The BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee has finally published its findings on the complaint that I made last January about Newsnight’s reporting of President Obama’s inaugural speech. The ESC is the last stage in the BBC’s complaints process. Their decision is final and unchallengeable.
I set out the events which prompted this complaint in a post headed BBC Newsnight – Warming up President Obama’s inaugural speech? Briefly, the complaint was about a report by Susan Watts’ that was introduced with a seemingly continuous sound recording from the speech, but which was in fact concocted from three isolated phrases, taken from different parts of the speech, that had been spliced together. While the screen showed views of Kew Gardens, the audience heard the new president say:
We will restore science to its rightful place, [and] roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.
Followed by Susan Watts saying:
President Obama couldn’t have been clearer today.
But this assertion referred not to something that the president had actually said, but to a manufactured quotation from the speech. In fact it was clear from the speech, which took some twenty minutes to deliver, that Obama had avoided saying anything much about global warming. There is not one complete sentence in the speech devoted to this subject, which is why the Newsnight team had to scavenge for the odd phrases that would fit their report.
An open and shut case of misleading the viewers you might think, but over the last year I have pursued this seemingly egregious breach of the editorial standards through three successive layers of the BBC complaints procedure without anyone being prepared to acknowledge that there might be a problem. There were repeated assertions that the audience must have been aware that this was a sound montage because there were ‘discernible pauses’ between the phrases. An appeal to the ESC is the ultimate stage of the appeals process.
This is what the report has to say about the ‘montage’ of phrases from the president’s speech:
Members recognised that the complainant was concerned that the clips were run in such a way so as to make the broadcasted extracts seem a coherent single piece of audio.
….
The Committee noted that when watching the item, it had not been aware of fades nor had it been aware of gaps used as a production technique to indicate disconnection between the three elements of the speech.
The Committee was concerned that presenting the extracts of the speech in the way that Newsnight had edited the material did run the risk of showing insufficient respect for the material. Any programme, especially news and current affairs, was expected to take appropriate care when editing not to mislead the audience. The Committee was concerned that in this case the programme had not provided sufficient information to the audience in the presentation of the speech for the viewer to have fully realised that the quote was made out of three separate extracts from the speech.
So on the main finding of fact, that phrases from different parts of the speech had been spliced together in a way that was not apparent to the audience, the ESC is clearly upholding my complaint. However by the end of a twelve-page report, the ESC has convinced itself, if no one else, that this is not a breech of editorial standards.
The script had given some impression, the Committee thought[,] that President Obama had spoken at length about science although actually the speech had been almost exclusively about foreign policy and the economy. But the Committee’s careful examination of the speech text led them to conclude that the piece had not breached the accuracy and impartiality guidelines as it had, correctly, highlighted the references about the environment and the change of policy in science in the speech. The Committee was satisfied given the content of the programme as a whole, and its own analysis of the speech that the impression had not been created that the environment was more significant in the speech than it actually was.
There are three categories of decision available to the ESC: a complaint can be upheld, partially upheld and not upheld. On the main finding of fact, that the ‘montage’ appeared to be a continuous sound bite, they accepted my arguments, and to this extent the audience was clearly misled. It is therefore very difficult to see how they reached a decision of ‘not upheld’ verdict, but not impossible. In the submissions I have made to the BBC over the last year I have repeatedly stressed the following issues, which the report either ignores or fails to respond adequately to all of them:
1) Not a single sentence, let alone a paragraph in the speech is devoted to global warming, or any other environmental issue for that matter.
2) The BBC Trust’s 2006 agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport requires prohibits ‘ use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred. Sec. 46, (2), (a), (v)
3) Amalgamating phrases from a speech and then quoting them as though they were contiguous would not be acceptable in print journalism. It is no more acceptable when the medium is sound.
4) I have repeatedly asked the BBC to tell me what the precise length of the ‘discernible pauses’ between the phrases is. I have been unable to obtain an answer.
5) Why Newsnight choose to use sound only rather than video, which would have made it clear to viewers that the phrases were not all part of the same passage from the speech.
6) This incident was very damaging to the BBC’s reputation both here and abroad.
7) Is it reasonable to suppose that an experienced production team, such as Newsnight employ, could not have been unaware of the effect on the audience of what they were doing ?
Of course, in the aftermath of Climategate, it would have been extremely embarrassing for the BBC if my complaint relating to climate change had been upheld, even in part. To admit that there had been bias on this subject in one of their flagship current affairs programme’s would result in adverse media comment on a grand scale. But that is no justification for a decision that appears to fly in the face of the facts, just like the Hutton Inquiry.
Lord Reith imposed standards on the BBC that made it the world leader in impartial, accurate, and responsible broadcasting. A series of scandals over the last couple of years has undone much of Reiths work without the management seeming to learn much from the experience. No doubt the Corporation will continue to lurch from one disaster to another until, if there is a change of government in May, the organisation is cut down to size and an aggressively ‘independent’ regulatory system is put in charge of what is left. I, for one, will be sorry if this happens, but it seems inevitable and the BBC will have no one but itself to blame when it happens.
By coincidence, several blogs have recently been discussing a new report commissioned by Oxfam. This features a diagram representing the networks of blogs and main stream news media that were involved in the media storm that launched the Climategate scandal. the diagram is divided in two parts, with the climate sceptical network on the left and the climate alarmist supporters network on the right.
click image to enlarge
The BBC is given pride-of-place on the supporter’s side, as the hub of climate activism, and perhaps that provides the best explanation of the BBC Trust’s extraordinary decision. What price the BBC’s reputation for impartiality now?
TonyN
Should there have been a link from ‘The ESC decision?’ If so it doesn’t seem to work so unable to read the thought processes involved.
On the surface you seem to be saying that they agreed there were no discernible gaps, but that by the end they had convinced themselves that it didn’t matter.
This gives us interesting opportunities for future BBC ‘editing’ by cutting and pasting other speeches and is surely akin to the airbrushing and manipulation of photos.
tonyb
TonyB, by dint of messing about with the url I’ve found the pdf here.
Very interesting and not unexpected, although I’m surprised by the sheer length of time it has taken to get to this decision.
Peter Rippon: “To me the President said “Apples” “Bananas” and “Oranges” and we reported that he said “Apples” “Oranges” and “Bananas”. The meaning is the same, even if people heard it as “Apples, Oranges, Bananas” I cannot see how this alters the meaning of what was in the speech.” Now that I do find rather astounding. It’s not the same thing at all – Obama was not reading from a shopping list, where word order and context do not matter; he was making a keynote speech!
Kudos to TonyN for having the patience and persistence to follow this through to the end.
Alex
Thanks for the link. At the top of his piece TonyN links to his original article AND the sound file.
Listening to this it is perfectly clear that the ‘sound bite’ was intended to be seamless, as if it were actually said in one piece of continous dialogue. That this was intended to be the prelude to comments on global warming can be heard from the next bit of the clip when Susan Watts talks of the Arctic ice cap.
She clearly used the ‘enhanced’ version as a Presidential ‘endorsement’ of the points she subsequently wanted to make.
The deliberations of the ESC seemn to be logical until they make their decision, which seems perverse in view of the evidence they themselves had provided.
I know this all takes stamina, but is there a ‘next’ step of appeal that you-or one of us- could follow?
tonyb
Link fixed, sorry about that.
I think that the most remarkable thing about the BBC decision is their determination throughout the complaints process to close their minds to any arguments or questions that were unwelcome. The matter of why video footage of the speech was not used by Newsnight is a particularly obvious example.
Peter Rippon’s claim in his submission to the ESC is particularly aggravating as it accuses me of basing my complaint that the audience was mislead on assertion only. Clearly he has either not read the lengthy submissions that I have been forced to make during the course of this seemingly endless complaints as at each stage the BBC attempted to to defend the actions for which he was responsible, or he is dissembling. Had I merely been relying on assertion the matter could not possibly have reached the giddy heights of the ESC.
TonyN
You said;
“The ESC is the last stage in the BBC’s complaints process. Their decision is final and unchallengeable.”
Is there any appeal to a more general Broadcasting watchdog or is the BBC process the end of the road?
tonyb
To me this seems to be an obvious case of misquoting in order to mislead the audience. But I am biased, as are the BBC. So you need to appeal to an unbiased governing body, as TonyB has suggested. In NZ we have the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The fact that your allegation of misleading journalism has been upheld by the ESC should make your case quite straightforward to an unbiased judge.
Well done for holding them to account this far. It may seem to be a small isolated incident, but it not only goes to the very heart of the BBC’s authoritative and professional image, it is also an indicator of a widespread journalistic bias when it comes to reporting on global warming. Your efforts are therefore very important, and much appreciated.
TonyN
Can I endorse the comments of MikeJ, you are doing excellent work here.
As you have appreciated from the start there is an important principle involved as this appears to be a case of reading the evidence and then making a decision that is not based on that material.
The BBC -and other media-need to be held to account.
Is there any additional course of action that can be realistically taken?
tonyb
This finding, together with the report of the Parliamentary Enquiry into CRU, and the appointment of Lord Oxburgh, makes me very pessimistic about the long term prognosis for climate scepticism.
In each case, the authorities are saying loud and clear that they don’t care about informed sceptical opinion. We know they are acting in bad faith; they know we know, and they don’t care, because they know we are powerless to influence wider public opinion.
If you see a pattern to these events, you’re a conspiracy theorist; if you criticise the appointment of members of official panels as biassed, you’re showing bias yourself; if you criticise the judgement of an official report, you’re accused of nitpicking and making demands which are impossible to satisfy.
The propagandists in the warmist media have only to show a semblance of even-handedness (e.g. by admitting the odd mistake in the IPCC report) and they can carry on as before.
I despair of being able to convince a wider public, who will never be persuaded to explore the arcane world of tree rings and hockeysticks, and have little choice but to listen to the experts.
MikeJ and tonyb:
I’ve actually been on holiday this week, but so far as I know there is no other body with a remit to review the BBC Trust’s decision. Although Ofcom have some authority over the BBC, that does not include matters of impartiality or misleading current affairs coverage.
The only recourse would seem to be to get an MP to put down a question in the HoC as to whether the BBC Trust’s decision is in breach of their agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport.
Geoff:
Is it the ‘wider public’ who need to be convinced? Opinion polls show ever growing levels of scepticism.
Surely it is the politicians who are lagging behind; a dangerous position for them to be in with an election brewing.
TonyN
I’m afraid the growing scepticism registered by opinion polls is entirely due to the cold winter. It could be reveresed by a hot summer. Interest in, and knowledge of, Climategate etc is infinitesimal. Look at the “most read” environment articles at the Guardian or the Times, and you’ll see that even people interested in Green issues don’t care. They’re far more interested in articles about fluffy animals in danger and how to build a bike shed than about global warming.
This is not the only example of politicians being able to ignore voters’ anger with impunity. Europe raises many similar issues, of wasteful expenditure and lack of democratic accountability. After 30+ years of protest, we have UKIP, with 3% voting intentions in opinion polls.
The old social structures which used to channel political opinion (churches, trade unions, professional bodies, clubs and societies) no longer function. There is no sign of organised opposition to the global warming movement in parliament, the media, or even within the scientific establishment. Without these, I don’t see how public opinion can operate.
Geoff:
The general public’s indifference to AGW speaks for itself. If they believed what they are being told they would not be apathetic. And so far as cold winters and heat-waves are concerned, those may excite the media and activists, but the trend in the polls is long term, going back at least three years.
I know what you mean about there not being any sign of organised opposition to the global warming movement, and I wish there were more signs of this too, but until the politicians begin to waver, how can it happen? Where is the leadership going to come from?
It will be fascinating to see what happens to public scepticism if we do have a hot summer this year, as some (like PWS here) are predicting even now. It’s a doubled-edged sword, IMO. On the one hand, we’ll have the BBC no doubt talking up the dire dangers of heat waves, and people scratching their heads and wondering whether there is something to this global warming lark after all. On the other hand, there will be many others who have loathed the winter cold and will be grateful to see some proper hot sunshine. They will be asking themselves: warmth is bad? Cooler is better? The peril of sunstroke vs the perils of flu, icy pavements, blizzards and the winter vomiting bug? The cost and inconvenience of a few melted road surfaces vs streets riddled with potholes, motorists stranded in frozen cars, power outages and skyrocketing gas bills? When we have headlines like “Barbecue summer – here at last!”, will most people feel dread or will they feel joy?
I agree with Tony that the scepticism predates the recent cold winter – last autumn, for example, Miliband senior was already criticising the public for their “apathy”.
I would also agree with Geoff though, that there is no organised resistance in this country to the AGW machine yet. Despite anything any of us may think, say or do (and despite anything the weather may do) we currently have the three main political parties and the EU resolutely wedded to CAGW and their tendency will be to steamroller the lot of us into submission on this issue (for our own good and the good of the planet, of course.) Barring some sort of unprecedented political upheaval, I think we may be looking at long years of trench warfare over the internet and other media and/or people generally obeying the law but resisting in subtle and indirect ways, rather like the good soldier Svejk.
“Where is the leadership going to come from?”
You could ask this guy!
http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/monckton-cropped.jpg
PeterM
Monckton has definitely played a strong role in opposing the “AGW-machine”, both from the scientific side as well as the political standpoint. He definitely has both tenacity and class and appears to be remarkably well informed.
But I believe it would take someone a bit more charismatic with a knack for boiling down complex issues to the key elements that everyone can clearly understand without oversimplifying (sort of an “Al Gore” for the “other side”).
There are such individuals out there, but so far no one has volunteered to champion the cause, possibly because AGW is still seen to be “PC” (although it is losing its luster daily).
Just my opinion.
Max
The whole AGW issue could be resolved shortly anyway. Scientists at the Australian CSIRO have recently made an important breakthrough. Many people are aware of the compounds carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, but are perhaps unaware of the existence of the third oxide of carbon:carbon trioxide – CO3.
Interestingly, carbon trioxide, unlike the first two which have positive GHG coefficients, has a negative coefficient. In other words, it has a negative greenhouse effect and tends to interact with reflected IR radiation to make the Earth’s atmosphere cooler.
CSIRO scientists are currently working on large scale catalytic converters which to convert CO2 in the flues of power stations to CO3. Because CO3 is a potent anti-greenhouse gas this need only be 20% efficient to completely neutralise the GH effect of the remaining 80%. Interestingly, the right-wing Australian think tank “the Institute of Public Affairs” which is normally ultra critical of CSIRO Climate research work was the first to send a telegram of congratulation to all the CSIRO scientists involved in this important breakthrough.
A pilot scheme at a remote outback coal fired power station near the town of Woop-Woop has shown promising results. However some naturalists have noticed a sharp increase in the incidence of albino wallabies and kangaroos in the region which some have attributed to the presence of CO3 in the power stations emissions.
http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/albino_kangaroo_1sfw.jpg
However supporters of the CO3 catalytic converter scheme point out that white Kangaroos do have a higher albedo than the normal grey ones, reflecting more of the sun’s heat back into space, and could themselves make a significant contribution to Australia’s efforts to minimise its effective carbon footprint.
Great news Pete………..I’m certain that Al Gore and his buddies will sell a bunch of these to guilt ridden Liberals.
They’ll be more popular than ouija boards or pet rocks……
Pete, nice one! You almost had me going there. :-D
PeterM
Please let me join Brute in congratulating your countrymen for establishing the planet-saving negative GH effect from CO3. A true Aussie breakthrough that could save us all from certain extinction!
Now all we need are catalytic converters to install on auto exhausts and flue gas stacks of power stations, plus a mechanism for preventing the CO3 from breaking back down into the deadly CO2 (plus atomic oxygen).
Should be an easy task, and I’m sure Al Gore and other self-proclaimed saviors of our planet are already figuring out how to cash in on this, i.e. “doing well by doing good”. A wonderful opportunity for mankind! Maybe we can get US President Obama to toss in a trillion or two of Brute’s taxpayer dollars to support these efforts.
And to think it all started in Oz!
I’m sure you are very proud!
Max
Peter #16
Another startling development today, April Ist, is that all Govt funded research units around the world looking into ‘dangerous climate change’ have voluntarily disbanded themselves and given their funding direct to the third world in order to combat;
Dangerous lack of water
Dagerous lack of food
Dangerous diseases
Dangerous poverty.
A spokesman for the IPCC said;
‘We felt that dealing with the real problems the poor of the world has to face is better than asking them to deal with imaginary problems dreamt up in computer laboratories with too much time, too much research funding and too many political objectives to meet in order to obtain that funding.’
The spokesman continued;
‘Hey, don’t those guys in Government realise we started up the IPCC on April 1st after we’d all been out to the pub? We thought it would only take a few days for you all to realise the significance of that date, but here we are years later and you’re still swallowing the stuff we wrote down on the back of an envelope after five tequilla sunrises.’
TonyB
Global Warming Causes Increase In Arctic Ice Cap – Peter Martin
Alex, #13:
Have you considered the possibility that the lack of an organised AGW sceptical movement may make if very much more difficult for warmists to deal with the criticisms and questions that they are facing at the moment?
And, the good soldier said, ‘No government can survive if it puts up the price of beer.’ Could the same now apply to the cost of energy? The Svejk mentality would seem to be particularly appropriate in situations where the people are being told what the can, and cannot, think. See above.
Good points, Tony. I think that not being organised in a top-down, hierarchical sort of way definitely has its benefits, as you say. There is a tendency among some of the more hard-line warmers to place everyone even slightly sceptical of CAGW in a single (and simplistic) category – “astroturfers for Big Oil”, “minions of right-wing think tanks” etc. – which surely must alienate plenty of the lukewarmers (and the genuinely undecided) who might otherwise be supportive. Scepticism towards CAGW has far more of a grass-roots nature than AGW proponents such as Ed Miliband are prepared to concede.
It also has its drawbacks, in my opinion, as there is no single authoritative voice to counter the voice of the government, the mainstream political parties or the BBC. The danger, I suppose, is that if energy prices soar, it will be due to “greedy energy companies” rather than unworkable energy policies (just as “greedy bankers” were responsible for the current economic hardship, rather than profligate governments). Energy becoming dearer will mean that the price of beer will go up, but will the non-climate-obsessed and the people who don’t read blogs fully grasp the reasons for that?
Well, I don’t know the answers, but the next few months and years are certainly going to be interesting.
Having been through the ESC process myself with a similarly bizarre and patently biased result, the conclusion does not surprise me one iota. The ESC is largely made up of BBC governors who have taken the king’s shilling to defend the reputation of the BBC, not to undermine it. Richard Tait is the chair. Although he worked for Channel 4 and ITN for many years, he started his career as a BBC journalist and has that written through him like a stick of rock. He definitely is not an impartial arbiter and it is absurd to pretend that he is. It’s like having a wolf in charge of the national committee for the welfare of sheep.
The whole rotten edifice should be swept away and replaced by a genuinely independent panel of adjudicators who have no axe to grind other than upholding the BBC Charter (and associated editorial guidelines). Until that happens, complaining to the BBC is useless and pointless; all the editors will defend everything they broadcast, and the ESC – except on very minor matters of accuracy, for window-dressing purposes – will support everything they do.
Robin H:
That’s a pretty bleak picture that you paint, but it certainly fits with my experience. SO far as I am aware, there is nowhere else to go so far as my complaint is concerned.