Readers may remember that I made a formal complaint to the BBC about the historical distortion in, and political bias of, David Olusoga’s three-part tv series, “Empire”.
The opening paragraph of the BBC reply is nonsense. The average viewer like me, educated but not an historian, simply does not come to the BBC with a sufficiently skeptical critical view for their claims to be true. The BBC has been a trusted National Broadcaster for years and they still think they are! It's very style amongst the 'shouty' channels, let alone social media, radiates authority. It wants to be taken as an organ of carefully researched truth - hence BBC verify. The BBC in its reply to you is seeking to place the responsibility for determining the truthfulness of their output on the viewer, rather on themselves as the broadcaster.
Exactly, Jeremy. But I also think that they regard Olusoga’s interpretation as common sense that any right-thinking person will share, and my views as ‘extreme’. Hence the laziness of their reply.
The most annoying thing about their reply, other than their not really addressing any of the points you raise (!), is that they insist that you respond within 20 days.
They throw money at, and give lots of time to, a series that seriously distorts history. But they simply refuse to engage with a serious criticism of it, and try to make it as difficult as possible for you to continue with the complaint. To quote Aragorn in LOTR (Return of the King): "you will suffer me". ✊️
I’ve never made a formal complaint to the BBC before. The experience is confirming everything that I’ve heard others say about it. Frustrating as it it, it will profound chapter and verse when I come to write about it in the press.
I suppose that if there's a hopeful note, it might be that people also behave like this sometimes when they're scared: bland replies, that don't address the actual issues, and an unreasonable time limit, all to discourage the complainant from taking things further in the belief that it's just not worth it.
The opening paragraph of the BBC reply is nonsense. The average viewer like me, educated but not an historian, simply does not come to the BBC with a sufficiently skeptical critical view for their claims to be true. The BBC has been a trusted National Broadcaster for years and they still think they are! It's very style amongst the 'shouty' channels, let alone social media, radiates authority. It wants to be taken as an organ of carefully researched truth - hence BBC verify. The BBC in its reply to you is seeking to place the responsibility for determining the truthfulness of their output on the viewer, rather on themselves as the broadcaster.
Exactly, Jeremy. But I also think that they regard Olusoga’s interpretation as common sense that any right-thinking person will share, and my views as ‘extreme’. Hence the laziness of their reply.
KBO.
The most annoying thing about their reply, other than their not really addressing any of the points you raise (!), is that they insist that you respond within 20 days.
They throw money at, and give lots of time to, a series that seriously distorts history. But they simply refuse to engage with a serious criticism of it, and try to make it as difficult as possible for you to continue with the complaint. To quote Aragorn in LOTR (Return of the King): "you will suffer me". ✊️
I’ve never made a formal complaint to the BBC before. The experience is confirming everything that I’ve heard others say about it. Frustrating as it it, it will profound chapter and verse when I come to write about it in the press.
I suppose that if there's a hopeful note, it might be that people also behave like this sometimes when they're scared: bland replies, that don't address the actual issues, and an unreasonable time limit, all to discourage the complainant from taking things further in the belief that it's just not worth it.
Only by this forensic diligence can blatant partiality be overcome. Excellent!
That’s the plan. But their nonchalant laziness astonishes me.
Very interesting…