The BBC's Complaints Procedure Revealed: Part 1

Posted by TonyN on 18/02/2009 at 2:10 pm BBC and Freedom of Information 1 Response »
Feb 182009

On 22nd January 2009 I emailed a complaint to the BBC Trust with the following brief covering note which ended:

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this document
without delay.

22/01/2009

As I had heard nothing from them a couple of days later, I thought that I had better just check up. Emailing messages with attachments can be a tricky business:

I emailed a complaint on Thursday 22nd Jan 2009 concerning Susan
Watts’ 20th Jan report on President Obama’s inaugural speech for
Newsnight. This was in the form of an MS Word attachment.

I specifically asked for confirmation that this message, and the
complaint attached, had been received. Will you now  please confirm
that it was received.

26/01/2009

That produced the confirmation that I had originally asked for:

I can confirm that we have received your email, and will respond within
10 working days.

26/01/2009

Rather than asking why it had taken two emails to obtain a one-sentence response, I thought that I had better be diplomatic, so I replied:

Many thanks for letting me know.

26/01/2009

It would seem unkind to personalise the problems that followed, so lets call the person who I was dealing with Dave, with the genuine job title Correspondence Adviser, BBC Trust Unit.

On the 30th January, just eight days after I had sent in my complaint, I received the following email from Dave: Continue reading »

Warming up Obama - response from BBC Newsnight

Posted by TonyN on 12/02/2009 at 8:30 pm BBC and Freedom of Information 5 Responses »
Feb 122009

I have received the following message from BBC Information in response to my complaint about a ‘sound bite’ compiled from president Obama’s inaugural speech. This was used in a Newsnight report by Susan Watts:

Thank you for your email regarding ‘Newsnight’ which was broadcast on 20th January.

Your correspondence has been forwarded by the Trust Unit to BBC Information for a reply on behalf of the BBC’s Executive as it concerns matters which are the responsibility of the Executive, rather than the Trust, in the first instance. This department, BBC Information, has a wealth of knowledge about BBC programmes and policies and is experienced in the workings of the Corporation and so is authorised to reply on behalf of the BBC’s Executive.

I understand you felt that Susan Watts’ report on Barack Obama’s plans for the environment edited clips of his inauguration address in a way that was misleading.

This was one part of a 50 minute programme exploring the start of the Obama presidency from various angles. ‘Newsnight’ edited sections of the speech to reflect the elements in it that referred to science as a way to give people an impression or montage of what President Obama said about science in his inauguration speech.

This was signposted to audiences with fades between each point. It in no way altered the meaning or misrepresented what the President was saying. the report then went on to explore the challenges facing the President in this area.

I appreciate that you had serious concerns about the editing of the speech and I have registered your complaint on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for the ‘Newsnight’ production team and all programme makers within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the corporation.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

The BBC seem to be relying on two assertions: that the ‘montage’ was ‘signposted’ by fades and that their compilation in no way misrepresented what President Obama said in his speech. There is no attempt to substantiate either of these claims.

No fair-minded person listening to the programme could possibly perceive the ‘sound bite’ as anything other than a continuous excerpt from the speech. Continue reading »

Newsnight - Warming up Obama? A response from BBC Trust

Posted by TonyN on 30/01/2009 at 3:50 pm BBC and Freedom of Information 5 Responses »
Jan 302009

I have received a response to my complaint about Susan Watts’ Newsnight report on President Obama’s inaugural speech. This is what the BBC Trust say:

Thank you for your email of 22 January to the BBC Trust regarding aNewsnight report by Susan Watts. I am responding on the Trust’s behalf; I work in the Trust Unit which provides advice and support to the BBC Trust.

I have noted your comments for the information of the Trust. I should explain however that the role of the BBC Trust as set out in the BBC’s Royal Charter is distinct from that of the BBC’s management and it has no role in day to day editorial matters. The Trust’s role is to set the overall framework, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, which set out the values and standards that all BBC output should meet. Responsibility for the BBC’s editorial content within these Editorial Guidelines rests ultimately with the Director-General, as Editor-in-Chief.

There is a BBC complaints process in place to deal with instances where audiences feel that there has been a breach of these Guidelines. This requires that complaints must be dealt with in the first instance by the BBC’s management; the Trust’s role in this process is to consider appeals from complainants should they be dissatisfied with the response that they have received from the BBC’s management. Full details of the\complaints process can be found at  http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

As the Trust cannot involve itself in your complaint at this stage, I am forwarding your email to BBC Information for an initial response on behalf of BBC management.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

It has taken over a week to reach this momentous decision. The complaint that I sent to the BBC Trust can be found here.

In spite of what the BBC Trust say, the agreement that they entered into with the government in July 2006 leaves no doubt that it is they who have final responsibility for accuracy and impartiality in news and current affairs output, not the Director-General.

I hope to receive a proper response to my complaint before too long.

BBC Newsnight's Obama quote - ethical considerations, and the BBC explains everything

Posted by TonyN on 27/01/2009 at 6:16 pm BBC and Freedom of Information 5 Responses »
Jan 272009

Rhonda Roland Shearer and Danielle Elliot of stinkyjournalism.org have greatly expanded their coverage of what someone has referred to as  ‘splicegate’.

As well as a very well informed and thoughtful exploration of the ethical issues involved in the editing of quotes, they have been in touch with the BBC’s Press Office.  The statement that they received seems to explain everything to the BBC’s entire satisfaction, but I doubt whether many people who have watched the video will be convinced.

This was one part of a 50 min programme exploring the start of the Obama presidency from various angles. We edited sections of the speech to reflect the elements in it that referred to Science as a way to give people an impression or montage of what Obama said about science in his inauguration speech. This was signposted to audiences with fades between each point. It in no way altered the meaning or misrepresented what the President was saying. The piece then went on to explore the challenges facing the president in this area.

They have also heard from Peter Rippon, the editor of Newsnight, and there is much more. Over on the other side of the Atlantic journalistic ethics seem to be taken pretty seriously. The Stinky Journalism team asked four experts on the subject, one of them an ex-BBC employee, to give their opinions on whether Newsnight’s conduct was acceptable. Their responses are interesting, to say the least.

I strongly recommend that anyone who wants to understand the issues that are at stake to have a good look at Rhonda and Danielle’s post.

Bishop Hill has also filed some typically shrewd observations under the title Ethicists criticise BBC .

If the BBC wants to justify the editing of the Obama quote, then they will have to come up with far more convincing explanations than the ones that have appeared so far. The sooner that the BBC Trustees provide an official response to my complaint the better for all concerned, I think.

The BBC press release that announced the appointment of Peter Rippon  last autumn had this to say:

BBC’s Deputy Director of News, Stephen Mitchell, said: “Peter Rippon is an outstanding editor with significant experience and a reputation for innovation with his current stable of programmes from The World At One, PM and Broadcasting House.

“Newsnight is one of our most important programmes and I am convinced that under Peter’s leadership its reputation will be taken to new heights.”

Press release

Newsnight is, in my opinion, an excellent programme, but that does not mean that it is infallible.  The present furore on the internet could easily be abated by a correction and an apology. Trying to defend the indefensible will only prolong the agony and do further harm to the BBC’s reputation.

Warming up Obama at the BBC - what Newsnight's editor has to say

Posted by TonyN on 25/01/2009 at 11:54 am BBC and Freedom of Information 5 Responses »
Jan 252009

 

BBC Newsnight’s editor, Peter Rippon, has posted a comment on Susan Watts’ blog attempting to explain the very strange ‘sound bite’ used in their report on President Obama’s inaugural speech which was discussed here.

33. At 4:44pm on 24 Jan 2009, PeterRipponEd wrote:
Hello All,

Re the opening of Susan’s piece. We did edit sections of the speech to reflect the elements in it that referred to Science. The aim was to give people an impression or montage of what Obama said about science in his inauguration speech. This was signposted to audiences with fades between each point. It in no way altered the meaning or misrepresented what the
President was saying. You can look for yourself above.

Apologies for not responding sooner. I thought I had. BBC Editors find this blogging software frustrating at times too.

Peter Rippon
Editor, Newsnight

Comment #33, here

If the reaction in the dozen or more comments that have already been posted in response are anything to go by, then he has failed to convince his readers.

I do not think that any viewer outside the Newsnight editing suite would recognise that the ‘sound bite’ was a montage, or that the extracts from the speech were separated by fades. And he also needs to explain why the extracts were arranged in a different order from the one in which they appear in the speech if this was intended as a montage.

Then there is the matter of Susan Watts opening remarks:

President Obama couldn’t have been clearer today. And for most scientists his vote of confidence would not have come a moment too soon.

In the eight years of the Bush presidency, the world saw Arctic ice caps shrink to a record summer low, the relentless rise of greenhouse gas emissions, and warnings from scientists shift from urgent to panicky.

How can this be explained if viewers were not intended to understand the ‘sound bite’ as two complete and consecutive sentences? Her opening remarks only make sense if the ‘sound bite’ is perceived in this way.

I sent a formal and detailed complaint to the BBC Trustees on Thursday, specifically asking for confirmation of receipt. So far I have heard nothing, but perhaps the trustees’ office have the same kind of trouble with electronic mail that Newsnight editors have with blogging software.

The BBC Trustees are responsible for ensuring that the corporation’s news and current affairs reporting is accurate and impartial, as their charter requires. This is a matter that must be dealt with by them. It is far too important to be settled by a cheery comment from Peter Rippon on a blog.

Natalie Solent has an excellent post about this at Biased BBC.

Climate-Resistance also has a very thoughtful post which covers other aspects to Susan Watts’ report too.

BBC Newsnight - Warming up President Obama's inaugural speech?

Posted by TonyN on 21/01/2009 at 5:25 pm BBC and Freedom of Information 111 Responses »
Jan 212009

What should the BBC do if the new US President’s references to global warming in his inaugural speech don’t quite come up to expectations?

Last night I was reading through the full text of Barack Obama’s speech just before the BBC’s daily current affairs magazine, Newsnight, came on television. So his words were fresh in my mind when Susan Watts, Newsnight’s science editor, presented a piece on the implications of the speech for science in general and global warming in particular. I was surprised when it started with this sound bite from the inaugural speech:

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.

Link to sound file

I didn’t seem to remember him saying that at all.

When the program was over, I went back to the text and this is what I found.

It would seem that someone at the BBC had taken the trouble to splice the tape so that half a sentence from paragraph 16 of the inauguration speech was joined on to half a sentence from paragraph 22, and this apparently continuous sound bite was completed by returning to paragraph 16 again to lift another complete sentence.

Susan Watts then started her report by saying: Continue reading »

The BBC climate change seminar and the Chatham House Rule

Posted by TonyN on 15/01/2009 at 5:47 pm BBC and Freedom of Information No Responses »
Jan 152009

A couple of days ago, I wrote to Richard D North asking if he could remember whether the BBC climate change seminar which he attended in 2006 was held under the Chatham House Rule. This is rather an important point.Chatham House, also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, originated in the aftermath of the First World War and has become a respected source of independent analysis, informed debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world.

The House has given its name to the famous Chatham House Rule, first established here in 1927 and revised twice since. The Rule is used around the world to ensure free and open debate.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/history/

This is what the rule says:

“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed”.

The world-famous Chatham House Rule may be invoked at meetings to encourage openness and the sharing of information.

EXPLANATION of the Rule

The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion.

Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don’t have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/

The value of the Chatham House Rule in sensitive diplomatic negotiations or conflict resolution is obvious. Parties can, if the rule is in operation, freely express views and explore ideas without having to worry that what they say may be held against them in the future, but this is clearly an intermediate stage in the process of negotiation or decision making.  It is a means of clearing the ground so that substantive discussions and decision making can take place, or of exploring sensitive issues in a way that might be difficult if everything that is said has to be on the record. It is certainly not intended to be a means of hiding a decision making process behind closed doors. In my view, and I suspect in the view of Chatham House too, using the rule for this purpose would be inappropriate.

Here is Richard D North’s reply to my enquiry:

Continue reading »

Freedom of Information and the BBC climate change seminar: news from the front line

Posted by TonyN on 27/12/2008 at 12:47 pm BBC and Freedom of Information 23 Responses »
Dec 272008

The writer and political commentator Richard D North has very kindly sent me these recollections of an event that took place at the BBC Television Centre on 26th January 2006, (previously discussed here).

In a report published by the BBC Trustees the following year, this was described as a ‘high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts’ on climate change, and used to illustrate the care with which the impartiality of the corporation’s news and current affairs coverage of this very important subject has been safeguarded.

I did attend the BBC climate change seminar and my impression is that it was part of the ongoing efforts by Roger Harrabin (environment analyst at the BBC) to help the corporation wrestle with the problem of balance and impartiality and robust reporting of the climate change debate.

I think Roger Harrabin has not been a good reporter or analyst of climate change. He is not the worst by any means, but he has in my view missed many tricks. However, he has been serious if not very effective (actually often rather poor) in tackling the nature of the debate itself.

By the way, my own view is that the biggest media failure has been in discussing the policy response to the science of climate change. I mean that though the discussion of the science has been bad the discussion of the policy response has been mostly abysmal. The BBC is only the worst of the offenders on this score because (a) they are paid to be the best and (b) their efforts have fallen so far short of their stated ambitions in this area.

I found the seminar frankly shocking. The BBC crew (senior executives from every branch of the corporation) were matched by an equal number of specialists, almost all (and maybe all) of whom could be said to have come from the “we must support Kyoto” school of climate change activists. Continue reading »

The BBC, Environmental Information Regulations and a very convenient loophole

Posted by TonyN on 24/11/2008 at 9:12 pm BBC and Freedom of Information, The Climate 30 Responses »
Nov 242008

When I asked the BBC for the names of what they described as ‘the best scientific experts’ who attended their 2006 seminar on climate change (here), I made the request under both the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations. Although these two pieces of legislation are similar in intent, to promote transparency in public life, there are some subtle differences in the ways that they apply;

FOI Act: Refers to information held by a wide range of government agencies and other organisations that are publicly funded. These are identified in schedules to the act and include both the BBC and universities. There are common sense exceptions that allow certain information not to be divulged; national security, the police, courts of law and some kinds of personal data among others. There is also a clause that overrides some of the exceptions if releasing the information is considered to be in the public interest.

In the case of the BBC and ITN, these bodies are only subject to the FOI Act where information is not held for the purposes other than ‘journalism, art or literature’. Providing a degree of confidentiality to journalists is understandable. Who would speak off the record to a reporter if they thought that what they said might be brought into the public domain as a result of an FOI Act application? On the other hand, the act does not define ‘journalism, art and literature’, a shortcoming that the BBC seems only too willing to exploit.

The FOI Act came into effect in 2000 and is UK legislation, as opposed to EU law.

EIR: The type of information that must be disclosed is obviously more specific here, but the regulations apply not only to all the bodies specified in the FOI Act, but to many that are not. For instance even contractors used by publicly funded bodies are subject to the regulations, as are utility companies and major contractors used by such bodies. There are also fewer exceptions than in the FOI Act.

The EIR is not British legislation, but European Union legislation that the UK has signed up to.

When I applied to the BBC for information about the climate change seminar, I was under the impression that they must be subject to the EIR, as were many others, including the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which oversees compliance with both the FOI Act and the EIR. In a letter to the BBC about my appeal against their decision not to provide me with the information I wanted, dated 28th July 2008, the ICO said: Continue reading »

Freedom of information and hypocrisy at the BBC

Posted by TonyN on 10/10/2008 at 7:37 pm BBC and Freedom of Information, The Climate 13 Responses »
Oct 102008

In a post here I quoted from an article that Jeremy Paxman wrote for Ariel, the BBC’s house magazine:

I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.

I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago. But it strikes me as very odd indeed that an organisation which affects such a high moral tone cannot be more environmentally responsible. [My emphasis]

Jeremy Paxman, Newsnight Homepage 02/02/2007

Although it was Paxman’s admission that that the BBC has taken a position in the climate change debate – and is no longer reporting on this vital topic impartially – that attracted my attention to his article, this revelation was not the main thrust of what he had to say. Hypocrisy at the BBC was what was getting the devastating ‘Paxo’ treatment. Continue reading »

Older Entries Newer Entries
© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha