Thanks to all the many readers who have taken the time to keep us informed regarding the progress of their complaints to the BBC concerning remarks made by Tim Willcox during coverage of the march in Paris on January 11th.
To recap, complaints were initially answered with a response stating that Willcox had issued an apology on Twitter. Those who pursued their complaint further have now received a response from the Complaints Director at the Editorial Complaints Unit, Andrew Bell.
Mr Bell writes:
“As you may be aware, however, we have received a very large number of complaints on this issue, and if we were to deal with them in the normal way, investigating each complaint separately, it would be many weeks before some complainants received a finding. In order to reach a speedy determination on the essential issues, as they are reflected in the totality of the complaints we have received, we propose to deal with them in a slightly different way.”
The response goes on to explain that the ECU has summarized the editorial issues arising from all the complaints into the points below and that those points will be considered against the relevant Editorial Guidelines of accuracy, impartiality and harm and offence.
- That the question put by Tim Willcox to an interviewee was misleading in that it linked the Paris killings in a kosher supermarket with events in the middle east;
- That the question was offensive and anti-Semitic in that it suggested that all Jews were responsible for the actions of Israel;
- That the question was offensive and anti-Semitic in that it suggested that Jews were responsible for the murder of other Jews;
- That the question was offensive because it trivialised the holocaust;
- That the question displayed bias against Israel;
- That Tim Willcox’s comment “But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives” suggested there was a justification for the killings;
- That the interviewee was not treated with appropriate respect;
- That the terms of the apology from Tim Willcox were inadequate and failed to address what was inaccurate and offensive about his remarks;
- That posting an apology on a private Twitter account was inadequate and that it should have been published by the BBC.
Mr Bell further notes that he hopes to inform members of the public of the outcome of his unit’s investigation by February 23rd.
Obviously it does make sense for the ECU to avoid wasting public resources by streamlining the process of investigation and considering a high volume of similar complaints together. Particularly following the unsatisfactory initial replies received by members of the public, it is now good to see that Mr Bell’s department appears to be making a serious attempt to address the issue.