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.
You complained that this article –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15047660 – “referred to firms ‘overcharging passengers and ripping off customers’. That is emotive language, and shows left-wing bias.” You would not accept our explanation that the comments were clearly attributed to Ed Miliband.
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
