For those wanting a break from British general election-related matters...
The latest batch of rulings from the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee (focusing, as ever, on escalated complaints and appeals to the BBC Trust) are out, and some of them make for interesting (if frustrating) reading.
The committee's Brucie-like catchphrase is 'Not upheld'...
...(as in 'Nice to see you, to see you...Not upheld!' or 'Oh Anthea, that's lovely. Come on, give us a 'not upheld'!' or 'You getnothing a 'not upheld' for a pair!' or 'What do points make? A complaint the BBC can say is 'not upheld'!')...
...(as in 'Nice to see you, to see you...Not upheld!' or 'Oh Anthea, that's lovely. Come on, give us a 'not upheld'!' or 'You get
The complaints are many and various, ranging from Top Gear in Patagonia to Panorama on Nigel Farage, Strictly Come Dancing, BBC Scotland's reporting of the SNP and Countryfile on the badger cull. All were 'not upheld'.
By far the most common escalated complaints and appeals, however, concern the BBC's reporting of Israel.
(Search for the word 'Israel' in the BBC report and it comes up 305 times).
A couple of the escalated complaints come from people accusing the BBC of pro-Israel bias (pp.10 and 101), seven from people accusing the BBC of anti-Israel bias (pp.33, 38, 61, 83, 91, 107 and 122). All were rejected by the BBC, except for part of one of the appeals by the anti-Israeli pair - and that was only 'upheld' in part because the BBC was judged to be dragging its heels over the complaints process.
The one on p.33 relates to a report on BBC Breakfast from Bethany Bell during last year's Israel-Hamas war. The complainant argued that the report about a new ceasefire gave the audience the false impression that it was Israel, rather than Hamas, who had broken the previous ceasefires.
The one on p.38 concerns a Today interview with Jeremy Bowen, just after the killings of the four teenagers preceding last year's war. The complainant said Jeremy Bowen had made four “totally misleading” statements.
The one on p.61 concerns a Today discussion during the Israel-Hamas conflict of 2014 between two British Jews. The complainant claimed that the trails for the item misled people into assuming that they were going to hear a representative sample of the views of British Jews. The complainant also claimed that one of the participants made unsubstantiated accusations designed to incite racial hatred against Jews who support Israel.
The one on p.83 relates to a report on the News at Ten (BBC One) which used third party footage purporting to show a Palestinian civilian being shot by an Israeli sniper as he searched bombed out streets for his family. The complainant alleged that the footage was not genuine. This complaint also challenged the reporter’s assertion that there was no evidence that Hamas were using their own civilians as human shields, saying there was abundant evidence of that.
The one on p.99 concerns a BBC News Channel broadcast with the complainant felt inaccurately stated that Israel imposed tight controls on exports from Gaza and restricted similarly what goes into the territory.
The one on p.107 concerns a BBC News Channel broadcast that the complainant felt was misleading because it emphasised the closure of border crossings between Gaza and Israel rather than explaining beforehand that the closure was a response to a rocket attack from Gaza.
The one on p.122 relates to the BBC's failure to label Hamas as "terrorists", merely as "militants".
All of them got nowhere with the BBC. All were 'not upheld'.
If your blood-pressure and patience can stand it, you might want to give some of them a read - and maybe even a fisking.
They are going to have to uphold one sooner or later - or it will look like one of those 100% votes in Communist countries!
ReplyDeleteThere was an appallingly biased World This Weekend today. The BBC seem to have abandoned all pretence of balance and are using the device of "the humorous interlude" and the "Vox Pop" (AKA lefty sermon) to get round the rules.
Just to give you a flavour - what do you think the satirical point being made against Labour by the "comedian" (actually completely crap) was? Well it was that he has this Milifandom site... er, yep very biting satire. But it allows them to deliver a few more pointed blows at the Tories and UKIP.
Yes, that was pretty dire - and those 'comedians' ALWAYS seem to come from the left side of the political spectrum.
DeleteIt sounds like they're so fed up with these complaints that they've decided to raise the bar. Now they can easily dismiss these as well. Although we do have some evidence that the "complaints from both sides" are as unbalanced as we expected. To me, that's a win here.
ReplyDelete'Not upheld' does sound awfully important and considered and from on high, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteBut it is worth bearing in mind it is still the end result of a process totally controlled by the BBC, with much in secret, and little or no actual external contribution or influence.
These are the culminations of vast churning of exchanges with hapless complainants at the initial stages and with ECU directors, mostly involving the 'belief' of the latter, on top of the 'belief' of those proceeding them. And then endorsed by the 'belief' of an amorphous internal oversight committee.
There are judges, and juries, but they are in a BBC court, hearing BBC defence, with cases made solely by what BBC minions below see fit to filter to feed up to BBC Mount Olympus.
"In order to provide clarity for the BBC and licence fee payers it is the Trust’s policy to describe fully the content that is subject to complaints and appeals. Some of the language and descriptions used in this bulletin may therefore cause offence."
Uh-huh.
Forgive me for having my doubts on its independence or accuracy.
There is but one aim: protect the BBC.
As 'Anon' above has suggested, they cannot even see the merest hint of an admission as valid, so the stats sent to Tony and the DCMS and read by bored media and MPs reads like tractor factory productivity. 110% perfection again. Hail be to the BBC. It could be carved in a headstone at the entrance to W1A, and staff required to bow as they pass. They may just not report it.
As to the bar, of course they have had to raise it. It is what they do when they are under logistical pressure. More complaints mean more staff and time... and money. One solution would be to improve standards, or.... blow out the complaints by default, as they do anything getting near the mark on FoI requests.
The interesting, if blood-pressurising part is that these represent what the BBC has allowed through.
Who knows what has not, from whom, how valid, and why obliterated?
The BBC makes very sure it stays a little secret between them and the complainant, and that... is that.
These 'findings' on 'appeals' are the only external public publishings ever seen, and who actually sees them? I'd suggest few. And no one can know the truth of much of it as only the complainant can know what they submitted. Certainly most media, especially media beat media, seem to scan these only if a real whopper blows up.
This situation can, of course, change.
2/2
DeleteBut though not much, of course such tantalising glimpses at least exist to garner insights. Fisking is the temptation, but look at it; it is 149 pages long! Think of the people paid to get to this point in the process, mainly to make those not sucking the state purse dry give up as any effort is precious time seldom free.
Few can, or would. Craig has, and a summary is here. Analysis can be carried out, of course, especially in what gets to the near inevitable magic 'not upheld' closing of the file and a lovely tick in the perfomance box.
I'm on my 'project' (not unrelated) to this, so I have had a skim.
Mostly waffle. Vast tranches of quoted bumpf from the rules the BBC uses to protect the BBC.
"5.10 - The Trust will only consider an appeal if it raises “a matter of substance”. This will ordinarily mean that in the opinion of the Trust there is a reasonable prospect that the appeal will be upheld as amounting to a breach of the Editorial Guidelines."
This will ordinarily mean the BBC will decide if the BBC needs to even bother as, really, there is no other avenue. I have always found it a quaint admission that they admit they blow stuff out on the basis they know they would anyway.
So I get to the first. It is upheld. That they failed to get back quickly enough. "During this time he had received two standard replies" (ie: deliberate timewasting insults to intelligence). Apologies all round. Zero tangible consequence. Shoot me now.
The next not upheld. The BBC didn't like a complainant. Their ball; their rules. Toast. In someone's view. Details not immediately obvious.
"This was because, in her view, the complainant’s complaints were repetitious, had no reasonable prospect of success, were vexatious, and were offensive in the way in which they referred to individual BBC employees."
And so on. Littered with anonymous, supposed impartial experts' testimony that seldom is anything more than 'wot they fink', ladled with a massive dose of what the BBC is happy to accept everyone else needs to think. Or would, if asked. Even if they have not been.
"The Adviser agreed and considered that Trustees would also conclude that viewers would have considered these images to be illustrative of the tensions which existed during the miners’ strike as a whole and not as an account of what had happened at Orgreave"
'...illustrative of' but not an actual account. I'll need to ponder such descriptions of accurate reporting and editorial.
'Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers'
No, it is not.
The phrase 'judge, jury and executioner' certainly applies to this BBC body.
DeleteQuite why it should be a 'BBC body' seems strange. At my place of work it wouldn't be my company that acts in that capacity.
Speaking of BBC stats and box-ticking, this amused:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/timeliness_of_freedom_of_informa#comment-59721
Purely empirically, whilst FOIs have so far been timely (possibly because 'don't have to tell ya, so not gonna' doesn't take much effort), almost all my complaints replies start off with a 'sorry we totally blew a deadline which we would not let you exceed'.
Must be nice to control reality and be immune from ever having it checked externally.
Oooh, a new BBC catchphrase: "We do not keep a record of the number of responses that were late by 20 working days or more."
DeleteThis was funny but telling from one commenter:
"I must be blessed. If they've got an 88% punctuality rate, how come nearly all of my requests are late?"
As you say, it must be lovely not be be externally checked.