WHY, INCIDENTALLY, did the BBC have to prevaricate about the
impending appoint- ment? I first saw Mr. Greene's name mentioned as a possible successor to Sir Ian Jacob several weeks ago In a Sunday news-
paper, but the list of other possibles was so ludicrous that I paid no attention to it. Then, the week before the appointment was announced, the rumour was Greene, and several radio and television correspondents picked up the news of the impending ap- pointment. Each of them, thinking he had a scoop, rang the BBC for confirmation; each was officially told that 'there is no founda- tion in the rumour'. Now, it is a well- established principle that when a reporter rings up with a request for confirmation where the facts are correct, but where the formal announcement has yet to be made, the answer should be `No comment'. A reporter is perfectly entitled to get a story of this kind by his own skill, if he can: indeed, that is his job. But to tell him that his story is untrue is a piece of deliberate deception which neither the BBC nor any such institution should countenance—for its own sake; naturally these correspondents will not credit such denials in future, and will tend to print rumours which the BBC, if it had always been honest with them, might have persuaded them to kill.
Previous page
