The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ and private investigators
Post categories: ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ News
| 18:00 UK time, Wednesday, 16 March 2011
There's a lot of fuss in a couple of newspapers this morning over whether the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ ever uses private detectives in any of its journalism. It stems from a suggestion from one private detective that he may have done some work for Panorama almost 20 years ago.
The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s response to that suggestion has been to reveal that we do use private detectives occasionally and exceptionally to help with programmes. To some that has conjured up pictures of dozens of gumshoes beavering away for the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳, busily hacking into private voicemails or other people's e-mail accounts, or accessing deeply personal and private information illegally. All practices which have allegedly been happening frequently in some newspapers, as Panorama chronicled on Monday.
It is worth stressing that we are not aware of any ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ programme ever having commissioned a private detective to carry out this sort of illegal activity at any time in the past. It would be totally unacceptable and a serious breach of our editorial standards.
But engaging private detectives to do things of this sort is very different from asking them to undertake lawful activity as part of an investigation in the public interest. For example, consumer investigation programmes, where we have already established prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, may sometimes have difficulty in establishing the whereabouts of rogues, whose misdemeanours they have uncovered, so that they can confront them with allegations of that wrongdoing. We might employ third parties to carry out the necessary surveillance to find out where they are and where they might be approached and, on occasion, to obtain a photograph of them. Usually we track down individuals we want to speak to ourselves. But in very hard cases we might employ the specialist skills of a private detective to help us find someone. That may not be for suspected wrongdoing but could be to locate a witness to events which happened some time ago and who we are hoping will contribute to the programme.
So we could use third parties in a number of entirely lawful ways to help investigations and other programmes. But even if we did, their conduct would be governed not just by the law but by our own Editorial Guidelines. Undercover operatives, who are usually "clean skins" for obvious reasons, have to conduct themselves in accordance with the Editorial Guidelines and, often, a detailed protocol governing what they can and can't do. Any activity commissioned from a private detective would be managed in the same way if it involved breaches of privacy. The editorial guidelines are clear: intrusions into privacy need a strong public interest justification. And that does not include a prurient interest in the private lives of celebrities.
So suggestions that the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ might use private investigators for political stories are wide of the mark and those who are "genuinely surprised the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ used private investigators to stand up stories" should remain surprised. The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ validates and stands up its own journalism wherever facts and information come from.
David Jordan is the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s Director of Editorial Policy and Standards
Comment number 1.
At 17th Mar 2011, GAMTON wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 17th Mar 2011, Clive Hill wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 17th Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 17th Mar 2011, Martin wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 17th Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:'It is worth stressing that we are not aware of any ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ programme'
Just wondering, but how might ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ interviewers treat such a statement in mitigation by those they deal with?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 17th Mar 2011, Martin wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 17th Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 17th Mar 2011, Kit Green wrote:6 of the first 7 comments disallowed......
I take it nobody believes the article. That is a shame as I am sure that it is not the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ amongst the "British" media empires that has the skeletons in the closet.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 17th Mar 2011, Kit Green wrote:An explanation of my previous post:
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 18th Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:'8. At 9:22pm on 17 Mar 2011, Kit Green wrote:
I take it nobody believes the article.
Hard to assess. Maybe folk simply sought clarifications as some areas were raised that seemed 'vague'. Guess we'll never know.
That is a shame
In more ways then one.
as I am sure that it is not the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ amongst the "British" media empires that has the skeletons in the closet.
Without doubt. But it is one whose stakeholders are required to pay, and hence support it, no matter what. Hence obliterating any possibly valid questions or feedback seems... 'interesting'.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 18th Mar 2011, Rudy wrote:The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ often deletes comments they simply don't like...
What can we expect from their reporting? Or their elite journalists?
Why do they need private investigators when they have MI5, is vetting applications all they did for almost fifty years?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 18th Mar 2011, U14817342 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 18th Mar 2011, Roland D wrote:Moderators, since you don't seem to like what the little people have to say, perhaps you should get a new readership.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 18th Mar 2011, Peter Galbavy wrote:Surely when you have prima facie evidence of criminal activity you should go to the police and not risk ongoing criminal behaviour or allowing it to escalate by delaying a criminal ivestigation ?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 18th Mar 2011, LALondoner wrote:Why does the public have to pay to be insulted and condescended to??? Time for the Beeb to lose its charter and take to the commercial media waters like everyone else it the world. Sink or swim, Auntie, sink or swim!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 18th Mar 2011, Wicked_Witch_of_the_West_Coast wrote:I think now is a good time to stop paying the Telly Tax. The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ are not worth the money. They despise the people who fund them; they ignore them or condescend to them. And still expect them to fork out a huge amount of money to them purely for the right to have a telly in their house. Well, no more ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳, until you give me value for money!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 19th Mar 2011, Grey Animal wrote:I can't see what the problem is supposed to be. News materials have to be researched; why is it that if you use an in-house fact-checker or researcher, that's fine, but if you employ someone for their skills in obtaining, checking and interpreting data - which is what private detectives do - suddenly the sky is falling?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 19th Mar 2011, Nina Szombately wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 19th Mar 2011, Rustigjongens wrote:Nina Szombately wrote:
I agree it's not the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ that has the skeletons in the closet. The Daily Telegraph, News of the World, sometimes the Mail, rival the Soviet press in their use of underhand methods and contempt for the freedom and privacy of the individual once treasured in the West.
Giving away your political leanings methinks?, you should also have added to your list....
The Guardian, Daily Star and Independent.
In fact the Guardian has one of the worst records according to the press complaints authority.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 19th Mar 2011, MAXQUE wrote:Nothing wrong with using private eyes to help clarify the TRUE facts.
Companies,politicians and private individuals use them all the time.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 19th Mar 2011, Nina Szombately wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 19th Mar 2011, Davesaid wrote:The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ may very well not use P.Is for political purposes, but it is very obvious that there is a strong left wing leaning within its corridors. This is totally unacceptable as they are totally financed publicly which should ensure a totally unbiased & balanced view of all subjects.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 19th Mar 2011, mark728 wrote:Seems like if you want the truth today on stories involving corrupt banks or dishonest politicians you have to use private investigators and other investigative tactics. If find the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s coverage fair and balanced and think this is good use of the public's money.
-
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 19th Mar 2011, Ravnogorac12 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 20th Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:Interesting to note what either doesn't make it through pre-mod, or is ditched on referral on this thread. And what does.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 20th Mar 2011, _marko wrote:To JunkkMale #25
Maybe you could post in parts to identify which part of your whole post the mods rejected or maybe just hint at what was rejected.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 20th Mar 2011, milvusvestal wrote:Rarely have I read anything quite as pompous.
How much of our licence money is the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ paying to these third parties? Are fees negotiated in advance or, as seems typical with any publicly-funded service, do they merely demand what they like?
This is all getting too much like Orwell's prediction, only 30 years too late.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 20th Mar 2011, Angus Prune wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 21st Mar 2011, Jaker wrote:Not aware...doesn't go as far as to say that the temptation of the act or the act itself, isn't there or is there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 21st Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:'26. At 10:33am on 20 Mar 2011, _marko wrote:
To JunkkMale #25
Maybe you could post in parts to identify which part of your whole post the mods rejected or maybe just hint at what was rejected.'
I guess I could. It would be an interesting exercise in some ways, but as things seem to change with shifts and oversight management moods, the control constant might be compromised. 'Off topic' can be a tricky one to dodge, especially when applied selectively, as can be noted by what is still up here. And don't forget the lurking threat of a total banning if one persists.
Speaking of freedom of speech and commenting, the subsequent 'The Editors' post is kinda ironic. Doesn't seem to be going well.
Maybe a private investigator could be hired to find out what has happened to the majority of the first tranch of posts here.
Just kidding.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)