BBC staff are told 'they must represent unpalatable and offensive views'
BBC staff have been told they should be willing to represent 'unpalatable' opinions and 'minority' views even if some people find them offensive.
The broadcaster released updated editorial guidelines stating output must be impartial so the public feels comfortable expressing taboo perspectives.
Journalists are reminded 'impartial output may "require the inclusion of opinions which some […] communities or groups may argue ought not to be included, because they find them unpalatable or offensive"'.
The revisions signal an update to 2019 guidance and come after years of ' cancel culture ' which critics have said imposed a mainstream consensus on issues like immigration and gender identity.
This week, the BBC backed Martine Croxall, a news presenter who corrected her script from 'pregnant people' to 'women' live on air.
The support marked a shift from 2024 when the BBC upheld a complaint against presenter Justin Webb as he called transgender women 'males' on air.
Last year the Migration Observatory in Oxford said the BBC ought to better reflect public views on immigration.
The organisation claimed some BBC journalists were anxious they could appear 'hostile' to migrants by reporting on migration.
The new BBC guidance states it is 'committed to reflecting a wide rang of subject matter and perspectives across its output'
Earlier this month, bosses at the corporation met to discuss how best to rebuild trust. It followed April's Supreme Court ruling that transgender women are not legally women.
This also came in the aftermath of Reform UK's success in local elections and reports of record high levels of migration.
The new BBC guidance states the corporation is 'committed to reflecting a wide range of subject matter and perspectives across its output'.
It adds: 'On occasion, that will include attitudes and opinions which some may find unpalatable or offensive.'
Staff are also told to be aware 'opinion may change over time' and they should try to reflect accurately altered public opinion in their coverage.
However, the guidance does make clear 'fringe' opinions need not be given the same weight as viewpoints deemed to be backed up by greater evidence.
The new editorial guidelines, updated roughly every five years, have been embraced by BBC director-general Tim Davie.
He said that the rules would 'provide editorial values and standards that make the BBC distinctive and reliable'.
Mr Davie added in a foreword: 'The BBC is committed to freedom of expression but this doesn't mean that anything goes. In a world of misinformation and disinformation, the BBC's editorial values of accuracy, impartiality and fairness are more crucial than ever.
'So too, in the context of the ugliness of much social media, is the fundamental decency embodied in sections like Harm and Offence or Children and Young People.'
The sections continue to warn staff to be mindful of giving air time to views that could be considered offensive, and to ensure there are appropriate content warnings on iPlayer.
Among the other new aspects of the guidance are rules around use of AI, to reflect the emergence of new technology.
One new rule says: 'A senior editorial figure must be responsible and accountable for overseeing the deployment and continuing use of any AI.
'They should seek advice from Editorial Policy, who may consult the AI Risk Advisory Group, before any decision to deploy the AI.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Number of Brits who see US as a global threat doubles since Donald Trump came to power
The number of Britons who see the US as a serious threat to global security has skyrocketed since Donald Trump entered the White House in January, new research shows. Even before the president bombed Iran at the weekend, almost three quarters of those asked — 72 per cent — named the US as a threat to world peace in the next decade. Researchers said the figure, which has doubled since last autumn, when it was just 36 per cent, was an 'all time high'. And it rivals China, on 69 per cent, Israel, on 73 per cent, and North Korea, on 77 per cent, although the highest was Russia on 90 per cent. In recent months, Trump has alarmed the international community on a number of occassions, including when he raised doubts about his willingness to defend European countries and when held a televised showdown with Ukrainian President Zelensky in the Oval Office. The latest British Social Attitudes (BSA) report, by the National Centre for Social Research, shows fears over the US' role in the world is split along political party lines. Labour and Green supporters are more likely — by 81 and 96 per cent — than those who back the Conservatives or Reform UK — 68 and 41 per cent — to consider the US a serious threat. The survey also shows that increased public concern over potential threats has led to a significant increase in support for defence spending. Almost one in ten — 9 per cent — believe defence should be the top priority for extra government spending, the highest figure ever recorded in the survey. Again, however, there are marked differences by party, with Conservative and Reform supporters more likely to be in favour than those who back Labour or the Greens. Gianfranco Addario, research director at the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), told The Independent the research did not go into the reasons why those who took part believe the US to be a significant threat, but said 'that would be very interesting to explore'. He added: 'The escalation of recent international conflicts is clearly reflected in the attitudes of the British population, who have never been so supportive of military spending and so concerned about serious security threats since the British Social Attitudes survey first addressed the subject in 1985. 'Perception of the US as a security threat has increased since the 2024 presidential elections and the first 100 days of the Trump administration, reaching an all-time high. 'The Labour government's approach to addressing these concerns, particularly in navigating internal party divisions while aligning with public sentiment, will be crucial in determining its success in managing the country's security and defence policies.' The British Social Attitudes survey has been conducted every year since 1983.
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
Israel-Iran war highlights Mideast's declining influence on oil prices
LONDON, June 25 - The contained move in oil prices during the Israel-Iran war highlights the increasing efficiency of energy markets and fundamental changes to global crude supply, suggesting that Middle East politics will no longer be the dominant force in oil markets they once were. The jump in oil prices following Israel's surprise attack on Iran was meaningful but relatively modest considering the high stakes involved in the conflict between the Middle East rivals. Benchmark Brent crude prices, often considered a gauge for geopolitical risk, rose from below $70 a barrel on June 12, the day before Israel's initial attack, to a peak of $81.40 on June 23 following the United States' strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Prices, however, dropped sharply that same day after it became clear Iran's retaliation against Washington – a well-telegraphed attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar that caused limited damage – was essentially an act of de-escalation. Prices then fell to below pre-war levels at $67 on Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. The doomsday scenario for energy markets – Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil and gas supplies pass – did not occur. In fact, there was almost no disruption to flows out of the Middle East throughout the duration of the conflict. So, for the time being, it looks like markets were right not to panic. The moderate 15% low-to-high swing during this conflict suggests oil traders and investors have slashed the risk premium for geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. Consider the impact on prices of previous tensions in the region. The 1973 Arab oil embargo led to a near quadrupling of oil prices. Disruption to Iranian oil output, opens new tab following the 1979 revolution led to a doubling of spot prices. Iraq's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990 caused the price of Brent crude to double to $40 a barrel by mid-October. And the start of the second Gulf war in 2003 led to a 46% surge in prices. While many of these supply disruptions – with the exception of the oil embargo – ended up being brief, markets reacted violently. One, of course, needs to be careful when comparing conflicts because each is unique, but the oil market's response to major disruptions in the Middle East has – in percentage terms, at least – progressively diminished in recent decades. There are multiple potential explanations for this change in the perceived value of the Middle East risk premium. First, markets may simply be more rational than in the past given access to better news, data and technology. Investors have become extremely savvy in keeping tabs on near-live energy market conditions. Using satellite ship tracking and aerial images of oilfields, ports and refineries, traders can monitor oil and gas production and transportation, enabling them to better understand supply and demand balances than was possible in previous decades. In this latest conflict, markets certainly responded rationally. The risk of a supply disruption increased, so prices did as well, but not excessively because there were significant doubts about Iran's actual ability or willingness to disrupt maritime activity over a long period of time. Another explanation for the limited price moves could be that producers in the region – again, rational actors – learned from previous conflicts and responded in kind by building alternative export routes and storage to limit the impact of any disruption in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, producing around 9 million bpd, nearly a tenth of global demand, now has a crude pipeline running from the Gulf coast to the Red Sea port city of Yanbu in the west, which would have allowed it to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The pipeline has capacity of 5 million bpd and could probably be expanded by another 2 million bpd. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates, another major OPEC and regional producer, with output of around 3.3 million bpd of crude, has a 1.5 million bpd pipeline linking its onshore oilfields to the Fujairah oil terminal that is east of the Strait of Hormuz. Both countries, as well as Kuwait and Iran, also have significant storage facilities in Asia and Europe that would allow them to continue supplying customers even through brief disruptions. Perhaps the most important reason for the world's diminishing concern over Mideast oil supply disruptions is the simple fact that a smaller percentage of the world's energy supplies now comes from the Middle East. In recent decades, oil production has surged in new basins such as the United States, Brazil, Guyana, Canada and even China. OPEC's share of global oil supply declined from over 50% in the 1970s to 37% in 2010 and further to 33% in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency, largely because of surge in shale oil production in the United States, the world's largest energy consumer. To be sure, the global oil market was well supplied going into the latest conflict, further alleviating concerns. Ultimately, therefore, the Israel-Iran war is further evidence that the link between Middle East politics and energy prices has loosened, perhaps permanently. So geopolitical risk may keep rising, but don't expect energy prices to follow suit. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tabyour essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Sky News
22 minutes ago
- Sky News
UK to buy F-35 stealth jets that can carry US nuclear warheads
The UK will buy at least 12 F-35 stealth jets that can carry nuclear warheads in the most significant strengthening of its nuclear capability in a generation, the government has said. Today, Sir Keir Starmer will tell a summit of NATO allies in The Hague that the new squadron will join an alliance mission that can be armed with US nuclear weapons. The dramatic move will doubtless draw condemnation and concern from Russia and China. But it comes at a time of growing global insecurity - and as the prime minister and his European and Canadian counterparts scramble to convince Donald Trump they are serious about bolstering their ability to defend Europe, instead of overly relying on the US. The US president, a long-standing NATO sceptic, raised questions about whether he would uphold the alliance's founding Article 5 principle - that an attack on one is an attack on all - before he even arrived in the Dutch city last night. 0:36 An urgent need to keep Mr Trump on side has prompted NATO allies to agree to increase spending on defence and national resilience to a new target of 5% of GDP by 2035. As part of this push to rearm, Sir Keir will give the Royal Air Force the ability to carry airborne nuclear warheads for the first time since the 1990s. "In an era of radical uncertainty we can no longer take peace for granted," he said. "These F-35 dual capable aircraft will herald a new era for our world-leading Royal Air Force and deter hostile threats that threaten the UK and our allies. "The UK's commitment to NATO is unquestionable, as is the alliance's contribution to keeping the UK safe and secure, but we must all step up to protect the Euro-Atlantic area for generations to come." 1:05 It was not immediately clear when the F-35 jets would be bought or how much they will cost, but the new squadron will be part of a NATO-led nuclear deterrence mission. That is in contrast to the UK's national nuclear deterrence, based on a fleet of four nuclear-armed submarines, though they too are used to defend the whole of the alliance. Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, applauded the plan - saying: "The UK has declared its nuclear deterrent to NATO for many decades, and I strongly welcome today's announcement that the UK will now also join NATO's nuclear mission and procure the F-35A. "This is yet another robust British contribution to NATO." Aircraft operated by a small number of NATO countries, including Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, are cleared to carry US-provided nuclear weapons in a war. The RAF and the Royal Navy already operate F-35B jets that can fly off Britain's two aircraft carriers, but they are not equipped to drop nuclear warheads. The new planes will be the F-35A variant, operated by the air force, that take off from land but can fly further and be armed with nuclear or conventional weapons. The government said they would all be based together at RAF Marham in Norfolk. The government has long planned to purchase a total of 138 F-35 aircraft, but has so far only acquired around three dozen - seven years since the first jets entered service. The decision to purchase 12 of the A-variant does not mean extra aircraft. It just means a diversification in the fleet - something the RAF has long been pushing for - though it's a decision some in the Royal Navy have long pushed back against, believing it would reduce even further the number of the B-version that operate from their carriers. 2:38 The government described the plan to purchase nuclear-capable aircraft as the "biggest strengthening of the UK's nuclear posture in a generation". Defence Secretary John Healey said a major defence review published earlier in the month highlighted new nuclear risks. "It recommended a new UK role in our collective defence and deterrence through a NATO-first approach," he said. However, the public version of the Strategic Defence Review stopped short of making any specific recommendation. It merely said "the UK must explore how to support the US and its NATO allies in strengthening extended deterrence across the Euro-Atlantic". Lord George Robertson, the lead author of the review, in fact signalled a lack of enthusiasm in such a move. "Yes, we considered it," he told MPs. "The fact that it's not there indicates that we weren't terribly enthusiastic about it. When I was defence secretary the last time round, I got rid of the free-fall bombs." Lord Robertson was defence secretary between 1997 and 1999. Pressed by the Defence Select Committee earlier this month on whether the concept had been ruled out entirely, Lord Robertson added: "We said it should be the subject of further discussion. We didn't rule it out." The F-35 aircraft is made by the US defence giant Lockheed Martin, but the British defence company BAE Systems is also a key contributor.
