Gary James
Well-Known Member
As I posted earlier in the thread the BBC sport social media team well knew that they were in Feb 2016: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35422467 Short memories or deliberate mention?
Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge
- Thread starter Prestwich_Blue
- Start date
As I posted earlier in the thread the BBC sport social media team well knew that they were in Feb 2016: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35422467 Short memories or deliberate mention?
whitenoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,121
M
M
manchester blue
Guest
Thanks Gary, I referenced your link in the escalated complaint. We all know the real reason, it's a shame they just not could have said so and that the matter was being dealt with internally. That would have put it to bed but they continue to lie and have now given three differing accounts about how they chose to use the term in the three responses.
nmc
Well-Known Member
Match of the Day social media platform, 5 February 2017
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 thismight 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.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Bell
Complaints Director
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 thismight 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.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Bell
Complaints Director
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Got a call from a well known media outlet about this story. Watch this space.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Hopefully something will come of it. I guess there are a whole load of people queuing to have a pop at the BBC.
There is a fair amount of evidence of their PR department telling blatant lies. Plenty on here, including myself have had the email where they claim it was a genuine mistake. It just depends if anyone in the know on the inside is prepared to stick their neck on the line and spill the beans.
High profile heads should roll, but the carpet in the board room at the BBC is lumpier than the surface of the moon with all the shit that's been swept under it over the years.
avoidconfusion
Well-Known Member
What do you mean mate?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I contacted a publication that I thought would be interested in this story and they got back to me and wanted all the details. They're planning to write and publish it so I've sent the various emails that prove:
a) They lied in the first instance;
b) BBC management were not happy over the publication of that post;
c) They're still giving us bull-shit excuses and not even acknowledging they lied in the first place.
I'll let you know what transpires.
AntonDonJuan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2007
- Messages
- 13,215
Fair play @Prestwich_Blue for your persistance