Re: [Fsfe-uk] BBC slander

[P.L.Hayes]

On Saturday 07 February 2004 19:17, Alex Hudson wrote:

> Well, to put it shortly, I don't think you can claim either gross
> inaccuracy (I don't think there are any facts of the case which
> contradict the published article) or defamation (no group or
> organisation is specifically named nor implied; I can't see loss of
> standing).

Perhaps I will drop the inaccuracy bit or reduce it to a contextual remark 
about the cursory and poor quality research of the 'analysis' leading to 
unbalanced and ill-informed journalism - especially remiss in the context of 
a known controversial issue. The accusation of defamation will remain though 
- it is irrelevant that no identifiable group or organisation is specifically 
named when the allusions are clear enough and the implication that any group 
that supports free software should be regarded in the same light as the 
perpetrator(s) of the attack certainly is there.

> I also doubt you can claim the piece should be labelled opinion; I can't
> tell what the reporter's opinion is from the piece...

I have no intention of claiming such a thing and I do not want the BBC's 
reporters to spend their time writing opinion pieces, the newspapers do 
little else but if you cannot discern the reporter's opinion from the piece 
in question, I know where I can find 1000 others who can! 

> I think you have missed a trick though. Although I do not think that you
> have any case the producer's guidelines have been breached, there is a
> question of right of reply.

Precisely the approach I wish to avoid; Stephen Evans is a senior reporter 
with the BBC and this is not the first time he has shown extraordinary bias 
in his journalism. In my personal opinion he is not fit to report in a fair 
and balanced  manner on the opening of a public convenience. His position 
within the BBC is in itself disturbing given his propensity to subvert the 
journalistic integrity that organisation purports to uphold. The right of 
reply is meant as a last resort for the protection of the public against 
unfair portrayal by particular BBC programmes, in what should ideally be rare 
circumstances and usually by parties not directly connected to the BBC 
itself. It would be a sorry state of affairs indeed if it became a common 
occurence that people felt the need to exercise that right because of unfair, 
unbalanced and slanderous reporting by the BBC's own most senior journalists. 
The case is far stronger than you seem to think; I don't know if you read the 
guidelines but (amongst other things) they state:

"It is not sufficient that we get our facts right. We must use language 
fairly. That means avoiding exaggeration. We must not use language 
inadvertently so as to suggest value judgements, commitment or lack of 
objectivity."

"Zealot", "Arsonist", "Vandal", "Devotee" (of a Kali death cult perhaps - very 
Kiplingesque), "Wrath of geeks", "Internet [vandal,zealot]", "Malice", 
"Blackmail", "Wicked", "Evil". 

Okay -  thanks Alex, the technical stuff is interesting but not particularly 
relevant. Your devil's advocacy has been very useful. :)

Cheers,

Paul.