BBC at it again

Here is the text of a complaint I raised with the BBC on 29th August:

I write to complain of bias in tonight's BBC Two Newsnight programme on the resignation of Alex Salmond. There were two interviews in this programme. The first was a factual statement of background events by your correspondent David Grossman, and the second was a highly coloured rhetorical piece by David Clegg claiming that Salmond's resignation had split the SNP apart. Where was the third piece, claiming that the resignation was a shrewd political act that takes the pressure off Nicola Sturgeon? You gave only one side of the story - that's the first point I want to make. The second point I want to make is that you ignored what surely is an even more startling and newsworthy aspect of this story, which is the speed at which the crowdfunder raised the money. By 10.30pm, when you went on air, the appeal had raised £32,000, or 64 percent of the £50,000 which it was asking for over 28 days. Not to have included a reference to this in your report looks like incompetent journalism. My third point is that if you give a platform to a commentator with views as highly coloured as those of David Clegg, you really should give equal time to an opponent. Clegg's contribution lasted 3mins 17secs, which was 37 percent longer than the factual introduction (2mins 17secs). In that time he claimed that Salmond had "taken a swipe at Sturgeon" (he hadn't), that there was "open warfare" and "internal division" in the SNP (there isn't), and that "criminality" pervades this affair (whose criminality?). He also confused the SNP with the Scottish Government (they're not the same). A responsible public service broadcaster would have brought in a third commentator to provide a more judicious perspective.

Response from BBC

I understand you are unhappy with David Clegg's analysis of Alex Salmond's resignation from the SNP.

As explained at the beginning of the programme, this news had only come to light in the previous hour. We heard David Grossman and David Clegg speak on the issue. Mr Clegg noted that Mr Salmond had raised £10,000 "30 minutes ago", which "shows that he is still extremely popular with the grassroots in Scotland, there is a great well of affection for him."

The BBC never takes a position on anything that we cover, but we always aim to reflect a broad range of voices on any given subject - this may include hearing opinions which some people may personally disagree with. It is important to recognise however that a fundamental part of the role of invited correspondents is to offer analysis, using their experience and knowledge, but this is not indicative of bias, and that the BBC simply aims to provide enough information for our audience to make up their own minds.

It is also important to note that due impartiality isn’t necessarily always achieved in one single report on any given topic, so we would ask that you take account of how we cover a topic over time.

The only way of sending an electronic complaint to the BBC is to fill in their online form. However, this restricts you to 2,000 characters with no paragraph-breaks, and makes your claim look like incoherent junk. So here is my preferred follow-up, which I couldn't send, followed by my actual follow-up (no paragraphs, less than 2,000 characters), which I did send. More may follow as the discussion unfolds.

My preferred follow-up

Thank you for this response. I am glad you acknowledge that the episode is not necessarily impartial. I have now - as you suggested - taken account of the follow-up episode of 30th August.

This second episode did not redress the balance: the three commentators you gave a platform to across the two episodes did not amount to a balanced perspective. David Clegg is a die-hard anti-SNP journalist, and Ayesha Hazarika was for eight years a Labour political advisor, for which she was reportedly offered a peerage. Where was the spokesperson to defend the SNP's corner? You offered Ian McWhirter, but he's well known as a false friend: his standard method of commentary is to present sympathetically the aims of the SNP, but to constantly talk up the difficulties they face, leaving the listener to conclude that they can never succeed. You cast him in this episode in the role of SNP spokesman, but he was forced to explicitly deny that on air, saying that he was no supporter of Alex Salmond. So where were the seasoned and articulate commentators like Peter A Bell, Stuart Campbell, Adamantios Korais or Paul Kavanagh? There was no balance of views.

Not only that, the commentators you put up added myths of their own to the events. The unadorned story is straightforward - Alex Salmond was accused of sexual harassment, and resigned from the SNP. He is also suing the Scottish Government, claiming that due process was not followed in investigating the allegations. His resignation was a shrewd political move: it avoided an embarrassing dispute over whether he should be suspended or not from the SNP, thus taking the pressure off Nicola Sturgeon, and allowed him continuing political freedom. And to demonstrate that he had public support in suing the Scottish Government over his claim that due process was not followed, he started a crowdfunder, which raised double his 28-day target of £50,000 in 48 hours.

The first myth you peddled was that there is "open warfare" in the SNP - Emily Maitlis's words, which David Clegg enlarged on: "The SNP are being torn asunder by this, it has cleaved through the Nationalist movement." "Torn asunder"? "cleaved through"? - this is a wild claim, and to substantiate it you need public statements made on each side, prominent named persons, quotes, verifiable occasions of dispute. There were none of these, and the phrase "open warfare" has become a by-word for ridicule among independence supporters. The second myth, put up by Ayesha Hazarika, was that by suing the Scottish Government, Alex Salmond has abused his wealth and power to prevent victims of sexual harassment coming forward. The problem with this is that Alex Salmond is not suing the Scottish Government over the substance of the allegations (which as far as we can see he doesn't know yet); his suit is that due process was not followed. How a court case that is designed to improve a judicial process can undermine the ability of victims to complain is beyond me (unless of course the victims are simply chancers with no real case). You should have stamped on this logical impossibility. (Instead, your presenter asked Ian McWhirter whether Alex Salmond had a big ego - what a waste of a leading question!) The third myth was put forward by Ian McWhirter, ingeniously combining the other two: "What he's actually done is create a gender division within the movement, because a lot of the women close to the SNP, a number of women, quite influential, believe this will discourage women from making allegations in future." Again, wild and whirling words: "a number of women" (eight? two?), "quite influential" (how influential? who are they? when did they say this, and to whom, and where, and who recorded it?). This is another allegation without substance, and again your presenter should have challenged it.

BBC Editorial Guidelines, Principles, 3.2.2 says: "All BBC output...must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested...avoid unfounded speculation." These guidelines were not met - the requirement for claims to be "based on sound evidence" was egregiously flouted, and the need for assertions to be "thoroughly tested" lays the onus on the presenter to challenge unsupported allegations, which she did not do. These failures have, I believe, damaged your credibility with the 50percent of the Scottish population that supports independence. It's widely suspected or believed in the independence community that the allegations of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond are fabricated smears, designed by UK government circles to remove him from public life in the run-up to the SNP national conference, developments in IndyRef2 and a possible autumn General Election, and that your failure to challenge the myths put forward by his political opponents makes you complicit in those fabrications.

My actual follow-up

Thank you for this response, and for acknowledging that the first episode was perhaps not impartial. The second episode did not redress the balance. David Clegg is die-hard anti-SNP, and Ayesha Hazarika was a Labour political advisor. Where was the SNP spokesperson? Ian McWhirter is a false friend: he talks up the difficulties the SNP faces, implying that they can never succeed. Where were the seasoned commentators like Peter A Bell or Adamantios Korais? The commentators added myths to the events. Emily Maitlis suggested there was "open warfare" in the SNP, and David Clegg said that they were "torn asunder" and "cleaved through". To substantiate these wild claims you need public disputes by prominent persons, and quotes, but there were none. Ayesha Hazarika claimed that by suing the Scottish Government, Alex Salmond has abused his wealth and power, and prevented victims of sexual harassment coming forward. However, Alex Salmond is not suing over the substance of the allegations, but over due process not being followed. How can a court case aimed at improving a judicial process undermine the ability of victims to complain? You should have stamped on this logical impossibility. Ian McWhirter ingeniously combined the other two myths, claiming that Salmond's court-case created a gender division by discouraging women from coming forward; but again no evidence was given, and your presenter should have challenged it. BBC Editorial Guidelines were flouted: commentators' claims were not "based on sound evidence" or "thoroughly tested". This has damaged your credibility with independence supporters, half the Scottish population. Many suspect that the allegations against Salmond are smears fabricated by the UK government to remove him from public life, and that your failure to challenge his political opponents' false claims makes you complicit in those fabrications. There's a more readable version of this complaint at scotlandisdifferent.wordpress.com.