Speak Your Brain - Defend Your Honour

Don't know if this is a re-post but found this on the BBC website
"
[FONT=sans-serif]Saturday Breakfast with JoAnne Good[/FONT][FONT=sans-serif], BBC London, 2 September 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Complaint [/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]A listener complained about an item on the regulation of cyclists on Hampstead Heath. In his view, the representative of the Hampstead Heath Society had been interviewed in an unjustifiably aggressive manner by the presenter, and not given a proper opportunity to put his points. This, in combination with critical comments by others in the studio, resulted in unfairness to the interviewee and a one-sided treatment of the issue. [/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Ruling [/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]The interviewee had not been treated with due courtesy or given due opportunity to state his case. This resulted in unfairness to him and a degree of one-sidedness in the treatment of the issue. [/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Further action [/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Independently of the ECU investigation, the Editor of BBC London had written a letter of apology to the interviewee, and the apology had been accepted. He has also spoken to the presenter and the programme team and reminded them of the need to adhere to the BBC’s editorial guidelines on fairness to contributors."[/FONT]

I think it's fair to say that if it has been posted before it wasn't in quite that way.

So overall, the programme is fair as Jo's views on cyclists are adequately balanced by listeners, contributors and by her co-presenter.

Funny, isn't it, how they reach a conclusion like this when one would think that it should continue to be up to every listener to make up their own mind even after such a long-winded response?

i got exactly the same reply just now.

Me too.

I'm thinking of occupying the BBC and starting a dirty protest. Who else is in?

ditto.

"Specifically in relation to reports on BBC London about the Metropolitan Police / Transport for London initiative to reduce the number of cyclists who are killed in accidents with large goods vehicles, Jo was making the point that many cyclists take unnecessary risks, which was precisely the point being made by the police in this report. "

No: it sounded like she was saying that cyclists who get hit by lorries are being taught a lesson for being on the roads.

Me too.

I just received the same bog standard response. Fucking arseholes

Just got the same reply, only difference being;

"Regards, Stuart Webb, BBC Complaints"

See...now all I got was "Fuck off. Give us some more money. No we're not making any programmes you're interested in. Thanks. BBC" Or something to that effect.

Come on, who's with me.

shall we all draft a group reply, and all send it back, en mass?

something that makes the point - ' yes, we are aware she has a right to her view, it would just be nice her view weren't quite so bigoted, moronic and downright vindictive.'

i received this shitty letter too

shall we all draft a group reply, and all send it back, en mass?

something that makes the point - ' yes, we are aware she has a right to her view, it would just be nice her view weren't quite so bigoted, moronic and downright vindictive.'

I wrote a weak reply that you lot can improve on:

This is a pathetic response which does not address any of the points I raised.

Joanne Good seemed completely unconcerned about accidents that cyclists have which are purely the fault of motorists and not illegal practises on the part of cyclists. For example, on the show that I complained about, a lorry driver described how he was performing an over taking manoeuvre on a round about, thus causing serious injury to a cyclists. It is illegal to overtake in round abouts. Still, JoAnne seemed to indicate that the injury to the cyclists was entirely their fault. JoAnne is entitled to her views but when her view is to encourage dangerous driving practises, she needs to be put on a bike and find out what life is like for herself.

love, JB

"To whom it may concern,

Thank you for you response and congratulations on being able to use mail merge. I understand that not every email can be answered personally but as a standardised response that was a poor attempt. From now on I for one will be boycotting the "Breakfast Show With JoAnne Good", long may she continue to offend others but not me. My I suggest again that JoAnne Good speaks to her superiors about the Cycle To Work scheme and tries commuting in London, I believe her attitude will change somewhat as will her flippant comments."

It won't solve anything, but it made me feel a little better.

Seeing both mine and jbcommuter's response, I think a communal response would be good.

So ... had everybody who also received the stock response complained about something else altogether like Tynan did?

Not sure if I'm looking at this wrong, but wouldn't a communal response equal a single response? Surely it's better for everyone to write a response, as they're more likely to take note of multiple emails.

And I also think that it's worth pointing out that nobody complained about the balance and fairness of the broadcast, which is what the Beeb seem to be defending. We complained about the bigoted views of JoAnne Goode. I hardly feel that the co presenter was there to give a balanced opinion, he seemed more interested in reigning in JoAnne Goode's vitriol. So it's OK to broadcast hate as long as there's a bellend saying 'no, well, they're not all bastards'?

I got that mail.

looks like she wrote it herself!

what a blinkered and defensive response from the BBC..
crap.

Although joanne good has expressed far right sympathys and anti Semitic intent the BBC would like to point out that Paul Ross I always on hand to balance out the hate.

The BBC is always on about 'balance'. This is fucked. There was a really good article about this in Private Eye three issues ago (Eye TV section).

My view on this is that most people in the public eye attempt to be polarising (insert Oscar Wilde quote here). By taking the effort to write in, you actually improve this woman's standing w/in the BBC as they see her programme as stirring debate - with her views being countered by her erudite foil, Paul bloody Ross (anyone see his 'Big Black Book of Horror' critiqued on Screen Wipe last week? Hilarious). If you really want to stitch her up, just turn off her show, ignore her and tell your friends what a shit show it is. Only a drop in ratings will get her sacked.

I replied
*"Thank you for your email in regards to my complaints regarding JoAnne Good's comments.

Getting a call from a lorrie driver* who has hit a cyclist does not count, as you have attempted to explain, as getting callers on the radio to argue against JoAnne's point of view. These calls simply encourage JoAnne and encourage ill-informed prejudice.

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, however the BBC has put JoAnne in a position where she has a further responsibility. Discussing the death and injuries of human beings on our public roads should be treated with respect and knowledge. JoAnne was both disrespectful and ignorant. Her show did not provide adequate discussion of the topic, nor was her opinion balanced by anything.

Paul Ross certainly did not balance out JoAnne's comments on this particular show. On top of that, JoAnne is employed to speak on the radio, listeners are not employed to call in. If the BBC is relying on listeners to balance out the prejudices of it's employee's the BBC is not doing it's job.

Your form-letter response, which does not address many of the points I raised in my letter to you, is disappointing. You, the BBC, wrote to me a listener that the viewers and listeners are now responsible for providing balanced opinions, facts, research, and knowledge to balance out the ignorant opinions of your paid employees. You, the BBC complaints commission, has just told a listener that the BBC does not rely on it's employees to research topics that they will be discussing, but rather depends on the viewers to do this research for them.

Where the radio was once a place to gain knowledge on important topics like the rights of road-users, it is now a place to which we the listeners must now give information. It seems the BBC has taken the position that the BBC is entitled to their "opinions" and removes all responsibility from themselves to provide "facts".

I am disappointed in your response, I look forward to hearing a further response from you, and I will look into my options as to what to do next. Whilst my complaint was originally, and still is, in regards to JoAnne Good's comments, it is now, also a complaint against your response [T2008110700HLS060].

Sincerely,
Roxy Erickson

JoAnne heard a story from a caller about a cyclist who was trying to get around a roundabout and got hit by a lorrie trying to continue around the roundabout while the lorrie tried to get out of it. The cyclist was in hospital for 3-4 weeks said the caller and JoAnne's comment was "let that be a lesson". You do not, in your emailed response to me, cover JoAnne's ill-advised comments like the above. JoAnne's comment was good old-fashioned blame-the-victim rhetoric. Clearly there was more to the story, especially considering that JoAnne was only hearing the story from the lorrie driver himself and not from a bystander nor the cyclist. "

Really great response Roxy.

I still stick by my views above, but you just go to show how cynical I am!

I'll let someone else talk you through the typos ;-)

good letter, Roxmeister.

in defence of the Beeb, however - their compliants dept. must be in total meltdown since all the Daily Mail readers got a taste for it with WossGate

You'd have thought they'd relish the opportunity to write about something else, then...