Historical Content - a BBC submission
To the Editorial Guidelines review
Seen in Journalism submission to BBC Draft Guidelines Consultation on management of historical online content
13.2.4 Content that has been published with the expectation of remaining permanently available must only be removed in exceptional circumstances. The online archive, particularly news content, should not normally be amended and must only be removed or hidden in exceptional circumstances. (S
13.4.6 While respecting that archive content is a record of history, consideration must be given to whether it is appropriate to use it unedited or whether this would breach the Editorial Guidelines or the law. It may be appropriate to indicate when archive content has b
Editorial content may have become inaccurate or out of date and where appropriate it should be made clear to audiences that it is archive.
13.4.24 At the time that editorial content is published online, there should be a strategy for its management over time. It should be considered whether content needs to be updated or, if not, how it is to be treated.
13.4.25 To avoid materially misleading users, it should normally be clear when the content they are accessing was first published and, where relevant, when it was last updated significantly. Amendments, to both time limited and permanently available content, should be clearly signposted.
We welcome the changes made here on historical revision and maintenance on online pages.
However due to our close observation of the BBC’s coverage of sex and gender, we recommend additional guidelines.
There is a risk that pages which contain out of date and therefore dangerous medical information can remain online and accessible with no warning to readers (this may apply to pages covering other medical issues as well as medical transition).
We know that this is already happening. Here are some examples.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51034461
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56764393
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00027mp (‘the blocker is a physically reversible intervention’)
As you can see, there is no indication that the advice and information published with the imprimatur of the BBC is not to be trusted. This is may encourage parents and children to imagine that, for example, there are no serious adverse effects to puberty suppression.
The fact that the pages were last updated some time ago is no guide: the reader will assume that without an update, the advice and information remain sound.
We give the example of an out of date fact check: ‘What are puberty blockers?’
Readers will trust the last fact check produced and the first search return. With tight resources, the BBC is not producing the fact checks it should (particularly on sex and gender, but this is a general problem).
Therefore we recommend and request a guideline advising that all pages, which contain out of date medical and psychosocial advice, carry an extremely visible standard warning at the top of each page, and if possible, a link to updated material.
This enables the historical record to stand while alerting readers to its unreliable nature.
The BBC has a reputation of the utmost trust and this has a price. It means ensuring the historical online record can also be trusted. It must stop relying on the ‘historical record’ excuse to refuse to put warnings on some dangerous content.
