Correcting the record in the Julian Assange case is very important. Here is an effort by a supporter JadcDavidM to correct the record in a BBC video. As a public broadcaster the BBC claims to uphold the highest standards in objectivity, accuracy and fairness in presenting the news. But this report was found to consistently misrepresent or omit important facts that are supportive against the prosecution of Julian Assange. Read his complaint and leave a comment below.
Dear BBC November 24, 2021
I write to complain about numerous flaws in Dominic Casciani’s explainer video of October 27, 2021: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-59053803.
The complaint identifies breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines on truth, fairness, accuracy, impartiality, as expressed in the following statement:
We operate in the public interest – reporting stories of significance to our audiences and holding power to account. In our journalism in particular, we seek to establish the truth and use the highest reporting standards to provide coverage that is fair and accurate. Our specialist expertise provides professional judgement and clear analysis. We are impartial, seeking to reflect the views and experiences of our audiences – so that our output as a whole includes a breadth and diversity of opinion and no significant strand of thought is under-represented or omitted.
Bias can be construed because the breaches are all in the same direction. In the service of accountability and the highest reporting standards, I would be grateful if you could do me the courtesy of replying to each point, rather than providing only a general or selective reply.
Pingback: #CorrectTheRecord: BBC Coverage of US appeal in #Assange case – the BBC (actually) responds | WISE Up Action – A Solidarity Network for Manning and Assange
BBC manages to spread more than 19 pieces of misinformation about Julian Assange in 3.11 minutes. This is hard to beat and is known to me as “character assassination”. If I had the chance, I would call for a boycott of this channel. Shame on you BBC!
Pingback: #CorrectTheRecord: BBC coverage of US appeal in #Assange case – The BBC “Responds”! | WISE Up Action – A Solidarity Network for Manning and Assange
A big thank you! to Jadc his amazing work in Correcting the Record in the Assange Case
in the video sent by the BBC which was biased against Assange Case. This is an eye opener.
The BBC is paid with our taxes to bring all of us genuine and truthful information and facts and
the BBC is misinforming the people, when they omit the facts and bring to the people false statements putting the life and the future of many people at an eminent risk and in our case the honour and the life of the greatest journalist of our time Julian Assange has been put in an eminent
risk. We strongly condemn the misinformation and lies of the BBC!
Thank you for such a well written letter of correction sent to the BBC. Sadly I fear their errors are deliberate (in fact I am certain they are). Their reporting on so many things is carefully crafted so it appears to be true, when really it is state propaganda. Despite this I commend your efforts to carefully correct the BBC on so many of their deliberately false statements. If only this were not so important. A journalists life is at stake (following years of mainstream lies) and the future of a free press.
I notice the BBC chose to film their report of the 2 day trail, on a different date, when the 500 or so supporters, with banners, flyers, speakers and music were not there, as they were on both days. I can only assume he was ashamed
Great work. Thank you. Correcting the record is vitally important and does produce admissions of errors which evidence not only bias but also the process by which these ‘journalists’ practice their lies.
Why no emphasis on the fact that Julian Assange has been in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for (can it be?) more than two and a half years, in BELMARSH. For doing what? BBC, Guardian and all other investigative journalists, watch your backs.
If Judge Baraitser was concerned about his mental state, how could sending him back to that possibly not also constitute a threat to his mental health? Are we to believe that that experience is somehow a soft option?
This is brilliant from David and I hope the BBC are sufficiently stung to respond so that he can drive his advantage home for Julian’s sake.
The worst problem situationally, though, is that “Auntie” is Shepherdess to her flock – keeping the nasty man away – and even if she were to concede on some of these matters it will not be heard above the bleating and the flock will still see any presuming to assail her virtue as black sheep not to be heard.
It would be very different if there was a plural Press to pick up on or back these exposures, but where are they?
I need to ask advice and opinion here when I wonder if a practical assault on her position could achieve some separation of flock from Shepherd.
I’m asking this because as well as intellectual exposure there is the possibility of something more visceral.
Flocks are flocks because they only respond to viscerally felt things and the Shepherdess knows how to push those buttons. They look at another blankly when she talks of things that do not directly impinge upon them, and that is the brick wall that frustrates us, together with the closed mind – and Auntie’s job is to close the national mind when called upon to do so.
There may be objection of the kind I am getting at when it comes to David’s No. 9.
There is something else shocking buried in this that concerns the principle of keeping mass murder secret and the path with no forks down which that takes us unavoidably.
Can we somehow put it in a complaint that this comment from their reporter – editorially approved by them – justifies the use of secrecy to hide mass murder and that it be justified to punish the one who exposes it whether he had to overcome difficulty of access to the information or not.
If BBC sees punishment of people for such deeds as correct, it means that as a matter of integrity – i.e., no double standards. They must concede identical sympathy for Hitler and Stalin in punishing all and any who tried to expose their vast atrocities too and the BBC must then go on to concede that all those who fought so hard and dangerously to bring the mass war crimes to the consciousness of humanity were actually nothing but criminals? In fact we would be honour bound to let them be extradited for their conduct, at least in principle.
It would take a more astute communicator than I to position this kind of thing in a complaint, but the idea is kind of like an ambush where Auntie is trapped into either conceding that Hitler and Stalin had international Law on their side as the US and UK do now and justified support of the international community in absolute terms, or that the US and UK are behaving like the Nazi and the tyrant with the help of Auntie.
If this is a good path to go down in principle, then might someone with the writing talent (David?) be able to fire the shot.
If we can somehow trap Auntie over this then that might cause the flock a lot of trouble and wake some of them up.
Of all the world’s media I doubt if any is as corrupt as the BBC. The article is excellent but the system is so broken that articles like this will simply be sneered at and mocked as the ramblings of another crazy Assange disciple. Its heart breaking!
Agree. But it can’t do any harm to put the argument and maybe just maybe put a chink in someone’s misplaced confidence.
The problem has been described many times by many people. One of my favourites is by Media Lens in 2009: “It is a tale spun by journalists who appear to know little of the real issues and who have internalised the key rules of ‘balanced’ reporting: do not point the finger of blame at your own government (or its allies), and do not question your government’s demonisation of official enemies (learn nothing from the past).”
It is incredible that the BBC recants all the same old same old and calls this balanced reporting when during the last 5 years so much new and factual evidence has come to the surface. ‘Journalists’ NOT doing their job unlike Assange.