[Media-watch] FW: Eye to Eye

Thu Feb 27 12:14:39 GMT 2003

for info - a conciliatory complaint!  But more evidence of the divorce of
the BBC from reality

----------
From: david Miller <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:12:43 +0000
To: Douglas MacLeod <douglas.macleod at bbc.co.uk>
Cc: <raymond.buchanan at bbc.co.uk>

Subject: Re: Eye to Eye

Dear Douglas,

thanks for your reply.  On the computer crashing, I felt I had to check
formally with you about that, without assuming a conspiracy!

On the substance of your reply, can I offer a comment, which is meant
constructively.  In the current climate, it is clear that there is
overwhelming public opposition to war.  It is also clear that this mood is
not well reflected in the political establishment (take the vote in the
commons last night where the opposition was about a third - most polls are
showing between 70-90% public opposition - contrary to John Reid's rather
audacious attempt to suggest that only 25% oppose war).  this means that
interviewing across the range of a political establishment badly adrift from
the public is by definition not going to cover the debate properly.

So when I read your list of interviewees I am struck by how closely they
mirror the contours of the political establishment.  It is good that you
have had some voices opposing war on, but the question which arises is to
what extent do they represent anti war voices?  Both Swinney and Kennedy are
rather equivocal on the question and there certainly are a whole range of
other voices available, including those who reject war with or without a UN
resolution

One of the points I was trying to make in my interview with Raymond was that
in a situation where the normal political sources are out of touch, it is
often difficult for the media to find alternative sources.  The reflex may
be to stick to 'experts' and politicians.

I note from your list of interviewees that you have not had any of the
organisers of the demonstration in the studio, or people from - say - CND or
Scottish muslim voices.

While I accept what you say about the need to balance across a range of
programmes, it does seem to me that overall this can only be said to have
been achieved if one accepts that the range of dissent is only as broad as
the politicians you have interviewed.

My suggestion would be that it would be a welcome breath of fresh air to
have some sharper debate.  Perhaps a three way debate between supporters of
war, people who would support war only with a resolution (and maybe some
more evidence) and those opposed to war even with a resolution.

Speaking with my 'expert' hat on for a moment, it seems to me that the whole
question of media coverage and dissent could be usefully addressed -
especially given ITN's interesting item last night when they brought
together Tony Blair and six anti war marchers.  Also, as I discussed with
Raymond, the question of propaganda and how the battle for hearts and minds
is being fought is overdue for some explication.

I hope you find these comments helpful.

Best wishes,

David Miller

> From: "Douglas MacLeod" <douglas.macleod at bbc.co.uk>
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:12:12 -0000
> To: "david Miller" <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: Eye to Eye
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: david Miller [SMTP:david.miller at stir.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:56 AM
>> To: Douglas MacLeod
>> Subject: FW: Eye to Eye
>> 
>> Dear  David
>> 
>> Sorry about delay,  I work Wednesday to Sunday.
>> 
>> Many thanks for your comments.    First let me address the question of
>> balance.   It is a programme which goes out once a week,  and as a
>> consequence matters of balance have to be looked at over the weeks and not
>> necessarily within each programme.   Could I refer you to the previous weeks
>> edition?    It was the week of the march,  and,  as such,  contained a deal
>> of anti war voices.   The sequence was as follows:   it opened with a package
>> on the Glasgow march itself,   the newspaper review,  which reflected the
>> world nature of the protests,   an interview with John Swinney and a
>> discussion with two defence experts whose broad conclusion was that this
>> might well damage the government's position and force a rethink.
>> I have been at great pains to ensure this balance over our coverage of the
>> war.  The  political interviews have been:    12th January:  Charles Kennedy,
>> 19th January Eric Joyce,   2nd February Michael Anchram,  and,  as I've said,
>> John Swinney on the 16th of February.    Other war related items:   19th
>> January:  Lt Col Stuart Crawford ( Gulf veteran,  opposed to present conflict
>> said he would refuse to go if called up as reservist).   19th January,
>> discussion on Coping with Terror,  with our Northern Ireland correspondent
>> and an expert on security management,  which was a non partisan examination
>> of how people learn to live with the threat of terrorism,  but did raise the
>> issue of spin and raising terrorist fears).  26th January,  discussion on the
>> effect of any war on the world economy,  with an oil expert and a financial
>> analyst.   (The oil commentator came to quite a different conclusion from
>> that reached by the one on Sunday 23rd February, to wit,  a war was hugely
>> risky to the oil economy.)
>> 
>> There were no other arguments in play regarding the pre recorded piece,  and
>> certainly no editorial arguments in play,  simply the computer crashed and we
>> were unable to reboot it in time,  and I trust the above calms any fears you
>> have regarding overall bias
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Douglas Macleod.
>> 
>> sorry wrong spelling the first time.
>> 
>> ----------
>> From: david Miller <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
>> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:19:31 +0000
>> To: <douglas.mcleod at bbc.co.uk>
>> Cc: <raymond.buchanan at bbc.co.uk>
>> Subject: Eye to Eye
>> 
>> Dear Douglas,
>> 
>> I am writing about Sunday's edition of BBC Radio Scotland's Eye to Eye.  I
>> understand from Raymond Buchanan that the package on the war did not go out
>> because of technical difficulties involving the freezing of the computer.
>> Can you let me have any further details about these difficulties.  My
>> understanding is that the package should have gone out at about 1045am.  Can
>> you also let me know why it was not possible to overcome the technical
>> difficulties and play the package at anytime in the remaining 15 minutes?
>> 
>> As I understand it the package included comments from myself on the media
>> coverage of anti-war protest, noting the problems that the media face in
>> covering an issue where public, comments from Mick Napier of Edinburgh Stop
>> the War and (possibly) comments from a further critic.   In the absence of
>> these voices the programme (as you know)  featured a discussion with Peter
>> McMahon (Scotsman and ex First Ministers official spokesperson), Alan
>> Cochrane (Telegraph) and Julia Hartley-Brewer (Express).  They all agreed
>> that Blair would not be damaged by the anti war protests and that opinion
>> would come round after the war is won.  One of your guests argued that Blair
>> would end up being viewed as ending up as a 'hero'.  In addition Eye to Eye
>> featured an interview with someone arguing that a war in defence of oil
>> interests was a good thing.>
>> 
>> As a result of the package being lost, the programme ended up quite
>> unbalanced.  This problem could be addressed by allowing access to critical
>> voices on the war on next week's programme.  Perhaps you could let me know
>> what you think of this and how you propose to remedy this problem?
>> 
>> As you know there have been a number of reports in the media in the past few
>> days indicating that some parts of the BBC are closely monitoring the
>> expression of dissent (including at the BAFTA ceremony, a radio three world
>> music poll etc).
>> 
>> Given these reports (and obviously some may be misreported) It occurs to me
>> to ask you a further question: Why were all the critical voices interviewed
>> for the pre-record and not interviewed live in the studio?   Was this part of
>> the internal caution at the BBC or not?  As you will know I have in the past
>> appeared live on eye to Eye and in a variety of live and pre-recorded pieces
>> for a number of BBC Scotland programmes over more than a decade.  This is the
>> first time that anything like this has happened.
>> 
>> Lastly, and with all due respect, I would like to ask you to state exactly
>> why the pre-record item did not go  out on Sunday?  Was it simply technical
>> difficulties or were there other arguments in play?
>> 
>> I hope to hear from you soon.
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> David Miller
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> 
> 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.
> 