Appeal to the BBC

As I said, I am not going to accept the BBC's patronising rejection of my complaint, so this is what I have sent them:

"Thank you for your CAS-4791065-BM0P84 sent to me by email at 1533 on 27 March 2018 about BBC News at Ten broadcast on 14 February 2018.

I do not think you have given a satisfactory answer to my complaint.  To be clear, I chose “bias” as “the category that best described my complaint” and qualified the headline by “inaccurate EU export figures and selective statistics.”  Your reply did not address these central issues.

In my submission, I pointed out, according to the House of commons Library, in 2016 UK exports to the EU were £236 billion or 43% of total exports.  Actually, taking account of the “Rotterdam Effect,” the figure would be nearer 40%.  In the broadcast, Kamal Ahmed claimed “nearly 50% of our exports go to the EU.” In your reply to my complaint you asserted, somewhat disingenuously, “Kamal mentioned that “nearly 50% of our exports go to the EU” – so we didn’t suggest that it receives a majority of the UK export trade.”  If we accept that was your editorial intention, then you could have chosen either of these two true generalisations:

• Less than half of our exports go to the EU
• More than half of our exports go to countries other than the EU

But you didn’t and since neither of these statements would have supported your editorial line, the clear implication is that you deliberately chose to generalise “nearly 50% of our exports go to the EU” to give the impression of, at least, equal weight to the two export destinations.  Quite apart from the silly notion that these exports would, somehow, cease post Brexit, I contend that this non sequiter was deliberately contrived to give a speculative impact to the following discussion on GDP growth divergence where your clear intention was to suggest that we had better stay close to the EU to prevent our respective position deteriorating further, along the lines of “Project Fear.”

Turning to the content about respective GDP growth rates, I note that you, “appreciate I felt the overall picture was misleading,” and that “a different angle could have been offered if the data had been handled differently.” Indeed, it could, and that was the basis of my complaint which you appear to have, somewhat arrogantly, declined to discuss.  You refer to a report from Eurostat by which I assume you meant data sourced from the EU Open Data Portal?  As you know, but most viewers will not, the EU ODP was set up in 2012, following European Commission Decision 2011/833/EU on the reuse of Commission documents.  All EU institutions are invited to make their data publicly available whenever possible (note, “whenever possible” and there does not seem to be any “warts and all” obligation).  Given that, invariably, the BBC preface any information from right of centre organisations with a “health warning” statement of their political colours, it was odd that you did not say clearly, that the figures you used to support your report came straight from the EU without independent scrutiny.  In this regard it is important to note the significant errors that have been exposed in EU accounts ever since they were first audited in 1995.

The basis of your statistical justification appears to be your contention that your report from “Eurostat” covered only the timeframe from the crash of 2008 and that that, therefore, was the timeframe and scope of your report.  Furthermore, you stated that you had “no intention to pose a negative angle,” which, presumably, ruled out seeking alternative viewpoints?  Nevertheless, if your statement of scope is accepted, it seems strange that you subsequently claim, in contradiction, to have “featured a range of statistics, expert statements and commentary on policy which look at the pros and cons of different Brexit scenarios for the UK economy,” none of which were referenced in your report.  The clear implication is that you ignored any contrary statistics and opinion in the interests of presenting an anti-Brexit conclusion.

Notwithstanding my original complaint about the timescale you chose to make a GDP growth comparison, a graph of the period from 2007/8 is equally misleading.  A more studied analysis would, indeed, have shown the UK growth rate outstripping the EU immediately after the crash.  Thereafter, the UK did fall behind the EU and there are sound, but probably temporary, economic reasons for this.  Nevertheless, the truth is that the recent outperformance of the rest of the EU over the UK is scarcely significant in the bigger picture of the UK’s overall margin of outperformance over the EU during the whole period since 2007 or 2008.  Your report tried to give the impression of the recent cross-over of fortunes as diverging and indicative of the UK’s post-Brexit prospects.  You provided no evidence for this sleight of hand.

Whilst I am disappointed that you have ignored the factual side of my complaint, I am dismayed by the almost casual dismissal of my position.  Whilst you claim that you “hear a range of outlooks over time,” you appear to deflect my grievance as simply a “missed opportunity to tell a different perspective” rather than address the factual points at issue.  Your tone suggests it is me who is out of step and, by implication, that it is the BBC that holds the monopoly of truth.  Such, it appears, is the topsy-turvy world of BBC editorial policy.  My personal disappointment apart, in the interests of fairness and balance, I expect the BBC to publicly acknowledge and correct the misleading impressions you have given."

 
AND ANOTHER THING!

I note from an article by Matthew Lynn in the Telegraph today that far from powering ahead of the UK the "Eurozone is already heading back into recession," so Ahmed's distortion is even more blatent.  The BBC would, doubtless, like to have reported (gleefully) that: "Retail sales are falling sharply. Industrial production is slumping.  Construction is sluggish and the governement is weak and clueless with little idea of how to respond to falling demand."  Unfortunatley, this assessment belongs to Germany, the Eurozone's strongest economy, and not the UK!

My Complaint of Bias by the BBC

A BBC TV News report on 14 February 2018, led by Kamal Ahmed, the powerful BBC Economics Editor, attempted to show that EU GDP growth was outstripping that in the UK with the clear inference that, economically, the EU would be better off remaining in the EU.  I was outraged by the careless use of statistics which seemed to me to have been selectively manipulated to derive the desired editorial conclusion.  I complained to the BBC under the category of “Bias” and citing inaccurate EU export figures and selective statistics as the basis for my complaint.  This is what I said:

“Kamal Ahmed claimed “nearly 50% of our exports go to the EU” on the BBC News on 14 Feb 18. According to the House of commons Library, in 2016, UK exports to the EU were £236 billion or 43% of total exports. The EU may, overall, be “our largest trading partner,” but that statement does not mean that the majority of our exports go there – the majority of our exports go to trading partners outside the EU (and this trend is increasing). I believe you should have made this clear. Ahmed then went on to lard up his message displaying a graph to show a comparison of GDP growth between UK and the EU from about 2007 to the present. The pattern displayed correctly showed the rate of growth diverging in favour of the EU over the last couple of years. This apparently reinforced the BBC’s consistent editorial line that leaving the EU will be an economic disaster. However, had he shown a growth comparison over a more statistically significant period, the graphic would have portrayed exactly the opposite to his preferred interpretation. In fact, between 1980 and 2007, just before the crash, the average annual growth rate was 2.1% for France, 1.6% for Germany, 2.4% for the Netherlands, and 1.8% for Italy. Meantime, growth in the UK averaged 2.4%. If you extend the period to 2012, the six original signatories of the Treaty of Rome grew at only 1.6% compared to the UK at 2.0%. Finally, as the graph did show, by the end of 2013 the UK was recovering strongly from the crash whilst the EU continued to languish behind. The source for these figures is “The Trouble with Europe” by Roger Bootle. Sadly, and to the detriment of the education of their audience, these statistical inconveniences appear to have been overlooked by Ahmed and the rest of the BBC editorial staff. In the interests of impartiality and balance, I expect the BBC to publicly acknowledge and correct the misleading impression they have given.”

Nearly 6 weeks later, the BBC have favoured me with a reply, a lot of which is an apology for their delay in replying.  This is what they said:

“Thank you for contacting us about ‘BBC News at Ten’ on February 14.

First of all, we’d like to offer our sincere apologies for the delay in responding. An admin error at our end led to the delay in you receiving an answer. We’re sorry you had to wait and appreciate that it prompted you to get in touch again recently in CAS-4846842. We’re offering our first reply here – thanks for bearing with us.

You raised concerns about the range of dates chosen for the business analysis on EU exports. As you pointed out, Kamal mentioned that “nearly 50% of our exports go to the EU” – so we didn’t suggest that it receives a majority of the UK export trade. 

We appreciate you felt the overall picture was misleading and that a different angle could have been offered, if the data had been handled differently. 

The latest report from Eurostat was clearly sourced and was the context of this latest development – given that it had been ten years since both areas responded to the crash of 2008. That was the timeframe and scope, with no intention to pose a negative angle – we’ve featured a range of statistics, expert statements and commentary on policy which look at the pros and cons of different Brexit scenarios for the UK economy. We hear a range of outlooks over time, though we realise you feel this was a missed opportunity to tell a different perspective.

We hope this explains the approach – please be assured that your original points were made available at the time to relevant BBC News staff and senior editors. Audience reaction informs our ongoing work and we’ll continue to look at the financial impact of the Brexit agreement in due course.

One again, we’re sorry for the unusual delay and appreciate you taking the time to make your concerns known.”

You may agree that the BBC has completely overlooked my claim of bias by manipulating statistics.  You may also agree that their patronising put-down, “we hear a range of outlooks over time, though we realise you feel this was a missed opportunity to tell a different perspective,” betrays the virtuous self-righteousness of the BBC editorial position on Brexit.  In the topsy-turvy world of the BBC, it is me, the complainant, who is out of step with opinion and, since my views are by their definition “extreme,” they may, apparently, be ignored in the debate.  I consider that the BBC is in contravention of its own editorial guidelines and shall be appealing to the BBC Trust accordingly.

I should be most grateful for any comments that may assist my crusade?

Transition Deal is No Deal

Thumbs down to the Brexit transition deal which will be presented to a European Council Summit tomorrow.  Apparently, we have negotiated a “deal” which allows access to both the single market and the customs union, for which we pay very handsomely but have no say in making or interpreting the rules.  Meantime, EU immigration will continue unabated and foreign fishermen will continue to pillage our territorial waters.  All this to prevent a “cliff edge” of uncertainty for our whinging business lobbies, in March next year.  But hang on, all the transition deal has done is push the uncertainty back to December 2020.  There is not a hint of the shape of our future relationship in the surrender deal.  Surely, there is no point in having a transition if we do not know what we are transitioning to?  We have no idea what will happen then or, indeed, what further concessions we may need to give to extricate ourselves from the self-important Michel Barnier and his legions of unelected officials.  Perhaps Northern Ireland will be sacrificed along with Gibraltar?

It would be nice to take comfort from Government mouth music that no deal is better than a bad deal or that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed but having seen red line after red line rubbed-out and re-submitted without a fight, I won’t be holding my breath.