The BBC vs. Florence Nightingale (Reputations: Florence Nightingale, Iron Maiden, BBC2, 17 July 2001)

This page is about the poor quality of the BBC's recent TV programme about Florence Nightingale, and the BBC's response to criticism.

On Tuesday 17 July 2001, the BBC broadcast a TV documentary called Reputations: Florence Nightingale, Iron maiden.  The BBC narrator claimed that Florence Nightingale was "driven more by ambition than compassion".   Professor F. B. Smith, author of a 1982 book which severely criticised Nightingale, was interviewed in the programme and supported this editorial line.  Hugh Small, author of Florence Nightingale, Avenging Angel also appeared on the programme.  The Daily Mail (Britain's largest circulation newspaper) gave the programme a very bad review, saying that it was sick, tendentious, bitchy, and unfair to Nightingale.  The Daily Mail quoted one of the few factual allegations made by the BBC and F. B. Smith against Nightingale, that she opposed votes for women, and defended Nightingale by saying "that was a view shared by probably the majority of the upper-class women of her day".

But Florence Nightingale never opposed votes for women!   It may have been very kind of the Daily Mail to rush to her defence, but it is likely to do more harm than good to her reputation.  Viewers can detect the anti-Nightingale bias in the BBC, and will take every accusation in the programme with a pinch of salt.  But when a newspaper with a wide readership  repeats the accusation as if it were true, in an article otherwise favourable to Nightingale, it adds credibility to the BBC's false claim.  Perhaps some of the Daily Mail's readers see nothing wrong with opposing votes for women, but it would greatly diminish Nightingale's importance as a reformer if it were true.  Author Hugh Small, in an attempt to undo some of the additional damage caused by the Daily Mail, wrote a letter that was published in that paper on 26 July.  

Hugh Small also wrote a letter to the Times Literary Supplement criticising the BBC, Professor Smith, and their claim that Nightingale opposed votes for women, which was published on 3 August.  It said that the BBC should have taken note of a recent Times Literary Supplement article that charged Professor Smith with publishing false allegations against Nightingale, a charge against which Professor Smith had not made any defence.  Professor Smith objected to publication of this letter, writing to Hugh Small to say that it was incorrect to say that he had not made a defence.  He claimed that he had written a defence but the Times Literary Suiplement had refused to pubish it.  Professor Smith's letter of objection is not given here, but its contents can be deduced from the letter that Hugh Small wrote in reply to it.  Small points out in this response that the defence that Professor Smith claimed he had had made seemed to be an admission of the charges rather than a defence.

Hugh Small also wrote to the BBC criticising its role in tarnishing Florence Nightingale's reputation.  He suggested ways in which the BBC could correct its error and prevent such things happening in the future.  The BBC replied with an apology, admitting its error but declining to take the actions proposed. 

Hugh Small's letter to the Daily Mail (26 July 2001)

Nightingale U-turn

PETER PATERSON's review of BBC2's Florence Nightingale documentary quoted the claim she opposed votes for women.

The only evidence given was a statement by F. B. Smith, who said she 'put her signature to the great petition against female suffrage'. Other historians claim she signed a petition in favour of votes for women.

This same F. B. Smith, in his critical book about Nightingale, states she did not sign the Appeal Against Female Suffrage, signed by 104 distinguished women and published in June 1889 in Nineteenth Century Magazine, and that she poured scorn on those who did.

Having checked the records, I find he was right in his book: she did not sign it. Did he discover a different petition or forget what he wrote?

HUGH SMALL, author Florence
       Nightingale, Avenging Angel

Hugh Small's letter to Times Literary Supplement (3 August 2001)

Florence Nightingale's Reputation

Sir, - On December 8 last year you published Lynn McDonald's article "Florence Nightingale Revisited" analysing F. B. Smith's book Florence Nightingale: Reputation and power (1982), which, according to the original TLS reviewer set out to portray Nightingale as a confidence trickster, a liar and worse. Professor McDonald concluded that many of the unpublished sources referenced in Smith's influential and apparently scholarly work did not remotely support the statements for which Smith cited them as evidence, and some of them proved him wrong. I have been waiting for Smith or some of the other historians who repeated his claims to comment on this article in your columns, but no defence of his work has appeared. I was therefore surprised that the BBC made such extensive and unqualified use of F. B. Smith in its documentary Reputations: Florence Nightingale, iron maiden broadcast on BBC2 on July 17. He was the prime supporter of the BBC's editorial line that Florence Nightingale was "driven more by ambition than by compassion", and the BBC did not cite any opposing view or allude to the fact that other scholars have raised unanswered doubts about Smith's primary sources.

In the  programme, Smith made the claim that Florence Nightingale "put her signature to the great petition against female suffrage in the late 1880s." This fact appears at first sight to be an important new discovery - other historians say that she signed a petition in favour of votes for women. So does Smith in his 1982 book. In that book he also mentions the opposing "Appeal against Female Suffrage" published in Nineteenth Century Magazine in June 1889 and signed by 104 distinguished women. On page 189-90, Smith admits that Nightingale did not sign this petition against votes for women, and that she poured scorn on those who did. I have checked the original and found that he was right then: she did not sign it. Perhaps he has now discovered a different petition, or has he simply forgotten what he wrote? Either way, the BBC could have explained the contradiction. As a contributor to the programme myself I had no knowledge of what other contributors had said. If the BBC had granted my repeated requests to preview the recorded programme, I would have pointed out the inconsistency. Alternatively, if the BBC History Unit had paid more attention to their TLS they might have been more careful to check their sources.

Hugh Small
c/o Constable, 3 The Lanchesters
162 Fulham Palace Road
London W6

Hugh Small's reply to F. B. Smith

2 September 2001

Dear Professor Smith,

Thank you very much for your letter of 14 August, of which I enclose a copy in case you did not keep one. I am honoured that you should take the trouble to write to me about my letter in the Times Literary Supplement of 3 August, in which I publicly criticised the BBC for relying so extensively on your views in its programme Reputations: Florence Nightingale, iron maiden. Professor McDonald had questioned the accuracy of your book in a TLS article to which you had not replied in print; I said that because of these unanswered questions BBC should not have given your views such unqualified prominence, to the extent of basing on them its editorial line that Florence Nightingale was "driven more by ambition than compassion". You now tell me that you had answered Professor McDonald’s charges, but that the TLS declined to print your response. Having read what you say is the gist of the response you submitted to the TLS, I believe that it did not address any of the points raised by Professor McDonald. Instead, your response seems to blame any inaccuracies in the book on accidents during its production. I think that the Letters Editor of the TLS was justified in printing my letter with its implication that you had not defended your work, because your response seems to have been a disavowal rather than a defence.

In your letter to me you regret the slip you made when you said on the programme that Florence Nightingale signed the petition against female suffrage in 1889. It would be helpful if you would draw the BBC’s attention to this slip, so that they can publish a correction. This would deter future writers from erroneously describing Florence Nightingale as a campaigner against votes for women. For example the Daily Mail (Britain’s highest circulation newspaper), in its article criticising the BBC programme, accepted as true your statement that Nightingale signed a petition against female suffrage and attempted to defend her on the grounds that "that was a view shared by probably the majority of upper-class women of the day". I enclose a copy of the Daily Mail article for your interest.

Regardless of what the Daily Mail thinks, people will take Florence Nightingale less seriously because of this mistake. It will reduce the impact of her very important legacy. This is the fault of the BBC for publishing the results of scholarship without conducting peer review like any other learned publication. With their secretive way of making this programme, mistakes like this were inevitable. The BBC, in exchange for receiving £2.4 billion every year in licence fee money, has a public service obligation that requires it to broadcast programmes that "enhance the national culture". This programme does the reverse. I hope that we can persuade the BBC to fulfil its obligations by at least publishing a correction.

Yours sincerely
Hugh Small

Hugh Small's letter of complaint to the BBC

BBC's response to Hugh Small's criticism

British Broadcasting Corporation Broadcasting House Portland Place London WIA 1AA Telephone 020 7580 4468 Fax 020 7765 5176

Programme Complaints Unit

Head of Programme Complaints

[ Back to Florence Nightingale, Avenging Angel ]