Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge

Response regarding escalated complaint. It's clear they are protecting the rag who wrote this and are still treating complainants as gullible.


I am writing to let you know the outcome of the ECU’s investigation into your complaint about this posting on Match of the Day social media. I am sorry that you were not happy with the BBC’s response when you first raised this matter. I have considered your complaint against the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines concerning Harm and Offence.


Your complaint concerns the use of a picture of a Manchester City supporter with a caption referring to him as “Bertie”, a nickname used by Manchester United supporters, in particular, to refer to supporters of Manchester City. Some complainants have argued that it was unfair to appear to be mocking the particular gentleman in the picture. However, that is not something I can look into. Complaints of unfairness have to be brought by the person or organisation concerned or by their representatives. We don’t entertain unfairness complaints brought by third parties.


Having looked into the matter I don’t think the post amounts to a serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards, which is the test we use to decide if a complaint should be upheld. However, before I explain why, I think it’s appropriate to set out how the post came to be posted in the form it was. According to BBC Sport, the social media producer lifted the name “Bertie” from a related (non-BBC) Twitter feed where fans were using the term alongside the same or a similar picture. He didn’t appreciate its significance. When complainants brought it to the editor’s attention the caption was removed


The issue I have to take a view on is whether the use of the word “Bertie” to refer to a Manchester City supporter is a serious breach of the Harm and Offence guidelines. They say this:


When our content includes challenging material that risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose, taking account of generally accepted standards, and ensure it is clearly signposted. Such challenging material may include, but is not limited to, strong language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, and discriminatory treatment or language.


As you can see, there is no absolute bar on including potentially offensive material in BBC output although the inclusion of such material should meet certain requirements. In this case, I’m afraid that I don’t agree that “generally accepted standards” were breached by the inadvertent use of a nickname used by one club’s fans to refer to another’s even though this might be understandably annoying for the fans referred to. And I note that in deference to those who did take offence the caption was quickly removed when it was brought to the editor’s attention. That, it seems to me, is sufficient to dispose of the matter.


As I explained in my earlier email this is a provisional finding, and you have the opportunity to comment on it before it is finalised. If you wish to take that opportunity, I’d be grateful if you would let me have your comments by 10 April. In the meantime, thank you for writing to us and giving us the opportunity to investigate your concerns

I think that's a pretty fair response.
This person appears to have raked through things to get a proper version. It would be nice if the previous versions had been referred to. The removal of the offending phrase is fairly standard behaviour in response to complaints of unfairness, as newspapers often find.

I think the important word that the above used is 'serious' - 'bertie'' probably isn't very high on that scale, as it's more mocking, rather than out and out insulting.

That they can't review if it's unfair without Pete being the complainant makes sense too.

We can only hope that it's opened a few eyes.
 
Response regarding escalated complaint. It's clear they are protecting the rag who wrote this and are still treating complainants as gullible.


I am writing to let you know the outcome of the ECU’s investigation into your complaint about this posting on Match of the Day social media. I am sorry that you were not happy with the BBC’s response when you first raised this matter. I have considered your complaint against the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines concerning Harm and Offence.


Your complaint concerns the use of a picture of a Manchester City supporter with a caption referring to him as “Bertie”, a nickname used by Manchester United supporters, in particular, to refer to supporters of Manchester City. Some complainants have argued that it was unfair to appear to be mocking the particular gentleman in the picture. However, that is not something I can look into. Complaints of unfairness have to be brought by the person or organisation concerned or by their representatives. We don’t entertain unfairness complaints brought by third parties.


Having looked into the matter I don’t think the post amounts to a serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards, which is the test we use to decide if a complaint should be upheld. However, before I explain why, I think it’s appropriate to set out how the post came to be posted in the form it was. According to BBC Sport, the social media producer lifted the name “Bertie” from a related (non-BBC) Twitter feed where fans were using the term alongside the same or a similar picture. He didn’t appreciate its significance. When complainants brought it to the editor’s attention the caption was removed


The issue I have to take a view on is whether the use of the word “Bertie” to refer to a Manchester City supporter is a serious breach of the Harm and Offence guidelines. They say this:


When our content includes challenging material that risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose, taking account of generally accepted standards, and ensure it is clearly signposted. Such challenging material may include, but is not limited to, strong language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, and discriminatory treatment or language.


As you can see, there is no absolute bar on including potentially offensive material in BBC output although the inclusion of such material should meet certain requirements. In this case, I’m afraid that I don’t agree that “generally accepted standards” were breached by the inadvertent use of a nickname used by one club’s fans to refer to another’s even though this might be understandably annoying for the fans referred to. And I note that in deference to those who did take offence the caption was quickly removed when it was brought to the editor’s attention. That, it seems to me, is sufficient to dispose of the matter.


As I explained in my earlier email this is a provisional finding, and you have the opportunity to comment on it before it is finalised. If you wish to take that opportunity, I’d be grateful if you would let me have your comments by 10 April. In the meantime, thank you for writing to us and giving us the opportunity to investigate your concerns

Sounds like they're fudging the real issue. The picture and/or the caption isn't 'challenging material'. No one's been required to take a decision on whether to publish graphic photos of war casualties or humanitarian suffering. That is the whole crux of the matter, there is no legitimate 'editorial purpose' and never could be. It's just someone at the BBC (a) individually taking the piss (b) collectively being allowed to do so and (c) seemingly being defended by their employers for doing so.
The whole thing would have been done and dusted if they'd accepted it was an error, apologised to Pete, and confirmed that the individual concerned had been identified and received some guidance as to the standards expected of him or her.
 
BBC Sport at Media City is infested with rags from top to bottom. Collectively they knew exactly what they were doing.
Is the correct answer.

If I posted a picture of a Southampton fan with the caption - 'Scummer - I wonder who he is supporting today' would the BBC have claimed they didn't realise?
 
Last edited:
I thought that had been done. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that an individual didn't check a BBC article from a year ago.

I agree and would not expect everyone to know what the phrase means but in the original response I was told "None of the team on the BBC Sport website were aware of “Bertie” as being a derogatory term to describe City fans"

Which again leads to the question - which I have now had three different responses - why did they use it?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.