Saturday 23 November 2013

BBC's selective use of Iraq war death figures - Trust's final ruling

The BBC's Editorial Standards Committee has issued a final ruling on my appeal regarding the BBC's selective use of Iraq Body Count figures.

Every stage of this complaint has seen tortured excuses deployed by the BBC. This is yet another classic piece of institutional evasion.

***
[22 November 2013]
 
Dear Mr Hilley
The Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) has considered your request for an appeal to the BBC Trust and I attach a copy of its decision taken from the ratified minutes of the ESC’s meeting on 3 October 2013.

The Committee’s decision is final and will be published in the next edition of the Editorial Standards Committee’s bulletin at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/complaints_and_appeals/editorial.html on 3 December 2013.
 
[Further advisory information.]
 
Yours sincerely
Christina Roski
Complaints Adviser


“Iraq 10 years on: In numbers”, BBC News website, 20 March 2013

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of the Trust Unit that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

Appeal to the BBC Trust
 
The complainant wrote to the BBC Trust following the decision of the Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability, BBC News, not to uphold his complaint regarding the use by the BBC of figures calculated by the Iraq Body Count (IBC) project when referring to the number of civilian deaths in Iraq. In his complaint to the BBC, the complainant had stated that he considered the figures provided by IBC were misleading and had been selected by the BBC because they reflected:
  “…UK/US war killing in its least damaging light” 
 
The complainant considered this was inaccurate and resulted in bias. He said that “no serious or satisfactory consideration” of his concerns had been offered at the previous stages of his complaint. His points and questions included the following:   
* The BBC was consistently inaccurate and biased in its coverage of civilian war deaths in Iraq because of its frequent reliance on IBC figures, which were “limited and misleading.”
* To improve balance, the BBC could cite other sources and their respective data (which suggested much greater numbers of deaths), in addition to the IBC figures. Why had the BBC not done this?
* Who at the BBC had made the editorial decision to adopt IBC as a principal source and how had that decision been arrived at?
* For the purposes of the complaint, he cited the online article “Iraq 10 years on: In numbers” as an example of the biased use of IBC figures, specifically the section headed “Violence” and its associated graphic.

* He also cited a recent survey by a market research company, in support of his appeal, which suggested “a shocking absence of … public awareness” in relation to the “true scale of war-related deaths” in Iraq. He reminded the Trust of the BBC’s public education role in this respect.
 
The Trust Unit’s decision

The Trust’s Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (“the Adviser”) replied to the complainant
explaining that the relevant correspondence and the article in question had been reviewed by the Trust Unit and an independent editorial adviser, and she did not consider that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. She did not propose to proceed in putting the appeal to the Editorial Standards Committee of the Trust.

In reviewing the complaint, the Adviser took into account all the relevant Editorial Guidelines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines) and, in particular, those concerning Accuracy and Impartiality.

The Adviser noted that the complainant’s appeal was principally couched in general terms relating to an alleged BBC practice of virtually exclusive reliance on Iraq Body Count figures in its overall reporting. However, she noted that, for the purposes of the complaint, the complainant wished to cite the online article, “Iraq 10 years on: In numbers”, published on the BBC News website on 20 March 2013, to illustrate his concerns. The Adviser, therefore, focused on this article in her review of the complaint.

The relevant section of the article in question included the following:
“VIOLENCE

US and other coalition troops remained in Iraq in a combat role until 2010, as security operations were gradually handed over to Iraqis.

Deaths per week

Some 4,488 US service personnel died in Iraq since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 19 March 2003, according to the latest figures from the US Department of Defense. British forces lost 179 personnel. But tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have also died since 2003 as a result of sectarian killings and a violent insurgency.

The Iraq Body Count organisation, which cross references reported deaths with official figures, says 4,571 civilians were killed in 2012, bringing the number of civilian deaths since March 2003 to between 112,017 and 122,438. The spike in numbers for 31 August 2005 represents the deaths of about 1,000 people in a stampede of Shia pilgrims on a river bridge in Baghdad. Witnesses said panic spread over rumours of suicide bombers.

Iraq Body Count says the most sustained period for high-level violence was from March 2006 to March 2008, when sectarian killings peaked and some 52,000 died.

‘The country remains in a state of low-level war, little changed since early 2009,’ says the organisation, ‘with a “background” level of everyday armed violence punctuated by occasional larger-scale attacks designed to kill many people at once.’”
The Adviser noted that the context of the article was set out in the introductory sentence of the piece as follows:
“Ten years after the US-led invasion of Iraq – how much has changed? We look at the numbers behind the country that is still emerging from conflict.”
The article, she noted, then went on to look at figures relating to Iraq’s economy, technology, refugees and displaced persons, food, human development, and, as set out above, violence. The text under all these headings, she further noted, sought to compare Iraq’s position in 2003, at the point of the invasion, with the country’s situation 10 years later. The Adviser noted that, in accordance with the Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy, the sources for all the information collated in the article were given.
 
In the case of the section on violence, the Adviser noted that a consistent run of figures for those years was clearly required to assemble a graphic to illustrate civilian deaths. She noted that it had been explained by the BBC at previous stages of the complaint that the IBC figures, which have been produced on an ongoing basis over the years, were considered by the BBC’s Middle East Editor to be appropriate in this case.
 
The figures were clearly sourced to IBC in the article, she noted, and a brief summary of the methodology for collecting the figures was given:
“The Iraq Body Count organisation, which cross references reported deaths with official figures…”
The Adviser noted that the complainant suggested that using two other sets of data, in addition to the IBC figures, would have resulted in a “fairer and more viewer-serving graphic”. She noted that the complainant said these figures were from a Lancet/Johns Hopkins survey covering the period March 2003 to the end of June 2006 and from an Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey in August 2007.

She further noted that the following had been explained by the BBC at Stage 1:
“The Iraq Body Count is the only organisation to offer an actual count covering the period since the US-led invasion. Other organisations seek to estimate the death toll at particular points in time, using statistical and sampling techniques.”
The Adviser also noted the response from the Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability, BBC News, at Stage 2, which expanded on this point:
“As previously explained, what matters here is the pattern over a number of years. Other agencies cannot provide this information so the Middle East editor felt that IBC was the right source in this instance. Using other studies as well – based on different methodologies – would have been pointless and confusing for readers.”
 
The Adviser agreed with that view and considered that in practical terms it would have been very difficult for the graphic to have incorporated three sets of data, all for different periods and collected in different ways, in a way that was meaningful for the audience.

The Adviser appreciated that the complainant felt strongly that IBC figures vastly understated the numbers of civilian casualties, compared with the other surveys he had cited, and she noted that the complainant had made the following allegation at Stage 1:
“It’s clearly evident that the BBC has selected IBC’s data because it reflects UK/US war killing in its least damaging light. Your every excusing word makes the BBC complicit in disguising that crime.”
She considered it unlikely that the Trustees would agree with the complainant that this motivation was “clearly evident” from the selection of data for the article in question, and she noted that the complainant had not provided evidence to support this allegation at any stage of the complaint.

The Adviser also thought it likely that the Trustees would wish to take into account that the BBC was not isolated in its citing of IBC data, and that many other reputable organisations also cited IBC where appropriate. She noted that the complainant had acknowledged this in his blog which stated that the Channel 4 News’s “10 years after” report on Iraq had used a similar graphic, with figures sourced to IBC, and that it was “standard” for “almost every other ‘authoritative’ news outlet” to use IBC figures.

The Adviser fully appreciated that reporting on civilian casualties in any conflict situation was fraught with difficulties. She noted that the BBC had explored these issues in various articles over the years, and these articles had been cited at earlier stages of the complaint.

She considered Trustees would be likely to conclude that it was for the BBC to make an editorial judgement about the use of data in this particular article and there was no evidence this had not been done within the Editorial Guidelines.

The Adviser noted that the complainant had repeated his request to be informed about who at the BBC had made the decision to use IBC as a source. Her view was that the Trustees would consider this had been answered at Stage 2 by the Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability, and that, in this particular case, it was the Middle East Editor who had considered IBC was the most appropriate source.

The Adviser thanked the complainant for forwarding the weblink to the ComRes survey on public perceptions of the Iraqi death toll.

The poll appeared to suggest that 66 per cent of those questioned in May 2013 thought there had been fewer than 20,000 deaths (of both combatants and civilians) as a result of the 2003 invasion. She noted that this figure was hugely at variance with even the IBC figures quoted in the website article in question (112,017-122,438 civilians), which the complainant had said were themselves vastly understated.

For the reasons set out above, the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser considered there was no reasonable prospect of the Trustees finding the article had been in breach of the Accuracy and/or Impartiality Guidelines, and the appeal would not, therefore, be put before the Trustees.

Request for review by Trustees

The complainant requested that the Trustees review the decision not to proceed with his appeal. He said that the reply had circumvented a central issue, which was:
“how can the BBC justify the selective and continuous use of data which vastly understates the death figures in Iraq…?”
He said that the BBC’s particular focus on the “10 years after” piece was diverting discussion from the particular issue of why the BBC had selected IBC as a main source across all its output.

The complainant also argued that the wider usage of IBC across other major media did not absolve the BBC from its own particular responsibility to offer a varied and impartial range of information and opinion.

With regard to the Adviser’s response that the Middle East Editor made the decision to adopt IBC, the complainant asked where the editorial-making evidence was for this. The complainant thought the question would be likely to “invoke the likely ‘safe editorial hands’ process”.

But, in the interests of transparency, he asked whether the BBC audience should be “entitled to a closer and more detailed account of who was involved in that decision and how it was determined”.

He noted that the Adviser acknowledged the ComRes poll, but did not say how the BBC's selective use of IBC had contributed to the massive lack of public awareness noted in that poll.

The complainant considered that on every aspect of his complaint, the BBC had failed to justify its principal use of IBC or explain its own part in keeping people so uninformed about the Iraq death toll.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser and the complainant’s letter asking the Committee to review her decision. The Committee was also provided with the article in question.

The Committee noted the complainant’s concern about the BBC’s use of IBC statistics when reporting on civilian war deaths, which he believed understated the death figures in Iraq.

The Committee noted that although the complainant was concerned about the use of IBC figures in BBC reporting generally, he cited the “Iraq 10 years on” article as an example of his concerns.

However, the Committee also acknowledged the complainant’s response that “the BBC’s particular focus on the ‘10 years after’ piece was, in itself, a standard deceit, diverting discussion from the particular issue of why the BBC had selected IBC as a main source across all its output”.

The Committee was of the view that the Trust Unit’s response to the complaint, as well as previous responses from the BBC Executive, had included clear and detailed reasons for the use of IBC figures more generally as well as in relation to the specific article cited by the complainant. The Committee noted in particular the reasons put forward at Stage 1 of the complaints process:
“The Iraq Body Count is the only organisation to offer an actual count covering the period since the US-led invasion. Other organisations seek to estimate the death toll at particular points in time, using statistical and sampling techniques.”
And at Stage 2:
“As previously explained, what matters here is the pattern over a number of years. Other agencies cannot provide this information so the Middle East editor felt that IBC was the right source in this instance. Using other studies as well – based on different methodologies – would have been pointless and confusing for readers.”
The Committee noted the Adviser’s statement that the BBC was not isolated in its citing of IBC data, and that many other reputable organisations also cited IBC where appropriate.

The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that this was an underestimate and that he felt this point had not been addressed by the Adviser. However, the Committee felt it had been explained to him that the BBC had addressed the difficulty in reliably assessing numbers of deaths in other articles and in this article had both sourced the data and explained the methodology.

The Committee also noted his concern that the public’s knowledge of the level of deaths was poor.

The Committee also noted that in the ComRes poll cited by the complainant 66% thought that fewer than 20,000 had died. Trustees noted this was significantly lower than the IBC figure. The Trustees did not accept that the use by the BBC of figures from the IBC could be responsible for the low figure for deaths in the ComRes poll given the figures were different and given the many other factors that would affect the public’s understanding.

The Committee agreed it would be likely to conclude that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the appeal on the grounds of a lack of accuracy or impartiality in relation to the BBC’s use of IBC data, either generally or in the specific article cited by the complainant.

The Committee acknowledged that the complainant would have liked to know more about the editorial process which led to the BBC Middle East Editor’s decision to use IBC data, but the BBC was under no obligation to provide this. The Committee did not believe any evidence had been presented which would lead it to conclude that editorial decisions had not been made in accordance with the Editorial Guidelines.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

***
 
As repeated throughout these postings, it was never expected that this complaint/appeal would be upheld. The point of raising such questions and publishing the BBC's responses has been to illustrate the process of establishment bias and Kafkaesque obfuscation. 

While the BBC Trust, Committee and other dutiful apologists twist and evade the issue, their vital gatekeeping has helped hide and 'erase', at least, many hundreds of thousands of deaths from public consciousness, as so damningly indicated by the ComRes poll.

The apparent reason for ignoring other key studies is that they "would have been pointless and confusing for readers." We can but acknowledge our lowly intellect and deep gratitude for such  direction and concern.

Despite multiple requests for specific information on how and why IBC was selected as a main source, the BBC has refused to answer. As the ruling dismissively states: "the BBC was under no obligation to provide this."

A last appeal to any journalists, editors or media 'insiders' possibly disturbed by such pontifications or simply exercised by conscience. At some point, a decision was taken within the BBC's editorial hierarchy to adopt Iraq Body Count, effectively excluding much more damning evidence of war fatalities. What useful light might you, or knowing others, shed on that determination and how it has helped maintain this gross distortion?

2 comments:

Póló said...

This is a disgrace by any standards.

I would agree that the BBC was quite happy to minimise the death toll, but, even if the way they did it were not to be malicious, it would show a very high level of incompetence in reporting.

Even if they were satisfied that the IBC did illustrate a trend, they are still quoting absolute figures in the report, and it would is most unprofessional of them not to have signalled that this trend may have, or was most likely to have, applied to a much higher base figure.

The idea that we only measure what suits the format we have adopted for presentational purposes is ridiculous. Absence of a consistent time series is not a reason for ignoring huge numbers of deaths.

For example, we measure trends in unemployment from official benefit claims, because the time series is available, but all serious commentators then relate these trends to base levels revealed by surveys specifically designed to measure absolute levels at particular points in time.

It is only Government politicians, of whatever party happens to be in power, who simply quote trends revealed by statistics compiled for related purposes, and that only when bad numbers are falling.

The worst offence here is not simply the BBC's defective reporting but its being stood over at the highest levels. That's the rot. And I think you made it clear that the purpose of your complaint was precisely to reveal this.

BBC has much to answer for on many fronts.

John Hilley said...

Many thanks for that very incisive comment and damning conclusion.

John