FIFA, the Prime Minister and a BBC documentary

So what is the difference between of interest to the public and in the public interest? It’s a topic which can spark the good old debate between public relations and journalism.

Sport and politics are two areas of conversation that are bound to provoke response, so imagine my delight when I found an example of what happens when the two are combined. Now before you start to lecture me on the finer points of politics within sport, yes I know however it’s not often that the prime minister gets involved in a corruption scandal within football.

I am referring to England not being successful in the bid to host the 2018 World Cup. However it isn’t the fact that England lost out to Russia that caught my attention. On the BBC News at Six on Friday 26th November 2010 Fiona Bruce reported on the apparent frustration of David Cameron on the BBC’s decision to air Panorama on the following Monday. The show was centred on the alleged corruption within FIFA in particular when it comes to deciding the hosting nation for a World Cup. With the decision being announced by FIFA only a few days later on the Thursday, it was thought by many in the football industry and those involved with the World Cup bid that it was nothing short of disastrous for England’s campaign. Up until this point the feature still is strongly anchored within the sporting section.

A clip from an interview David Cameron which was recorded for Soccer AM, focused the attention of the media and social commentators. Was it necessary for the prime minister to give comment on the situation? Or perhaps a classic example of knee jerk damage limitation which government are ever so keen to do:

“We have a free country with a free media – obviously those of us who are
passionate about this bid and about us winning. It is frustrating that panorama
are doing this programme a few days before, of course it is but it’s a free
country and we have to just roll with that. I think FIFA will understand that.”

There is significance in David Cameron voicing his opinion on this as it signals the timing of the investigation could be somewhat problematic for England’s bid. However he is clear in also defending the rights of a free press. There was great pressure on the BBC not to air the panorama investigation until after FIFA’s decision; however the BBC upheld the scheduled slot for the programme and responded by saying that Panorama has always been known for investigative journalism and that the findings were in the public interest.

This all sounded pretty common place, however one point that got me thinking was: Just who decides what is and isn’t of interest to the public? If this example is anything to go by then the decision ultimately lies with the journalist who chooses whether to run the story or not. Surely some responsibility should sit with the public relations function of said organisation.

The fact that FIFA seemed to offer no response to the scheduling of Panorama suggests perhaps that this is not as important to them as it is to the England 2018 bid; albeit understandable seeing as they were set to be affected by the consequences if any from the documentary. Andy Anson, the chief executive of the England 2018 bid reacted strongly to the BBC’s plans "To do it the week before the vote - I don't think it's patriotic." He also said that whilst the BBC argues that the panorama documentary will be in the public interest, the opportunity for England to host the World Cup in 2018 is in the public interest too. Whilst it’s good to see the chief executive passionate about the bid, it’s not appropriate for Anson to place a higher level of importance on the winning the World Cup bid as opposed to uncovering corruption. That’s not to say that the World Cup wouldn’t be of interest to the public, especially when it’s considered how much could be generated through marketing, brand sponsorship and not to mention the event itself.

So what do you think? Should Panorama’s investigation into FIFA been broadcast just days before the successful bid was announced? Is the BBC as Anson put it ‘unpatriotic’ for airing the programme? The truth may not always be convenient but that doesn’t mean it can be changed, lying or withholding information simply compounds the problem. This case in point is a perfect example of how the honest and responsible regard for the public interest is far too subjective to be placed higher than the fundamental ethics of truth.