Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
BBC Editorial Complaints Unit BBC Room 5170, White City 201 Wood Lane London W12 7TS [email protected] 15 June 2011 Mrs Deborah Houlding 3 Avondale Bungalows Sherwood Hall Road Mansfield, Notts., NG18 2NJ [email protected] CAS-675055-9ZT1MY | Lack of accuracy and impartiality within offensively misrepresentative remarks about astrology | Stargazing Live; BBC2, 3rd January 2011 Dear Mr Hutt Thank you for your letter to me dated 14 June 2011, in response to my letter dated 6 May 2011 (not 16 May 2011 as quoted by you). Having written in my letter to you a very clear account of my complaint, I am concerned at the degree to which your response failed to connect to the points raised for attention. I note that your letter was submitted to me by email after receiving my email of the same date, reminding you that your promised date of response (14 June 2011) had been reached. I sincerely hope that the reading of my complaint was not rushed, in order for to issue a response within the set time. You appear to have confused the basis of my complaint with that of an earlier complaint made by the Astrological Association of Great Britain, regarding a wholly different situation in a completely separate programme. I did not complain about that earlier programme myself, nor feel the need to create a complaint about it. I accept, and personally endorse, the BBC’s perspective that science reporters should be allowed free expression of their own scientific views; that is, of course, providing that the reporting of those views does not ignore the BBC’s policy on accuracy and impartiality, so that they become offensive and misrepresentative, as was the case with this programme. You ended your response to me by saying you would be happy to consider any further points I wish to make; and that it is also open to me to make an appeal to the BBC Trust within four weeks of the date of your letter (14 June 2011). I am confused by this and would appreciate clarification. As there are further points to be made in response to your letter – based mainly on the need to clarify your misunderstanding of the purpose of my complaint, am I to assume that the ECU’s final decision has not yet been reached, and remains subject to revision after due consideration of my further points? If this is the case, then presumably my four week opportunity to appeal to the BBC Trust will commence from the period in which your investigation and review has concluded, and not from the date of a letter (14 June 2011) in which your review of my complaint is still active? (Such would suggest that 1 your unit has cast its final decision, and so present a bizarre situation in which you would be willing to consider further points, but unwilling to reconsider in light of them). Please clarify this position (that is, whether you are considering my complaint as ‘still under investigation’ in light of these further comments) at your earliest opportunity; preferably by email, so that I can have appropriate notice of the time frame I need to adhere to, and the current status of my complaint. With regard to my further points, an initial request is for you to check more carefully your reported transcript of the discussion which acts as the focus of this complaint. Your transcript differs from mine, not only in emphasis, but also in content. I have checked the details extremely carefully to make sure that my complaint (which concerns the matter of accuracy) is accurate in its own details. The dialogue ran as reported in my earlier letter to you, and as transcribed below. I have followed my rendering with an account of your own, pointing out the differences of your account in red. Some of the word changes are highly significant, since your account fails to demonstrate the insisted relevance of the ‘fact’ that “only” the Earth goes round [the Sun], and it fails to convey the full extent of the offensive and unnecessary repeated emphasis on the phrase “absolute nonsense”. Note in particular the inaccuracy of your report concerning the final remark of Dara Ó Briain, the effect of which implies that Dara was being simply dismissive of the dialogue, rather than insistently repeating the supposed veracity of it. Transcript, as recorded (areas of difference from your account are underlined): Dara Ó Briain: Very rare for this kind of thing to happen, it is, because all of them have a different, different orbital length; this is, you know, only, only the Earth goes round in one year and comes back to the same spot. Horoscopes: that’s all nonsense. We’re happy to say this now, once and for all, that’s all rubbish, right, astrology – because the planets are in different places at different times. Brian Cox: In the interests of balance, because we’re on the BBC, I should say that, indeed, Dara is right: astrology is … [gesticulates to support the last word given to Dara]. Dara Ó Briain: It’s nonsense, it’s absolute(ly?) nonsense; right. Your account of the transcript (red text highlights omissions and inaccuracies): Dara O’Briain: Very rare for this kind of thing to happen. -- Because all of them have a different -- orbital length. -- Only the Earth goes around in one year and comes back to the same spot. Horoscopes – that’s all nonsense. We are happy to say this now, once and for all – that’s all rubbish, right, astrology, because the planets are in different places at different times. Brian Cox: In the interests of balance, because we’re on the BBC, I should say that, indeed, Dara is right: astrology is … Dara O’Briain: It’s nuts, that’s enough. 2 Superficially, attention to such small details might be mistaken for minor matters of significance, but the idea that you have presented in your characterisation of Dara Ó Briain (as a comedian jovially describing the subject as “nuts”) imagines a very different experience to the viewer impact that was actually delivered, where a popular presenter, whose presence on the programme was justified on account of him being “a trained physicist with a noted interest in science and astronomy”1 was given unequivocal endorsement by a renowned scientist, in order to exaggerate (and so offensively) dismiss an entire body of knowledge as ‘nonsense’, ‘rubbish’ ‘nonsense’ and ‘absolute nonsense’. You have been similarly inaccurate in your summary of the basis of my complaint, proposing in your letter to me (p.1) a definition and phrase that I have never used myself, suggesting: “You have said that these comments were misleading, and factually incorrect, as they misrepresented the true basis for astrology” I was extremely clear in the clarification of my complaint, in the letter I submitted to you of the 6 May 2011, to make sure that there could be no doubt that my complaint addressed the point that the comments were misleading and factually incorrect, because they misrepresented (to an offensive level) the astronomical and technical basis of astrology. I quote from my letter with emboldening on some comments of particular importance, to demonstrate how your investigation has completely overlooked the points I asked you to consider, and has responded instead with the defence of an argument that I have not chosen to pursue. “The broadcast remarks implied that astrologers do not understand even the most elementary principles of basic astronomy and do not account for the fact that the planets in our solar system orbit the Sun at different speeds and distances. This is defamatory to myself and other astrologers and couldn’t be further from the truth; as an astrologer I need to have an excellent understanding of the planetary cycles according to various systems of measurement, and I also need to keep a constant familiarity of the ongoing and future planetary cycles (I would certainly not need script notes to refer to, when asked about the length of the planetary cycles). I ask you to consider how such an uninformed and nonsensical rebuttal is experienced and perceived by astrological viewers such as myself, who naturally welcome and support exactly these kinds of programmes and look forward with great anticipation to the BBC’s live coverage of astronomical events. In my original letter of complaint (dated 19th January 2011) I provided a technical explanation of why Dara Ó Briain’s comments on astrological measurement were uninformed and incorrect, and missed the salient points of interest through his desire to present an unfair and disrespectful presentation of professional 1 I quote Mark Roberts of the BBC Complaints Department, as detailed in my letter of 19 January, 2011, p.3. 3 astrological technique. I refer you to that letter for the details, and would simply reassert the relevant fact: the demonstration broadcast to your viewers about how astrologers work is completely false and has no basis of truth, historically or currently, to support it. The BBC’s presenters introduced the subject without necessity and then used irrelevant arguments and contrived inaccuracies to promote their own bias and eliminate any prospect of the subject being treated with any kind of respect “once and for all”. Whilst I appreciate that the topic of the agreed limits of astrology’s objective reliability is a highly controversial one, which has always been subject to detailed argument and philosophical debate, the matter of inaccuracy and misrepresentation contained within the comments broadcast in this programme is not something that constitutes a matter of opinion, but is very easily established by fact: what was said was intentionally extreme and derogatory, given the appearance of being supported by reason, but actually based upon prejudice, lack of subject-knowledge or deliberately misrepresentative reporting. Because I am aware that astrology is a controversial subject, which is rarely exposed to the public without some form of emotive prejudice or intellectual bias attached to it (in favour as well as against) I would ask the Editorial Complaints Unit to keep in mind that the argument about the veracity of astrology is not the basis of this complaint, since the dismissive treatment of astrology given in the programme did not involve reasoned argument or scientific exploration, but simply promoted the idea that astrology is illogical nonsense because the most fundamental principle that it rests upon – awareness of planetary movement and the assessment of its meaning – is so flawed and unreliable that it bears no resemblance to astronomical reality. I am not at all opposed to the notion of fair criticism and intellectual debate of astrology’s claims. My complaint is: when coverage is given to astrology within the context of a factual programme the facts presented should be pertinent and balanced, and not deliberately misrepresentative or exaggerated to the point of absurdity. “ As you will see, I have struck through the words “and balanced” in the last sentence, because you have failed to give your attention to all the other points of my letter, and instead have used this word to digress into a defence of an irrelevant argument that is not the focus of my complaint. I do accept that there need not be equal degrees of air time or attention towards a non-science subject within a science program, or even balance in the representation of it when it is raised; I also fully accept (and have never had a problem) with the fact that the program did not present an alternative view, nor did it (quite rightly) show a commitment to impartial assessment of a controversial subject within a scientific programme. What I object to is the complete lack of accuracy and deliberate impartiality that was delivered to the audience, by which the audience were emphatically informed that astrology is nonsense (etc) because its astronomical basis is supposed to be a patently ridiculous one: 4 Dara Ó Briain: We’re happy to say this now, once and for all, that’s all rubbish, right, astrology – because the planets are in different places at different times. Brian Cox: In the interests of balance, because we’re on the BBC, I should say that, indeed, Dara is right: Such a false and disingenuous statement is beyond inaccurate, being defamatory against the reputations of professional astrologers because of the emphatic nature of the declaration, and because the context of the program was one which gave the appearance of this statement being a clear, researched, indisputable fact. Since the inaccuracy within the comments complained about is so obvious and transparent, may I suggest that future time is saved by not entering into arguments about the validity of astrology in science, your account of which could be argued subjectively until the end of time. I would like this investigation to limit its remit to my complaint of inaccuracy within the comments that were broadcast in the program. If you consider there is a valid defence as to why the above comments should not be defined as inaccurate and in need of correction, I would like to understand the justification of your position. Are you suggesting that this is not a clear case of inaccurate information being emphatically presented as if it were a fact, and delivered in such as way as to put the weight of the whole BBC behind it? Eliminating the non-relevant elements of your response, I have interspersed your comments regarding your position on this point, to bring the focus back to the pertinent matters of my complaint. You say: As you will h a v e noted from my earlier letter, the BBC's guidelines refer to "due" accuracy - that is accuracy as appropriate to the subject and nature of the output. I therefore judged the accuracy of what was said in the context of the programme. This was a science programme, presented by a scientist and a comedian who is an amateur astronomer. The programme made clear its focus at the outset, as Brian Cox, introducing the programme, said that astronomy was important because it was "the father of modern science" from which all scientific advancements had flowed. I think it follows that audiences would have expected the programme to offer a scientific perspective on the matters discussed. I agree – my complaint concerns the fact that the astronomical basis of astrology was seriously misrepresented and highly inaccurate. Astronomy is a science and astrology rests upon knowledge of that science; therefore your audience would have expected that the account of the astronomical principles of astrology were correctly reported – which is why the misrepresentation of astrology in this particular programme is more significant than it would have been were this not a science programme. Had the remarks been made in a comedic panel show, the audience would not expect that they should be taken seriously. Within the context of this programme, which was scientific and focussed upon explaining astronomy, there is a much heightened expectation that comments which draw attention through the emphatic nature by which they purport to offer clarification, are reliable and accurate in their astronomical details. Clearly this was not the case. 5 The BBC’s policy on accuracy states: 3.2.1 We must do all we can to ensure due accuracy in all our output. Did the presenters and programme producers do all they could to ensure that this sequence of transmitted information was duly accurate? My complaint is that they significantly failed to do so. I think the requirements for "due" accuracy in a science programme should be understood in that context - that of a programme presenting an account of what science knows to be true. Again, agreed. But what was presented in the comments complained about does not have any relevance to what science knows to be true. Astrology has not been proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the scientific community, who would hold that it is a question of belief, and is not supported by evidence. I do not therefore believe that audiences would have been surprised to see it discussed in a sceptical manner. It seems to me that they would have judged those comments accordingly. I doubt that anyone would disagree, or have a problem with the notion of astrology receiving sceptical discussion in a scientific program. Sceptical discussion looks objectively at the evidence but this is not what happened here. There was no relevance to what science knows to be true. Your comment would hold if the sceptical remarks concerning the technicalities of astrology were well sourced and based on sound evidence, but again, clearly, this is not the case. The BBC’s policy with regard to accuracy also states: 3.2.2 All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed. What was broadcast, being inaccurate in its astronomical allegations, was not appropriate to the programme’s subject and nature; it was not well sourced; it was not based on sound evidence (being an invented argument whose transmission appears to have been motivated by emotive bias); it was not tested or presented clearly. In addition the information was completely unfounded and delivered with a deceptive assumption of authority. There was a complete lack of honesty in the astrological criticisms set forward, which rested on astrology being “nonsense” because “only the Earth goes round …” I would accept that there is a disparity between what astrologists hold to be the case for astrology and the basis for it as described by Dara O'Briain. I do not believe however that the disparity was such that the programme would have materially misled viewers. This is the remark that is crucial to my complaint, and so I will ask you to reconsider what you have written above, and reconfirm your position in the light of my comments. Or please explain to me clearly (as preparation for my appeal to the BBC Trust) why you consider that 6 such an unfounded and dishonest remark, so patently inaccurate and bogus in its argument, should be allowed to misrepresent the astronomical basis of astrology so seriously that it could be used to justify such an offensively exaggerated rebuttal, based on unfounded allegations concerning the astronomical awareness of astrologers. Again, to save the prospect of time being wasted in the future; let us agree to remove from the argument the relevancy of the BBC Trust’s comment in response to a completely different complaint concerning a completely different program. You quote them as saying: There was no requirement for a programme based on known science to provide information or a response on "the non-scientific view of astrological planetary influence on our lives" I also see the logic of this, but this of course also fails to apply to the situation at the heart of my complaint. The programme did not present the scientific view of astrology. The programme presented false and inaccurate information. I am not arguing the need for the BBC to incorporate non-scientific views – I am reminding the BBC that when views are presented within a science programme as if they are accurate and based in fact, but are in reality seriously inaccurate and grossly misrepresentative, being based upon dishonest information, purely to give air time to the presenters’ prejudicial bias; then (as is the case here) the BBC becomes accountable for serious factual errors. And in this case the BBC’s policy on Accuracy is: 3.2.4 We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct them quickly, clearly and appropriately. The history of my complaint also highlights the failure to apply this policy effectively. I accept in good faith your apology for failing to deliver on your promise of including a response to my concerns about the way that my complaint has been handled. However, I would like the ECU to endeavour to arrange a response to this aspect of my complaint, as part of your process of compiling a final statement on the ECU’s standing on my complaint as a whole, including the way that it is has been handled. I am prepared to give the ECU whatever reasonable amount of time is necessary for this to happen, without prejudicing the time available to me to take my complaint to the BBC Trust in appeal, if necessary. In any case, it seemed clear to me that while many of the topics covered in the programme were of a serious and scientific nature, the approach of the presenters as a whole was light-hearted and humorous. This was certainly true of the exchanges which preceded this comment, which included jokes at the expense of the Mayan civilisation, the alignment of the planets and the forthcoming end of the world. I think audiences would have judged his particular exchange accordingly- as light-hearted banter poking fun at what the presenters considered to be a belief not founded in science. It is hard therefore to conclude that they would have been materially misled as a result of that exchange. Your audience certainly were misled on the point that forms the basis of my complaint: the dishonest and emphatic account of how astrology is ‘absolute nonsense’ because its astronomical basis is flawed. This again suggests that your department has not applied 7 attention to the details in my letter of complaint of 6 May 2011, where I raised this point and demonstrated why the comments cannot be dismissed as content that was not emphatic, nor intended to be taken seriously. I will quote again and ask that if you wish to raise this point in reference to the seriousness of the inaccuracy, you should offer me a justified reason why you do or do not accept the critical points I have presented on this matter: I hope it would not be necessary to have to persuade the BBC of the astrological argument, in order to pursue this complaint that the astrological argument [for whatever value we put upon it] does exist and was subject to inaccuracy and a lack of impartiality in the presentation of the programme complained about. Even though the producer of the programme suggested that the comments would have been perceived as light hearted in tone, following as they did the earlier references to the end of the world in 2012, it should also be considered that Professor Cox clearly realised that even such a far-fetched and jokey suggestion as the impeding end of the world needed to be clarified, so that he looked concerned when he interrupted Dara Ó Briain’s presentation to make the statement to viewers: “can I just be clear about that – it’s not going to happen in 2012!”, upon which both presenters shook their arms in denial to give an obvious dismissal in their tone and gestures, to indicate that they had introduced a joke which was not to be taken seriously. Nothing of this sort happened with the astrology references. Dara Ó Briain took his time to repeat the comments with a raised volume in his voice and sweeping arm gestures to indicate that the only dismissal to be made was the idea that astrology was anything more than absolute nonsense. He looked straight into the camera to give a heightened sense of presenting a factual correction of a point of idiocy, so that the ‘fact’ of the matter can be cleared up “once and for all”. The BBC’s policy on Accuracy also states: 3.2.3 The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences' trust in our content. I have previously set forward the evidence to demonstrate that the sequence was deliberately engineered to be misrepresentative (reproduced on p.10 of this letter), and why it must have had the foreknowledge and approval of the producer and editorial team. You appear to have evaded entirely my complaint on this point by entering instead into the irrelevant suggestion that presenters and producers were entitled to discuss the subject in a “sceptical manner“; and by raising points of ambiguity regarding how the word “due” ought to be interpreted within the BBC’s policy of ensuring “due accuracy”. The word ‘due’ means two things: it refers to something that is owed, (as, for example, an admission of inaccuracy is owed in this situation), and it also means appropriate and fitting to the circumstances. Since my complaint of inaccuracy is obvious and easily proven, I would ask that you please avoid debate regarding the meaning of an ambiguous word, which might be seen as a tactic designed to give the superficial appearance of adhering to policy, when there is no other defence for a situation where policy has failed to be applied in principle and practice. 8 In summary, with regard to the ‘accuracy’ complaint, the focus of my complaint has not been correctly recognised in your response, and so I request that you reconsider this with reference only to the pertinency of the broadcast remarks, and avoiding all digression into irrelevant matters of how you would define the science community’s relationship with science (this is what allows the focus of my genuine and legitimate complaint to become lost and unattended to). If one of your presenters had said “astrology; that is just absolute rubbish” without any attempt to qualify the remark, then I would not have instigated this complaint: the remark would clearly have been seen for what it was – an expression of the presenter’s own personal opinion. Or if a presenter had said “astrology; from the scientific point of view that is absolute nonsense”; I would have viewed the remark as controversial but not in need to correction in a situation where there was no development or attention to the arguments: again, this would have demonstrated a general opinion that many scientists feel they are entitled to hold and express. It is the attempt to qualify the remark by introducing false argument that makes this complaint serious, though its implication that astrologers are not educated upon the scientific and technical principles of astronomy. The second agreed aspect of my complaint concerns the criticism of impartiality. I raised this with consideration of the BBC’s published commitment which states: “Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences.” Here it has also been the case that the focus of your scrutiny has not been applied to the matters of concern that I identified. Instead you quote policy 4.4.2 which reads: Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single programme, web page or item. Instead, we should seek to achieve ‘due weight'. For example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the prevailing consensus. I will accept this, having mentioned in my letter that I consider it to be a ‘red herring’ to the particulars of my complaint. My complaint of impartiality does not hinge upon the criticism of ‘lack of balance’ in the division of time afforded to opposing sides of an argument, or the suggestion that every point raised must be answered by a counter-point. It is important that you realise that my complaint only concerns the offensiveness of the exaggerated level of criticism which rests for its justification upon factually incorrect and deliberately misrepresentative remarks. This is where the issue of impartiality is significant in my complaint: that the presenters were allowed to broadcast inaccuracies, purely to create an opportunity which would allow them to exercise their own well known, and well reported prejudice to astrology as a subject. As support of this I have submitted to you reports of how the presenters’ bias against the subject is so notable, that they have engaged in highly questionable, highly public activities, which have served to prevent members of the astrological community from exercising their right of democratic expression. I consider there is a serious cause of complaint regarding 9 conflict of interest when presenters use their BBC profiles to endorse malicious activity against members of the public who happen to be members of the astrological community. The extreme and exaggerated level of inaccuracy in the broadcast remarks raises the question of why the producer of a science programme would allow them to be transmitted, and I have previously argued that the comments cannot be dismissed as off-the-cuff, lighthearted mistakes, when I wrote in my letter: Dara Ó Briain’s unequivocal declaration “We’re happy to say this now, once and for all” shows that he was speaking for the production team and therefore the BBC itself. It also reveals that the inflammatory exchange was pre-planned and deliberately engineered for inclusion with the agreement of others, since Dara Ó Briain made this remark on behalf of himself and others after making a very sudden and unnecessary reference to astrology, which had no previous development in the preceding commentary. I consider it difficult therefore, to accept a justification that the audience was expected to interpret the comments as being just the presenters’ own personal views rather than those of the BBC as a corporation which has obligations towards accuracy and impartiality. Professor Cox’s reference to BBC policy and Dara Ó Briain’s indication that he was speaking on behalf of a teamview make it clear that was not the case. The submission of my report which presented reference to the use of public Twitter feed activity, demonstrated how three of the programme presenters engaged in disruption of astrological-community concerns, and publication of highly offensive and prejudicial insults of astrologers, down to the level of comparing them to paedophiles. Although I have not chosen to pursue this as significantly as I might have done, it does play an extremely relevant role in my complaint of underlying impartiality being allowed to express itself through the broadcasting of deliberately inaccurate information. You do not appear to have taken the significance of any of this into consideration. The presenters’ use of their public profiles as BBC presenters, and their media involvement in propagating hostility and criticism towards astrologers, has constituted a campaign of raising intolerance towards the astrological industry, and so calls for examination under the BBC’s Impartiality guidelines (15.4.20) which state that BBC representatives: “taking a public position on an issue of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’ is likely to be incompatible with some BBC roles, especially in news, current affairs and, sometimes, in general factual programmes”. This type of conduct and behaviour effectively stigmatises astrologers. Section 4 of the BBC charter also states “The external activities of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect the BBC’s reputation for impartiality”. I have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the presenters have done this, demonstrating that they have introduced prejudice and impartiality into their role of science communicators because they are biased towards an emotive hostility of the subject. It is for this reason that I have raised reference to the complaint under the policy of impartiality; on the basis that such prejudice motivated the dishonest broadcast which was deceptive and 10 inaccurate in its details, and deliberately based upon unfounded speculation, irrational argument and invented criticism, resulting in an abuse of audience faith in the BBC’s published pledge to keep impartiality at the core of its commitments. Since your response addressed inconsequential points on the matter of impartiality, and has not addressed the pertinent points, I would ask you to consider these matters with the attention they deserve, so that your final response indicates that you have investigated these matters appropriately, and shows that you have taken a well considered judicial decision, having given due consideration to all matters of significance. Finally, you refer to my “strength of feeling over these matters”. I would like to reassure you that my complaint is not based upon the experience of my feelings, and that I have sought to remove all points of subjectivity from my complaint, so that they are not allowed to create unnecessary points of confusion. I have persisted with this complaint against a great deal of obfuscation because I recognise that there are important principles at stake here; about the BBC being honest and accountable, and prepared to accept the responsibility that comes with the reputation of being a trusted broadcaster. To essentially push aside all the valid points of my complaint, with what basically amounts to an excuse that “science knows that astrology is rubbish” (and thus implying that BBC programmes are therefore at liberty to report any false or prejudicial remark they choose, regardless of the accuracy of fact) does not affect my feelings; but it does concern me as a right-minded individual who strives to be led by good conscience. Thank you again for your time and attention. Yours sincerely, Mrs Deborah Houlding CC:- Sir Alan Meale Wendy Stacey Sharon Knight Joyce Lampert Member of Parliament, Mansfield Constituency Chair, Astrological Association of Great Britain Chair, Association of Professional Astrologers International Secretary, Advisory Panel on Astrological Education 11