BBC Gets Away With It

The BBC announces 'we're safe! we escaped oversight! we report what we wamt, how we want and let the public be damned'. Well, more or less:

A bid to force publication of a review by the BBC of its Middle East coverage has been rejected in the High Court.

London lawyer Steven Sugar wanted the Balen report, which was drawn up in 2004, to be revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. But Mr Justice Irwin ruled that, as the material was held "for the purposes of journalism, art or literature", the corporation had no duty to disclose it.

He also ruled the BBC did not have to disclose information about expenditure.

The judgement followed requests for budget details of the BBC's news and sport coverage as well as programmes including EastEnders and Top Gear.

The background:

In 2004, senior news editor Malcolm Balen examined hundreds of hours of television and radio broadcasts to compile the 20,000-word report. Mr Sugar, from Putney, south London, wanted it to be part of the debate about alleged anti-Israeli bias at the BBC.
He has argued that the Freedom of Information Act was badly drafted and prevented disclosure of material which should be publicly available.

But the BBC said the report was always intended as an internal review of programme content, to inform future output.

It has said it was vital for independent journalism that debates among its staff about how it covered stories did not have to be opened up to the public gaze.

In his judgement on the Steven Sugar case, the judge said he had taken account of the fact that the BBC was a public body under the Act which was publicly funded, adding that there was a public interest in accessing information about its activities.

But he also said there was a public interest in preserving the freedom of journalism as well as creative and artistic activity.

...a spokesman for the corporation said: "The BBC's position is that free and impartial journalism is vital to our viewers and listeners and is at the heart of public service broadcasting.

"If we are not able to pursue our journalism freely and have honest debate and analysis over how we are covering important issues, then how effectively we can serve the public will be diminished."

Hello! Freedom? What about that of the media consumers who are fed distorted, biased and prejudicial news and opinion with no balance or recourse?

If the PM and Cabinet Secretary discussed how to cheat the Treasury, would that be privileged and classified information, too? Or the minutes of a government internal committee reviewing the dallying of a Cabinet minister with his typist, male or female?