Why Auntie needs loyalty

The BBC's latest guidelines on freelancing by its staff have already drawn accusations of censorship. But, argues Mary Dejevsky, they are not overly restrictive ? in fact, they don't go far enough

Rabid accusations of censorship and totalitarianism issued from the BBC this month after the corporation revised its guidelines on freelancing. The new conflict-of-interest provisions require staff and "key presenters" to seek consent from their head of department before writing or broadcasting outside the BBC on what are termed "controversial public policies". That includes, but is not restricted to, opinions about the BBC itself.

Those named in newspaper reports as likely to be affected included such well-known individuals as the Today programme presenter John Humphrys, the presenter of Midweek and other programmes Libby Purves, and a number of prominent BBC editors: the political editor, Andrew Marr; the economics editor, Jeff Randall, the world affairs editor, John Simpson, and the special correspondent Fergal Keane – all of whom write regular columns for national newspapers. Keane writes weekly in The Independent. The appearance of the new guidelines also has a personal resonance for me, which I will explain later.

Now, it has to be admitted that we journalists are prone to hyperbole, especially when we believe that our compulsion to self-expression is under threat. And in theory, the requirement on BBC staff to clear freelance contributions with their head of department is not new; it has simply been observed more in the breach than in fact. It also has to be said that the most heated accusations of "gagging" etc have not come from any of the BBC's star performers, although it is worth asking whether this is because they accept the need for clearer guidelines, believe that they do not pronounce on "controversial public policies" or consider that their eminence places them beyond the reach of corporation regulations.

Anyway, the BBC found itself in the middle of a journalistic hue and cry, with some suggesting that the BBC's main concern was not to alienate the Government. In its defence, it invoked a desire to reinforce the "impartiality" that it described as the BBC's "most prized possession". In a way, this defence was as disingenuous as the journalists' reaction was hyperbolic.

A succession of familiar BBC figures had voiced public criticism of the corporation and sometimes of each other. In an end-of-year message to staff, the director general, Greg Dyke, had taken issue with "BBC on-air talent, who seem to think it is fair game to criticise the BBC while continuing to receive its money".

That stricture – hardly a unique requirement of staff in any commercial organisation – has now been enshrined in the official guidelines as part of the broader requirement to clear pronouncements on controversial public issues. which is where the cries of "gagging" come from. John Humphrys, for instance, who daily interrogates ministers and others on the Today programme, has used his Sunday Times column to call for the abolition of GCSEs and warn against over-speedy moves to European integration. Purves often deals with similarly contentious issues in The Times, although she is not regularly involved in the cut and thrust of domestic politics in her work for the BBC. Fergal Keane writes most often on foreign topics for The Independent, but also on Ireland – generally he writes on subjects in which he has specialised as a broadcaster.

Let me now explain my personal interest in what may seem to be the arcane reaches of internal BBC policy. Some 15 years ago, I left the BBC World Service. One reason was to try my hand at writing for publication rather than for radio. Another was the advance of bi-media that required reporters to bridge the radio/television divide. But a third was a sense of injustice.

The BBC in those days disapproved of freelancing, especially for national newspapers, which were regarded as tainted by association with political and business interests. Inevitably, many BBC employees wrote elsewhere under pseudonyms. Others, known names or specialists, wrote for newspapers as they liked.

I tried to operate by the rules, asking permission to write occasionally as a foreign affairs specialist for national papers. The personnel department spent two months considering this request. When a specific commission came my way, I repeated the request, which was turned down. I was finally permitted to write, just this once, but not in my name. In practice, there was one rule for the luminaries; another for the rest.

Soon after I left, the rules were changed. The BBC decided that having household names and specialists appear in the national press reflected well on the corporation, raising its public profile. A BBC spokeswoman insists that the newly revised guidelines do not change this position.

I will now risk the opprobrium of friends and colleagues by saying that in my view this freedom to freelance has now gone too far. Many BBC staff at all levels, but especially at the top, have come to treat freelancing almost as a right. By all means permit staff to write occasional articles on subjects where they have special experience or expertise. Where regular columns are concerned, I have misgivings. In taking a retainer (often a handsome one) for a regular newspaper column, BBC staff are in the pay of another employer, which has no claim to the political impartiality of the BBC.

Should the BBC's political editor be writing a regular column for The Daily Telegraph – even if what he writes about has nothing to do with his political beat? I wonder. The same applies to the economics editor. Andrew Marr and Jeff Randall are the faces and voices of the BBC in their subject area. But I would have similar concerns about more junior reporters. Of course, it is fun to diversify – and useful careerwise to keep your hand in for a life after Auntie. But there is such a thing as a mixed message and something else called loyalty.

The new BBC guidelines muddy the waters by applying not only to staff, but to "key presenters". This highlights a separate problem. The combination of the BBC's earlier rigid pay structures and its current emphasis on "outsourcing" and "the market" has encouraged "star" presenters to conclude special contracts. This means that people as closely identified with the BBC as John Humphrys or John Simpson are not technically on the staff. My view, which may be as impractical as it would surely be unpopular, would be that a Today programme presenter, like a world affairs editor, should be on the staff and unambiguously subject to staff editorial discipline. Anyone who finds that too constricting should become a genuine freelance.

In other words, there should be no such grey zone as "key presenters". The choice is between the security and prestige conferred by the BBC and the financial rewards and flexibility enjoyed by free agents. Most journalists outside the BBC have to make this choice. Our public broadcasters should, too.