Use of 'quotes' or "quotes", or not, on BBC twitter pages

The request was refused by British Broadcasting Corporation.

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

I recently posed a question to BBC Complaints regarding the use by BBC 'reporters' or 'editors' of "quotes", or not, in sharing things said or described by others, on twitter.

I have had this reply:

"There is no strict style rule when quotes should or shouldn’t be used in tweets. Sometimes it’s self-evident from the series of tweets on one subject whether or not the tweet is a quote, summary of someone being paraphrased”

The BBC is ill-advised to get into areas of what may or may not be self-evident, especially when clearly things need not always be. And presumption that a complete series needs reading from start to finish to convey satisfactory, accurate context is without merit, unless designated 1/2, 2/2, but really defeats the point of twitter. If it can’t be done <140, don’t try.

Which is why the BBC appears to have limitless guidelines, often in mysterious and inaccessible places, that covers, in theory, everything. Presumably twitter, as a key aspect of dissemination for the BBC now, too.

With ‘quotes’, or “quotes”, being deployed by BBC editors and reporters across all broadcast published material platforms so freely, it seems extraordinary that none exists.

Convention on twitter tends to be sentences citing an @person without any quotes would be seen as a question from the sender to them.

Not the BBC’s rules, but “quotes” tend to be direct samples of something written or said. The only way what I raised could possibly work would be as an RT, which would of course raise new questions as it would still suggest personal agenda being pushed if without context.

‘quotes’ do move into uncharted territory, as beyond being used within “quotes” can more often than not seem intended as loose paraphrasing or, less honourably still, adding the tonality of a question of doubt without actually expressing it.

In searching I did find these, which does suggest certain guidance does exist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/...

However, nothing to support or counter the claim made about twitter.

If not, might I suggest such guidance is provided, and soon?

Or does the current BBC lack of accountability and deliberate vagueness on this platform apply with grammar too, or is there more to that loose ’strict’ in the first reply that is offered somewhere, in which case please direct me to it?
Yours faithfully,

Peter Martin

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Peter Martin

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as detailed in your email below. Your request was received on 28 November 2015. We will deal with your request as promptly as possible, and at the latest within 20 working days. If you have any queries about your request, please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your request is RFI20152027.

Kind regards

The Information Policy & Compliance Team

BBC Freedom of Information
BC2 B6, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: [BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2882

show quoted sections

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Martin,

 

Please find attached the response to your request for information,
reference RFI20152027

 

 

Yours sincerely,

The Information Policy and Compliance Team

 

BBC Information Policy and Compliance

BC2A4, Broadcast Centre

201 Wood Lane

London W12 7TP, UK

 

Website: [1]www.bbc.co.uk/foi

Email: [2]mailto:[BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2882

Fax: 020 8008 2398

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi
2. mailto:[BBC request email]

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of British Broadcasting Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Use of 'quotes' or "quotes", or not, on BBC twitter pages'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/u...

I note: "The BBC has a long tradition of making information available and accessible. It seeks to be
open and accountable and already provides the public with a great deal of information about
its activities"

This is hard to reconcile with near every request to garner information to understand how BBC editorial these days is conducted, being met with immediate template rejection.

As best I can assess, the BBC does not have guidance on a pretty crucial piece of editorial reportage, knows it should, which is astounding, but refuses to answer even if it does.

All whom the BBC presumes to 'quote, or "quote", and those reading such 'quotes' or "quotes" should take note, as their provenance and correct usage will remain a closely guarded BBC secret.

As far as trust and transparency in news media goes, that seems less than ideal.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Martin

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Mr Martin,

Thank you for your email, in relation to your FOI request about the use of quotes (Reference: RFI20152027). As stated in our email to you on the 8 December 2015 the BBC does not offer an internal review when the information requested is not covered by the Act, so you are therefore unable to appeal our decision using this process. If you disagree with our decision you can appeal to the Information Commissioner. Contact details are: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF telephone 01625 545 700. https://ico.org.uk/

The BBC's understanding of the scope of the derogation has been informed by numerous cases, including the recent consideration by the Supreme Court, in the case of Sugar (deceased) v British Broadcasting Corporation and another [2012] UKSC 4, of the Schedule 1 'derogation' for the public service broadcasters in relation to journalism. Lord Phillips noted the BBC’s ‘important right to freedom of expression’ and the link between Schedule 1 of the Act and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Additionally, as also recognised by the Supreme Court, it recognises that public service broadcasters caught by the Act (BBC, Channel 4, S4C, MG Alba) should not be placed at a disadvantage to their commercial competitors.

In practical terms, the BBC has interpreted this to mean that we are not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC's output or information that supports or is closely associated with these activities.

You might find it useful to review the Decision Notices from the Information Commissioner, regarding the application of the derogation to information held by the BBC. These Decision Notices can be found at the following URL: http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resource... - using the search function, if you select the BBC as the 'Authority' and FOI 1 as the 'Section' you will find a number of relevant Decision Notices.

Kind Regards,

Information Policy and Compliance

BBC Information Policy and Compliance
BC2A4, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP, UK

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: mailto:[BBC request email]
Tel: 020 8008 2883
Fax: 020 8008 2398

show quoted sections