The BBC and Jeremy Corbyn
Yesterday I tweeted this:
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/975335522150297600
And I went on to explain why I would not give any further information. But I think there are further matters I can add that would add context and meaning to my tweet.
What can I say about X? My "conversation" - which was conducted entirely in writing - took place with X. X is an individual at the BBC whose seniority and sphere of work is such that it could not sensibly be suggested that X is not properly qualified to speak on such matters.
How did the conversation arise? The conversation took place subsequent to Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader and in the context of a broader conversation about his treatment by the press.
Was the conversation in private? It was not explicitly in private. But I understood it to be part of a private conversation. At the time I asked X whether I could make public an anonymised version. X indicated a preference for me not doing so as to do so might cause a witch hunt.
Why did I tweet what I tweeted? I think it is important I respect X's wish that nothing be said that could conceivably enable X to be identified - including the particular language used by X. But I also think it is important to put this in the public domain - in particular in light of the BBC's response to claims that it is coding into its imagery anti-Corbyn messaging. The tweet represents my attempt to balance those two matters. [Transparency note (i) I am a vigorous critic of Corbyn, especially on the subject of his stance on the EU (ii) I have said I agree with criticisms of the BBC's use of images of Corbyn in front of St Basil's cathedral].
Can I say anything more about the substance of the conversation? X talked explicitly and unambiguously about how criticisms of Corbyn that the BBC could not voice were deliberately coded into imagery. X did not say that this was a general policy of the BBC or that there was some institutional directive to 'smear' Jeremy Corbyn. X clearly understood that X's comments were sensitive for the BBC (see 3. above). [Note: my understanding of the BBC's news/current affairs/politics output is that it is relatively heterodox.]
Given that I will not release images of the written exchanges how can they be verified? I have said that I would swear a statement that my tweet above is true. I am also prepared to consider asking a lawyer, who would be bound by a professional duty of confidentiality, to swear a witness statement saying that s/he has reviewed the written exchange between me and X and that my tweet and this blog post is accurate.