BBC objects to “defamatory” “napalm bomb” headline

Background here, herehere and here

My response to the below is here

From: ECUdl@bbc.co.uk
To: Robert Stuart
Subject: RE: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 14:41:02 +0000

Dear Mr Stuart

The deadline for comment having passed, I’m now in a position to finalise the finding on your complaint.  Please regard it as finalised on the basis set out in my letter of 20 July.  A summary of the matter will be published on the complaints pages of bbc.co.uk in due course, and I shall let you know when that happens.

Meanwhile, I must ask you to alter the headline over your copy at http://www.globalresearch.ca/fabrication-in-bbc-panorama-saving-syrias-children-substitution-of-napalm-bomb-footage/5464145.  The form of words “Fabrication in BBC Panorama’s ‘Saving Syria’s Children’: Substitution of ‘Napalm Bomb’ Footage/BBC Upholds Complaint” gives the impression that the finding in question is in some way connected with the Panorama programme and your allegations about it.  This is not only misleading but also (I am advised) defamatory.

Yours sincerely

Fraser Steel

________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Robert Stuart
Sent: 30 July 2015 16:42
To: ECU
Subject: RE: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit

Dear Mr Steel

Please could you advise me when I may expect to receive the ECU’s final report on my complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Stuart

https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/

________________________________________________________________________________________

From: ECUdl@bbc.co.uk
To: Robert Stuart
Subject: RE: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:01:19 +0000

Dear Mr Stuart

Thank you.  You say in your blog: The finding does not address the points I have raised regarding the journalistic ethics of substituting images without acknowledgement or of the disturbingly vague and seemingly arbitrary categories of “taste of decency”.

That is indeed the case, because in the event those points had no bearing on the finding or the grounds for reaching it.  As I hope is apparent from the account given in the provisional finding, no ethical question was engaged by the decision to edit the item before passing it to the News Channel, and it was simply the result of oversight that the editing rendered a line of commentary inaccurate.

Yours sincerely

Fraser steel

________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Robert Stuart
Sent: 22 July 2015 16:45
To: ECU
Subject: RE: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit

Dear Mr Steel

Thank you for informing me that you propose to uphold my complaint regarding the substitution of Syria footage in respect of accuracy.

Yours sincerely

Robert Stuart

________________________________________________________________________________________

From: ECUdl@bbc.co.uk
To: Robert Stuart
Subject: Your complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:05:15 +0000

Dear Mr Stuart

Please see attached. [Mr Steel’s finding, and my response, are copied here: BBC upholds complaint re: substitution of “napalm bomb” footage]

Yours sincerely

Fraser Steel

Head of Editorial Complaints

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: