Editorial Independence, Or Unaccountability?

Can somebody please read this update of the BBC Agreement (as in “Charter & Agreement”) and tell me if “Editorial Independence” actually translates into “Unaccountability”?

Continuing Agreement

Concerns have been expressed that the NAO reviews could lead to individual star’s salaries becoming public, or the details of managerial decisions on finance, because the NAO can ask for any information it needs for its audit. The wording of the agreement makes no specific reference to those concerns and no such information has been revealed in previous NAO reports on the BBC.

A Trust spokesperson said: ‘The NAO already have full access to the information they need to carry out reviews of the BBC; today’s announcement confirms and continues that arrangement. In addition it will now enable the NAO to decide which areas to look at, but in an arrangement where it will continue to submit reports to the Trust. We believe that the terms agreed build on the BBC’s existing relationship with the NAO to the benefit of licence fee payers, while preserving the BBC’s independence.’

Editorial Independence

The agreement makes clear that whilst the NAO is ‘entitled to review any BBC decision’ it is not entitled to ‘question the merits of any editorial or creative judgment or policy decision about the way BBC services are made or distributed.’

The Trust will still do its own value for money reviews, in fact the agreement requires it to lay out its own programme of such work each year. The NAO can’t examine the same area as the Trust in the same year.

The NAO will submit its reports to the Trust, which will prepare a response before sending both to the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament.

There’s more at the link. The NAO (or anyone else, presumably, like OfCom) can say what they like, but the Trust will decide what to present to Jeremy Hunt, decide what is value for money, and decide if the BBC can syphon off extra Government/taxpayer cash to spend on the World Service. (Hopefully not for hiring yet another field correspondent to cover the US.)

This sounds like unaccountability by any other name.


A Biased BBC reader informs;

” There was a revealingarticle in “The Villager” on 4th March 2011 (a local free newspapercovering E. Northamptonshire). It was about a speech that Chris “EU”Patten made to sixth form pupils at Oundle School. He spoke on the growingthreat of climate change, which he perceived to be “the most urgent ofchallenges”, and said “.. this generation ought to have recognisedthe problem of climate change much earlier and tackled it with moredetermination ..”
Further, he predicted that “.. the 21st century will be dominated not bynation states, but by ideas…” (of course, he meant present states, not thestate that is being formed, i.e. the disastrous EUSSR which will completelyoverwhelm and bankrupt us within a few years).

So when he is installed in the place of Michael Lyons, we can be very sure hewill not be insisting the BBC is balanced in their reporting of climate change,or of the EU. Indeed, under his chairmanship, we can expect the bias to getworse. “