Way back in the halcyon days of April (9th), I had occasion to write to the BBC with a complaint. It concerned an item on one of Radio 4’s most important news and current affairs programmes, PM.
Here is what I wrote:
Incorrect statistic given by expert
During the item on government reducing red tape on installing chargers, the expert ?Ginnie? ?Buckley? (couldn’t quite hear) wheeled out her killer stat: that there were more chargers in Westminster, than in Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield combined. She said it was shocking. Evan Davies agreed it was indeed shocking.
The trouble is, it isn’t true. The latest data are available at gov.uk and they show that the total public chargers across the five named cities is 3329. Those at Westminster number 2875. The difference is 454 in favour of the five cities. (No, I did not know the numbers. I smelled a rat, and looked them up here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-statistics-data-tables-evci – go to table EVCI0102.)
Your listeners have been given a quite wrong impression. Evan was too credulous, and the expert was no expert, despite claiming to be obsessed by the statistics.
The reason I felt compelled to complain was that Evan Davies and Ginny Buckley had a good old chortle about how shocking her stat was, when it was perfectly natural for this listener to smell not only a rat, but a plaguey scabrid rat the size of a Labrador. It took me a few minutes to pull up the numbers and check them, and to find out that the rat was real.
No doubt the BBC were in a hurry to correct the record? After all, I had alerted them to the issue on the very day it was aired. Well, they came back relatively quickly at least (14th April):
Dear Jit,
Thank you for contacting us about PM broadcast 9 April on BBC Radio 4.
In this edition, Evan Davis spoke to the Editor-in-Chief and founder of electrifying.com, Ginny Buckley to gather an insight into the government cutting EV charging red tape to speed up public network rollout.
We acknowledge some listeners may disagree with aspects of this interview but in a fast-flowing situation we cannot cross-check everything that is said by Ginny Buckley during the programme.
BBC News has been reporting on EV charging points which you can read here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cljev49lzr4t
We very much value your feedback. Complaints are sent to senior management, and we’ve included your points in our overnight reports. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC. This ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly and helps to inform decisions about current and future content.
Blah blah blah…
BBC Complaints Team
Well, that was of course not remotely acceptable as a response. So, I pinged back on 3rd May with (you’ll have to forgive the inelegant presentation, as a plain text box was all that is available):
Unresponsive response to my original
In your response to my complaint, you said, “We acknowledge some listeners may disagree with aspects of this interview but in a fast-flowing situation we cannot cross-check everything that is said by Ginny Buckley during the programme.”
I do not disagree with aspects of the interview. The information given was wrong. Your job is to inform the listener, not disinform them. So, it is difficult to catch every mistake in a “fast-flowing situation.” That does not mean you have to be blase [sic. I could not remember how to get an acute] about it. Your listeners were left disinformed. The information provided by the expert was wrong. And both presenter and expert laughed about how shocking the information was. A correction should have been made on the following programme.
Next, I do not think you should be calling on experts who do not know their subject area. Your production staff should rate experts’ performances. Those who give false information in live interviews should not be invited back on. Please, give us experts who know their subject areas.
Finally, when inviting an expert onto your flagship current affairs show, I would suggest that production staff ask them whether they are planning on deploying any statistics live on air. Remember, in this case your expert volunteered the statistic: it was not provided in response to a direct question. (And if it had been, the correct response from an expert who was not 100% sure of their ground, should be either “I don’t know,” or to qualify their response based on their level of certainty.) If the expert is planning on deploying a statistic: your staff can silently check it before the interview takes place. That way, the interviewer would not be laughing about how shocking the (wrong) statistic was in this case, while believing it to be true. A voice in his ear would tell him that the expert was wrong. There is no way any expert should be giving wrong statistics live on PM. You should select the best, and most knowledgeable, disinterested experts in the country.
I had to wait until yesterday (17th July) for the BBC’s response to this suggestion:
Dear Jit
Thank you for getting back in touch with us about PM broadcast on 9 April. Apologies for the rather lengthy delay in replying.
We appreciate that you remained unhappy with the statistic given by Ginny Buckley in our item on the reduction of red tape for installing public EV chargers.
We’ve shared your concerns with senior editors at PM.
As we indicated in our last response, it’s not possible to fact check everything in a live interview, and as this wasn’t main focus of the interview [sic], it’s not a statistic we had looked up before the interview.
However, the programme will pass on your information on to this guest [sic].
We very much appreciate you raising this with us.
Kind regards,
BBC Complaints Team
I think I would prefer it if they stopped pretending that they appreciate my contacting them. However, I’m left with the definite impression that on this (admittedly very minor point) the BBC has rather turned misinformation into disinformation. Which makes a mockery of their highly-produced “fight for truth is on” ad (of which the featured image above is a partial transcript).
Climate Scepticism 
So, this is how it appears to go:
You: I have a complaint.
BBC: Your complaint is important to us.
You: Is that it? That’s not good enough.
BBC: Your complaint regarding the inadequacy of our response is important to us. Your turn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes John, that’s exactly how it goes.
I recently complained to the BBC, for the first time. It wasn’t about anything so important as the matter complained about by Jit. Strangely, it was about one of the few BBC Radio 4 programmes I still very much enjoy listening to, namely Dead Ringers. The other week it included a sick joke about Liz Truss having killed the late queen.
I thought it was so inappropriate that I felt moved to complain. Knowing how the BBC works I prefaced my complaint with the fact that I enjoy the programme and that I appreciate that humour is subjective, but that I thought the joke in question was in such bad taste that it shouldn’t have got past the editing process.
The BBC complaints staff aren’t interested in what their viewers and listeners think. I can’t remember the precise words they flanneled me with, but they were along the lines of their first response to Jit.
The thing is, we can all make mistakes, and I don’t blame the BBC for making them. But I do blame them for not acknowledging, and apologising for, them when they are pointed out. And for not issuing a correction. Their problem is that they claim to be a (the) trusted news outfit, reliable and trustworthy, unlike people they look down on and who they use BBC Verify to attack (often wrongly). Yet they are more interested in circling the wagons and refusing to admit mistakes than they are in pursuing the truth and ensuring that members of the viewing and listening public are not misled.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It took lengthy and grim determination on the part of “Joe Public” to get the BBC to finally admit to quite spectacular disinformation of their own. https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/01/19/bbc-caught-using-fake-image-of-turtle-entangled-in-photoshopped-plastic-bag/
If they battle out to the end to protect such incredible blatant deceit they really should be defunded. Any other organisation would be in court for such intentional deception.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Mark,
I think the problem in your case is that you were suggesting bad taste when the recipients of your complaint could only see a joke of impeccably good political judgment. I suspect they found it too funny to sacrifice just to avoid a supposed offensiveness, especially when it is discernible only to those with the wrong politics. You only have to watch one episode of Have I Got News for You to see where the BBC’s comic compass points.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit,
And another thing. This ‘you can’t expect a BBC journalist to be able to challenge everything said in a fast-moving programme’ defence is over-used. If a guest said ‘It has been well-documented that Trump eats babies’, and the BBC host uncritically responded with ‘Really? That’s deplorable’, I suspect the same over-used defence would be trotted out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When It’s so called live, I take it there is still a delay In case a naughty word slips out.
Plus, the “expert” must be given some clue on questions they may be asked & therefore have some evidence at hand to support their answers.
LikeLike
Hi JIT
I greatly sympathise. The BBC is unfit to judge itself.
Consider this example from Oct 2023:
“Biden is boosting hydrogen but some are unhappy”
The BBC’s News Climate & (supposed) Science correspondent wrote:
“Hydrogen has a lot of green potential. When burned, it does not release the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67105363
Complaining that (in my humble opinion) Ms Rennard failed to meet the BBC’s own standards for accuracy, and so the article must be corrected. I pointed out:
“The combustion of hydrogen with oxygen produces water vapour as its only product 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas.“
Aunty’s initial response was:
“Thanks for getting in touch about the BBC News website report at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67105363.
I note your concerns with the accuracy of information in the report.
I checked this and it isn’t focused on the science of combusting hydrogen. It’s focused on comments made by the US president recently in which he favours it. There was a brief mention of it being said not to produce the same Co2 as current fuels, but it is, of course, not possible to explore all the various shades of opinion or talking points within the space of a single news report. We do try to ensure that over a reasonable period that we reflect the full range of views and perspectives on the stories we feature. Out of interest, we have provide more of a scientific breakdown at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zfqsv9q/revision/4
Looking at the article you mentioned, it does include concerns raised by Friends of the Earth who called the new initiative a “disappointing step”. The article adds that a spokeswoman for the group, Sarah Lutz, said: “We need an ambitious transition away from dirty energy, not another taxpayer subsidy that enables Big Oil to repackage fossil fuels as so-called clean energy.”
It further adds ‘at the moment most hydrogen is extracted from natural gas in a process that emits a lot of carbon dioxide.’
There’s a lot to include but we do value your feedback about this. As all complaints are made available to senior management and news editors, we’ve included your points in our overnight report.
These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the company and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.
Thanks again for getting in touch.
Kind regards, Phil Young, BBC Complaints Team”
I politely rejected Aunty’s brush-off, and pointed out that since *it* chose to offer a BBC Bitesize article, I’d respond with the BBC Bitesize article I already held in reserve:
BBC’s Bitesize “Polluting the atmosphere – AQA The greenhouse effect” that at its very start informs “Greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere include: water vapour”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxy4xfr/revision/1
Fast forward to Oct 2024, and with no substantive BBC response, Ofcom was formally asked to intercede.
On 3rd March 2025, Quentin Smith of the BBC Complaints Team finally deigned to respond, with his ‘higher management’ brush-off. That was unacceptable. so the straightforward factual complaint was escalated to the Beeb’s Supreme Complaints Handling Team – its ECU.
To the surprise of absolutely no one, head (complaints) honcho Colin Tregear Executive Complaints Unit, rejected my complaint.
His ‘justification’ for his decision has more holes than a block of Emmental.
Since this is already a relatively long post, and contains links, I won’t ‘bore’ readers further. However, I’ll post Tregear’s rejection that includes further links, as a ‘Reply’ for those masochists who enjoy a good laugh.
LikeLiked by 3 people
BBC ECU rejection 12 March 2025 (NB – Bolding is mine):
Biden is boosting hydrogen but some are unhappy, bbc.co.uk
Thank you for your complaint of 3 March about the above article on the BBC News website. I am sorry for the lengthy delay which has occurred since you first raised your concerns. Your complaint should have been dealt with more promptly and I hope you’ll accept my apologies, on behalf of the BBC, for the time it has taken to reach this stage.
I have read all the previous correspondence related to your complaint and I have understood you to say it was inaccurate and misleading to refer to hydrogen and state “When burned, it does not release the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet”. I have therefore considered whether the article met the standards for due accuracy set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. As you know from previous complaints you have made, due accuracy means “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. The guidelines also say people should not be materially misled.
In this case, the article reported on a plan set out by the former US President, Joe Biden, to invest in so-called “hydrogen hubs”. The article explained President Biden’s proposal was intended “to help replace fossil fuels with cleaner-burning hydrogen” and “help cut carbon emissions equivalent to what more than 5.5 million gasoline-powered cars put into the air each year”. I think it is reasonable to assume, therefore, readers would have understood the aim was to encourage a shift towards burning hydrogen rather than fossil fuels to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions which most relevant scientists believe are responsible for global climate change.
The combustion of hydrogen produces water vapour, a gas which traps heat, and so one which is undoubtedly a significant greenhouse gas. However, it is not generally regarded as a greenhouse gas which is a driver of climate change. As NASA’s website https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/notes:
Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.
The website goes on to explain how the increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity, such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, contribute to climate change because they are non-condensable and the concentration of such gases remains stable as atmospheric temperatures change. Water vapour, by contrast, is condensable and can change from a gas to a liquid. The NASA website states:
This makes water vapor the only greenhouse gas whose concentration increases because the atmosphere is warming, and causes it to warm even more. If non-condensable gases weren’t increasing, the amount of atmospheric water vapor would be unchanged from its pre-industrial revolution levels.
This view is shared by other recognised bodies such as the UK Met Officehttps://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/greenhouse-gasesand NOAA https://gml.noaa.gov/education/carbon_toolkit/
I agree it would have added to the understanding of readers if the BBC News article had given a more in-depth explanation of the different greenhouse gases and the role they are thought to play in climate change. However, the content of the article has to be judged in light of its subject matter and so I do not believe it was necessary to do so on this occasion. Readers would have understood burning hydrogen does not produce the same greenhouse gases which are emitted when burning fossil fuels, namely the greenhouse gas emissions which are believed to contribute to climate change by warming the planet. In my judgement, therefore, there was little likelihood of readers being materially misled by the sentence which read “When burned, it [hydrogen] does not release the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet” (my emphasis).
I hope I have been able to explain why, in my judgement, there are no grounds for me to uphold your complaint. As you know, there is no further right of appeal against this decision within the BBC’s complaints process but you can ask the independent regulator, Ofcom, to consider your complaint and the BBC’s decision on it. If Ofcom thinks your complaint raises a potentially substantive issue, it will give an opinion on whether the BBC has observed its own editorial guidelines. Information about Ofcom’s role regarding BBC online material can be found here and information about lodging a complaint with Ofcom can be found here. You can also write to Ofcom at Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, or telephone either 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040.
Yours sincerely
Colin Tregear
Executive Complaints Unit
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe Public,
The BBC will apparently argue that black is white rather than admit they are wrong, even when they are obviously wrong. The long-drawn out process, with anodyne platitudes and long delays is clearly designed to grind complainants down. For an organisation that makes claims to be trusted and trustworthy, that sets itself up in judgment over others, it is beneath contempt.
LikeLiked by 2 people
BBC blowing its own trumpet during halftime for watchers of the football final. Under the guise of “What does the BBC do for me” it went on and on making sure all watching would get the full propaganda treatment. Even Gabby Logan on the panel commented how wonderful they are. Hate it, but reception on STV not so good last night ???
LikeLiked by 1 person