Yet another BBC complaint brushed off

dh1963

dh1963

Administrator
Staff member
Official Ticketer
Not sure why I bothered as I knew it would be a waste of time, but I complained to the BBC about how they reported Kris Boyd receiving sectarian abuse from Celtic fans on their website.

I copy my complaint and the response. They obviously didn't read my complaint did they?

Complaint description
Kilmarnock player Kris Boyd (ex Rangers) was called an "Orange B**tard" in chants from Celtic fans. he then complained about this. The BBC Scotland web report trivialised this by putting the word sectarian in inverted commas in the article headline, then used the phrase "subjected to WHAT HE CONSIDERS sectarian abuse". There is absolutely no doubt this is sectarian, it is a slur aimed at him only because he is perceived as a Protestant. It is, frankly, ridiculous that the BBC attempt to suggest this is the player being over sensitive or he is mistaken. If this was a Roman Catholic footballer being abused with derogatory chants there would be no doubt put in the mind of the reader like this. There is no name to the article, but I can only assume such blatant double standards and blatant attempt to trivialise something so important is seen as acceptable by the online editor. If the victim of sectarian abuse identifies it, then it is abuse. The BBC does not decide what words or terms offend or break the law. In this case, it was blatantly obvious the words used did offend and were sectarian. If the writer and editor cannot report in a balanced way, they should not be employed by our national broadcaster.

Dear Mr dh
Reference CAS-5323934-46GF8G
Thank you for getting in touch about this BBC Sport Online article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47276671. In the article you refer to, quotations marks are used to illustrate the fact that we are directly reporting Kris Boyd’s view of the incident in question. The quotation marks in no way represent the BBC trivialising or raising doubts about Kris Boyd’s comments and we stand by the accuracy of our reporting. We hope this is helpful, and thanks again for your feedback. We’ve included your comments in our overnight reports, which are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC, ensuring that complaints are seen quickly by the right people.
Kind regards
Danny Brown
BBC Complaints Team
 
Taken from the C1872 statement on media inaccuracies. The last word is pertinent to getting answers, don't be put off and follow your hard work through mate.

Any complaint you make will be rejected by BBC Scotland ( shower of bastards) as a matter of course. From the hundreds of complaints we are aware of, BBC Scotland has never admitted bias or inaccuracy without the process being taken further. You will receive an email saying that they have rejected your complaint. Once this is received you will be able to escalate your complaint to the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) via email confirmation that you wish to do so. They will also almost certainly reject your complaint on whatever basis BBC Scotland has provided.
The final stage is to send your complaint to OfCom. This is the most likely way to generate a positive outcome as OfCom is independent.
 
They used subtitles to show what fans were singing about Clarke, no alleged chanting, it was.treated.as fact. Something they didn't do with Sunday's Sky images

Maybe your follow up complaint should mention that
 
We should put together a list of the names that reply to the complaints to see if there's one that doesn't sound like a Septic fan

I'm adding mine to this one

Danny Brown
James Kelly
 
Any complaint should come on a solicitor's notepaper but needs to be addressed to BBC's Director General ( in London or Manchester ? ) to include the information that BBC Scotland have consistently failed to address this and similar issues, and with a resume of why ?
 
As also a recipient over eighteen months of a back and forth complaint without resolve. I now wonder under, “A Freedom of Information” can we get, A the number of Complaints against this Republican Scum Organisation, and B how many Complaints upheld as a percentage?
 
One off complaints wont make a difference though I admire and appreciate those that make the effort to do so.

Rangers need to lead the way by employing someone to gather evidence of the bias, double standards and lies.
 
It is frustrating when you know they are not even investigating fairly but keep on escalating the complaint as I have found that the replies get more detailed so must cause them more work
 
LOL 133 said:
One off complaints wont make a difference though I admire and appreciate those that make the effort to do so.

Rangers need to lead the way by employing someone to gather evidence of the bias, double standards and lies.
Click to expand...
The Club1872 guide to complaining along with Stewart Robertsons interview make it perfectly clear.

We need to complain every time, and we need to do it in our numbers.

It's obvious that both releases within a couple of days of each other were coordinated.
Rangers are asking us to do our bit, we simply have to get organised.
 
It is clear there is and has been a left wing anti British bias at the BBC for many years. It is now completely in the open for all but the most blinkered and dumbed down to see. We need to organise as a collective and let them know they have been rumbled. A few hundred taking 15 mins to get their views into them is a starting point. My complaint to them below:


Reporting of the sectarian chanting complete with subtitles directed at Steve Clarke Kilmarnock manager by supporters of Rangers FC was glaringly one sided compared with the equally offensive chanting directed at Kris Boyd by supporters of Celtic FC reduced to a footnote. Subtitles and soundtrack were provided as well as a well known anti Rangers journalist reporting from outside Ibrox. We also had subtle images of smoke bombs adding to the impression that Rangers fans = worse. Comparing this with the lack of soundtrack or subtitles of chanting at Boyd and no report from Celtic Park afterwards leads me into believing that this is not accidental. BBC journalism has historically been famed for its integrity and impartiality but it is clear that recently these standards have gone out the window. Also earlier this season Rangers FC manager was subjected to sectarian bile about being a Sad Orange Bastard at Celtic Park yet no issue was made of this by BBC news at this time astonishing given his profile further backing up my claim of a clear attempt by BBC Scotland to influence the viewer into believing Rangers FC and their supporters are somehow worse than any others and deserving of more opprobrium than anyone else. This is a blatant breach of your Charter and as a licence payer I am offended by this not so subtle bias.
 
ChiefWahoo said:
The Club1872 guide to complaining along with Stewart Robertsons interview make it perfectly clear.

We need to complain every time, and we need to do it in our numbers.

It's obvious that both releases within a couple of days of each other were coordinated.
Rangers are asking us to do our bit, we simply have to get organised.
Click to expand...

Its a complete waste of time making individual complaints about specific incidents. Look at the BBC's latest response saying they report fairly. They dont, but Rangers need to prove this and the way to do that is by gathering evidence over an extended period of time. Nothing else will work.
 
Good on anyone who takes the time to complain to the BBC. We don't do it enough.

It's worth keeping in mind that there is a certain way you need to complain to the BBC to get a result. If you take a complaint to another business, they'll often admit they're wrong and give you some kind of compensation as admittance of an error, and/or to shut you up.

With the BBC, you have to tie the complaint back to the guidelines and principles that the BBC has signed up to, which is the Royal Charter. If a complaint is based in ifs or buts or hypothetical scenarios (e.g. you wouldn't report that way if...) then they'll brush it off.

Tie it back to this:

"The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain."

In particular, the parts on being impartial and producing output of high quality. If you can factually demonstrate that they were not impartial in a particular broadcast, then you can back them into a corner and get a result.

This is the statement on impartiality, also useful:

"To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with t he world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens."
 
LOL 133 said:
Its a complete waste of time making individual complaints about specific incidents. Look at the BBC's latest response saying they report fairly. They dont, but Rangers need to prove this and the way to do that is by gathering evidence over an extended period of time. Nothing else will work.
Click to expand...
That's my point mate.
It's always an 'individual' complaint.
We need to organise and make each complaint in the hundreds or thousands.
It can't keep being one or two guys.
 
ChiefWahoo said:
That's my point mate.
It's always an 'individual' complaint.
We need to organise and make each complaint in the hundreds or thousands.
It can't keep being one or two guys.
Click to expand...

This isnt going to just happen like magic and therein lies the problem. What could happen overnight is Rangers employ a researcher to work full time putting together evidence of the bias, double standards and lies. For example the ludicrous claims by Walker and Clarke that they didnt hear the "orange bastard" chants against Kris Boyd.

When we have enough hard evidence we publish a report naming and shaming the bigots. They've no where to run and hide.

Expecting hundreds of supporters to just fire off e mails and letters isnt going to happen and even if they did they'd just get stock standard dismissive replies.
 
dh1963 said:
Complaint description
Kilmarnock player Kris Boyd (ex Rangers) was called an "Orange B**tard" in chants from Celtic fans.
Click to expand...
Mate, you didn't have to star out the word Bastard. The BBC put the word up in full when using a karaoke type thing along with the audio of "Stevie Clarke - sad 19th Century Terrorist Bastard..." Gollum even said it twice without it being 'bleeped' out.
 
This is a copy of the Editorial Values by which they are supposedly bound. I have started to quote sections of these after I inform them I am dis-satisfied with their initial response and request to escalate my complaint to the Executive Complaints Unit ECU).

Editorial Values
1.2.1 Trust
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.
1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy
We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation.
1.2.3 Impartiality
Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.
1.2.4 Editorial Integrity and Independence
The BBC is independent of outside interests and arrangements that could undermine our editorial integrity. Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.
1.2.5 Harm and Offence
We aim to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human experience and the realities of the natural world. But we balance our right to broadcast innovative and challenging content with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable from harm and avoid unjustifiable offence. We will be sensitive to, and keep in touch with, generally accepted standards as well as our audiences' expectations of our content, particularly in relation to the protection of children.
1.2.6 Serving the Public Interest
We seek to report stories of significance to our audiences. We will be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live. We will ask searching questions of those who hold public office and others who are accountable, and provide a comprehensive forum for public debate.
1.2.7 Fairness
Our output will be based on fairness, openness, honesty and straight dealing. Contributors and audiences will be treated with respect.
1.2.8 Privacy
We will respect privacy and will not infringe it without good reason, wherever in the world we are operating. Private behaviour, information, correspondence and conversation will not be brought into the public domain unless there is a public interest that outweighs the expectation of privacy.
1.2.9 Children
We will always seek to safeguard the welfare of children and young people who contribute to and feature in our content, wherever in the world we operate. We will preserve their right to speak out and participate, while ensuring their dignity and their physical and emotional welfare is protected during the making and broadcast of our output. Content which might be unsuitable for children will be scheduled appropriately.
1.2.10 Transparency
We will be transparent about the nature and provenance of the content we offer online. Where appropriate, we will identify who has created it and will use labelling to help online users make informed decisions about the suitability of content for themselves and their children.
1.2.11 Accountability
We are accountable to our audiences and will deal fairly and openly with them. Their continuing trust in the BBC is a crucial part of our relationship with them. We will be open in acknowledging mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them.
 
LOL 133 said:
This isnt going to just happen like magic and therein lies the problem. What could happen overnight is Rangers employ a researcher to work full time putting together evidence of the bias, double standards and lies. For example the ludicrous claims by Walker and Clarke that they didnt hear the "orange bastard" chants against Kris Boyd.

When we have enough hard evidence we publish a report naming and shaming the bigots. They've no where to run and hide.

Expecting hundreds of supporters to just fire off e mails and letters isnt going to happen and even if they did they'd just get stock standard dismissive replies.
Click to expand...
It won't happen like magic because instead of actually complaining like Rangers and Club1872 have asked, we're on here talking amongst ourselves.
They might be able to dismiss 100 complaints at a local level. They simply will not be able to do so when it's 100 complaints every time they step out of line.
The complaints must be escalated in every instance, the charter used against them.

We've been asked to do our bit, we can either do it or we can bitch about it on here while our club and traditions are increasingly demonised.
I know which choice I'll be making.
 
dh1963 said:
Not sure why I bothered as I knew it would be a waste of time, but I complained to the BBC about how they reported Kris Boyd receiving sectarian abuse from Celtic fans on their website.

I copy my complaint and the response. They obviously didn't read my complaint did they?

Complaint description
Kilmarnock player Kris Boyd (ex Rangers) was called an "Orange B**tard" in chants from Celtic fans. he then complained about this. The BBC Scotland web report trivialised this by putting the word sectarian in inverted commas in the article headline, then used the phrase "subjected to WHAT HE CONSIDERS sectarian abuse". There is absolutely no doubt this is sectarian, it is a slur aimed at him only because he is perceived as a Protestant. It is, frankly, ridiculous that the BBC attempt to suggest this is the player being over sensitive or he is mistaken. If this was a Roman Catholic footballer being abused with derogatory chants there would be no doubt put in the mind of the reader like this. There is no name to the article, but I can only assume such blatant double standards and blatant attempt to trivialise something so important is seen as acceptable by the online editor. If the victim of sectarian abuse identifies it, then it is abuse. The BBC does not decide what words or terms offend or break the law. In this case, it was blatantly obvious the words used did offend and were sectarian. If the writer and editor cannot report in a balanced way, they should not be employed by our national broadcaster.

Dear Mr dh
Reference CAS-5323934-46GF8G
Thank you for getting in touch about this BBC Sport Online article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47276671. In the article you refer to, quotations marks are used to illustrate the fact that we are directly reporting Kris Boyd’s view of the incident in question. The quotation marks in no way represent the BBC trivialising or raising doubts about Kris Boyd’s comments and we stand by the accuracy of our reporting. We hope this is helpful, and thanks again for your feedback. We’ve included your comments in our overnight reports, which are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC, ensuring that complaints are seen quickly by the right people.
Kind regards
Danny Brown
BBC Complaints Team
Click to expand...
Danny brown if that is his real name seeks with forked tongue.
 
dh1963 said:
Not sure why I bothered as I knew it would be a waste of time, but I complained to the BBC about how they reported Kris Boyd receiving sectarian abuse from Celtic fans on their website.

I copy my complaint and the response. They obviously didn't read my complaint did they?

Complaint description
Kilmarnock player Kris Boyd (ex Rangers) was called an "Orange B**tard" in chants from Celtic fans. he then complained about this. The BBC Scotland web report trivialised this by putting the word sectarian in inverted commas in the article headline, then used the phrase "subjected to WHAT HE CONSIDERS sectarian abuse". There is absolutely no doubt this is sectarian, it is a slur aimed at him only because he is perceived as a Protestant. It is, frankly, ridiculous that the BBC attempt to suggest this is the player being over sensitive or he is mistaken. If this was a Roman Catholic footballer being abused with derogatory chants there would be no doubt put in the mind of the reader like this. There is no name to the article, but I can only assume such blatant double standards and blatant attempt to trivialise something so important is seen as acceptable by the online editor. If the victim of sectarian abuse identifies it, then it is abuse. The BBC does not decide what words or terms offend or break the law. In this case, it was blatantly obvious the words used did offend and were sectarian. If the writer and editor cannot report in a balanced way, they should not be employed by our national broadcaster.

Dear Mr dh
Reference CAS-5323934-46GF8G
Thank you for getting in touch about this BBC Sport Online article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47276671. In the article you refer to, quotations marks are used to illustrate the fact that we are directly reporting Kris Boyd’s view of the incident in question. The quotation marks in no way represent the BBC trivialising or raising doubts about Kris Boyd’s comments and we stand by the accuracy of our reporting. We hope this is helpful, and thanks again for your feedback. We’ve included your comments in our overnight reports, which are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC, ensuring that complaints are seen quickly by the right people.
Kind regards
Danny Brown
BBC Complaints Team
Click to expand...

Keep going with it mate. Your point is unarguable given the different way they reported Clarke’s comments 2 days later.
 
ChiefWahoo said:
It won't happen like magic because instead of actually complaining like Rangers and Club1872 have asked, we're on here talking amongst ourselves.
They might be able to dismiss 100 complaints at a local level. They simply will not be able to do so when it's 100 complaints every time they step out of line.
The complaints must be escalated in every instance, the charter used against them.

We've been asked to do our bit, we can either do it or we can bitch about it on here while our club and traditions are increasingly demonised.
I know which choice I'll be making.
Click to expand...

Good luck.
 
My first complaint to the BBC has received this knock back. I append my follow up complaint for info.





Thank you for your correspondence.

We have reviewed the photographs made available by the various agencies we use and none offered the image of Kilmarnock’s Alan Power catching Ryan Jack in the face.

In this instance, we chose from the images available the one that we felt best represented the incident. We could have used a still from the video footage – which was included in our coverage and showed the incident in full – but this is a longer process. In hindsight, we could still have used this option.

We do not believe that our image selection downplayed the incident, and we fully reported on it as well as providing video footage of the incident.




Follow up.
YOUR COMPLAINT:

Complaint Summary: Image used represents failure of editorial values

Full Complaint: I am dissatisfied with the response received on 22/2/19 and wish to escalate my complaint to the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). I believe that the image selected by the BBC represents a failure of the Editorial values by which the BBC is bound. In particular, in line with editorial value 1.2.1 Trust, the BBC has failed to achieve the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and been unable to avoid knowingly and materially misleading your audiences. Additionally, there is a failure of 1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy You state that “We could have used a still from the video footage – which was included in our coverage and showed the incident in full – but this is a longer process.” In taking the easier option “In this instance, we chose from the images available the one that we felt best represented the incident”, the author has not been able to establish the truth of what has happened and has failed to achieve due accuracy in your output. Consequently, the BBC has failed to be honest and open and avoid unfounded speculation. Selection of an inappropriate image does not meet the requirement under 1.2.3 Impartiality that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected. There are clear images available that show Power kicking Jack full in the face, studs up with a straight leg. Sadly, you have not been fair ... when examining evidence. The end product is that the BBC has not acted with impartiality. In serving the public interest you have not adopted a sufficiently rigorous approach. In my opinion, the author of this piece has not acted fairly and I am not confident that decisions taken have not been influenced by personal interests in this case. The response you submitted fails to accept accountability that whoever selected the image used has chosen to downplay the severity of this incident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top