An anomaly on our doorstep

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgr ... pping-code" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ofcom's code on doorstepping public figures plays into the hands of corporate lawyers and stifles investigative reporting in the public interest

* Jonathan Maitland
* The Guardian, Monday 11 January 2010

Here's a scene you won't see on TV any time soon. Current affairs reporter says to Royal Mail boss Adam Crozier outside his office: "You earned £995,000 last year running a public company. Are you worth it?" Crozier: "I'm glad you asked …"

You won't see it because it is highly likely to lead to an Ofcom complaint on fairness. What's more, it will almost certainly be upheld, leaving the broadcaster out of pocket and forced to make a humiliating on-air apology.

When I tried to put that very question for an ITV1 Tonight last year we had to settle for what broadcasters always settle for in such situations: a short written response from Royal Mail read out on air. The Ofcom code allows impromptu interviews if the story is on the news agenda but forbids doorstepping for factual programmes "... unless a request for an interview has been refused, or it has not been possible to request an interview, or there is good reason to believe that an investigation will be frustrated if the subject is approached openly … Broadcasters may, without prior warning, interview, film or record people in the news when in public places."

In the Royal Mail example, the interview request was refused, but it was decided a doorstep was not "warranted". The issue of a highly paid chief executive of a public company may be interesting to the public, the argument goes, but it is not in the public interest.

Yet is it "unfair" to approach the boss of a publicly owned company, in a public place, to politely ask him to justify his salary? Fielding such questions is surely part of a chief executive's job. Once Royal Mail had responded in writing, however, we couldn't go anywhere near them with a camera as, under the Ofcom code, they had given a sufficient response.

Doorsteps are broadcasting's equivalent of the newspaper headline. The viewer will often learn far more from a two-minute doorstep than from a bit of written corporate speak.

In the early 1990s Lorraine Heggessey doorstepped the investigative reporter Roger Cook over allegedly dodgy reporting tactics he had used during a show on Arthur Scargill. She then chased him down the road shouting, legend has it, "Answer the question, you fat bastard!" in a superb case of the biter being bit.

But then it all changed. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 started the ball rolling, with its commitment to respecting privacy. But then the bar got higher and higher as one corporate lawyer after another began to realise the protection afforded by the Ofcom code.

This despite the ludicrous anomaly of the internet. When the Tory MP Alan Duncan was secretly filmed comparing his wages to "rations", there was nothing to stop it being plastered all over cyberspace. From there, it was a short journey to the TV news bulletins.

So what needs to change? Well, Ofcom could update its rules and get rid of the anomalous distinction between news and current affairs, between TV and the net. Broadcasters could get more daring. But since the Ross/Brand affair that looks unlikely. Or people like me could migrate to the net, funded by some rich, philanthropic mischief maker – http://www.doorstep.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; anyone?

[brunswick]

last week look north wanted to film a postman on his/her round. we were informed by our dom that we, if approached by any television crew that we had to decline and immediately inform the office, methinks they've something to hide.

[norbert]

last week look north wanted to film a postman on his/her round. we were informed by our dom that we, if approached by any television crew that we had to decline and immediately inform the office, methinks they've something to hide.

it was an instant sacking offence - to make a statement that would harm with another union - What happened was apparently too many reps were writing to the press , so on message managers were going round saying - " We will button up your mouth " , the fact privatisation was on the horizon was " coincidence " .

Things still got leaked , I can remember a rep from another union who used to carry all the newspaper clippings round re a certain Megalomaniacal Manager . He also showed us his advice as how to get promotion memo , we thought it would be something to do with an office desk . I doubt if gender was an issue to him .