UKC

This is the reponse of the BBC to my complaint about their OMM covergae. Can't believe they think it was 'measured' and 'accurate'!


Thank you for your e-mail. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.

Over the 25th and 26th October, the BBC One bulletins and the BBC News Channel ran coverage of some of the problems encountered by the Original Mountain Marathon event in Cumbia. We raised your concerns with the senior editor responsible for that weekend’s output who responded as follows:

"We were aware - and stated from the outset - that this was not an amateur event, but an endurance race with a long and successful history. We interviewed many of the runners who told us that they were well trained, and that each of the runners would have had the necessary resources to sustain them for the duration, even if they were stranded.

"There were some voices, however, who criticised the fact that the event had not been cancelled from the outset - including the police - and we also reflected this in our coverage. We did not say the runners were in danger - nor that there were fears for their safety.

"In addition we spoke to relatives of runners, who told us that they weren't particularly worried about their loved ones, even though they hadn't heard from them.

"I personally went to great lengths to emphasise to all of our staff that we should be clear that the runners missing were experienced and would have been kitted out appropriately for the conditions.

"Our pieces focused on the bad weather conditions and the numbers of people who had spent the night in temporary shelters and I believe our scripts were measured and accurate."

Thank you for getting in touch and for the feedback you have provided. We hope this reassures you about the coverage we offered.

Regards

BBC Complaints
____________________________

In reply to Heike:

Exactly what I would have predicted. And probably written, in another life. You haven't posted your complaint email, for those who haven't seen it - were your complaints all about tone and balance, or did you point out some specific factual inaccuracy in the reporting?

In reply to Martin76:

A bit of both really. A pointed out quite a few mistakes, but there was no reply to it clearly. They think it was all accurate...

In reply to Heike:
Exactly the same reply I've just had, so unsurprisingly it's a stock reply for everyone not one addressed to the specific concerns raised.

"We did not say the runners were in danger - nor that there were fears for their safety."

Words fail me.

In reply to Toreador:


I've had an almost identical reply to a completely different query - it's stock stuff, I suspect the staff are told never to admit fault, even if the corporation is subsequantly fined for their coverage.

In reply to Heike:

Hi there,

hopefully this doesn't come over the wrong way, it certainly isn't meant to but always find it easier to talk to people about something rather than try and write it down!

Can I ask why you complained? Only because it is well known that most journalists rarely echo the publics/personal view and of course you disagree with their reply.

Were you expecting a different reply and did you want an explanation for any other reason other than for them to justify their reporting of the situation?

I find complaining is usually a complete waste of time, standard replies and never the answer that you were hoping/looking for. Found this out over the last year trying to sue Phones 4U, bloody useless complaints department!

Like I said, hope this doesn't come across any other way than just a simple question.

Fauvé

In reply to Heike:

You come over here with your German ways and try and drag one of our great British institutions through the Lakeland mud... Well let me tell you Herr Fraulein I'm going to write to the editor of the Times about you!

In reply to Heike:

Really is pathetic that they think such a reply will suffice. In fact it's utter arrogance and shows contempt for the licence payer.

Maybe you should all reply to the Director General again stating your complaints and including a copy of the "stock" replies you had asking him if he thinks it's acceptable.

In reply to Fauvé:
I complained because contrary to their claims, they did say that we were in danger and they did say that there were fears for our safety. They may or may not have used those words but that was the clear and unambiguous implication. Without going into details, a lot of people were extremely upset, believing friends and family were in grave danger - when as the BBC now accept (and claim to have known at the time) was just not true.

In reply to Toreador:


Hi there,

I know what you mean, although I think sensational reporting has no place anywhere, you see it all the time and history has taught me that complaints rarely get the considered individual response you want.

The only thing it goes towards are the complaint figures that they publish. Bloody useless and no use to the people watching with people involved.

In reply to JLS:


Oh, you are such a Schweinehund!

In reply to Heike: Yes, and you can't even get it right! Next time, drop in some reference, no matter how peripherally relevant, to the Ross/Brand fiasco. That will soon have the pompous, Olympian worthies of our "great national institution" quakeing in their Armani suits. You will suddenly find them much less dismisive of your complaint, especially if you can get tens of thousands of others to join you.

In reply to Toreador:

Quite so. Besides which, regardless of the words the BBC themselves used, they repeated Mark Weir's infamous "within inches of turning the mountains into a morgue" ad nauseum in their amazing puffed up rolling coverage, with bugger all to balance it.

Speaking of amazing puffed up rolling coverage, surely that in itself was indicative of something. Its not often you'll get that level of coverage for a story that goes "Thousands of people slightly more uncomfortable than they expected to be but probably not in any real danger."

If they're contending that they didn't say people were in danger, I wonder what exactly they (claim to have) meant by the phrase "unaccounted for"?

In reply to Heike:

Snap!!

I received the very same corporate waffle in response to my complaint. They really must take our licence fee for granted if that's the best they can come up with. Impersonal from the outset, the 'senior editor' hasn't even got the nuts to put their name to it. I'm peeved!

jh

In reply to SFM:

yep.

In reply to SFM:


As a licence payer I am outraged that you think it's a good use of BBC time and resources to reply individually to any Tom Dick or Heike who writes in whigeing about something or other. I think they should all be very grateful that they got a reply, and collectively apologise for wasting the BBC's time. Not to mention casting aspersions on their professionalism.

In reply to Heike: in their defence they had a competitor on their morning show whose opinion was that it was a fuss about nothing and difficult conditions are part of the game, so I would say they reported both arguments

In reply to Heike:

hmm, from the OMM forums;

http://www.theomm.com/forum/index.php?topic=829.0

>I'm sorry you feel the BBC coverage at the weekend was so awful. But I know from the phone calls I was getting that producers genuinely believed there was a major emergency!


original thread with links on here;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=326132

In reply to Heike: I got this as a reply

Thank you for your e-mail. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.



Over the 25th and 26th October, the BBC One bulletins and the BBC News Channel ran coverage of some of the problems encountered by the Original Mountain Marathon event in Cumbia. We raised your concerns with the senior editor responsible for that weekend’s output who responded as follows:



"We were aware - and stated from the outset - that this was not an amateur event, but an endurance race with a long and successful history. We interviewed many of the runners who told us that they were well trained, and that each of the runners would have had the necessary resources to sustain them for the duration, even if they were stranded.



"There were some voices, however, who criticised the fact that the event had not been cancelled from the outset - including the police - and we also reflected this in our coverage. We did not say the runners were in danger - nor that there were fears for their safety.



"In addition we spoke to relatives of runners, who told us that they weren't particularly worried about their loved ones, even though they hadn't heard from them.



"I personally went to great lengths to emphasise to all of our staff that we should be clear that the runners missing were experienced and would have been kitted out appropriately for the conditions.



"Our pieces focused on the bad weather conditions and the numbers of people who had spent the night in temporary shelters and I believe our scripts were measured and accurate."



Thank you for getting in touch and for the feedback you have provided. We hope this reassures you about the coverage we offered.



Regards



BBC Complaints

In reply to Masood: If it means reducing the money and resources they have to spend on programmes like strictly come dancing, I'm gonna write in every other day and demand a personalised response...

Surely, this can only be for the good of the nation?!

In reply to Heike:

Ditto.

In reply to Heike:

"I personally went to great lengths to emphasise to all of our staff that we should be clear that the runners missing were experienced and would have been kitted out appropriately for the conditions"

I didn't think any runners were missing, they all new where they were, and why they were there.