[Update: It appears that this article had a glitch or two in publication, and so there is some undisciplind pinging going on. My apologies.]

There’s been a huge media firestorm after the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lecture to lawyers in London, as we all know - and it’s all been blamed on “Rowan’s naivity” or “Rowan’s bad press team” or “what did he expect, mentioning Sharia” or [insert random Rowan-bashing reason here].

After a bit of digging, it turns out that the Beeb was reporting inaccurate statements about “ABC says Sharia is inevitable” even before the interview was broadcast. Rowan (and a well-tempered debate) never had a chance - whether you agree with his line or not.

This morning the BBC Editors blog is carrying an entry about learning “Lessons from the pulpit” by Peter Rippon, following up the interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) on World at One (WATO) last Thursday 7th February, giving their version of what happened. Peter Rippon is the editor of “World at One”.

What Peter Rippon said

Peter makes these points:

1. There was a huge reaction to the Rowan Williams interview.
2. The Archbishop is a good egg and has not criticised us or the media.
3. Both Lambeth Palace and us knew the speech needed careful handling.
4. Our knowledgeable reporter Christopher Landau (MA Theology, MPhil Elizabethan Church History) did a careful 9-minute interview, and we broadcast no criticism of it when it went out.
5. The media have been criticised for misreporting, but that does not explain the huge reaction minutes after our interview - as newspapers had not gone to print.
6. Perhaps it was the culture clash between an academic interview and the clumsy 24 hour media.
7. And a sideswipe at the Archbishop: If the Archbishop insists on writing in sentences that are 146 words long he will not get many shifts on our Newsdesk.

Most of this is a shoal of red herrings.

What Peter Rippon didn’t say

Peter competely forgets to mention (or completely misses) the following facts:

1. The story was trailed at the top of the news programme with the headline: The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable. (No he didn’t, or not in the way that your headline was inevitably going to make people think.)
2. The BBC was running an article before it broadcast the interview under the heading: Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’, with the first paragraph: The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable”. (ditto)
3. The BBC website is a key source of news for ALL the media, and has 13 million unique visitors per week.
4. Reactions from bloggers to the headlines were coming in before the 9 minute interview had even finished .
5. As far as I can tell, most of the initial abusive reaction and vitriol (from “idiotic” to “bonkers” through various less gentle insults) has been linked to this story on the BBC website.
6. “Sharia” in this country is as much a “red-rag to a blood-blind-bull” as is “paedophile”. It excites similar extreme and irrational “shoot from the hip” reactions.

Of course commentators were going to react to the headline, not the interview - especially as speed of response is such a differentiator. The reality is that the way the BBC handled this story guaranteed that the furore would happen.

Or - to put it more pithily:

The Archbishop’s interview (and his lecture) were completely irrelevant. Theheadlines put out by the BBC before the interview was broadcast guaranteed that a shitstorm was inevitable.

Unfortunately for Peter, I am not an Archbishop and I am going to have a go at him. You may want a cup of tea, as this article is rather detailed and long, and includes relevant audio clips.

We are seeing a more reasoned debate since, but WATO still need to explain themselves on this one.

Peter Rippon’s Comments in detail

I’ll take Peter’s whole article first (his text indented, my text not, or highlighted for quotes), as this is such an important debate, and point out where I think they have made some serious errors. Then I will look at what actually happened.

Peter starts:

The World at One interviewed the Archbishop of Canterbury last week.

Yep.

You may have heard about it (or you can listen to it here).

Yep. I’m wasn’t on the moon.

It’s common when an interview provokes such a huge reaction, most of it negative, for the messenger to get a bit of flak too.

True. A couple of hours after the interview in my article “Before you Start another Archbishop of Canterbury Barbecue…“, I referred to an article headed Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’ , and said (of the start of the BBC item):

The BBC should be ashamed of itself.

However, in this case the BBC (see below) deserves more than “a bit of flak”. Back to Peter:

To his credit the Archbishop has not used this tactic (as his speech yesterday proved). Lambeth Palace was aware the speech needed to be handled carefully.

That’s Rowan, for you.

So were we.

Hmmm. Someone (or several someones) in the BBC wasn’t careful.

Our reporter, Christopher Landau (MA Theology, MPhil Elizabethan Church History) knows what he is talking about and framed the interview very carefully and precisely to make sure we accurately reflected the Archbishop’s view.

The reporter who did the interview is not the problem. I am sure he is excellent and he did make sure that the interview reflected the ABC’s view. The problem is that you or your colleagues erected enough red flags before and around the interview to guarantee that all the reporters and commentators would completely ignore it.

However,

There has been some criticism of the ‘tabloids’ and media more widely for mangling the message.

But guess where they got the (ready mangled) story?

I am not convinced that goes very far in explaining the public reaction either.

The public reaction is to explained by red flags like “Sharia” waved irresponsibly, and - in my opinion - to a culture of kicking the Archbishop no matter what.

When the interview went out, nine minutes long, we broadcast no criticism of it. Within minutes we had a huge, overwhelmingly negative, e-mail and text response to what he said.

Technically correct, in a “lawyer logic” sense.

Shall we find out “not the considered, careful, precise, interview” bits that M’Learned Friend for the defence hasn’t mentioned?

Exhibit 1: Sensational Headline at Start of News Bulletin

You introduced the “News Summary” at the start of the bulletin with a headline that would do credit to the Fortean Times (never mind the Sun) for sensationalising and distorting what the Archbishop actually said to your reporter:

“The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable”

That’s not what he said. Your reporter knows that’s not what he said. You know that’s not what he said.

So why was that in the script - before the interview was even broadcast?

Exhibit 2: Sensational Headline and News Article on BBC Website

Someone (and it may not have been you) put an article on the BBC Website under a similar - sensational and disorted - headline. This was how I reported it a couple of hours after it all broke loose):

The BBC website is reporting the interview as (headline and first three paragraphs):

Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable”.

Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

Reading those three paragraphs, one can conclude that the ABC is proposing that Sharia Law as it operates in (for example) Saudi Arabia will trump British Law. He isn’t. He is saying something closer to the fourth paragraph:

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

Now, we know this article was there before 1:17pm because James Graham had time to read it, write an article, and link to it.

Let’s just remind ourselves that the interview didn’t start until 1:06 - according to the Listen Again facility:

This is the entire Listen Again for the World at One on Thursday 7th February. You appear to have cut off the first 30 seconds, and the interview starts at about 5:15 in.

Looking at the News Sniffer, it tells us that it first found this article on your site at 13:07, which presumably means it was there earlier than that as no scanner polls every page each second. Click for screenshot.

So why was that on your website - before the interview.

Exhibit 3: The Blog Response

The quickest I can find is Lib Dem Blogger of the Year - James Graham -

who posted an article at 1:17pm (click for source):

Rowan Williams Calls for Sharia

Words fail me. Maybe later.

His headline and link indicates that the BBC is his source.

He isn’t superman - he simply responded (and linked to) a sensationalist headline and article posted on your website before the interview was even broadcast.

That would be before Archbishop Rowan has even had his preliminary say, so the prospect of commentators reading or hear his actual views doesn’t even arise.

Back to Peter’s article:

That’s hours before any newspapers had gone to print.

In the electronic age - when the BBC News website gets 13 million unique visitors each week, and at least 5 national newspaper websites get more than 11 million unique visitors each month (Guardian - 17.5m, Mail - 14.4m, Telegraph - 12.8m, Times - 12.28m, Sun Online - 11.6m) - this statement is both irrelevant and egregious. Do you think we were born yesterday?

And he continues:

A lot of comment has rightly focused on the culture clash between the cloistered academic world of theological debate and the crass, clumsy demands of the 24-hour mass media.

Yes - and who prevented any real communication for several days by putting out a cartoon level caricature before the poor bloke even had a chance to express himself?

There’s an old adage in TV that the key to good storytelling is to simplify and exaggerate.

I consider that one to be thoroughly achieved. And “storytelling” is the right word.

In radio there is an apocryphal story about the seasoned old hack who when asked to cut a crafted minute long despatch to 40 seconds responded. “My dear chap, I can do the Second World War in 40 seconds if you like, but you might lose a bit of detail.”

This looks to me like a leadin to the following sideswipe:

However, it would be wrong to conclude it is only the media who can learn from this. As Martha Kearney points out in her World at One newsletter, the speech was very high fibre. If the Archbishop insists on writing in sentences that are 146 words long he will not get many shifts on our Newsdesk.

My reply to this:

1 - He wasn’t writing, he was speaking - there is a difference :

I often think that the difference between reading the text of Dr William’s speeches, and hearing him delivering the speech is like the difference between reading a music score and hearing the Berlin Philharmonic playing the piece: only the very gifted can “hear” the music from the score, but even the most flannel-eared can hear the beauty of the performance.

2 - Just what has a quote from a speech that you didn’t broadcast on Radio 4 (yes, I know News 24 has the video) got to do with your article justifying an interview which you had already traduced with Beano-level headlines on both your news programme AND your website before the damn thing was even on the air ?

Exhibit 4: The News Response

Let’s have a (very) quick look at the news response (more to come here):

The Guardian reported at latest at 14:02, using the word “unavoidable”:

“Archbishop backs Sharia law for British Muslims | The Guardian |”

The Times Religion Correspondent reported at 5:00pm at length. Linking to the BBC article:

“Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?”

The BBC started reporting on the reaction from politicians apparently responding to your story (NOT to what he said) within a couple of hours.

“Leading politicians have distanced themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s belief that some Sharia law in the UK seems “unavoidable”

“The prime minister’s official spokesman said Sharia law could never be used as a justification for committing a breach of English law, nor could the principle of Sharia be applied in a civil case.

He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.

The PM’s official spokesman said: “There are instances where government has made changes for example on stamp duty but the general position is that Sharia cannot be used as justification for committing breaches of English law nor can its principles be used in civil courts.”

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: “Whilst having an enormous amount of respect for Rowan Williams, I cannot agree with his conclusions on this issue.

“Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another.

“There is a huge difference between respecting peoples’ right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law.”

and since then the concentration has been on:

“Archbishop tries to deal with Sharia row he provoked”.

with these sort of headlines:

• Archbishop sparks Sharia furore
• Sharia row persists for Williams
• Archbishop Guilty of Innocence
• Bishop backs under fire Williams
• PM extends support to Williams
• Sundays continue Archbishop Row
• Williams shocked at Archbishop Row
• Archbishop defends Sharia remarks
• Williams under fire in Sharia row

Whereas, it should be:

“Archbishop tries to deal with Sharia row created by inaccurate pre-emptive BBC reporting”.

And so . . .

The poor bloody Archbishop didn’t even get a chance to provoke any reaction.

He was destined to be Barbecued - that was inevitable because you (or “someone in the BBC”) had already taken the actions to guarantee a firestorm before either your “careful, precise” interview (which is the main - irrelevant with respect to the response - exhibit in your defence), or his actual lecture (not a speech - a legal lecture to an audience of lawyers), was broadcast.

Whoever it was should change their name to “John Calvin of the Beeb” by deed poll.

Wrapping Up

(Nearly at the end.)

Political opponents and allies know that I am about as stout a defender of the BBC as you get among political bloggers, while being critical of “public sector bloat”.

In this case - as I have (I think) demonstrated - they have an audit to perform, and some explaining to do.

The guys over at Biased-BBC now have a dilemma as well. What do they dislike most: Sharia Law for existing, the Archbishop of Canterbury for daring to engage in thoughtful theological and legal reflection in public, or the BBC for misreporting the story from before it started before even broadcasting a word from the ABC.

Cockup, or conspiracy? I’m really not sure.

And how do we know it doesn’t happen with other stories? And how are you going to show us that it doesn’t?

(Try one of these links for some thoughtful comment on this subject). Or this one if you want to be sworn at. Or a good Sharia Series at over at Our Kingdom - I don’t agree with all of it, but they comprehensively beat us to the draw on this one with a series of 8 Guest Posts so far.)

Tags: bbc, bbc editors, wato, world at one, peter rippon, archbishop of canterbury, rowan williams, canterbury, wato blog, devils kitchen, biased bbc, iain dale, james graham[tags]bbc, bbc editors, wato, world at one, peter rippon, archbishop of canterbury, rowan williams, canterbury, wato blog, devils kitchen, biased bbc, iain dale, james graham[/tags]