BBC remember me? Letter to BBC complaining about Robinson / Salmond editing

Heyyy.

Please note, I have of course seen the existing BBC response to different complaints relating to this report, which has recently appeared online [...] I don't know the substance of those complaints, so I can't form an opinion on whether this statement responds adequately to them, but of course I'll assume it does. However it does not address my complaint, and I therefore kindly ask that you give my complaint separate attention.

I must also apologise that my complaint is rather meticulous; however, this level of clarity is necessary to precisely state the way in which the report was in breach.

The part of the segment which I am interested in ran as follows:

VOICE OVER: [Alex Salmond] needs to reassure the voters at home.
NICK ROBINSON: Why should a Scottish voter believe you, a politician, against men who are responsible for billions of pounds of profits?
VOICE OVER: He didn't answer. But he did attack the reporting of those in what he called "the Metropolitan media."

My complaint is best broken down into two parts.

1) The report is highly misleading about the question which was put to Mr Salmond. The claim that "he didn't answer" is therefore correspondingly highly misleading.

In the unedited footage, it can be seen that what is shown in the report is actually the second part of a second question, which is itself a follow-on, closely related to the first. It is reasonable to assume these two questions are closely connected, in the absence of any wording along the lines of, "and on a separate topic," and in view of the similar subject matter. I will refer to the two halves of Mr Robinson's questioning as "the first question" and "the second question" for convenience, but it is clear that the second question does not stand alone, and that its meaning changes significantly when it is isolated and edited down as in the broadcast footage.

When we watch the unedited footage, we find that the first question is, "Are you suggesting that the decision of RBS has no consequence, or do you accept that by moving their base to London, tax revenues would move to London, in other words, Scottish taxpayers would have to make up the money they would lose from RBS moving to London?" The follow-on is, "And on a more general point: John Lewis's boss says prices could go up, Standard Life's boss says money will move out of Scotland, BP's boss says oil will run out; why should a Scottish voter believe you, a politician, against men who are responsible for billions of pounds of profits?"

It is conceivable that Mr Robinson believed himself to be creating a distinction with the phrase "and on a more general point," but if so he was mistaken, and the BBC should bear that in mind in formulating its response: the reasonable interpretation of the phrase "and on a more general point" is that it maintains a strong linkage between the two halves of Mr Robinson's questioning.

Of course, no one can have any problem with the paring down of journalists' questions in principle. In most circumstances, we are not obliged to hear every word which went into prompting a politician to making some statement. A balance must be struck: meticulous, sometimes lengthy questioning for the politicians, and a snappy but not misleading version for the viewers back home. What was unusual in this case was the claim that the edited question was not answered.

What did Mr Robinson actually ask as his "more general point"? Mr Robinson recognised that Mr Salmond was highly unlikely to accept that owing to RBS's relocation "tax revenues would move to London, and Scottish taxpayers would have to make up the difference," at least certainly not in such stark language. Mr Robinson's follow-up therefore asked Mr Salmond to make a case for the credibility of a politician's perspective, measured against the perspective of business leaders who warn of the economic consequences of independence. (Casting doubt on the credibility of those business leaders is thus certainly one of the strategies Mr Salmond was fairly explicitly invited to adopt). The main context in which Mr Salmond was being asked to establish his credibility was that of tax revenues from RBS, although it would certainly have been legitimate for him to pick up on the statements from John Lewis, Standard Life, and BP as well. Whether or not this is what Mr Robinson intended to ask, I believe it is the most reasonable interpretation of what he did ask. At the very, very least it must be construed as one reasonable interpretation.

Mr Robinson was exercising his instinct for forceful, rhetorically effective questioning, and a laudable desire to go behind the comparatively predictable position-taking of political and constitutional debate and explore how such positions build and sustain credibility. In many circumstances such questioning can be very heartening to watch. However, we were not asked to watch it.

In the edited report, the voice-over begins, "He needs to reassure the voters at home." This is the context in which we then hear the fragment of a question, "Why should a Scottish voter believe you, a politician, against men who are responsible for billions of pounds of profits?" Watching the report, the viewer is asked to believe that Mr Salmond was asked, in quite general terms, why he should be trusted over business leaders, and perhaps in particular asked to defend the legitimacy of politicians in offering reassurance to Scottish voters. Some might see this as quite a soft line of questioning, at least insofar as its generality would have permitted Mr Salmond a very wide scope in his response.

The implications of not answering such a general question would be completely different, compared to those of not answering the specific questions which were actually put to Mr Salmond. Furthermore, the implications of using such a general question as an occasion to attack "what he referred to as 'the Metropolitan media'" would have been completely different, compared to the context in which Mr Salmond's comments actually arose.

Above all, the question which appeared in the report is sufficiently different from what Mr Salmond was actually asked that the statement "he didn't answer" is necessarily incorrect. No one who watches only the unedited footage can be in any doubt that the second question is still very closely related to the question of RBS and corporation tax; and no one who watches the edited footage could have guessed that it does. In view of this difference, there can be no shared valid basis for making the judgment "he didn't answer."

2) But I'd also like to consider whether the statement "he didn't answer" would have been correct, even if viewers had been shown the full two questions. It is clear that, in view of any reasonable interpretation of the questions which were actually put to Mr Salmond, and of what reasonably constitutes an answer, Mr Salmond did answer these questions.

First, there has been no question mark over whether Mr Salmond addresses the first question (and as a side note, it seems quite right that he should devote the bulk of his response time there).

Mr Salmond also speaks very directly to the second question, which shifts the focus to trust in politicians and/or businessmen, on a number of occasions: particularly in sentences such as, “[...] there is clear evidence that while the Prime Minister was busy telling us what a wonderful nation we were, his business adviser was busy desperately trying to get any business he possibly could to say something negative about independence.” Whether or not one agrees with Mr Salmond on this point, it is a quite straightforward answer to the point which Mr Robinson raised. Mr Robinson draws a distinction between the credibility of politicians, in particular Mr Salmond, and that of business leaders, in particular those associated with the RBS, John Lewis, Standard Life and BP. Mr Salmond criticises Mr Robinson's distinction, pointing out the involvement of politicians in public statements made by business leaders. This is answering.

As well as several such moments of exceptionally direct response, it is clear that Mr Salmond is tacitly tackling Mr Robinson's second question throughout, primarily in the context of RBS tax revenues. This is also answering. Identifying a false dilemma -- such as the supposedly exhaustive choice between categorically trusting business leaders or politicians -- certainly constitutes a valid answer. But Mr Salmond goes further than simply identifying a false dilemma. He discusses at some length how such a false dilemma is produced in the first place. This is where his discussion of the press comes in. As the perspectives of business leaders and of politicians are brought to the public through the press, the credibility of different aspects of the media is certainly centrally at issue in this question, and Mr Salmond is not at all off-topic to bring it up explicitly. I am aiming to be meticulous in my description here, but I think even on a relatively casual viewing, anyone will sense its relevance. Mr Robinson's second question is therefore also answered by the tacit argument that the Scottish voter's trust should not be apportioned fully either to politicians or to business leaders, and that the Scottish voter should consider (and do consider) the media context in which the views of politicians and/or business leaders appear. This may not yet constitute a comprehensive and satisfying answer for everyone, but it is certainly enough to falsify any claim that "he didn't answer."

Mr Salmond furthermore answers the second part of Mr Robinson's question in a complementary way, which speaks to the question of trust in him specifically. The gist of this part of Salmond's response -- again, whether or not one agrees with it -- is fairly straightforward. He contrasts "scaremongering" and "evidence," and suggests that the Scottish voters can tell the difference well enough to move beyond the scaremongering and look at the evidence. The consolidation of recycled quotations, Mr Salmond argues, is suggestive of scaremongering: the time when these quotations really were news has long passed. By contrast, the RBS statement to staff released the same morning constitutes relevant evidence, which can help Scottish voters to form a judgment. The argument given is that this hypothetical Scottish voter should trust Mr Salmond for reassurance only insofar as Mr Salmond is able to provide clear evidence.

Mr Robinson may have felt that Mr Salmond did not answer his question because he did not specifically bring up John Lewis, Standard Life, or BP. I don't feel this interpretation would be correct. Furthermore, the broadcast segment did not include Mr Robinson's mention of John Lewis, Standard Life, and BP.

It is also not clear from any of the footage what Mr Robinson was saying during his later informal questioning; perhaps here he may have clarified, reformulated or stressed some aspect of his earlier question, which Mr Salmond did not answer. This may have formed Mr Robinson's impression that he had been stonewalled by Mr Salmond. Again, even if that is the case, it has no bearing on the inaccuracy of the report which actually went out.

In summary:
(a) The edited footage gives a misleading idea of the question which Mr Salmond was asked, and then goes on to claim that he did not answer it. Given that Mr Salmond was asked a somewhat similar but ultimately crucially different question, it is inevitable that confusion should arise. Whatever Mr Salmond said -- that is, whether or not he answered the question which was actually put to him -- he can hardly be expected to give a precise answer to a question which he was never asked. An apology and/or correction is therefore in order!
(b) As it happens, the full footage shows Mr Salmond answering both of Mr Robinson's questions, under any reasonable interpretation, which takes into account the connected fashion in which these questions were presented, and the mention not only of RBS, but also BP, John Lewis and Standard Life. An apology and/or correction is therefore again in order!

Three final notes.
(a) It is perhaps worth establishing a general principle of extra diligence, when the claim is made that a question has not been answered, that this question is very accurately portrayed. A somewhat greater margin of error is perhaps appropriate if a question is edited down as a lead-in to the response.
(b) Just as an informal litmus test, it is perhaps worth imagining whether anyone who was presented with the edited footage, and asked to speculatively and uncynically reconstruct the situation which gave rise to it, would be likely to come up with anything resembling what took place. I think that highly unlikely.
(c) I am ambivalent about Scottish independence, but not about the BBC's independence. While I can see that such a report could go out with the best of intentions, it is not right that you should fail to apologise for it once you've been called out. We all make mistakes, but yours are more important than most.

Yrs,
xxx

TLDR BBC

Incredibly boring & obvious letter to BBC World Have Your Say!!! YAAAA (crying) WWWWNNNNN!!!!

Dear BBC,

I watched several hours of your US election coverage. I thought it generally excellent, with Dimbleby superb as ever. However I was disappointed not to hear any mention of the third party candidates, especially Stein and Johnson. While no one disputes this was a two horse race, there are plenty of reasons to bring them up:

(1) In a race so tight, third party voting patterns could have had a bearing on the outcome.

(2) Regardless of any direct bearing, votes for third parties can help us form an impression of why a state or county is voting the way that it is. (Of course, making distinctions within the third party vote category would be crucial: the catch-all category "other" tells us very little).

(3) A bit of variety! There were plenty of long stretches where nothing was happening, nor was likely to happen. These shouldn't be exclusively used to reiterate the major themes. Some viewers are dipping in and out, but the lucky ones are in for the long haul. (I lost count of the number of times I heard the phrase, "No surprises there." SO SURPRISE ME).

(4) The BBC can play a particularly strong role in interpreting the US election for an international audience.  For a viewer more familiar with UK politics, for example, it is tempting to make lazy and misleading identifications between the GOP and the Tories, and the Dems and Labour respectively. Talking about third parties is a useful way into a more nuanced and contextualised view of the American political landscape (particularly this time round, when the narrative of voters disliking both options was so strong).

(5) Likewise, the BBC can play a particularly strong role in locating the US election within an international context, and its issues within as broad as possible a spectrum of political opinion, geographically and historically. If some mainstream feature of European political life would appear radical or fringe in the USA, or vice-versa, I'd like that to be teased out. It makes your coverage more relevant, interesting and true.

(6) Even if third parties get little or no discussion, I would count it a valuable service to have the 1% or so of "other" votes further broken down on your infographics. (Perhaps this would be prohibitively administratively complex -- but it's certainly worth investigating, if you haven't already. Perhaps it would be possible on the BBC web site, if it isn't possible on the telly).

(7) Someone close to me who has dual US/UK citizenship, and had just voted for Stein by absentee ballot was similarly dismayed. Third party voters often make the morally difficult decision of declining a tactical vote, on the basis that a vote of conscience may raise awareness, influence debate and help to shape the political climate. But it is less likely to do this if it is ignored by organisations like the BBC.

It was of course not an omission unique to the BBC: throughout election night, and even today, the day after, it is extremely hard to find any discussion whatsoever of third parties. I write to you only because my expectations of you are a little higher.

Kind regards,
Lara Buckerton

Changing certain aspects of BBC radio 4 one cross pedantic letter at a time!

Steve Fritzinger (who was on Business World the other day) is probably a bit nuts, but that's by way of background. I guess he's one of those folks who thinks the free operation of baseball would be much improved if we just removed all those pesky rules, not to mention the regulatory interference of the diamond, the bat and ball, and the players arms and legs, and just let the BASEBALL ITSELF flourish.

I don't mind Steve Fritzinger being a bit nuts. I don't have the patience today to argue with the impression he gave, deliberately or not, that markets spring into being independently of regulatory environments.

All I want to say is that Steve should stop cosying up to poor Adam Smith. It is exactly this kind of snuggly cosying manoeuvre which sets him rolling in his grave. To pick on just one detail, the supposed centrality of the invisible hand to Smith's work -- well, I can find the phrase "invisible hand" just once in The Wealth of Nations. Here's the quotation:

"[...] As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can, both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce maybe of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it [...]"

Smith intends his "invisible hand" as a bit of flowery ornamentation. It is not a concept worked out in any detail. It is not an appropriate metaphor for the price mechanism, and it is not suggested by Smith as such.

In fact, Smith's enthusiasm here is quite muted: he says "nor is it ALWAYS the worse" for the society that an end promoted was no part of the intention; he says that the individual who pursues his own interest only "FREQUENTLY" promotes that of society. He does not chastise "trade for the public good," only the artificial pretence or "affectation" of such trade -- the worst side of Corporate Social Responsibility green-washing, you might say.

Anyway, notwithstanding some gestures towards a more general case, Smith is basically talking about something quite specific: investment in the domestic economy. That is the context of the invisible hand. He's not talking about supply and demand or firms in perfect competition or anything like that. He is certainly absolutely not talking about international banking and global capital flows. Smith's invisible hand leads capital to by and large stay put. Is that what your invisible hand does, Mr Fritzinger?

A big invisible middle finger to you.

Love,
Lara

PS: The baseball thing is an exaggeration, of course, but no more egregious than the patronising infantilising & slightly creepy way Steve personifies the "poor free market." "It has very few friends these days." Markets have never needed very many friends, so long as the "friends" they do have are tremendously rich and powerful. Steve is probably not nuts, just a bit set in his ways. They are ways which are beneficial to tremendously rich and powerful people.

Letter to Toilette & Douche LLP

Dear Big 1/4,

According to the Deloitte web site, "Third-party assurance enhances trust building and credibility with company stakeholders".

This evening I read with mounting euphoria your inaugural corporate responsibility report, "We are defined by our responsibilities." You were even runner-up in a competition! Alas, as has often been the case, my euphoric pretensions were cut short when the finale came sooner than expected, or was wished for. Where is the assurance statement?

To its clients, Deloitte promotes the value of independent assurance of corporate responsibility disclosures. Why then does the firm feel it is inappropriate to seek independent assurance on its own report?

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,
Lara

Harry Gilonis writing to Bill Rammell MP

Bill Rammell MP
Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street
London
SW1A 2AH

Dear Mr Rammell,

I'm aware that clinging to power, and perhaps to your own job/seat, are going to take priority over any other wider concerns, but I really can't let recent government-issued nonsense, which cites you by name, pass by unnoticed.

I was among many signatories to a recent electronic petition asking the Prime Minister to "do everything in his power to impose an arms embargo on
Israel in light of the recent Israeli offensive in the Gaza strip and to apply pressure on countries supplying Israel with arms that breach
international agreements with the intention of restoring lasting peace to the region".

As e-mails to the Prime Minister's Office are limited to a 1000-character maximum (government by Twitter cannot be far behind), I am writing to you.

The PM's Office's response to that petition (www.number10.gov.uk/Page18448) follows, with my observations interleaved:

A recent Amnesty International report confirmed that Britain is not a major arms exporter to Israel

Amnesty' chief focus is political prisoners. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade - surely the people who should be referenced here? - contradict that:

"The UK has consistently sold arms to Israel. Over recent years it has licensed arms exports worth between £10 million and £25 million per year. Figures available for the first nine months of 2008 show that, three-quarters of the way through the year, arms worth over £27 million had been approved for export to Israel" [See: www.caat.org.uk/issues/israel.php]

and, as Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell said to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 4 March, the UK regularly turns down arms requests from Israel. Each export licence request is assessed on a case-by-case basis and conduct in recent conflicts is always taken into account.

It is hard to square that with the fact that the UK is still approving weaponry - or components for weaponry - for export. Sir John Stanley (of the House of Commons Committee on Arms Export Controls) made the point to you personally just last April: "the key issue is whether or not the use that was made of British-made weapons systems and components in the recent conflicts, in Lebanon and most particularly in Gaza, did or did not represent a breach of the EU consolidated criteria." [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmquad/uc178-iii/uc17802.htm]

We do not believe that the current situation in the Middle East would be improved by imposing an arms embargo on Israel. Israel has the right to defend itself and faces real security threats.

That applies far more to Palestine, which does not have one of the largest and best-equipped armed forces in the world. The inhabitants of Gaza have stones - and a handful of home-made rockets which are scarcely more effective than stones in terms of casualties inflicted. (Israeli soldiers killed more Israeli soldiers last year than such rockets killed Israeli civilians.)

However, we will not grant export licences where there is a clear risk that arms will be used for external aggression or internal repression.

The precise criteria referred to by David Miliband (still Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs this week) are as follows:

"Criterion 2 (we will not issue an export licence where there is a clear risk that the export might be used for internal repression), criterion 3 (we will
not issue licences for exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of
final destination), criterion 4 (preservation of regional peace, security and stability), and criterion 7 (the risk that the equipment will be
diverted within the buyer country or re-exported under undesirable conditions). [Quoted at: www.caat.org.uk/press/recent.php?url=210409prs]

Of these it is evident to the least-informed eye that only 7 isn't breached by the UK. David Miliband himself has said that UK components have ended up in F16 combat aircraft, Apache attack helicopters, Saar-Class corvettes and armoured personnel carriers. [Quoted at: www.caat.org.uk/issues/israel.php]

More generally, the government is fully committed to the implementation of a two-state solution. There must be a viable Palestinian state existing, in peace, alongside a secure Israel.

Then why is the UK denying recognition to the democratically-elected government of Gaza?

We will continue to work with our international partners, including the new US Administration, to pursue vigorously a comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East

- whilst spending shed-loads of money arming one side in the conflict and talking about sending warships to stop any aid of any kind reaching the other ...
This is not merely pusillanimous, it is sickening.

Yours sincerely,
Harry Gilonis

Letter to The Spectator

Sir: I warmly welcome Mr. Liddle’s appetitive sentiment (‘The smoking ban was always going to be the thin end of the wedge,’ 21 March), but think he should draw the line at enjoying these “tipples” as he researches articles for The Spectator. The web site www.google.com is a useful resource for journalists and creative people like Mr. Liddle! Matronly Sir Liam didn’t say that the death toll in Britain for bird flu would most likely be 50,000. The worry was, and still is, that the bird flu virus will mutate into a form that can be transmitted directly between humans. There is historical precedent for such mutations, but their timing is difficult to predict. Since no mutation has happened yet, it is unfair to call Sir Liam’s projections disproportionate. Mr. Liddle would not say the death toll of the Asian Tsunami “proved to be, uh, nil” just because he went swimming the day before? Drudges like Sir Liam are very particular in what they say, it pays to listen to them quite closely. Else it may lead to feeling, as Mr. Liddle surely does, mistakenly smug about still being alive.

An Open Letter to Marks and Spencer

Dear Sir or Madam:

RE: The Fate of unsold perishables

I write to ask you to explain your policy in regard to items as they near their “best-before” or “sell-by” dates. Are they “marked down” as the hour approaches (the better to seduce the low-lying and most clement slopes of the demand curve)? Do M&S possess (as I am told Pret do!) an heroic fleet of Robin Reliants ready to drive the leftovers through the stormy night to local and not-so-local soup kitchens and homeless shelters? I should think a feta and vine leaves parcel is a feta and vine leaves parcel, heroin addiction or no heroin addiction.

If commercial exigencies (which I should like to hear about – I mean it, it’s not just flirting! I heart commercial exigencies) render these measures quite impossible, perhaps you should prepare less food for sale?

I am not incurious since my friend Melody Wittgenstein and I witnessed what we first took for looting, in the branch inside Victoria station some recent Friday night, at around 11:00. Brave Melody remarked that it reminded her of the rotting grain mountains and wine lakes of the Common Agricultural Policy. For a moment, I wondered whether I was not on the threshold of some quasi-Heavenly “Land of Delicious Food,” as enormous clouds of sandwiches, gathered into plastic bags, were wafted past us on the shoulders of your tillmen and women into the waiting bins. Or perhaps a waiting fleet of Robin Reliants? Melody being near best-before herself hadn’t the luxury of such rapture and her fear for her safety was a factor in my resolution to write to you.

I mean we’re not just talking ropey sandwiches here, they were chucking away perfectly good cherry tomatoes.

Do not, I warn you, try to fob me off with a voucher! – for I will only convey it to the fingers of one of my homeless friends.

I apologise for what may seem the excessive background and combative tone of this letter, and ameliorate it with the old saw that companies always seem to be far worse than the people who make them up! But as your sector is one of the trailblazers in Corporate Social Responsibility, and as your brand melts in itself all the best qualities of English sumptuousness and commonsense, is not M&S positioned to show better leadership than this?

Yours impatiently,
Lara Buckerton