Forum

David C

Hi Eds

Meant to copy you in in the original Smile

Here is Gavin's reply and my counter reply. Perhaps he get's back to me again.

Kind regards

PS: His Brecht Quote translates: "Fart has no nose"

The one I sent him are:

"First comes the food, then morals"
"Fortunate is the country that has heros ... No. Unfortunate is the country that needs heros"
"Only instructed by reality can we change reality"

==

Dear Gavin,

Many thanks for taking the time to get back to. I am disappointed to read that you think my letter is robotic, etc. I know it is a long letter and your time is precious.

Could I please suggest you re-read my original e-mail when you have more time. You may perhaps see that I have made genuine suggestions on how you could tackle the issue. Further down the e-mail you will find a link that compares the different studies graphically with background and discussion.

Many thanks for the Brecht quote. I have had not heard of it before. Here is one my father told me when I was young, asking questions about the world:

"Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral"

or what about this one:

"Ungluecklich das Land, das keine Helden hat ... Nein. Ungluecklich das Land das Helden noetig hat"

last one, promised:

"Nur belehrt von der Wirklichkeit, koennen wir die Wirklichkeit aendern"

Again, many thanks for reading this.

Kind regards
[Name withheld]

PS: Trust you can translate the quotes. If not, let me know ...

Gavin Esler (gavin.esler@bbc.co.uk) wrote:
Dear [Name withheld]

The reason no one takes media lens seriously is not the substance of your complaints. It is the robotic, identikit, narcissistic manner in which they are expressed. I know you will not understand this, but your complaint below is precisely what I had in mind. I made a comparison with the fascistic habit of mind which seeks to intimidate through numbers of people unthinkingly doing the same thing. Hilariously, you and a handful of other people have done precisely that. Berthold Brecht explains the fascistic habit of mind and its lack of self-awareness when he pointed out that "Furz hat keine Nase."

Please don't write again. Genuine complaints from geuine people I am happy to deal with. Phoney outrage from medialens is simply a waste of everyone's time. Again, I don't suppose you will get it.

Gavin

From:
Sent: Thu 20/09/2007 11:59
To: Peter Barron; Gavin Esler
Subject: editors@medialens.org

Dear Gavin and Peter,

I have followed your e-mail exchange with Media Lens readers and have to admit that I am very surprised by your arguments.

Gavin you write in an e-mail:

"Sorry but this medialens inspired stuff is very sophomoric. The last
time I remember a robotic response from people like this was watching
film of the nuremberg rallies. I always wondered why people marched to
another's beat without any obvious thought from themselves. Perhaps
you know the answer, or perhaps you merely intend to keep marching.
Please don't write to me again in someone else's words. It is so
embarrasing for you. Please learn to think for yourself."
When the writer states he is offended, you reply with:

"I'm sorry you were offended but when you parrot other people's ideas as
if they were your own you behave exactly like an automaton."

In a different e-mail you have stated:

"hi - yes i have a lot of input into what goes into the programme - obviously different people have different ideas about what is important and the methodology of polling on deaths in iraq is problematic. no doubt we will return to the subject at some future time. best wishes gavin"

I have seen the now famous 34 seconds. You clearly read the segment. Did you write it yourself or did you parrot someone else's opinion? Even if you have written it yourself, how much would have this been informed by what you read before going to bed or by your peers? Or am I really to believe that you are fully independent in your thoughts. I am happy to admit that I am not. I am obviously influenced by what I read and hear from different sources. What about you?

The information you have put out was clearly misleading. Here it is again.

The segment starts with a visual of injured people being brought in to a hospital. The voice over states "people are still being brought in hours after the bombing, this is just one of several hospitals dealing with the casualties".

Esler starts reading: "More than a million Iraqis have been killed since the invasion of 2003 according to the British polling company ORB. The study is likely to fuel controversy over the true human cost of the war. It is significantly up on the previous highest estimate of 650,000 deaths, published by the Lancet last October. At the time the Iraqi government described that figure as ridiculously high. The independent Iraqi Body Count group puts their total at closer to 75,000"

We know from IBC, Lancet and ORB that most people have died as a result of gunfire. Newsnight still chooses to frame the segment with bombings. You frame the Lancet with the opinion of the Iraqi government but not balance it with the opinion of British government advisers. You can now say there was no time to do so, fair enough, but why was there time to mention the opinion of the Iraqi government.

Lastly you introduce IBC as an independent organisation which suggests that Lancet and ORB are not. Further you misrepresent IBC's number. Obviously you can state, that by now, your viewers will be familiar with the nature of IBC's data, if so, why not assuming they are familiar with the opinion of the Iraqi government. Was their really no time to add "this total is solely based on media reports and hence the bottom line. The true number of deaths is obviously higher and could be in the magnitude the Lancet and ORB suggest". How long would that have taken? Sure Newsnight Review would have been accommodating if you had asked them nicely.

Peter, you write in an e-mail to Keith

"Thanks Keith,

The IBC figure is "real" data as opposed to an extrapolation based on polling, but is by its own admission incomplete.

I think the issue of the number of deaths caused by the conflict is of huge importance and that is why we aim to report estimates often.

Both polling and and a simple count based on media reports have value, but I don't think either is capable of giving a comprehensive picture of how many have died.

Best wishes
Peter"

When in a hole, stop digging. Am I to assume that you will never report polls again unless you can balance them with a count? Will you never again state how many people are believed to be dead in Darfur, Congo, Chechnya and Ruanda? How do you think the 6 million figure for the holocaust came about? Or how many people died in the raid on Dresden, my hometown? How do you think the weather is forecasted? If you believe the forecast comes from a single model, than you are mistaken? How do you think the consensus on global warming has been achieved, so far. Scientists compared data and their models.

I am not saying you should believe every press release and give every topic the same time. However, when a poll comes out stating that 1.2 million people may have died in Iraq this should be big news or not? There are so many things you could do.

You could invite experts and discuss the different figures out there. Or you could produce some of those fancy graphics. For inspiration have a look at this:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2007/09/1220580.php

More background can be found here:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2007/06/the_deaths_in_the_pottery_barn.php

Don't you think that you should be doing some analysis? Is there really no time and budget for this? Do you think this is outside your merit?

I know that you were the only ones within the BBC who given the ORB poll some time; and you still get stick. Your "Online" colleagues have managed to bury it here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6998458.stm

and here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6998788.stm

To me as an outsider, it almost feels like you wanted to get the news out but you did it in a way a child would do it when forced to tell the truth, "spitting it out quickly" between two sentences and then pretend those words were never said.

There is something not right with a news organisation that can produce a news item like this one but chooses to hide the ORB poll:

Iran issues Israel attack warning

Iran has drawn up plans to bomb Israel if it launches an attack on Iranian soil first, military officials say.

in which you find this sentence:

Israel's foreign ministry said the comments were alarming and showed that the international community should take a "very firm stance" on Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7003143.stm

But read for yourself. You will see what is wrong.

I have not the energy anymore to file an official complaint, I can forecast that I will be rebuffed with a copy and paste job or some sentences that do not address my point, as happened when I filed a complaint how the ORB was reported on your program. Guess what I received. Please have a look at the bottom of my e-mail for reply and initial complaint. I was not complaining about some trivialities but a very serious issue.

Just to let you know, I have now escalated my complaint but do not hold my breath. Actually, I feel quite sorry for your colleagues who have to deal with public complaints all the time. What a job that must be. How long would it take me to start the copy paste routine? Gavin, wouldn't you agree that the response I received was rather robotic?

We all sit in this boat together. We have allowed the US/UK governments to go ahead with the invasion. I still pay taxes in this country and by doing so I am supporting the ongoing killing in Iraq. I have not laid down my job nor have I joined Brian Haw. I sometimes write to the BBC to encourage journalists to inform the public better on what is happening in their name. You and I are aware of the ORB, Lancet and IBC figures. Do you know how many other people know about this? Joe on medialens suggested to poll the British public. What a good idea. A few questions on an omnibus survey should not break the bank and give you a quick indication.

I would guess you would get a wide range of answers, with many around the 650,000 mark and higher but also values below this. What do you think the average or median would be? What the minimum? Would this not be an angle to debate the IBC, Lancet and ORB and in the context of what we know, what we can know and what we won't know? Wouldn't it make "compelling" viewing? Wouldn't this be a chance to open up the debate?

Many thanks for reading this rather long e-mail. This topic, however, has been too close to my heart for such a long time, that I simply had to get it off my chest. Again many thanks.

Kind regards
[Name withheld]
---------------

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Newsnight'.

Having discussed your concerns with the programme's treatment of the
ORB
survey findings on the 14th September with Newsnight's editor he
explained
the thinking behind this short piece as follows:

"As you know Newsnight has devoted more airtime, by a large margin, to
the
situation in Iraq than any other story in recent years. The question of
the
number of deaths caused by the conflict is of huge importance and on
Newsnight we have taken many opportunities to report and debate it, and
will continue to do so.

I certainly think it was right to report the ORB findings, and to put
them
in context. The IBC figure is of course not offering a comprehensive
estimate of the total number of deaths, but it has the virtue of being
real
data and therefore provides one end of the spectrum."

Having said that, I am sorry if you were concerned and would like to
assure
you that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is
the
internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all
programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also
their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other
comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thank you for contacting us.

Yours sincerely

--------------------