A Biased BBC reader writes
“A few weeks ago BBC reported this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38561883 about a black woman who was given a tiny tip along with a racist message that was scrolled on the receipt. She received widespread publicity, and a fund raising campaign was set up for her, with a few thousand dollars raised. It now turns out that the receipt may well have been faked, by herself.
I asked BBC if they would run a follow up story on it as, if they didn’t, then once again the public will have been mislead with yet another story about apparent racism. I received an official reply back from a Stewart Webb today which basically comes up the excuse that they have to make decisions on what stories they run, and basically the story is no longer relevant now.
So, that’s it. The BBC are happy to run stories that demonize white people and, even if they find out the story is wrong, they refuse to correct it later. And they claim to be impartial?”
So the story is no longer relevant? Surely the fakery is now the story. This is like going to report on a society wedding and failing to create a report because the bride didn’t turn up.
If it was Stuart not Stewart. The complaint didn’t go far. Stuart Webb is on the Capita employee list at its BBC Audience Services office in Belfast. There are now so many complaints being filtered out by Capita, that the BBC hardly ever receives any. So as the page is still up, try emailing a complaint to Anthony.zurcher@bbc.co.uk
The BBC will almost certainly provide links to this story when it runs the next instalment of its “white English or white Americans hating blacks” series of news stories.
Any other skin colour, ethnicity or nationality and it would not even have made the news to begin with, unless the “victim” was a Muslim.
The story of black servers supposedly receiving small tips has been buzzing around for the best part of a decade, occasionally popping up in the MSM in near-identical format every year or two. This article, dating from 2008, may be one of the trigger studies:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00338.x/abstract
Here’s another attempt at agitprop from 2014:
https://psmag.com/black-restaurant-servers-get-smaller-tips-59216a5c4e77#.894eswong
Of course, contrary examples, such as this one where a black waitress received a $450 tip from 3 white men, do not make it to the BBC:
http://www.theroot.com/3-white-men-leave-black-dc-waitress-a-450-tip-with-not-1791605819
Wasn’t one of the concerns of the Leveson inqiry that news providers should print retractions when they got things wrong?
That rule probably only applies to the Murdoch press, not where, some say, 60% of the public get their news.
David Vance
I am in battle with the BBC over Ms Rani on the ‘One Show’ with reference to the Grunwick strike. It was romanticised in favour of an Indian woman who to Rani was a ‘true British hero’. However my complaint was her talking to an Indian involved in the strike in which Rani stated.. quote.. ‘in 1970’s racist Britain’.
The BBC responded to my complaint stating that amongst other things, ‘she did not mean that Britain was racist but racist elements within Britain’. And that ‘racist Britain’ was a short-cut and understood as such’,and ‘it shouldn’t be taken that Anita believes the country as a whole is racist’.
I am sure I do not need to point out the large elephant sized oxymoron/s !
I have responded to their response with a reply and ending with not accepting their response.
Incidentally, nowhere in their response was any kind of apology as my complaint was in their ‘offence’ category.
I will update here when I get my response.
Hi Jerry, once you have extracted as much as you can from the BBC out of this, can you consider scanning the relevant documents and maybe making an article or draft article out of it for biased BBC to present as an article. Of course all your personal details should be blanked out, but as the BBC is publicly funded I don’t think there is any need to blank out any parts of their reply (apart from when they address you etc). Anyway it is just a thought. Best wishes and cheers.
Broadcasting
Sure, will do!
Hi David Vance – it’s a cop out – giving the BBC carte blanche to pump out its mass propaganda, which for volume must now be greater than anything the Nazis ever managed. They haven’t pulled the story, it is still accessible on their site.
‘they have to make decisions on what stories they run, and basically the story is no longer relevant now*’
BBC Watch via ITTB are also sharing the BBC’s ‘unique’ way of handling not being professional, impartial or showing an ounce of *integrity, editorial or otherwise:
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/interviewing-as-art-form.html
“It wasn’t a case of different arguments though, was it? It was a stream of falsehoods, which the BBC did not challenge or rectify”
Envy of the world. A treasure, if you will.
Listened to two minutes of the ‘rise of the far right’ on ‘5 live’ ‘edl blah blah, Brexit blah blah, Jo Cox blah blah…’. Switched radio off, an hour later…’the rise of the ‘far right blah blah, Brexit blah blah.
People must surely be coming immune to this stuff for Chrissakes!
That’s why they repeat the same lies; they want their audience to be inured to their propaganda so that few will complain. At that point they will feel confident their job is done; their lies are the new norm such that dissention is controllable. That’s why websites such as this are essential, to keep harrying the sodding bbc into eventual extinction.
Think like a Beeboid :
‘The actual story is not true, but the narrative is true
herefore there is nothing to correct.
We are the BBC that never admits an error, cos there is no error’
The climate alarmists do the same thing : ‘strangely the data didn’t come out like our mathematical MODEL predicted, so there must be something wrong with data..
..probably best junk it and try again’
If you have been complain about the BBc for a while you won’t be surprised I started complaining after the “White” series in 2008 or as it should have been called “We hate the English”.
The BBC deploys a range of methods to fend of complaints about their bias, omission of facts and even out right lies. From the it’s a fine balance on what to report to the we balance the story over a period of time, which of course they don’t. Basically no matter what you say they will just fob them off. My latest complaint concerned the supposed astronomical increases in State retirement pension whilst not giving any comparable figures this carried on over two days. The fact they missed telling us what figure the 2.5% increase applies to was omitted was merely to serve the agenda of promoting the “hard done by” Generation me. As apparently my generation and the one before had everything handed to us on a plate . I’m till waiting for that to be balanced although maybe it hasn’t been a reasonable time yet.
Daniel Stewart at BBc complaints has obviously had a problem choosing the right template to reply, or maybe he didn’t understand it or maybe he didn’t bother to read it properly. I will re complain on the inadequate reply. I will of course get nowhere. However it becomes less necessary to complain as more people realise the nature of the game the BBc is playing. I sometimes think maybe if no one complained they might lay off all these staff dealing with complaints. And that would probably be no bad thing.