[Media-watch] complaint

[YvonneMarshall]

Dear Lesley & Colleagues,

This is a complaint. 

I want to direct it to you first although I know that, in accordance with procedure, you will probably refer me to the established BBC Complaints process. I would not pursue the complaint via such a process as it would not be upheld (because my complaint is imprecise, would be deemed 'abstract') but it should be immediately understood by those to whom it is addressed.

I've been listening to the Riddoch Show since it started and I've submitted many e-mails, even called in a few times. The Show has been important to me, and I'm a big fan of Lesley's style. I've defended the show in discussions with friends who believe that mass media in Scotland cannot and will not address serious issues while allowing open (i.e. unscripted) contributions from ordinary listeners, viewers etc. I can remember Lesley talking to a couple of chaps about something or other when she interrupted the flow to say that a plane had flown into one of the World Trade Centre buildings. She carried on interviewing, and then, just before the show ended, she stopped again to say that another plane had hit the other tower, and she advised listeners with access to BBC 24 or other cable channels to switch on and see what was happening for themselves.

We all know what happened next. What has not happened on the Riddoch Show, or any other mainstream media discussion programme that I'm aware of, is a serious debate about what happened on 9/11. Michael Meacher recently wrote an article which hinted at the questions surrounding the events of that day, but he has been ignored, smeared, and the very simple, basic questions he raised have not been addressed in any depth by any mass-media outlet that I'm aware of.

There is no room for equivocation here - address at least some of the many hundreds of legitimate questions surrounding the events of 9/11, or stand accused of being part of the most heinous cover-up imaginable. Right now, Andrew Gilligan - one of your BBC colleagues -  is being slowly crucified by a process which draws attention away from the calamitous events in Iraq and surrounding regions while acting, simultaneously,  as a boxing ring in which the BBC and UK Govt sniff one another's testosterone as they slug it out over semantics. With the great benefit of hindsight - which we can all now enjoy - what did Gilligan do apart from state the f***ing obvious when no-one else wanted to even consider it ?

Gilligan, Sambrook, Hoon, Blair, Hutton and all of the other characters involved in this farce will, eventually, fade from public view. The BBC, hopefully, will not, but it can only hope to survive if it acknowledges the simple fact that solid information, and the knowledge which grows from it, is no longer the preserve of the few. Information and knowledge is 'out there', it's in the www, it's instantly accessible to anyone - the gulf between what the masses are told and what they can easily find out for themselves is  rapidly narrowing, and it won't take them long to realise that they, their parents, and their grandparents, have been well and truly shafted by the interest-groups who, for the last century, claimed to be speaking on their behalf via mass-media.

I won't specify what 9/11 questions I would like your show to discuss - if your researchers don't know what I'm on about then they are in the wrong job, but here's one small example - on 9/11, only hours after the planes hit the Twin Towers, Blair stood up to address the TUC Conference. He was due to get a hard time, over PPP/PFI etc etc. If the attack on the WTC was genuinely unexpected, Bush would've been dragged under cover immediately, and one of the first calls made - if the 'free world' was really under attack - would've been to the British PM. But George Bush didn't get whisked away, even after the second plane hit its target - he stayed talking to primary school students about goats. Blair finished his tea, delivered a short spiel to the stunned TUC about there being 'a new evil in our world today' before ducking out. Fact is, if the attacks were unexpected, both Bush and Blair would've been spirited off without explanation. Neither was spirited away, and there has been no explanation for that lapse of security. Even asking why our 'leaders' were not properly protected in the face of such an appalling and unexpected attack is, apparently, not suitable fodder for public debate.

In time, the truth of what happened will come out. The BBC does itself no favours by avoiding the subject and could gain much by simply allowing its correspondents to release what they already know, or at least permitting properly open debate on the subject.

In Scotland, the Riddoch Show is widely regarded as one of the best sources for real, live, honest debate. It has not, to date, hosted any substantial discussion on this topic, and that is my complaint.

Previous submissions I've made to your show on this subject have been ignored.  (Please don't ignore this one, it's being read by a lot of other people.)

I look forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Ian Brotherhood


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/attachments/20030918/dde54e42/attachment.htm