BBC Response to Complaint (Nimrod Crash Coverage)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC Response to Complaint (Nimrod Crash Coverage)
For those who don't recall, several PPRuNers were moved to complain to the BBC regarding their coverage of the Nimrod crash in Afghanistan some weeks ago. The crux of the complaint was that the BBC had speculated - we felt recklessly - about which aircraft type had crashed.
As an update, today I had a response from the BBC. I wonder whether other PPRuNers have had responses?
From: [email protected]
Sent: 26 September 2006 16:11:37
To: tablet_eraser
Subject: Reply Required (T20060903007NS060)
Thank you for your email.
Little was known for certain for several hours after the MoD's announcement that 14 lives had been lost in an air crash in Afghanistan. This is often the case in conflict reporting, where there may be only the most sketchy details of major developments for hours or days after they have happened. BBC correspondents therefore try to distinguish on air between what is known and what is not; what is fact and what is speculation; to correctly attribute claims and, also, to report accurately what credible sources are saying about an event.
So, while other channels were saying the aircraft was probably a Hercules, our defence correspondent was able to say he was getting "strong guidance from a supposedly reliable defence source" that it was not. In saying it could be a Chinook helicopter, we made clear this was what sources were saying rather than an official announcement or established fact. On News 24, for instance, our defence correspondent said: "We don't know yet for certain whether it was a Chinook. The MoD isn't saying. It's an indication we've had that it might have been."
While the US military has guidelines that aircraft type should be released within two hours of news of a crash, the MoD do not release information until the next of kin have been informed. The MoD’s concern is one shared by the BBC and set out in guidelines agreed by the two organisations. No one should hear a close relative named in a TV or radio broadcast as killed in action without first having been properly, and privately, informed.
On the narrow issue of releasing names, therefore, the BBC does wait until the official announcement. We feel, though, that a wider policy of restricting our coverage to official releases is not realistic in today's world of instant
communication from the battlefield and multiple sources of information which are often, on the web, directly accessible to our viewers and listeners. The issues you raise are the subject of constant debate and discussion within the BBC and we will continue to weigh very carefully how we report British casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thank you, once more, for taking the time to contact the BBC.
Regards
BBC Information
__________________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - World Wide Wonderland
As an update, today I had a response from the BBC. I wonder whether other PPRuNers have had responses?
From: [email protected]
Sent: 26 September 2006 16:11:37
To: tablet_eraser
Subject: Reply Required (T20060903007NS060)
Thank you for your email.
Little was known for certain for several hours after the MoD's announcement that 14 lives had been lost in an air crash in Afghanistan. This is often the case in conflict reporting, where there may be only the most sketchy details of major developments for hours or days after they have happened. BBC correspondents therefore try to distinguish on air between what is known and what is not; what is fact and what is speculation; to correctly attribute claims and, also, to report accurately what credible sources are saying about an event.
So, while other channels were saying the aircraft was probably a Hercules, our defence correspondent was able to say he was getting "strong guidance from a supposedly reliable defence source" that it was not. In saying it could be a Chinook helicopter, we made clear this was what sources were saying rather than an official announcement or established fact. On News 24, for instance, our defence correspondent said: "We don't know yet for certain whether it was a Chinook. The MoD isn't saying. It's an indication we've had that it might have been."
While the US military has guidelines that aircraft type should be released within two hours of news of a crash, the MoD do not release information until the next of kin have been informed. The MoD’s concern is one shared by the BBC and set out in guidelines agreed by the two organisations. No one should hear a close relative named in a TV or radio broadcast as killed in action without first having been properly, and privately, informed.
On the narrow issue of releasing names, therefore, the BBC does wait until the official announcement. We feel, though, that a wider policy of restricting our coverage to official releases is not realistic in today's world of instant
communication from the battlefield and multiple sources of information which are often, on the web, directly accessible to our viewers and listeners. The issues you raise are the subject of constant debate and discussion within the BBC and we will continue to weigh very carefully how we report British casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thank you, once more, for taking the time to contact the BBC.
Regards
BBC Information
__________________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - World Wide Wonderland
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC cannot pass this one off so lightly
So in today's climate of instant communications it's OK to put families and colleagues at Odiham through the mill and simultaneously allow those at Kinloss to breathe a sigh of relief (prior to being put through the mill), is it? The once respected BBC is lowering itself to the levels of the tabloids if it will now speculate (at great emotional cost to numerous people) for the sake of a scoop. The BBC probably does not even appreciate how damaging its guesses were: the crew composition released and attributed by the BBC to a Chinook, meant that particular names were in the minds of those waiting for 'reliable' news at Odiham.
Tossers.
Tossers.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC TO BLAME? - NOT REALLY
In all honesty this farce is down to the MOD. They knew which ac were up, or should have in this age of 'instant communication'. I do not believe the BBC were being irresponsible, I believe MOD were too far up their own b*cksides to stop the speculation and at least start kinforming immediately if not put out a statement as the much maligned Americans (within these fora at least) would do. Wasn't the government accused a few weeks ago of having a huge PR machine? Seems to me that they don't really give a t0$$ about the guys and their families.
RIP
In all honesty this farce is down to the MOD. They knew which ac were up, or should have in this age of 'instant communication'. I do not believe the BBC were being irresponsible, I believe MOD were too far up their own b*cksides to stop the speculation and at least start kinforming immediately if not put out a statement as the much maligned Americans (within these fora at least) would do. Wasn't the government accused a few weeks ago of having a huge PR machine? Seems to me that they don't really give a t0$$ about the guys and their families.
RIP
