What I told Alastair Campbell

THE first signs suggested trouble - a Fridaynight fax from Alastair Campbell asking for a meeting at Downing Street to discuss war coverage.

Plenty on the agenda Bin Laden videos, public opinion, messages to terrorists, authenticity of pictures from Kabul, questions of balance. Other issues could be discussed, but "I think these could provide at least a starting point".

The broadcasters' fears seemed to be justified by the front page of The Mail on Sunday, clearly based on a lobby briefing: "BBC fury at Blair bid to censor Bin Laden." It looked like the old battle- lines were being drawn up.

From the Falklands through the Gulf War and Kosovo to today, there's always come a moment when the government of the day wants to try to rein in the broadcasters, get them more "onside" and reduce the flow of "unhelpful" information from the other side.

So, the three main news broadcasters, BBC, Sky News and ITN, turned up at No 10, ready to listen, of course, but also ready to defend their corner against those wishing to shoot the messenger.

Except it wasn't quite like that.

The statements afterwards that the meeting was "reasonable", "fair" and "constructive" were accurate.

We agreed not to give details of the Prime Minister's movements in advance, for obvious reasons; we said we would think carefully about detailed reports of troop-movements that might put lives at risk; we agreed to treat video statements from Bin Laden with care (though there was no request for a blanket ban), and that was about it.

So, has something changed? When things have got tough, the urge to portray broadcasters as, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, faintly treasonous has been irresistible.

That didn't seem to be on Monday's agenda.

Does that mean things will be different this time? To be honest, I don't think we'll know until the going gets harder - and it will. So far, despite the pronouncements that an entirely new type of war will be fought, what we've seen has been remarkably similar to the start of the Gulf War and Kosovo the routine of nightly bombing raids, picture facilities on aircraft carriers, carefully selected aerial before-and-after photographs, no lives lost on the allied side as far as we know, and no visible ground operations - yet.

At the same time, there's been a very limited picture from the other side.

The night-time footage over Kabul looks remarkably similar to that from Baghdad and Belgrade.

Wrecked buildings, apparent civilian casualties and anti-western demonstrations fit into the same pattern.

Yet the suspicion remains that this will not be a war like those others.

No one really believes that this time the war can be won from the air. So, what lies ahead? Major ground operations, western casualties, military setbacks, captured British and American soldiers?

How will our relationship with the Government fare then?

The next phase will bring a whole load of problems for the military and for their governments. If the ground troops in Afghanistan are mainly special forces, it's unlikely the media will see any of it. But if own perilous way to the action.

I hope that the calm and reasonable relationship between broadcasters and the Government that was evident in Downing Street on Monday survives the sort of scenario that I have just outlined.

But there remains a fundamental difference of roles. The Government sees its job as winning the war and keeping public opinion onside.

The media believes its job is to tell the public - now a worldwide public - what's really going on, good news and bad. Sometimes those objectives will coexist without too much friction, but we might as well accept that at other times they won't.

_ Nick Pollard is head of Sky News.

hourly) on-camera briefings. Did someone mention military censorship?

Minders from the Ministry checking the output for securitysensitive material? Forget it - the satellite dishes and correspondents would be transmitting live around the clock.

And that's only the base camp, which is likely to be in a relatively safe area. Journalists will not want to stay cooped up there. Battles will be taking place miles away and there'll be a thirst for pictures. Can the western forces risk taking some journalists nearer to the action? If so, which ones? I wouldn't want to be the MoD press officer given the job of organising the pool for that one, knowing that at least some of those left out may try to make their there is a strong element of "conventional" troops, there'll be a huge clamour for media facilities. Picture the scene at the media centre inside the West's military HQ in Afghanistan. How many people would the media want to dispatch?

Let's start with 500 (that's just for the BBC), probably double that to include the rest of us, the agencies, the American networks and our print colleagues. Don't forget that the coalition partners will have to be there too. How many satellite dishes? Say 50 for starters, maybe more. Television viewers now expect their news to be absolutely up-to-the-minute and broadcasters need to respond to that. With pictures probably in short supply, there'll need to be daily (ideally

'We must protect our independence, but responsibly'

IT was not a huge surprise when, last Sunday, virtually every national newspaper suggested the Government wanted the BBC and others to "ban Bin Laden" and to "censor" footage supplied by the al Qaeda terrorist network. In fact, no such request has been made, although the Government is clearly uncomfortable with the video statements from al Qaeda.

There is a healthy history of broadcasters, particularly the BBC, and the Government being at odds in times of international conflict. In the Falklands, Peter Snow was accused of "treachery" by one newspaper and questions were asked in the House after he referred to "British" rather than "our" forces. During the Gulf War, Jeremy Bowen was criticised for reporting civilian deaths resulting from the bombing of Baghdad, and, while covering the Kosovo conflict, John Simpson was criticised by government officials for reporting the defiant mood of people on the streets of Belgrade.

The reason for all this is simple: it matters to the Government how the BBC reports these conflicts. What matters most to the BBC is that we are honest with our viewers and listeners, and that the only people who decide what we broadcast - and what we leave out - are the programme editors. The day a government official, or any outsider, can influence those decisions, our reputation is finished. That is why we fight to protect our independence.

It is also why we must take such care to get our reporting right - any mistakes are ammunition to those who seek to influence what we do.

That's not to say we would broadcast anything regardless of the consequences; we take national security seriously and understand that we must act responsibly. We are, therefore, happy to have discussions with the Government during crises so we understand where those sensitivities lie.

The public's increased awareness of how the media operates, and particularly the black arts of spin doctors, makes our job even more important. I think few people including most politicians - believe that Government control of the media is a good thing. Which is why we hold our journalistic integrity so dear.

_ Richard Sambrook is the director of BBC News

Copyright 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.