Did you see that the BBC has apologised for it’s biased coverage of the Dale Farm fiasco on the excreable The One Show? Well, sort of!
The popular early evening show had been accused of unbalanced journalism over its February report about the proposed site’s pending clearance.After the five minute piece was broadcast, council officials complained to the public broadcaster, accusing the show of being ”inaccurate, misleading and biased in favour of the travellers”. On Thursday, the BBC Trust’s editorial standards committee (ESC) published its finding on the five-minute report following a lengthy investigation.
The investigation concluded the show had been ”duly accurate” and ”had not knowingly and materially misled its audiences”. But it found the BBC One programme had ”failed to clarify that the site had been developed on green belt land”
The BBC Trust will now offer an apology to the local authority. But it is understood The One Show will not have to make an on-air apology. As a result of its finding, editorial procedures have been “reviewed” and “strengthened” at the show, the BBC said. The report also said it had been ”unfair” to the council in allowing a traveller to allege the local authority was ”throwing us out on the road” with ”nowhere to go” without giving it a right of reply.
David, as you suggest, it’s a non-apology. And, of course, no one is punished. So, they’ll just go ahead and do it again to the next body that is regarded by the bbc as the enemy.
So, according to the BBC Trust, The One Show (in those hallowed words) “got it about right”.
I cannot understand why the apology should not be given on air. This is a main stream programme which attracts a large audience – I don’t think an apology only to the Local Authority without explaining to the audience why they got things wrong is sufficient.
Noticed that the Egyptian junta “apologised” for killing a few of their own countrymen recently.
In Beebworld, an apology is a mighty thing-so they themselves are loath to apologise for anything…but see their jib as extracting apologies from everyone else.
That no-one would have been watching the useless One Show is no excuse(who`d have thought history would have shown Barrett, Langley, Scully and Bough to be Olympain giants compared to the pigmies that fill their pants-because their shoes would be “too much of an ask”?).
All involved in the making of the Dale Farm fiasco should be made to offer their houses to all those vulnerable travellers for a week, and we could film the best of it…presented by Carol Thatcher please!
Does anyone have any experience of going beyond the BBC Trust with a complaint? I’ll attach a letter that I sent to them about 5 months ago, re that appaling edition of Newshite where they tried to link the EDL with Anders Breivik. I’ve contacted them since and they assure me they’re dealing with it, but I’ve now obtained solid evidence that, as always, everything Searchlight claimed was entirely fabricated, including the pictures:
I found this edition of Newsnight poor, even by the BBC’s very low standards. I’m trying to ascertain whether this was due to truly awful journalism or simply the usual left-wing bias of the BBC, so it would be helpful if you could answer the following questions.
Your journalist used two sources for her information on the EDL, Social networking sites and Nick Lowles from an organisation called ‘Searchlight’.
1) Why wasn’t the viewer made aware of Searchlight’s extreme left-wing agenda?
Searchlight is a hardline communist organisation that was founded, and is run, by hardened, violent criminals with links to the most extreme left-wing political movements ever seen in Britain.
Just last year, Nick Lowles stated on camera that he wishes to see white British people driven from their towns and replaced by third-world immigrants.
In 1984, the BBC paid out substantial sum in libel damages for regurgitating Searchlight lies on an edition of Panorama entitled ‘Maggies militant tendencies’, so it’s surprising that you would still use them as a source of information.
2) Why did you use a social network site for your ‘research’? Anyone can set up a profile and pretend to be who ever they wish on these sites, so I would like to know how you knew that the people, profiles and pictures that Nick Lowles was referring to were genuine?
3) whilst waving his hand in the general direction of a computer display, Nick Lowles claimed that he was quoting posts made by Anders Breivik. What evidence were you shown to prove that these were posts made by him?
Had Searchlight managed to obtain Breivik’s IP address, and if so, how did they manage to do so? Did they liaise with Norwegian authorities, if so, in what capacity? It’s extremely unlikely that Norwegian authorities would give such information away during an investigation in to mass-murder, especially to an extremist organisation such as Searchlight.
4) What proof did Lowles have that the blurry pictures of gunmen, that appeared momentarily on his computer display, were EDL members, as he claimed? They looked more like pictures of the UVF.
5) When interviewing Stephen Lennon, why did Jeremy Paxman refer to Anjem Choudary as a “prominent Muslim”? This gave the viewer a false impression of Choudary as he is in fact an extremist hate-preacher who has praised the 9/11 attackers, stated that non-Muslim casualties on 9/11 and 7/7 were “guilty in the eyes of God”, and is a vocal campaigner for Sharia Law in the UK.
I look forward to your reply,
Mr.M.Site (click to edit)
‘Does anyone have any experience of going beyond the BBC Trust with a complaint?’
Good letter. Deserving many answers, which will either be weasels, delays or get lost.
FWIW, many here have experience in the great beyond of BBC complaints, but few I think stagger even to the Trust, much less get past it.
Jeff Waters by recollection is experiencing frustration.
By coincidence I have just had the latest farcical blow-off attempt on a modding, where they didn’t read the noet they had already sent me that I fired back pointing out total errors.
Their reply, of course, is couched in ‘you can reply, we suppose, but we can’t guarantee we’ll even read it’ terms, meaning I have to hunt down the next idiot procedure they have dreamt up to lose it all. Which I will.
Because, like the Stasi and all good order-obeyers before them, they can’t not make a log. And one day, that log will nail the sods.
Yes, it’s like banging your head against a brick wall isn’t it.
Given that Searchlight recieve public funding to spread far-left propaganda, you can see why the BBC would be able to relate to them!
I intend to pursue this one though.
The investigation concluded the show had been ”duly accurate” and ”had not knowingly and materially misled its audiences”
So they’ll show us how they reached this conclusion…
I’m still trying to work out how the two statements quoted by Span Ows fit with the following statement: But it found the BBC One programme had ”failed to clarify that the site had been developed on green belt land”.
It can’t have been that accurate, then. And wouldn’t it have created a materially misleading impression by omitting to mention green belt land?
This wifull perversion of the English language is straight out of the BBc manual “1984”.
With that book as a guide no beeboid is ever at a loss for explanations .
It wasn’t on purpose, yeah. It’s only sheer coincidence that the One Show segment toed the exacty same line of extreme sympathy for the oxymoronically-named Travellers in all other BBC reports.
No chance of the BBC “rolling in” an apology to the rest of us for the execrable “Now Show” with…guess who`s back…Marcus Brigstocke?
An utterly unfunny rant with only a few Bragg, Steele, Thomas types “laughing”….but he`ll be given as much time as he likes to practice on us all…he is a Brigstocke after all.
The whole show is a joke in its concept…but funnily enough, there`s not a joke to be found in its half-hour content.
No jokeas about Liam Byrne or Prescott…but plenty about the Toriz!
Machine reclaimed comedy…I`d settle for Spam or corned beef if only they could rise up to the standards of ,say, Arthur Askey!
If the BBC think that any group can occupy ant land why does it give so much coverage to the West Bank in the middle east ?
What the BBC thinks of as the purpose of the One Show
This is what should be done wth that hand:
‘But it is understood The One Show will not have to make an on-air apology.’
Very sensible.
If you are stupid enough to watch the One Show in the first place then you are probably too stupid to appreciate any apology.
The apology should be made via a letter to every single licence fee holder.
Certainly we should all be able to claim a snail mail letter with a signed apology citing what the adjudication was.
It is OUR BBC after all..and John Birt can lick the stamps if he likes.
Might be too much to expect a Christmas card though.
For the sake of my health, I had to give up active BBC watching. For a year now, I’ve weened myself off it by use of milder substitutes including “passive BBC” and “second hand BBC” via this site. A small blood vessel has just burst in my jaw as a result of this BBC statement and I fear I may have to go cold turkey. NN all…..
Strange how this quote:
The investigation concluded the show had been ”duly accurate” and ”had not knowingly and materially misled its audiences”. But it found the BBC One programme had ”failed to clarify that the site had been developed on green belt land“
Looks an awful lot like a definition of a narrative the BBC love bashing other organisations with:
“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin which can be seen or detected in processes; attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people.” From the Macpherson report
Yup it’s that old beaut – institutional racism with its logic that even when not intending to be an organisation is being racist.
Don’t suppose they’ll see the comparison though.
council officials complained to the public broadcaster
So how come ‘council officials’ didn’t get dumped onto the ‘we’re investigating your claim no really we are don’t call us we’ll call you’ pile.
Ah yes, it’s that 1984 thing again – some license-fee payers are clearly more equal than others.
As usual the BBC are talking bollocks, go back and look at the comments that many of us made at the time of the Dale Farm eviction, I continually commented on how Radio 5 never mentioned that they have built on green belt land, the BBC told blatant lies about the eviction.
I complained but got the standard BBC reply from some drugged up rent boy molesting BBC twat.
How the Tories put up with this is beyond me, the BBC trust needs to go, OK we know the BBC needs to go, but in the meantime having a proper independent oversight body like Ofcom would make a difference.
Shouldn’t some Tory MP demand to ask how many complaints were made by the public over the Dale Farm reporting and ask to see what was sent out in reply?
You can bet like me all they got was the usual crap from some Cocaine addled twat denying that their reporting was biased.
The BBC are at it again, they really can’t help telling lies can they?
On the news just now the BBC claimed that the strike by the public sector vermin next week has public support, so we get TWO sound bites both in support of the strike, but not one against. But we also know that the majority of people oppose the strikes, but the BBC ‘forgets’ to tell us that.
Lies, lies lies.