[Media-watch] Fw:

Tue Mar 25 11:43:13 GMT 2003

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <A 
title=roger.mosey at bbc.co.uk href="mailto:roger.mosey at bbc.co.uk">Roger Mosey 

To: <A title=Brotherhoods at stevenston4.fsnet.co.uk 
href="mailto:Brotherhoods at stevenston4.fsnet.co.uk">YvonneMarshall 
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: 

<FONT 
color=#0000ff>(private)
<FONT 
color=#0000ff> 
Dear 
Ian
<FONT 
color=#0000ff> 
Thank you for 
writing.
<FONT 
color=#0000ff> 
The point I was 
responding to was the apparent allegation that BBC coverage is 
systematically going in for "misinformation" or "propaganda". I do not believe 
that anyone who has consumed all our output - from BBC FOUR News to News 24, 
from Newsnight to the One O'Clock News - could honestly believe that to be the 
case.

I do hope people 
understand that we have brave and honest correspondents who are doing 
their best to report on, and interpret, a complex and ever-changing story. I 
also know that my editorial colleagues here in London have a determination, 
as do I, to reflect the widest possible range of opinion and to assess 
information as fairly and as accurately as we can; and we will continue to do 
so. 

Best 
wishes
<FONT 
color=#0000ff>Roger 

  <FONT 
  face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----From: YvonneMarshall 
  [mailto:Brotherhoods at stevenston4.fsnet.co.uk] Sent: 25 March 2003 
  00:17To: Roger Mosey; INF Reply; media-watch at lists.stir.ac.uk; 
  Caroline Pacitti; billy clark; Neil FerrySubject: Fw: 

  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 

    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.