24,000 complaints

As the transcript below shows, there have been 'complaints from both sides' about the BBC's election coverage, with Maria Jeffrey and Dave Mann speaking for each side. 

All the nonsense about wreaths and edited laughter, however, shows where the substance lies.

Along the way, I was intrigued by Samira noting that "thousands of viewers" had complained about Andrew Marr's interrupt with Boris Johnson, suggesting that Dave's take has considerable support.

Talking of which, today's Times has dramatic news on the BBC complaints front:

The BBC has received a record 24,000 complaints in the past fortnight, many about perceived political bias.

That's a lot of complaints.

Bias complaints against Evan Davis and Eddie Mair upheld

Evan Davis, sitting on the BBC's naughty step

This week's Feedback ended with Roger Bolton saying:

Finally, last week under pressure from Ofcom, its new regulator, the BBC agreed to publish the number of complaints it receives each fortnight and to reveal which individual programmes had over 100 complaints. We promised to keep you up-to-date with those that concerned radio. Well, the corporation has now published the first wave and...[drum roll]...O bathos! As yet no radio programmes have reached that bar. How inoffensive! The corporation must try harder.

It's quite surprising to think that, say, Today has received fewer than 100 complaints over a fortnight. People are always complaining about Today without, it seems, ever actually complaining about it (if you know what I mean!). 

According to the Guardian, only two BBC programmes have received over 100 complaints - Have I Got News For You and Strictly Come Dancing. 

There are, however, a couple of intriguing passages in that Guardian piece relevant to the main theme of this little blog of ours. 

Firstly,

The BBC has also revealed that a complaint regarding due impartiality and bias against Radio 4’s PM, which is presented by Eddie Mair, was upheld. The complaint related to an episode on 8 June, but details of the issue raised was not provided.

And secondly, 

An episode of Newsnight was also ruled to have bias in its coverage of the French presidential election, giving the impression that the host Evan Davis favoured Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen. The BBC’s executive complaints unit, which handled the complaint, said: “Newsnight has been reminded of the requirements of due impartiality, so that the perception of its coverage matches its intent.”

The Eddie Mair one is mysterious. The BBC isn't saying how Eddie fell foul of the BBC's rules on bias. 

The Evan Davis one is much less mysterious. The only mystery there is why he's not received such a telling-off before!

The BBC finds Nick Bryant wanting

Oh my! The BBC Complaints process actually finds a senior BBC reporter wanting:

It's typical though that they only "partly upheld" the complaint.

The fine folk who reside in the desparate-last-ditch-effort sector of the BBC's complaints process (of what scientific pedigree or level of knowledge?) still judged the main thrust of Nick's report to be "soundly-based", even though they found him to be grossly inaccurate on that one specific point...

...which, I must say, is jolly nice of them.

The BBC apologises

The BBC has apologised for a breach of impartiality and accuracy on the Today programme.

BBC complaints director Colin Tregear wrote to one of the complainants saying, "I hope you’ll accept my apologies, on behalf of the BBC, for the breach of editorial standards you identified". 

So can you guess what the BBC is apologising for?

I won't spoil it for you by giving you the answer...cough, cough, Lord Lawson, climate change cough, cough...You'll have to click on this link to the Guardian to find out.

Updating an update

Nigel juxtaposed on an image of Broadcasting House

The British media's irresponsible reporting of the manslaughter of Arkadiusz Jozwik by a youth in Harlow was a breathtaking thing. 

News-watch have pursued the matter with great diligence (with us tracking their pursuit closely), helping prompt Nigel Farage to hand-deliver a complaint to the BBC about the coverage - especially about Newsnight's promotion of an unfounded and shocking smear at his expense. 

Thankfully, some parts of the British media have given space to people critical of their reporting of this story but it appears that the BBC is, characteristically, digging its licence-fee-funded heels in and refusing to acknowledge any errors on its part. 

The BBC have apparently "vehemently defended" their reporting, describing their coverage of the Harlow killing as "fair" and in line with what other media organisations were reporting (as if that's a proper defence from the BBC! 'Most trusted media organisation in the world', eh?) 

The false assertions and smears in the BBC's reporting have been listed several times. (They are summarised here). They are not in doubt. 

And the BBC have failed to respond to the charge/fact that the true facts of the killing were, as David at News-watch notes, "reported at a much lesser level (primarily on the Essex pages of the BBC’s regional website) and without sufficient acknowledgement that the race-hate angle (imposed sensationally on the story by them) had been discounted" - in marked contrast to the original reports which "had been blasted at headline level on their most-watched BBC1 bulletins and BBC2 Newsnight".

A prominent correction, an apology from Newsnight (and John Sweeney in particular), maybe even a Panorama special hosted by an open and fully contrite John Sweeney admitting to all the BBC's errors over the reporting of this story, are what is needed.

The BBC should take a good hard look at itself over this.

Fallacy

Lord Adonis is writing to Lord Hall, following a series of 'pro-Brexit' tweets by Andrew Neil:

And who's in his sights after that?

The would-be Today complaint is classic 'complaints from both sides' territory.

Of course, Today is far from being pro-Brexit, and that's why this is such a classic instance of the fallacy of the 'complaints from both sides' argument. 

Lord Adonis is talking nonsense about Today. The evidence runs in completely the opposite direction. His complaint, therefore, has no credibility because it has no substance behind it. The complaints from the likes of News-watch, on the other hand, have credibility because they have plenty of substance behind them. 

Of course, he may have a point about Andrew Neil on Twitter (though not about his TV programmes). But if we start sacking BBC presenters because of their expressions of opinion on Twitter we'd lose a heck of a lot of BBC presenters. And if you add BBC reporters too then the BBC would be half-empty by the time the Andrew Adonises of this world had finally completed their purge. 

Just think about it: No more Jon Sopel, Hugh Sykes, Katty Kay, Jeremy Bowen, Mishal Husain, John Simpson, Nick Byrant, Samira Ahmed, Nick Robinson, Paul Danahar, James O'Brien, John Sweeney, Kim Ghattas, etc, etc, etc.....

.....Hmm, come to think of it, maybe Lord Adonis has a point after all? Let the purge begin!

P.S. There's more from His Lordship:

Complaints and Clarifications

The BBC's listen-known-about Complaints and Clarifications page has been very quiet recently, so much so that I suspected they'd chosen to abandon making their findings public. Then suddenly, this past week, came a small rush of rulings.

Here's one of them that you may have missed:

Victoria Derbyshire, BBC Two & BBC News Channel, 6 June 2016

A viewer complained that, during a debate on the issues in the referendum campaign, Victoria Derbyshire had misleadingly suggested that reallocating the UK’s net contribution to the EU budget to other areas such as the NHS would have a severe impact on farm subsidies.

Challenging a point made by Jane Collins MEP, Victoria Derbyshire said “if that £8.5bn went to the NHS, that would mean farmers who get more than 50% of their income from the EU would be decimated”.

This reflected a confusion between the UK’s net contribution (of £8.5bn after payments from the EU to the UK, including agricultural subsidies, have been taken into account) and its gross contribution. 

Although Ms Collins tried to rebut the suggestion, she did not do so in terms which would have removed the misleading impression.

The complaint was upheld and the relevant information was drawn to the presenter’s attention after the broadcast, and will be borne in mind when the programme returns to the subject.

And here's another story you might have missed, as reported in The Catholic Herald...

The BBC's editorial complaints unit has ruled against BBC One's News at Six for a July report that stated “Silence was the response of the Catholic Church when Nazi Germany demonised Jewish people and then attempted to eradicate Jews from Europe.” 

The ECU called that "unfair", saying that the BBC's reporter “did not give due weight to public statements by successive popes or the efforts made on the instructions of Pius XII to rescue Jews from Nazi persecution, and perpetuated a view which is at odds with the balance of evidence.”

It resulted from a complaint from cross-bench peer Lord Alton of Liverpool and Fr Leo Chamberlain, the former headmaster of Ampleforth. 

The complaint took "nearly six months" to resolve, says The Catholic Herald (though as the report went out on 29th July and the Herald reported this on 9th December it might have been more accurate to say 'over four months'). 

Complaints from both sides (again)

The BBC must be happy today.

Yesterday came Boris at the Conservative Party conference saying (accurately) that the BBC is sometimes "shamelessly anti-Brexit" before adding (doubtless to the BBC's delight), "I think the Beeb is the single greatest and most effective ambassador for our culture and our values".

Today in strode (Sir) Craig Oliver in The Times saying that David Cameron had pressured the BBC in the other direction for “mistaking balance for being impartial", demanding that "BBC editors should have been stamping their own independent authority and analysis on the output" (thus echoing the BBC's very own John Simpson).

Inevitably, in response, in rides the BBC - bugles blaring, banners raised high - crying out its favourite mantra: "We're getting complaints from both sides; ergo, we must be getting it about right!"...

...and Politics Home quotes a BBC source as saying that very thing:

There’s nothing new in people having strong views about our coverage, but the public will notice a distinct irony in the BBC being accused of failing to do enough to stop Brexit on the one hand while being criticised for being anti-Brexit on the other. As we’ve said before, our job is to challenge politicians from all sides and interrogate the arguments. That’s what we’ve been doing and what we’ll continue to do.

Of course, the two complaints are different in kind. The first is saying that the BBC is biased; the second is saying that the BBC is impartial, but too impartial and ought to be taking sides - i.e. its side. Neither is saying the BBC is pro-Brexit (of course, as that would be ridiculous).

Where the BBC's 'complaints from both sides' argument falls down (as so often) is that anyone claiming that the BBC has been either balanced or impartial over Brexit since the referendum result is arguing from a very sticky wicket. (To put it poetically, in the manner of Sir Andrew Motion, "The evidence is strong/That they are wrong".) The BBC has had a heavy anti-Brexit bias since June 23 (as demonstrated by Radio 4's Brexit Collection, for example).

And, despite the bias being not as severe before the referendum result, the bias even then still ran overwhelmingly against one side (the same side) - as (hopefully) both Is the BBC biased? and News-watch demonstrated (in considerable detail, and despite honourable exceptions).

Boris was right. The BBC is sometimes shamelessly anti-Brexit.

The campaign from the likes of John Simpson, Mark Thompson, Chris Patten, Paul Johnson of the IFS, Roy Greenslade, Timothy Garton Ash, (Sir) Craig Oliver and David Cameron, etc, however, for the BBC to become even more biased in their direction goes on and is evidently gathering pace. And they are probably knocking at an open door.

Two results for 'BBC Watch'

Talking about BBC bias and Israel...

Hadar's BBC Watch has been achieving some results recently, getting the BBC to correct errors in two BBC website articles within the past week alone. 

BBC Watch is going from strength to strength at the moment. 

As ever though, it remains factual errors alone that the BBC seems prepared to acknowledge (largely behind the scenes). Admitting to bias seems to remain beyond them (except when 'admitting' being overly-accommodating to 'climate change sceptics').

And, as BBC Watch have been the first to point out this week, the corrections (including the footnotes informing BBC website readers that a correction has been made) are unlikely to be widely read, given that the offending articles have already slipped off the radar by this time. 

BBC Watch wants a dedicated corrections page on the BBC website, which sounds reasonable for a public service broadcaster...

...to which I'd add: and a link to it from the BBC News home page. 

Jonathan Dimbleby commits "a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality"

You may or not have spotted this (as I believe only the Guardian and the Daily Mail have covered the story), but the BBC Trust has issued a rare damning verdict on a high-profile BBC presenter - namely Jonathan Dimbleby:

Trail for Any Questions? In Today, Radio 4, 29 May 2015

Summary of finding 

The Committee considered the serious editorial breach which occurred during a trail for the programme Any Questions? on Radio 4’s Today programme. In the trail, the Any Questions? presenter Jonathan Dimbleby included information on the charity he had helped to establish in memory of his father and explained how listeners could support it. 

The Committee concluded that this was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality, Conflicts of Interest, and External Relationships and Funding.

The offending exchange on Today ran as follows:

Jonathan Dimbleby: And Justin, I just want to add a football, a personal football, a footnote not football – well it’ll turn out to be a football...

Justin Webb: Not some kind of confession is it? 

Jonathan Dimbleby: Well it’s going to hit me in the face I think probably– I’m not going to be with you next Friday morning. I haven’t resigned, I haven’t been sacked - yet. But when Any Questions? goes on air, I shall be leading a fifty kilometre night-time walk through London to raise funds for the cancer charity we set up after the death of my father fifty years ago. If you want to support our work, our walk, you can find out more online – Dimbleby Cancer Care. Er, now I will be sacked won’t I? 

Justin Webb: Er, I won’t answer that actually Jonathan.... 

Jonathan Dimbleby: …No I think you’d better not, otherwise you could be… Eight o’clock this evening, we’re on air anyway. 

Justin Webb: …exactly, but I will support you privately at least. 

Jonathan Dimbleby: You’re a good man, thanks.

This was the response from the BBC Executive:

The Executive confirmed that they considered this was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines. They noted that it was an off-the-cuff addition to an otherwise scripted trail. 

They stated that it was not uncommon for presenters who were well known to audiences to mention activities they were involved in from their personal lives. However, they noted that it was less usual for this to happen during a brief trail slot and that, in this case, the information about how listeners could support a presenter’s charitable endeavour went significantly beyond what could be editorially justifiable. They stated that the Director of Editorial Policy had written to Jonathan Dimbleby very shortly after the broadcast and the Director, Radio Production, had also discussed it personally with the presenter. The head of the department responsible for the programme’s production had also reminded the presenter about the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines conflicts of interest. 

(No mention of whether anything was said to Justin Webb about his "but I will support you privately at least.")

And this was the Trust's final decision:

Trustees noted that the presenter’s trail had been scripted and that the script had been seen prior to transmission. However, the presenter had ad-libbed to refer to a charity event of considerable personal significance to him. They appreciated that he had a strong emotional link to the charity. However, they noted that a considerable number of other well-known BBC correspondents and presenters also had enduring links with particular causes and charities to which they had an equally significant emotional commitment. 

Trustees noted that the BBC had set up strict protocols around the broadcast of charitable appeals. They also noted that the Editorial Guidelines guarded against any individual’s interest having an undue impact on broadcast output and that this also served to protect charities generally from an individual favouring one particular cause. They noted that the timing of the trail gave the presenter access to a very large audience – and that other charities did not have the opportunity to reach that audience. 

Trustees noted the action that had been taken by the Executive and considered this was an isolated case and would remind presenters and correspondents generally of the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines. They considered that the broadcast was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines for Impartiality, Conflicts of Interest, and External Relationships and Funding but it had been mitigated by the swift Executive action. 

(Good old BBC Executives, eh!)

I can't say that Jonathan's transgression is one I feel particularly outraged about (rather the reverse in fact), but there you have it anyway. Just thought you'd like to know.

More from the BBC’s Head of Editorial Complaints...

There's more on BBC complaints over at BBC Watch - this time concerning Tim Willcox and his remark to the daughter of a Holocaust survivor during the post-Charlie Hebdo rally in Paris: "Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well". 

The BBC’s Head of Editorial Complaints, Fraser Steel, has updated his earlier responses by conceding that he misunderstood the actual point that critics of Tim Willcox were making, but that it still doesn't make any difference to his preliminary findings. 

The original verdict stands: Tim Willcox's words were "poorly phrased, but no worse than that".

As Hadar writes, "Four months (and goodness knows how many publicly funded man-hours) on, the BBC has not budged an inch."

"It is within our guidelines for experienced correspondents to give their honest opinion, provided this is approached without any preconceived view"

Here's a complaint that was sent to the BBC nearly a month ago:

Please can you explain why it's acceptable for a senior BBC reporter to tweet praise for a party leader during a general election? Allegra Stratton, tweeting as @BBCAllegra, said on April 24th that Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru was "a very admirably modest politician". That endorsement from the BBC cannot but help Plaid. Are BBC reporters who use the BBC's name in their Twitter handle allowed to say things like this? Are tweets governed by BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality? 

Really enjoyed interviewing @LeanneWood yesterday in beautiful Bangor uni. A very admirably modest politician. pic.twitter.com/369jmpKelx

— Allegra Stratton (@BBCAllegra) April 24, 2015

The BBC's reply came today:

Thank you for contacting us.

I understand you were concerned by a tweet sent by Allegra Stratton and that you felt this showed a bias.

I apologise for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and are sorry you’ve had to wait on this occasion.

There is no area of broadcasting where the BBC's commitment to due impartiality is more closely scrutinised than in reporting election campaigns and this is a commitment we take seriously.

Allegra’s reference to Leanne Wood was her honest take on an aspect of her personality from her experience of interviewing her. It is within our guidelines for experienced correspondents to give their honest opinion, provided this is approached without any preconceived view.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

"Thanks again for getting in touch"

Here's another complaint I sent to the BBC recently:

I would like to complain about Emily Maitlis misrepresenting something Nigel Farage said to Evan Davis on the 22/4 edition of 'Newsnight'. 

Nigel Farage said: "Sometimes you have to say things in a way to get noticed, of that there's no question. In order to get the public aware of some of these issues perhaps at time that tone had to be used. But you are not you are not hearing, and you're interviewing me now as we approach a general election, you are not hearing that tone from me." 

Emily Maitlis skewed his words as if to make him seem nasty and dishonest, saying: "He admitted to Evan Davis that he had used 'a tone' to attack some immigrants which was designed to 'get noticed' but insisted it had been necessary." 

The use of the phrase "to attack some immigrants" is inaccurate and unfair and could be interpreted as reflecting a bias against UKIP. 

Please could a correction or/and an apology be broadcast?

And here's the BBC's reply:

Thank you for contacting us about ‘Newsnight’ as broadcast on 22nd April 2015.

I understand you’re unhappy with the programme as you feel Emily Maitlis misrepresented comments made by Nigel Farage to Evan Davis on the 22nd April.

I appreciate your frustration with this however we stand by the description and we feel it was a fair summary of what Nigel Farage had admitted to Evan Davis on the programme. Emily was summarising the comments made and we feel this was fair.

It should also be noted the Nigel Farage interview with Evan Davis was then shown, allowing viewers to make up their own minds.

BBC journalists are well aware of our commitment to impartial reporting and they are expected to put their own political views to one side when carrying out their work for the BBC.

Ultimately we aim to provide the information which will enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard.

Rest assured your feedback is very important to us and as such I have placed your concerns on an overnight report. This is a document which is made available to senior staff, programme editors and news teams across the BBC and means your comments can be seen quickly and can be consulted in future broadcasting and policy decisions.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

They stand by Emily's description and feel it was a fair summary of what Nigel Farage had "admitted" to on Evan the programme; I disagree and think the phrase "to attack some immigrants" was an unnecessarily negative spin on what Nigel Farage actually said and, thus, unfair and inaccurate.  

But (as the BBC guy might have put it) it should be noted that our full exchange has been shown above, allowing readers to make up their own minds about who's correct here. 

That 'Newsnight' report on immigration: BBC Complaints responds

Duncan Weldon

Less than I week ago, we posted a piece here at ITBB outlining why we thought Duncan Weldon's Newsnight report on immigration was blatantly biased in favour of immigration.

David Keighley, writing at Conservative Woman, also found that report to be a shocker:

On planet Beeb only bigoted plebs worry about immigration

The BBC’s blizzard of election-related stories that spin immigration as a topic that doesn’t matter is impossible to track. Lift almost any stone and there’s another example.

A Newsnight feature last Thursday was billed by presenter Emily Maitlis as ‘a long hard look at the subject’.  The full transcript can be read here.

This, it transpired, was a special piece of BBCspeak. It meant that Newsnight – led, of course, by former Guardian executive Ian Katz- was about to deploy its own form of spin to show in yet another way that those British plebs who support tougher immigration controls are deluded bigots and xenophobes.

David make a lot of good points, but the passage that really stood out for me was this one:

Next, Weldon turned to that old BBC device, the vox pop, a range of voices from members of the public.  Many years ago, when I did my basic training as a BBC reporter in what is now the Langham Hotel, I was warned that these can never be – and should never be projected as – a balanced or objective view of public opinion. They are only ever a subjective snapshot.

Weldon apparently now works according to very different rules.

The sequence of three voices was gathered, selected and edited by him with all the subtlety of a jackhammer to show that those with views against immigration are bigoted xenophobes for no other reason that they hate foreign languages and shops selling foreign goods. On the other hand, his pro-immigration contributor made a reasoned response, making the point that immigrants are ‘different brains from different parts of the world’, who set up new businesses and who have a wide range of skills.

Weldon then said that if this selection of ‘public opinion’ (which this most certainly was not) was ‘nuanced’, the view of business was ‘fairly’ clear’... 

Duncan's 'welcome' tweet from Newsnight's editor, Ian Katz

Following my own post last week - and making use of every character of the BBC Complaints procedure's 1,500-character limit - I dispatched the following complaint to the BBC:

I want to complain about Duncan Weldon's pro-immigration Newsnight report. 

He claimed that "public opinion is nuanced". No, it's overwhelmingly against mass immigration. 

He then said that the view of business is "fairly clear", featuring the CBI saying immigration is a big help and really important for us (pro-immigration). 

He then said, "It's often said that immigrants are coming over here and taking our jobs, but that isn't necessarily the case" (pro-immigration) and suggested that immigrants not only take jobs Brits don't want but that, by doing so, they create jobs British people do want to take up (pro-immigration). 

Then he said, "Most academic surveys have concluded that there isn't actually a link between British unemployment and immigration" (pro-immigration). 

He then said on wages that things are "more nuanced" and there's "academic disagreement" but, despite that, "there's broad agreement that the impact on the average is marginal" (pro-immigration). 

And as for those surveys claiming that lower earners are adversely hit while higher earners are least adversely hit by mass immigration, well, he said, "the effects are small, and those most likely to be hit are those most-recent migrants" (pro-immigration). 

He then said it's "a sign of success" that people want to move here  (pro-immigration). 

He then concluded that "despite what the academic work suggests" (pro-immigration) some people still feel "uncomfortable" about immigration. 

Please account for this bias during a general election campaign.

Duncan's 'CV', according to the Daily Mail

The BBC Complaints department's response was surprisingly quick...though it becomes less 'surprising' after you've read it, given that it obviously took very little time and effort to write!

It runs as follows:

Thank you for taking the time to get in touch with regards to Newsnight on 22 April.

I understand you felt the programme was biased towards the opinion of pro-immigration. 

All BBC editors should follow our election guidelines, which say:

"There is no area of broadcasting where the BBC's commitment to due impartiality is more closely scrutinised than in reporting election campaigns."

The guidance says journalists must "deliver to audiences impartial and independent reporting of the campaign, giving them fair coverage and rigorous scrutiny of the policies and campaigns of all parties".

It’s not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject during an individual programme or report. Instead, our editors are expected to cover the range of relevant and significant views on an issue over a reasonable period of time, usually a week during an election period. We don’t take a position on any view of any political party. We aim to make sure they are heard and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.

I will, nonetheless, include your feedback on our daily report which is made available to all senior management and programme editors. Your opinion is important to us, and is essential to the performance of our service. Please let me assure you that you are crucial in current and future decisions made within the BBC.

Again, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

A BBC Complaints handler, with a stack of my complaints behind her

Yes, she sounds really grateful for me bringing this to her attention, doesn't she?

What can really be said about this? It's nothing more than a perfunctory, cookie-cutter response that must have taken the lady from the BBC Complaints department all of 15 minutes to copy-and-paste from elsewhere. It doesn't even begin to be an adequate response, does it?

Merely parroting official policy and asserting that BBC editors carry it out doesn't in any way answer the point that this particular report was a heavily pro-immigration-biased piece for a senior Newsnight reporter. All the balancing out over time in the world won't change that fact or make up for it...

...unless Duncan Weldon (or another of his BBC Newsnight colleagues) does another report this week which just as heavily biased in the opposite direction.

And that ain't going to happen.

Screen-grabbing the BBC

You may recall a post here at ITBB a few days ago about the BBC's online reporting of UKIP candidate Kim Rose and his quoting of Hitler in order to condemn the European Union.

This was the complaint I sent in about it:

Your piece about UKIP's Kim Rose, "UKIP "sausage roll" candidate Kim Rose quotes Hitler", which began, "A UKIP parliamentary candidate has said he does not regret quoting from Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf at a hustings", was extremely biased.

The headline is misleading for starters. Even the Daily Mirror's headline, "Ukip candidate compares EU to Adolf Hitler days after being cleared of sausage roll 'bribe'", makes what the story is really about clearer. Your headline appears to smear UKIP by hinting that Mr Rose is pro-Hitler.

Then your piece says, "Mr Rose was previously questioned by police for providing sausage rolls at a campaign event" and later, "Mr Rose was recently called in for police questioning over allegations he tried to influence voters by giving away sausage rolls at a party event featuring snooker star Jimmy White. Electoral Commission rules state food and entertainment cannot be provided by candidates to "corruptly influence" votes."

This is very lazy journalism. Even the Daily Mirror makes it clear that the police dropped their investigation into Kim Rose. Your report could have misled BBC readers into thinking he was still being investigated for corruption.

Please can you address this matter.

The reply from the BBC Complaints department runs as follows:

Thank you for contacting us regarding the article entitled 'UKIP "sausage roll" candidate Kim Rose quotes Hitler'.

We understand you feel the headline is misleading and the article comes across as biased against UKIP, in particular making the point that you don’t believe it clarifies that Mr Rose is no longer being questioned by Police regarding 'treating' of the electorate.

On this latter point, the article does state that “no further action was taken against him” and includes a link to the story where we reported as much, so we don’t believe this point is unclear in this article or that it suggests that charges were brought or that questioning is continuing.

Your objections to the headline aren’t entirely clear in that Mr Rose was asked if he regretted the comments, including quoting from Mein Kampf, after criticism. He explained that he did not, our headline reflected this and we cannot see anything in this headline which suggests that he is pro Hitler or that its formulation was otherwise unreasonable given the facts of the story.

The BBC does not seek to promote or lobby against any particular Party, our staff are very aware of the importance of impartiality when working on your behalf.

We would like to reassure you that we have taken your comments on board and sent them to our Editors and News teams, as well as senior management and the Executive Board. We have included your points in our overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and this ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform our decisions about current and future output.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

I will admit to experiencing something of a double-take on reading this part of that BBC reply:

...you don’t believe it clarifies that Mr Rose is no longer being questioned by Police regarding 'treating' of the electorate.

On this latter point, the article does state that “no further action was taken against him” and includes a link to the story where we reported as much, so we don’t believe this point is unclear in this article or that it suggests that charges were brought or that questioning is continuing.

The main point of my original post was that the article didn't state any such thing anywhere - and I read it and re-read it to make sure it said that before I sent my complaint. 

Was I mistaken?

As the BBC Complaints guy says, the article does indeed state: 

Mr Rose was recently called in for police questioning over allegations he tried to influence voters by giving away sausage rolls at a party event featuring snooker star Jimmy White, though no further action was taken against him.

Electoral Commission rules state food and entertainment cannot be provided by candidates to "corruptly influence" votes.

The quotes on my original post, however, ran as follows:

Mr Rose was previously questioned by police for providing sausage rolls at a campaign event....

Mr Rose was recently called in for police questioning over allegations he tried to influence voters by giving away sausage rolls at a party event featuring snooker star Jimmy White.

Electoral Commission rules state food and entertainment cannot be provided by candidates to "corruptly influence" votes.

I copied and pasted those from the BBC article. And I know I did. So, obviously, someone at the BBC went in at some stage and edited the article in order to add the get-out clause saying, "though no further action was taken against him". 

Quite when this done is impossible to say, given that the BBC website's move to a new system has rendered the invaluable Newssniffer site dead in the water. Newssniffer used to capture and track all the edits (including stealth-edits) made to BBC articles. It also showed the time the changes were made. Alas, no more.

Now, as said earlier, I re-checked that article before I sent my complaint, so the BBC's editing-in of "though no further action was taken against him" was unquestionably made quite some time after the original article was published. 

Was it edited after my complaint was received? In response to my complaint (or other such complaints)? We'll never know, will we?

That the original article - at the time it was visible to most readers on the BBC website - did say what I said it said can be proved by the fact that I 'screen-grabbed' it four hours after it first appeared:

It was very lucky that I did, or some people might have believed the BBC rather than me.

(Note to self: Always screen-grab the offending BBC article from now on). 

Incidentally, I don't really buy the rest of the BBC's response either. 

The BBC's headline was much less self-explanatory than the Daily Mirror's and could have been open to misinterpretation. 

And I really don't see how "UKIP 'sausage roll' candidate Kim Rose quotes Hitler" "reflected" the fact that "he explained that he did not" regret the comments. All I can see it "reflecting" is that UKIP's sausage roll candidate Kim Rose quoted Hitler!

I am not impressed.

Abase response from the BBC Complaints department

I complained to the BBC on 31st March as follows:

Please could you explain why the Daily Mail front page of 28 March, with its headline story 'Jihadi Girl's Dad is a Fanatic', was completed omitted from the previous day's News Channel's 'The Papers' (11pm, 27/3)? Every other national newspaper's front page was featured 

Also why was the same Daily Mail front page missing from the BBC website's 'The Papers' the following morning (28/3)?

And why did Radio 4's 'Today' fail to mention it either its its paper reviews?

Was this story being deliberately censored across the BBC's main reporting platforms?

Given the extensive coverage of the complaints made against the British authorities by the family of the three girls from London who went to Syria to join Isis, shouldn't the BBC have led the way in reporting the Daily Mail's scoop about the apparent extremist links of one of the girls' father, given its obvious relevance to the story?

The BBC's response has been some time coming but it finally arrived today. It says:

Thank you for contacting us about our coverage of Abase Hussen.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and are sorry you’ve had to wait on this occasion.

BBC News is aware of the video material said to show Mr Hussen at a rally in 2012 and we have looked into the matter ourselves.

We didn’t consider it merited a report on its own, but it was included in a TV piece due to run on the evening of Friday, March 27th. Unfortunately, because of other news priorities, including the court verdict in the Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher case, it didn’t make it to air.

However, it is something that we do intend to return to in the future.

Your complaint has been included in our overnight report of audience feedback that is sent to news teams and senior management within BBC News. 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.

Thank you again for raising this matter.

Yours sincerely,

BBC Complaints 

You'll have noticed that the BBC's reply doesn't answer my specific questions about why the Daily Mail's lead story about Abase Hussen was completely ignored across three BBC platforms (TV, radio and website). It ignores them.

It merely tells us instead that the BBC knew about the story, but didn't think it very important. The BBC was going to mention it during a TV piece, apparently, but that piece got dropped.

So, after all the coverage Abase Hussen got when his daughter ran off to join the vicious terrorists of Islamic State, strongly denouncing the British authorities for failing his daughter and family whilst doing so, the BBC obviously felt it was OK not to inform its audience about the evidence suggesting that Mr Hussen himself is an extremist - a vital ingredient in telling the whole story, surely?

When the BBC Complaints guy writes, "However, it is something that we do intend to return to in the future", I afraid I don't have any confidence in that pledge whatsoever. They clearly have absolutely no plans to update this story. The censorship will continue.

Complaining about 'PM' - A Cautionary Tale

Please brace yourselves for a very long post, but as we've been quiet for a few days (for various reasons)...


You may recall a post we did recently about an edition of Radio 4's PM (3 April) where UKIP appeared to be on the receiving end of an unusually high number of attacks (well, unusual for a single edition of a BBC current affairs programme during a general election that is.)

You may also recall Rod Liddle's take on the same programme at the Spectator:

I caught Radio 4 PM programme on the way home, on Friday. Its coverage of the debate consisted of taking three statements made during the debate and subjecting them to what they called statistical scrutiny. All three statements came from Nigel Farage and all three statements were deemed inaccurate by some supercilious bint. 

No other leader was subjected to similar scrutiny and even if the supercilious bint’s figures were correct, the points Farage made still pertained. (In other words, for example, while Farage said the vast majority of people obtaining new HIV treatment in the UK were health tourists, the supercilious bint pointed out this was only 54 per cent. And that some of those had every right to treatment etc, and might come from rich countries like the USA. Where of course they would have to pay for treatment, or have the requisite insurance, she failed to add.)

There was another dig at UKIP later in this execrable programme, during a piece of staggeringly unfunny “whimsy” about rail replacement bus services. I think I shall listen to PM each day until the election and monitor its commitment to fairness and impartiality. And then never, ever, listen to it again.

****

So, choosing the 'Bias' category [the one the BBC seems to like least], I put in the following complaint:

I wish to complain about the appalling level of anti-UKIP bias on PM on 3rd April.

Why did Ruth Alexander and Eddie Mair's review of the use of statistics during the leaders' debate begin with Nigel Farage, continue with Nigel Farage and end with Nigel Farage? Why were all of his facts found to be faulty? There were a lot of dodgy statistics used by all the party leaders, so why just pick on Nigel Farage?

Also, why did Carolyn Quinn's report from Hastings and Rye mention that the previous UKIP candidate there has been disgraced and forced to step down?

And why did Chris Mason's run-through of the spin from all the political parties in the debate omit UKIP's response?

And, finally, why was Guardian writer Gareth McLean's piece allowed to contain a negative assertion about the dangers of UKIP entering a coalition government?

This was on onslaught against UKIP and surely completely out-of-order during a general election. Please could this bias be dealt with as soon as possible and some redress given to UKIP.

****

The newly-arrived reply from the BBC Complaints department runs as follows:

Thank you for contacting us about ‘PM’ as broadcast on 3rd April 2015.

I understand you’re unhappy with the programme as you feel it was bias against UKIP on a number of occasions.

I appreciate your frustration with this and have reviewed the segment so as to provide further context with which to address your concerns however it should be noted PM is a very well known programme and it’s expected there will be political analysis and discussion on various aspects of the political arena.

I wish to stress BBC journalists are well aware of our commitment to impartial reporting and they are expected to put their own political views to one side when carrying out their work for the BBC.

That said it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes and our editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.

More importantly the BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view and it seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.

In your correspondence you mention Ruth Alexander and Eddie Mair’s discussion regarding political statistics and you feel it was bias to mention only Nigel Farage however I should note Eddie Mair did support Farage with the statement ‘Well maybe he was not far off the point. Does that mean 54% are health care tourists?’. Furthermore they both come to the conclusion that Nigel’s statistics that one house needs to be built every seven minutes to cope with immigration was relatively correct.

Eddie also points out that anyone in the public can get facts checked, on any party, through BBC More or Less via Twitter.

You have also stated ‘Carolyn Quinn's report from Hastings and Rye mention that the previous UKIP candidate there has been disgraced and forced to step down’ however upon review Carolyn did not use the term ‘disgraced’.

Rather she explained Andrew Michael was chosen after the previous candidate was deselected and he is well known for his appearance on Gogglebox and we feel this is an accurate and fair explanation of the latest addition to the political arena in Hastings and Rye.

It should be noted the report also commented extensively of the Conservative candidate Amber Rudd, who we heard comment from and Sarah Owen of the Labour Party and it is common place when discussing the political climate of a constituency to include comments from a number of political candidates as was done in this case.

In reference to the comments made by Gareth McLean regarding a Conservative-UKIP coalition, you feel they were unfair and unnecessary and I’m sorry if Gareth’s attempts at humour fell short of the mark.

Throughout the segment Gareth mentioned many pop culture references and many socially recognised faux pas or clichés in an attempt to report on rail replacement bus services with somewhat dry and loquacious humour.

I sorry the report did not meet your expectations and rest assured your feedback is very important to us. As such I have placed your concerns on an overnight report which is a document that is made available to senior staff, programme editors and news teams across the BBC. This means your comments can be seen quickly and can be consulted in future broadcasting and policy decisions.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints

****

The BBC clearly gave a reasonable amount of time and effort to answering my complaint, which is re-assuring, and some of it makes sense to me...

...however, I don't think their answers were entirely satisfactory. And I shall explain why here.

****

My complaint came in four parts.

****

Part One had an ABA structure. (In other words, I repeated myself somewhat!):

Why did Ruth Alexander and Eddie Mair's review of the use of statistics during the leaders' debate begin with Nigel Farage, continue with Nigel Farage and end with Nigel Farage? Why were all of his facts found to be faulty? There were a lot of dodgy statistics used by all the party leaders, so why just pick on Nigel Farage? 

The BBC's answer, you will note, only tackled the 'B section' ("Why were all of his facts found to be faulty?") and didn't give an answer as to why, specifically, on the post-leaders' debate edition of PM, only UKIP' Nigel was picked on. 

The BBC respondent was right, however, to note that Eddie raised a counter-point over health tourism which appeared to offer Nigel some support...

...though he fails to mention that Ruth Alexander then subsequently poured several further buckets of cold water over it. 

Plus, the BBC respondent was also correct to note that Ruth's detailed and emphatic rubbishing of (around) four 'Farage facts' was then followed by one final stat which she found to be (as the BBC respondent puts it) 'relatively correct'...

...though the BBC respondent is simply wrong to claim that "both [Eddie and Ruth] come to the conclusion" about that being "relatively correct", as Eddie said absolutely nothing to back that statement up. [Please listen for yourselves to confirm that]. 

However, on the question of not answering my 'A section'...

Well, the (cookie-cutter) preliminary comments about the BBC's stance on impartiality...(more dots!)...

...[it's "not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes" & BBC editors are "charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area"]...

...were, probably, taken (by the BBC respondent) to sufficiently answer the "Why just pick on Nigel Farage?" question. 

Having heard a fair few of these More or Less spots on PM I'm aware that other parties are (of course) the targets for regular statistical debunking too, but I've noticed lots of light and shade and frequent features investigating stats from two or three parties at one sitting. This feature simply hammered away at one party, almost entirely to the disadvantage of that party (UKIP). 

My complaint should probably have established that context. 

And I should have made much clearer the point that this edition was somewhat different, context-wise. It was the post-leaders' debate edition. 

Given that event's (apparent) singular importance, it should surely have been incumbent on the BBC to focus on the dodgy stats from a range of party leaders, so, in that context, why only pick on Nigel?

****

Part Two asked a single question: 

Also, why did Carolyn Quinn's report from Hastings and Rye mention that the previous UKIP candidate there has been disgraced and forced to step down? 

The BBC Complaints respondent enlightened me on the need to give different parties a platform during an election [well, blow me down with a feather! Who knew?!] and picked up on my misuse of the word "disgraced", correctly pointing out that it wasn't used by Carolyn Quinn. 

And the report did - as he says - merely use the word "deselected". 

Fair points.

He also told me that Carolyn's mentioning of the fact that the UKIP candidate appeared on Channel 4 reality show Gogglebox was fair because he's well-known for appearing on it. 

Fair point too. 

However, to be equally fair, (a) I didn't complain about Gogglebox - except here at ITBB - so that's completely irrelevant! and (b) it still leaves totally unanswered the point I was trying to make (ineptly, as it turns out): that there was no obvious need to mention that the previous UKIP candidate had been either "disgraced" or "deselected". 

Still, that's a reminder to always quote correctly when complaining to the BBC. Any failure to do so will be picked up on and used in evidence against you (and rightly so). 

****

Part Three also posed a single question: 

And why did Chris Mason's run-through of the spin from all the political parties in the debate omit UKIP's comments? 

I should have spelled out the point that only UKIP and Plaid were not heard from in this package. All the other five parties were featured, all saying how great they'd done. Ergo, UKIP was hard done-by. QED. [Ignoring Plaid!]

You will have noticed though - regardless of the intrinsic quality of my complaint - that this question was completely ignored by the BBC Complaints department. They simply didn't answer it. 

A bit naughty?

****

And, finally, Part Four was no less of a single question: 

And, finally, why was Guardian writer Gareth McLean's piece allowed to contain a negative assertion about the dangers of UKIP entering a coalition government? 

The BBC respondent sympathised with me for not getting Gareth's humour and explained to me what his piece was trying to achieve. I'm grateful. [For any passing non-Brits, that's an example of British irony.]

Unfortunately, he didn't answer the question I actually asked.  

Now, you may think it was an unreasonable question anyhow - and, as Lord Dobbs would say, I couldn't possibly comment - but, still, the point was skirted here by the BBC Complaints department, wasn't it? 

****

Conclusions: This complaint got nowhere.

The BBC really doesn't like dealing with complaints about 'Bias' and, I'd say, selecting 'Bias' from the drop-down list on the Complaints website is a fairly sure-fire way to ensure your complaint will be looked at very unsympathetically by the BBC.

However, if you don't select 'Bias' the BBC's stats will show one less complaint about bias.

I wasn't wholly convinced by my own complaint anyhow - though it, hopefully, raised some important points. Enough people (at the Spectator and Biased BBC), however, were outraged enough by this edition of PM to make it an interesting exercise in testing out the BBC's response.

The BBC Complaints Department guy did the best he could here, I think. He made the general points about balancing things out over time (which I fully accept). He spotted my slip and made use of it against me. He didn't answer the parts that the BBC didn't want to answer.

However, there were some slips on his part too - and a certain slipperiness overall that, from my experience, is all part and parcel of the BBC Complaints process...

...though it shouldn't be.