An exercise in complaining to the BBC about Jacob Rees-Mogg

[Dave H.]

I thought this might interest some folk - if not for the politics of it, just as an insight into how the beeb's complaints system works.

Warning, there's a fair bit of of text here, but hey, it's a rainy Saturday afternoon so maybe someone might like a read!

A little while back, I was struck by comments on the Radio 4 PM by JRM and another contributor that went completely unchallenged and un-remarked-upon, as if they were accepted facts.

So I complained, focusing on the JRM comments mostly just because of the character limits of the complaints website. And I thought it might be interesting for people to read how that played out. So here are the emails.

Enjoy/ignore/vent/advise as appropriate (or not).

Complaint Summary: Calamitous unchallenged political bias.

Full Complaint: Jacob Rees-Mogg was allowed to get away Scott free with the claim that Jeremy Corbyn would pose ‘an existential threat to the wellbeing of the nation’ if he became PM. This is the stuff of fascism. The leader of her majesty’s opposition, whoever it is, plays a vital role in constraining any extremist tendencies in the party of government. There was no attempt to correct or even challenge JRM’s claim. If the BBC cannot see that platforming such claims without emphatic challenge - or at the very least pointing out that this is a radically extreme view in the context of a democracy - is poisonous to the country’s democracy, I despair, as should anyone with any affection for democracy in the U.K.

This was their response, about 2.5 weeks later.

Thank you for contacting us regarding PM on 18 June.

Firstly, we apologise for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you’ve had to wait on this occasion.

We understand you feel Jacob Rees-Mogg MP should have been challenged on his remarks about Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

On this edition, our correspondent Carolyn Quinn was present in the Houses of Parliament before the latest round of voting in the Conservative Party leadership race. Presenter Jonny Dymond spoke with MPs Jacob Rees-Mogg and Tobias Ellwood, who supported Boris Johnston and Rory Stewart respectively.

Mr Davies asked them a number of questions relating to the possibilities of who could be the final two candidates for Conservative Party leader. The role of a BBC interviewer is to ask the questions likely to be in the minds of the audience. They also seek to make sure their question is answered first and foremost and due to the nature of live broadcast, it may not be possible for an interviewer to challenge every claim that is made by a guest.

In this case, Mr Davies asked Mr Rees-Mogg and Mr Ellwood about their hopes for the candidates getting into the final round of voting, and allowed them to explain their views and opinions.

Challenging the remarks made about Jeremy Corbyn would have been diverging from the focus of the interview as the focus here was on the Conservative leadership rather than Jeremy Corbyn.

That said, we appreciate you feel the presenter should have challenged Mr Rees-Mogg on these comments. We placed your concerns on our audience feedback report to be seen by senior management and the production team at PM.

Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch.

I thought this response was seriously lacking. They seem to have a kneejerk response that complaints are just spurious bleating from idiots in a blind and irrelevant attempt to defend Corbyn.

So I re-complained.

Hi. Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately it isn't adequate, and I feel I have to re-complain.

I agree that a digression into opinions about Corbyn would have been inappropriate. But my point is about something different.

There are two issues here. One, the extraordinary attitude shown to the leader of the opposition - regardless of who it is at the time - by labelling them 'an existential threat to the wellbeing of the nation'. This is a shoddy denigration of parliamentary democracy.

Two, this is not just some chap neutrally expressing an opinion. These comments are as loaded with political intent as it is possible to be - explicit, calculated attempts to move political discourse in a certain direction. To normalise the idea that Labour are extremists, a threat to the country etc. This is obvious to anyone who understands the language and context. Normalising talking about political opponents as if they were extremists or terrorists (remember: 'existential threat to the wellbeing of the nation') is the stuff of fascism.

Allowing such statements to go unchallenged on the BBC isn't merely worrying about people being beastly to poor Mr. Corbyn. To borrow the tone - but not the content - of JRM’s remarks, it is a material threat to the quality of political journalism on the BBC and in this country, and hence to democracy in the UK itself.

A satisfactory resolution could include an assurance that relevant presenters have been advised that disclaimers must be voiced when the opinions of guests are as extreme and anti-democratic as is the case here. A verbal note that millions of people would strongly disagree, for example, would take literally two seconds. This, along with a clear intention to make sure that visible efforts are made to maintain balance rather than to platform extreme anti-democratic views would be enough.

But in the absence of that, I feel this matter is so serious as to merit further escalation of the complaint.

And this was their response:

Thank you for contacting us again. We appreciate that you were dissatisfied with our previous response and felt strongly enough to write to us again.

We have read and noted your points but don’t consider they suggest evidence of a possible breach of standards. In a well-established political programme of this nature, it's well understood that political opponents will at times revert to hyperbole and political pointscoring. Mr Rees Mogg's comments were directed at the Leader of the Opposition alone, not the whole party. While many would disagree and challenge the view he expressed, many others would also support it - and it was clearly expressed as his own political analysis of the 'threats' perceived by Boris Johnson's own campaign. We wouldn't agree that suggesting someone would affect the nation's "wellbeing" amounts to an anti-democratic view, nor does it suggest he is an extremist or terrorist.

Opinions do vary widely about the BBC and its output, but this does not necessarily imply there has been a breach of standards or of the BBC’s public service obligations. For this reason we regret we don’t have more to add to our previous correspondence, and so will not respond further or address more questions or points.

If you are dissatisfied with this decision you may ask the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) to review it. Details of the BBC complaints process are available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/ where you can read the BBC’s full complaints framework.

If you wish to ask the ECU to review this decision, you should contact it directly within 20 working days of receiving this reply. Please explain to the ECU why you believe there may have been a potential breach of standards or other significant issue to investigate.

So, a wall of text later, there you have it. I'm left dissatisfied, but with the strong impression that further escalation will result not in asking important editorial questions, but in an increasingly legalistic and ultimately futile struggle.

Still, it seemed worth trying, even if it can at best only contribute to change in a 'death of 1000 cuts' sort of way.

 

[SteveS1]

The Tories have blackmailed and brow-beaten the BBC with threats of license fee reduction/abolition. The BBC's political coverage in recent years has reflected this. The most obvious change is their 'balance' approach, as opposed to impartial coverage, giving equal coverage to totally unverified opinion as they do to proven fact. Not calling out the difference between opinion and statements that are demonstrably untrue etc.

 

[tiggers]

Thanks for posting this. I too have been met with a wall of words saying little when I have complained to the BBC in the past about their treatment of Israel and Palestine during various conflicts and over the whole nasty attempt to implicate Cliff Richard as a paedophile. I don't think it's as simple to attribute them to being left or right or whatever people oft accuse them of. What they are is largely absolved of any accountability for their shoddy journalism and while the mainstream printed press are often just as lacking in this respect it's not my taxes being used to fund them.

I think the UK media are, by and large, very shoddy and the BBC who often hold themselves up as a beacon of trustworthiness in a sea of bias are no better than anyone else and yet due to their unique position they should be, a lot better. When I was involved with trying to get Leveson implemented the BBC were often largely left out of various commentaries and yet they shouldn't be as while they aren't print media they are one of the most imbibed news sources in the world. With that level of influence they should be even more responsible and accountable than other media outlets yet they aren't. Keep complaining as nothing will ever change if they are allowed to operate unchallenged.

 

[Still]

Thanks for taking the time to share dave-t.
Aunties complaints system deffo' feels like swimming in treacle.
ime the internal ones are just as bad, and some (believe it or not) worse.

 

[eternumviti]

'Beastly to poor Mr Corbyn.'

Please!

 

[Nick_G]

It's telling that what is probably the biggest story for decades (the Cambridge Analytica scandal) was exposed in the UK due to the persistence and determination of the brilliant Carole Cadwalladr. Channel 4 picked it up pretty quickly but the BBC seemed slow and reluctant to treat it with the importance it deserved. I can't help but think that their attitude towards platforming extremists unchallenged is somehow connected...

 

[crimsondonkey]

The BBC seem pre-occupied with their ongoing financial sustainability and appear imo to shy away from providing almost any credible political critique or challenge lest it come back and bite them in any future funding settlement.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

I made a complaint about their HYS (Have Your Say) where on certain days it was patently obvious that far right trolls had pre-arranged to flood the debate with their foul beliefs. It was getting like a 4Chan chat room but with careful avoidance of the "N word" etc to avoid their posts being immediately deleted. I complained that they were allowing the far right to use their HYS as a platform for fascist propaganda, nationalism and racism.

It took about 2 months before I got a reply and it basically just told me they had looked into it and could not uphold my complaint....

The "like growing mushrooms" aspects of the whole experience put me off pursuing it further... as it was no doubt intended to!

 

[Dave H.]

'Beastly to poor Mr Corbyn.'

Please!

Sarcasm detector on the blink?

 

[eternumviti]

Sarcasm detector on the blink?

Clearly, because I can't see the context for it.

I don't think your complaint stood a cat's chance, because JRM hadn't done or said anything wrong. Politics is a harsh place, and Corbyn has carved his own path out within it. He is a lifelong Marxist, appears to have little but contempt for the UK and its institutions, is anti-capitalist, anti-monarchy, anti-armed forces, anti-private ownership, is an unrepentant admirer of failed socialist states, and he has shown himself time and again to be a bit too chummy with hard men who really are the enemies of the UK, and more generally of the west. Many, many people believe, with good reason to do so, that he would indeed pose an existential threat to this country.

 

[tiggers]

Clearly, because I can't see the context for it.

I don't think your complaint stood a cat's chance, because JRM hadn't done or said anything wrong. Politics is a harsh place, and Corbyn has carved his own path out within it. He is a lifelong Marxist, appears to have little but contempt for the UK and its institutions, is anti-capitalist, anti-monarchy, anti-armed forces, anti-private ownership, is an unrepentant admirer of failed socialist states, and he has shown himself time and again to be a bit too chummy with hard men who really are the enemies of the UK, and more generally of the west. Many, many people believe, with good reason to do so, that he would indeed pose an existential threat to this country.

The fact that you and JRM are aligned in your view of Corbyn does not make the BBC’s lack of impartiality over the political landscape acceptable. They are supposed to be a serious news service broadcasting to millions and therefore have a responsibility to treat all aspects of UK politics with similar levels of gravitas whereas you are an individual with a very limited audience for your views therefore not required to be impartial or even very well informed.

 

[Dave H.]

Clearly, because I can't see the context for it.

I don't think your complaint stood a cat's chance, because JRM hadn't done or said anything wrong. Politics is a harsh place, and Corbyn has carved his own path out within it. He is a lifelong Marxist, appears to have little but contempt for the UK and its institutions, is anti-capitalist, anti-monarchy, anti-armed forces, anti-private ownership, is an unrepentant admirer of failed socialist states, and he has shown himself time and again to be a bit too chummy with hard men who really are the enemies of the UK, and more generally of the west. Many, many people believe, with good reason to do so, that he would indeed pose an existential threat to this country.

Clearly I should have remembered that there are people preposterous enough to use words like beastly without taking the piss!

Oh, and your characterisation is a ridiculous caricature, but then you’re entitled to express your opinion in a forum such as this (see the difference?).

 

[Nick_G]

Clearly, because I can't see the context for it.

I don't think your complaint stood a cat's chance, because JRM hadn't done or said anything wrong. Politics is a harsh place, and Corbyn has carved his own path out within it. He is a lifelong Marxist, appears to have little but contempt for the UK and its institutions, is anti-capitalist, anti-monarchy, anti-armed forces, anti-private ownership, is an unrepentant admirer of failed socialist states, and he has shown himself time and again to be a bit too chummy with hard men who really are the enemies of the UK, and more generally of the west. Many, many people believe, with good reason to do so, that he would indeed pose an existential threat to this country.

Given that JRM is advocating a no-deal Brexit and wants to turn the UK into an offshore tax haven colony of the US, I would say that if anyone posed an existential threat to the UK it is him and his fellow ERG Brexit jihadists!

 

[TheDecameron]

Clearly, because I can't see the context for it.

I don't think your complaint stood a cat's chance, because JRM hadn't done or said anything wrong. Politics is a harsh place, and Corbyn has carved his own path out within it. He is a lifelong Marxist, appears to have little but contempt for the UK and its institutions, is anti-capitalist, anti-monarchy, anti-armed forces, anti-private ownership, is an unrepentant admirer of failed socialist states, and he has shown himself time and again to be a bit too chummy with hard men who really are the enemies of the UK, and more generally of the west. Many, many people believe, with good reason to do so, that he would indeed pose an existential threat to this country.

Lady Bracknell needs to find her smelling salts.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Given that JRM is advocating a no-deal Brexit and wants to turn the UK into an offshore tax haven colony of the US, I would say that if anyone posed an existential threat to the UK it is him and his fellow ERG Brexit jihadists!

Well, quite. And given that if anything is likely to lead to the break-up of the UK, Brexit is, JR-M's 'existential threat' comments are of epic PKB proportions.

 

[gassor]

I see that Moggy is now referred to in the HoC as 'the member for the 18th century'.

 

[eternumviti]

Given that JRM is advocating a no-deal Brexit and wants to turn the UK into an offshore tax haven colony of the US, I would say that if anyone posed an existential threat to the UK it is him and his fellow ERG Brexit jihadists!

Ah, the OP's point was there was nobody from the left to express such an opinion about JRM to balance the piece.

I don't recall now what the original topic was, but fair enough, complaint upheld.

 

[ff1d1l]

Lady Bracknell needs to find her smelling salts.

In her.... I'll get me coat....

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Clearly, because I can't see the context for it.

I don't think your complaint stood a cat's chance, because JRM hadn't done or said anything wrong. Politics is a harsh place, and Corbyn has carved his own path out within it. .

Your first statement is your opinion, not a 'fact'. And in a UK where an MP has been murdered by a right-wing nut because his opinions differed from hers, it is inappropriate to try and dismiss JRMs comments on the basis that "Politics is a harsh place". Yes, criticism is fine, but the *supposed* basis of the BBC's coverage is that it should be fair and balanced, etc. Not simply act as a channel. Journalist isn't simply a matter of copying everthing without thought or challenge.

The sad reality is that the BBC is hamstrung by many factors:

1) Cuts over many years meaning they have shed many jounalists, researchers, etc.

2) Threats and intimidation about further cuts and curbs.

3) A growing obssession for the 'short sharp shock' approach exemplified by the R4 'Today' programme that make it *very* different now to the days of Brian Redhead, etc.

BTW: I'd add that if JRM used 'nation' to mean the UK, then I think *he* represents more of an 'existential threat' than Corbyn, because a hard Brexit may well increase the chance that Scotland and NI both decide to 'leave' the UK within the next decade as a result. So I'd have asked in a complaint why this point wasn't put to him. However I assume that factors 1-3 above explain why.

 

[Dave H.]

Ah, the OP's point was there was nobody from the left to express such an opinion about JRM to balance the piece.

No, not quite, though now you’ve said that, I can see why someone might jump to that conclusion. So thanks for the remark.

There’s a difference between balance (ie what you suggest I meant) and impartiality. The BBC nowadays mistakes the former for the latter, which is probably partly why we seem so often to end up with polarised shouting, or sometimes with facts and tendentious hogwash being given equal weight. That’s a problem in itself.

But my point was more about impartiality. It’s not that there should have been a left winger to balance JRM’s comments. It’s that the BBC interviewer should have maintained the BBC’s impartiality by not waving through such sentiments as if they were obvious, routine truths. Presenters should avoid apparent collusion.

It happens as a matter of course all the time in other areas - ‘hang on, let’s not go down that road, they’re not here to defend themselves’ is a perfectly familiar kind of thing to hear. And I have no doubt that equivalent remarks from other directions would be challenged. Think of something like ‘Rees-Mogg actually wants to damage the economy so he and his allies can profit from the chaos’ or maybe ‘Swinson just wants to legalise all drugs’. Arguably they’re less extreme than what JRM said, and might attract angry agreement among sympathisers. But I definitely can’t imagine them being waved through as if true in a BBC interview at the LP conference, or wherever might be thought equivalent.