Go to the reporter, not the organisation

Mr Grant is right that Mr Shepherd is looking for his version of the truth. And Mr Shepherd is right that the BBC should not be taken as always right and fair.

First, Mr Grant’s praise of one “Panorama” programme is well and good, but the BBC has transmitted other “Panorama” programmes which are blatantly biased. I’ll cite the “investigation” into the killing of Turkish aid workers in international waters by the Israeli military – 90 per cent pure Israeli propaganda.

Second, Mr Shepherd’s list of “truths” is pure opinion and I seriously question some of his statements. Let me state here that I was one of the “300” cited by Mr Shepherd (who has never provided proof of this number nor of spanning “the whole gamut of political persuasion”), who later withdrew from the campaign because, instead of really targeting the organisation itself, turned it into a smear campaign against one of the locally based journalists involved. This journalist actually had the guts to meet face-to-face with four of us.

I question Mr Shepherd’s allegation that (1) BBC senior editors apologised to Khun Abhisit, and (2) a BBC correspondent attempted to silence his campaign. On the first point there are two possible “truths”: they did or they didn’t. If there is verifiable proof of this – not second-hand opinion – I certainly didn’t see it. The second point is just innuendo and I don’t believe it.

The BBC’s complaints process is incredibly slow, tedious and apparently designed to put people off complaining. This is wrong, and here Mr Shepherd is to be commended for his endurance in pursuing the complaints. However, it might have stood a better chance and shortened the time taken if it was consistent throughout the process.

Maybe interaction with journalists on their Twitter and Facebook accounts is a better means of getting a point across in future. I’ll keep watching the BBC in the knowledge that it increasingly takes sides in conflicts, so a jaundiced eye helps.

Ken Malcolm

Bangkok