This is a guest post by Mitnaged
Readers will know that I made a complaint to the BBC after Michael White’s egregious contribution there on the 14th of December 2009. The article about that complaint can be found here and contains the background. I promised to update readers.
On 7th January 2010 I received a reply to my complaint, which I reproduce in full below. I have altered the format so that it is easier to read; the text is verbatim:
“Dear (name intentionally withheld)
“Thank you for your further correspondence regarding the remarks made by The Guardian’s Assistant Editor Michael White on the BBC London 94.9 breakfast programme on 14 December 2009. I believe the reply you have already received covers the further issues you raise, however I will add further clarification to some of the points:
“In a live interview, editorial decisions have to be made very quickly by the presenter and producer. On this occasion, Michael White combined two controversial issues (Northern Ireland and Israel/the Middle East) into his answer about the attack on Signor Berlusconi, of whom he also made controversial remarks. He did not break stride in making a series of comments about all three issues. The decision of the presenters and producer was not to go back to challenge each individual comment as each could have led to a lengthy exchange in their own right and would have diverted from the main subject of the interview. We stand by that decision.
“Michael White is well known as a media commentator with strong views which he often expresses in a forthright and colourful manner. We believe his comments on these matters were in keeping with his style and clearly identifiable as his own personal views. I do not believe any listeners would confuse Michael White’s comments with those of the BBC.
“BBC London 94.9 has a strong record of representing all sides of the Middle East conflict and, as stated previously, BBC journalists are advised to be fair and impartial in their handling of controversial issues.
“If you believe a serious and specific breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines has occurred here, and you wish to escalate this matter to Stage 2 of the BBC Complaints process, you can contact the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, within 20 working days, and they will carry out an independent investigation.
“You can write to them at the following address:
Editorial Complaints Unit
Room 5170
White City
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS
Yours sincerely
David Robey
Managing Editor
BBC London 94.9
As you may imagine, I was not particularly impressed by Mr Robey’s reply. In particular I noted (and I have again reformatted it in order to make it easier to read):
“… In a live interview, editorial decisions have to be made very quickly by the presenter and producer. On this occasion, Michael White combined two controversial issues (Northern Ireland and Israel/the Middle East) into his answer about the attack on Signor Berlusconi, of whom he also made controversial remarks. He did not break stride in making a series of comments about all three issues. The decision of the presenters and producer was not to go back to challenge each individual comment as each could have led to a lengthy exchange in their own right and would have diverted from the main subject of the interview. We stand by that decision…”
Two points stand out in the above section:
(a) that because Michael White combined two controversial issues and “did not break stride” in his comments (ie he was far too quick for professionals such as they) the presenters and the producer were powerless to stop him, and
(b) that neither the presenters nor the producer thought it necessary to correct his libel against the IDF and the Israeli government at the time he made it because to do so would have led to a “lengthy exchange in their own right and would have diverted from the main subject of the interview.”
Thus we see that the BBC allows libellous statements to be promulgated and to stand because they do not have the time to devote to countering them on air as they are being spoken.
Mr Robey’s second excuse is rather more diverting. One can almost imagine him open-mouthed in sycophantic admiration of Michael White. Again I have reformatted the section so as to make it easier to read:
“..Michael White is well known as a media commentator with strong views which he often expresses in a forthright and colourful manner. We believe his comments on these matters were in keeping with his style and clearly identifiable as his own personal views. I do not believe any listeners would confuse Michael White’s comments with those of the BBC…”
OK, so let me get this straight. Were I known for my strong anti-Islamist or anti-immigrant views which I routinely expressed in what Mr Robey calls “a forthright and colourful manner” and what I said on air was in keeping with my style and clearly identifiable as my own personal views, could I count on Mr Robey’s support for me in the face of complaint, simply by dint of my “colourful manner” which was “in keeping with my style” however libellous or insulting were those views? Something tells me not.
I also doubt that many listeners, primed as they have been by the BBC and other media to look at Israel in the worst possible light would have bothered to distinguish between Michael White’s personal views and those of the BBC.
Of course I intend to make a formal complaint to the BBC as per Mr Robey’s suggestion. Watch this space.
