Michael Stewart BBC Complaint Response

I've just received this response.

Thanks for contacting us with your comments regarding one of our regular contributors, Michael Stewart.

We have received a range of feedback so keeping in mind pressures on licence fee resources, this response seeks to address the key points raised. That said, we apologise in advance if any of your points haven’t been specifically addressed here.

Michael is not a member of the BBC’s staff – he is engaged from time to time on elements of our sport coverage on television and radio. His social media accounts are personal to him, and the guidance published by the BBC makes clear that those who appear as pundits in this sort of capacity are not subject to the broader requirements of impartiality on social media.

Michael is one of a range of contributors to our sport output, all of whom are aware of, and must abide by, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines in relation to these contributions.

Finally, we can assure you that the BBC is not biased for or against any football club. Our reporting is undertaken fully in line with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and with the Broadcasting Code which is laid down by the independent industry regulator, Ofcom.

Thank you again for your feedback. We’ve shared your concerns with BBC Sport Scotland and senior management.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team
I've also received the exact same pish.
I've sent them a reply.

Dear BBC complaints team,

Thank you for your reply.
I find your response to be wholly unacceptable.
You state that as Mr Stewart is not a BBC employee he is "not subject to the broader requirements of impartiality on social media." You also state that Mr Stewart "is one of a range of contributors to our sport output, all of whom are aware of, and must abide by, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines in relation to these contributions.

This position is either spectacularly naive or simply incomprehensible. Social Media Michael, BBC Contributor Michael and Celtic TV Michael are one and the same. He is incapable of being impartial when contributing his opinions on Rangers Football Club. I will not be funding the BBC for as long as this once gold standard of honest and balanced reporting pays for the bias of Michael Stewart.

As a current license payer I request that you address the current appalling standard of reporting of Rangers Football Club. While paying contributors whose loyalties lie elsewhere it's not surprising that BBC Scotland's sport output is compromised.

I would be grateful if you could provide me with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and with the Broadcasting Code which is laid down by the independent industry regulator, Ofcom.

I look forward to hearing from you
Mr Intrepid
 
I've just received this response.

Thanks for contacting us with your comments regarding one of our regular contributors, Michael Stewart.

We have received a range of feedback so keeping in mind pressures on licence fee resources, this response seeks to address the key points raised. That said, we apologise in advance if any of your points haven’t been specifically addressed here.

Michael is not a member of the BBC’s staff – he is engaged from time to time on elements of our sport coverage on television and radio. His social media accounts are personal to him, and the guidance published by the BBC makes clear that those who appear as pundits in this sort of capacity are not subject to the broader requirements of impartiality on social media.

Michael is one of a range of contributors to our sport output, all of whom are aware of, and must abide by, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines in relation to these contributions.

Finally, we can assure you that the BBC is not biased for or against any football club. Our reporting is undertaken fully in line with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and with the Broadcasting Code which is laid down by the independent industry regulator, Ofcom.

Thank you again for your feedback. We’ve shared your concerns with BBC Sport Scotland and senior management.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team
Got the same one.

Have the BBC ever, in the companies entire history, ever responded to a complaint with "aye we got that wrong/that's not good enough. We will speak to the individual involved and it such behaviours persist we will escalate our response".

I don't mean in response to Rangers fans complaints. I mean anything.

Is their response always, we did nothing wrong, our staff did nothing wrong, we are impartial, you are wrong?
 
Just had that exact same reply. I'll do my usual and respond to it giving examples of some of his messages and ask for specific points to be addressed rather than just that general rubbish. Doing that tends to get a more detailed response rather than the first one which is no more than a copy and paste job.
Discodale, can I be a bit cheeky. When you write your response can you share it on here? I will then rewrite it so as it looks to be a new or different reply and will also follow up like you.

I am abroad on holiday and only have Internet access intermittently so doing the research to find specific examples is unlikely. But I would rewrite your follow up compliant. That part is quick and easy for me.

Thanks
 
'Michael is not a member of the BBC’s staff – he is engaged from time to time on elements of our sport coverage on television and radio. His social media accounts are personal to him, and the guidance published by the BBC makes clear that those who appear as pundits in this sort of capacity are not subject to the broader requirements of impartiality on social media.'

Reply and ask to see this guidance published by the BBC

If Michael Stewart has a contract with the BBC*, regular 'freelancers' are obliged to abide by its rules.

*I'm assuming he will have some form of written employment agreement with the Corporation which will include a lengthy code of conduct section
The contradictions of that reply are embarrassingly poor. I could construct better, more consistent arguments from the age of about 6.
 
I mentioned in another thread that after receiving the inevitable fob-off from my BBC complaints, I am contesting with OFCOM. I went on to say (in FF) that I do think our strategy needs to be about "numbers".

A subsequent Google search on requirements for broadcaster Complaints Reporting/Statistics produced an interesting fact for me..... FOI requests can be made to OFCOM (I thought they were an agency or working under licence etc) - example here:


More power to the elbow.
If people can provide the relevant details, evidence, links and points I can write multiple different emails for others to send who are not confident to write the complaint. I am pretty competent in writing. Had a fair few tl;dr replies on here. So I am happy to write complaints for others to send, if I have the key, pertinent details.

As you say, volume counts. So removing barriers for others (I've seen plenty of replies on here of I would email but I'm not good at writing these things) to up that volume would help.
 
Last edited:
As a 'freelancer' he promotes BBC in his bio and also promotes his twitter feed on same page

ms.jpg
All ammunition for the follow up complaint
 
Just forwarded another complaint . We can’t accept this .

On the 11/09/21 I raised a complaint that a frequent television football on BBC Scotland insinuated that the “ entire Rangers football club , and supporters , have no equivalence to a comedian or couple journalists being exposed as racists or bigots.

This denigrated thousands of license fee paying members of the public . It was a disgraceful thing to post on a Twitter account . I have waited three weeks for a response that in no way resolves my concerns :

” Michael is not a member of the BBC’s staff – he is engaged from time to time on elements of our sport coverage on television and radio. His social media accounts are personal to him, and the guidance published by the BBC makes clear that those who appear as pundits in this sort of capacity are not subject to the broader requirements of impartiality on social media. Michael is one of a range of contributors to our sport output, all of whom are aware of, and must abide by, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines in relation to these contributions.”
The reply suggests he receives no financial inducement for his regular contributions . Micheal is on weekly throughout the SPFL season BBC Scotland sportscene . Is he doing for free?
How can permanent staff, be held to a different moral compass to freelance or ancillary staff which such employees are?

Should you update your social media policies as other contemporary public institutions have done to demand the highest standards in public and personal social media space?

If Mr Stewart had denigrated a cultural demography of people on the basis of their religious , or sexual beliefs in his personal social space , would he still be welcome as a frequent paid contributor on our television screens?
The hurtful comments on his Twitter feed were defamatory crass, discriminatory , inadvisable , and I know doesn’t reflect the views of the BBC .

Please explain why there is no ethical standards in a personal capacity of regular television pundits, or contributors?
More power to your keyboard. Keep at it.

What the H&H / DR issue showed us is we need to use the might of the Rangers support and we need to take personal responsibility and not think someone else is doing it. Well done.
 
I've just received this response.

Thanks for contacting us with your comments regarding one of our regular contributors, Michael Stewart.

We have received a range of feedback so keeping in mind pressures on licence fee resources, this response seeks to address the key points raised. That said, we apologise in advance if any of your points haven’t been specifically addressed here.

Michael is not a member of the BBC’s staff – he is engaged from time to time on elements of our sport coverage on television and radio. His social media accounts are personal to him, and the guidance published by the BBC makes clear that those who appear as pundits in this sort of capacity are not subject to the broader requirements of impartiality on social media.

Michael is one of a range of contributors to our sport output, all of whom are aware of, and must abide by, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines in relation to these contributions.

Finally, we can assure you that the BBC is not biased for or against any football club. Our reporting is undertaken fully in line with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and with the Broadcasting Code which is laid down by the independent industry regulator, Ofcom.

Thank you again for your feedback. We’ve shared your concerns with BBC Sport Scotland and senior management.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team
So it's the whole editorial team then and Mick Steward is their puppet.
 
I've just received this response.

Thanks for contacting us with your comments regarding one of our regular contributors, Michael Stewart.

We have received a range of feedback so keeping in mind pressures on licence fee resources, this response seeks to address the key points raised. That said, we apologise in advance if any of your points haven’t been specifically addressed here.

Michael is not a member of the BBC’s staff – he is engaged from time to time on elements of our sport coverage on television and radio. His social media accounts are personal to him, and the guidance published by the BBC makes clear that those who appear as pundits in this sort of capacity are not subject to the broader requirements of impartiality on social media.

Michael is one of a range of contributors to our sport output, all of whom are aware of, and must abide by, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines in relation to these contributions.

Finally, we can assure you that the BBC is not biased for or against any football club. Our reporting is undertaken fully in line with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and with the Broadcasting Code which is laid down by the independent industry regulator, Ofcom.

Thank you again for your feedback. We’ve shared your concerns with BBC Sport Scotland and senior management.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team
I got the same email word for word. I am sure they will have tried to sweep it under the carpet but I am also sure they will be pissed off having to deal with the complaints.
 
He is horrible, he sticks up for the likes of Godley and thumb, he follows Dornan and Hag on Twitter so that says everything about him. The bbc have an easy get out with him being self employed.
 
Write and tell them why?
Phoned and told them why. To be honest the guy didn't have a clue what I was on about but I'm sure when they collate all the data there will be a significant number citing issues with Rangers. Hopefully one day there'll be a tipping point and they'll have to address it.
I honestly felt great when I did it. Wish I'd done it years ago.
 
Just received the same. Total fob off. I’ll be informing them this is not satisfactory for a freelance employee of the bbc.

Got to keep the complaints coming in bears as it’s a weapon we can use rather than just moaning on here
 
BBC response to complaint of a Scotland Issue (entitled "Police" not Police Scotland) appearing as front-page-2nd Line item in the UK section when
it is relevant to Scotland and included in BBC Scotland website.



----- Original Message --------
Subject: BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-6917717-G7R0D2
From: BBC Complaints <bbc_complaints_website@contact.bbc.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, 19 September 2021 11:15
To: xxxxxxxx@googlemail.com>
CC:

Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is to confirm we’ve received the attached........ Blah, blah, sh1t

Here are the details of your complaint:

----------
YOUR COMPLAINT:

BBC "Devolved" Content appearing within National Space

This news item relates to Scotland and consistent with BBC it should be left to BBC Scotland as to whether it is published or where it appears within reported content.

The existing article does not specify whether sectarian singing/remarks were made by those apparently supporting the Orange walks/marches/band music or whether there was also sectarian singing/remarks from those against the march, therefore it is left to the reader to assume that the main focus of the story (Orange Order) is responsible.


----------
Thank you again for contacting us,
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Please note: this email is sent from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If necessary please contact us through our webform (please include your case reference number).

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-6917717-G7R0D2
From: BBC Complaints <bbc_complaints_website@contact.bbc.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, 24 September 2021 17:35
To: xxxxxxxxx@googlemail.com>
CC:

Reference CAS-6917717-G7R0D2

Dear Mr

Thanks for contacting us with your comments regarding the following BBC News article:


In choosing which stories to cover each day, and where they appear in our output, our editors base their decisions on the editorial merits of all the stories at hand, looking at a variety of factors, – depending on where you are in the UK, you may also see more/fewer Scotland stories linked to on the homepage – and we accept that not everyone will agree with each decision.

With regards to you second point, the lead paragraph does set out that it was: “some of those attending Orange Order processions in Glasgow” that the police have condemned for “racist and sectarian singing”, and not those protesting against the route or timing of the procession.

Thank you again for your feedback. We’ve included your comments in our overnight reports, among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC ensuring that complaints can be seen quickly by the right people.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Please note: this email is sent from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If necessary please contact us through our webform (please include your case reference number

--------------------

The BBC website address above indicates that it is 6 days old, but mentions
"that arrests have been made" - the BBC article notifying of 14 arrests is only 3 days old. I am awaiting a FOI request from PS indicating where the arrests were made (and other pertinent details) - if the date of arrest indicates 21 Sep, then the original BBC text has been modified. (and I will take to OFCOM
and my MP).
 
I also received the same response. Probably not worth continuing the complaint as likely to be fobbed off again. However, The BBC Editorial Guidelines at https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguid...terest/guidelines/#publicexpressionsofopinion says this:

Public Expressions of Opinion
15.3.13
Where individuals identify themselves as being linked with the BBC, or are programme makers, editorial staff, reporters or presenters primarily associated with the BBC, their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. This includes the use of social media and writing letters to the press. Opinions expressed on social media are put into the public domain, can be shared and are searchable.

(See Guidance: Social Media)

The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.

15.3.14 Taking a public position on an issue of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’ is likely to be incompatible with some BBC roles. Advance discussion with line managers is essential in all genre areas.

15.3.15 Individuals must clear with the head of department and the Press Office any letters to the press or public expression of opinion if they deal with the subject matter of their programmes, relate to the BBC or broadcasting, or concern matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy or any other ‘controversial subject’.


This is expanded on a bit in the 'Guidance: Social media' section. He is clearly not adhering to BBC standards as "an individual identifying themselves as being linked with the BBC" or "primarily associated with the BBC", which he is as he is on it almost every week.
 
Phoned and told them why. To be honest the guy didn't have a clue what I was on about but I'm sure when they collate all the data there will be a significant number citing issues with Rangers. Hopefully one day there'll be a tipping point and they'll have to address it.
I honestly felt great when I did it. Wish I'd done it years ago.
absolutely!

I know there'll be many bears cringing thinking "it's a riddy, it's grassing, it's just like one of Them"** - but the landscape has changed, we have to fight
back (David Edgar proved it works).

**some may even have aligned to the "dignified silence isn't working" stance (particularly around VoteGate)
 
I also received the same response. Probably not worth continuing the complaint as likely to be fobbed off again. However, The BBC Editorial Guidelines at https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguid...terest/guidelines/#publicexpressionsofopinion says this:

Public Expressions of Opinion
15.3.13
Where individuals identify themselves as being linked with the BBC, or are programme makers, editorial staff, reporters or presenters primarily associated with the BBC, their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. This includes the use of social media and writing letters to the press. Opinions expressed on social media are put into the public domain, can be shared and are searchable.

(See Guidance: Social Media)

The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.

15.3.14 Taking a public position on an issue of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’ is likely to be incompatible with some BBC roles. Advance discussion with line managers is essential in all genre areas.

15.3.15 Individuals must clear with the head of department and the Press Office any letters to the press or public expression of opinion if they deal with the subject matter of their programmes, relate to the BBC or broadcasting, or concern matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy or any other ‘controversial subject’.


This is expanded on a bit in the 'Guidance: Social media' section. He is clearly not adhering to BBC standards as "an individual identifying themselves as being linked with the BBC" or "primarily associated with the BBC", which he is as he is on it almost every week.
Thanks for posting that.

To me, that's a complete contradiction to the second paragraph in the
BBC response to (@Forth Bear ) complaint.
 
So they decided themselves to investigate if they were bias, and found that they aren’t bias….

Comprehensive

Individual complaints are a waste of time.

Rangers have the resources to employ someone to gather and present evidence of the bias, double standards and lies. There's plenty of it and a full time professional could demonstrate beyond doubt that we are being discriminated against. I guess those inside Ibrox dont care enough to take this on.
 
Phoned and told them why. To be honest the guy didn't have a clue what I was on about but I'm sure when they collate all the data there will be a significant number citing issues with Rangers. Hopefully one day there'll be a tipping point and they'll have to address it.
I honestly felt great when I did it. Wish I'd done it years ago.
Good for you. Well done. Never had a tv license, so can’t tell 5hem why not.

Well done on two counts. One, cancelling. 2, telling them why.
 
Discodale, can I be a bit cheeky. When you write your response can you share it on here? I will then rewrite it so as it looks to be a new or different reply and will also follow up like you.

I am abroad on holiday and only have Internet access intermittently so doing the research to find specific examples is unlikely. But I would rewrite your follow up compliant. That part is quick and easy for me.

Thanks
No problem, will do. Likely to involve quoting some tweets and the fact that he boasts about working for the BBC.
 
Just appeal it. Takes 5 mins. Goes to London and raises profile of how garbage bbc Sportsound are.

Best thing they could do to save licence fee money is shut the place down or maybe stop following Celtic all over europe when Rangers are playing in glasgow a mile up the road.
 
Received the same. How convenient that they can clear themselves of any wrong-doing.

The BBC account and impartiality part falls down at McLaughlins twitter. Only 'negative' Rangers stories for the past month. Not a peep on Griffith's or the trouble at Betis. And they have the cheek to defend a 5 year boycott of Rangers over that bigot. I'm embarrassed for them.
 
I've just received this response.

Thanks for contacting us with your comments regarding one of our regular contributors, Michael Stewart.

We have received a range of feedback so keeping in mind pressures on licence fee resources, this response seeks to address the key points raised. That said, we apologise in advance if any of your points haven’t been specifically addressed here.

Michael is not a member of the BBC’s staff – he is engaged from time to time on elements of our sport coverage on television and radio. His social media accounts are personal to him, and the guidance published by the BBC makes clear that those who appear as pundits in this sort of capacity are not subject to the broader requirements of impartiality on social media.

Michael is one of a range of contributors to our sport output, all of whom are aware of, and must abide by, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines in relation to these contributions.

Finally, we can assure you that the BBC is not biased for or against any football club. Our reporting is undertaken fully in line with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and with the Broadcasting Code which is laid down by the independent industry regulator, Ofcom.

Thank you again for your feedback. We’ve shared your concerns with BBC Sport Scotland and senior management.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team
Translation....

Fuc off Hun scum
 
Is it not amazing that we live in country that prides itself on democracy and have got to put up with the propaganda machine the BBC?

It's easy to say don't watch the BBC but that's missing the point! Its my TV I paid for it out of my hard earned cash! ....... It was not given to me free by the government!

When I bought the TV I did not get a warning with it stating that if accidentally tuned into the BBC whilst searching my channel list that I could be fined or be sent to prison, actions you would expect coming from countries like Russia or China not the UK?

If the government of the day think the BBC is a democratic institution then it should be viewed on choice not by mandatory force as it is today!

If the government of the day deem that the BBC is what the people want them give us a vote or have it run by pay for view that way we will see who really wants to view these parasites who are a drain on most people's resources?

I have Sky and BT on my TV if I don't want to watch or listen to some of hypocritical comments by so called pundits like (BT) Sutton ect I can have them removed from my TV by the vendor that's my choice I pay for it, so, why can't I do that with the BBC?
I think after the second world war we hanged a few of these BBC type propaganda people, IE, Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Lil!
 
Its time this joke of an organisation become self funded. If their service is as valuable as they say it is, people will have no problem signing up to a subscription model like nearly every other service.

Its easy. £13 a month. One BBC account for access to all of their services and channels.
 
Back
Top