| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
BBC – Complaints and procedure issues
Dear Mr Steel
Thank you for your email of 6 August (below).
It appears to me that you have neglected to offer me the opportunity to ask the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust to review the Editorial Complaints Unit’s decision.
In my 22 July response to your provisional finding I clearly stated my intention to make such a request upon receipt of the ECU’s final decision, in line with the procedure explained by Mr Tregear in a previous ECU final decision. [1] My expectation of personally receiving a copy of the ECU’s final decision was also expressed in my follow-up email of 30 July (below). On neither occasion did you inform me that the ECU would not be following the same procedure this time.
I am therefore here CCing the BBC Trust email address provided by Mr Tregear on 19 May 2014 in order to formally request that the ESC considers the points raised in my complaint of 16 June 2015 under the headings ‘Assessment of the BBC Complaints response’ (up to the end of the second bullet point) and ‘Further points for consideration of Editorial Complaints Unit’ (entire section).
In addition to forming part of my original complaint, the matters raised in these sections constitute serious issues of BBC policy (or lack thereof) and practice for the Trust to consider. I do find it remarkable that, given the gravity of these matters, the ECU should appear to be less than zealous to facilitate their consideration by the Trust. [2]
Regarding the web article you refer to, the text I provided for the site makes perfectly plain the distinction between my two separate complaints to the BBC. I did not write the headline. I have nonetheless relayed your concerns to the website owners, who have now amended the title of the piece. If you have any remaining concerns regarding the headline I would naturally suggest that you pursue the matter with the site.
Yours sincerely
Robert Stuart
https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/
[1] BBC Editorial Complaints Unit Final Report on “playground napalm bomb” complaint, 19 May 2014:
“I should explain, however, that it is open to you to ask the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust to review my decision. The Trust represents the third and final stage of the BBC’s complaints process.1 Correspondence for the Committee should be addressed to Christina Roski, Complaints Advisor, BBC Trust Unit, 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ or you can send an email to [email protected]. The Trust normally expects to receive an appeal within 20 working days of the date of this letter. It expects complainants to limit the details of their appeal to no more than one thousand words (although all previous correspondence in relation to the complaint will be forwarded to the Trust Unit as a matter of course)”
[2] My understanding of the BBC complaints procedure is that it implements the requirements in the BBC Charter for a framework for the handling of complaints in accordance with Articles 24 and 38. I also understand that complaints to the BBC play an important role in securing compliance with the Charter and Framework Agreements. Article 52 states:
Complaints to the BBC have an important role to play. The BBC’s complaints handling framework (including appeals to the Trust) is intended to provide appropriate, proportionate and cost effective methods of securing that the BBC complies with its obligations and that remedies are provided which are proportionate and related to any alleged non-compliance.
I am therefore concerned that the ECU’s rush to publish its final decision online without offering the ESC the opportunity to review it should not inhibit the BBC’s ability to secure compliance with any of its obligations which may be breached by dint of the issues of BBC policy and practice raised in my complaint.
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:41:02 +0000
Dear Mr Stuart
The deadline for comment having passed, I’m now in a position to finalise the finding on your complaint. Please regard it as finalised on the basis set out in my letter of 20 July. A summary of the matter will be published on the complaints pages of bbc.co.uk in due course, and I shall let you know when that happens.
Meanwhile, I must ask you to alter the headline over your copy at http://www.globalresearch.ca/fabrication-in-bbc-panorama-saving-syrias-children-substitution-of-napalm-bomb-footage/5464145. The form of words “Fabrication in BBC Panorama’s ‘Saving Syria’s Children’: Substitution of ‘Napalm Bomb’ Footage/BBC Upholds Complaint” gives the impression that the finding in question is in some way connected with the Panorama programme and your allegations about it. This is not only misleading but also (I am advised) defamatory.
Yours sincerely
Fraser Steel
From: Robert Stuart [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 30 July 2015 16:42
To: ECU
Subject: RE: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit
Dear Mr Steel
Please could you advise me when I may expect to receive the ECU’s final report on my complaint.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Stuart
https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:01:19 +0000
Dear Mr Stuart
Thank you. You say in your blog: The finding does not address the points I have raised regarding the journalistic ethics of substituting images without acknowledgement or of the disturbingly vague and seemingly arbitrary categories of “taste of decency”.
That is indeed the case, because in the event those points had no bearing on the finding or the grounds for reaching it. As I hope is apparent from the account given in the provisional finding, no ethical question was engaged by the decision to edit the item before passing it to the News Channel, and it was simply the result of oversight that the editing rendered a line of commentary inaccurate.
Yours sincerely
Fraser steel
From: Robert Stuart [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 22 July 2015 16:45
To: ECU
Subject: RE: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit
Dear Mr Steel
Thank you for informing me that you propose to uphold my complaint regarding the substitution of Syria footage in respect of accuracy.
I have responded here: BBC upholds complaint re: substitution of “napalm bomb” footage
Yours sincerely
Robert Stuart
https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:05:15 +0000
Dear Mr Stuart
Please see attached.
Yours sincerely
Fraser Steel
Head of Editorial Complaints
—————————-
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
———————
Philosophers stone – selected views from the boat http://philosophers-stone.co.uk
Source: http://www.philosophers-stone.co.uk/?p=1918
