Mark Easton gets it wrong again

And talking about the BBC getting its facts wrong...

As Arthur T notes on the open thread, blog favourite and arch-BBC narrative setter Mark Easton has been rebuked again by the corporation's Editorial Complaints Unit.

Here's that ruling as it appears on the BBC website's Executive Complaints Unit Findings page:

BBC News (6.00pm), BBC One, 12 April 2022

18 August 2022

Complaint

In a report on the Prime Minister receiving a fine for breaching lockdown restrictions the BBC’s Home Editor said:

Now each one of those Fixed Penalty Notices requires the police to believe that a criminal offence has been committed. Now it doesn’t go on anybody’s criminal record but it will go on the Police National Computer.

A viewer complained that this was incorrect, as breaches of lockdown restrictions incurring a fixed penalty notice were non-recordable crimes. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of accuracy.

Outcome

The Home Editor acknowledged that he was mistaken in saying the offence would be recorded on the Police National Computer. As the error could have misled viewers as to the seriousness of the offence, the ECU accepted that it was a breach of the relevant editorial standards.

Upheld

Further action

The finding was reported to the Board of BBC News and discussed with the programme-makers concerned.

As ever, beyond being published on a part of the BBC website very few people read [and being picked up by the odd newspaper], what is the BBC doing to make this known to BBC viewers who might have been misled? A prominent apology/correction on BBC One's News at Six?

I've scanned TVEyes to see if any apology/correction has been broadcast on BBC One since this ruling was published two days ago. You won't be surprise that it brings up no results.

Note also that it took four months and an escalation to the ECU to even get this. The BBC's complaints process isn't fit for purpose.

You really do have to watch them like a hawk.

On BBC self-congratulation

Also on this week's Radio 4 Media Show, Roger Mosey talked of the need for “a broader accountability” and how the BBC needs to prove it, rather than just asserting it and simply patting itself on the back:

Of course, Tim Davie has said there is problem, so the BBC does believe there is a problem. And I think when you refer back to Brexit and the BBC making statements saying it's all jolly good, I'd just like the accountability about that. I'd like some examination of it. And all we see in the BBC annual report is 'the Brexit coverage was rather marvellous, and so's the 2019 general election coverage'. And my question is: Was it? If you believe public service really matters, as I do, you have to make it better. And the BBC's supposed to be, not just where the market is, it's supposed to be better than the market.

And Ofcom's Kevin Bakhurst - the BBC's regulator - agreed, saying:

I don't think it's always really helpful that the knee jerk is 'we're already doing a brilliant job'. I think it's better sometimes to look at the evidence, which is what we do as an independent regulator, and see where you could make improvements.

Into the Labyrinth again

Just checking through our archive for our use of the word 'labyrinthine' - plus 'labyrinth' - to describe the BBC's tortuous complaints process, I find I've used it in five posts over the years - in 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2019.

So it's gratifying to find that a former BBC head of news, Roger Mosey, and Ofcom's Kevin Bakhurst, both used exactly the same term to describe the BBC complaints process on this week's The Media Show on BBC Radio 4.

It feels like vindication.

Roger Mosey described the BBC as being “rather bad at accountability”:

Roger Mosey: And now I'm outside the BBC you see that accountability is really important, and it's very crucial for the BBC that it is accountable. I think it's rather bad at accountability really. The complaints process is very complicated. I've only ever...Since I've been outside I've made one complaint in eight and a half years. And I know the system. And you just got stuck in this labyrinth of not being able to work out how it was that you got anyone to acknowledge that there was a genuine issue there. 

And former BBC high-up now their regulator Kevin Bakhurst said that people get lost in the process and don't like the tone of the BBC's responses and “give up the ghost” - and also rather deliciously skewers a BBC 'defence' here:

Ros Atkins, BBC: But help me dig into the detail here. And, Kevin, you're the one making the request. So let me ask you, if I Google now 'BBC Complaints' I'm quite easily gonna end up on a page which says 'What would you like to say to us?', so the problem is presumably not that. The problem for you is what happens after that? 

Kevin Bakhurst: I mean, our research shows audiences can Google it and find their way in really, really easily and quickly, and they approve of that. And, by the way, in general they approve of BBC First as the right way to deal with complaints. However, once they get into that system, they get lost. And, as Roger says, it is really labyrinthine for audiences. That's what our research shows. They are not quite sure where they are in the process, they don't like the tone of language they get in responses from the BBC, many of them...when we were discussing this with the BBC, the BBC said, well, you know, it's a measure of our success that people don't come through to Ofcom that much at the end. Our research shows people don't come through to Ofcom because they've given up the ghost going through the BBC complaints process, and don't really understand where they are or how to advance them.

 As we've long said.

The Media Show

I've belatedly caught up with this week's The Media Show where Ros Atkins talked to Ofcom's Kevin Bakhurst; Owen Meredith of the News Media Association; former BBC head of news Roger Mosey; and Alice Enders of Enders Analysis.

Various thoughts flitted across my mind while listening to it, e.g. I tutted when Ros said:

But on the broader issue of complaints. Here's a statement today from the BBC - and, by the way, we did invite the BBC onto the programme, but they've sent us a statement.

It's always a little daft when the BBC declines to speak to itself.

This led into my next thought, concerning Ros's role in the programme. One admirable quirk of the BBC, especially during John Humphrys or Eddie Mair's interviews with BBC people during times of crisis for the BBC, was that BBC interviewers can go in surprisingly hard on the BBC. One DG, George Entwistle, had to go after a particularly high-temperature John Humphrys roasting. Maybe it was because the BBC weren't there to stick up for themselves that Ros played the part of BBC defender so strongly - i.e. for professional reasons, and reasons of fairness and balance - but he did seem to take certain things personally and put considerable energy - and what sounded like conviction - into sticking up for the BBC.

Anyhow, there were some interesting exchanges during the programme...which will follow in the next few posts...

The Misadventures of the BBC Complaints Unit

Connoisseurs of BBC complaints might like to read a fascinating series of exchanges published at History Reclaimed. The complaint, which has been ongoing for over three months, relates to The Misadventures of Romesh Ranganathan, a BBC Two documentary from March. The complainant, Chris Tett, takes aim at the section where Romesh went to Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, and visited the fort on Bunce Island where slaves were held before being shipped to the Americas. Mr Tett calls what followed “a defamation of Britain by a biased selection of facts” and lays out a series of points that weren't mentioned, among them that Britain set up Freetown for freed slaves and brought 150,000 there:

Ranganathan said that slave trading was something “..the white British did..” - a racist statement ignoring African involvement. British involvement in the slave trade was shameful but could not have taken place without active involvement of Africans. The programme covered the history of Freetown without mentioning who set it up or efforts by Britain to end the slave trade. African involvement in the trade was not mentioned at all.

Mr Tett also noted the following:

In Freetown, slaves freed by the Royal Navy walked through the ‘Freedom Arch’ to the Old King’s Yard to be given treatment and food. Declared a National Monument in 1949, it is a UNESCO World Heritage site. Its website says, “The Gateway to the Old King’s Yard compares with the Statue of Liberty in the United States in enduring as a highly potent symbol, inspiring contemplation of ideals such as freedom, human rights, democracy and opportunity…”. Surely such a monument was worth showing. But no mention.

The BBC's initial response essentially blames “time constraints” and lists what the programme did cover. Mr Tett responded by saying that the BBC reviewer “ignored or completely missed the point of my complaint”, which was about “a lack of balance” and the “racist intent” behind statements like “..something the white British did”. As for “time constraints”, he observes that:

There is little difference in airtime between the statement made: ‘Freetown was set up for freed slave’ and an alternative ‘Britain set up Freetown for freed slaves’? Again, what is the different between the statement made ‘Freed slaves were brought to Freetown’ and an alternative ‘British Navy ships brought slaves they had freed to Freetown’?

In response, the BBC said that Mr Tett was “incorrect” to suggest that the programme stated that slavery was “something the white British did”, quoting from the programme: “It would be very easy for me to say, ‘Well, this is what white British people did, my parents come from Sri Lanka, so this is nothing to do with me.’ But the truth of it is, is that my parents wanted a better life for their children. And the reason that they moved over to the UK is because of the economic, the infrastructure, all of these things, the, the standard of living that is built upon benefits that were gleaned from slavery…. You know, you can’t just go, ‘this is nothing to do with me’. It is part of British history, it’s part of black British history, and it should be acknowledged as such.” As for “time constraints” defence, the BBC simply repeated it, perhaps sensing that they were on weaker ground there.

Mr Tett has tried again. Here's his latest response in full:

I am glad the second reviewer admits what was said. Quoting the full context does not alter the sentiment which was that slavery was “…. something the white British did. …..” adding “It is part of British history…” Romesh added “…. the standard of living that is built upon benefits that were gleaned from slavery” which is much disputed by some very eminent economic historians. Your reviewer then adds “…. these are Romesh’s views on the complex legacy of slavery.”

Your reviewer also stated this was a travel programme. Well, it took time to delve into history in a way to discredit Britain. The programme sets out clearly racist views because the whole programme section blames the white British for the slave trade and mentions only items which discredit British history.

There is much for Britain to be proud of in Freetown, including the UNESCO World Heritage site. Many more rescued slaves were taken to Freetown than ever were shipped as slaves from Bunce Island. Clearly a lack of balance was shown.

In a programme about Sierra Leone and Freetown that talks about history it would have been easy to mention that Freetown was set up by the British to take slaves freed by the Royal Navy where they would be safe because black Africans continued to enslave and sell other Africans. It did not. This clearly shows the programme makers wish to avoid mentioning anything good about Britain.

Let us be clear. A travel programme does not need to mention history but if it does, it needs to be balanced. This was not. Further, this programme was racially biased because it blamed only the British but did not mention black African involvement.

Some people are now claiming that the BBC has lost it impartiality and is keen to interpret history in an anti-British way. So far, they are proved right.

On to the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit then... 

Incidentally, just looking up the UNESCO World Heritage Site Chris Tett mentions, a Trip Advisor reviewer adds something intriguing: 

The original plaque clearly visible now joined by a modern one from the BBC. 

 Wonder what those plaques say?

Ofcom complains about the BBC's complaints process

The BBC's regulator Ofcom reports its own findings pretty clearly in the following four headlines: 

• BBC must transform the way it serves audiences, Ofcom warns
• Too many people lack confidence in BBC complaints process, which must improve
• Audiences consistently rate it less favourably for impartiality
• Ofcom introduces new regulation to make the BBC more transparent and open

Of the BBC's tortuous complaints process, Ofcom have this to say: 

Fewer than one in five complainants told Ofcom they had a satisfactory complaints experience, and over half reported a bad experience. Others were concerned about the tone and detail of response; and that the BBC took too long to respond. Fewer than half of complainants said they received an initial substantive response within two weeks, the BBC’s target response time. Furthermore, around two thirds of UK adults who have cause to complain do not go on to make one at all, with 42% feeling it would not make a difference and 29% feeling it would not be taken seriously.

A Look Back

As you've been recording on the open thread, it's been quite a few weeks for the BBC.

I

The one that puzzled me was the Antony Gormley story. Reeta Chakrabarti, with earnestness all over her face and eyebrows raised, read out this 'news' last Saturday evening:

One of Britain's most acclaimed artists, the sculptor Sir Antony Gormley, who created The Angel of the North, is to become a German citizen. Sir Antony said he was giving up his British passport because of the UK's decision leave the European Union. He described the move as "embarrassing" and says he has plans for new sculptures that reflect this view.

Three days later the BBC posted the following on its Corrections and Clarifications page:

BBC One, 4 June 2022, 10.30pm

We reported that the acclaimed British sculptor Sir Antony Gormley is to become a German citizen. We said he was giving up his British passport because of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union and that he had described the move as embarrassing and had plans for new sculptures that would reflect his view.

In fact Sir Antony Gormley is not giving up his British nationality and has asked us to make clear the circumstances behind his application for a German passport.

Sir Antony holds dual nationality as a result of having a German mother and has decided to apply for a German passport, which he will hold alongside his British one.

In a statement he says he remains a proud British citizen and is grateful for the extraordinary support he has received from so many people and institutions across the UK but he is also keen to retain his links with and continue to show his work in Europe.

We apologise for the mistake.

07/06/2022

How did this happen? As far as I can see, the BBC simply picked the story up from their Sunday house journal The Observer and misread it.  

Nowhere in the Observer article did Sir Antony say he was giving up his British passport [and I've checked the Wayback Machine to see if the Observer did say it but then changed it].

So were the BBC 'projecting', seeing what they wanted to see in the story rather than what it actually said?

It certainly looks like it.

II

Meanwhile, following a number of apologies for 'errors' made by the BBC's climate editor Justin Rowlatt - who's far clumsier than the departing Roger Harrabin - there's a new report out by Paul Homewood detailing a dozen corrections/apologies the BBC's had to make in recent years for false claims. 

Justin, who first rose to fame as Newsnight's 'Ethical Man', is now up to three strikes [BBC ECU rulings against him], though naturally he's not 'out' at the BBC:

In 2021 he falsely claimed that the offshore wind industry was now 'virtually subsidy free'.

In 2022 he falsely claimed that the death toll from climate change is rising.

In 2022 he falsely claimed that the recent drought in Madagascar was 'the world's first climate-induced famine'.

I was particularly intrigued by the passages about the BBC's complaints process, including this concerning the false claim about the death toll rising:

A complaint to the BBC was fobbed off with the risible excuse that Panorama was referring to the cumulative death toll, which will obviously rise every year.

I wish I could say that was 'a nice try' by the BBC, but it's so disingenuous as to be anything but. 

As the press release accompanying the report notes, the BBC has a team of reality checkers, including a 'Climate Misinformation' section.  

Yet none of these teams of fact checkers noticed or addressed the long list of false news stories that were only corrected by the BBC after lengthy and protracted complaint procedures.

Those BBC reality checkers are very selective in the 'facts' they choose to 'check'. 

III

Worst of all was the BBC's editing of an online report to change a rape victim's words - replacing 'he' and 'him' with 'they' and 'them' in order not to offend the trans person accused of raping the woman - a truly staggering editorial intervention.

Clarifying and Correcting, featuring friends of China and Lewis Goodall

 

Qing dynasty art, attributed to Ma Quan [no relation to Ma Barker]

Regular readers will know that we value those vanishingly rare 'BBC corrections and clarifications'.

They are like the most endangered species of butterfly - almost never seen and extremely hard to capture.

The latest pair are particularly intriguing. 

The first is unusually fulsome and concerns a China expert who writes nice things about communist China's influence in the world - winning plaudits from pro-CCP types in the process. 

She complained that the BBC edited her Today interview and removed a key bit of what she wanted to say:

Today

BBC Radio 4, 1 December 2021

In an item about Chinese ‘debt trap’ diplomacy we interviewed Professor Deborah Brautigan, who explained that this ‘is the idea that China is deliberately luring countries into borrowing more money than they can afford with the goal of using that debt for strategic leverage, to seize assets of some kind or otherwise push the country to do China’s bidding.’ She went on to give an example of the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota, saying it was used by the Trump administration to promote this theory.

However Professor Brautigan’s further point, that these ideas have little basis in fact, was edited out of the broadcast interview. In fact Professor Brautigan’s research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota.

We apologise for the error.

7/2/2022

Googling around, it turns out that the BBC also wrote directly to the China-defending professor and blamed an editing error by an inexperienced producer.

Guess what though? The BBC's 'correction and clarification' misspelt her name. She's Professor Brautigam, not Professor Brautigan. 

Standards really are slipping at the BBC.

Talking of which, the other new 'correction and clarification' concerned yet another botched Newsnight report, and what looks like a particularly slipshod example:

Newsnight

BBC Two, 13 July 2021

A graphic attributed the following statement to the Government Race and Disparities Report 2021:

Not a single police force in England and Wales registered an arrest rate of less than 20 for every 1000 black people.

By contrast not a single police force in England and Wales registered an arrest rate of more than 20 for every 1000 white people

We should have made it clear that this conclusion had been carried by The Independent newspaper the previous year in a wider survey of social and economic data on disparities between different ethnicities in the UK and reflected statistics from a different Government website which was now out of date.

The most recent figures show there are four police forces with an arrest rate of below 20 for every 1000 black people.
4/2/2022

As I've moaned before, it's hard to track the guilty BBC party after these BBC statements about poor BBC reporting, as the BBC keeps its mouth shut and rarely names names, most likely in order to spare their people's blushes. So it often takes a lot of patient digging to track down the culprit and the context. 

'Advanced searching' on Twitter reveals however that it was my favourite Newsnight reporter, shiny-faced Lewis Goodall, who bungled it here.

Pleasingly, a retired police officer called him out on it for 'pedalling dodgy statistics' at the time - and for BBC-style race-baiting too:

As so often, it took over six months for the BBC to post that 'correction/clarification' on a page hardly anyone other than me reads. 

I think Lewis should correct it publicly on Newsnight and explain what he did wrong.

[Chances of that happening = Zero].

Who regulates the regulator?

  

It's over five years since News-watch first rang alarm bells at the fact that of the 13 members of Ofcom's Content Board at the time 10 had close BBC links. 

Ofcom is, of course, the BBC's regulator.

That was in 2016. Now, as we start 2022, The Mail on Sunday's deputy political editor Anna Mikhailova reports that this figure now stands at 10 out of 14, as there's been another member added to the Content Board.

Anna writes that:

Nadine Dorries is planning to review Ofcom's structure following concerns over bias towards the BBC, The Mail on Sunday understands.

The Culture Secretary is expected to examine the regulator's role as part of an upcoming review into the Corporation's complaints process.

Officials have raised concerns that out of the 14 members of Ofcom's Content Board, ten are ex-BBC employees. The regulator is the ultimate authority to which complaints can be escalated.

The next two paragraphs show why it's important that something is done:

Over the past two years, only one complaint about the Corporation was investigated by Ofcom, out of 418 referred to it by the BBC.

This is a fraction of the 830,632 viewer complaints made in total to the Corporation over the same period.

Isn't that extraordinary?

The piece continues: 

A Government source said: 'Fundamentally this needs to be looked at.'

It's very much to be hoped that Nadine Dorries isn't just talking about it but going to do something about it. There's been rather too much talk.

'The BBC is silencing the viewers who should be heard'

[h/t News-watch]

I can't find it on Mail Online so, if you missed it, here's an editorial from yesterday's Mail on Sunday [click to enlarge]:

Correct/Clarifty

After a nearly two month gap where nothing happened, the BBC's Corrections and Clarifications has finally jerked back into life and posted another correction/clarification - an unusually quick one.

Today

BBC Radio 4, Monday 13 December

In an item about the rise in infections caused by Omicron and its impact on the NHS we said: ‘NHS England says between 20 and 30 per cent of critical care beds are occupied by Covid patients.... three quarters of those haven't been vaccinated.’

We also said that the ‘vast majority’ of those in critical care are unvaccinated. In fact, the most recent figures from the Intensive Care and National Audit Research Centre (ICNARC) show that 51% of intensive care patients in England with Covid in November were vaccinated and 48% were not.

15/12/2021

As ever, the BBC here protects the identity of 'the guilty party' at the BBC responsible for getting this so badly wrong. But, using TVEyes, it was quite easy to track down Martha Kearney as the one incorrectly laying emphasis on it being the ''vast majority'' [twice, at 6.55am and 8.39am - the later time before asking her interviewee if he thought it was time for ''compulsory'' vaccines].

In fairness to Martha, she was probably fed the false fact by inept elements of the Today journalistic team and simply parroted it. But I'd have hoped for better from her and that she'd have fact-checked it herself before repeating it [repeatedly].

Maybe BBC Trendling's Mike Wendling could free up a few of his disinformation team to reality-check the BBC itself for fake news and disinformation?

The BBC rules against Will Grant

 

Of the millions of people who watch an incorrect report on BBC One's News at Ten, how many ever become aware of the correction on the BBC website? 

I'd put it in the low thousands at best. 

Three months ago many US media outlets and senior US Democrat politicians falsely claimed that US border guards had used whips to beat Haitian illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico.. 

I saw many flat-out rebuttals of that at the time, including on the BBC's least favourite US channel Fox News, but BBC One's News at Ten featured a report on 23 September 2021 which simply parroted that false story. 

Will Grant, the BBC's Mexico, Central America and Cuba correspondent, said:

As migrants attempted to cross from Mexico to a makeshift camp in Texas this week, they were pushed back by mounted Border Patrol officers using whips.   

Here's the BBC Executive Complaints Unit's ruling:

Complaint 

A report about Haitian immigrants to the United States included this statement: As migrants attempted to cross from Mexico to a makeshift camp in Texas this week, they were pushed back by mounted Border Patrol officers using whips. A viewer complained that the claim that whips had been used was false. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy.

Outcome 

Reports on social media and news media that Border Patrol officers had used whips were based on photographs taken by an agency photographer who subsequently stated that he had not seen whips being used at the time. Moreover the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for border control, stated on 20 September that the images showed long reins used to control horses – an explanation entirely compatible with the images themselves. In view of these points, the ECU agreed that the report’s claim about the use of whips was not consistent with the BBC’s standards of due accuracy. 

Upheld 

Further action

The finding was reported to the Board of BBC News and discussed with the programme-makers concerned.

This is such an interesting one as it shows the BBC simply joining the pack and spreading the same inaccurate lines that their cousins in the US media were spouting without verifying it first. 

Confirmation bias is trumping true fact-checking at the BBC these days on so many fronts - as per the Oxford Street incident too. 

[P.S. It took a lot of digging to find out the name of the BBC reporter responsible. The BBC don't make it easy in their complaints rulings]. 

The BBC upholds a complaint against Justin Rowlatt

The BBC has upheld a complaint against its Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt. 

It's one of those rulings where the BBC's write-up attempts to put the best possible gloss of the matter, but it's still a ruling against him on grounds of [in]accuracy:

Wind turbines: How UK wants to become ‘Saudi Arabia of wind’, bbc.co.uk 09 December 2021  

Complaint 

In a video attached to this report the BBC’s Climate Editor, Justin Rowlatt, described the UK offshore wind industry as “now virtually subsidy free”. A viewer of the video complained that this was inaccurate. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy. Outcome As explained to the complainant in previous correspondence, Mr Rowlatt’s intended meaning was that the most recently approved offshore wind projects were expected to operate without subsidy (or with “negative subsidy”) because the price at which the successful companies would sell the energy they produce to the Government was expected to be lower over the lifetime of the project than the wholesale electricity price on the UK market. However, it was not clear from the context that Mr Rowlatt was referring only to recently approved projects, and the ECU considered viewers likely to form the impression that the industry as a whole was “now virtually subsidy free”. As existing installations are expected to receive significant subsidies over their lifetime, that impression would have been inaccurate. Upheld

Further action 

The finding was reported to the Board of BBC News and discussed with Mr Rowlatt. The article has been amended to remove the inaccurate impression.

More from Ofcom

Also as per Charlie's comment, Ofcom reports that audiences “consistently rate the BBC less favourably for impartiality” than they do on any other measure and that many viewers and listeners don't believe that the BBC obeys impartiality rules. 55 per cent of BBC television news viewers rate it very highly  - a figure which strikes me as surprisingly high. 

Ofcom was also critical of the BBC’s lack of transparency over its complaint process. Ofcom wants the BBC to be more transparent, especially over its complaints process, as the corporation doesn't give details of rejected complaints. Ofcom says: “Given the importance of the BBC to many people in the UK, we have consistently called for the BBC to be more transparent. For instance, in how it explains its decision to the public.”

I'd add that they're getting very tardy at adding to their Corrections and Clarifications page. It's well over a month since they last publicly corrected or clarified anything, the last time being about ragworts on 20 October...

In honour of which fact, and though the BBC's Mark Bell might disapprove...

John Clare, The Ragwort (1832)

Ragwort, thou humble flower with tattered leaves
I love to see thee come & litter gold,
What time the summer binds her russet sheaves;
Decking rude spots in beauties manifold,
That without thee were dreary to behold,
Sunburnt and bare - the meadow bank, the baulk
That leads a wagon-way through mellow fields,
Rich with the tints that harvest's plenty yields,
Browns of all hues; and everywhere I walk
Thy waste of shining blossoms richly shields
The sun tanned sward in splendid hues that burn
So bright & glaring that the very light
Of the rich sunshine doth to paleness turn
& seems but very shadows in thy sight.

'Why is "BBC Bitesize" Promoting Gender Ideology to Children?'

(h/t Stew Green)

Here's a well-presented video from Caroline ffiske concerning the BBC's reaction to criticism over its promotion of a particular ideology:

In response to her complaint about a BBC Bitesize feature pushing new gender pronouns like 'nem'. 'nir', 'viva', 'sphere', 'z', 'zamzia', etc, among school children, the BBC said, "As we have with Stonewall on this article, we have worked with experts to ensure that our content is factually accurate." But are Stonewall "experts"?

On which topic, here's a Twitter thread I was reading this morning which begins:

ripx4nutmeg: The BBC has refused to answer an FOI request about its work with Stonewall (but admitted it gives them thousands of pounds). Reason: 'The public interest is not served by [other] public bodies being less willing to engage in programmes which help them improve LGBTQ+ inclusivity'. 

Solange: The BBC really, really doesn’t want to spill the beans about its relationship with this political lobbying group. 

C Isaksson: Are you appealing? 

ripx4nutmeg: It wasn't me that asked for the FOI but is there even an appeal process? If there is, it probably isn't necessary - the 'impartial' BBC has now effectively admitted it is terrified of doing anything that will risk its project of disseminating Stonewall's gender identity propaganda.

Here is the BBC's response under discussion:

Update

The world turns topsy-turvy and, because of the viciousness of the transgender debate, the Guardian's previously ultra-Guardianista Suzanne Moore left the paper and transitioned to being something I'd never have expected her to be in several months of Sundays: a Daily Telegraph columnist. (What's next? Polly Toynbee writing for The Conservative Woman?)

Today she asks "a few little questions", one of which is: "Why can't the BBC talk about Stonewall funding?"

The same tweeter featured in the post above replied, saying "The BBC's argument seems to be that if they talk about their association with Stonewall this could have a detrimental effect on Stonewall's aims. But they don't explain why this would be the case or why that's any of the BBC's business when they're meant to be impartial."

Further Update:

And The Times's Janice Turner crystallises the argument further here: 

Here the BBC refuses to answer a Freedom of Information request about what advice it pays Stonewall £6k a year to give it. Because its reply might jeopardise the commercial interests of Stonewall. Amazing.

The BBC defends their Slalom Witch Trial

 

LunchTimeLoather brings us news that the BBC has published its response to complaints about "their 'more BAME people should be skiing' preaching" on Ski Sunday. 

"Judge. Jury. Executioner. As usual."

I think the word 'supercilious' best catches the BBC's tone here (though if you can think of other, better words, please note them below):

Summary of complaint

We received some complaints about a segment that looked at how snow sports could become more inclusive to people from all backgrounds, from those who felt it was inappropriate.

Our response

We do not agree that it was inappropriate to explore this topic. We do not agree that anything within this report was inaccurate, or biased against anyone who wants to take to the slopes. We included viewpoints and personal stories from multiple contributors as well as experts and commentators in the industry.

If you missed this (and I meant to post about it earlier)...

Last month Ski Sunday followed Countryfile in bending the knee to Black Lives Matter. 

Countryfile did a 'the countryside is too white' feature, and Ski Sunday did a 'the ski slopes of Switzerland are too white' feature. 

(Cue obvious jokes). 

The fascinating thing - besides the very long, one-sided, dubiously-accurate report itself from a black grievance-monger made a main feature on the programme - was the behaviour of the two regular, white presenters.

There they both were, dressed in their ski gear, standing in the Swiss snow, and preaching like a pair of 'woke' John Calvins. 

And they described the very long, one-sided, dubiously-accurate report itself from the black grievance-monger as "provocative and inspiring".

It was painful to watch them.

The white man (Ed Leigh) preached with particular earnestness, in a way that made me cringe. 

"When you're in the majority you fit in, so why would you question it?", he said, confessing his sins, immediately after the white woman (Chemmy Alcott) had  said, "Almost everyone in these beautiful places is white". 

And the white woman (Chemmy Alcott) literally stood in front of us on TV confessing her guilt at not having previously being sufficiently aware of the (alleged) problem of there not being enough BAME people on the ski slopes: "I'm going to be really honest here. As a person who has a voice in the UK snow sports scene I'm really embarrassed to admit that I didn't realise this was such a big issue". 

They also committed themselves to 'the cause'. 

No wonder people complained. It reeked of an in-your-face agenda from the BBC, but it also made for uncomfortable viewing. 

Did Ed and Chemmy really believe what they said? Or were they made to stand there and say it and humiliate themselves, just so the BBC could tick off yet another 'woke'-pleasing item on a BBC mainstay?

I suspect the latter.

There are, of course, plenty of non-racist reasons why posh people and white European and European-ancestry people dominate the ski slopes. The feature glided over those disingenuously. 

White working class people from Morecambe might be slightly more likely to appear on the kind of slopes that Ski Sunday frequents than black working class people, even black activists with chips on their shoulders, especially given that black people comprise a mere 3% of the population, but if I were to stereotype the kind of British people who do hog the ski slopes I'd brand them as classic BBC types - stars, presenters, journalists and (hideously white) executives - plus lots of other people with enough money and a sense of fun and adventure. 

We know what the BBC was up to here, and all their huffing and puffing about how they "don't agree" doesn't disguise it.

Nish v Nigel - An Update

 

This comment from Jeremy Vine's nemesis LunchTimeLoather on the Open Thread needs a post of its own (especially for readers new to the blog and just passing by and merely glancing at posts):

LunchTimeLoather: New Year's Eve seems a distant memory now, but some will remember Nish Kumar's remarks about Nigel Farage on the Graham Norton show.

Jeremy Hayes, BBC Complaints Director, told me this week: "I think there is little doubt that it would be regarded as offensive by Mr Farage but the test here is, I think, whether it could be said to breach generally accepted standards, taking into account that the programme was broadcast very late in the evening to an audience of adults. Not everyone appreciates Mr Kumar’s sense of humour, which is often targeted at politicians and can be quite brutal. Having reviewed the programme I do not think his jibe can be regarded as so extreme as to breach generally accepted standards and I am therefore not upholding your complaint. There is no provision for further appeal against this decision within the BBC.". 

JunkkMale: In a sane world, what this oaf ‘thinks’ is worth zippy.  

Vrager: Usual weasley response when the BBC doesn't think it will be sued for libel/slander.

Nish Kumar "brutally" called Nigel Farage "not technically a man, just a sack of meat brought to life by a witch’s curse" on late evening New Year's Eve BBC One.

His comments were clearly neither hate-free nor hilarious. 

And it came from a man who's widely regarded as being 'not technically a comedian', merely a very lucky, shameless, agitprop, bread roll magnet who's never been a hit with the general public but has been privileged and brought to public prominence - and claque applause - by the BBC overwhelmingly because he ticks a number of key BBC boxes. 

He is, perhaps, the ultimate barely-talented beneficiary of positive discrimination promoted beyond his abilities purely for reasons of BBC virtue-signalling (no offence). 

As they used to say on exam papers: Discuss.

Will Andrew Neil's new channel bring us Nigel Farage and Nish Kumar sharing a bottle of champagne and agreeing to disagree on New Year's Eve 2021? 

I suspect Nigel at least would be up for it. Would Nish though, lacking his BBC claque?

Jeremy Vine and Andrew Marr's discussion "misled listeners and did not meet the BBC’s standards of due accuracy"

Those who enjoy reading BBC Executive Complaints Unit findings that go against the BBC are in for a treat here. 

This one concerns an edition of BBC Radio 2's The Jeremy Vine Show on 6 October 2020 and an interview between the host and Andrew Marr.

Here's how the BBC summarises the complaint: 

The programme included an interview with Andrew Marr about his book “Elizabethans: How Modern Britain Was Forged” in which he referred to one of its subjects, Jayaben Desai, who was involved in the prolonged strike at Grunwick in 1976. The son of the late George Ward, the owner of Grunwick, complained that the discussion repeated statement about Mr Ward’s treatment of his workforce which were in conflict with the findings of the inquiry conducted by Lord Scarman, and for which the BBC had apologised when they were broadcast on previous occasions. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy.

What's so striking there is that the BBC "had apologised" before "on previous occasions" for making such statements, and now thanks to Mr Vine and Mr Marr they've had to do it again! 

So what happened? Well, the BBC ruled against Jeremy Vine and Andrew Marr:

Outcome

As the ECU was presented with no evidence which would have allowed it to discount Lord Scarman’s conclusions, it accepted that the statements in question would have misled listeners and did not meet the BBC’s standards of due accuracy.

Upheld

And what happened as a result? Well, pretty much the usual:

Further action

The finding was reported to the board of BBC Radio and discussed with the programme-makers concerned. The inaccurate material will not be re-broadcast.

It doesn't sound as if the verdict had to be read out on The Jeremy Vine Show or a public apology given.

"Classic BBC non-apology"

The BBC has issued another 'clarification' today, apparently following questions from The Sun - though the massive social media revulsion towards the BBC over it should have alerted those eager BBC Twitter twitchers a lot earlier:

BBC News Online

25 January 2021

We used the term ‘IRA veteran’ to describe Eamon McCourt’s long involvement in Irish republicanism. We accept that this shorthand formulation could be misinterpreted and it has now been amended for clarity. Mr McCourt is now described as an ‘IRA man’ in our online news report. Related social media posts have also been updated. 

We understand the sensitivities around Troubles’ issues and legacies, including in relation to terminology. Much of this can be contested. No offence was intended and we regret any misunderstanding or upset that may have been caused. 

 27/01/2021

I agree with this from Mark Wallace though:

Classic BBC non-apology: “We used the term ‘IRA veteran’...we accept that this shorthand formulation could be misinterpreted.”

See how it works? If you think “veteran” is the wrong term for a terrorist, it’s you to blame, really, for misinterpreting. Never the Beeb...

The BBC "retires" the 100+ genders BBC Teach film

 

Well, well, well, here's a little breaking news...

(I think we may have scooped the mainstream media here).

The BBC has taken down the infamous 100+ genders BBC Teach video. 

I went there yesterday, and there is was. But today it's gone, melted into thin air, leaving not a rack behind:

Checking social media, I see there's already a BBC explication out there - a deliciously passive-aggressive one (with a massive tilt towards the aggressive)!

The BBC says it has "made the decision to retire the film", but spends the rest of its self-justifying complaint response denying it did anything wrong and attacking its critics:

Way to give in, but not give in gracefully, BBC!

UPDATE: It's up on the BBC's Complaints page now, saying the same, even down to the "we have made the decision to retire the film" bit. 

Clearly everyone who complained has been sent a nearly word-for-word version of the BBC's official statement.