the bbc is marching
On Saturday, Ahmedinejad made a speech about the western media distorting and fabricating news, and the BBC promptly misreported it (look at Version 1 on that page). Here's the correspondence I've had so far with them.
Dear Steve Hermann
The online story you have at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8288121.stm (Iran visit for UN nuclear chief) includes the following:
The IAEA chief arrived as Iran's president accused Mr Obama of making a "historic mistake" revealing the plant.
"The US president made a big and historic mistake," Iranian state TV quoted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech on Saturday.
I have looked at the report of the speech on Press TV and what it says is the following:
“[US President Barack Obama] made a huge mistake when he accused Iran of secrecy and gave rise to the recent torrent of false reports,” said President Ahmadinejad.
(http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107711§ionid=351020101)Is this the part of the speech to which you are referring in your report? It is clear that Ahmedinejad is not accusing President Obama of 'making a "historic mistake" revealing the plant, he is accusing Obama of making a mistake when accusing Iran of secrecy. Please could you let me know if there is another section of the speech - not reported on Press TV - which makes the claim you have on the BBC website. It would, incidentally, be a strange claim for Ahmedinejad to make, given that Obama did not reveal the plant (even if he knew about it beforehand): the plant was 'revealed' in a letter to the IAEA by Iran's president himself.
I can also find no record of Ahmedinejad saying, as you quote him, that:
"Later it became clear that [Mr Obama's] information was wrong and that we had no secrecy."
In view of what appears to be a serious case of misquoting Ahmedinejad in the first case, please could you also confirm the context for this second quote, and that this is indeed the claim he was making. As you have presented it, the claim makes little sense, because we are not told which information was wrong. We are simply led to believe that Ahmedinejad makes strange statements. Perhaps that is your intention.
I note that you made no mention of the essence of Ahmedinejad's speech.
Thank you for your attention.
[*]
The page was quickly changed - which is why the link takes you to a completely different story1. And I got a reply from the BBC - with the following strong message at the end of the email:
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
HELP. I have apparently consented. This was their explanation for the error:
Dear [surname!]
Thank you for your comments regarding http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8288121.stm
The line you refer to appeared in an early version of the report published on Saturday afternoon. It is taken from an Associated Press report of Iranian television broadcast. We do appear to have misinterpreted Mr Ahmadinejad’s words. He does seem to be was referring to the question of secrecy, not the revelation of the plant’s existence.
This is the relevant section of the AP report:
ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has also said Tehran was «on the wrong side of the law» over the new plant and should have revealed its plans as soon as it decided to build the facility.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged that view in a speech Saturday, saying that Iran voluntarily revealed the facility to the IAEA in a letter on Sept. 21. He said that was one year earlier than necessary under the agency's rules.
«The U.S. president made a big and historic mistake,» Iranian state TV quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. «Later it became clear that (his) information was wrong and that we had no secrecy.»
We apologise for the mistake. Later versions of the report do not include the line about a “historic mistake”.
Best regards,
Tarik Kafala
Middle East editor
BBC News website
So I wrote back...
Dear Tarik Kafala
Thank you for your reply. I find it astonishing that the BBC is happy to rely on reports from the AP, and does not even bother to check sections of those reports which are ambiguous - as this one clearly was. Is it not the job of your journalists to verify reports coming from other journalists against the original source of information? In this case it was not only remarkably easy to do, it was also highly important, given the prominence of the story, and the high risk game being played out at the moment over the issue of Iran's nuclear programme.
Mistakes, misinterpretations, false reporting and unconfirmed sources were in large part to blame for the false public perceptions in the lead-up to the war in Iraq - a war which was illegal, and has almost certainly led to the deaths of over a million people and the destruction of a nation. In view of that, and specifically, the BBC's central role in forming public perceptions both in this country, and around the world, I would be grateful if you could provide me with information on the following points:
1. Is it standard procedure to check reports from other news agencies against the sources, where this is possible? If it is, can you tell me whether this was done in the case of this report.
2. Is it standard procedure for reports which are to be posted on the website - particularly such prominent ones as this, which was a lead story - to be read and checked by more than one person? If so, can you tell me how many individuals were involved in the process of writing and posting this erroneous report.
3. Can you assure me of any other checks in place to limit the spread of false reporting through the BBC's pages.
My concern, as I am sure you are aware, is about more than the single phrase which was 'misinterpreted' in this report. I find it hard to believe that a quote or story maligning one of our own leaders could be published on the BBC website with so little attention to normal journalistic practices. The fact that this is possible in the case of the Iranian leader suggests that negative stories about his pronouncements or practices are not subject to the same scrutiny, or the same standards. That might otherwise be known as a bias.
Thank you for your assistance.
[*]
Only to receive another WARNING from the taxpayer-funded public service BBC...
Ms [*],
Thank you for your e-mail, which Tarik Kafala has passed on. The report - like most of our articles - was compiled from a number of sources. These included agencies such as AP and AFP and also our own monitoring service. This was not a question of false reporting; the journalist simply used an incorrect phrase and this was not picked up. When we became aware of it the story was amended and we have apologised for the mistake.
If you want to pursue this matter, you can do so through the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit at Room 5170, White City, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TS or by e-mail at ecu@bbc.co.uk .
We do not wish this correspondence to appear on the Medialens website.
We would also ask that you use the BBC's complaints procedure for any future correspondence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/
Best wishes,
BBC News website
Ooops. Of course I had already posted the correspondence on the Medialens message board.
But WHY should the publicly funded BBC be entitled to make mistakes on its website, and then be entitled to make sure that when they correct those mistakes, no-one gets to hear about it? So here we go again...
Dear BBC News Website
Thank you for your message. May I ask why you do not want this correspondence to appear on the Medialens website? Might not other licence payers be interested to know your response to a complaint about false reporting? And are they not also entitled to know your response, since you are a public service, funded out of taxpayer's money? Personally, I think you should put up a clarification or apology on the page in question: unless people have cross-checked your report with President Ahmedinejad's speech they will continue to believe that he is as dangerous and unhinged as you make him out to be. That is a dangerous state of affairs, for which your reporter - and you as a news service - should take responsibility.
Your journalist misreported the statement made by President Ahmedinejad - why is this not a case of false reporting? The journalist also repeated a statement made by the President, but placed it out of context, which did nothing except reinforce the belief that Ahmedinejad makes incomprehensible and irrational statements. Readers had no way of knowing whether this was an example of an incomprehensible and irrational statement, because you felt it unnecessary to report the context. Is it not also 'misreporting' to fail to give the context of statements you are reporting - particularly when this is necessary to understand the statement in question?
I shall take this matter up further, thank you. I did send my initial reply through the complaints page, but to send responses through that system to communication I have received from individuals really seems to be stretching bureaucracy a step too far: would you wish me to copy all previous correspondence into the box you supply for complaints, rather than addressing them to the person with whom I have already been in correspondence on this matter?
Thank you
[*]
