Tuesday, 29 May 2012

The Appeal Is Upheld (Official)

For the past few weeks I have been under an embargo so have been unable to make this public. The embargo was in place until the decision was published on the BBC Trust website. Now the PDF detailing what appeals for editorial complaints the Trust discussed in meetings during the month of April has been published and I was informed last night that the embargo has been lifted.

They have decided to uphold my appeal regarding the decision of the Director of the Editorial Complaints Unit to only investigate a limited number of examples I mentioned in my complaint about the BBC 2 programme The Future State Of Welfare With John Humphrys. My case is listed as 'Stage 2 complaint handling'. Discovering that the page with these documents exists has been helpful to me as now I can see examples of complaints which get upheld and those which get rejected.

When I first began my complaint, I did so under my MDA pseudonym, expecting that the issue itself was serious enough that the process would be over quickly. As time went on, I revealed my real-life name as a reaction to the impression I was getting that the complaint was not being taken seriously. I had to rule out the possibility that my blogging name was the cause. I have to say that the crap the BBC puts up with behind the scenes is no better than what they face in public. Last night an extremely thoughtful person from the BBC Trust extended some 'olive branches' as it is called and I was up all night reading other cases that the Trust had to consider. It was reassuring to know I am not one of the time-wasters, opportunists or cranks. Reasonable complaints(even when not upheld) and ridiculous complaints are miles apart. I was frequently confrontational at many points but the substance of what I was advancing meant this did not cause them to dismiss me out of hand because they have listened and actually been impressively graceful. I had criticism to make of their findings and how what I said was presented, but they listened and altered the published summary to account for it.

More later.

1 comment:

  1. Good result! However, it is not clear to me what happens next. Will they now investigate that prog?

    In a similar vein, are you aware of yet another BBC hatchet job, misrepresenting, not telling the facts etc etc here: