BBC reveals that it subjected job applicants to political vetting

Watch
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
For decades the BBC denied that job applicants were subject to political vetting by MI5. But in fact vetting began in the early days of the BBC and continued until the 1990s. Paul Reynolds, the first journalist to see all the BBC's vetting files, tells the story of the long relationship between the corporation and the Security Service.

In 1933, a BBC executive begun holding meetings to exchange information with the head of MI5, Sir Vernon Kell, at Dawnay's flat in Eaton Terrace, Chelsea. It was an era of political radicalism and both sides deemed the BBC in need of "assistance in regard to communist activities".

These informal arrangements became formal two years later, with an agreement between the two organisations that all new staff should be vetted except "personnel such as charwomen".

And so routine vetting began. From the start, the BBC undertook not to reveal the role of the Security Service (MI5), or the fact of vetting itself. On one level this made sense, bearing in mind that the very existence of the Secret Service remained a secret until the 1989 Security Service Act.

The Security Service advised that candidate with the wrong political views should not be employed in a post offering direct opportunity to influence broadcast material for a 'subversive purpose'.

Over the years, BBC executives lied to many people - even an inquisitive MP on one occasion. When MI5 suggested scaling back the number of jobs subject to vetting, the BBC argued against such a move. Though there were some opponents of vetting within the corporation, they had little influence until the Cold War began to thaw in the 1980s.

http://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43754737

This is as good a proof as any that the BBC is not, as some like to claim, biased towards the left and against the right.

It is simply biased towards the government's ideology, the people who fund them.

Imagine how much easier vetting is now with GCHQ. Don't worry, though; if they are doing illegal vetting now, we'll find out when they declassify the documents in 50 years' time.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by AngeryPenguin)
For decades the BBC denied that job applicants were subject to political vetting by MI5. But in fact vetting began in the early days of the BBC and continued until the 1990s. Paul Reynolds, the first journalist to see all the BBC's vetting files, tells the story of the long relationship between the corporation and the Security Service.

In 1933, a BBC executive begun holding meetings to exchange information with the head of MI5, Sir Vernon Kell, at Dawnay's flat in Eaton Terrace, Chelsea. It was an era of political radicalism and both sides deemed the BBC in need of "assistance in regard to communist activities".

These informal arrangements became formal two years later, with an agreement between the two organisations that all new staff should be vetted except "personnel such as charwomen".

And so routine vetting began. From the start, the BBC undertook not to reveal the role of the Security Service (MI5), or the fact of vetting itself. On one level this made sense, bearing in mind that the very existence of the Secret Service remained a secret until the 1989 Security Service Act.

The Security Service advised that candidate with the wrong political views should not be employed in a post offering direct opportunity to influence broadcast material for a 'subversive purpose'.

Over the years, BBC executives lied to many people - even an inquisitive MP on one occasion. When MI5 suggested scaling back the number of jobs subject to vetting, the BBC argued against such a move. Though there were some opponents of vetting within the corporation, they had little influence until the Cold War began to thaw in the 1980s.

http://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43754737

This is as good a proof as any that the BBC is not, as some like to claim, biased towards the left and against the right.

It is simply biased towards the government's ideology, the people who fund them.

Imagine how much easier vetting is now with GCHQ. Don't worry, though; if they are doing illegal vetting now, we'll find out when they declassify the documents in 50 years' time.

Not seeing the good proof
Not seeing how that was illegal.
Not seeing how GCHQ vetting its staff would be illegal either.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
We know the BBC discriminated against communists in employment because among others they employed George Orwell, a radical socialist, to do it.
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
BBC is establishment orientated, you only have to look at the way it covers royal stories to see that. All media organisations have an orientation though, some being much more pointed than others, so it's a matter of choosing your preference or reading 'through' their biases as best you can.
1
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Better a nonce than a lefty
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (700)
33.9%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (881)
42.66%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (392)
18.98%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (92)
4.46%

Watched Threads

View All