Shedding light on the Ukraine crisis - essential readings on Nato, Russia and the control of media information

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an illegal and brutal act. As with all invasions, all war, the human consequences are depressingly familiar. At times like these, we express our sympathy for suffering and displaced people. 

We are seeing extensive coverage of the upheaval in Ukraine. We are getting wall-to-wall reports on approaching Russian forces. We're hearing much political condemnation and media amplification of it. But what we aren't getting, yet should be entitled to, is balanced information, probing analysis and open discussion on why this situation has come about. 

Nor does the massive extent of that coverage remotely compare with reporting of the violence visited by the 'West' and its friends on the peoples of Yemen, Palestine and other 'far-off' places. The crimes committed by, and on behalf of, the US/UK/NATO in places like Libya and Syria are rendered, likewise, invisible. 

The trauma of fleeing Ukrainians is also deemed of higher importance, with appalled politicians and reporters lamenting how 'they're European', 'just like us'. 'Distant', non-white refugees, many, like the crammed, imprisoned population of Gaza, with no means of escape, receive no similar attention, sympathy or help. There's a useful word for this disparity: racism.

The level of shrill, war-beating jingoism over Ukraine is on a scale with the dangerous hysteria post-9/11, announcing the 'War on Terror', leading to the catastrophic invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and their ongoing, calamitous fallouts.

As then, we are being led to support escalations, interventions and potential outright war based on false and contrived claims. An entire, cartoonish narrative depicting Putin as a ‘madman/the new Hitler’ has been normalised as ‘rational’ comment. 

Almost nothing of the actual historical context of this crisis, vis-a-vis the Cold War, wilful NATO expansion and Russia’s security issues, is being aired by the 'mainstream' media. 

And to 'step out of line' by questioning the prevailing narrative is to be deemed a 'Putin apologist'. We are being propagandised, misled and gaslighted on a truly epic scale. 

In alarming addition, blanket banning of 'state-serving' Russian media is being imposed by the EU and other 'freedom-protecting' entities. No such labels are being applied to the state-serving BBC. Ursula von der Leyen, Google and Facebook are now telling us what's 'right' for us to read and view. 

All across social media, writers, journalists and sites deemed 'sympathetic' to Putin and/or Russia - now, effectively, indivisible - are being purged, curbed and 'ghosted'. We are not only at a volatile moment in international affairs, but an Orwellian one in authoritarian responses.

It is only through the remaining, for now, gateway of alternative media that any truly open, critical and independent discussion and background to this crisis is reaching the public.

Below is a selection of essential reading and viewing, serving to inform and correct for the multiple omissions and distortions. 

As the one-dimensional news providers, right-wing/centrist 'think-tanks', selective 'security analysts', liberal militarists and other siren voices for war continue to dominate the studios, press and airwaves, we still have, at least, these vital chroniclers and observers of how we got here, the perilous state we're now in, and how any serious template for all-inclusive peace and stability can ever come from it.

Jonathan Cook: Russia-Ukraine war: A different invasion, the West's same 'madman' script

John Mearsheimer: (video from 2015, foretelling the crisis. Full version here)

Ted Galen Carpenter: Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored

Ali Abunimah: How to Stop World War III

Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin

Diana Johnstone: US Foreign Policy Is a Cruel Sport

Michael Brenner: The Consequences of Humiliating Russia 

Chris Hedges: Chronicle of a War Foretold

Ali Abunimah and Rania Khalek: Ukraine War Exposes US Hypocrisy, Double Standards & Racism

Asa Winstanley: Who are Ukraine's "Moderate Rebels?"

Media Lens: Statement

Glenn Greenwald: War Propaganda About Ukraine Becoming More Militaristic, Authoritarian, and Reckless

Scott Ritter: Putin's Nuclear Threat

John Wight: Nato's an obstacle to peace in Europe and elsewhere

Tamara Nassar: Boycotting Russia compulsory, while boycotting Israel is punished

Peter Oborne: Let's call out the West's bias over Ukraine for what it is - blatant racism

Benjamin Norton: Iraq War architect Condoleezza Rice condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as war crime

John Pilger: (map of encircling Nato forces)

Lowkey: (tweet on selective media reporting of Ukrainian civilian resistance)

Jonathan Cook: (tweets on George Monbiot's smearing of leftists, and failings as a foreign policy analyst)

Ali Abunimah (tweet thread on the history and continuity of neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine)

Caitlin Johnstone: (tweet thread: "f the actions of NATO powers had nothing to do with the attack on Ukraine then why have western experts been warning for years that the actions of NATO powers would provoke an attack on Ukraine?")

Joseph Massad: Russia-Ukraine war: How the West backed Putin into a corner

_______________________________________________________________

Updated, 4 March 2022

Media Lens: 'Doubling Down On Double Standards – The Ukraine Propaganda Blitz'

Double deception of the public as teetering Tories move to purge the BBC and lofty liberals rush to defend it

Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries's announcement of a coming end to the BBC licence fee is an obviously cynical effort to distract attention from her now completely disgraced leader and a government in mounting crisis. 

But those rushing to defend the BBC as a bastion of 'balance' and 'impartiality' are also serving to gaslight and deceive the public by shrouding essential truths about the state broadcaster. 

The claim that the BBC is being punished by Johnson for 'holding him and his government to account' is utterly risible. The BBC has played no significant part in exposing this corrupt and criminal administration. On the contrary, as Jonathan Cook shows, its leading 'correspondents' have consistently failed to reveal the deeply-known truths about its illegal and tawdry conduct, keeping safe and secure the privileges of 'access journalism'. 

Yet Tory abuses and contempt for the public is now so blatant that even Johnson's most 'favoured confidante', Laura Kuenssberg, can no longer excuse or mitigate his crimes.

Liberal-minded objections to Tory party pressure on the BBC not only miss these gross journalistic failures, they also overlook the BBC's much more essential function as a protector of the system, not just of this or any other government.

This includes the BBC's:

• Upholding of all state and political structures as fundamentally fit, democratic and decent. BBC Question Time is itself a respectful 'mirror' to Westminster's weekly 'show' of 'democratic accountability'. The suggestion that we actually live in a state of oligarchic rule could never be aired or entertained by the BBC.  
• Reverential promotion and cultural reinforcement of British militarism. In its reporting and features on UK weaponry, the BBC acts as an effective spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence, and PR platform for the corporate arms industry. 
• Solid support for all UK, US and wider Western-led wars, 'interventions' and coups, most notably over Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. As historian Mark Curtis notes: "Many intelligent people still believe the BBC promotes "impartiality in news & current affairs", and not just those personally earning millions from it. The reality - that on UK foreign affairs, BBC is basically straight propaganda, easily demonstrated - shows we have a way to go."
• Unstinting reverence for the institutions of monarchy, promotion of the royal family and mitigation of its crises. Anti-royal and republican feeling, though widespread, is routinely excluded as a valid public viewpoint.
• Default castigation of all official foreign enemies, from the ‘threat/menace' of Russia, China and Iran, to the denigration of anti-neoliberal states like Venezuela and Cuba. The BBC's current amplification of UK/US/NATO talking points on Ukraine is a key case in point, headlining Russia's 'aggressive intent', omitting vital context, and giving primary airtime to Western-supporting commentators and 'think-tanks' like RUSI.
• Soft treatment/selective reporting of official allies. Contrast the kind of deferential coverage of Saudi Arabia and other brutal Gulf states to that reserved for North Korea. We're being "info-bombarded" on Russian 'aggression' in Ukraine, but not UK/Saudi bombing of Yemen. Likewise, BBC North America correspondents may carry reports of social dislocation and violence across the US, but will always hold its system, leaders and 'Shining House on the Hill' in mystical awe. The revelation that BBC executives "wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis" tells a similar kind of story about states to be 'more carefully treated'. And never forget the BBC'S disgraceful refusal to air the Gaza Appeal.
• Leading role in taking down any serious internal political threat to the established order, the most infamous example being the BBC's key part in the brutal smearing and removing of Jeremy Corbyn, an effective British coup.
• Omission and marginalisation of radical voices, as in the BBC's blanket silence over the prosecution and persecution of true journalist, Julian Assange.
• Rearguard response over any threat to the Union, as seen in the loaded BBC coverage of the Scottish Independence referendum of 2014.
• Very belated efforts to acknowledge the climate emergency, and continuing failure to address the true forces behind it. Why is there still no serious discussion of corporate-driving capitalism as the principal cause? This massive omission takes us well beyond any notion of the BBC as 'neutral observer'. 

The paradox of this latest Tory assault on the BBC is that it is attempting to call time on the signature institution helping to preserve the principal ideas and interests of the ruling class. Yet, while Johnson et al may regard themselves as born-to-rule Etonians with deep roots in the establishment, their first and most self-serving concern is political survival.

While much of the liberal-left appear reluctant to join in any Tory kicking of the BBC, all those blue-tick liberals and vast-salaried BBC employees now rushing to the barricades in it's defence have very little incentive to see the real purpose of the body so fulsomely rewarding them.

Such defenders insist that as the BBC receives complaints of bias from both left and right - or any other opposing sides of an issue - it 'must be doing something correct'; ergo, it cannot be biased. This facile 'logic' amounts to 'testing' a proposition by way of measuring relative claims about it, rather than any rational evaluation of the proposition itself. Claim, if you will, that the BBC is not institutionally biased, but at least attempt to do so with real argument and rigorous evidence. 

Nor do such lines of defence account for the vast differentials of influence brought by major lobby forces in contrast to standard public complaints. The pro-Israel lobby maintain relentless pressure on the BBC to uphold its views and interests. Does this demonstrate, in any meaningful sense, that the BBC is somehow anti-Israel? Or could it, more obviously, signify a level of pressure and intimidation intended to ensure it never actually does go against Israel's interests? 

Tory attacks on the BBC amount to the same kind of pre-emptive calculus: we're powerfully watchful, on your case, and can cause you grief, why take the chance of upsetting us? 

 

Other liberal warnings over the Tory assault on the licence fee reduces us to a dismal ‘choice’ between 'Murdoch or the BBC', as if the only possible provider of our daily diet of news and information could ever come via corporate media or state media. Where, in this 'debate' over the BBC and 'new future' of public media are the wider options on truly independent journalism and its potential funding? 

With dark irony, the very liberal class which so eagerly lined up with the BBC to destroy the Corbyn left now seek that same left's support in saving the BBC. Understandably, it's not readily forthcoming.

It's deeply revealing how those now running appeals for the BBC's 'rescue', while proclaiming its 'inherent values' of 'balance' and 'impartiality', seem so comfortably contained in their liberal bubble. How many will be aware of, or have ever consulted, the academic studies laying out the BBC's support for establishment interests and positions? How many will have ever read or invoked critical writers like MediaLens on such matters? Deeply-conditioned and career-dependent, could any ever contemplate calling the BBC, as John Pilger so incisively does, "the most refined propaganda service in the world"? 

Much easier to live in a state of passive compliance, shielded from uncomfortable explorations and self-reflections. This 'learned restraint' in ever even daring to imagine the BBC as anything other than 'benign Auntie' demonstrates its very efficiency as an establishment institution, serving to nullify 'abnormal' thought, foster conformity and displace awkward questions. 

Thankfully, many still see through the posture and deceptions, resiliently posing the real questions. As MediaLens concisely ask here: "Save the BBC? In whose interests?"

War criminal Blair's knighthood should NOT be revoked - he deserves to be 'honoured' by a criminal establishment

New Year 2022 commences with one of the most egregious acts of elite contempt for public sensibilities one could ever imagine. 

Tony Blair has been awarded a special knighthood - Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter - elevated now to the highest echelons of the British establishment.

One can but wonder how the families of one million dead Iraqi souls will receive this shameless announcement. The UK state's contempt for them is multiple times greater than its blatant disregard for the British public.

For services to British imperialism and mass murder, arise 'Sir Tony'. A state that should be expressing atonement for its historic crimes has conferred its highest award on someone responsible for a million Iraqi deaths. A truly depraved establishment.

Calls are now circulating for Blair's knighthood to be revoked. Though well-meaning, they are deeply misguided. Intent on shaming and punishing Blair, they turn any similar damning attention away from the very system that has conferred this award on him.

One leading petition urges, in deferential tones, that "Her Majesty" rescind Blair's knighthood. Yet it's the monarch and her offices that hold direct responsibility for making this particular award. Are we to believe that she and her court advisers had no understanding of Blair's actions over Iraq and the resultant furore this blatant patronage would cause?

Lamentably, such calls only help validate the Honours system, while lamenting the 'damaged constitution' and showing continued homage to the institution of monarchy. 

Instead, we should be using this announcement not only to denounce Blair, but the ways in which the entire establishment peddles such rewards, providing cover for its villainous own.

War criminal Blair's elevated knighthood from the establishment should NOT be opposed. It helps shine a double damning light on both him AND the rotten 'honours' system. Saying that he's 'not deserving' of the royal system only serves to validate the system itself.

The argument that Blair's 'recognition' 'makes a mockery' of the honours process is deeply blind-sided, serving to excuse the monarch's central role. 

It fails to make what should be an obvious connection between the political crimes of figures like Blair and an institution that has given vital authority to the vast imperialist crimes which so many leaders of an ultra-militarist British state has inflicted on the world.

And while the public express due outrage over 'Sir Tony', those bestowed with royal honours might now be more honestly reflecting on how they see themselves in wearing the baubles of Empire. Will any, one wonders, be so conscientiously inclined to send theirs back?

What kind of system-preserving propaganda manages to have us, and perhaps even some of them, outraged only about the recipient of this award rather than the very institution giving it?

Of course, why WOULDN'T a debased establishment protect and honour one of its debased own? The real question is whether all those already 'honoured' will ever see their own compliance, relinquish their tainted 'honours' and expose that debased system.

Blair's all-knowing part in bringing mass death and suffering to the Middle East cannot be dissociated from an institution that has given its own royal stamp of approval to every murderous regime in the region. The same corporate-produced bombs and armaments visited on Iraqi and other innocents by Blair have been dutifully endorsed and promoted by this same militarist-invested family.   

  

Objecting to warmonger Blair's elevation by a blood-soaked establishment is a bit like expressing indignation over a local crime boss being rendered a 'made man' by the mafia.

Meantime, while Blair is being feted and living it up on his life of crime, Julian Assange, the figure who did most to expose such heinous actions, is festering in high-security Belmarsh jail, an alarmingly opposite form of 'reward' reserved by the establishment for this true public servant.

Where is the due media attention and public backlash against this scandalous anomaly?   

It's also of dark happenstance that Blair's New Year award coincided with the late Archbishop Tutu's state funeral. The moral and humanitarian gulf between the two could not be wider.

With perverse irony, on the day of the great Desmond Tutu's funeral, war criminal Blair was given a knighthood. While hypocritical Western leaders laud Tutu, protect Israel and denounce #BDS, Tutu refused to share the same platform as Blair, supported Palestinians and backed BDS.

Rescinding Blair's knighthood may bring understandable satisfaction in 'taking down' an unrepentant war criminal. It may even help bring closer the hopeful day he and his cohorts get sent to The Hague. 

But it won't bring forward any fuller indictment of the actual system that facilitated his actions and the palace forces that sought to decorate and protect him. 

Perversely, if this award is ultimately revoked, the 'validity' of the honours system and notion of a 'listening' monarch will actually be enhanced. Conversely, the more such 'honours' are conferred on infamous figures like Blair, the more an already depraved system will be further debased, delegitimised and threatened with extinction. 

All of which renders 'Sir Tony' the most welcome and deserving knights of the rotten realm.

It's not just Blair that needs to be exposed and brought to justice, it's the whole nexus of elite institutions and the system of thought control that allows their collective crimes to be hidden and sanitised.

Beyond the 'mainstream' framing and distortion, key readings on Afghanistan

Down centuries echo
New false cries 
Of honour won
Last duty done
From land of conquest

Hasty exit

Empire's legions crash and run

Hubris hushed

Trumpets silenced

Liberal hats still urging on

High-tech helmets chased by turbans 

Righteous mission over-spun

Weight of our so moral burden

Imperial bondage theirs to learn

Great Game upended

Deathly merchants

Spent armoury of lies and guns

The rapid fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban has been widely treated by the Western political class and 'mainstream' media as a disastrous turn of events. 

In truth, beyond the tragic human carnage and sordid abandonment, the humiliating retreat of US, UK and other NATO forces represents a positive historic outcome in setting back the tyranny of imperialist invasion, occupation and plundering of states around the globe.

And, whatever troubling governance to come for Afghanistan, it reaffirms the ultimate right of determination for indigenous peoples over rapacious external forces. 

Glenn Greenwald makes the elementary point:

"Afghanistan belongs to the people of Afghanistan, not the U.S. and NATO."

In their chaotic retreat, we now glimpse the true extent of the interventionist deceit and madness of this warmongering mission.

Or maybe not so mad for some. For when it comes to the motivations and manoeuvres of power, there's always mercenary method in that madness. 

For twenty years, this crazy 2.26 trillion dollar invasion and occupation, resulting in at least 241,000 deaths, has served the interests of corporate arms companies and their political sponsors. 

That interfering madness will continue in Afghanistan, as elsewhere, in whatever devious form.

Yet, as with Vietnam and the fall of Saigon, the liberation of Afghanistan and easy capture of Kabul illustrates the latest historic failure of imperial invasion and regime change as a model of control.

As those who ran and worked for the occupation clamber onto the last exiting planes, we see the true fragility of that entity and its spurious claims: the false narratives of 'state building' and 'democratisation'; the so-called 'quest for peace and stability', while relentlessly bombing the country and murdering its people; the proclaimed 'concern' for educating, protecting and advancing women and girls. 

If only our media had been telling people the truth about the 'winning war'. If only the public had been properly informed about the systemic corruption and capricious nature of the West's puppet regime. If only, as with real journalists like Julian Assange and Wikileaks, they had been exposing the mass war  crimes of the US and its political allies. 

As the last UK troops and UK Ambassador left Afghanistan, British state media could only echo the platitudes of 'honourable service' trotted out by Boris Johnson and military officials, failing even to mention the deaths, displacement and suffering of the Afghan people.  

Thankfully, beyond the amplifier BBC and other power-serving media, we have a wealth of informed, probing and truthful journalism to rely on. 

Please read and share:

Jonathan Cook
How the Taliban surge exposed Pentagon's lies 

Lowkey 
On Afghanistan 

Yvonne Ridley
What can the Taliban offer the women of Afghanistan?

John Pilger
The Great Game of Smashing Nations

Joe Glenton
Former British Soldier DESTROYS Official Afghanistan Narrative

Claudia Webbe, MP
Afghanistan was a war without a just cause, and simply a continuation of Western imperialism 

Vijay Prashad

How the Taliban Chased the West Out of Afghanistan

Phil Miller and Mark Curtis

Four failed wars must finally force the UK to adopt an ethical foreign policy

Ali Abunimah
What Israel hopes to gain from America's Afghan disaster 

Julie Hollar
Media Rediscover Afghan Women Only When US Leaves

Gavin Lewis

Afghanistan:  The Abomination of “White Man’s Burden” and Fake Feminist Narratives

Alex Rubinstein

Did the US Support the Growth of ISIS-K?

Mark Curtis
The Great Game: The Reality of Britain's War in Afghanistan 
(from 2011)

Outcome of complaint to BBC regarding use of ’Salmond inquiry’

The following is an account of my complaint to the BBC over its use of the term 'Salmond inquiry'. As can be seen, the correspondence was conducted via the BBC's complaints process, on up to the final level of the Executive Complaints Unit. Readers can form their own judgements as to the merits of the complaint, mitigations offered by the BBC, and reasoning behind the final deliberations.

7 March 2021

To BBC Complaints Team

As a viewer, I wish to make a formal complaint about the BBC's widespread, highly misleading and politically-loaded use of the term "Salmond inquiry". As a supposed public-informing, impartial news organisation, you should be well aware that the correct title of this inquiry is: Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints.

Even if you were to adopt a 'shorthand' reference it would more appropriately be the "Sturgeon inquiry", since it is the conduct of the First Minister and her government that is being investigated. 

Please explain why the BBC has maintained its use of this false and biased wording.

In the interests of fairness and clarity all use of "Salmond inquiry" should be terminated and a public correction made on all BBC platforms on which it has been used.

I intend to pursue this matter until satisfactorily rectified.

I look forward to your reply. 

Kind regards

John Hilley 

.......................

8 March 2021

Reference CAS-6582036-B9J0L2

Dear Mr Hilley,

Thank you for contacting us regarding general BBC News output.

We’re naturally very sorry when we hear that members of our audience have been disappointed by any aspect of our news services and how they're delivered.

We have noted here that you feel it is inappropriate for BBC News to refer to the current events happening in Scotland as the "Salmond Inquiry", and that you feel the use of this term could be indicative of bias.

All that being said we do value your feedback about this. All complaints are sent to senior management and 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 taking the time to get in touch.

Kind regards,

Abbie Crawford.

BBC Complaints Team 

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

.......................

8 March 2021

I am not satisfied that the actual content of my complaint or its resolution has been adequately dealt with. Please elevate my enquiry, have an appropriate person look at it and provide me with a serious response.

John Hilley

.......................

8 March 2021

We are sorry to learn you weren’t satisfied with our earlier response and appreciate that you felt strongly enough to contact us again. 

Although we aim to reply at this next stage within 20 working days (four weeks), we hope you will understand that sometimes we are unable to respond by then. We will let you know beforehand if we think it may take us longer. For full details of our complaints process please visit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint.

Please don’t reply to this email because it’s an automated acknowledgement sent from an account which can’t receive replies. If you do need to get in touch, please use our webform instead at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints, quoting your reference number. 

......................

18 March 2021

Dear Mr Hilley, 

Thank you for getting back in touch with us regarding our news coverage. 

I’m sorry you had to come back to us and I appreciate why. We always aim to address the specific points raised by our audience and regret any cases where we’ve failed to do this. Your previous reply didn’t tackle the exact issue you raised and we’d like to

 offer you a new response here. The following should now be considered your first reply.

We have been clear throughout our reporting about the nature of the inquiry and the allegations against First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. We have also made clear in our reporting that Alex Salmond was cleared of all charges brought against him.

I can assure you that BBC News aims for the highest journalistic standards in our reporting of all issues – to be fair, accurate and impartial. We appreciate you feel the phrase ‘Alex Salmond inquiry’ is an inappropriate choice to use in our news coverage.

Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch. 

Kind regards, 

Lisa Pigott

 

BBC Complaints Team 

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

..........................

19 March 2021

Dear Lisa Pigott

Thanks for your response.

Lamentably, this second reply, the first of which you rightly acknowledge was inadequate, is just as evasive and inadequate as the first reply - just more patronisingly so. 

I am not disputing that BBC reports on the inquiry include reference to the allegations against Nicola Sturgeon, or that mention was made of the acquittal of Mr Salmond in the criminal trial. 

The problem is with the actual headline framing of that inquiry, and the loaded impression it gives suggesting that Mr Salmond’s conduct is under investigation rather than the conduct of the First Minister, her government and associated others. 

Now that I’ve had two replies failing to answer the specific question of why “The Salmond inquiry” has been used by the BBC, I wish to elevate the matter for further consideration.

I look forward to your reply.

Kind regards

John Hilley  

.....................

8 May 2021

Your Reference CAS-6582036-B9J0L2  

We are contacting you to apologise that we’ve not been able to reply to your complaint within the time period we aim for. Although we manage this for most complaints, we regret it’s not been possible so far because we have been dealing with a higher than normal number of cases.

If you wish to refer this delay and the substance of your complaint to the BBC’s regulator Ofcom, you can do so online at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a-complaint/bbc-tv-channel-radio-station-bbciplayer or by post to: Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA. Please include for Ofcom your latest correspondence from and to the BBC and any BBC case reference numbers which you have been given. 

Full details of the BBC’s complaints process can be found by visiting https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint, and full details of Ofcom’s complaints process are available at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/guidance/procedures.

In the meantime we appreciate your patience and will respond as soon as we can.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints Team

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints 

………………………

To Ofcom

9 May 2021

I have been engaging with the BBC Complaints Team over the BBC's repetitive use of the term "Salmond inquiry" (reference: CAS-6582036-B9J0L2).

As you will see from the enclosed correspondence, I am still awaiting a fuller response on the matter, feel unhappy with the seemingly unwarranted delay, and do not expect any substantive change of view. The Complaints Team have advised that I am in a position to complain about the delay and forward the substance of it to your office.

The main body of my complaint is attached. However, I would like to add some further contextual comment.

The complaint was initially raised during the course of the Holyrood Parliament's Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints.

I had pointed out the misleading use of "Salmond inquiry" during that process, and the false impressions it may have caused for viewers. 

However, this was before Mr Salmond decided to launch his Alba Party on 26 March 2021. 

It is of concern that the loaded impressions caused by the concerted use of "Salmond inquiry" may have impacted and carried on into coverage and discussion of Mr Salmond's electoral campaign. I have no reason to believe that the BBC made any decision to postpone or end its use of "Salmond inquiry" during this time.

Please also note that the term “Salmond inquiry” has been used widely across BBC TV, radio and online platforms. See also, for example, Radio 4, 19 March 2021, https://twitter.com/bbcr4today/status/1372817055448248320?s=21

I would, therefore, submit that widespread and ongoing use of the term has had an additionally damaging effect on Mr Salmond's political and personal standing in a major election.

In short, the repetitive use of this term has been false, biased and damaging.

I trust you will consider closely the BBC's editorial judgement in using the term, the detrimental effect it has had on Mr Salmond, and whether the BBC should make appropriate forms of correction and apology to viewers on the matter.

I look forward to your further thoughts.

Kind regards

John Hilley

………

BBC News items cited:

Glenn Campbell: The Alex Salmond inquiry and the political stink at Holyrood

24 February 2021

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56188765

Salmond inquiry: MSPs sceptical about 'forgotten meeting'

3 March 2021

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-56251990

Radio 4 

19 March 2021

https://twitter.com/bbcr4today/status/1372817055448248320?s=21

https://twitter.com/johnwhilley/status/1368478844785688582?s=21

.........................

From BBC

6 July 2021

Dear Mr Hilley

 

Reference CAS-6582036-B9J0L2

 

Thanks for getting back in touch with us about BBC News. Apologies for the rather lengthy delay in replying. We have been presented with several challenges to maintaining our regular service over this period, but we are sorry we’ve taken a while to get back to you. We appreciate you’ve been in touch with us a couple of times more recently looking for a response to your email of 19 March.

We also appreciate that you were dissatisfied with the two responses you’ve previously received from us regarding your concerns about the use of ‘Salmond Inquiry’.

You unfortunately didn’t provide the transmission details for any instances of hearing/seeing ‘Salmond Inquiry’ used by BBC News. We should have explained that we require such details in order to be able to fully investigate and respond in detail to complaints, as is set out in our Complaints Framework -  https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/sites/default/files/2020-06/BBC_Complaints_Framework.pdf. We apologise that we haven't done so before now.

We have checked back through BBC News output and ‘Holyrood inquiry’ was used on the days Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon appeared in front of the MSP committee, which was 26 February and 3 March respectively. We were unable to find any references to ‘Salmond Inquiry’ on those days or the day you made your initial complaint - 7 March. That being the case (and we appreciate it was now a few months ago), if you can provide any transmission details such as programme names, dates and times, we will be able to investigate further.

Our apologies once again for the delay in getting back to you.

Kind regards,

.................

6 July 2021

CAS-6582036-B9J0L2

Dear BBC,

Thanks for your response.

The term 'Salmond inquiry' has, as noted, been used extensively across BBC platforms.

Some examples:

Glenn Campbell: The Alex Salmond inquiry and the political stink at Holyrood

24 February 2021

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56188765

Salmond inquiry: MSPs sceptical about 'forgotten meeting'

3 March 2021

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-56251990

Alex Salmond inquiry - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c37dlp2j85vt/alex-salmond-inquiry

Radio 4 

19 March 2021

https://twitter.com/bbcr4today/status/1372817055448248320?s=21

How is Holyrood's Alex Salmond inquiry going?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53090858.amp

Salmond inquiry will not publish women's messages

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55910549.amp

Scottish government blocks two Alex Salmond inquiry witnesses

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55019830.amp

Civil servant deleted 'forgotten' Salmond inquiry text

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54707592.amp

I trust these will assist in your investigations. 

Regards

John Hilley

.........................

21 July 2021

Dear Mr Hilley

 

Thank you for getting back in touch again. We appreciate the information you’ve provided; it has helped us to better understand your concerns and investigate, and we've now discussed your complaint with senior news editors at BBC Scotland. Please also accept our apologies again for the delays in responding previously, and for not requesting this information sooner.

 

‘Alex Salmond inquiry’ or ‘Salmond inquiry’ are the shorthand terms that have been widely used to refer to this inquiry, not just by the BBC but by the press, other broadcasters and the public etc.; for example:

 

https://news.stv.tv/politics/sturgeon-misled-parliament-salmond-inquiry-finds?top

https://news.sky.com/story/salmond-inquiry-new-details-emerge-as-committee-finds-sturgeon-misled-parliament-12250307

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-19/nicola-sturgeon-not-surprised-by-partisan-leak-from-salmond-inquiry

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-inquiry-seriously-flawed-scottish-government-document-handling-processes-review-to-be-published-in-june-3241720

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-alex-salmond-inquiry-23570691

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19171740.nicola-sturgeon-hits-leak-alex-salmond-inquiry-report/

https://www.ft.com/content/cb91ecb9-e604-434c-93ea-a7288845e6d8

 

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,msps-establish-new-committee-for-alex-salmond-inquiry_9817.htm

https://www.scottishlegal.com/tag/salmond-inquiry

 

In being consistent in our use of this terminology in our headlines and the news topic created for this story, given that it was the shorthand by which the inquiry was widely known, we believe this aided navigability and audience comprehension. 

 

Our reporting included extensive detail on the inquiry’s remit, the evidence heard, the inquiry’s findings and the reaction, at the various stages of the inquiry, from across the political spectrum. For the avoidance of doubt, we don’t agree that our reporting suggested Mr Salmond’s conduct was the subject of the inquiry or that this terminology was misleading or politically loaded as you suggest.

 

We hope this is helpful in explaining our approach, and thanks again for getting back in touch. This concludes Stage 1 of our complaints process. This means we can’t correspond with you further here. If you remain unhappy, you can now contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU is Stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process. You’ll need to explain why you think there’s a potential breach of standards, or if the issue is significant and should still be investigated. Please do so within 20 working days of this reply.

 

Full details of how we handle complaints are available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/.

How to contact the ECU:

We’ve provided a unique link for you in this email. This will open up further information about how to submit your complaint. You’ll be asked for the case reference number we’ve provided in this reply. Once you’ve used the link and submitted your complaint, the link will no longer work.

This is your link to contact the ECU if you wish:

Click Here

Kind regards

BBC Complaints Team

......................................

23 July 2021

Reference CAS-6582036-B9J0L2 

Dear ECU

Further to my above-referenced complaint to the BBC, which was dealt with under Stage 1 of the process, I now wish to elevate the matter for the ECU's consideration.

In their final response to me, the BBC complaints officer has defended the frequent use of 'Salmond inquiry' by citing other broadcast and press media use of the term:

"‘Alex Salmond inquiry’ or ‘Salmond inquiry’ are the shorthand terms that have been widely used to refer to this inquiry, not just by the BBC but by the press, other broadcasters and the public etc."

But this is a false argument. Unlike other broadcasters and print media, the BBC must make judgements based on its own code of conduct. It must, according to its own regulatory guidelines, act with due impartiality. What other media do and say in these regards is irrelevant to how the BBC is to be judged on such matters.

I have set out in my complaint examples of how widely the BBC used this term, and the damaging effect it had on Mr Salmond. 

I repeat my original point that 'Salmond inquiry' gave a false and loaded impression about who and what was under investigation. Mr Salmond wasn't. The Scottish Government under Ms Sturgeon was. Why did the BBC, with a duty to use neutral terms and language, decide to use a 'shorthand' which conveyed the notion that Mr Salmond was the main subject of this inquiry?

One may also consider, as illustration, the titles and 'shorthand' adopted for other notable inquiries. For example, the Chilcot inquiry, or the Grenfell inquiry, or the Hillsborough inquiry. These provide impartial signifiers of what those inquiries are/were about or/and the person designated to lead them. 

In contrast, if you say 'Salmond inquiry', that person becomes the implicit issue of such an inquiry. They are deemed to be the principal subject of that inquiry by implication and association. 

There can be little doubt that the BBC's widespread use of this term helped influence public perceptions in ways that were detrimental to Mr Salmond's personal and political standing. And note that this term was still in use by the BBC as Mr Salmond launched a parliamentary election campaign under his newly-formed Alba party.

For these reasons and those offered in my earlier submission, I hope you will give due consideration to this complaint. I look forward to reading your deliberations. 

Kind regards 

John Hilley

.....................

9 August 2021

Executive Complaints Unit 

Mr J Hilley
Email: ...........

9 August 2021 

Dear Mr Hilley 

Ref: CAS-6582036 

Your complaint about the use of the term “Salmond Inquiry” 

I am writing to let you know the outcome of the Executive Complaints Unit’s investigation into your recent complaint about the use of the phrase “The Salmond Inquiry” to refer to the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints. 

You described the phrase as “highly misleading and politically-loaded”. I have understood your complaint to refer to BBC News in general rather than any specific item broadcast or published by the BBC and so I have considered this as a General Complaint which is defined as “a criticism which has been made in the expectation of a reply and which looks for an acknowledgement of fault or a change in the way the BBC does things, but which is not about a particular item broadcast or published by the BBC”. The full details of the BBC’s complaints process are set out in the BBC Complaints Framework and Procedures. 

You have said the terminology used “helped influence public perceptions in ways that were detrimental to Mr Salmond’s personal and political standing” and I understand the point you are making. However, the BBC’s coverage (whether on radio, television or online) has to be judged in context. It is not, in my view, reasonable to assume the audience will draw the kind of negative inference you have suggested solely on the basis of one phrase. The impression the audience takes away will also be influenced by the content of each report, and that means taking account of the information which is given and the context in which that information is set. 

I have reviewed some of the examples you gave in your complaint of 6 July where the phrase “Salmond Inquiry” was used and it seems to me there was sufficient context for the audience to understand the nature and scope of the inquiry and its terms of reference. For example, the first article you cited was headlined “The Alex Salmond inquiry and the political stink at Holyrood” but the opening paragraphs clearly set out Mr Salmond’s allegations against the Scottish Government: 

In his evidence to the Scottish Parliament, he accuses some of the most powerful people in the country of plotting to remove him from public life and send him to jail. 

He points the finger at key figures in the Scottish government and the SNP - both of which he used to lead - and suggests they have been aided and abetted by Scotland’s prosecution service, the Crown Office. 

His successor as first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, insists Mr Salmond has not produced a ‘shred of evidence’ to back up his allegations. Unless he can do so, she suggests, he should stop making them. 

The second example you provided (“Salmond inquiry: MSPs sceptical about ‘forgotten meeting’”) lists the questions facing Nicola Sturgeon and summarised her evidence to the Committee. I am satisfied readers would have understood she defended her actions and those of her government but admits mistakes were made. I do not agree readers would infer from this that it was actually Mr Salmond’s conduct which was under investigation rather than that of the First Minister and her government. 

I have listened to numerous BBC Radio Scotland news bulletins and they used various phrases which explained the nature of the inquiry. For example on 26 February, the day Mr Salmond gave evidence:

1.00pm: In the next half hour, Alex Salmond’s giving evidence to the MSPs investigating the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints. 

4.00pm: Alex Salmond gives evidence to the Holyrood Committee investigating the mishandling of sexual misconduct complaints against him. 

10.00pm: The former First Minister, Alex Salmond, has said that he has no doubt that his successor Nicola Sturgeon has breached the ministerial code. He made the claim during an appearance before a Holyrood Parliamentary Inquiry examining the Scottish Government’s botched handling of sexual harassment allegations made against him three years ago. 

I don’t propose to transcribe any further examples but the reports I have reviewed provided sufficient context for the audience to understand the nature of the inquiry, and who and what was being investigated. I do not share your concern about the impression the audience would have taken away when reference was made to the “Salmond Inquiry” when this is considered alongside the content of each report. In my opinion, the use of a well-established shorthand description of the Committee’s inquiry was editorial justified to inform the audience about the subject matter and, when it was used, the phrase was set in the appropriate context to avoid the kind of negative impression of Mr Salmond you have asserted. 

In conclusion, I do not believe there has been a breach of any BBC standard or policy and I do not believe it is necessary for the BBC to take any further action. There is no further right of appeal against this decision within the BBC’s complaints process but if you do wish to take the matter further, it is open to you to ask the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, to consider your complaint. Ofcom does not usually consider general complaints of this kind but you can find details of how to contact Ofcom and the procedures it will apply at the following website: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv- radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a-complaint. 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 

Complaints Director 

--------------------

Comments

A not unexpected outcome. But one in which we get to see how loaded BBC terms and language are adopted and justified through diversionary and evasive argument.

It is worth noting, firstly here, some of the assumptions made in Mr Tregear's comments. 

It is not necessarily the case that the context of these reports - as in relating to the actual terms and remit of the inquiry - will have been clearly understood by viewers from the accounts/passages cited by Mr Tregear. Reporting of the proceedings, exchanges and comments made by witnesses and others does not, in itself, provide particular or consistent guidance on the inquiry's actual terms, or who/what was being investigated. Mr Tregear's assertion that the public will not have been unduly influenced by use of 'Salmond inquiry' when viewing these reports is based on nothing more than his own subjectively-formed interpretations.

However, this is not the principal issue of concern here.

Mr Tregear mounts a ‘straw man’ line of defence by arguing that the reports provided adequate content and context on what the inquiry was about, citing parts of such reports as apparent 'evidence'. However, the actual complaint was not based upon the accuracy of such content, or whether viewers had been sufficiently appraised of the context. It was concerned specifically and solely with the use of 'Salmond inquiry' itself as a headline and shorthand reference. Whatever the accuracy or otherwise of the story and reporting, 'Salmond inquiry' is still a misleading and inaccurate piece of terminology. In effect, the ECU have validated the use of 'Salmond inquiry' based not on the relevance and validity of the term, but on the 'substance' of the stories/reports under which the term itself has been used. That seems to me a rather disingenuous evasion of the principal complaint.

The use of terms like 'Salmond inquiry' may seem of relatively minor concern. Yet, in an abbreviated, short-attention-primed news environment, the adoption and repetition of such constructions allows for an all-too-ready, power-friendly framing of issues. Headlines do matter. Shorthand terms do influence the ways in which information is received, interpreted and retained by a viewing public. And it seems forever convenient that an 'impartial' BBC will utilise language and phrasing that appears 'passively neutral', yet conveys loaded inference and meaning. 

As ever, the main purpose of raising and documenting such complaints lies not in any expectation of a favourable outcome, but in helping to illustrate the ways in which the BBC functions and protects itself as a key arm of the establishment.