Sorry/not sorry

I stumbled upon the Media Show last night. 

A conversation between presenter Katie Razzall and Michelle Donelan turned to issues around the BBC’s impartiality.

Katie Razzall:

“…….Tim Davie the Director General has made it one of his main focuses…

Michelle Donelan

“…….however - I would also say that there is a difference between having a plan and delivering that change, and it is certainly not ‘job done’ by any stretch of the imagination, and we only have to look at a plethora of different examples that have come up to highlight that. But there is still a problem.

Katy Razzall

“What examples?

Michelle Donelan

“Well if we look at the incident of the bus with the alleged antisemitism, if we look at…….

Well, we didn’t ‘look at the alleged antisemitism’ because there were more pressing matters to discuss such as Prince Harry,  Jeremy Clarkson, and Gary Lineker. 

At the end of the interview, when Ms. Donelan had left the room, and who knows, the premises, Ms. Razzall read out a rebuttal writted on a piece of paper (© Spike Milligan)

“Well that was Michelle Donelan, Secretary of state for digital media culture and sport and she made reference to how the BBC had reported an antisemitic attack on a group of Jewish students in 2021. Let me just add to that what the BBC have said about reporting that incident which was in part based on a video of the incident filmed from inside the bus. The BBC has said that while Ofcom has found that our reporting was not in breach of the broadcasting code 

the BBC executive complaints unit ruled in January 2022 that more could have been done sooner to acknowledge the differing views about what could be heard on the recording of the attack. The BBC apologised at the time for not acting sooner to highlight the contents of the recording were contested.”

• Recollections may vary. 
• The scale of the problem was exaggerated

This wasn’t on the BBC but it’s another example of Sorry/not sorry.

The Media Show should have invited Shami Chakrabarti to investigate. 

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...

“On” a lot more?

I heard a snippet of the Media Show (about 20 minutes in) yesterday afternoon. I understand the topic was bias in the media with regard to the referendum, or the Scottish Spring as I like to think of it. 

One of the guest experts was Greg Philo, (Glasgow Media Group) and, as is his wont, he had to drag the Israel-Palestine issue into it all of a sudden. 

He said:  “It’s clear the Israelis are ‘on’ a lot more than the Palestinians”

I mean WTF?  What-planet-is-he-on? 

Now, let’s ask, just for one second, what evidence does Philo (what an apt name) have for that statement? First of all, how many Israelis make regular appearances on T.V? 

Mark Regev, Daniel Taub and occasionally Peter Lerner. Danny Danon was on HardTalk the other day. So was Yuval Steinitz.  Not Israeli, but “philo-Israel,” Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips are on quite a few panels. Maureen Lipman?

Then there are some Israeli lefties that are harsh critics of  the Israeli government. Gideon Levy, Ilan Pappé and  people who write for the Guardian. Mira Bar-Hillel. (Only joking) Is Philo including these?

So how many Palestinians? Well, if not actual Palestinians, there are certainly a fair few pro-Palestinians. (PhiloPalestinians)

Mustafa Barghouti, on at least as many times as Mark Regev during O.P.E.  Hanan Ashrawi ditto. Dateline’s top contributor ’arry Batwan, and we saw quite a bit of Manuel Hassassian. Regular guests on programmes like “The Big Questions”: Mehdi Hasan, Mohammad Shafiq, Mo Ansar, Ajmal Masroor, Myriam Francois-Cerrah. All there to have a dig at Israel at the slightest opportunity.  Yasser Abed Rabbo, Fawaz Gerges, Chris Gunness, Dr. Mads Gilbert,  guests on HardTALK. Regular talking heads: Chris Doyle,  George Galloway, Ghada Karmi and Owen Jones, always ready willing and able to propagandise on behalf of Israel’s enemies.

Lucy Winkett, John Bell, with their infamous anti-Israel sentiments,  all contribute to religious broadcasting. Sheihk Ibrahim Mogra, Yasmin Alibhai Brown,  frequently brought in to speak on behalf of the religion of peace, not to mention dozens of Middle East experts that are never off our screens; last but not least, the BBC’s own staff pro-Palestinian advocates and activists - Jon Donnison, Orla Geurin, Zeinab Badawi and Yolande Knell, Jeremy Bowen and the entire cast list from BBC Watch, and the many regular experts who outweigh by far pro Israel spokespersons on current affairs programmes like Dateline, Newsnight, and don’t forget Greg Philo himself. 

I know, I know, I’ve left out hundreds of them. But how can Greg Philo just get away with saying, in passing, in that  there are more Israelis ‘on’ than Palestinians? 

********

For your edification, here’s a small transcription of the snippet.

Steve Hewlett

Steve Hewlett

"What about the basic allegation that the “Yes” is being under or  mis reported in some ways?"

Greg Philo, sounding like a down-market Will Self with a smigeon of Ken Livingstone,  responded:

“Well yes, Salmond was on as far as I can see, as I understand it Salmond and the SNP were on a lot, but the issues were not bein’ discussed. It was being personalised whatever and I mean my own view, I mean I don’t want to comment or not because I haven’t studied it but my own view is that if you said to Alex Salmond “Look we’re not going to have you on so much ” (chuckle) I don’t think he’d be very happy. And I would guess that, I mean it’s very difficult to argue, um prima facie anyway, that someone who’s on such a lot, wall-to-wall, that is in some way puttin’ ‘im down. You know, it’s clear that if you look at the Israel Palestine stuff, it’s clear that the Israelis are on a lot more than the Palestinians, you know, and that fits the map.....it’s..”

SH

"But it hasn’t happened in this case..."

GP 

"No. I would have thought, I haven’t counted it, but you don’t get that impression."