Friday, 20 January 2012
Complaint response 19/01/12
If proof were ever need that the BBC Complaints Department haven't got a clue what they are talking about, here it is. This email sent at 22:14 on 20th January, text highlights are mine:
Reference CAS-1254170-QBRXXX
Thank you for contacting us regarding the BBC Radio 2 programme ‘Jeremy Vine’ on 19 January.
I understand you’re unhappy because you feel there has been too much coverage of the Costa Concordia cruise vessel accident. In addition you feel that events such as the Leveson Inquiry have been ignored which you feel are more relevant to listeners.
Choosing the stories to include in our programmes; the order in which they appear and the length of time devoted to them is a subjective matter and one which we know not every viewer will feel we get right every time.
Factors such as how much national interest there is in the subject matter whether it is news that has just come in and needs immediate coverage, and how unusual the story is will all play a part in deciding the level of coverage in programmes like Jeremy Vine.
We try to provide a wide range of programmes across our television output that will be of interest to every section of our audience. However, there will inevitably be times, hopefully rare, when what's on offer doesn't meet your own particular interests and I'm sorry that you have been disappointed with this programme.
As I recognise you feel strongly about this issue, I'd also like to assure you that I've registered your complaint on our Audience Log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to all BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive board, channel controllers and other senior managers. The Audience Logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions on future BBC programmes and content.
Once again, thank you for contacting us.
Kind Regards
Axxx Sxxxxxx
BBC Complaints
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Television? Must have been past the writer's bedtime. Might I suggest the dept is outsourced to, say, India?
I assume that we are still waiting for a response to the one about using a really old story without checking.
I am, and it will be fascinating to see how they tie that in with "Factors such as how much national interest there is in the subject matter whether it is news that has just come in and needs immediate coverage, and how unusual the story is".
I'll bide my time for a bit and wait to see what they come up with.
In other news, I have had another poorly-worded response about JV's Twitter usage, and they have recommended I write to the Editorial Complaints Unit as I am wrong and they are right, as usual. I'll do that and post it all here.
reading my comment again, it looks like i suggest they move it to India! Was suggesting it was already there in view of the time it was posted!!
I saw in the daily fail that someone had killed himself after winning on eggheads. Sad news and condolencies to his family and friends
How does the BBC know how much National Interest there is in a story?? Are they going around asking everyone or they assuming and make an ass out of themselves.
Never once have Ive been asked if Im interested in a story. The scary thing is the BBC may thing the amount of people who ring into JV about JV apparent stories is what classes as 'National Interest' ;-)
The BBC Complaints Department must love you and Im sure the whole office knows your name;-)
Its a basic choice of news line. It should have been adapted to refer to 'listeners'.
But then what response did you honestly expect?
You are what we call in the business, a waste of space. I hope I don't read a comment from you about wasting the licence fee. What do you think funds the answering of your habitual complaints, or FOI requests?
Turn the station over, and accept that millions of other people do listen and enjoy it.
Any othe organisation would have stopped replying a long time ago. I think the odd phone call at home from Jeremy Vine boosts your ego, and gives your life some sense of purpose.
Sad but true I'm afraid.
Thanks Anon!
I have made many, many comments about wasting the BBC licence fee, including one on today's posting. Why should I worry about the cost of some poor wretch sending me an email when the BBC are chucking millions of pounds of YOURS and MY money down the drain every year on overpaid presenters, therapy clinics, attempts to hide salaries, and all sorts of other rubbish that does not improve the quality of programming that you and I receive? I consider that getting the BBC to respond (even if incorrectly and inaccurately as they are wont to do) GIVES me some value for the £145.50 that I am forced to spend with them every year.
"Turn the station over": I already do that, thanks.
"Accept that millions listen and enjoy": Yes, I do accept that, but how many would really miss it if it were gone? Nobody knows, because the BBC will not ask the question.
The BBC is THE only organisation that extracts money from me using the power of the law. When that situation changes, and I can cease to be a customer, they can do whatever they like. While I am paying they need to get their act together.
I subscribe to the old adage that if you don't like something then do something about it. And that, my friend, is what I am doing.
Cheers!
Fair enough, and thanks for your amiable responses. Sorry if I sounded a bit rude.
Just in response to: 'how many would really miss it if it were gone? Nobody knows, because the BBC will not ask the question'.
Should the BBC send a survey to every licence fee payer asking if they'd miss the show? How'd you suggest they ask? Many it'd be fair to say that as millions of people tune in every day they might miss it?
When the BBC recently announced the end of 'Something For the Weekend', 'Mongrels', 'Zen', 'Waking the Dead' etc, it recieved hundreds/thousands of complaints about each.
The BBC is obliged to respond to complaints because it is publicly funded. I think you have abused that.
Happy listening anyway!
Post a Comment