BBC Propaganda

This is the complaint sent to the BBC on 21st July 2014

"Blaming the Malaysian airlines plane crash on Russia/Moscow/Putin when no proof is available yet as to what or who was responsible. This also happened when the first reports of the incident were televised a few days earlier. Reporting in this fashion is pure propaganda - I don't pay my licence fee to look at this kind of media garbage. The BBC appears to have sold it's soul to Washington."

If you feel that the BBC is nothing more than a propaganda source for the US/UK killing machine you are welcome to copy the complaint and forward it to the BBC at their complaints page here.

I have sent both Nicholas Harvey MP and prospective conservative candidate for North Devon Peter Heaton-Jones this e-mail:

Dear Nicholas/Peter, I have made the following complaint to the BBC - would you be prepared to support me and make a complaint along similar lines?
 
Gordon Bray.

"Blaming the Malaysian airlines plane crash on Russia/Moscow/Putin when no proof is available yet as to what or who was responsible. This also happened when the first reports of the incident were televised a few days earlier. Reporting in this fashion is pure propaganda - I don't pay my licence fee to look at this kind of media garbage. The BBC appears to have sold it's soul to Washington."

We await their response................

Here is a prompt reply from Peter Heaton-Jones:

Dear Gordon

Many thanks for your email.
 
I look at this slightly differently, maybe because of the 20 years I spent in the BBC (I have had absolutely no professional connection with them since I left in 2006).
 
The BBC has a duty to report what is being said by others - politicians, protesters, foreign governments and so on.  In doing so, it does not mean the BBC is endorsing that point of view, nor is guilty of spreading propaganda, it is merely reporting what is happening.  Viewers and listeners may disagree with what is being said, but that does not mean the BBC is wrong to report it.
The vital thing of course is that the BBC must report all sides of an issue.  I certainly recall reports in the days after the crash reflecting the fact that both 'sides' were then under suspicion.  However as time has gone on, the international community seems more united in the view that Russian separatists were to blame and that President Putin must bear some responsibility for that.  The BBC and all other media outlets are reflecting this, but again, that does not mean they are endorsing this view, merely reporting it.
I am certainly not a blind supporter of the BBC and have often criticised them...and rest assured will continue to do so wherever and whenever I see any evidence that the licence payer is not getting the service to which they are entitled.

Thanks again for your email, I do appreciate it.

Kind regards

Peter

And here is my reply 23/7/14:

Thanks for your prompt reply Peter - a bit different from our sitting MP who usually avoids communicating with me.
 
Yesterday BBC Ceefax reported there was evidence of the plane being shot down by "a missile supplied by Russia".
This before it has been discovered what weaponry was used let alone who used it.  I am not happy with this standard of journalism although you appear to be.  We will have to differ on that point at the moment.
 
While writing I wonder if you would care to look at the index page of my website and follow the threee links:
 
1.Chemtrails over South Molton.
 
2.Nick Harvey - our dishonest MP.
 
3.Is the North Devon Council trying to poison us?
 
It would be interesting to have your comments on these topics and of course any help you can offer.  The website is at:
 
www.southmolton.talktalk.net
 
Thanks and best wishes, Gordon.

A reply from Peter.

Dear Gordon
 
Thank you for your further email.  I always aim to reply to everyone; it may be that we won't see eye to eye and end up having to 'agree to differ', but one thing you won't get from me is no answer!
 
I wasn't aware of your website.  I have just had a quick look and there is an incredible amount of material there.  If I may, I will spend a little while over the summer looking at it all.  Again, we may not agree on everything and I may not be able to help with some issues, but I will certainly take a look and get back to you.
 
All the best
 
Peter

And my response: (24/07/14)

No rush Peter - the evidence won't go away!
 
Cheers, Gordon

Nothing from Nicholas Harvey yet...............

There follows the BBC's reply to my complaint which is included in my reply to them:-

Your Reference CAS-2825640-L45V27

My complaint was:-

"Blaming the Malaysian airlines plane crash on Russia/Moscow/Putin when no proof is available yet as to what or who was responsible. This also happened when the first reports of the incident were televised a few days earlier. Reporting in this fashion is pure propaganda - I don't pay my licence fee to look at this kind of media garbage. The BBC appears to have sold it's soul to Washington."

Your reply was:-

Dear Mr  Bray

Thank you for contacting us about our coverage of the circumstances of the crash of the Malaysian Airlines plane MH17 in Ukraine.

Currently an investigation is going on into the causes of the crash and until its findings are known, the BBC is avoiding attributing blame to any party. However BBC News has reflected the public criticism of Russia and the separatists in the Donetsk region, which it appears to support. In addition reporters have paid close attention to the circumstances before and after the accident and the weaponry available to either side which could have downed the plane.

Spokesmen for the Ukrainian government have featured in our broadcasts but so too have Russian speakers. On ‘The World at One’ on Radio 4, for example , there have been interviews with Dmitry Linnik , the bureau chief of Voice of Russia and Natalia Narochnitskaya , a former Russian MP who now runs the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in Paris, a think-tank funded by Russian private donors.

On the BBC News Channel, we covered at length a press conference given by Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian Ambassador to the UK, where he addressed, among other related issues, the subject of possible sanctions against Russia over the events surrounding the MH17 crash. We also conducted an interview with Mark Sloboda the Political Analyst of Russia Today, where he was given time to express Moscow’s view of events.

We hope this will reassure you that all informative points of view are being included in our coverage of this tragic event.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints

And my reply was:-

As your reply did not address the issue of propaganda it is unacceptable.  Constant reference to sanctions against Russia in association with the MH17 attack is blatant propaganda.

The BBC is exposed as a propaganda machine for the establishment.
 
Gordon Bray.
 
Ps.  I think this post on an honest website sums up your position:-
 
"Reading the Western Media, watching Western TV, and listening to Western radio, one is left with the propaganda that “the Palestinians are to blame for the Israeli attack on Gaza,” just as one is left with the propaganda that “the Malaysian airliner deaths are Russia’s fault.” There is no evidence, but propaganda does not require evidence. Just repetition."

This could be interesting...

The BBC resonds - 18th August 2014:

Dear Mr Bray

Reference CAS-2847357-5VH45D

Thanks for contacting us.

We apologise for the delay in replying to your e-mail. We realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry that you had to wait on this occasion.

I was disappointed to read that you weren’t satisfied with the original response as you felt we didn’t address an issue of propaganda relating to reports on MH17. We do always aim to deliver the highest standard of service and we appreciate that reported this to us.

Please provide an example of when the BBC has been biased for research purposes, including a programme name, TX date and channel information, as well as an approximate time of the report in question and why you believe our report has been biased.

The full complaints processes, along with the link to the contact us webform, is available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/

Also note, please make one complaint rather than multiple issues which may complicate any investigation and delay our reply.

Should you choose to escalate your complaint we would ask that you include the reference number provided above in your correspondence.

Once again, thank you for contacting us.

Kind Regards

Philip Young

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

And my reply to Mr Young 19th August 2014:

Your Reference CAS-2825640-L45V27

Dear Mr Young,

Please refer to my original complaint - a single instance of the BBC's attempt to blame Russia is hardly necessary.

Sincerely,

Gordon Bray

And this is the pathetic unsigned reply from the BBC!  This is what we pay our licence fee for....

Dear Mr Bray

Reference CAS-2873342-MBYHZ0

Thank you for taking the time to contact us and we appreciate that you felt strongly enough to write to us again. We have noted your points and are sorry to learn you were not satisfied with our earlier response.

We are sorry to tell you that we have nothing to add to our previous reply. We do not believe your complaint has raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation. We will not therefore correspond further in response to additional points, or further comments or questions, made about this issue or our responses to it.

We realise you will be disappointed to hear this but hope this explains why we are not able to take your complaint further. If you remain dissatisfied about our decision you can appeal to the BBC Trust, the body which represents licence fee payers. The Trust has asked that we should explain to complainants that the BBC's Royal Charter draws a clear distinction between the role of the Trust - which determines the overall scope of the BBC's services and sets its standards - and that of the BBC Executive - which runs the Corporation and decides what to broadcast and publish.

The Trust does not entertain every appeal submitted to it. It will normally hear appeals about the Executive’s decisions only if a complainant can show that they involved a potential breach of the BBC's published standards, or that an operational decision has raised significant issues of general importance. The Trust is the final arbiter of which appeals it should consider. For the full information about the BBC Trust’s appeals procedures please visit www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/.

If you wish to submit an appeal you must write within 20 working days of receiving this reply, explaining why you wish to appeal. You can contact the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ, or by emailing trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. Please would you include for them the relevant case reference which you may have been given.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Kind regards
BBC Complaints


Is it worth complaining to the BBC Trust - Their agenda is probably in line with dishonest BBC's.  Just don't believe all their propagand folks!  I like the bit about the BBC's published standards - what standards?

Back to South Molton Home Page