Whether intentionally or not, the company had produced a promotional video that appeared to show the Queen arguing with a portrait painter and then storming out. In fact, she did no such thing: two clips had been edited together in the wrong sequence.
The Head of BBC1 appeared to know what was in the video, as he mentioned it in his script at the launch. But when the error was discovered, he admitted that he had not seen the actual video prior to the press launch, only the text accompanying it. An apology was sent to Buckingham Palace, and a damage limitation exercise began.
Error by the boss
The error was initially blamed on "junior staff" at RDF and was put down to a lack of training. In fact, it transpired that the promotional video was the personal work of RDF Creative Director Stephen Lambert, who had worked 16 years at the BBC. Lambert admitted to a "serious editorial misjudgement" and offered to resign, but insisted that the interpretation of the Queen "storming out" was not intended. How, then, was it presented as such at the BBC's press launch? Who wrote the script that Peter Fincham was reading?
Editorial Standards Board
Measures have already been put in place to "put the house in order", as the Director-General described it. One is the establishment of an Editorial Standards Board. The problem is that, in the meantime, the BBC has banned all on-air contests, even where there's no evidence of malpractice. Over 16,000 staff - more than half the workforce - are to be given training courses to underscore the values the BBC expects of its staff. Many senior staff who have worked for the BBC for decades without a blemish are said to be very unhappy, and feel such a reaction is overkill and humiliating.
I hope this new Editorial Standards Board will allow creative people to still be creative. There's a real danger that production staff will err on the side of caution and that some programmes could become bland as a result. To make programmes interesting, broadcasters have always used techniques that might now come under closer scrutiny. Perhaps now is the time to come clean about some of the things we've done at RNW over the years. You judge whether we were guilty of deception, or simply being creative.
Ambient noise
I remember one edition of the Media Network radio show that we made on a very hot summer evening. To give listeners a flavour of what the evening was like, before the show we opened the door of studio 11 and recorded some ambient noise, with birds singing and - I distinctly recall - someone's dog barking. The programme was produced in the studio in the usual way, but we mixed in the background noise to create the impression that the programme was actually coming from outside the studio. Was this deception, or simply a way of adding a little local colour to the proceedings?
Real deception
Mind you, there have examples of real deception, such as the African broadcaster who claimed expenses for travelling to the FIFA World Cup finals, and filed reports from his house where he was watching all the matches on TV. He only got found out because he was a little too hasty returning to his office after the end of the event, and colleagues realised he could not have been where he said he was.
Clearly, the latter example is unacceptable under any circumstances, and is deliberate deception not only of the audience, but also of one's own colleagues. But I cannot believe that playing a recording of birdsong under a voice is going to be deemed unethical. If you're producing a programme aimed at ornithologists, it's a little disingenuous not to check exactly what's on the recording. But for a general audience, who hopefully are paying more attention to the human voice than the sounds behind it, I can't see that any great harm has been done.
Sometimes, a little bit of deception can add to the enjoyment of a programme. I agree that special attention needs to be given to programmes that involve public participation, but I hope the BBC is not going to become a purveyor of bland, inoffensive material made to ensure strict compliance with the edicts of an Editorial Standards Board. In my opinion, that would be going too far. What do you think?
Tags: BBC, birdsong, creativity, deception, Editorial Standards Board, Media Network, RDF, RNW, Stephen Lambert