[Media-watch] Fw:

[YvonneMarshall]

Dear Roger Mosey,
 
This is surely a very busy time for you, 
but I hope you will have found some quiet moments to reflect on the 
comments you made during this morning's debate (during the Lesley Riddoch Show, 
hosted by Alex Bell) in which you dismissed the claim, asserted by David Miller, 
that the BBC's reporting of Scud missile attacks was inaccurate and misleading - 
in the absence of any subsequent corrections or qualifications to those reports, 
the BBC's 'official' record remains untruthful. You have 
been challenged by David Miller to refute such claims and I look forward to 
hearing such a rebuttal, although I dare say that (unless you deliver 
it from a far-flung place wearing a flak-jacket ) it will not have the same 
impact on the mass-consciousness as the original reports by Ben Brown et 
al.
 
I listened to the show, and Alex Bell accurately 
dictated an e-mail message I had sent in regarding the Richard Sambrook Feb 6th 
memo which, although in the public domain very shortly after it's 
issuance, has merited scant debate. 
 
It is disheartening to hear the Head 
of BBC Television News dismiss reasoned and analytical 
observations (are these not meant to be the stock-in-trade of the 
experienced and trustworthy journalist ?) with such  flippant and 
patronising remarks, although it is understandable that, with the argument 
so clearly lost, some element of panic may have disturbed one's 
normally scruplulous manners. 
 
I've attached a message I sent to the 
Lesley Riddoch Show last May. It was never acknowledged, although I'm 
sure - the BBC being the caring and attentive creature that it is 
- that it was noted. If you have read this far then I would urge you to 
go 'the extra mile' (just as our politicians did with regard to 'Saddam') 
and read it. It might not be comfortable, but then, 'radio' is not your 
current concern as you clearly have bigger proverbials to fry.
 
To save you the trouble - many people get 
their 'news' of the world from outlets other than TV. I'm sure this 
does not come as a surprise to you, but judging by your unprofessional and, 
frankly, rude performance on the Riddoch Show today, the extent of 'real' 
general-knowledge among the populus has not been conveyed to you.
 
Please take some sincere advice from someone who 
has spent considerable time writing this - watching his words carefully 
- and also has the benefit of being able to back-space, take out 
expletives, correct mistakes etc. You didn't have that advantage today on 
the Riddoch Show, and in that sense I sympathise with you and the situation 
you were in - it was uncomfortable listening and you did not come out of it 
at all well,  so I can't imagine how it must've felt being on the receiving 
end of it. But please, please have the good grace and common sense to 
admit that you were wrong because, let's face it,  you were clearly 
wrong. Also, it would be nice to hear you issue an apology to David Miller for 
your patronising dismissal of his legitimate queries.
 
Most importantly of all, and following-up on David 
Miller's most recent message to you : please do address the issuance 
of misleading/false statements by BBC Foreign Correspondents as a matter of 
urgency. (That is, I believe, your job ?) A clear editorial statement from 
you is needed, right now, to assuage deep concerns among peoples all over this 
planet that the BBC can no longer be trusted to provide impartial coverage of 
World Events.
 
I look forward to a statement from you. Please 
don't bother to reply personally - a televised (and, if you deign to grant it) 
radio-version of a clear statement on your current overall editorial-policy 
regarding the invasion of Iraq will do just nicely.
 
(And, by the way, do try to keep up - perhaps you 
should spend more time on-line ?)
 
Regards,
 
Ian Brotherhood
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <A 
title=Brotherhoods at stevenston4.fsnet.co.uk 
href="mailto:Brotherhoods at stevenston4.fsnet.co.uk">YvonneMarshall 
To: <A title=lesley at bbc.co.uk 
href="mailto:lesley at bbc.co.uk">lesley at bbc.co.uk 
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 10:23 PM

Dear Lesley & Colleagues,
 
This is not a response to any particular item - it 
is a general observation, a 'fan-letter' if you like, and I would be grateful if 
someone would please read it and, at least, acknowledge its safe 
receipt.
 
I've been listening to The Lesley Riddoch Show 
since it started, and only ever missed it when I was working day-shifts in 
various factories, pubs etc. I'm 39, have contributed to the show with 
calls and e-mails maybe seven or eight times. I'm a father of two, and a 
moderately successful fiction-writer. My C.V. is not relevant to what I have to 
say, but I guess that I'm probably typical i.e. intellectually, of the audience 
you reach.
 
Tonight I tried to call my Dad, but the line was 
busy because he'll be on the Net. He uses it to get his 'news' rather than watch 
it on the box or listen to radio, which he always did previously. I tried to 
call my sister, but that line was also engaged, and I've no doubt that she was 
researching for her uni-essay, her husband was downloading music, or one of 
their two sons was chatting to friends via their own website. I'll try them 
again in another hour or so, but chances are the lines will still be 
busy.
 
My point is this - no-one uses carrier-pigeons or 
Morse-code in everyday life anymore because they have more efficient means of 
accessing 'the news'. Radio has survived the onslaught of telly by playing to 
its strengths i.e. talking directly and honestly to people who eschew the 
predominantly moronic material presented on television. But the 'alternative' 
News services now easily available via the www are upping the stakes as far as 
'delivery of truth' is concerned - no-one who has access to the Net can have 
failed to realise that there is, virtually at least, another 'world' of news out 
there , and it isn't always biased or party-political. Okay, there's a lot of 
rubbish in the ether, but it doesn't take long to learn how to dig your way 
through the dross, and more and more people are doing it. What they're turning 
up is, often, a total scunner - I'm not going to give examples 
because anyone online with an interest in world affairs knows 
what I'm on about.
 
If The Lesley Riddoch Show wants to maintain the 
reputation it has established then it is going to have to deal with the fact 
that 'them out there' will often be as well-informed, if not more so, than the 
guests being invited to provide 'expert' analysis, and many of us have opinions 
which test the limitations of conventional 'knowledge'.  That's not to say 
that all of us have the means, the inclination or the ability to convey those 
opinions within the format of the show, but there must be many listeners, like 
me, who trust that the editorial decisions regarding 'suitable' subject-matter 
will be honest, responsible, perhaps at times even bold. Going to Edinburgh 
to talk to folk about potholes is all very well, but to do it on the same 
day that India and Pakistan were positioning themselves for a (potentially 
nuclear !) square-go and Dubbya's buddies were insisting that really, 
honestly, he didn't know a thing about any terrorist threat of that kind in 
advance of 9/11... ?!
 
I'm not going to sign off as 'Disgusted, 
Stevenston', because I'm not. I understand that it must be difficult to tackle 
everything. Jeezo, I remember Norman Tebbit admitting that yes, every government 
needs a mouthpiece, and yes, the BBC, at times, fulfills that function. 
Okay. Big deal. But I think you've got a wonderful programme with a one-off 
presenter, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't want to see 
it all slide off into oblivion as your audience increasingly goes 
online - that's precisely what will happen unless you start to address 
issues with the the same openness that makes online news-coverage so 
irresistible to the truly curious.
 
I didn't write this to have a go at anyone. I heard 
somewhere that the show received a Sony Award. That's great - congratulations to 
all concerned. (I also won an award recently. It was the Robert Louis Stevenson 
Memorial Award. I was paid to stay in France for six weeks working on a 
novel.)  Prizes and plaudits aside, the end-result is the work that is 
done, the best possible use of the medium in question - is The Lesley Riddoch 
Show really being as cutting-edge, as challenging and responsible as it could be 
? I've devoted a chapter of the novel to a 'fictional' second-hour of a day-time 
topical radio show. The presenter is called Cal. It is, I should stress, a piece 
of fiction, but it does involved an exchange between Cal and an MSP called 
Sally Youngmother, a 'discussion' during which a question is aksed (but 
never answrered) nine, maybe ten times, and ends up with a contribution from a 
caller who reveals that her son's blatantly sectarian murder was effectively 
buried by the authorities. Fiction ? Yes, ' it is fiction', but  to 
any informed reader/listener/viewer, the lines between fact/faction/fiction are 
now so blurred that it's becoming impossible to have a discussion among friends 
unless they've all read/heard/viewed the same material. 
 
I make assumptions in my 'fictional' story about 
where editorial responsibility lies with something like TLRS - of course, it 
bears no resemblance to persons living or dead and no such resemblance 
should be inferred let alone stated, but there is a 'spin-doctor' in the 
story who lingers about in the studio like a bad smell and is eventually 
expelled by the bold Cal. There's also the suggestion that these people, whoever 
they are, manage to undermine the efforts of public-servants who were, 
at one time, in some place, well-intentioned individuals who really 
believed that they could make a difference. 
 
Understanding why these poor souls end up being 
little more than high-profile appartatchiks has always, it seems to me, been an 
underlying mission of TLRS. If any real understanding is to be gained then 
the whole of available knowledge must be acknowledged. Right now, it isn't - why 
not get into the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the circumstances 
behind Hugo Chavez's 'Jack-in-the-box' presidency ? This is stuff that 
anyone with a mouse and a half-enquiring mind will already have sussed. The 
very fact that TLRS doesn't mention certain  'facts' does immeasurable 
damage to the reputation of the show amongst those who are making the most 
effort to keep abreast of what's really happening.
 
I'm almost 40. We were brought up with telly. Some 
of us abandoned 'the box' a long time ago as a reliable source of 'news'. Some 
of us turned to the 'papers', but they've been so monpolised and compromised 
that they too have to be viewed with great wariness. The www offers so much, so 
fast, that all other media are under threat. I still can't get through to my Dad 
or my sister, and this is two hours after I started writing this - I don't 
know what they're doing, but the lure is stronger than telly, radio or telephone 
can provide. Just as well it's not that important !
 
Best wishes to you Lesley and all of the people who 
make it possible to do what you do. I hope you will remember that you have 
many supporters, ''fans' if you will, but that some of us are worried that you 
are not being allowed, or are not taking full advantage of, the freedom of 
speech you seem to hold so dear.
 
Best Regards,
 
 
Ian Brotherhood