I've just received the following email from the
powers-that-be at our beloved BBC which relates to another email I received from the Editorial Complaints Unit on 6th February (http://lunchtimeloather.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/friendly-message-from-bbcs-editorial.html). It has only taken them two and a half months to notice...
On reviewing the correspondence between you and the Editorial Complaints Unit from earlier this year, it has been pointed out to me that your complaint about Jeremy Vine’s use of Twitter should have reached me. However, I have now read all the correspondence, and your concerns, and I have nothing more to add to what has already been said.
I note that the expedited complaints process has been applied, and the programme/audience services will only respond to you in future if there is a serious or substantial matter which should be taken further.
I wanted to make you aware that if you wish to take your complaint about Jeremy Vine blocking you on twitter further, or if you wish to appeal against the application of the expedited complaints procedure you can ask the BBC Trust (who act as Stage 3 in the complaints process) to consider an appeal within 20 working days of receipt of my letter.
You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/)
Paul Smith
Head Editorial Standards, BBC Audio & Music
My response:
Dear Mr Smith,
Many thanks for your email. I have already been in contact with the BBC Trust and I am currently awaiting their second response.
Just to be clear in my own mind, and in case I have completely misunderstood something, would you be good enough to explain to me how a Twitter account that is described as "personal" by the BBC itself (and so completely uncontrolled by the BBC) can be so described when that same account forms such a major part of a radio programme that relies on audience participation for a large proportion of its content? It is this issue and the double-standards involved, or my complete misunderstanding, that is at the crux of my complaint.
I won't hold my breath...
5 comments:
Call me wind because I am blown away by your post!
'I have now read all the correspondence, and your concerns, and I have nothing more to add to what has already been said.'
So... the BBC thinks the BBC 'has got it about right', again. Unique.
There's a post called 'Taxi' on BBBC that is proving a worthy factual seam on the Twittifiucation of the BBC's output today.
I have asked for clarification from the BBC on the actual circumstances leading up to the story they ran... and then, by all accounts, tried to change in cover up.
As to whether, politely, asking how the BBC has now become a nest of venal, hypocritical scumbags overseen by a delusional complaints system, all on a compelled public dime will get me expedited too, remains to be discovered.
I'd love to know (but never will) how they decided that I should be "expedited". I don't consider that 19 complaints in 15 months was an unreasonable number, especially as several were repeats submitted after they still had not resolved the issue of my first complaint.
"I don't consider that 19 complaints in 15 months was an unreasonable number,"
---
The very act of complaining seems to count against you.
My latest treasure is from the complaints first rung, sulking because I took them to task for not offering the next option in case of failure to resolve, saying 'we think you will never be happy with anything the BBC does'.
What are they, five?
I drop a complaint in about, on average, once every fortnight. I do it because they screw up and I want answers from the outfit I am compelled to fund to misinform and try to re-educate my kids and neighbours.
These answers are, without fail: 'We are not wrong because we think we are right'.
I then gently explain that is hardly convincing argument, and point at their own Trust head saying, on Newswatch: 'Just because you think you are right does not make you right'.
Also a gem of a tweet from Newsnight getting in a tizzy because the body that overseas the PR industry also arbitrates on breaches of its own code. Which they think is a conflict of interest and lacking in credibility.
They may be unique, but they are not immune to the power of cold hard facts, or logic, much as they try.
Tell them to give you the option to pay for the service and not have it forced onto you.That way if you disagree with something or how they resolve it then you can show your disapproval by cancelling their service and not funding it.
Only when that is possible THEN you will be happy;-)
Post a Comment