuting and abusing legitimate adult consumers with their own money stolen from them in tax.
Same thing going on in the USA with the sock puppet groups. The CDC was busted for using taxpayer money for illegal lobbying...
Well done, Angela - stonking email.
I don't know how the Beeb gets away with it. On a programme yesterday one presenter said, "I suppose we have to talk about UKIP..." with no attempt to disguise the disdain in her voice.
It was probably just posturing. There are many local newspaper stories where TFF pretend to be partners to councils, the police and even HMRC.
"Working with our partners in..." is an oft used line in TFF quotes. It's bollocks, but they always seem to get away with it.
The bullies must be constantly kicked as they don't understand just how toxic they are.
The bullies are actually the tobacco companies - using heavy marketing and promotion, or perhaps smokers who want to pump their fumes into my lungs. Incidentally plain packaging is aimed at reducing the appeal of smoking for children and young people why would anyone not want that.