Here is a tale of how the BBC treats those who raise genuine concerns. I am sharing the email exchange for your interest with the permission of the person concerned. Have to say I was stunned by the decision made against the license payer concerned; Your views?
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: NewsOnline Complaints <newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Your complaints
To: XXXXXX
Mr X
We have been considering the various complaints you have submitted in recent weeks – more than 20 in the past two months alone to the News website and more to our central complaints handling unit.
Looking at your recent correspondence to the News website, most are commenting, disputing or debating detailed and often minor points, contesting that they constitute left-wing bias on the part of the BBC.
BBC News does not, as you suggest, adopt a particular standpoint or take views about the events it reports. Many of the points made in your complaints take issue with language that we maintain is factual and neutral and overlook balancing comments included in reports. The language used in our reporting, examples of which you have disputed, is governed by our published Editorial Guidelines. We cannot agree that any of the examples you have raised in these many complaints shows clear evidence that these guidelines have been breached.
You also complain about bias in articles that are clearly marked as viewpoints and about stories reported in other media that have apparently not been covered by the BBC.
As an illustration, we have reviewed some of your recent complaints.
In this story – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15196078 – you complain that the headline “Bank of England injects further £75bn into economy” conveys support for their action, but we believe it is a perfectly neutral term. You also say there is no alternative view when we had included a comment about the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) calling for an urgent meeting with the pensions regulator to discuss ways of protecting UK pension funds from the negative effects of QE.
“Quantitative easing makes it more expensive for employers to provide pensions and will weaken the funding of schemes as their deficits increase,” said Joanne Segars, chief executive of the NAPF.
You asked why we did not carry a comment from the Telegraph on trader Alessio Rastani when we have made clear that we have carried out our own investigation into his credibility.
You claim that this article – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14978876 – which states that “the English riots were ‘sparked by the police shooting of a black man in north London” paints a picture of the rioters as being motivated by a sense of injustice. It is simply stating a fact but you appear to wish to interpret it as a political comment. You further say that the article “also tells us that the rioters were ‘venting their fury’ at ‘high unemployment and painful austerity measures’. In fact, that is clearly a reference to factors behind protests in other countries.
It was a long, hot spring and summer on the streets of Greece, England and Madrid, as protesters and rioters vented their fury at high unemployment, painful austerity measures and following a fatal police shooting in London.
About this report – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15319924 – you wrote: “As happened during the recent riots in the UK, the BBC is using the word ‘protestors’ rather than ‘rioters’, thereby giving the criminals legitimacy.” In fact, the article does refer to rioters.
You complained that this report – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14483149 – did not include other “politically incorrect” explanations for the riots, which you list. However, the article makes clear that it is examining theories put forward in the media, not seeking to posit its own explanations.
In our view, this correspondence therefore now represents a disproportionate use of BBC staff time and consequently of our increasingly limited licence fee resources.
In accordance with the BBC’s framework for handling complaints, we must inform you that the BBC’s expedited complaints handling procedure will now be applied to any complaints you make citing further examples to allege left-wing bias in BBC news coverage.
For the period of two years from the receipt of this email, we will continue to read any complaints you submit, whether directly to production teams or via the central handling unit, but they will not be investigated unless “they appear to raise a substantive issue or disclose a serious prima facie case of a breach of the Editorial Guidelines where there is a significant prospect that the complaint might be upheld”.
Full details of the procedure can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2010/e3_complaints_fr_work.pdf
Should you wish, you may write to the BBC Trust within 20 working days to request an appeal against this decision.
Best wishes,
BBC News
You would think the bBC Complaints Handling Team would give priority to employing people from this planet rather than wherever else in the universe this writer is from. Left wing bias is written through everything the BBC does like the words in “Brighton Rock”.
Clearly the official BBC line these staff are paid to uphold is “no admission of guilt of bias, under any circumstances” Helen Boaden has spoken. It can not be otherwise. That is our final word.
It has the tone “and we know where you live”. I hope the complainant is up to date with his license fee.
Write to Chris Patten, your MP, David Cameron and the ECHR if necessary. This is disgraceful from your employees (all of us who pay their licence tax are their employers) and they mustn’t be allowed to get away with this. Most of their refuting points are bogus as well – they’re basically saying “We know you will dispute our weak replies, so we will ban you from replying to us. Now just stop it you naughty boy!”
It reminds me of, during the 1997 Election Campaign, Peter Hitchens tried to ask Blair a pointed question during a press conference and Blair told him to be quiet or he wouldn’t be allowed to ask any more questions. He never got an answer to his only question. They hate to be held to account these lefty tossers.
Well remembered that Blair outrage. Imagine how the BBC would have covered that if Cameron had done something similar to a left wing journalist.
Blair acted in every confidence that the BBC would do little more than ignore such an outrage. BBC bias during the 90’s was jaw droppingly blatant.
I agree – if Cameron ever did anything like that they would instantly feed it into their ‘public school bully’ narrative. When Blair did it, it showed his masterful control over proceedings.
If the BBC is so confident, where is the Balen Report?
Sounds like a heaven sent opportunity to cancel one’s licence fee and see ’em in court to explain their reasoning for expecting to be paid if the service is deemed unfit for purpose and they now refuse to even defend it.
The list of folk who may be called to testify in defence of the plaintiff’s submission might surprise the world’s most trusted national treasure and the oafs in power who prop her up.
It’s only a pity that more serious breaches that get highlighted on this blog were not covered.
One presumes this was the extent of the complaints, or was the BBC cherry picking its straw men again? The very idea.
It is a very chilling letter, though.
ROBERT BROWN; Why the hell do you need any excuse to stop paying the fee? I stopped about seven years ago, just use the tv for dvd and old video. I watch the bbc i-player sure, post broadcast, nice feeling too, it’s free as such on the computer. Just do it, they will be buggered if we all do that. Come on, quit griping, just do it, for pete’s sake.
I refuse to be lured down the daft creek of hiding behind curtains, briefing wife & kids on Capita-speak, etc.
I also refuse to get nobbled by the system which is designed to take on the majority to serve the minority. IT IS NOT WORTH IT.
Hence I am not risking a visit, or a fine, or worse, until I am good and ready.
A banning of me by them would be heaven sent, and they know it. Hence the mod regime on blogs and risible compaint system is designed to frustrate until you give up.
However, as this example shows, they can be provoked to error as well.
I already have factual gold dust in terms of lies and evasions to ‘explain’ stealth edits and never-explained referalls.
The minute I can stand up and make a case on WHY I refuse to pay any more, with a fair chance of prevailing, I will.
Otherwise, I’ll keep on paying and maintain the lawyer-created fiscal high ground this loathsome, multiple-standard politico-media-legal establishment we ‘enjoy’ holds as its highest standard.
I would have thought this was normal. The BBC has chosen it’s side in the culture war underway for the future of our civilisation. To complain to it is a waste of time.
The BBC vision of the future is not mine and as in any war one does not appeal to the enemy’s sense of fair play.
“It was a long, hot spring and summer on the streets of Greece, England and Madrid,”
What? A long hot summer in London, didn’t even get the barbi out this year.
Can someone remind me, didn’t the pikey’s in Essex LOSE in the courts? Why is the BBC failing to point tihs out, it’s not the Council nor the Tories (the standard beeboid spin) this case has been going on for 10 years and it’s a judge who has decided the pikeys are living on land illegally.
With the Irish reporters that the BBC have covering this for national and local news, it’s hard to tell whose a ‘traveller’ and whose a reporter.
A distinct absence of local residents being asked for their views of the eviction.
Hippie, I have news for you! I have just listened to three news reports (or parts of them) lifted from the Beeboid web site – one in the mellifluous voice of Fergal Keane and two by two other reporters with English accents and I had no difficulty in distinguishing any of the three reporters from any of the gypsies.
Furthermore, I think you ought to know that Fergal Keane was born in London and that makes him English 😀 , or so I am often told by people here and elsewhere. Any blighter born here is English. O:-) I also think he is a very good reporter and certainly much better than that popinjay on Radio 5 (or whatever it’s called) that I don’t even listen to but have the misfortune to hear from time to time on the TV. 😛
Ooops, Millie, I was born in Hong Kong. What does that make me ?
Dontcha just love Feargal Keene whingeing on about the travellers ???
Strangely enough I wrote to my local MP, Jeremy Hunt, just this morning. I raised many issues, but also asked him why his Party tolerates BBC bias.
This is a line from the e mail:
“It’s insane that a corporation of this size and influence should be self-regulating too. The reply to any complaint is always akin to a small child putting his fingers in his ears and screaming “LA LA LA LA”!
I think this article proves my point nicely!
Waste of time writing to Jeremy Hunt. I’ve written to him twice with the same complaints about the BBC. I received no reply or acknowledgement to either of my e-mails. Didn’t even receive the standard “thank you for your communication” mailshot.
Like many in Cameron’s government, Jeremy Hunt is useless at his job, a seat warmer doesn’t want to upset anyone,except probably, those who voted for his party.
Yes, I told him that he’s a weak pathetic socialist.
He always returned my e mails when in opposition but I was re-sending this one for the third time.
Being a constituent of his, if I get no reply I will take the matter up with him in front of an audience when he’s next carrying out a publicity stunt locally.
since Mr Hunt came into power I have written to him every week with bias from the bbc and only get a reply once in a while saying that they cant be involved in the editorial make up of the BBC.
The tories have only themselves to blame,like I said to Mr Hunt If They want to be in power again get rid of the BBC tax or else,,,,
Jeremy Hunt is a total waste of space. Utterly useless.
I don’t know what the beeboid was sniffing who wrote that reply, but it’s the biggest pile of crap I’ve read from the BBC in ages.
Just taking ONE story as an example (the article on the riots) the introduction to the article is misleading as it ropes in the England riots with the other riots. The thick beeboid claims that the England riots were kicked off by the shooting of a black man in London, so beeboid scum explain why the riots kicked off in other parts of London and other parts of England?
Did anyone in Manchester give a shit about some drug dealer getting slotted by plod in London? The riots were caused by thick idle scum looking to make a quick killing and of course the BBC make no mention to the white man murdered in London by the mobs.
The BBC can’t help themselves, a bit like Gary Glitter in a primary school, they stick their bias in because like a dog and a lamp post, they can’t avoid it.
Love these excuses of the BBC.
1. We`re only telling you what Ed Miliband told us.
2. We had that Griffin oik on telly in 2009….so what are you on about in saying we don`t give the Nazis a berth on a regular(every two years) basis.
3. How could we be biased?…whether the EU or Riyadh rolls the nation up and creates the desired and necessary Utopia doesn`t matter to US!
Self referring, self loving and so self regarding…only the likes of us don`t see how right they always are…and one day we surely will!
The BBC reply could be considered justified if the person could be fairly regarded as a vexatious complainant, but casting a cursory glance at the first complaint rejection, I certainly dont find this is the case.
In my opinion, Daniel Nasaw exploited comments made by Mayor Bloomberg as a peg to hang (not so) covert left wing propaganda on. The BBC were clearly trying to ascribe political motivation behind the English riots by mentioning them in the context of political violence in the rest of Europe. As the Prime Minister strongly rebutted the assertion of Evan Davis that the English riots were anything but rampant criminality in terms of profound disquiet that it is something the BBC does in general, the complainee certainly seems to be in very good company in his perception of the BBC Online article.
The BBC featured 4 ‘expert opinions’; 3 left wing academics and one apparant left wing academic. In order of copy:- …
Todd Gitlin – left wing academic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Gitlin
Gary Bailey – seems left wing
Google his anti-Iraq war activities as President of the US Social Workers org.
Peter Dreier – left wing academic
In the following link he compares the exposure of ACORN to the rise of the Nazis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/first-they-came-for-acorn_b_300941.html
Rick Peristein – left wing author (as even the BBC Online piece makes evident)
If this dismissal is typical of the rest of the dismissals of the person’s complaints, the grounds for treating the complainant as ‘vexatious’ simply dont hold water.
I dont normally waste my time with the BBC Complaints Department as I have no confidence in its integrity. I usually just send copies of complaints against BBC bias I send to its victims so that they can’t claim complaints aren’t being made. However, in this case I shall make an exception and I hope that B-BBC readers will follow suit.
It’s a pity the name of the BBC Complaints handler isn’t given as usually their email addi can be found with a bit of diligence.
Head of BBC Online News is Steve Herrmann, so this is who I’m going to wing one off to.
steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/steve_herrmann/
Oh, and might as well copy in the ‘genetically impartial’ Helen Boaden as well:-
helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk
ROBERT BROWN; Is not ‘left-wing academic’ an oxymoron?
There’s plenty of left-wingers in Academia, but “Left-wing Intellectual” is often over-stated.
I find that left wingers are often very intellectual but not very intelligent. There is a difference I would say.
If we accept that ntellect is the ability to articulate what you have understood and intelligence the ability to understand, as intellectually brilliant as many lefties are, they’re as thick as short planks. They’re lack of intelligence – or applied intelligence at least – I think is often wilful, they’re just determined to shape reality around their own egos or lull the gullible into believing what they’d like to believe instead of facing hard reality.
As 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (KJV) tells us:-
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.“
Agree. Intellectuals tend to be articulate and well read, rather than intelligent. Provided they can articulate their thoughts, which don’t have to be original, on a limited range of issues, their peers are happy to regard them as intellectuals.
It’s interesting that people who, in my opinion, are truly inteligent, such as the best scientists and engineers, are not generally allowed to call themselves ‘intellectuals’.
For some reason I find the sign off of ‘Best wishes’ the most annoying part of that email.
I wonder how many complaints is deemed too many? Is there a figure set anywhere?
I too want to know if there is a numerical limit. If there is, wouldn’t that give Beeboids carte blanche to be biased from morning till night and then thumb their nose at anyone who wanted to complain but who had excceeded the Beeboids’ loftily decreed quota? That would be stitching people up like a kipper, wouldn’t it, Beeboids? The people who pay you to provide a service, eh?
Somehow the Best Wishes tagged on at the end doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of the cutting, supercilious guff, does it?
Taking issues with language? I heard BBC World saying this morning that Kurdish rebels MURDERED a large number of Turkish soldiers. But does the BBC ever say that Hamas militants murder Israelis? Aren’t Israelis always killed rather than murdered as if they are willing participants in some sort duel at dawn?
“Murder” implies wrongdoing and accountability, which is the correct term, but I guess “killed” is one notch stronger than the usual anodyne “died in clashes”, like they suddenly died of old age in a clash.
Desmond,
That is strange. The BBC usually support the PKK terrorists. That one must have slipped through !
As Turkey is getting more anti-Israel by the day, is the BBC getting more sympathetic to the Turkish Government as a result?
It’s complicated. The Iraqi Kurds have created what is effectively a functioning democratic state. You could make a reasonable argument that their claim to recognition is far superior to the Palestinians. The BBC could never allow that thought to go far.
Just in case of it not being read, I hope the complainant sent the complaints as well as the bBC response, to Jeremy Hunt as extra evidence of the bBC attitude.
This really is outrageous… and very stupid of the BBC. Obviously they try and sideline vexatious litigants because they feel that complaints are unjustified. The correspondent could submit his complaints under a psuedoym easily showing how futile this attempt to muzzle decent is…
I was trying to think of any other taxpayer-funded organisation which would behave in such a way and refuse to engage with the public. The universal service obligations seems to only apply to licensee fee payers who are compelled to pay for the service.
Suggest you send it to Ed Vaisey also, and the Daily Mail always enjoys a BBC story.
This is a disgrace.
By coincidence, the BBC and Channel 4 were complaining about complaining to a Lord’s committee on Tuesday. Their gripe was about organised campaigns of complaint rather than individual complainants. In the BBC’s case, it was the Panorama ‘ Death on the Med’ documentary that drew fire, to the extent that
Ware said investigative programmes such as Panorama were at risk of being overwhelmed by complaints from PR companies and lobby groups.
“A recent Panorama was cleared in almost every respect save for some minor matters. I’m pretty sure the bill for that was significantly more than the actual transmission itself,” he added.
Congratulationss to the leftists and to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign* who cost the BBC a packet in dealing with this. That’ll teach the BBC for making a programme which approached impartiality on a Middle East issue.
*Some patrons of PSC will now take a bow.
Braoness Jenny Tonge, LibDem who ‘understands”suicide bombers.
John Austin MP, Labour nobody.
Tony Benn, legendary leftwing nutter.
Rodney Bickerstaffe, former UNISON fat cat.
Victoria Brittain, former Foreign Editor of the Guardian.
Barry Camfield, another union fat cat.
Julie Christie, Oscar winning luvvie.
Caryl Churchill, a playwright who worked with ‘radical theatre companies’.
Jermy Corbyn MP, as leftwing looney as they get.
Bob Crow, cheeky cockney union fat cat who lives in a council house.
Bruce Kent, former catholic priest who found socialsm. This CND man used to worry a lot about the possiblity of nuclear weapons landing on heads. He appears to be not so worried about the actuality of Katyusha rockets landing on Israeli heads.
‘the BBC and Channel 4 were complaining about complaining‘
Being that the majority of these guys’ ‘news’ output is, essentially, ‘complaining’ in variosu forms, their rationale seems more to be that only they are allowed to complain on behalf of causes they hold dear as, well, they are unique.
The rest of us need to shut up and take it. Apparently.
A service attitude only a few special entitities could come up with.
The BBC has a helluvah long-winded way of telling someone, “F*ck off, we’re not interested in your complaints.”
Cisbio
It seems almost too cruel to say this but….how can I put this?…I think you may have misread the post. You see, the points at issue are not mine but rather those of a reader. With such supernatural dimness, do I assume you work for the BBC?
Yes, I realise that now. I was deleting and amending that post in the vain hope no-one would notice!!!
Still, the post remains hilarious!!
and no, I don’t work for the BBC
While the Beeboids in Complaints Central were whining pathetically about their so-called limited resources, no such limitations were apparent at Dale Farm where they had up to 30 Beeboids feverishly filming and reporting, according to The Telegraph:
While the number of activists dwindled, the BBC still had six satellite crews, a handful of local correspondents and a team of documentary makers on the six acre site.
They even had their own caravan within the compound to provide accommodation and refreshment for the 30 or so staff working on the story.
Yesterday Don Foster, Liberal Democrats culture spokesman, said: “That is ludicrous over staffing and hardly good way to get public sympathy for the 20 per cent budget cuts facing the BBC.”
The BBC’s renting of the caravan even led to some light ribbing from their rivals at ITV, who boasted they were making do with a tent.
Damon Green, the ITV News Correspondent, tweeted: “We have a tent, the BBC have a caravan at DaleFarm. Delivering Quality First”.
<!– BEFORE ACI –>The BBC claimed that they had about 20 official staff on the site though this did not include a handful of local reporters and independent crews working on documentaries.
“The eviction at Dale Farm is a major rolling news story and we have around 20 people there including reporters and technical staff, covering the story locally and nationally for TV, radio and online,” said a spokesman.
All the Travellers or activists need to do is fall in a hole and… bingo.. the full BBC World Service will be on the first chartered Lear to ‘handle’ the major news story it will inevitably become.