1. Hi @bbcnickrobinson, I read this article, and I’m afraid James O'Brien is absolutely right about something, let me explain what and why…
2. The “border” terminology should be seen as a problem for many on both sides of the debate. It’s a politically emotive statement used to conflate border control with immigration. 
3. To be clear, this issue isn’t down to due impartiality which you correctly claim is difficult. Impartiality is difficult to manage, it’s difficult to discern, but it’s all too easy to assume. No, the problem is in due accuracy.
4. As an example, here is the Prime Minister at a time she was the Home Secretary. She informs Andrew Marr on multiple occasions that it is important not to mix up border and immigration policy. Andrew declines her expert advice in favour of maintaining his “view”.
5. Now here is Michael Gove. In response to the opinion of ex-Mi6 head John Sawers. Michael claims the head of Interpol does not agree with John and has said: “The EU’s open border policy is like hanging out a welcome sign for terrorists”
6. Ignoring the fact Ronald Noble hadn’t been the head of Interpol for over a year, some people who use this terminology may conclude, as David Campbell Bannerman did, that Ronald Noble was referring to immigration policy and freedom of movement.
7. However, had Andrew Marr listened to Theresa May on the meaning of open borders, instead of thinking “well that’s my view”, he would have asked what Michael meant, and asked how Ronald Noble’s opinion on the Schengen area relates to the UK.
8. Specifically because, Ronald Noble had singled out the UK as an example of best practise.
9. And Ron Noble rates highly the way the UK handle “The real threat” to the EU, suggesting we’re 2nd only to the USA in the world.
10. Furthermore, the only comment I could find by John Sawers on Schengen was from his letter to the Telegraph in which simply states we are not part of it.
11. Therefore it is difficult to discern what Michael thought Ron disagreed with John over. The comments John Sawyers made in his Marr interview were about access to information, something Ron Noble does not appear to disagree with.
12. The facts are, that when Boris Johnson made reference to Ron Noble’s comments, he explicitly stated Schengen, and this led to the Channel 4 @FactCheck asking the question “so what”? A good question, since we lose our involvement in things like Europol.
13. This was the question Andrew Marr failed to ask as a result of his own lax adoption of terminology, despite the fact the Home Secretary had made it absolutely clear, time and time again, border policy is not immigration policy, and said clearly that this was important.
14. Now, if we look at the OFCOM guidance for Due Accuracy it says that broadcasters should take care before making statements about contentious issues, which may be dependent on nuance and open to different interpretations e.g. ambiguous statements made by politicians.
15. Public interest issues require higher accuracy. I suspect terminology on terrorist threats and matters of national security rank quite highly on this scale.
16. Therefore, if James isn’t wrong and the BBC can use terminology which does not make an important distinction on a matter of national security, then we may as well rip up the charter and let them say whatever they want in as many misleading ways as they want.
17. Now, I also notice you quote Carl Bernstein, which is great, because in the face of a minister of the crown misrepresenting people on matters of national security, Carl would probably have been all over that.
18. It isn’t just Michael. Apparently, not everyone is as honest and straightforward as, and I can barely believe I’m writing this, Boris Johnson.
19. And here is more evidence of the damage that people can do to the debate if they allow this lazy conflation. ‘View’ or not, it is terminology that facilitates misinformation, and misrepresentation, that should be rejected by an organisation whose aim is to inform.
20. I don't need to tell you that lying about national security isn’t like lying about pigs ears.
theguardian.com/politics/2017/…
theguardian.com/politics/2017/…
22. And while we may not be a country where ministers have to stand down after having affairs anymore, many would think that someone who would lie on matters this serious should be considered unsuitable for office.
23. This whole business raises the question of what other things they may have lied about. Can they be trusted on any subject, if not the one involving the future security of the nation?
huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-…
huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-…
24. And even if they didn’t know, and it was an error of judgement, then it is a big error. Considering the sensitivity and gravity of the subject matter, it is hard to imagine why anyone who didn’t check their facts on this issue should be trusted with office.
25. So, this a great opportunity for you to prove to the public that the BBC isn’t just government shill, ask the important questions, and prove the corporation can live up to the example set by Bernstein.
26. Because it may be the case, as you say, that the US media is leaving democracy unhealthy
27. But if our media won’t hold accountable two ministers who misrepresented an ex-head of Interpol to win a vote which is irreversible, and in doing so potentially weakened our national security forever…
28. Then we shouldn’t be pointing at the problems the US media creates for their democracy, as if our own democracy doesn’t stink.
/End
/End
