Saturday 28 March 2015

All the news that's fit to censor?


As noted in the comments of Sue's post, the BBC News Channel's The Papers failed to report one daily newspaper's front page last night. This one:


Every other front page was present-and-correct as usual. Only this one was missing.

And, curiously - unlike Sky News (which isn't censoring it) - this morning's The Papers on the BBC News website also completely avoids either showing or reporting that Daily Mail front page. 

Radio 4's Today also avoided mentioning it this morning.

Looking at Google News, it seems it's a Daily Mail scoop that certain parts of the press are reporting (including The Times) but others aren't.

It's their right to take either option, of course.

However, is it the right of the BBC to choose to vigorously censor the lead story of a major daily newspaper? And isn't that what the BBC is doing here?

16 comments:

  1. The BBC's silence (at best) on this is a national disgrace.

    They trumpet barely substantiated #prasnews from favoured, dubious sources when it suits, and lock down in a funk when it doesn't.

    All this highlights is how the BBC 'viewsroom' now operates.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find the BBC's silence on this one absolutely terrifying - it seems that 1984 has well & truly arrived. I wonder how many other items unfavourable to islamists have been suppressed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have complained to the BBC on this point by filling out their tedious online form. I expect a response and shall keep you updated.

    Twitter @haquers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please do. Will be interesting to hear their explanation.

      Delete
  4. A few are today wryly noting that the BBC has taken a sudden interest in Daily Mail-orginated stories.

    Given the known facts vs. actual heft a surprising commitment to make.

    But it is easy to see what may have guided them to not mention one big story they were/are very much part of but now play up another less than impressive one (so far) that suits all too well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the difference between yesterday and today is staggering.

      They are both crazy stories, but yesterday's (the one ignored) goes to the heart of the matter on a major story; today's is about some random piece of threatened thugishness (such as seems strangely common these days) which just happens to have targeted the boss of the BBC.

      Delete
  5. We have had a reply in record time. It will form the basis of a long line of shares on the forthcoming complaints blog concept, but as this is a work in 'as 'n when' progress share here, too, now, until it's up and running:

    ***

    Reference CAS-XXX

    Thanks for getting in touch regarding 'The Papers' as provided by BBC News Online.

    We understand you were unhappy with the range of stories addressed on this particular occasion. We note that you feel an eye-catching story in the Daily Mail deserved more attention and reference alongside the other items on this date.

    Although you didn't specifically state the nature of this news item yourself, we gather that it involved radicalised school pupils who left the UK and their treatment by the authorities. There was a similar report however on a connected theme on BBC Online just the day before, here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32091822

    We will indeed continue to report on all the issues involved, with audience feedback in mind.

    These decisions are always judgement calls rather than an exact science, but we appreciate the feedback that our audience gives us when they feel a story has been overlooked or marginalised. We know that not everyone will agree with our choices on which stories to cover, or the particular angle we take with them on each and every occasion. These are subjective decisions made by our editors and reporters, and we accept that not everyone will think that we are correct on each occasion. This is the difficulty we face as a national broadcaster, seeking to unfold many issues to a very diverse audience in the long run, who often have varying interests and opinions.

    We'd like to reassure you that all complaints, including your own comments, are sent to senior management and News Editors every morning. Your points are now included in this overnight report, so that we're aware of potential issues and concerns among our audience. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensure that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform our coverage of events and how we can handle them appropriately with our audience in mind.

    Thanks again for getting in touch.

    Kind regards

    LM

    ***

    I note a few of what are now becoming constants, especially when they know they have zero legs to stand on.

    a) They didn't actually answer my specific complaint and tried to reframe it in a way that made their clear editorial omission explicable. It wasn't and isn't. I didn't and don't need to mention the story on the DM front page, as they didn't feature the front DM page at all. A silly, petty, irrelevant point.

    b) They attempt to use the never was or will be valid 'technique' of pointing elsewhere on the BBC media estate to excuse omission where complained about. I didn't see the story referred to. I did see what the BBC reckoned was 'in the news' that day. And what was clearly not.

    And, that, bar patronising template waffle, is it.

    No hint that it can be pursued further or how.

    But it can, and will be.

    I feel an FOI coming on so they can produce the data of what papers/stories get featured and what do not in their 'summary', based on 'decisions that are always judgement calls rather than an exact science; subjective decisions made by our editors and reporters'.

    What would be a good period? One year? This last? That is 365 days.

    Which papers are left off, and which lead stories with them, tallied with 'The Paperboy' lists of what is 'big news', may make an interesting comparison.

    If anyone can recall other moments when the BBC went coy on headline stories (such as the Whitehall marches - checking now if it made this BBC feature vs. the blackout across their main broadcast/online outlets) during this period, that would be a help in assessing the impartial, professional nature of these judgement calls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, clearly a case of reframing the issue on the BBC's part there. It wasn't that you felt "an eye-catching story in the Daily Mail deserved more attention and reference alongside the other items on this date", it was the the BBC completely censored all mention of it.

      And "eye-catching" is one way of putting it. "Important", "counter-balancing", "unhelpful" might be other terms that could have been used about that story.

      The "elsewhere" diversion tactic isn't valid - and especially isn't valid if they're not talking about the same story.

      I'll rack my brains to think of other recent examples of coyness that chime with this one enough to make them relevant.

      Delete
    2. Meanwhile, the result to this will be interesting, if predictable:

      https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/selection_parameters_coverage_st/new

      Getting a smidgeon tired of them thinking they can take the ball away and declare the game void, but in their favour.

      Delete
    3. Funnily enough, I was just wondering about your Q.9.

      "What has decided the choice of the 'related internet links'
      panel? Especially regarding those NOT chosen?"

      Today's links included everything (including the 'Morning Star') but not 'The Sun' and 'The Times'. That could be because of paywalls but both 'The FT' and 'The Telegraph' have paywalls, so the links could still be provided.

      Delete
    4. To my surprise, however, I've received a much better response from the BBC. It's my first ever complete concession! - It was, you'll note though, on points of accuracy, not bias, that they conceded.

      Delete
    5. I think I can offer a hint if not answer to your query on Murdoch titles. On The Paperboy/Front Pages http://www.thepaperboy.com/? they advise (and deride) that they have been served take-down notices.

      What the situation is with the BBC I am not sure, but they most certainly have featured the Times and Sun (at least until very recently) in image at least.

      Congrats on the concession, BTW. I saw it in all its glory first and commented there.

      I'd say a wider audience is needed for such things.

      Frankly Newwatch at least needs a 'Corrections and Clarifications' section for such things?

      Remember Leveson when the BBC was offering full support to those moaning newspapers went large on dodgy news and tucked the 'sorry' away on pg 23? This... is the BBC doing the same, only worse.

      They deliberately created falsehoods to attack the actions and memories of a British leader unable to defend herself. And have merely promised to retroactively correct the libel and crossed fingers behind backs on not getting caught if they can help it again.

      Not cool.

      Delete
    6. I, too, complained to the BBC about the censorship of the Daily Mail
      front page on Abase Hussen. Here is their reply:

      Reference CAS-3241306-K3SZWC

      Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

      I was sorry to read you were unhappy with the BBC News Channel's 'The Papers' on March 27. I understand you feel the programme failed to highlight a story from the Daily Mail regarding the background of Abase Hussen.

      To address you concern; we know that not everyone will agree with our choices on which stories to cover, and the prominence that we give to them. These are subjective decisions made by our news editors, and we accept that not everyone will think that we are correct on each occasion.

      There are several factors that we take into consideration when deciding how to put together our programme. For example, whether the story is new and requires immediate coverage, how unusual the story is, and how much national interest there is in the story.





      Reference CAS-3241306-K3SZWC

      Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

      I was sorry to read you were unhappy with the BBC News Channel's 'The Papers' on March 27. I understand you feel the programme failed to highlight a story from the Daily Mail regarding the background of Abase Hussen.

      To address you concern; we know that not everyone will agree with our choices on which stories to cover, and the prominence that we give to them. These are subjective decisions made by our news editors, and we accept that not everyone will think that we are correct on each occasion.

      There are several factors that we take into consideration when deciding how to put together our programme. For example, whether the story is new and requires immediate coverage, how unusual the story is, and how much national interest there is in the story.

      These decisions are always judgement calls rather than an exact science, but we appreciate the feedback that our viewers and listeners give us when they feel a story has been overlooked or marginalised.

      That said, we do value your feedback. All complaints are sent to senior management and in this case, the BBC News team every morning and I included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future programmes.

      Once again, many thanks for contacting us.

      Kind regards

      Brian Irvine

      BBC Complaints

      The expected BBC brush off except that, interestingly, and usefully, the writer tells us what factors are considered in deciding how they 'put together' Today's Papers. So, they ask whether a story is new and requires immediate coverage - It WAS and it DID; they ask how unusual a story is - it was VERY unusual; they ask how much national interest there is in the story - there WOULD have been a great deal, if only the BBC had not censored the story, but that, of course is precisely why it was suppressed.
      I am taking my complaint to the next stage.
      Jeremy

      Delete
    7. You're quite right about that. By their own criteria it was a story that they ought to have reported.

      Your and Peter's responses, from different BBC Complaints handlers, show the cookie-cutter nature of some of these replies:

      "...we know that not everyone will agree with our choices on which stories to cover..."

      "These are subjective decisions made by our news editors, and we accept that not everyone will think that we are correct on each occasion."

      Delete
    8. I have my own complaint in on this one at the moment, so we'll see if that produces something very similar from the BBC. It ranges across three platforms (News Channel, Today, website) so it may take them a bit longer.

      Delete
    9. Peter asks for instances of the BBC being coy over reporting headline stories. The one that sticks in my mind (and craw) is their failure to report the 2010 poppy - burning on Remembrance Sunday by Anjem Choudary's mob. As I remember, they not only burned poppies but chanted messages of hatred at the troops. Choudary had announced his intentions well in advance in order to ensure maximum press coverage and most of the media obliged. The BBC came up with some lame excuse about not having enough camera teams to cover every event. A similar poppy-burning in Birmingham also went unreported by 'Midlands Today' which suggests that white-washing is coordinated across the Corporation.
      When I have time, I'll write something about how the BBC often censors stories reported in morning bulletins from the 6pm news.
      Jeremy



      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.