Impartial censorship
“For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes.” In which novel, published in 1949, does this quote appear?
University Challenge is a quiz programme run by the BBC, where universities (and Oxbridge colleges) enter teams to answer trivia questions. Two contestants from the University of Leicester wore pride pins while shooting University Challenge. When the episode aired, the pins had been digitally removed.
The BBC apparently removed the pins in an effort to avoid harassment and backlash. There had reportedly been online transphobia in response to prior episodes of the same programme. But one of the contestants noted that, when contacted by the BBC, she was given no words of support, and merely informed that her pin would be removed “in accordance with the BBC Editorial Guidelines requirements for impartiality.”
To be clear, the BBC does request that “no badges, flags and emblems or symbols are worn or visible during filming, along with clothing with obvious branding or slogans.” It is not unreasonable for a broadcaster to have rules preventing their television programmes being used as soapboxes. However, pins are generally quite understated and hardly detract from the quiz game.
Some may argue that pride pins are not political statements but indications of identity; this seems unrealistically utopian, as LGBT rights remain an issue that is very much affected by political decisions and laws passed in Westminster. Moreover, it would be impractical to carve out loopholes for symbols just because they might be a statement of belonging. How does one differentiate between a pin signalling Catalonian heritage and another supporting Catalonian independence?
That said, various other symbols, such as remembrance poppies, have made appearances on other BBC programmes subject to the same impartiality requirements. The poppy is arguably far more political than a pride pin. By choosing which symbols are controversial and which are not, the BBC is itself making a political judgment, defeating the entire point of having impartiality requirements in the first place.
Aside from the issue of selecting certain symbols to censor, and allowing others to be shown, the act of censorship is itself also fundamentally troublesome. Unless the contestants consented beforehand – which they presumably did not, given their current outrage – the BBC has effectively altered the record of these student’s support. Assuming that the censorship was necessary, it would have been better to blur out the pins, making it obvious that post-production editing had occurred; or better yet, to delay airing the episode until an agreement could be reached, as this would have avoided misrepresenting them without their consent.
While this instance of censorship might seem insignificant, and maybe even justifiable, to do so without the depicted subjects’ agreement is to present them in a misleading manner. Applied to other situations, the logic of dismissing this as “no big deal” could be very slippery slope. For example, censoring a emblem worn by a celebrity could mislead viewers into believing that they are neutral on some issue, instead of taking a stand; removing a political pin could make it easier for someone’s words to be misconstrued in a short clip taken out of context.
It is not necessarily wrong for the BBC to prevent the display of symbols at University Challenge, but it has failed to uniformly apply its own editorial policy. Should the BBC follow its guidelines to the letter, instead of picking and choosing which symbols are palatable, the censorship could be justified. Perhaps the more worrying issue is that the censoring occurred so silently.
