0:00

This is the BBC. This

0:03

podcast is supported by advertising outside

0:05

the UK. PlushCare

0:31

accepts most insurance plans and gives you

0:33

online access to board-certified physicians who can

0:36

prescribe FDA-approved weight loss medications like Wigovi

0:38

and Zepbound for those who qualify. Take

0:40

charge of your health and speak with

0:42

a board-certified physician about a weight loss

0:45

plan that's right for you. Get

0:48

started today at

0:50

plushcare.com/weight loss. That's

0:52

plushcare.com/weight loss. plushcare.com/weight

0:54

loss. BBC

1:00

Sounds, music, radio, podcasts.

1:03

This is the Media Show from BBC Radio 4.

1:06

This week we're going to talk about

1:08

the Netflix series Baby Reindeer with Piers

1:10

Morgan, with Chris Bennett-Vahler, former head of

1:13

standards at Ofcom, and

1:15

with the former BBC legal affairs

1:17

correspondent turned scriptwriter Clive Coleman.

1:20

And you'll also

1:22

know this music.

1:24

The BBC News

1:28

theme is 25 years old. Its

1:32

composer David Lowe will break down what makes

1:34

great music for news. And we'll also talk

1:37

to the man with the largest collection of

1:39

news theme tunes in the world. That is

1:41

not just me saying it by the way.

1:43

He holds the Guinness World Record. Also the

1:46

journalist who broke the story of

1:48

Sports Illustrated allegedly publishing A.I. generated

1:50

stories while pretending they'd be written

1:53

by people has more

1:55

on how A.I. generated news is

1:57

spreading. And here in the

1:59

studio is Caroline... Wheeler, political editor of the

2:01

Sunday Times. Welcome back to the media show,

2:03

Caroline. Thank you. We want to talk to

2:05

you about your long-running reporting of the infected

2:08

blood scandal, but this weekend you were part

2:10

of the reporting team looking at Nestle Elphick,

2:13

the Tory MP turned Labour MP. Now,

2:15

the former Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, has

2:17

accused her of approaching him before the

2:19

trial of her ex-husband, the former MP,

2:22

Charlie Elphick. Just tell us about your

2:24

scoop. So I think

2:26

within about 15 minutes of Nestle's

2:28

defection to the Labour Party,

2:30

I had my phone pinging, as you

2:33

can imagine. What's up, I'm assuming. It was what's

2:35

up. And one of the first tips that came

2:37

to me was this extraordinary story that

2:40

Nestle Elphick had tried to intervene in her husband's

2:42

case, as it was at the time, by

2:45

trying to influence the law chancellor into

2:48

trying to move the trial of

2:50

Charlie Elphick to a less

2:52

high-profile location. And

2:54

fairly explosive stuff, given that there appeared to be

2:57

a bit of a pattern of behaviour here in

2:59

that Nestle had been suspended from

3:01

the House of Commons previously for

3:03

having tried to influence the

3:06

judge by providing sort of character references

3:08

for Charlie and getting other MPs involved

3:10

in that. So it's a

3:12

fairly sort of explosive tip,

3:14

which obviously I then followed up by

3:17

speaking to all of

3:19

those that were present at this meeting,

3:21

including Robert Buckland himself, who

3:24

appeared to confirm the story. Now, there's been lots of

3:26

sort of question marks about why he only came forward

3:28

after Natalie had defected. Well, I was going to say,

3:30

it's one of those tips that they would have absolutely

3:33

wanted to keep this quiet while she was

3:36

one of their MPs. But once someone

3:38

crosses the floor, the gloves are off. Absolutely.

3:40

And, you know, it's extraordinary seeing these

3:42

defections, because in both instances, both

3:44

Poulter and in this

3:46

particular instance, immediately the kind of

3:49

the black files came out and

3:51

were sort of liberally distributed across

3:53

the lobby. But I mean,

3:55

it's fair to say on this instance, I mean, as

3:57

it was described to me, Robert Buckland did give I

4:00

think the chief whip a he the time. With

4:03

Marks Spencer bit of the graphing down either

4:05

the fact that this meeting had been allowed

4:07

to happen that he had been suggested to

4:09

him that this meeting with can happen the

4:11

absolutely wasn't going to involve this case. I

4:13

am indeed when I cite sources close to

4:15

the chief Whip, he was way say that

4:17

to an air as far as at the

4:19

kind of fool. Out of the I've been

4:21

concerned that Robert had got about as far

4:24

as disciplining the chief whip as can be

4:26

done so cat Given the sort of seniority

4:28

of both they both say he did try

4:30

to kind of raised the alarm. I think

4:32

with the chief would be in charge of

4:34

the discipline of the party because I think

4:36

there's been many questions about why and it

4:38

wasn't raised with any other authority at the

4:40

time but indeed it was it was raised

4:42

with the individual that should have taken action.

4:45

As a good story our line stay with

4:47

us because will be too much. More about

4:49

another very good story later. But before that

4:51

we're going to about baby reindeer and case

4:53

you are the masters on Sunday night on

4:55

get my and I invite of my invite

4:57

Must Go! Lost in the post and baby

4:59

Rain day was coming up a lot right?

5:01

It. Really was I mean for a star the

5:03

stars which said god and adjusted gunning gave her

5:05

an award out and I was in the when

5:08

when that happened and it was a bit of

5:10

confusion the red they they were announced on stage

5:12

and and he could just feel a little bit

5:14

of us last flutter of across the with how

5:17

do we respond and then there was a great

5:19

you'll want than a lot of clapping at the

5:21

but then afterwards he had backstage at the at

5:23

me off the policy of the loss of conversation

5:25

about baby Reindeer clearly in a a program that

5:28

is such a hit but so mired in controversy

5:30

and the main things people. Talking about was

5:32

how could Netflix have called it a

5:34

tree story if. Indeed, it isn't which

5:36

connects to this word. We've heard an awful

5:38

lot in the last few days. Compliance which

5:41

is perhaps not a word that would come

5:43

up in all blast off the policies. But

5:45

this year I imagine people wanted to get

5:47

into the details of of compliance. is exactly

5:49

that and that been caught or the conversations about

5:51

how the b b c o that in a

5:54

public service focuses they wouldn't have ever let this

5:56

happen the compliance scenes in these places are so

5:58

much better that was is it a little

6:00

bit of people feeling quite smug about the fact

6:02

that it might not have happened if it wasn't

6:04

Netflix, if it was on the BBC or ITV.

6:07

But yes, compliance is something we're going to talk about a

6:09

lot later. Now, some of you listening

6:11

will have seen Baby Reindeer, so you know exactly

6:13

what we're talking about. Some of you listening will

6:16

not have seen it. So let's just quickly run

6:18

through what this series is. It tells the story

6:20

of how the Scottish comedian Richard Gadd, who Katie

6:22

was referring to there, was stalked and harassed by

6:24

a woman after serving her in a pub. His

6:27

stalker, who's named Martha in the series,

6:29

allegedly sent him more than 41,000

6:32

emails and left 350 hours of voicemails

6:35

to his phone. Martha also

6:37

turns up at his home and at

6:39

his workplace. And Baby Reindeer, if you're wondering

6:41

where the name came from, that's the nickname that

6:43

his stalker gives him. And in

6:45

the opening sequence of the first episode,

6:48

we're told not that this

6:50

was inspired by true events. You'll recognise

6:52

that phrase because it's used a lot

6:54

in programmes and films. Instead, we're told

6:56

that this is a true story. And

6:59

according to Netflix, it's become a

7:01

worldwide hit, with 60 million views

7:03

globally in one month. Here's

7:05

a clip from the series. Every

7:08

day now, Martha would be outside this ticking

7:10

time bomb on my life. I

7:12

would leave first thing in the morning and she would

7:15

be there. I'm off of your nipples. Think

7:17

of me at work today. Then

7:21

I will come back sometimes as late as 11

7:23

or 12 at night and she would

7:26

still be there. How was your day, Reindeer?

7:28

Did you think of me? I

7:30

never understood what she got from it. Well,

7:33

we contacted Netflix and it declined

7:35

to comment. But Benjamin King, Netflix's

7:37

senior director of public policy, UK

7:39

and Ireland, appeared before the Culture,

7:42

Media and Sports Select Committee last

7:44

week. And MP John Nicholson

7:46

asked him about the series. The

7:49

Navy Ranger is an extraordinary story and

7:51

it is obviously a true story of the

7:53

horrific abuse that

7:56

the writer and protagonist Richard Gadd suffered at

7:58

the hands of the British. a convicted

8:00

stalker, we did take

8:03

every reasonable precaution in disguising

8:05

the real life identities of

8:08

the people involved in

8:11

that story in the making of

8:14

the show. And she's been identified, hasn't

8:16

she? While also striking a balance with

8:18

the veracity and authenticity of Richard's story,

8:20

because we didn't want to anonymise that

8:22

or make it generic to the point

8:24

where it was no longer his story,

8:26

because that would

8:28

undermine the intent behind the show.

8:31

That was Netflix's senior director of public policy in

8:33

the UK and Ireland talking there in

8:35

Parliament. Now, as Roz was saying, the

8:37

series is about its creator Richard Gadd

8:40

being stalked. He also in the programme

8:42

is groomed and raped by a male

8:44

TV comedy executive. Now, Netflix and Richard

8:46

Gadd haven't named either that person, although

8:48

names have been doing the rounds online, or

8:51

the female stalker. But a

8:53

58-year-old woman from Scotland, Fiona Harvey, says

8:55

it is about her after being identified

8:58

and named on the internet as the

9:00

real master. She gave an interview

9:02

to Piers Morgan, which has been watched more

9:04

than 11 million times. Here's a little bit

9:06

of it. She's chosen to confirm

9:08

her identity because she wants to have a

9:10

right of reply. And so

9:12

in her first television interview, she joins

9:15

me now in the studio. Well,

9:18

thank you for joining me, Fiona. First

9:20

of all, why have you decided to go public? The

9:22

internet's flu has tracked me down and honed me

9:25

and gave me death threats. So it wasn't really

9:27

a choice. I was forced into this

9:29

situation. The interview

9:31

was labelled by Unheard as the lowest

9:33

form of television, and I have been

9:35

talking to Piers Morgan about his interview.

9:38

What was going on here was a lot of

9:40

confusion about whether this really was a true story

9:42

or not. It was at that

9:44

point that one of my bookers got hold

9:46

of a phone number for Fiona Harvey, who

9:49

had been identified in other media and social

9:51

media as the real life master. And

9:54

she was very willing immediately

9:56

to come on and talk to me about

9:58

all this because she felt

10:00

that she had been exploited by

10:02

the series, by Netflix, by Richard

10:04

Gadd, by Clark and Wells. And what was the process

10:07

you already? A pretty good reason to do it. And

10:09

how much assessment, what was the process you

10:11

already, how much assessment did you do before

10:13

you decided, yes, absolutely, we're gonna have her on? Well,

10:15

I thought about it carefully because of course, I was still

10:18

under the impression from Netflix and

10:20

Richard Gadd that she was a convicted

10:22

stalker. Now I've interviewed a

10:24

lot of serious criminals in my time

10:26

for crime documentaries from serial killers to

10:28

psychopaths. So I don't think any of

10:30

these things likely. If she was a

10:33

convicted stalker who had gone to prison

10:35

and put his life through hell, clearly

10:37

we had to think long and hard

10:39

about the public interest justification in

10:41

giving her the platform. But I felt that there

10:44

was enough of a question mark

10:46

surrounding that part of the

10:48

story to justify her at least

10:50

giving her side of the story. She is

10:53

emphatic that there was no

10:55

court case, there was no conviction, she certainly

10:57

never pled guilty, she says, and there was

10:59

no prison sentence. And did you do checks

11:01

on her ahead of that? Did you check that out?

11:03

Thought we tried. Did you check out on her mental, whether

11:05

she has mental health issues, whether she had indeed stalked people?

11:08

Yeah, I mean, listen, there were obviously other

11:10

reports of her having stalked other people, but

11:12

again, nothing that led to

11:15

any apparent conviction. And I think

11:17

that is a crucial distinction I would draw here, which

11:19

is there's a big difference legally

11:21

in mind, anything else, between somebody who

11:23

may have been obsessive towards people, they

11:25

have even harassed them. But if

11:28

it hasn't crossed the bar of a crime,

11:30

then to call them in a series where

11:32

they've been immediately identified, a

11:34

convicted criminal, is a serious

11:36

failure by Netflix. Now, I

11:39

would counter that by simply

11:41

saying, we don't know yet, all we do

11:43

know is that the world journalists have been

11:45

looking at this now for nearly a month,

11:47

and nobody's found any evidence whatsoever that she

11:49

has any criminal record, let alone for anything

11:51

to do with Richard Gatt. I

11:54

suppose there's a difference between having a criminal record

11:56

and somebody who may have mental health problems, who

11:58

may have been accused of stalking people. talking may have indeed

12:01

sent thousands, tens and

12:03

thousands of emails. I'm just trying to

12:05

work out how much you considered all that side of things.

12:08

Oh, yeah. I mean, this would be a long conversation

12:10

to about it. But I actually have no I

12:13

have no qualms at all

12:15

about offering her the platform because I

12:18

certainly didn't get the feeling when she came in,

12:20

I was dealing with somebody who was a vulnerable

12:22

person, if anything, she was pretty combative with me.

12:25

And when it comes to the mental health issue,

12:27

Richard Gadd has been very, very

12:29

searingly honest about his own mental

12:31

health issues. And yet that doesn't

12:33

seem to have been connected into people's concerns. He

12:36

was allowed a platform to tell what

12:38

he said was his story. He has

12:40

got self confessed mental health

12:43

issues. He had heavy drug abuse

12:45

issues. He had very promiscuous sex

12:48

life issues and so on, which he talks

12:50

about very frankly, and to his credit, but

12:52

if he's going to be allowed to do

12:54

that, then I think the person that he

12:56

has put up there as a convicted stalker

12:58

who's gone to prison for harassing him should

13:00

be allowed to have her say if, as

13:02

she says, none of that is true. And

13:05

you've been celebrating the ratings. You've got huge numbers

13:07

on that interview. In hindsight,

13:09

does it feel appropriate to be

13:12

celebrating that in these circumstances? Well,

13:15

I think the BBC celebrate a lot less than this. I

13:17

have to be honest. I don't

13:19

think I'll take any lectures about boasting about

13:21

how things have done successfully or

13:23

otherwise. I'm certainly not lecturing you. Absolutely not.

13:25

I'm asking you a question. I would say

13:27

this. I would say this. But the reality

13:30

is, as everyone knows, I pivoted to a

13:32

full digital show several months

13:35

ago, and the reason I did that is

13:37

we were getting gigantic numbers anyway on our

13:39

YouTube channel, the Piers Morgan, a censored YouTube

13:41

channel. And this was a perfect illustration of

13:43

why I wanted to do this. And

13:45

I think it is a story that many

13:47

people in the media are going to be

13:49

pursuing for themselves, because last week

13:52

we had, for example, 200,000 plus new

13:54

subscribers to

13:57

our YouTube channel, taking us to nearly three

13:59

million subscribers. Now, am I going to

14:01

be, well, it's not to be a question, am

14:03

I going to be regretful that we did really

14:05

well? No. Why would I? My whole

14:07

job is to get people to watch the content. I

14:10

suppose some people would say, if you

14:12

have a, you know, a business model

14:14

where everything is about clicks and hits

14:16

and it's understandable that it is because

14:18

that's the model, then this is where

14:20

potentially you end up, potentially with somebody

14:22

who other people are suggesting you've exploited

14:24

by putting on television. But

14:26

the irony of that is the whole point of her doing

14:28

it was that she felt exploited. And who

14:30

is throwing these brickbacks? The Guardian

14:33

have done about 18,000 columns so

14:35

far, steaming with rage about this. And

14:37

of course, those columns are all getting clickbait. And

14:40

you know, the people, to be fair, Fiona Harvey is

14:42

now suggesting that you didn't pay her enough,

14:44

that she feels used. She says you paid

14:46

her £250. Is

14:49

that right? Well, we don't discuss individual

14:51

painters. What I would say is she got paid

14:53

the same as 95% of all, I guess, and

14:56

was completely happy to be paid that amount before

14:58

she sat down with me. We also paid her

15:00

to have a very- Hang on. Hang

15:03

on. We also paid her to have

15:05

a very nice expensive haircut and we got a

15:07

very nice car to bring her to and from

15:09

her home. So I think we treated her extremely

15:11

reasonably and fairly. And certainly in keeping with how

15:13

we treat most of our guests, we don't pay

15:15

big money for any interviews with anybody. So there's

15:18

nothing unusual about the way she was treated. And

15:20

I'm not going to apologise for it being well-watched. I

15:23

mean, I just think it's indicative of

15:25

the global phenomenon that baby Randy has

15:27

become. The interview went around the world

15:29

and for everyone squealing like the Guardian

15:32

about it being exploiting, well, they gave

15:34

a big platform to Richard Gadd and

15:36

allowed him to repeat all this

15:39

stuff about Fiona Harvey. Is

15:41

that not exploiting her? I mean, where

15:43

does the exploitation line go? Hang

15:46

on. Why is it

15:48

Richard Gadd is allowed to have his

15:50

say with all his troubles And

15:53

is allowed to effectively exploit her and

15:55

have her out there without any control

15:58

or approval by her? The

16:00

last respond. Or let's talk about the financial,

16:02

what you've had a career and tabloid journalism. You

16:04

would know the financial worth of an interview like

16:06

this. When you are nice they bread is wrong

16:08

with you. Had a check back to buy stories

16:10

like this how much you thing has stories was

16:13

to the media. A.

16:15

Dot Moments of.com A minimum of the biggest

16:17

interview I've had probably my life is Christina

16:19

Ronaldo. I paid him not pence so she

16:21

got two hundred and fifty pounds more than

16:24

a Christian Ronaldo If you believe the figures

16:26

been put in the papers. A seat As

16:28

you want The million pound. They see gonna get

16:30

it for me. She's. Not going to

16:32

get a million basil minutes. Are very happy

16:35

with perfectly happy with the great some. Answers.

16:38

And on And that was the conditions

16:40

in which we did interviews out of

16:42

it was all been completely. Normally there's

16:44

no question about that. brings in in

16:46

in the question of whether I should

16:49

feel regretful this been successful. I find

16:51

that a very averse charge the most.

16:53

I don't see the Bbc apologizing when

16:55

you do stuff with rates well Saddam

16:57

of your say thousand. Dollars The axis

16:59

of a business. And levy some phone calls have

17:02

a. City you can sit there and

17:04

hours into did you consider that you had

17:06

a duty of care towards her. Absolutely.

17:08

And I think we fulfill that Utica

17:10

a damn sight better the Netflix and

17:12

will agree Amazon will. Vote

17:15

to have my my team spending

17:17

a lot of time with her

17:19

before, during, and after and currently.

17:21

A spending a lot of time talking

17:24

to our aware the by do this

17:26

interview she would be putting yourself out

17:28

there to the world and aware that

17:30

you know clearly see might have and

17:32

I say might have. She might have

17:34

mental health issues but these are no

17:36

and you that she has admitted to

17:38

the not any any was provided any

17:40

actual evidence of and the suggestion the

17:42

she's a convicted stoke appears to be

17:44

untruth so I think we should before

17:46

we leave to presumption this about the

17:48

state of a mental health. I. would

17:51

argue that for a first time into

17:53

the is with somebody never given a

17:55

television interview secret to solve extremely well

17:57

very combat is very direct in her

18:00

No, I didn't believe a lot of

18:02

what she was saying, but that doesn't

18:04

make her mentally vulnerable or mentally ill.

18:06

So people should be careful before they

18:08

say she was. And you've since done

18:10

a segment, I think, on your show. You've titled it.

18:12

She's either lying, she's truthful or has a disorder, which

18:14

I know is a quote from somebody who you interviewed.

18:17

If there is a possibility that she has a

18:20

disorder, are you at all worried

18:22

about the impact of all this attention

18:24

on her? Well, of course,

18:26

there wouldn't be with any guess. That's why I

18:28

say we've been talking to her before, during and

18:30

after, and making sure she's okay. But again, I

18:32

come back to the fact that Richard Gadde, by

18:35

his own admission, has had serious mental

18:37

health issues. Nobody seems to

18:39

be asking the same questions about why

18:41

Netflix platformed him in a story about

18:43

his life, which now appears to not

18:45

be entirely accurate. Is that

18:47

exploiting somebody with mental health issues, given

18:50

that Gadde himself has admitted it? So

18:53

I think there's a lot of hypocrisy

18:55

here and double standard when it comes

18:57

to treating Richard Gadde and his life

18:59

and treating Fiona Harvey and her life.

19:01

And just to clarify, because I know Talk

19:04

TV, you obviously used to be on Talk

19:06

TV, the linear channel, you're

19:08

now online, but Talk

19:10

TV is still part, is obviously part of

19:12

News UK. Are you, as

19:15

Piers Morgan uncensored online, still part

19:17

of the News UK codes when

19:19

it comes to compliance processes around duty

19:22

of care, that sort of thing? Well,

19:25

I think I am to my company. We're

19:27

not Ofcom regulated now because Ofcom doesn't

19:30

regulate shows like mine in the way

19:32

that we're doing it on YouTube. But

19:35

I'm certainly aware that YouTube have a code

19:37

of practice, News UK has a code of

19:39

practice. So I'm very aware of

19:41

that. And we've had no complaints from anybody.

19:43

So I think that much as

19:45

I admire your persistence in pushing this narrative

19:48

that somehow I've exploited a vulnerable person, she

19:50

doesn't see herself as vulnerable. She doesn't think

19:52

we've exploited her, she would have liked to

19:54

have been paid more money. And

19:57

when it comes to exploiting vulnerable people, what

19:59

about Netflix? What about Clark and

20:01

Wale films? What about Richard Gagg? Did

20:03

they ask all these questions before they

20:06

decided to paint a picture of this

20:08

woman Martha, which could only

20:10

have been one person in the world, and

20:12

that was Fiona Harvey? I don't think they

20:14

did, and they also went further. It looks

20:17

like they may have completely invented the fact

20:19

that she was a convicted stalker who

20:22

had actually gone to prison for the crime

20:24

of harassing Richard Gagg. Now, if that is

20:26

true, how would you categorise that

20:28

in this scale of exploitation? Are

20:30

you trying to find the TV producer that in the

20:32

programme is accused of grooming and raping Richard

20:35

Gagg as well? Well, I don't know who

20:37

it is, but I'm very struck again by

20:39

some very high-profile people in the business saying

20:41

they know who it is. Well, why aren't

20:44

you telling people? Why aren't you telling

20:46

the authorities? Why aren't you telling their employers? If there

20:49

is a rapist in our business and

20:51

they know who it is but aren't doing anything about that

20:53

information, then that

20:56

surely should ask some pretty

20:58

serious questions of them. So I

21:00

think they should stop opining about my

21:02

interview and start looking at themselves in

21:04

the mirror and wondering if they're doing

21:06

the right thing about the rapist allegation.

21:09

That was Piers Morgan speaking to me a little earlier.

21:12

No, you recorded that case just before we went on air, so I hadn't heard

21:14

that. Lots to take

21:16

in. What did you make of it? I

21:18

mean, I would say, first of all, it's typically Piers Morgan, isn't

21:20

it? It's combative. He has no regrets. Why

21:23

would he, in a sense? The interview has been a

21:25

huge success. It's given him spin-off shows

21:27

to talk about. And if I

21:29

was being tough, I'd say his channel has

21:31

had a bit of a sense of failure

21:33

around it because of the demise of talk

21:35

TV as a linear channel. And now here

21:38

he is with these incredible numbers. He's gone

21:40

fully digital. He's got these incredible numbers. The

21:42

profile of his new show has gone up dramatically as

21:45

a result of the Fiona Harvey interview. But

21:47

that doesn't mean there aren't questions, of course,

21:49

and questions that will continue around exploitation. Duty

21:52

of care particularly depends what emerges

21:54

next. Well, let's get into

21:56

those questions because with us is Clive

21:58

Coleman, former BBC News lead. affairs correspondent,

22:00

also a trained barrister, and now in

22:02

PR and also writes plays and films.

22:05

Hi Clive. Hello. Good to have you

22:07

on the program. And Chris Bannett-Vahler is

22:09

an independent media consultant and former head

22:11

of standards at Ofcom. Chris, you're very

22:13

welcome on the media show too. And

22:15

let me start with you. From a

22:17

point of view of standards and compliance,

22:19

Chris, what's your reading of how baby

22:21

reindeer has gone about its work? Well,

22:24

I think sort of first responding to Piers Morgan, I

22:26

think this has become a bit of a media circus,

22:28

to be honest with you. And I think what we

22:30

really don't know here is what the truth is behind

22:32

all of this. And what I would

22:34

urge Netflix to

22:37

do is to actually do an inquiry review

22:39

into this and find out actually how this

22:41

program was made, how accurate it was, and

22:43

whether any harm has actually been caused. So

22:45

I'm trying to answer your question. Chris, just

22:47

to reiterate before you do, I just want

22:49

to be absolutely clear at the beginning of

22:51

this series, it says without caveat, this is

22:53

a true story. Yes, you're

22:55

absolutely right. But of course, it is also

22:58

a drama. So there's a bit of artistic

23:00

license there. So this is a true story,

23:02

you're watching a drama doc or drama, and

23:04

what expectations do you take as a view

23:07

to that? What do you expect? So for

23:09

instance, you've mentioned that, that

23:11

she sent allegedly 41,000 emails. Now,

23:13

if that was actually only 400,

23:16

that could be potentially problematic. If on the other

23:18

hand, it was 20,000, you might say, actually,

23:21

it doesn't make a difference. It would be

23:23

inaccurate, but it wouldn't necessarily be unfair to

23:25

her. And that's really where the whole

23:27

regulatory sort of spectrum comes

23:29

in with regard to this program is, was

23:31

it unfair to her and also did it

23:34

unfairly? So I did it print infringe her

23:36

privacy without justification. And those are the two

23:38

key questions taken into account what the announcement

23:40

said at the beginning of the program. Help

23:43

me out here, Chris, as I'm listening to

23:45

you list the questions that need to be

23:47

answered. Whose responsibility is it to answer them?

23:49

Is it solely on Netflix or is Netflix

23:52

having to play by a set of rules

23:54

that applies more broadly to program makers

23:56

in the UK? Well, Netflix

23:59

is not a board. caster, it doesn't have to

24:01

comply with the off-com broadcasting code. It

24:03

does have to comply with what is

24:05

called a video on demand code, which

24:08

is actually very low level, such as

24:10

no incitement, no racism, protection of under

24:12

18s. It doesn't have to comply with

24:14

rules around impartiality, accuracy, but in reference

24:16

to this programme, fairness and privacy. Having

24:19

said that, there is a new media

24:21

bill that is going through the House

24:23

of Lords at the moment that will

24:25

require them to comply with TV light

24:27

regulation, and that will include privacy and

24:30

fairness. Do you agree with that? Yeah,

24:32

I think it's inevitable that these streamers

24:35

such as Netflix and Disney, they're all

24:37

as pervasive in people's homes as broadcasters

24:39

are, and there should be a level

24:42

playing field. And I think

24:44

that's absolutely right, yes. In

24:46

terms of how someone's

24:48

experience translates into a drama, is

24:50

it ever going to be possible

24:52

to regulate it in a way

24:54

that ensures that what the viewer

24:57

has the impression of, as what

24:59

happened, is actually accurate? That's going

25:01

to be very hard to regulate, isn't it?

25:03

Yes, well, with all these things, it's very difficult

25:06

to regulate someone's perception. But having said that, there's

25:08

a very traditional broadcasting, there's a

25:10

very good set of rules around fairness, what

25:12

you can and can't do, and when the

25:14

line is crossed, and when you are being

25:16

unfair to someone. And it goes to sort

25:18

of factual accuracy. Has TV portrayed in a

25:20

way that is unfair to her? So questions

25:22

around, did she or did she not go

25:24

to prison? I actually don't know the answer

25:26

to these questions. And that's why I think

25:28

it's so important to get to an understanding

25:30

and the truth of this, to find out

25:33

actually whether it was unfair. And, you

25:35

know, for instance, her infringement of privacy,

25:37

has there been an infringement of privacy?

25:39

What did the program that created jigsaw

25:41

effect, are you lots of little pieces

25:43

that people identify? Or had she already

25:45

identified herself online, as being the potential

25:47

stalker of Richard Gagg? I don't know

25:49

the answer to that. So that the

25:52

public, the information might already have been

25:54

out there. I know that

25:56

Netflix has said that they didn't mean to

25:58

identify her inverted commas. But she

26:00

may have already identified herself before. I don't know

26:02

the answer to that. And

26:04

what, just Chris, before I bring in Clive Coleman,

26:07

what duty of care does Netflix have to real

26:09

people in dramas? Well, if

26:11

she wasn't identifiable, if no one knew who

26:13

she was, then obviously it was a made

26:15

up person and therefore the duty of care

26:18

wouldn't really exist. However, whenever you make a

26:20

programme and you are dealing with potentially vulnerable

26:22

people, whether that's Richard Gad or Fiona Harvey,

26:24

then there is a duty of care. It's

26:26

not a regulatory one at the moment for

26:29

Netflix because often doesn't oversee it. But there

26:31

is a general responsibility for an organisation like

26:33

Netflix, which is or should be very responsible.

26:36

Let me bring in now Clive Coleman,

26:38

former BBC News legal affairs correspondent, our

26:40

former colleague, Trane Barista, now

26:42

writing yourself plays in films. What's your take

26:44

both as a writer and a trained lawyer?

26:48

So as a writer, it's interesting, I brought with

26:50

me a contract, there was a writing contract that

26:52

I had to sign. The writers are asked to

26:54

give warranties. And let me read

26:57

this one. This is from the Duke, which

26:59

was a film where the two principal characters

27:01

actually were both dead. Fantastic film about the

27:03

theft of the theft of the

27:05

amazing artworks. Correct. Duke of Wellington's

27:07

portrait. Thank you. That's kind

27:09

of you. But some of the other

27:11

characters were still alive. So we had

27:14

to, Richard Bean, myself who wrote it

27:16

had to sign this contract. And one

27:18

of the clauses reads that to the

27:20

best of the writer's knowledge and belief

27:22

after due inquiry, the work will not

27:24

contain defamatory or obscene or racially inflammatory

27:26

or blasphemous matter of any kind. So

27:28

as a writer, you take this incredibly

27:30

seriously, and you really do do your

27:32

due diligence. I take it maybe more

27:34

seriously than other writers, because I've also sat

27:37

in a few defamation cases, and I would never want

27:39

to be part of one myself. But

27:41

so you, you, of course,

27:43

Richard Gadd is writing a story about

27:45

terrible things that happened to him. And

27:47

you never want to stop an individual

27:49

who has been the subject of abuse

27:51

from, from telling their story. But there

27:53

are boundaries and there are guidelines and

27:55

the rule of defamation provides those. And

27:57

so what's so curious about this is

27:59

that have that statement, that the

28:01

bold statement with no qualification that this

28:04

is a true story. You then have

28:06

Richard Gadd saying later on that he

28:08

in fact tweaked it slightly to create

28:10

dramatic climaxes and then he says that

28:13

it is emotionally true. Well that's... Yes,

28:15

is emotional true the concept recognised in

28:17

law? No, well it

28:19

isn't in the law of defamation. You say

28:22

something about a character and it is either

28:24

true or it is not true and I

28:26

agree there's so much we don't know here

28:28

but if it is the case there

28:30

were no 41,000 emails, there were no 350 hours of... But

28:34

if there were 20,000? If there

28:37

were 20,000 then I think

28:40

there's much less of a case in terms of

28:42

defamation. I mean the key point I says here

28:44

is digital didn't you go to prison because the

28:46

programme ends, sorry to be a spoiler for anybody

28:48

who hasn't seen it, but it ends with

28:50

her being imprisoned for stalking. Yeah and she

28:52

was adamant on Piers Morgan's show that there

28:55

was no conviction and as he said I

28:57

don't always agree with Piers Morgan, two things

28:59

that he said is one that no one's

29:01

been able to find a conviction so

29:04

that at the moment she's go towards

29:06

her version of events. Also, but

29:09

mind you one other observation I would make

29:11

about your interview which was a pretty sparky

29:13

one with Piers not surprisingly was that

29:16

I would never confuse someone

29:18

appearing to be very confident with the fact

29:20

that they do not have mental health issues

29:22

because the two things are absolutely not

29:25

one and the same thing. We've all interviewed

29:27

quite a bit. That's a really key point.

29:29

So when Piers Morgan says I don't think

29:31

she had mental health issues, I

29:35

have no idea whether she has or

29:37

hasn't. I don't think Piers Morgan as

29:39

a journalist is necessarily qualified to say

29:41

whether or not someone has mental health

29:43

issues and I'll just remind everybody of

29:46

the Jeremy Karl show where they said,

29:48

ITB said a number of times what

29:50

wonderful compliance regime they had in place

29:52

to protect people and we know that

29:54

wasn't the case. These are very, very

29:56

sensitive issues and people

29:58

are very vulnerable. You've got to be very careful.

30:01

I genuinely do not know about this

30:03

woman, but I think I prefer to

30:05

take a professional's view than a journalist

30:07

or actually sometimes some compliance people. Yes,

30:10

I certainly know my experience. I don't know

30:12

that he didn't do this. His program didn't

30:14

do this, but certainly in my experience with

30:16

vulnerable contributors, we have at times, you know,

30:18

had psychiatric assessments done by independent psychiatrists to

30:20

ensure that it is appropriate to put them

30:22

on television, even if they really want to go

30:24

on television themselves. It's a huge thing though, as

30:27

you will know, I mean, in the reality shows

30:29

now, there is massive support for people who are

30:31

suddenly going to be thrust into the public glare.

30:34

They work with psychologists. They have, you

30:36

know, they work before the program, during

30:39

the program and after the program. So

30:41

this concept of duty of care is

30:43

critical. I think there are three key

30:45

issues here for me. Defamation is one.

30:48

They're all related. Duty of care and

30:50

actually reputation, because in terms of defamation,

30:52

let's assume that Fiona Harvey is 100% right

30:54

on everything, just for the sake of this

30:57

example. Well, then she can

30:59

bring a successful defamation action against Richard

31:01

Gadd and Netflix, because all she'd

31:03

have to prove is that it was untrue. She

31:06

suffered serious harm, and if there were death threats,

31:08

then that's that box ticked, you

31:10

know, and that would lead to a successful claim. You

31:12

know, then you've got

31:15

duty of care, and

31:17

there are really big question marks about that. Now,

31:19

Netflix might not care that they lose a defamation

31:21

case because they've got hugely, you know,

31:23

vast amounts of money. But

31:25

where I think it will bite is if

31:27

they failed in their duty of care, then

31:30

it becomes a big reputational issue for Netflix,

31:32

because people don't like that kind of stuff.

31:34

They don't like a vulnerable person being thrown

31:36

to the wolves, you know, and

31:38

they do vote with their feet or their

31:40

subscriptions. And I think that's... And

31:42

there's been a kind of weird deafening

31:44

silence from Netflix thus far on

31:47

all of this. But I think that, you know,

31:49

if the public sort of changed their views that

31:51

there was a... or are of the view that

31:54

there was a massive failure of duty of

31:56

care here, and, you

31:58

know, failure on the whole of his life has been... really

32:00

impacted negatively as a result of that. I

32:02

think that's the big issue for Netflix. Clive,

32:05

let's turn this around again and let's

32:07

assume that everything that Richard

32:10

Gadd has betrayed is accurate. We don't

32:12

know that, but let's assume that it

32:14

is. Do you still have

32:16

reservations about duty of care, even if

32:18

all of this is true? Are there

32:20

circumstances in which a drama shouldn't be made, even

32:23

if it is accurate? Well I think it should,

32:25

no. I think you've always got to protect the

32:27

rights of someone, as I say, to tell their

32:29

story. But I think the issue here is what

32:31

did they do to hide the

32:34

identity of Fiona Harvey? And

32:36

I've written things

32:38

where you go to great lengths to

32:40

disguise the

32:45

trail, if you like,

32:47

because online sleuthing is not exactly

32:49

a national pastime, but there are a dedicated group

32:51

of people for whom it is kind of an

32:53

obsession. And in the world we live in, people

32:55

are just going to find out stuff. So you

32:58

have to take enormous care, course tell your story,

33:00

and tell your story about what someone did

33:02

to you that was awful. But if they are

33:04

also a vulnerable person, then your duty of care

33:07

kicks in and I think you need to do

33:09

everything you can to avoid them being identified. Because

33:12

the consequences can be really dreadful and then

33:14

no one would feel good about anything. Clive,

33:17

thank you very much indeed. That's Clive Coleman.

33:19

Thanks as well to Chris who is joining

33:21

us. And I suppose, Katie, as we listen

33:24

to this unfold, some people listening might be

33:26

surprised we haven't heard more from

33:28

Netflix. We heard one spokesperson answering questions

33:30

from MPs. But apart from that, not

33:32

very much at all. We haven't. We

33:34

haven't heard anything from Netflix. And I don't know whether that's

33:37

going to change, but at the moment it doesn't seem like

33:39

it's going to. I mean, clearly two

33:41

things for me that come out of this are

33:43

one, we've got to look at what else emerges,

33:45

whether a legal case does proceed and also who

33:47

it's going to be against. Is it going to

33:49

be against Netflix or is it going to also

33:52

be or only be against Clark and Wells films

33:54

which made the show and potentially

33:56

were the ones who were checking through compliance? Obviously

33:58

Netflix must have had a whole compliance team as

34:00

well involved in it, or should have done, worth

34:03

saying, Clark and Well Films is owned

34:05

by BBC Studios. I think also just

34:07

more widely, if you think about this

34:09

programme, at its heart there are, it

34:11

appears, at least two damaged people, one

34:13

of whom Richard Gadd, who apparently has

34:15

gone through some pretty horrific experiences and

34:18

should be having his moment

34:20

in the sun and absolutely isn't, and that must

34:22

be devastating for him and awful. And

34:24

then I've also been wondering about whether there is

34:26

a slight double standard here, if it was the

34:28

other way round, if it was

34:30

a programme about a woman who'd been

34:33

stalked and the male stalker, would we

34:35

be treating it in the same way?

34:37

Would Piers Morgan have had more doubts

34:39

about having a man on the show,

34:41

whether we knew or not, quite

34:43

what the ins and outs of it were? So there's lots at play here,

34:46

but I think one thing we can say is it's going to continue. I

34:48

was going to say it's not going anywhere. Certainly not. No,

34:50

it's not. Thanks to Chris Bennett-Vahner, former

34:53

Ofcom director of standards and Clive Coleman,

34:55

who's here in the Media Show studio.

34:57

Also here in the Media Show studio

34:59

is Caroline Wheeler from The Sunday Times.

35:01

And Caroline, we all know you from

35:03

your political reporting, but alongside your political

35:05

reporting, you've also spent 20 years looking

35:07

at something very different following the story

35:09

of the infected blood scandal. Yes, you'll

35:11

recall that more than 30,000 people

35:13

in the UK were infected with HIV

35:16

and hepatitis C after being given contaminated

35:18

blood products during the 70s and 80s.

35:20

It's thought that about 2,900 people have

35:22

died as a

35:24

result. Well, Caroline's workers contributed to the

35:26

establishment of the public inquiry into the topic,

35:29

which will be released its final report on

35:31

Monday. And Caroline, I wonder if there were

35:33

moments if you doubted if such a public

35:35

inquiry would happen? All the time. I

35:37

mean, absolutely all the time. Most of the time,

35:39

instead of 20 plus years I've been

35:41

reporting it, it has felt like

35:44

kind of howling into the wind, really. And,

35:46

you know, no matter how many harrowing stories

35:48

we've told over those years of

35:50

the absolutely terrible suffering that this scandal

35:52

has wrought on its victims. You

35:55

know, it was often a story that was

35:57

relegated to the back pages, the middle pages

35:59

of the paper and not something that that

36:01

people were kind of listening to. And actually,

36:04

you know, even talking about it today with

36:06

campaigners, the fact we thought that public inquiry

36:08

was more by accident and chance than it

36:10

was by kind of design in

36:12

that it was a kind of political moment that

36:14

kind of precipitated that. And largely it

36:17

was down to the fact that the DUP had

36:19

committed to public inquiry

36:21

in their manifesto. And none of

36:23

us could have foreseen that in 2017, when

36:26

Theresa May lost her majority, the DUP

36:28

would suddenly be holding the balance of power.

36:31

And I remember sitting in Portcullis' house with

36:33

Dame Diana Johnson, who's obviously been honoured for

36:35

her role in this scandal,

36:37

when we had this kind of penny drop moment

36:40

and realised, gosh, there is now

36:42

a majority of opposition parties in favour

36:44

of this, and indeed the DUP swaying

36:47

the balance in favour of it. And

36:49

we got a letter together, which

36:51

ended up making about 400 words on

36:54

page four of the Sunday Times. And

36:56

little did we know that that letter at the time

36:58

would be used to ask for a debate in

37:01

the House of Commons by Diana. And that

37:03

about an hour before that debate was due

37:05

to take place, I got a phone call

37:07

from Downing Street telling me that the Prime

37:10

Minister was about to announce a public inquiry

37:12

and not to tell anybody. So of course,

37:14

I phoned Diana, I phoned Andy Burdam, I

37:17

phoned some of the leading campaigners, and then I phoned my mum. And

37:20

it was definitely one of those moments in

37:22

journalism that I don't think I'll ever have

37:24

again, where the kind of hairs

37:26

stand up on the back of your neck and

37:28

you just kind of go, wow, we did

37:30

something that made a real change and a real

37:33

difference. But that was a long

37:35

time ago now, it feels like almost half a

37:37

career ago that that happened.

37:39

When was that moment? Can you remember

37:41

the moment where you encountered the

37:44

story and thought goodness? Well,

37:46

the story itself, I mean, even longer ago,

37:48

in fact, my first week as a journalist,

37:51

I was working as a rookie reporter

37:53

on the Sunday Mercury newspaper, which was

37:56

the kind of West Midlands equivalent of the news of

37:58

the world. It was a red top Sunday newspaper. newspaper,

38:01

which had a kind of a great campaigning

38:03

history. And I

38:05

was kind of put on duty to pick up the

38:07

ringings, as they were called in those days, where you

38:09

had to engage with members of the public. And

38:11

it often fell to the most junior members of the

38:13

reporting team to kind of differentiate between

38:15

what was the story and what wasn't.

38:17

And I spoke to a chap called

38:20

Mick Mason, who I'm still in touch with today.

38:22

I'm going to meet him for the first time at

38:24

the public inquiry. We've only ever spoken over the phone

38:26

before, and we WhatsApp each other

38:28

regularly. And he's one of the characters in

38:31

the book I've written on this tragedy called

38:33

Death in the Blood. And

38:35

he told me this most unbelievable

38:37

story about how he had

38:39

been infected with HIV with hepatitis C.

38:42

And he just received a letter telling him that

38:44

he may have been infected with variant CJD,

38:46

which at the time in old money

38:48

was mad cow's disease. And

38:51

he was at his wit's end and saying that

38:53

he was still being forced to take treatment that

38:55

was risky for him to take.

38:57

He was going to go on a treatment strike as

39:00

a hemophiliac as he was. That was going to be

39:02

very risky for him. And he

39:04

told me this story. And I remember thinking at

39:06

the time he was some kind of conspiracy theorist

39:08

and potentially was sort of making it all up.

39:11

But I did some research, and that was in

39:13

the days where we didn't really have so

39:15

much internet access. So it was kind of really

39:18

trawling through the archives online to

39:20

find any history of this. And

39:22

every word he told me turned out to be true. You've

39:25

done the research not just then, but in

39:27

the years subsequently. Is it a source

39:29

of frustration that perhaps more of the

39:31

media didn't pay attention, pay

39:33

close attention to the story earlier? I

39:37

think it's really difficult to say because certain

39:39

factions of the media have been fantastic on

39:41

this. And I'm very lucky to report for

39:43

the Sunday Times, which should have campaigned on

39:45

this in the 80s and was

39:47

taking this very seriously. I think the BBC has

39:49

done some fantastic work on it too. And lots

39:52

of regional journalists who have had campaigners in

39:55

their constituents have also followed the story. But

39:57

it's just taken so long. I

40:00

think that that's been part of the problem is

40:02

the spawning kind of ebbs and flows, because

40:05

we just haven't been able to get anywhere very

40:07

quickly, which means the momentum behind the story

40:09

is often lost. I think

40:11

also there has been an issue around the fact that

40:13

obviously when all of this was happening

40:15

and the story was really at its peak in the

40:17

mid 80s, HIV was,

40:19

you know, there was incredible stigma around

40:22

HIV. And another one of

40:24

the stories that I've followed very closely was

40:27

the story of a Birmingham family. They

40:29

were all hemophiliacs. There were seven brothers,

40:32

five of whom were infected, five of whom are

40:34

now dead. And one of those

40:36

brothers, and I remember the story because I

40:38

grew up in Birmingham, and was

40:40

basically accused of having gone around

40:42

recklessly infecting women with HIV. And

40:45

as a consequence, ended up on the front page

40:47

of every national newspaper as a kind

40:49

of pariah, you know, there were columns written about

40:51

the fact that people with HIV who

40:54

had been infected through this scandal should be rounded up

40:56

and put on a kind of island in the middle

40:58

of the, you know, in the middle of the North

41:00

Sea. And there was just such

41:02

stigma around that. And, you know, hepatitis C has

41:05

also had stigma around, you know, the types of

41:07

people that suffer from that kind of illness. But

41:09

I think, you know, it did make it a difficult

41:11

story to report on for a lot of time. And,

41:14

you know, thankfully, that's now changed. But

41:17

I think it's been that issue around momentum

41:19

that's been so difficult to just keep on

41:22

going and keep on going. And

41:24

Karen, can I ask you because, you know, clearly incredible

41:26

to get that phone call in your first week as

41:28

a journalist, and then to report

41:30

research it and then to realise and then take it

41:32

to every newspaper you move to, you took the story

41:34

and you moved it on. And then

41:37

we've got to the point where, you know, soon

41:39

this week, this week coming publication of the report,

41:41

does it feel like a vindication of all that work you've

41:44

done over the last 20 years? I

41:46

can't really get to that point because the

41:48

community at the moment is so

41:51

nervous and so anxious. And

41:53

I think, you know, when you look at the

41:55

impact of this particular scandal, and I think

41:57

people only see about it as kind of

41:59

large, lives lost, but there's actually still people

42:01

living with these illnesses. And, you know, they've

42:04

had no financial security. Many of them have

42:06

never been able to get a mortgage. They

42:08

can't go on holiday because they can't get

42:10

travel insurance. Some of them have chosen not

42:12

to get married, chosen not to have children.

42:14

You know, the toll of this is so

42:17

phenomenal. It's got echoes for me, as you're

42:19

saying, it's got echoes of the post office.

42:21

I know ITV's Greenlit a drama series about

42:23

the infected blood scandal. Do you think that's

42:25

going to have, were you hoping it's going

42:27

to have the kind of impact that the

42:30

post office one has? Oh, absolutely. And I think that's

42:32

what the campaign is want more than anything is, you

42:35

know, somebody to take their story and put

42:37

it on the front page every single day

42:39

for weeks and weeks and weeks. And, you

42:41

know, there would never be a kind of

42:43

hierarchy of suffering. But I think, you know,

42:45

in their darker moments, they do look at

42:47

the horizon scandal and they think, you know,

42:49

why, why haven't we been treated the same

42:51

way? And I, I really hope that on

42:53

Monday and leading into the weekend, they

42:55

have that kind of moment. And, you know, it

42:57

has been building up, I think, you know, most

42:59

national newspapers, most broadcasters have now picked this story

43:01

up and have started to do a kind of whole

43:04

series of pieces on it. And I think that that

43:06

will be incredibly welcome. But, you know,

43:08

we're not out of the woods yet. We hope there's

43:10

going to be a government statement. I'm told there will

43:12

be next week. I'm told there

43:14

will be a compensation package. There's so many

43:16

anomalies in this story, you know, people that

43:19

have learned children, they've lost parents,

43:21

you know, there's just so many complexities of

43:23

it. I just hope that whatever the government

43:25

comes up with does deliver justice to them

43:27

in some way and that the findings of

43:29

the inquiry give them answers and

43:31

closure. Caroline Wiener, thank you so much. And

43:33

congratulations to you on those tireless, tireless years

43:35

of looking at this story. And you

43:38

can find Caroline's reporting on this story on the

43:40

Sunday Times website. There's also more details on it

43:42

on the BBC News website, too. Now, next here

43:44

on The Media Show, we're going to talk about

43:46

how the news is packaged

43:48

for us all to consume specifically.

43:50

We're going to talk about theme

43:52

tunes because the BBC News theme

43:55

is 25 years old and

43:57

David Lowe is here. He composed it.

44:00

Hello, welcome to the Media Show and just tell me

44:02

when they approached you, what did they say they wanted?

44:05

Well the idea was, yes thanks for having me on

44:07

the show, it wanted to

44:09

be something completely different, radically new, something

44:12

that hadn't been heard before that was

44:14

distinctive and instantly recognisable and completely getting

44:16

away from any of the previous

44:19

sounds of news scenes that we'd heard in the

44:21

past. It

44:23

had to also be a very recognisable

44:25

sound instantly that I could

44:28

use across all of the news

44:30

media, radio, TV, online in

44:32

different ways but you'd still immediately

44:34

recognise it as the news. And where

44:37

did you start? What was your initial thought?

44:42

We were just talking about sounds that

44:44

we'd heard that were sort of in a

44:46

brainstorming type of meeting of sounds

44:48

and one of the sounds that came up as

44:50

a recognisable sound was of course a great H-time

44:53

signal PIPs that we all know that the BBC's

44:55

used since 1926 on Radio 4 obviously. So

44:59

as soon as you hear that PIP, if

45:01

you're in the kitchen making a cup of tea you know that

45:03

it's coming up to 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock and the news is

45:05

going to be on. OK, well as you talk about

45:08

it, let's hear about it. I think you're going to play some

45:10

of it and talk us through it as we listen. So

45:13

this is the PIP sound and

45:16

I just thought yeah, that's a really good

45:18

sound because it's pure and it's

45:21

singular in direction. It also gives

45:23

you an idea of accuracy and

45:25

reliability which is one of the things that we

45:27

were looking for for the news. So I thought

45:29

I could add a dance beat to it and

45:31

create a piece of music using that sound. So

45:34

then I thought well, and then I got back to

45:36

my studio and I sort of got the idea in

45:38

my head when I sat down.

45:40

So the next thing I did was a bass line and

45:44

the bass line gives the strength, the

45:46

revealing strength and depth. It's

45:48

also got a very sort of world feel

45:51

because it's called the facillo beat and you

45:53

hear it in Latin America, in Africa and

45:55

India. So it gives a sense of globalness

45:57

to it and then of course adding the...

46:00

the bass drum, bringing in that sort

46:02

of feel, the beat

46:04

happening there. And then we wanted a

46:06

big sound to have all the

46:08

headlines coming in. So I thought, big

46:11

drums, that's the way to go. And

46:13

I wanted a sound that you could use at

46:16

any time, and it can be re-triggered, so

46:18

no matter how long the headline is,

46:21

you can re-trigger it. And

46:23

the way they use it now, it's quite

46:25

random, it's not actually musical. They

46:27

sort of bring it in randomly, but that's still,

46:29

thank you for almost a sense of

46:31

urgency, more

46:34

than having it reliably. And

46:36

then the next part is quite

46:38

tricky, because it's a chord. Because

46:41

the chords used are the most emotional

46:43

bit, they're the ones that give you the

46:45

emotional hit. And

46:47

for music, obviously it's got to be quite neutral.

46:50

You can't have it too happy or too sad. And

46:53

so I chose these two

46:55

chords minor to major, and very simple. They're

46:58

beautiful for a chord change. And

47:01

the hit stays on the same note all the

47:03

way through, so it's got this singular direction, and

47:06

then you've got some anxiety with

47:09

a minor chord there, going into a

47:11

sort of major feel, which is calmness.

47:15

This is fantastic. I ought to say, by the way,

47:17

there's a version of you doing this online. We've stolen

47:19

the idea, you know, that version has gone viral. Hopefully

47:21

this one will too. But I do want to bring

47:24

in Victor Vlam, who's a Dutch

47:26

news journalist and news team expert and

47:28

founder of the website Network News Music,

47:30

just to tell us Victor, the

47:32

impact of this sort of a thing, the impact

47:34

of the BBC News team tune. It's

47:36

been huge. Sometimes

47:38

I jokingly say that pop music was never

47:41

the same after the Beatles. News music hasn't

47:43

been the same since David Lowe. And the

47:45

reason for that is because he's been very

47:47

influential. Basically, in the 1990s,

47:49

news music tended to sound the

47:51

same. It was very formulaic. So

47:54

there were lots of brass instruments that played

47:56

a short but recognizable melody. There were some

47:58

strings to add a... sense of urgency

48:00

and some timpani to give it

48:02

some gravitas. And that was the

48:05

basic ingredients for every

48:07

single news theme. And here along comes

48:09

David Lowe, who completely goes into a

48:11

different direction, who essentially uses music that

48:13

is most familiar from nightclubs and adapts

48:16

that as a news theme. That

48:18

was just revolutionary. And the amazing thing is

48:20

that a lot of European broadcasters and broadcasters

48:22

around the world have adopted this style. So

48:24

lots of them are adopting, for example, the

48:27

pips, even though they may not be familiar

48:29

with the pips in those countries, but

48:32

all the electronic elements are used in

48:34

many different countries. So it's been very

48:36

influential. And

48:38

in terms of David, when you were making

48:40

this, did you feel like it was revolutionary?

48:44

I sort of, well, obviously, yes, I knew

48:46

it was going to be different. And

48:49

what was quite interesting was, that

48:52

was the brief I was given, basically. And

48:55

what was quite interesting was I'd sort of, not

48:58

got a lot of time to put it together, because we'd had a

49:00

meeting about it, and we had the brainstorm. They said, can you come

49:02

back in a couple of days and meet the BBC team who

49:05

are going to be working on it? And

49:07

Martin Lambrenearn was the creative director, an amazingly

49:10

incredible guy who's very, had

49:14

so many good ideas. And so he

49:16

said, come back and meet the team. I'll

49:18

introduce you as the composer, and just bring

49:20

in an idea just to get the ball

49:22

rolling. And so I was on the train

49:24

on the way back, and I was thinking, can I do the

49:27

pips with a dance beat? I thought, well, I haven't got a

49:29

lot of time to sort of think about it. So I got

49:31

back to the studio and literally put it together fairly

49:33

quickly, because I knew what all the layers were going to

49:35

be, and there aren't that many layers in it, which is

49:37

another part of the simplicity of it,

49:40

is that there really aren't that many parts

49:42

to it, but each part has got its

49:44

own part to play, and it tells its own story.

49:47

So I put it all together quite quickly, and I went to

49:49

that meeting on the Friday, and Martin said, can

49:51

you just play the idea? And

49:53

this is David, he's going to be doing the music.

49:55

And so I played it, and they all

49:57

looked at me in a sort of, I thought, a very strange way.

50:00

you know, what we're thinking. And then Marty said,

50:02

that's fantastic, you've done it. You know, that's the

50:04

idea. So it

50:07

was a pretty amazing moment. I'm sure it was.

50:09

And David, I should mention that we actually worked

50:11

together on a separate piece of music a few

50:13

years ago when I was presenting a program on

50:15

the World Service. And I was asked to come

50:17

and meet you to work

50:19

through what we were going to

50:21

replace our existing theme tune with. And I

50:23

remember you being very open to suggestions, which

50:25

I didn't feel I was really in a

50:27

position to offer. But you were quite happy

50:29

to, we almost worked it out on

50:32

the day. It evolved through the couple of hours we

50:34

spent in each other's company. Absolutely. And

50:36

I often find that's the best way to work

50:38

when you've got the client actually in the

50:40

studio with you. And sometimes ideas

50:43

have happened there and

50:45

then, like the countdown theme, for example, was

50:48

almost like an afterthought in the afternoon. They said, oh,

50:50

by the way, we need a countdown. And

50:52

so the best ideas

50:54

are when you're interacting with the client, and

50:56

they're there in the studio with you,

50:58

and you get an understanding of what they want, because you

51:01

can try things, be very

51:03

creative, and they can give you the

51:05

nodal, the shake of the head. And then you say, OK,

51:07

let's try something else. It's great. And

51:10

it was great working with you as well. Brilliant. Thank you

51:12

very much. I managed to, I don't think it's used anymore,

51:14

because the program's not around anymore. But we managed to find

51:16

it on YouTube. And it's still sounding great, I

51:18

can say. And Victor Vam, I just have to ask you

51:20

before we move on, I have to say

51:22

my favorite, I'm going to be just a little to do this here,

51:24

is the Channel 4 News Scene tune. You would play that game, too.

51:27

But it is based on a cowboy theme tune, I

51:29

believe, and it's really great. But

51:31

Victor, what's your favorite theme tune from

51:33

the past? It's quite hard to make

51:35

a decision about that. I have 1,876 hours of news music.

51:40

Yes, because you're the Guinness World Record holder for

51:42

this. I understand. Exactly. But if

51:44

I had to pick one, it's the Eyewitness

51:46

News theme that was used in the United

51:48

States in local ABC stations in New York,

51:51

LA, and Chicago. It's also used in Australia

51:53

for nine news. And essentially, this is one

51:55

of the first pieces of news music that

51:57

was ever used in 1960. Newscast

52:01

really didn't exist, but

52:03

some of the producers were just watching a

52:05

movie. They were watching the movie Cool Hand

52:08

Luke, featuring actor Paul Newman, and they heard

52:10

a certain track and they thought to themselves,

52:12

gee, this sort of sounds newsy. And so

52:14

they adapted it for their local eyewitness news,

52:16

and it became incredibly famous. It was used

52:18

for 25 years. And

52:20

even though the composer, Leylo Schifrin,

52:22

was nominated for an Academy Award,

52:25

it became famous as the Eyegoodness News team,

52:27

because later on, many people were asking him,

52:29

gee, why did you include the Eyewitness News

52:31

theme in your movie? And obviously, it's the other

52:33

way around, but that's how famous it became. Fantastic.

52:35

I have to say, that was at a time when people

52:38

actually listened to these. Now everyone fast-forward

52:40

through the titles. They're going to miss the impact of

52:42

all these wonderful sounds. But that sounded like it was

52:44

from a cowboy film as well. I'm wondering whether all

52:46

early news music was from cowboy films. Maybe that

52:48

was it. News, cowboy, intersection. Yes, I get it.

52:51

It could be a crossover we didn't see coming. Thank you very much

52:53

indeed to both of you. Very good to

52:55

have you on the media show. Now, our

52:57

last guest on the program is the journalist,

53:00

Maggie Harrison-DuPree. Maggie, welcome to the program. We've

53:02

asked you back because, well, back

53:04

in November, you ran a story about

53:07

the US magazine Sports Illustrated and how

53:09

it was being accused of publishing AI-written

53:11

articles from writers who it turned out

53:13

didn't exist. And you've come back to

53:15

this story, Maggie. So just tell us

53:17

where you've got to with it. Yes,

53:20

well, first of all, thank you for having

53:22

me. But yes, so back in

53:24

November, we published a report about how,

53:27

yes, indeed, Sports Illustrated has been publishing these

53:29

review-style articles. So if

53:31

I, as somebody who might be interested in,

53:33

say, a soccer ball, I would go online.

53:35

I want the best soccer ball. So Google,

53:38

best soccer ball for me. A

53:40

bunch of SEO-powered links come

53:42

up that say, like, best soccer ball of 2024. This

53:45

company, Advon Commerce, which we've been investigating

53:48

for several months now, they

53:50

had provided a bunch of these review-style articles,

53:52

of Sports Illustrated, that, you know, what to look for

53:54

in a soccer ball. And here are a list of

53:56

four or five soccer balls. And here are the pros

53:58

and cons of each. why they

54:00

like here's why they're different. As

54:03

it turned out, you know, when we looked a little bit

54:05

dug around a bit, we realized that many of the

54:07

writers or all the writers in the section of

54:09

the Sports Illustrated website were entirely fake. They were

54:12

fabricated. Their headshots had

54:14

even been AI generated. They made up bios.

54:16

And you know, we kept following the story.

54:18

And you know, in addition to that, sources

54:21

we spoke to at Advon told us that the company

54:23

was using AI to generate content as well. We

54:25

kept following that. And we realized that it's

54:28

in a lot of places, not just Sports Illustrated. And

54:30

I'd like to hear about that just

54:32

before I do. Let me read you

54:34

this statement from Sports Illustrated. You'll be familiar

54:36

with it, but we should share it

54:38

with everyone listening. It says an article

54:40

was published alleging that Sports Illustrated published

54:42

AI generated articles. According to our initial

54:45

investigation, this isn't accurate. The articles in

54:47

question were product reviews and were licensed

54:49

content from an external third party company,

54:51

Advon Commerce. A number of Advon's e-commerce articles

54:53

ran on certain websites, arena

54:55

websites. We continually monitor our partners and we're

54:57

in the midst of a review when these

54:59

allegations were raised. Now, what I'm interested

55:02

in, Mag, is you're saying that this is

55:04

something that's happening much more broadly. What have

55:06

you discovered in that regard? Yes.

55:09

So we have found

55:12

Advon's fake bylines and

55:14

in some cases AI generated the content really

55:17

across the American media systems, you know,

55:19

large regional newspapers, United States like the

55:21

Miami Herald, the LA Times. We

55:24

have found their content in national tabloids, like

55:26

Us Weekly. We have found them

55:29

USA Today, which is a major, you know, US newspaper.

55:31

So a lot of different media, large media

55:33

companies and media providers in the US. And

55:36

is your issue that you want this

55:38

to be labeled or you believe these

55:40

publications shouldn't in any circumstances be using

55:42

content of this nature? I

55:45

think that's an interesting question because, you

55:47

know, this style of review style content

55:50

and you know, what we call affiliate

55:52

articles and affiliate content has proven to

55:54

be quite lucrative and in some cases

55:56

has done really, you know, good

55:59

work for organizations and supporting newsrooms at

56:01

the same time, if at any

56:03

point, you know, the nature of how a piece of

56:06

content was created, whether it's by AI or not, or

56:08

whether it's by, you know, the writer that it says

56:10

is being created by, that

56:12

is not great for the publication or, you

56:14

know, the rest of the media industry. It's

56:17

a time where, you know, we deeply fragmented

56:19

media environment that we live in and trust

56:21

in the media is that, you know, a

56:23

very upsetting low. And so, yeah, so I

56:26

personally believe that all AI content should be marked

56:29

as such. And if something is, you know, but

56:31

not at all. But I

56:33

just want to ask you before the program finishes,

56:35

if it is marked as such, is there any

56:37

research which helps us understand whether the consumer minds

56:39

or not, perhaps the consumer, as long as he

56:41

or she knows it's generated by AI, will still

56:43

see it as having some value? I

56:46

think so. I think consumers want a

56:48

choice. And I think I personally would argue that consumers deserve

56:50

a choice. I think that there are some people who they

56:53

don't care if AI makes it as long as it's good,

56:55

which I should note these articles were not good. But

56:58

I think that people want to know. And

57:00

in fact, after we published Sports Illustrated, there

57:02

was a the AAPI, which is the Artificial

57:05

Intelligence Policy Institute, did a they did a

57:07

survey and an overwhelming majority of participants said

57:09

that they believed what happened in Sports Illustrated

57:11

was wrong. And we have seen a

57:13

lot of pushback, similar pushback since we published the second

57:15

report as well. Maggie, thank you

57:18

very much indeed for updating us on

57:20

that. That's Maggie Harrison-DuPray from Futurism. But

57:23

thank you. I think our time is almost up

57:25

here on the media show. Thank you so much

57:27

to all our guests for coming on. No

57:30

time to name them, but you know who you

57:32

are. And thank you to everybody else for their

57:34

company today. And if you want to listen back

57:36

to this episode, indeed any episode of the media show,

57:38

you can find them all on BBC Sounds. But for

57:40

the moment from me and from Katie, goodbye.

57:50

We're looking to someone who controls one

57:52

of the largest gangs of people smugglers.

57:54

He calls himself Scorpion. has

58:00

made millions from people coming to the UK

58:02

in small boats. Finding

58:10

him won't be easy and it will

58:12

be dangerous. I'm

58:18

Sue Mitchell and this is Intree to

58:20

capture Scorpion from BBC Radio 4. Listen

58:23

on BBC Sounds. What's

58:32

up y'all? Janice Torres here. And

58:35

I'm Austin Hankwith. We're the hosts of

58:37

Mind the Business. Small Business Success Stories,

58:39

a podcast presented by iHeart Radio's Ruby

58:41

Studios and Intuit QuickBooks. Join

58:44

us as we speak with small business

58:46

owners about the tools they use to

58:48

turn their ideas into success. From

58:50

finding that initial spark of entrepreneurship to

58:52

organizing payments and invoices, we've got you

58:54

covered. So follow and listen to Mind

58:57

the Business Small Business Success Stories on

58:59

the iHeart Radio app or wherever you

59:01

get your podcasts.