Breach of BBC Editorial Guidelines: unacknowledged substitution of Syria footage 

The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit’s finding upholding the substance of this complaint is here. A decision by the BBC Trust on the wider issues of BBC editorial policy is here. 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Background to the complaint

The wider context

Reference CAS-3014042-NZY8X7

16 June 2015

Dear Mr Tregear

I am writing to request that the Editorial Complaints Unit review BBC Complaints’ 11 May 2015 decision that the substitution of Syria footage between the 29 August 2014 edition of Newsnight and the 30 August 2014 BBC News Channel broadcast Syria Vote: One Year On did not breach BBC editorial standards for Accuracy.

Section 3.2 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines states:

We must do all we can to ensure due accuracy in all our output.

and:

The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences.  We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences’ trust in our content.

Basis of the complaint

As noted here:

The 29 August 2014 edition of BBC2’s Newsnight was devoted to the consequences of the UK Commons vote on intervention in Syria exactly one year previously. Footage of alleged victims of the “playground napalm bomb” from the BBC’s 29 August 2013 report was featured at 03:00 – 03:20 and 04:49 – 05:08. Over the latter scenes, date stamped “August 2013″, presenter Laura Kuenssberg stated “by chance, just as MPs voted, these images of a chemical [sic] attack were shown for the first time”.

In its response to my initial complaint about the August 2013 report, BBC Audience Services had written:

“The phrase “chemical weapon” was taken out of the [29 August 2013] news piece because by the time it was broadcast it was known that this was an incendiary bomb that had been used in the attack.”

and that:

“To have included her [Dr Hallam’s] speculation that this could have been a “chemical weapon” ran a considerable risk of being incredibly misleading and confusing to the audience, not least because the incident happened within days of an alleged chemical attack in Damascus.”

Consequently I alerted Laura Kuenssberg on Twitter to her use of the term “chemical” in her Newsnight report (and indeed in her Tweet).

At 4.30am on 30 August 2014, a few hours after my Tweet to Ms Kuenssberg, a re-edited version of the same edition of Newsnight entitled “Syria Vote: One Year On” was transmitted on the BBC News Channel in which from 04:44 the “napalm bomb” sequences had been replaced by footage from an alleged chemical attack on Saraqeb, Northern Syria on 29 April 2013, originally broadcast in a BBC News report of 16 May 2013.

The substituted footage was not date stamped and its source was unidentified. Laura Kuenssberg’s narration remained unchanged and thus continued to inform audiences that the Saraqeb footage had been “shown for the first time” “by chance, just as MPs voted” – i.e. on the evening of Thursday 29 August 2013 – when it had in fact been “shown for the first time” over three months prior to that date.

Screengrabs of the relevant sections from both programmes are below. The subtitles demonstrate that the narration was identical in both instances.

Screengrabs from Newsnight (BBC2, 29 August 2014, 10:30pm)

Section commencing 04:49. Footage is from Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims ‘like the walking dead, BBC 10 O’Clock News, 29 August 2013.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Screengrabs from Syria Vote: One Year On (BBC News Channel, 30 August 2014, 4:30am & 2.30pm)

Section commencing 04:44. Footage is from Syrians describe effects of alleged chemical attack, BBC News, 16 May 2013.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Complaints correspondence to date

On 10 September 2014 I lodged this complaint via the BBC Complaints webform:

In the 10.30pm BBC2 broadcast from 04:48 – 05:08 footage from the BBC Panorama special ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ (broadcast 30 September 2013) was shown accompanied by the on-screen date “August 2013″ and presenter Laura Kuenssberg’s narration “by chance, just as MPs voted, these images of a chemical attack were shown for the first time”.

At 4.30am on 30 August the same edition of Newsnight was transmitted on the BBC News Channel, however from 04:44 the sequences from ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ had been substituted with footage from a different event or events, without a date stamp or any other identifying information but with the identical narration by Laura Kuenssberg.

Please can you explain precisely why this change was made, why it was unacknowledged, what the source or sources of the substituted images were [1], whether Laura Kuenssberg’s narration which continued to inform audiences that the substituted film was “shown for the first time” “just as MPs voted” – i.e. on the evening of Thursday 29 August 2013 – was accurate and how the re-editing of the programme in this manner accords with BBC Editorial Standards?

On 21 October 2014 BBC Complaints replied:

We appreciate your concerns. However, we do not believe that the replacement of the footage altered the nature of the report, so we do not believe this breached our editorial guidelines.

I challenged this terse decision in a letter of 5 November 2014, noting of the lack of any on screen information identifying the date or origin of the substituted Saraqeb images:

This alone would appear to be a specific breach of section 3.4.12 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy which states “We should normally identify on-air and online sources of information and significant contributors, and provide their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status.”

Of the fact that the substituted images retained the same narration by Laura Kuenssberg, thereby misinforming BBC audiences that the Saraqeb footage had been “shown for the first time” “by chance, just as MPs voted” – i.e. at 10:17 pm on Thursday 29 August 2013 – I wrote:

If the unidentified images substituted in the 30 August 2014 broadcast were not in fact “shown for the first time” “by chance, just as MPs voted” on the evening of Thursday 29 August 2013 this would represent a self-evident breach of the BBC’s commitment to “achieving due accuracy” as set out in Section 3.1 of the Editorial Guidelines. It should be needless to say that the requirement of due accuracy must surely apply most stringently to news and current affairs programmes, where audience expectation of accuracy is at the very highest level, and most stringently of all to the BBC’s flagship current affairs television programme, Newsnight.

In a letter dated 3 December 2014 BBC Complaints responded:

We had referred your complaint to the relevant staff and are normally able to investigate and reply to most complaints at this stage (which is stage 1b of the complaints process) within 20 working days of receipt, or around four weeks. However this is to inform you that we believe it may now take longer than 20 working days before you receive our reply…

…We appreciate your continuing patience in waiting for a response and will reply as soon as possible.

One hundred and eleven working days later, after numerous follow-up communications, on 17 May 2015 BBC Complaints replied:

The pictures used on Newsnight on BBC TWO were more graphic and as the programme is shown after the watershed to UK audiences that is within audience expectations.

However as the version going out on the BBC News Channel is also broadcast around the world on BBC World News we have to be more careful in terms of taste and decency to our audience elsewhere in different time zones.

We would also re-iterate the point we made in our first response that the change of pictures did not change the journalistic integrity of the piece so we feel it is editorially justified and in line with BBC editorial guidelines.

Assessment of the BBC Complaints response

The explanation provided by BBC Complaints on 17 May 2015 would appear to give the BBC News Channel carte blanche to replace images contained in any domestic BBC report originally broadcast post-watershed and deemed to have breached unspecified standards of “taste and decency”, without providing any acknowledgement to audiences that substitution has taken place.

I would request that the Editorial Complaints Unit please explain:

  • What criteria are applied to determine “taste and decency” in these circumstances? Are there written guidelines? Certainly neither term appears at all in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. Who determines when standards of “taste and decency” have been breached?
  • What criteria must apply to images which are substituted for reasons of “taste and decency”? For example, must they be from an event which occurred in the same region as the original incident? The same country? Within two years of the original event? Five? Ten? Who decides? Would the criteria permit the BBC News Channel to show a Tom and Jerry cartoon in place of graphic images?

I would also request that the Editorial Complaints Unit please consider that:

  • As demonstrated by the screengrab below, the 29 August 2014 edition of Newsnight would appear to have been deemed decent and tasteful enough to be have been made available on BBC iPlayer for seven days following its transmission without a parental guidance flag to warn those later accessing it pre-watershed of its graphic content.

noparental guidance

  • Scenes from Ian Pannell’s “playground napalm bomb” report were in fact seen “elsewhere in different time zones” by viewers of Syria Vote: One Year On: they featured as part of a collage of footage from 3:00 – 3:20 minutes in the programme, precisely as they had in the original Newsnight broadcast (see screengrabs below). This collage includes the sequence of alleged victim Mohammed Asi arriving at Atareb Hospital “like the walking dead”, which can scarcely be considered any less graphic than the scenes which were removed for the BBC News Channel broadcast.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Further points for consideration of Editorial Complaints Unit

In response to a request for further time in which to escalate my complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit, on 26 May 2015 you wrote

You have been given an explanation as to why the footage was changed; there is no reason why the audience should be made aware that any such editing has taken place; and BBC News is under no obligation to tell you the source of the substituted images which were broadcast.

After expressing my astonishment at these remarks you replied again, on 1 June 2015:

In response to your comment about the paragraph in my email which you found “astonishing”, I can only say the point I was making was that there is no formal policy which obliges BBC News to inform viewers that footage has been changed or to confirm when asked the source of material used.  It is a matter for BBC News to decide whether to provide that information.  I will however consider in my forthcoming investigation whether the material which was inserted into the BBC News Channel report met the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy, bearing in mind the script line.

I would request that the Editorial Complaints Unit please consider:

  • How your remarks of 26 May 2015 sit with the BBC’s remit as a public service broadcaster, funded by British license fee payers.
  • How the BBC’s lack of a formal policy obliging it to inform viewers a) that news footage has been changed and b) when requested, of the source of substituted material sits with the BBC’s remit as a public service broadcaster, funded by British license fee payers.

Due accuracy and audiences’ trust in BBC content

In a letter of 13 October 2014 to the BBC Trust Unit I noted (sections 19 – 25 [2]) that any reasonable person who recalled Dr Rola Hallam’s words in the BBC 10 O’Clock News report of 29 August 2013, in which she had said “napalm”, and who was then able to compare them with a report transmitted on 30 September 2013, in which Dr Hallam was made to say “chemical weapon”, would conclude that the contribution had been tampered with and that their trust in the content would thereby be fundamentally undermined.

I believe this argument eminently applies in the present case.

The Wider Context – Fabrication in BBC Panorama ‘Saving Syria’s Children’

ezgif.com-optimizeSyria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims ‘like the walking dead’ – Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 29 August 2013 (03:02 – 03:19)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Despite their supposed injuries all the young men in this tableau of alleged victims from ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ appear fixated on the camera, most strikingly at this point. Following the “V” sign from the man in the centre the boy in the black vest on the far right pitches dramatically over onto his side, rising again to sneak a peek in the same direction as his comrades before ultimately slumping onto his front. The boy in the white short-sleeved shirt next to him – whom the BBC concedes “appears relatively unscathed” – nimbly rises to his feet, swaps from loosely clutching his chest to nursing his right elbow before casually pulling up a seat. The boy in the yellow “Super 9” t-shirt rises from an unlikely kneeling position and proceeds to roll his eyes and gurn at the camera as a team of medics sweeps in cinematically. The full tableau scene is here. It is notable that the curtain has been pulled back from its earlier position, effecting better lighting conditions as this key scene is filmed.

Ahmed_Darwish
Alleged victim Ahmed Darwish appears to await instruction before turning to address the camera 

The above complaint relating to substitution of Syria footage in Newsnight stems from broader concerns of fabrication in the September 2013 BBC Panorama special Saving Syria’s Children (in particular the hospital sequence commencing at 30:38). These concerns have been endorsed by former British ambassador Craig Murray and the case was featured in a March 2014 edition of RT’s Truthseeker series. [3]

I have pursued these concerns through the BBC complaints process, concluding in November 2014 with the rejection of my request for a review of the BBC Trust Unit’s decision not to put my complaint before BBC Trustees. A related complaint by another individual was similarly rejected in January 2015.

A number of points remain unaddressed in the BBC’s decisions. Of the ten listed here I would highlight:

  • The conflicting accounts of the time of the alleged attack, including disagreement between reporter Ian Pannell and his sole BBC colleague on Saving Syria’s Children, the programme’s producer, director and cameraman Darren Conway. Video of the interview where this contradiction arose remains unpublished, on the flimsiest of pretexts.
  • The testimony of a former Free Syrian Army commander, stationed in the vicinity at the time, who has sworn on oath that the attack alleged by the BBC did not take place. The BBC has ignored offers to be provided with further information about this key witness.
  • The identification of a Dutch-Armenian woman who appears to feature in the guise of a victim in video footage shot at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on the day of the alleged attack, alongside individuals who also feature in the BBC’s reports. This woman contacted me on Facebook. I know her name and approximate location in Amsterdam. Dutch investigators are currently attempting to trace her. The BBC has ignored offers to be provided with further information about this key witness.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • An image from the BBC’s footage which appears to show an alleged victim grinning broadly into the camera shortly after having supposedly been burned by a “napalm-type substance”.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • Evidence that two alleged victims appear to have shared the same highly distinctive clothing at different times of the day on 26 August 2013.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • The BBC’s refusal to answer a direct question as to the identity or role of a western male who appears in Ian Pannell’s BBC News report of 30 September 2013. In the midst of a “mass casualty event” this individual is concerned only with taking photographs and ensuring that the BBC’s interview with Dr Rola Hallam is recorded without interruption.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I would also note:

  • The existence of HOSPEX medical simulation techniques, which would appear to be more than sophisticated enough to account for the hospital scenes in Saving Syria’s Children, and the personal connection between the army officer seen running a HOSPEX exercise in a 2014 edition of BBC’s Newsnight and Dr Saleyha Ahsan, one of the “stars” of Saving Syria’s Children.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • The selective blocking by BBC Worldwide of all You Tube copies of Saving Syria’s Children, over and above other editions of Panorama.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  • A further complaint relating to a clear breach of the Geneva Convention by Dr Saleyha Ahsan. This information has also been submitted to Amnesty International.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Further analysis of BBC Panorama ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ is here.

Yours sincerely

Robert Stuart

Notes

[1] I was at this point unaware of the source of the substituted footage.

[2] The following argument formed part of my request for a review of the BBC Trust Unit’s decision in respect of a previous complaint alleging fabrication in the 2013 BBC Panorama special Saving Syria’s Children and associated BBC News reports. The points relate to the unacknowledged editing of an interview with Dr Rola Hallam between two BBC 10 O’Clock News reports and the Panorama programme.

Due accuracy

  1. It goes without saying that trust is the foundation of the BBC. As explained in Section 3 of the Editorial Guidelines, the BBC’s commitment to achieving due accuracy is fundamental to its reputation and the trust of audiences. ‘Due’ means adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.
  1. In considering my complaint, the ECU very properly explained that its remit is to consider whether there has been a serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards and that it had paid particular attention to Section 3 (Accuracy) of the Guidelines. To explain its decision that the manner in which Dr Hallam’s contribution was used “in each of the three items” met the requirements of due accuracy, it said:

… it is acceptable for programme-makers to edit the words of a contributor so long as that editing does not materially alter or change the meaning of what they said or any understanding that the audience might take away. … the editing of Dr Hallam’s contribution did not create a misleading impression.

Having considered how the contribution was used in each of the three programmes, it did not go on to consider how it might be perceived when the three programmes were considered together and did not therefore consider whether altering the words would be at least misleading and at worst a fabrication. This is bad enough, but there is no indication that the ECU took account of the factors that it should have taken into account in deciding whether “due” accuracy had been achieved.

  1. As the ECU itself said, ‘due’ means: “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”, as to which:

(a) the subject and nature of the content: the subject was the terrible events in Syria. It was first broadcast at the time when Parliament was deciding what to do about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It was broadcast a second time when the UN Security Council had adopted a Resolution backing a plan to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons and calling for those responsible for their use to be held accountable. The nature of the content was therefore a contribution to the most momentous decisions and policies of the day;

(b) the likely audience expectation: as the Editorial Guidelines make clear, the due accuracy requirement varies so that what is required of, for example, drama, entertainment and comedy will not usually be the same as for factual content. And with regard to factual content, it may differ depending on whether it is factual entertainment, historical documentary, current affairs or news. The Guidelines do not say in terms but it must surely be that, among the various categories of factual content, the requirement of due accuracy applies most stringently to news, with current affairs a close second. In the present case, where two of the three broadcasts were news bulletins, the likely audience expectation of accuracy will have been at the very highest level; and

(c) any signposting that may influence that expectation: the ECU accepted, in relation to the first broadcast, that the editing of the contribution was not visible because Dr Hallam’s face was covered by a mask and that the audience would have been unaware that her words had been edited. In the context of that broadcast it regarded the edit as acceptable. It did not go on to consider the other broadcasts either separately or together and in particular whether there was any signposting to influence the audience’s expectation that what it was watching on the news was authentic.

  1. Notwithstanding that the ECU had rehearsed the meaning of “due”, there is little or no evidence in the decision of the ECU that it took account of these matters.
  1. Because it had been edited, the BBC broadcast was not an accurate version of what Dr Hallam said. Under the Guidelines, that does not matter so long as “due” accuracy was preserved. It will have been preserved if what was broadcast was “adequate and appropriate to the output”, taking account of the above matters. I say that, for the reasons given above, it was not adequate and appropriate to the output. The three items touched on events of global significance. Two of them were news programmes in relation to which audience expectation of accuracy would have been at its very highest level. And the audience was not given any indication or other signposting that the changed wording was the result of editing.
  1. I submit that editing an interview in one news programme to make a witness say “chemical weapon” when in the same interview in another news programme she had said “napalm”, without any signposting, does not come anywhere near fulfilling the requirement of due accuracy, particularly at a time when the events to which she was a witness were affecting the fate of nations.
  1. It is relevant also to consider the broad principle set out in section 3.2 of the Guidelines that:

The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences’ trust in our content.”

The BBC failed to observe this principle. It broadcast in a news bulletin, and in a current affairs programme, a version of Dr Hallam’s contribution in which she was made to say “chemical weapon” instead of “napalm”. Anyone who remembered the original interview, or had a recording of it, would see that the words had been changed. Taken on their own, the wording might be harmless for the reasons given by the ECU. But any reasonable person able to recall or compare what was said on the news on 30 September with what was said on the news on 29 August would conclude that the contribution had been tampered with. The facts had been altered. The contribution presented as fact was to some extent invented. That would fundamentally undermine trust in the content. It does not help that there is an explanation and that there may be a distinction between internal editing and other sorts of editing. The damage would have been done by broadcasting as fact two versions of the same thing.

[3] While I endorse the broader claims of fabrication against Saving Syria’s Children made by The Truthseeker programme I do not necessarily accept its speculation over the reasons for the editing of Dr Rola Hallam’s words from “napalm” to “chemical weapon” between the two BBC reports of 29 August and 30 September 2013.

Dr Hallam’s notorious “interview” is, however, notable for another reason. The relevant section of her words, prior to editing, is:

I need a pause because it’s just absolute chaos and carnage here…umm… we’ve had a massive influx of what look like serious burns… Er… it seems like it must be some sort of chemical weapon, I’m not really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that. Um so we are trying to do a bit of triage and stabilisation. We’ve got a lot of walking wounded who are managing to manage OK but obviously within the chaos of the situation it’s very difficult to know exactly what’s going on…

afacetotrust

Comparison of the two versions of Dr Rola Hallam’s “interview” (The Truthseeker – Media ‘staged’ Syria Chem Attack – RT, 23 March 2014 http://bit.ly/1BZLa2o)

Immediately after these words (at around 36 minutes in Saving Syria’s Children) a woman rushes through the hospital gate behind Dr Hallam, her face smeared with white cream; she and her supposed father (they both appear to be around the same age) begin to angrily declaim Assad to the camera.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The BBC has categorically stated that these scenes show the woman “after she had treatment (the application of burn cream)”. Further, the narration of Saving Syria’s Children makes it clear that Dr Hallam was managing the crisis from the outset (“With their emergency experience, Rola and Saleyha take charge – dealing with the most serious cases”).

However, as is plain from her words cited above, Dr Hallam claims – at a point after victims have evidently been treated with burns cream, under her own supervision – to be uncertain whether the munition used in the attack was chemical or incendiary.

As Dr Declan Hayes observes in a detailed investigation into the charity Hand in Hand for Syria, of which Dr Hallam is Medical Director:

If Dr Hallam cannot tell the difference between symptoms of nerve gas attacks from other, burns-related attacks, her medical competence and that of her collaborators has to be called into question in a most serious way. (p142)

All medical doctors are trained ab ovo to recognise, diagnose and treat, as best they can, the symptoms of every different type of life threatening injury. In the case in question, those injuries are either extensive burns, which affect the flesh and/or gas inhalation, which affects the internal airways and which is treated very differently from flesh burns. Just as the competency of a cook, who could not tell the difference between water boiling and fat frying, would be called into question, so also would the competency of any doctor, Dr Hallam included, be called into question if they could not differentiate one from the other. (p143)

The point is that Dr Hallam, in the oddest of ways, first claimed nerve gas was used before claiming, almost in the same breath, it was a napalm-like device. As nerve gas and napalm-like bombs would give very different symptoms to the victims and would cause a competent doctor to treat them very differently, Dr Hallam should explain how she can reconcile those two successive but conflicting claims with her professional expertise. This is all the more so as the symptoms from burns would be very obvious, very audible and very easily distinguishable from those of nerve gas. No competent doctor should be confused on this point. (p144)

Further information about Dr Rola Hallam and Hand in Hand for Syria is here.

Questions regarding the type of munition claimed by the BBC to have been used in the alleged attack are raised by Byzantium1453 in the comments below this contemporary Telegraph report.

Advertisements

BBC: “no formal policy which obliges BBC News to inform viewers that footage has been changed or to confirm when asked the source of material used”

Response from Complaints Director, BBC Editorial Complaints Unit to my email of 1 June 2015.

From: Colin Tregear
Sent: 01 June 2015 11:47:20
To: Robert Stuart

Dear Mr Stuart

Thank you for your email.

I hope I can clarify the points I was attempting to make.

In your initial email to BBC Complaints you said:

Please can you explain precisely why this change was made, why it was unacknowledged, what the source or sources of the substituted images were, whether Laura Kuenssberg’s narration which continued to inform audiences that the substituted film was “shown for the first time” “just as MPs voted” – i.e. on the evening of Thursday 29 August 2013 – was accurate and how the re-editing of the programme in this manner accords with BBC Editorial Standards?

I therefore understood you to have asked four separate questions:

why this change was made

why it was unacknowledged

what the source or sources of the substituted images were

whether Laura Kuenssberg’s narration which continued to inform audiences that the substituted film was “shown for the first time” “just as MPs voted” – i.e. on the evening of Thursday 29 August 2013 – was accurate and how the re-editing of the programme in this manner accords with BBC Editorial Standards?

As I explained, only one of those (the final point) is an issue which the ECU can address.  I will await your further email by 16 June before I begin an investigation into the replacement of the footage and whether it led to a led to a breach of the BBC’s editorial standards.

In response to your comment about the paragraph in my email which you found “astonishing”, I can only say the point I was making was that there is no formal policy which obliges BBC News to inform viewers that footage has been changed or to confirm when asked the source of material used.  It is a matter for BBC News to decide whether to provide that information.  I will however consider in my forthcoming investigation whether the material which was inserted into the BBC News Channel report met the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy, bearing in mind the script line.

Finally, I have asked the relevant BBC managers to look into your concerns about the time it took to handle your complaint at Stage 1, and I will forward their response when I send you the ECU’s provisional finding.  That will hopefully save you any further effort; I hope that is acceptable.

Yours sincerely

Colin Tregear

Complaints Director

BBC Editorial Complaints Unit

Room BC2 B4 Broadcast Centre

BBC: “no reason why” audience should be told footage was changed; BBC News “under no obligation” to reveal source of substituted images

Further information here. (I have not made this material available to Mr Tregear). Update 1 June 2015: Mr Tregear has responded here

From: Robert Stuart
To: Colin Tregear
Subject: RE: ECU Email (26 May)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 08:53:22 +0000

Dear Mr Tregear

Thank you for your response of 26 May 2015 (attached).

You state:

“The other issues you have mentioned do not raise a potential breach of the BBC’s editorial standards”.

Please could you clarify which issues you are referring to and where I have mentioned them?

I attach my stage 1b complaint letter of 5 November 2014 and my initial complaint of 10 September 2014 (submitted via the BBC Complaints webform). These represent my only substantive communication with the BBC on this subject to date and both were solely concerned with the breach of BBC editorial guidelines represented by the substitution of footage between the 29 August 2014 Newsnight and the 30 August 2014 BBC News Channel broadcast ‘Syria Vote: One Year On’.

You continue:

“You have been given an explanation as to why the footage was changed; there is no reason why the audience should be made aware that any such editing has taken place; and BBC News is under no obligation to tell you the source of the substituted images which were broadcast.”

I find these remarks astonishing.

Thank you for your offer of advice re: lodging a complaint over the delay in responding to my stage 1b complaint, which I accept.

I shall write to you again by 16 June.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Stuart

________________________________________________________________________________________

PDF email attachment, 26 May 2015 

Telephone: 020 8743 8000  Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk
Editorial Complaints Unit

Mr R Stuart
Email: 

26 May 2015

Dear Mr Stuart

Thank you for your email of 26 May 2015 regarding the edition of Newsnight broadcast on 29 August 2014 and a report shown on the BBC News Channel the following day. I appreciate you have asked for more time to make a complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit (“ECU”) but in light of the previous correspondence on the issue you have raised I thought it might be helpful if I set out those aspects of your complaint which might fall within the remit of the ECU.

The only element of your complaint which it appears the ECU can investigate is whether the decision to edit the report by Laura Kuenssberg for broadcast on the BBC News Channel created a materially inaccurate and misleading impression. As you know, Ms Kuenssberg said “By chance, just as MPs voted, these images of a chemical attack were shown for the first time”; the footage used on Newsnight was replaced with different images without an “August 2013” date stamp. The ECU could consider whether what was broadcast on the BBC News Channel amounted to a serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards for Accuracy.

The other issues you have mentioned do not raise a potential breach of the BBC’s editorial standards. You have been given an explanation as to why the footage was changed; there is no reason why the audience should be made aware that any such editing has taken place; and BBC News is under no obligation to tell you the source of the substituted images which were broadcast.

It is, of course, a matter of regret that you had to wait so long for a reply at Stage 1 of the process and if you wish to lodge a complaint about the manner in which your complaint has been handled, I can advise you how to do so. I should add, however, that it is the view of the BBC Trust that the amount of time to handle a complaint is not necessarily a relevant consideration is deciding whether a complainant should be given more time to escalate a complaint to the next stage. It said complainants and the BBC should be put on an equal footing but it did not mean a ‘tit-for-tat’ approach in adhering to publicised deadlines. I would therefore point out the terms set out in the BBC’s Complaints Framework[1]:

4.3 You must contact the ECU within 20 working days of the date on which you received the response at Stage 1b. If you write after that time, please explain in your letter why your complaint is late. Exceptionally, the ECU may still decide to consider your complaint, if it decides there was a good reason for the delay. If the ECU decides not to consider your complaint because it is late, you can ask the Trust to review that decision as outlined in paragraph 1.9 above.

I would therefore be grateful if you could let me know whether you would like the ECU to investigate your complaint in the terms set out above by 16 June.

Yours sincerely

Colin Tregear
Complaints Director

[1] http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2014/complaints_fr_work_ed_complaints.pdf

________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Robert Stuart
Sent: 26 May 2015 00:55
To: ECU
Subject: RE: BBC Complaint Reference: CAS-3313107-W4DWZ6

Dear Sir or Madam

Reference CAS-3014042-NZY8X7

I wish to escalate this complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit.

The below response from BBC Complaints is to my stage 1b complaint of 5 November 2014, to which I received a holding response on 3 December 2014 stating that it may “take longer than 20 working days” before I would receive a reply.

You will see that I received the below email on 17 May 2015, one hundred and eleven working days after 3 December 2014. BBC Complaints claims to have posted the contents to me in a letter on 11 May, however I have received no such letter.

This unconscionable delay of more than five months represents an egregious breach of the BBC Complaints Framework stipulation that “the complaints process should be quick and simple” Among repeated follow up telephone calls and web communications since February 2015, on 7 April 2015 (after 84 working days) a BBC Customer Services Adviser expressed her astonishment at the delay, stating it was “very rare”.

In light of this I feel entirely justified in asking for an extension to the 20 working day limit in which to pursue my complaint with the ECU. I request a further 10 working days from the date I received the below response, i.e I will write to you again by Monday 29 June.

Yours faithfully

Robert Stuart

________________________________________________________________________________________

From: bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk
To: Robert Stuart
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 15:24:32 +0100
Subject: BBC Complaint Reference: CAS-3313107-W4DWZ6

Dear Mr Stuart,

Reference CAS-3313107-W4DWZ6

Please find attached a copy of the response we posted to you on the 11 May as requested. Please also note the reference number below is in regards to the actual complaint, while the above reference is in regards to the contact from you today.

Reference CAS-3014042-NZY8X7

Thank you for contacting us.

I am sorry for the delay in responding to your complaint. We realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry that you had to wait on this occasion.

The pictures used on Newsnight on BBC TWO were more graphic and as the programme is shown after the watershed to UK audiences that is within audience expectations.

However as the version going out on the BBC News Channel is also broadcast around the world on BBC World News we have to be more careful in terms of taste and decency to our audience elsewhere in different time zones.

We would also re-iterate the point we made in our first response that the change of pictures did not change the journalistic integrity of the piece so we feel it is editorially justified and in line with BBC editorial guidelines.

We are sorry to tell you that we have nothing further to add. If you would like to take your complaint further, you can contact Stage 2 of the complaints process, the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, within 20 working days, and they will carry out an independent investigation. You can email them at: ecu@bbc.co.uk , or alternatively write to them at the following address:

Editorial Complaints Unit
Broadcast Centre
BC2 B4
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TP

Should you choose to escalate your complaint we would ask that you include the reference number provided above in your correspondence.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints team

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Please note: this email is sent from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If necessary please contact us through our webform (please include your case reference number).

________________________________________________________________________________________

3 December 2014

(by post)

Dear Mr Stuart

Your Reference: CAS-3014042-NZY8X7

Thank you for taking time to contact us again recently. We had referred your complaint to the relevant staff and are normally able to investigate and reply to most complaints at this stage (which is stage 1b of the complaints process) within 20 working days of receipt, or around four weeks. However this is to inform you that we believe it may now take longer than 20 working days before you receive our reply.

We apologise for this and have brought the matter to the attention of the relevant staff again. The delay in answering may be due to their unavailability or other production commitments.We therefore ask you not to contact us further in the meantime. If however it does prove necessary to do so please use our webform at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints or write to us, quoting the case reference number we have provided.

We aim to use your license fee as efficiently as we can, so if you have complained about the same issues as others we will send our response to you and everyone. We may also not investigate or reply in great detail if a complaint doesn’t suggest a potential breach of BBC standards, or a significant issue of general importance. This is in line with the BBC Trust’s complaints procedures which you can read at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/If you don’t have access to the internet at home, you can go online at most public libraries without charge.

We appreciate your continuing patience in waiting for a response and will reply as soon as possible.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints team

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

________________________________________________________________________________________

BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UR

5 November 2014

Reference CAS-2912110-VZL1JZ

Dear Sir / Madam

I am dissatisfied with the BBC Complaints Stage 1a response of 21 October 2014 to my complaint of 10 September 2014. (Previous correspondence reproduced below).

The 29 August 2014 Newsnight report broadcast sequences from a BBC News report of 29 August 2013 accompanied by the onscreen date “August 2013”. The narration stated “by chance, just as MPs voted, these images of a chemical attack were shown for the first time” indicating that these images were shown on the evening of 29 August 2013, as the House of Commons vote on possible military intervention in Syria was taking place (in fact they were shown shortly after the 10pm close of the vote to be precise).

On 30 August 2014 another version of the same programme was broadcast on the BBC News Channel in which different images from a different event or events were shown in the corresponding section, but this time without an onscreen date or any other identifying information. This alone would appear to be a specific breach of section 3.4.12 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy which states “We should normally identify on-air and online sources of information and significant contributors, and provide their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status.”

But furthermore the identical narration was used in the corresponding sections of both programmes with the result that in the 30 August 2014 broadcast BBC audiences were informed that the unidentified images were “shown for the first time” “by chance, just as MPs voted”, i.e. specifically on the evening of Thursday 29 August 2013.

If the unidentified images substituted in the 30 August 2014 broadcast were not in fact “shown for the first time” “by chance, just as MPs voted” on the evening of Thursday 29 August 2013 this would represent a self-evident breach of the BBC’s commitment to “achieving due accuracy” as set out in Section 3.1 of the Editorial Guidelines. It should be needless to say that the requirement of due accuracy must surely apply most stringently to news and current affairs programmes, where audience expectation of accuracy is at the very highest level, and most stringently of all to the BBC’s flagship current affairs television programme, Newsnight.

My intention was to submit this complaint, which, in line with section 3.2 of the BBC complaints framework is considerably under 1,000 words, via the BBC Complaints webform however find that the form restricts submissions to 1,500 characters. Please could you therefore acknowledge receipt of this complaint by email to the address above and please kindly also email your response, as well as posting it if you wish, in order to guarantee its receipt.

Yours sincerely

Robert Stuart

________________________________________________________________________________________

From: bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk (bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk)
Sent: 21 October 2014 11:26:53
To: Robert Stuart

Dear Mr Stuart

Reference CAS-2912110-VZL1JZ

Thanks for contacting us regarding the BBC News Channel. We apologise for the delay in replying. We appreciate a prompt response is desirable and we’re sorry this hasn’t been the case on this occasion.

We note you found a ‘Newsnight’ report which was shown on the News Channel differed from the actual BBC Two ‘Newsnight’ broadcast.

We appreciate your concerns. However, we do not believe that the replacement of the footage altered the nature of the report, so we do not believe this breached our editorial guidelines.

All complaints are sent to senior management and the BBC News Channel every morning and we included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future programmes.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards

Lucia Fortucci

BBC Complaints

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

________________________________________________________________________________________

From: bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk (bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk)
Sent: 18 September 2014 23:07:57
To: Robert Stuart

Your Reference CAS-2912110-VZL1JZ

Thanks for recently contacting the BBC. We aim to reply to complaints within 10 working days (around 2 weeks) and do so for most of them but cannot for all. The time taken depends on the nature of your complaint, how many others we are dealing with and can also be affected by practical issues such as whether a production team is available or away on location.

This is to let you know that we have referred your complaint to the relevant staff but that it may take longer than 10 working days to reply. We therefore ask you not to contact us further in the meantime. If it does prove necessary however, please use our webform, quoting any reference number we provided. This is an automatic email sent from an account which is not monitored so you cannot reply to this email address.

In order to use the licence fee efficiently we may not investigate every issue if it does not suggest a substantive breach of guidelines, or may send the same reply to everyone if others have complained about the same issue. You can read full details of our complaints procedures and how we consider the issues raised in feedback at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/. In the meantime we’d like to thank you for contacting us with your concerns. We appreciate your patience in awaiting a response.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints.
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

________________________________________________________________________________________

From: bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk (bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk)
Sent: 10 September 2014 23:01:33
To: Robert Stuart

Dear Mr Stuart

Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is an automated email confirming we have received the complaint below and submitted in this name via http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints. Please do not reply to this email since it is generated from an unmonitored address. If you believe you have received this in error please contact us using our webform at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.

We attach the text of the complaint for your records and will normally include it in our overnight report of all today’s audience reaction. This is circulated to BBC staff tomorrow (with your personal details removed) and ensures your points will reach the right people quickly. We aim normally to reply within 10 working days (around 2 weeks) depending on the nature of your complaint.

To make sure we use the licence fee efficiently we may not investigate every issue in detail, and for consistency may send the same reply if others have also complained about the same issue. For our full complaints procedures and how we consider the issues raised in feedback please read http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/

———-

YOUR COMPLAINT:

Complaint Summary: Footage changed between 2 versions of same edition

Full Complaint: In the 10.30pm BBC2 broadcast from 04:48 – 05:08 footage from the BBC Panorama special ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ (broadcast 30 September 2013) was shown accompanied by the on-screen date “August 2013″ and presenter Laura Kuenssberg’s narration “by chance, just as MPs voted, these images of a chemical attack were shown for the first time”. At 4.30am on 30 August the same edition of Newsnight was transmitted on the BBC News Channel, however from 04:44 the sequences from ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ had been substituted with footage from a different event or events, without a date stamp or any other identifying information but with the identical narration by Laura Kuenssberg. Please can you explain precisely why this change was made, why it was unacknowledged, what the source or sources of the substituted images were, whether Laura Kuenssberg’s narration which continued to inform audiences that the substituted film was “shown for the first time” “just as MPs voted” – i.e. on the evening of Thursday 29 August 2013 – was accurate and how the re-editing of the programme in this manner accords with BBC Editorial Standards?

———-

Thank you again for contacting us.

BBC Complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.