but you were sitting there provoking them to kill

• Original letter to Sarah Montague
• The BBC's 'response'
• My response
• The BBC's second 'response'

No reply, no reply, no reply... and then suddenly, when I threaten to send a complaint about complaints to the ECU... this:

Dear Ms Keen
I understand you feel
I note you felt
let me assure you that you are wrong
we do appreciate that you may disagree
thank you, you are logged.

Yrs
the bbc

And here it is in full:

Dear ...

Reference 129887

Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Today' on June 4th.

I understand you feel that Sarah Montague's interview with Sarah Colborne about the Gaza flotilla was rude and unbalanced. I note you felt she had a combative tone.

Let me assure you that Sarah is a professional broadcaster who would never intend to talk a 'combative' tone with a programme contributor.

We do appreciate that you may continue to disagree here and I'd like to assure you that I've logged your comments on our audience log. This is an internal document available to BBC management, producers and programme makers.

Thanks for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.

Kind Regards

Richard Miles

top

My original complaint:

Dear Sarah Montague

I listened to your interview with Sarah Colbourne this morning, and was shocked by your combative tone. The assumption behind all your questions appeared to be that if the activists on the boat had used any violence against the Israeli soldiers, they brought upon themselves the reaction - including and up to shooting which ended in death.

You asked:

'are you saying that Israelis who boarded that ship opened fire, and there was no provocation for it?'

What would you regard as sufficient 'provocation' to open fire on unarmed civilians?

Do you not regard as 'provocation' the very act of using armed soldiers to storm a civilian ship in international waters, which has already been checked for arms (by the Turkish authorities)? If armed soldiers stormed your own home, and you or your family resisted with violence, would you describe yourselves as the provokers of the violence? And whether or not the videos issued by the Israeli authorities tell the whole story - and we cannot tell, since they have removed all other records from the public eye - was it not a disproportionate reaction to fire at protesters with live ammunition? Would you expect our own police force to fire at protesters with live ammunition?

I know you will say that you were merely putting the other side, but the incredulous and aggressive tone with which you questioned Sarah Colbourne certainly did not send that message to listeners. I felt it was both very inappropriate, since she had just returned from a highly traumatic experience; and exraordinary in its underlying assumptions. This was a group of activists attempting in a peaceful way to deliver aid to people suffering under an 'illegal and inhumane blockade' (the words of UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian rights and of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights). The activists were halted in their mission by armed soldiers who could have used numerous methods to divert the ships but chose instead to storm them with live bullets. And you accuse those who were shot at of 'provoking violence'.

If the ship had been stormed by the armed forces of Iran, do you think you would have asked the same questions of an eye witness on the flotilla, and with the same tone?

Thank you for your attention

...

top

My response to their non-response:

Thank you for your reply - more than a month after I submitted my complaint. The point is not whether Sarah Montague 'intended' to take a combative tone - but that she did. It is quite clearly the mark of a 'good' interview on the BBC that the interviewer attack the interviewee (cf Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys) - so I am not at all surprised that Ms Montague should try to emulate. I find it distastful in all cases, and particularly inappropriate in this one.

I note you have not bothered to respond to any of the specific issues which I mentioned in my complaint. Still, you have 'provided a response', and thereby presumably satisfied the complaints department.

top

A pseudo reply from the beeb

Turning to address your return complaint with the BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme that was broadcast on 4 June 2010, I understand that you originally complained because you felt that Sarah Montague’s interview with Sarah Colbourne on the programme was too combative. I subsequently note that were unhappy with our response. With this in mind I took the opportunity to contact Dominic Groves, one of the Output Editors for the ‘Today’ programme, concerning your complaint with the interview and he explained in response that:

“There are two separate and conflicting versions of what happened during the Gaza flotilla raid. Both sides blame each other for the bloodshed - each side claims to have acted only in self defence. For that reason it was necessary to examine closely the testimony of both groups to see how their arguments stood up to scrutiny. Sarah Montague was simply putting to Sarah Colbourne some of the points made by the Israeli military. Her tone was certainly persistent but she was not, I think, hostile and her questions were entirely fair under the circumstances. I understand that the complainant has strong feelings on the issue but it is not for the BBC to take sides on such a controversial matter. Our only task has to be to establish as far as is possible what actually happened that day - and allow listeners to make up their own minds on who was to blame.” [Oh come on..]

In closing I’d like to add that if you believe a serious and specific breach of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines has occurred here, and you wish to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit, within 20 working days, and they will carry out an independent investigation.

...

Thank you once again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

Sean Moss
Complaints Adviser
BBC Complaints