Read on Twitter
One of the key things people in other bits of journalism (especially people schooled in the "bash it out in your lunch break" world of online blogging) don't realise is just how rigorous the approval process in strands like Dispatches and Panorama is https://www.thejc.com/comment/opinion/the-corbynites-have-lied-with-impunity-now-they-face-the-legal-consequences-1.501782
Just to lay it out - usually, you pitch something you are pretty sure is true, which you will have worked on shoring up for 4-8 weeks; you'll have a couple of strong sources.
You go in, the editors like it, they say "Prove these other aspects too". You go away, you dig.
You go in, the editors like it, they say "Prove these other aspects too". You go away, you dig.
A few weeks later, another meeting, you provide the extra stuff (you still aren't commissioned at this stage). Most attempted films don't pass this threshold; I'd say as many as 90% of pitches (which are probably great stories, and almost certainly true) don't get through.
Assuming you get through, you start making it.
Again, every claim is tested as you're going out to film - it's never just one person, there are robust editorial discussions between director and exec producer, then between director and exec and the editor at the channel.
Again, every claim is tested as you're going out to film - it's never just one person, there are robust editorial discussions between director and exec producer, then between director and exec and the editor at the channel.
Then for *any* factual claims, there's a process with lawyers (a separate department - producers often complain about having got a "bad" ie cautious lawyer) who will dig into literally everything an interviewee has said, and will strike out anything they can't defend.
And can't defend can be true, completely true, just - for example, on a single sources' word. THEN, there's another round of viewings with editors, execs etc etc. Then a set of rights to reply are sent out, giving the subjects the chance to reply to accusations.
THEN editorial policy get involved, to make sure you've properly integrated the rights to reply... An old director once said to me when I was worried about length "don't worry, every good panorama is 10 minutes of fact and 20 minutes of right to reply" and was only half-joking
So to anyone who's actually been involved in the process, the idea John Ware could just go off on a one man crusade is completely bonkers. There's no way all those other layers of process would conspire.
Every factual claim in it will have been exhaustively tested and scrutinised, so you just aren't going to win a libel claim.
Almost everyone in the Labour leadership election recognised that - I think only Richard Burgon said he wouldn't settle the claim.
Almost everyone in the Labour leadership election recognised that - I think only Richard Burgon said he wouldn't settle the claim.
Equally, I don't doubt the Labour leadership had legal advice they could win the case. It's very easy to find stupid or greedy lawyers who will tell you what you want to hear.
So they had legal advice, but almost by definition, it was *bad legal advice*.
So they had legal advice, but almost by definition, it was *bad legal advice*.
That's also why people like me and @Charlie_Mole are so frustrated by the "JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!" school of panting online fantasy twitter journalism.
Its empty calories - you jump to the shocking conclusion without doing the real hard yards of proving this stuff.
Its empty calories - you jump to the shocking conclusion without doing the real hard yards of proving this stuff.
(As a complete aside regarding James Schneider's detailed tweets, the one thing it misses out - that would not get past a Panorama editor - is why the Facebook group he's referring to was a story in the first place.)
