The ‘Ex-BBC Journalist’ Label: Credential, Crutch, or Ethical Grey Zone?
Colombo — A curious and increasingly visible pattern has emerged within Sri Lanka’s media ecosystem. A growing number of journalists who once worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), particularly within its Sinhala and English services, now prominently brand themselves as “ex-BBC journalists” or “former BBC reporters” long after leaving the organisation. The label routinely appears beneath opinion columns, social media posts, open letters, and media interventions, often deployed as a seal of authority rather than a biographical footnote.
The phenomenon has prompted a wider debate within journalistic circles: is prior employment at the BBC a professional qualification that confers ongoing credibility, or has it become an affectation that risks misleading readers and eroding media ethics?
A Title That Outlives Employment
In many cases, the individuals invoking the “ex-BBC” title are no longer affiliated with the broadcaster in any professional capacity. Some left voluntarily after years of service; others departed following contractual disputes, non-renewals, or disciplinary proceedings. A number were full-time staff, while others worked as contractors, stringers, or contributors. Several even pursued employment tribunal claims against the BBC after their exit.
Yet, despite the diversity of circumstances, the post-employment branding remains remarkably consistent. Articles written years later, for unrelated platforms, are routinely signed off with the “former BBC journalist” designation, as though the institutional authority of the BBC remains transferable and permanent.
Media analysts argue that this practice blurs an important line between past experience and present standing.
“Working for the BBC is a job, not a knighthood,” said a senior Colombo-based editor. “Once you leave, you leave. The credibility of what you write today should rest on evidence, sourcing, and professional integrity, not on where you once drew a salary.”
Public Service, Not Private Capital
The BBC is not a private media brand owned by its journalists. It is a public service broadcaster funded primarily by UK licence fee payers. Editorial authority flows from its institutional processes, oversight mechanisms, and collective accountability, not from individual bylines acting independently.
Critics argue that repeatedly foregrounding an “ex-BBC” identity risks appropriating public institutional capital for private gain. The concern is not merely semantic. Readers may reasonably assume that commentary written by a “former BBC journalist” carries some form of endorsement, alignment, or residual credibility derived from the BBC itself, even when no such connection exists.
This becomes particularly problematic when former staff use contacts, access, or reputational leverage built during their BBC tenure to pursue highly personalised, polemical, or controversial narratives under the banner of journalistic truth-telling.
“The BBC name is doing heavy lifting here,” noted a media ethics lecturer at a Sri Lankan university. “It creates an implied hierarchy: as if ‘ex-BBC’ places one above local journalists, editors, or scholars who never worked for that institution.”
The Badge of Moral Superiority
The issue gained renewed attention following a recent public dispute between two Sri Lankan journalists, in which a former BBC Sinhala service reporter openly attacked a colleague over the origins of a journalists’ association. The letter concluded with a blunt sign-off: “Ex-BBC journalist.”
For many observers, that closing line was telling. It suggested not merely authorship, but authority; not merely identity, but superiority.
“There is a performative aspect to this,” said a veteran journalist unaffiliated with any international broadcaster. “It signals: listen to me, I am more credible than you.”
Such signalling, critics argue, is corrosive to an already fragile media environment in Sri Lanka, where trust in journalism has been repeatedly undermined by politicisation, misinformation, and personality-driven reporting.
Is It a Qualification?
From a professional standpoint, prior employment is not a qualification in itself. Journalism, unlike law or medicine, does not confer permanent titles. There is no equivalent of “former barrister” or “ex-surgeon” used as a credential in unrelated work.
Internationally, former BBC journalists who continue in media typically describe themselves by their current role: columnist, editor, analyst, researcher. Their BBC experience may appear in a biographical paragraph, but rarely as a headline credential.
“In mature media markets, constantly branding oneself as ‘ex-BBC’ would be seen as insecure,” said a London-based media consultant. “It suggests the present work cannot stand on its own.”
Ethical and Institutional Questions
Some have gone further, arguing that the BBC itself has a responsibility to clarify how its name may be used by former employees. While there is no suggestion that former staff are automatically prohibited from referencing their past roles, ethical concerns arise when the BBC brand is used repeatedly to bolster authority in contentious political or journalistic disputes abroad.
There are also questions, raised quietly but persistently, about whether misuse of institutional affiliation could have implications for post-employment benefits, including pensions. While no evidence has been presented that such benefits are currently at risk, the perception of exploiting a public institution’s name for personal branding is enough to warrant scrutiny.
Others suggest that Sri Lanka’s own media regulatory bodies should issue clearer guidance on professional identification, particularly where former international affiliations are used in a potentially misleading manner.
A Call for Professional Maturity
At its core, the debate is less about the BBC and more about journalistic self-conception. Journalism is a practice, not a pedigree. Authority must be earned daily through accuracy, fairness, and accountability.
For Sri Lankan readers, the question is simple: why should it matter where a journalist worked years ago, if that journalist no longer works there today?
As one editor put it bluntly: “If the story is true, prove it. If the argument is sound, defend it. The rest is branding.”
In an era where media credibility is under unprecedented strain, clinging to expired institutional labels may offer comfort to the writer, but it does little to serve the reader.