Posts
Executive
Complaints Unit
BBC
Broadcast
Centre
London
W12
7TQ 22
May 2018
Dear Sir
Thank you replying to the reference case. I remain dissatisfied with your response.
Firstly, as a matter of courtesy, I should be
grateful if, in future, the BBC would address me by my name. I took the trouble to write a letter on paper
to you and to sign my name at the bottom.
In your two replies to me you have addressed me as, respectively, “Dear
J R,” and “Dear J R” – I am left to wonder the significance of the omitted
comma in the latter. I am dismayed that
the administrative governance of a public organisation such as the BBC should
be so slack and disrespectful.
I note that the BBC claim that the news report
in question did not give a misleading impression. However, you concede that Ahmed’s use of the
phrase “nearly 50%” was imprecise.
Indeed, you have gone as far as to issue a correction and clarification
and provided me with a web link accordingly.
Although you admit you were wrong, the figures you post have excluded
mention of the potential distortions by the “Rotterdam Effect,” which would, of
course, made you generalisation even more “imprecise.” However, whilst your admission of error is
welcome, you offer no explanation. Given the precision of the figures used in
other parts of the reference reply, I find it inconceivable that your error was
just the result of sloppy proofing. I contend
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 further contend
that this exaggeration was deliberately contrived to give a speculative impact
to the following discussion on GDP growth divergence and part of a clearly
misleading overall impression, as I argue below.
Turning to Ahmed’s graphical representation of
growth you justify only setting out the relative performance of the UK and the
EU over 10 years because the BBC thought “a decade is sufficient to show recent
trends.” Whilst the UK did fall behind
the EU recently you may agree that 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 insignificant in the bigger picture of the UK’s overall margin of
outperformance over the EU during the whole period since 2007 or 2008. What is more, had Ahmed shown a growth
comparison over a more statistically significant period, the graphic would have
shown that 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%. You claim
that your graphic was designed to portray “broad trends in a visual way.” However, if you had taken account of history,
the “broad trend” would not have supported the impression of growth divergence portrayed
in your graph. I contend that you did
not, according to your own editorial guidelines, “take sufficient care to avoid
giving figures more weight than can stand scrutiny,” and I stand by my
accusation of statistical sleight of hand.
Your reply at reference offers a clue to the
derivation of your perceived editorial line when you state, at outset, “the
Foreign Secretary had spoken of the UK no longer being ‘lashed’ to the EU, so
expressing his doubts as to the economic benefits of the UK remaining in the
single market.” I was not aware of the
Foreign Secretary’s speech of 14 May being referenced in the news report in
question but, since you raise it, it may be helpful to clarify what he
said?
“But in a global
marketplace, where we are trading in products that hadn’t been conceived even
five years ago, serving markets that were poverty stricken only 20 years ago,
it seems extraordinary that the UK should remain lashed to the minute
prescriptions of a regional trade bloc comprising only 6 per cent of humanity –
and when it is not possible for us or any EU nation to change those rules on our
own.”
I have read Mr Johnson’s speech and it seems
to me that the thrust of his argument was to allay the fears, spiritual,
strategic, and economic, that might be present in the minds of those who
doubted the wisdom of Britain leaving the EU.
In your reference quotation he certainly was not “expressing his doubts
as to the economic benefits of the UK remaining in the single market.” Again, I am mystified how such wilful
misquoting could have escaped editorial scrutiny unless, of course, it had been
allowed to slip through deliberately.
You conclude your reply by dismissing my
“further points” as not suggesting evidence of a possible breach of standards.”
I do not know what these further points might have been. 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.”
Although I expressed dismay at “the almost casual dismissal of my
position,” this was an observation and not a matter of complaint. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I wish
to elaborate on my allegation of bias. I
do not claim that Ahmed’s report resulted from a deliberate editorial decision
designed to mislead. Neither do I
believe that the BBC, as an establishment, has an anti-Brexit policy although
your claim that “the BBC does not have an opinion on Brexit or any other
subject,” is preposterous. Is the BBC,
for example, open minded about paedophilia? However, I should be very surprised
if anyone of influence in your organisation, perceived by many as generally metropolitan-centric,
socially liberal, pro-establishment, and climate-conscious, actually thought
Brexit was anything but a very bad idea.
More generally, and of much more concern, it seems, this BBC tribal
predisposition tends to play down, ridicule or suppress any contrary
narrative. Whilst it is not surprising
that personal prejudice, either consciously or sub-consciously, tends to
influence editorial slant, and I feel sure you always try to guard against
this, I believe the BBC staff, in this instance, allowed themselves to be carried
away. I cannot prove intent, of course,
my evidence being circumstantial, but I hope you will try to put aside your
default mental model of the world for one moment and review this appeal for objective
treatment of the Brexit issue accordingly?
Yours faithfully
John Brown
(Mister)
