A BBC Complaints Reply (starring Nick Robinson, Douglas Murray, and me)

What was I doing on Halloween last year? Ah, yes, complaining to the BBC about Nick Robinson's 31st October Today interview with Douglas Murray:

I wish to complain about Nick Robinson's lack of even-handedness during his interview with Douglas Murray and Kehinde Andrews. The whole thing reeked of a one-sided ambush, with Nick not only bringing up one of Mr Murray's past 'controversial' statements in the middle of the interview but browbeating him again with the same thing at the end of the interview -  and, even worse, then giving himself (Nick Robinson) the final, sarcastic word (and, thus, victory over Mr Murray).  This was awful, unfair interviewing, made worse by the fact that many, if not most, people would say that Kehinde Andrews is by far the more inflammatory and controversial figure - especially in terms of past 'controversial' comments.  But Nick didn't bring up any of Mr Andrews's past 'controversial' statements.  Why not? Surely, Nick should also have raised at least of those inflammatory opinions with Mr Andrews, if only to appear even-handed? Please remind Nick Robinson of the need to ensure that rigorous questioning of 'controversial' views does not lead to a perceived lack of impartiality because the lack of impartiality here was blatant and very easy to perceive.

Today, over two months later, I've received a reply:

Thank you for contacting us about BBC Radio 4's 'Today' broadcast on 31 October as you have concerns about Nick Robinson's interview with Douglas Murray when speaking about 'cancel culture'.

We apologise for the delay in replying. We realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry that you had to wait on this occasion. 

Thanks for raising your concerns. We’ve reviewed the programme and located the interview in question. Douglas Murray was making the point that “some people seem to find their meaning in life… cancelling people” and highlighted that this is often done by finding one quote or piece of information from someone’s past which was found to be offensive. However, Nick challenged this point by asking whether there was value in doing so and used the example of Mr Murray’s piece from The Sun which stated in the headline, ‘If we want peace then we need one thing - less Islam’. Nick highlighted that this would have been extraordinarily offensive to many Muslims in the country. As he explained in the interview, Nick’s intention here was not to change the subject, but to address the topic at hand as some would argue that those are the sort of statements which should be called out.

Douglas would then have a chance to offer a first-hand address of any such concerns and was given plenty of time to share his thinking on matters. If Nick felt he didn’t directly address the question, then he’d repeat the question and press on it. Nick did give more time to Mr Murray to respond and he spoke more than the other guest Prof Andrews. When Prof Andrews responded, Nick quickly interjected and pointed out that people like Mr Murray should be heard. Then he brought Mr Murray back to have the final say.

We always strive to be robust in our dealings with politicians and other figures of public interest. The interviewer's role is to seek answers that will inform our audiences, which would mean playing devil’s advocate. Our journalists seek to hold politicians and other public figures to account by asking them pressing questions on a variety of topics.

Impartiality is a core value of the BBC, and one reason why we believe our news coverage is trusted and respected around the world and Nick is well aware of that commitment. The BBC does not seek to take a position in its reporting and aims to give due weight to events, opinion and the main strands of argument over an appropriate timeframe so that no significant strand of thought is under-represented or omitted. The BBC is independent of any political interests, and our news agenda would never be influenced by any outside organisation.

That said, we appreciate you felt it was inappropriate for Nick to bring this statement up during this interview, and we’ve shared your concerns with the programme team and senior management on our audience feedback report.

These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback within the BBC and help inform our ongoing work.

Many thanks, once again, for taking the time to get in touch.

Well, that's a polite reply, and time was obviously taken over considering it (so thanks to Phil for writing it)...

...but...

I didn't complaint that it was "inappropriate for Nick Robinson to bring that statement [of Douglas Murray's] up. That's not what I complained about at all.

I complained about a lack of even-handedness, and how one guest was browbeaten and the other not. 

And the crux of my complaint - that Nick Robinson didn't raise any of the highly controversial Prof Andrews's past 'controversial' statements - was ignored.

As for the three defences here, well:

(1), 'that Douglas Murray was given more time to answer' doesn't hold water because the only reason he got more time to speak was that he was 'in the dock' and was defending himself against Chief Prosecutor Robinson. He was, thus, stopped from talking about what he (Douglas Murray) wanted to talk about.

(2), 'that Kehinde Andrew was told to let Douglas speak' is a fair point, but it also allowed Nick to keep thes spotlight firmly on 'in the dock' Douglas, and

(3) 'that Douglas Murray was given the last word shows Nick was fair' also doesn't hold water. My original complaint included the point that Nick Robinson gave himself the last, sarcastic word "(and, thus, victory over Mr Murray"), so that defence points to the fact that my original point about Nick giving himself the final, sarcastic word wasn't really answered either.

So, no, I'm not buying it at all.