How the establishment closes ranks around the BBC
Regular readers may recall a couple of posts back in January where we told the story of an Autonomous Mind reader who complained to the BBC about an edition of Hardtalk.
This is the one in December 2010 where President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives was allowed to state, without challenge, that due to human induced climate change sea levels around the Maldives are rising. The lack of journalistic rigour and blind acceptance of such a controversial viewpoint as fact led to the complaint being made and the BBC’s two fingered resp0nse in January which included the immortal words:
We’re committed to honest, unbiased reporting and are determined to remain free from influence by outside parties.
Following the response, our reader then filed a Freedom of Information request to the BBC asking for details of:
- how many complaints/ accusations of bias the BBC received from the public about the BBC’s coverage of climate change
- how many of the complaints received about climate change were upheld by the BBC, i.e. were accepted
- brief details / a list of all the complaints upheld, i.e. the details of the upheld complaint and the BBC’s response (excluding details of the person complaining)
In publishing the story in a follow up post we shared the unsurprising news that the response from the BBC to our reader’s request was a refusal to provide the information sought. Once again the BBC was hiding behind its establishment-given provision to withhold any information the BBC considers to be held for the ‘purposes of journalism, art or literature’.
As this blog said in our commentary on the decision, the BBC seemed to have chosen to interpret the Act in a very loose way by extending it ‘to the sifting and review of praise and criticism from audiences, as well as the seeking of an independent view of criticism in order to undertake this review process.‘ The thrust of the BBC’s response was that complaints are used to inform the creation or improvement of programming. As a result our commentary concluded:
It would seem obvious that complaints rejected by the BBC are not used to inform the creation or improvement of programmes because they are arguing the complaints are baseless. So, the only possible reason for withholding details of rejected complaints is to hide the extent of viewer and listener dissatisfaction with an editorial line the BBC is determined to pursue.
Our reader was advised that if he disagreed with the decision he could appeal to the Information Commissioner. So he did.
We now fast forward to last week when our reader received an incredibly lengthy reply from David McNeil, a Complaints Officer and the Information Commissioner’s Office, which you can read below:
This is quite a staggering communication from the ICO, if again completely unsurprising. At the heart of it is the assumption or belief that because the BBC says the complaints material informs their editorial direction they should not be bound to reveal how many complaints they receive.
However at no point is the BBC asked to provide evidence that demonstrates, on the basis of complaints received, they have ever adjusted their editorial approach. We are simply enjoined to accept it without proof.
The only way this can ever be assessed is if the complaints process was made transparent, but they continue to hide behind the Act, with establishment approval, to prevent that happening. The question of course is ‘what are they hiding and why?’ which takes us back to the Balen Report and Steven Sugar’s attempt to uncover the details of the report. It is simply that the findings would reveal the bias so many people believe the BBC possesses and that many more people reject the BBC worldview than the corporation is comfortable with revealing? If we do not know what the report held we cannot assess whether any material change in editoral approach was ever made. Likewise, when it comes to complaints such as these.
Why should the license fee payer, compelled to pay the fee under pain of fine or imprisonment, be denied information about how many people complain about the BBC’s output and be able to ascertain for themselves whether the views of the public are ever taken into account?
This is just another example of the establishment, of which the BBC is an integral part, protecting its propaganda arm and treating the public who are forced to pay their wages with utter contempt. On this basis our reader is now considering taking this complaint to the next stage. Is it worthwhile? You decide.
See also this post about a rare BBC u-turn after originally turning down a FOI request.
Posts
Yes, the statement that the information influences overall editorial policy is so un-falsifiable and vague that it can be used to rebuff any inquiry. Since the point of any complaint is to explore and challenge said editorial policy, the enquirer is snared in a perfect Catch-22.
If this was the intent or the logical core of the legislation, then it is perverse and deceptive. If it is not, then the BBC is perverse and deceptive. Probably, both are true.
Why should the license fee payer, compelled to pay the fee under pain of fine or imprisonment, be denied information.
Because they are of the left.
Yes, yes, yes! The fight should continue to be taken to them.
And if they won’t reveal this information? Well there are other ways to catalogue their bias in an undeniable numerical form, and the more people who join in crowdsourcing the effort, the sooner we’ll be able to establish a complete picture of the BBC’s bias to present to ministers, regulators and journalists.
Why anyone with an interest in politics other than the same, bland, unproductive, indistinguishable rubbish put out by the LibLabCon is beyond us!
Due to outrageous political bias, I and many others refuse to pay our TV license.
Even Jeremy Paxman said that BBC News was ‘…full of crypto-Marxists!’
The BBC’s biased coverage of the Maldives is truly shocking when you compare it to what has actually been happening….
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner : Head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden; Past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years :
More evidence that rips to shreds the BBC’s biased coverage of the Maldives……
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Dr Nils Axel Morner :
“Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud”
And :
Two peer reviewed scientific papers, by Dr Morner, showing that Maldives sea levels are not rising:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/ccsa/2004/00000013/00000002/art00004
Evidence submitted to a Parliamentary Select Committee, by Dr Morner, showing that sea level is not rising:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
Would I be correct in interpreting this response as a very prolix version of “the BBC can do what the Hell they want and we won’t interfere”?
Or am I missing something?
Nothing to do with the BBC but I’ve just had a response from the ICO which upholds my complaint.. but says as no similar complaint has been received, it will take no action.
A complaint to the appropriate Ombudsman elicited a comparable response, ie upholding the complaint but refusing to investigate it further.
It is the default position of these bodies and I am convinced their only real purpose is to grind us down.
Reading the correspondence, I note that great play is made of the derogation of “journalism, arts or literature”, but the problem highlighted is none of these. It was pure propaganda, no journalism was involved, nor art, nor literature. The English language seems to have changed dramatically since my time at school. Any essay that contained that sort of logic would have been torn up.
Arrogant patrician swine, their lavish lifestyle funded by a tax the Sheriff of Nottingham would have given his all for. Bloated Biased Bigotted Broadcasting Corporation. Loathed and detested by any thinking person.