Post by charmbrights on Nov 12, 2013 13:19:01 GMT
Another wonderful response by the BBC to a listener's complaint, about blatant bias.
In RAIL magazine edition 735 (dated 13th Nov 2013) the attached appeared on page 55:
I grant that the BBC is very anti-HS2 but that is not the point - the total disregard of the contents of a complaint is one of the worst aspects of BBC solipsism. Even on Feedback the BBC staff who are put up to respond to complaints invariably say, "We hear your complaint, but really we know better than you how to do this."
In RAIL magazine edition 735 (dated 13th Nov 2013) the attached appeared on page 55:
BBC complaint case study: RAIL reader Fraser Pithie
I haplessly boarded the BBC Complaints Ghost Train, and have been on it for ten weeks thus far. I asked for the Director General (DG) to respond to complaints about its HS2 news coverage, and referred to three specific points
■ Alistair Darling withdraws support for HS2 because of rising costs.
No explanation that the ‘rising costs’ Alistair Darling described were an increase in contingency funds, not the actual cost of HS2.
■ IEA publishes report that HS2 ‘could cost £80bn’.
A right wing think tank reported that HS2 could cost £80 billion. It was given major coverage, with emphasis on the grossly inflated sum that included non HS2 rail projects totalling £30bn. One such scheme was a fictitious HS2 spur to Liverpool. None of this was reported.
■ The IoD does not support HST.
This report said the Institute of Directors called on Government to abandon HS2, as a ‘Grand Folly’. It received top billing on the news, which repeated the inflated sums used in the previous erroneous IEA coverage. The fact that the IoD announcement was based on a telephone survey of only 3% of IoD members - just 1,300 people - was not reported.
In my first letter to the DG I requested he reply to me personally. I received a standard BBC Audience Services reply. It was patronising: “Thank you for writing, we get many comments and yours was interesting and we have noted it.”
Immediately, I wrote again to the DG and said it was clear that my letter had not been seen by him or indeed even been read, because if it had I would not have received a “standard response”.
Three weeks later … nothing. I sent a reminder and a further letter to the DG. I also escalated the matter to Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust.
Following a further standard and patronising reply that continued to ignore the contents of my letters, I made a final appeal to Lord Patten on October 27. Two days later I received a reply stating that I should not write to him, other than through the complaints procedure (despite the fact that I had just used that very procedure for the fifth time!), because all complaints are dealt with by BBC managers.
I replied, with a promise that I would refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport and the appropriate Parlianrentary Select Committee:
‘Please READ my complaint. I am fully aware of how the BBC complaints process works and it seems to go round in circles!
“I originally sought to raise with the Director General the poor standard of news editing and its consequence of seriously inaccurate reporting on the subject of HS2. To date, such a response has not been forthcoming from the DG.
“I did receive a reply on October 27, but that failed to recognise the issues that 1 had raised. This matter has now been going on for nearly ten weeks with no satisfactory response, because it is apparent that rny letters and contents are NOT BEING READ.
“I just receive churned out, standard responses. My referral to Lord Patten IS in line with the complaints process, and I would care for you NOT to keep sending me back standard responses setting out the complaints process as if I was some imbecile incapable of understanding anything.
“Please will you review my case and READ the contents of my letters/emails, and canvass a reply from the Director General or Head of News. Thanking you for your attention in these matters.’
I remain determined to not get off this ghost train until I get answers from those paid handsomely to take accountability. Thus far, they are refusing to do so.
I haplessly boarded the BBC Complaints Ghost Train, and have been on it for ten weeks thus far. I asked for the Director General (DG) to respond to complaints about its HS2 news coverage, and referred to three specific points
■ Alistair Darling withdraws support for HS2 because of rising costs.
No explanation that the ‘rising costs’ Alistair Darling described were an increase in contingency funds, not the actual cost of HS2.
■ IEA publishes report that HS2 ‘could cost £80bn’.
A right wing think tank reported that HS2 could cost £80 billion. It was given major coverage, with emphasis on the grossly inflated sum that included non HS2 rail projects totalling £30bn. One such scheme was a fictitious HS2 spur to Liverpool. None of this was reported.
■ The IoD does not support HST.
This report said the Institute of Directors called on Government to abandon HS2, as a ‘Grand Folly’. It received top billing on the news, which repeated the inflated sums used in the previous erroneous IEA coverage. The fact that the IoD announcement was based on a telephone survey of only 3% of IoD members - just 1,300 people - was not reported.
In my first letter to the DG I requested he reply to me personally. I received a standard BBC Audience Services reply. It was patronising: “Thank you for writing, we get many comments and yours was interesting and we have noted it.”
Immediately, I wrote again to the DG and said it was clear that my letter had not been seen by him or indeed even been read, because if it had I would not have received a “standard response”.
Three weeks later … nothing. I sent a reminder and a further letter to the DG. I also escalated the matter to Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust.
Following a further standard and patronising reply that continued to ignore the contents of my letters, I made a final appeal to Lord Patten on October 27. Two days later I received a reply stating that I should not write to him, other than through the complaints procedure (despite the fact that I had just used that very procedure for the fifth time!), because all complaints are dealt with by BBC managers.
I replied, with a promise that I would refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport and the appropriate Parlianrentary Select Committee:
‘Please READ my complaint. I am fully aware of how the BBC complaints process works and it seems to go round in circles!
“I originally sought to raise with the Director General the poor standard of news editing and its consequence of seriously inaccurate reporting on the subject of HS2. To date, such a response has not been forthcoming from the DG.
“I did receive a reply on October 27, but that failed to recognise the issues that 1 had raised. This matter has now been going on for nearly ten weeks with no satisfactory response, because it is apparent that rny letters and contents are NOT BEING READ.
“I just receive churned out, standard responses. My referral to Lord Patten IS in line with the complaints process, and I would care for you NOT to keep sending me back standard responses setting out the complaints process as if I was some imbecile incapable of understanding anything.
“Please will you review my case and READ the contents of my letters/emails, and canvass a reply from the Director General or Head of News. Thanking you for your attention in these matters.’
I remain determined to not get off this ghost train until I get answers from those paid handsomely to take accountability. Thus far, they are refusing to do so.
Fraser Pithie
November 4 2013
November 4 2013
I grant that the BBC is very anti-HS2 but that is not the point - the total disregard of the contents of a complaint is one of the worst aspects of BBC solipsism. Even on Feedback the BBC staff who are put up to respond to complaints invariably say, "We hear your complaint, but really we know better than you how to do this."