Interview with Jody McIntyre
Post categories: BBC News channel
| 12:47 UK time, Tuesday, 14 December 2010
We have received a considerable number of complaints about an interview Ben Brown did last night on the BBC News Channel with Jody McIntyre. The context of the interview was that Mr McIntyre was on the student demonstrations in London last week and video emerged yesterday of him being pulled out of his wheelchair by police.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it. However I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview. I would obviously welcome all other views.
I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances: it was quite a long interview and Mr McIntyre was given several minutes of airtime to make a range of points, which he did forcefully; Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions.
Mr McIntyre says during the interview that "personally he sees himself equal to anyone else" and we interviewed Mr McIntyre as we would interview anyone else in his position. Comments more than welcome.
Kevin Bakhurst is the controller of the BBC News Channel and the BBC News at One and the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
© MMX
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Hi Kevin, I haven't complained, but I can see why some people will have.
Ben's interviewing a guy in a wheelchair with cerebral palsy, who has to be pushed by his brother. Asking "did you throw anything?" is practically up there with the Dead Parrot Python sketch (nah, he's just faking it), and the suggestion that "wheeling himself at the police" might be a justification for their actions is ridiculous.
There's challenging someone on their assertions, but Ben might as well have asked if he'd flown about above the police, taunting them with flashing laser blasts from his eyes.
Complain about this comment
There's an interesting blog article on the Telegraph website about this, written by Toby Young. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100068199/disabled-student-activist-versus-the-bbc/ I take a similar view, although admit to only having seen the clips on the Internet (I didn't see the interview as it went out).
Its interesting that in the interview, Brown asked if it was true that McIntyre was rolling towards police in his wheelchair; a perfectly legitimate question. But for some reason it was interpreted by McIntyre as an attempt to justify what the police had done.
Complain about this comment
I actually thought this was a good interview (and I'm a fire juggling, vegetarian liberal!). The job of the interviewer is to play devils advocate opposite the interviewee and Ben Brown did that. Jody won out fair and square against some very tough and ridiculous questioning and was given a clear platform to rebuff them, which he used excellently.
The acid test is that if Ben Brown performs an interview about the same incident with the police chief he MUST be as firmly on Jody's side in that as he was against him in this.
Complain about this comment
I agree that Jody McIntryre was given air-time to respond but some of the questions put to him were pretty insensitive. The questions around him wheeling his wheelchair aggressively into the police and throwing missiles are ridiculous.
Ben Brown also asks some questions repeatedly, despite Jody McIntryre giving direct answers at all times. This makes the interviewer appear aggressive. He is not just asking for Jody McIntryre's account of what happened - he is actively questioning him in a disbelieving manner. This is not the type of impartial interview style I would expect from BBC News.
Complain about this comment
I totally agree with yourlast couple of lines Ric. I would expect the same.
Complain about this comment
Jody McIntyre is equal to all of us, obviously. However, as he said, it is also obvious that he couldn't possibly pose a physical threat to the police officers that attacked him. I was shocked an offended at how many times the question of what Mr McIntyre may have done to provoke the attack was raised.
It may have been a long interview, but any time Mr McIntyre strayed into areas such as his wider beliefs of why the incident occurred, Ben Brown quickly interrupted (in particular at the mention of BBC Palestinian coverage, interestingly), asking again if a cerebral palsy sufferer threw anything at the officers.
I was also disappointed by the way Mr McIntyre's political activism was used as a way of further insinuating that he may have provoked the attack. That, to me, was rather unfair and narrow minded.
I don't think it is right to use the excuse that just because Mr McIntyre rightly stated he was equal to everyone else, he should be questioned as though he could ever have attacked the police officers. It just distracts from the real issue which in an ideal world the BBC wouldn't ignore. In these kinds of situations the police attack the weak to assert there dominance and provoke a reaction. It just so happens that this time, they chose to attack someone who couldn't possibly have physically defended themselves.
Complain about this comment
I would say you have missed the point here by putting so much emphasis on the fact that you (quite rightly) treated Jody like everybody else (regardless, I presume, of his disability.)
That said I do think Ben Brown managed to show a deep level of ignorance about Jody McIntyre’s condition 'There's a suggestion you were rolling yourself towards the police' 'did you throw anything that could have been of injury'. By this he embarrassed himself and the BBC terribly.
I can only speak for myself but I would suggest that the problem was mainly Ben Brown's slipped mask. I suggest that Brown's infuriatingly poor debating skills, bias, absolute lack of charisma, and lack of preparation on the subject may have been the cause.
Complain about this comment
The interview seemed fair enough to me. I'd like to see how the police justify their actions - seemed to me that some police recognised the behaviour was inappropriate, as they seem to be dragging one of the others away
Complain about this comment
Kevin,
I've just seen the interview after a work colleague showed it to me.
If you're hoping to pass this off as viewers "taking pity" on a disabled interviewee, I'm afraid you're wide of the mark.
Ben Brown initially attempted to suggest that Mr. McIntyre was a threat to the police and then, by implication suggested that the attack was justified because he'd previously described himself as a "revolutionary" (like say, Nelson Mandela) on the internet - as though the Officer logged on to check his status before the assault!
Actually, I don't blame Ben Brown, I blame the "shock-jock" editorial policy to which your researchers are working and which leads to the type of haranguing so unbecoming of a broadcaster of the BBC's standing and reputation.
Complain about this comment
Classic! Having picked my jaw literally off the floor in disbelief, I asked myself he did not serious ask those questions Horrendous interview! Justifying immoral actions with asking if he was rolling towards the police! Jodey was in a protest there would have been police all around he can’t walk so, I guess he would have moved towards them at some point. Can’t believe he used the word rolled! If he was shouting, then so were the other thousands of students why target the vulnerable person in society? Valuing People DoH (2001): changing attitudes and services has gone completely out of the window for the police!
Do values, ethics and moral action not extend to the police? Moral action should filter down into how we ought to behave in society. Shame on you Officer! As for Jodey being a risk, if carrying out a risk assessment would we serious rate rolling down the road as a Hazard?
Complain about this comment
I complained last night, immediately after watching the interview.
My objection is simply illustrated. Were Ben Brown to interview Charles and Camilla about having paint thrown at their car, would he repeatedly ask whether they were asking for it? Would he reference comments that Charles had previously made about other subjects to suggest they justified the attack? Would he ask whether Camilla had thrown anything at the protesters, and then, once she denied it, would he ask again?
The answer is of course no to all of those questions. The same respect should have been shown to Jody. This man did nothing wrong, was the subject of a documented assault by the police, and was treated to a hostile interview as if he were a government minister proposing a controversial new law.
It's not acceptable, it's not responsible and the BBC should sack Ben Brown for it. I'm sure he will find a welcoming home at Sky News, whose viewers are far more used to prejudice and ignorance being rewarded.
Complain about this comment
Ben Brown appeared to be openly biased in his interview with Jody McIntre. This resulted in what can only be described as an unnecessarily interrogative interview which was extremely uncomfortable to watch.
The line of questioning became utterly preposterous at the point where Brown repeatedly asked if McIntyre had been 'throwing things at the police', when he had previously stated that he was not even capable of moving his own wheelchair.
Furthermore- as Brown himself admitted, he was present at the demonstration and had witnessed acts of violence directed towards the police. This was evidently informing his line of questioning. Fair enough you might say, but there had previously been no suggestion that McIntyre had been involved in any violence.
Perhaps then, by the same token McIntyre would have been justified in asking Brown if he had been throwing things at police- if merely attending the demonstration is enough evidence to make these kind of assumptions about individuals. Is everyone to be tarred by the same brush? Not really a fair and representative view in that case.
The only justification for what was so clearly the impartial treatment of an interviewee would be if Brown had himself witnessed McIntyre attacking a policeman. Even then, I would hope that a rather more objective view would have been presented by the BBC and another interviewer would have been used!
Complain about this comment
I think that the complaints are revealing and reflecting a much wider dissatisfaction with the way the BBC has reported the whole protest. In 'the old days' (for example, when the Poll Tax demonstration turned to violence), there were no mobile phone cameras to capture the 'view from the street' and the mainstream media perspective was the only one we saw. Now YouTube is full of footage that clearly shows the police behaving badly. Many of us feel a sense of outrage, and quite right too: is NOT OK to ride horses into crowds, hit kids with batons, or pull a disabled person from his wheelchair. The evidence that this has happened is there, on film, in the public domain; but still we get apologist interviewers like Ben Brown implying that protesters must have 'asked for it' somehow. Many, many viewers would prefer to see the BBC questioning police chiefs, challenging what has happened and voicing public outrage... Come on BBC - fulfill your public broadcast remit!
Complain about this comment
6. At 1:44pm on 14 Dec 2010, dwashington_1 wrote:
Jody McIntyre is equal to all of us, obviously. However, as he said, it is also obvious that he couldn't possibly pose a physical threat to the police officers that attacked him. I was shocked an offended at how many times the question of what Mr McIntyre may have done to provoke the attack was raised.
It may have been a long interview, but any time Mr McIntyre strayed into areas such as his wider beliefs of why the incident occurred, Ben Brown quickly interrupted (in particular at the mention of BBC Palestinian coverage, interestingly), asking again if a cerebral palsy sufferer threw anything at the officers.
I was also disappointed by the way Mr McIntyre's political activism was used as a way of further insinuating that he may have provoked the attack. That, to me, was rather unfair and narrow minded.
I don't think it is right to use the excuse that just because Mr McIntyre rightly stated he was equal to everyone else, he should be questioned as though he could ever have attacked the police officers. It just distracts from the real issue which in an ideal world the BBC wouldn't ignore. In these kinds of situations the police attack the weak to assert there dominance and provoke a reaction. It just so happens that this time, they chose to attack someone who couldn't possibly have physically defended themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed. And the BBC seem to have misinterpreted his remark. He meant he was entitled to the same respect as anyone else, not that he was entitled to the same level of abuse.
He also did not ludicrously claim to be the physically equivalent of everyone else.
Complain about this comment
"I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it."
This is not the reason I complained to the BBC. My complaint was centred around Ben Brown's questioning style, which bordered on the disbelieving, despite clear footage showing Jody McIntyre being pushed out of his wheelchair onto the ground by police officers.
He repeatedly asked Jody to deny things that he could not physically have done, ie "you say you didn't throw anything?" etc, rather than concentrate on the actual story which was a wheelchair user being physically demeaned by the Met.
Shocking use of BBC time, which would have been better used looking into why police officers felt this level of violence was appropriate to apprehend a man with limited mobility.
Complain about this comment
The fact remains that the police are unnecessarily aggressive in their presence and attitude. Having been a peaceful sit in protestor at the Anti War demonstrations a few years ago i was man handled and grabbed with no question and no provocation on my part. Last thursday i managed to get caught up in the aftermath of the Charles and Camilla incident whilst walking to Oxford Circus tube. The police unfortunately had the same attitude as before if not worse. They piled out of vans in riot armour and then proceeded to intimidate and shove people out of the way with their kettling techniques. When i approached them i was shouted and told that there was looting going on. A complete exaggeration of the commotion that was going on at Topshop. My point is whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? This interviewer comes across as biased and aggressive not challenging. Lets get this into context. Jody has Cerebal Palsy and requires an electronic wheelchair. I would assume the level of aggression was minimal compared to that of the Police officer in the video. You can clearly see other police officers dragging the officer in question off of jody. This is not the type of policing that should be going on in 2011 in a so-called democratic UK.
Complain about this comment
Hello Kevin,
After seeing the interview last night I set up a facebook group and showed it to everyone I could directing them to the complaints procedure.
The issue isn't that Jody McIntyre was questioned. It was an interview after all. The problem is the weighted, leading questions used throughout and how Ben Brown phrased his questions. Regardless of yours or his intentions, it did sound like he was trying to condone any police actions purely by McIntyre being present and "provoking" police by "rolling towards them" or "throwing rocks". To issue this questions to a man unable to wheel himself around with Cerebral Palsy sounded ridiculous and completely nonsensical.
Due to the manner Brown interviewed McIntyre the interview came across as very biased against the protests and against any notion that violence against peaceful protest cannot be condoned.
I wasn't expecting special treatment for disabled protester, just some common sense and perspective in the questions.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
Kevin, the charge is not that Ben Brown was too challenging; it's that his line of questioning was inappropriate. Yes, Mr McIntyre is a political activist and there's nothing wrong with asking difficult questions of someone who's taking part in a protest. But the reason that this footage stood out was that it showed uniformed police officers dragging a disabled man out of his wheelchair and up the street. That was what shocked people, and that should have been the main focus of the interview. There was enough time to challenge his political views alongside this. Incidentally, I don't believe Ben Brown deserves to be sacked or is an apologist for the police; this is straightforward bad news judgment more than anything.
As for your contention that "we interviewed Mr McIntyre as we would interview anyone else in his position": Ben Brown asked someone who visibly has a condition that impairs his movement if he had thrown things at the police. Are your interviewers really in the habit of asking this kind of question? Does it not strike you as the tiniest bit insensitive? At best it's redundant, at worst discriminatory.
I wait with interest to see the interview with the police commander in which he is grilled about Mr McIntyre's treatment. That would provide a bit of balance, as well as entertainment.
Complain about this comment
This response totally misses the point. Was the interview with/about a protestor, or was it about a disabled person dragged out of their wheelchair and across the street by a policeman? Clearly the reason for interviewing McIntyre specifically was the latter, in which case the persistent and single-minded line of questioning (i.e. 'did you provoke police brutality?') is totally, totally inappropriate. I hope that in the analysis of this particularly offensive event the presenter and editors of the programme can see this, apologise unreservedly and take steps to understand the reasons that this interview took place in this manner.
Complain about this comment
This didn't appear to me to be tough questioning, it was simple a reporter who had already made up his mind. He asks a series of questions about how Jody might have provoked police, repeating some questions when he's given direct answers, and cuts off any comment which strays from this line of questioning.
As you say, his disability does not mean he cannot be questioned robustly, but to ask repeatedly if he threw rocks at police is absurd. Moreover, he's appearing here as a victim of suspected police violence, but this interview treats him as a criminal. It would be entirely reasonable to have asked him if he had done anything which might have caused this reaction, but to challenge him over and over about it in this way is entirely inappropriate, and I'm quite sure you wouldn't do that in an interview with other alleged victims of violence.
I'd like to point out too that the shortened version of the interview you've posted here really doesn't give the full impression of this interview, and could give a misleading impression.
Complain about this comment
Making this into an argument about whether or not Jody Mcintyre was treated differently because he has cerebral palsy is completely missing the point.
The real issue here is BBC complicity in the shameless whitewashing of police violence.
Treating a victim and witness of said violence as a dangerous radical and making an explicit link between his blog posts and his treatment at the hands of police is just utterly disgusting dishonesty.
This young man has more integrity than any of the professionals who have so far been prepared to condescend to him.
http://twitpic.com/3ft3q1
This is the media environment that Jody McIntyre has been thrust into by being dragged out of his chair. Has the BBC so lost its way that it is happy to feed the lynch mob?
Complain about this comment
In answer to banderaroja (9) I'm not trying to pass it off as that - that was the thrust of a number of the complaints we have received and the websites that suggested people complain to the BBC.
In answer to your third para - Ben was simply exploring why Mr McIntyre was there - as a student or as a general protestor. Legitimate I think.
Finally - you are totally wrong re "shockjock" editorial policy. That simply isn't what we do - and I know the audience thinks our tone is important to them, so it would be mad to do that.
Complain about this comment
I wasn't expecting McIntyre to handled with kid gloves in the slightest. He is a protester and a political activist and therefor should be treated as such.
But asking him whether he was provoking any violence by "rolling towards police" or "throwing rocks" is nonsensical. Even if he was rolling towards police what would that prove? It still isn't provokation for what came next. McIntyre, throughout the entire incident, was a disabled man posing no physical threat whatsoever. The man suffers from cerebral palsy.
Would you condone Ben Brown questioning a non-disabled person whether they lifted that battered riot van over their head or out ran Charles and Camilla's car? No, because both sound ridiculous and completely outside of that person's physical capabilities.
Brown's questioning was weighted, leading and nonsensical.
Complain about this comment
I'm outraged by this interview. It seems that Ben Brown is implying that Jody McIntyre provoked the attack. Asking if he was rolling towards the police and throwing objects and shouting is not right. I am shocked at this level of reporting from the BBC. It would appear they are on the side of the policemen who did this most disrespectful and totally unnecessary behaviour.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dear Kevin,
As a number of people have noted, Brown's pursuit of a number of points not entirely relevant come over over as aggressive and a little ridiculous - Brown doesn't cover himself in glory over the full 7 or so minutes of the interview, 2 minutes of which you include above.
Brown notes what he saw from his vantage point in Parliament Square and asks if McIntyre was involved in the same. But once the point had been rebutted, Brown rephrases it in ways that make him look crass and insensitive. Probing questions about 'were you wheeling your wheelchair toward the police?' followed with, 'you say you are a revolutionary', and 'why haven't you complained yet?' It is the repetition of questions that have been answered reasonably that make Brown's questioning appear either insensitive, hostile, or just plain ridiculous depending on the point of view - especially after McIntyre explains the limitations his cerbral palsy places on his physical movement and Brown persists in questioning/or implying his intentions to get physically involved in the protests.
I can't believe you (Kevin, or anyone else) can have watched this thinking, 'there's an RTS award on its way for this one?' Maybe because it was on News 24 at 8 in the evening you thought nobody would be watching?
The quality of the interview and its relative offence may then be compounded by the omission of any corresponding interview with the police. I may have missed the corresponding 7 minutes with someone from the Metropolitan Police - that's the joy of seeing these youtubed clips on facebook - but if it didn't happen, that lack of a corresponding grilling of anyone from the police - possibly a consequence of police procedures and the official complaints process (which also explain why no police officers have to my knowledge been questioned on tv about the student who ended up in hospital)?- makes the coverage of this looking one-sided. I've looked around the BBC website and can't find Ben Brown repeatedly challenging any senior Met officers to explain their actions in this or other cases of alleged brutality.
Could you not find some way of exploring the police silence - or explaining it - otherwise your coverage risks appearing partial by omission. The police and politicians have talked of brutal thugs and feral beasts - but where has the in-depth analysis been of police behaviour? If the student in hospital after having had a stroke dies, will you then inquire a little more strongly about police tactics? As McIntyre himself pointed out, you have covered the attacks on himself and others differently to Charles & Camilla's unfortunate brush with the 'mob' - even though the reporting of both has relied on phone cam footage. You note the point above, Kevin, so what is the solution?
So, Brown's 'robust' style failed to work in this case, and the possible question of relevant balancing material creates a second problem. The third you face is the way your footage can be passed around the net without your control. This allows what appears to be a ham-fisted interview to be shared, repeated, commented on hundreds of times in a way that intensifies the sense of outrage. I received the video from 2 different friends on Facebook in the space of 2 hours. That's not a criticism, just an observation on the way news is now received and interacted with.
Complain about this comment
@Duncan in Edinburgh... Thank you for expressing those objections so clearly. Hear hear!
Complain about this comment
This is not about Jody's disability. This is about a member of the public, shown in a video to be – at best – manhandled by the police consenting to give his side of the story to a public broadcaster only to face a barrage of hostile questions and insinuations that sought to make the police's case at the expense of his own.
Here is a transcript of the interview. http://troubleinchina.livejournal.com/604369.html The interviewer clearly spends most of his time attempting to undermine Jody's intentions and credibility.
It's true Jody didn't crumble – but that was in spite of the interview methods – many (most?) of us with no media training (unlike politicians and police) would have – and thus a) lost our chance to respond and b) been cynically used to undermine the footage of our own victimhood.
There were 12 questions asked in the interview. 3 were about why Jody hadn't made a formal complaint. 4 were about things he might have done to provoke an attack. 4 were from the perspective of the police. Taken with the needlessly aggressive tone Brown employed, this is not impartiality as I understand it.
It's also disingenuous to label this a campaign. The video has been shared extensively on social media, and many people are angry. Some may recommend peers who feel similarly should complain, but it's hardly an organised movement.
Complain about this comment
Mr Bakhurst, your comments are preposterous, and amount to defending the indefensible.
I have complained through official channels about Mr Brown's unacceptably offensive interview already, but as you ask for clarification here is what I have to say on this disgraceful incident:
"I am appalled at the BBC's blatant political bias and ardent support of police brutality. Flagrantly disregarding video evidence of a physically disabled person dragged across the road, Ben Brown repeatedly attacked McIntyre and insinuated that his claims of revolution on his website combined with his menacing "rolling" towards an "army of police officers armed with weapons" are enough to justify such violence.
This logic is ludicrous and unfounded, almost irrelevant, but the thing that disgusted me the most was the constant interrupting, which comes off as contemptuous censoring.
Jody McIntyre, an honest and articulate subject, attempted several times to divert from his own case and reminded us not to get caught up in the hype and forget things like real issues: the cuts, and hiked tuition fees. But Ben Brown kept on interrupting him, cutting him off in the middle of a Palestinian referrence and irritably asked when Jody's making his complaint to police (which he has now made, so even on that Ben Brown completely and utterly failed).
The strength of Ben Brown's entire argument, apart from ardently inquiring what, if any, objects/verbal abuse Jody was directing at police, seems to revolve around precisely why Jody hasn't made an official complaint, completely disregarding the real issue of a disabled man being dragged out of a wheelchair by police officers.
I'm left feeling utterly disgusted by Ben Brown's interview. I know the BBC stage these things to be controversial and hard-hitting, but there's a slight difference between that and being genuinely offensive. It looks like, as is the case with the majority of criticism directed at contemporary TV news, that actual news is disregarded in favour of blinkered, irrelevant opinion.
It's a shame that the coverage this will receive is created in response to this interview, instead of being covered by it. It's a governmental bias that dictates the tone of this programme, and it's a sad state of affairs that your biased and unfair reporting of this issue will contribute to the misinformation the Government is keen to perpetrate, and will help deflect public attention from the real issue - the exact opposite of what you, as one of the most respected news gatherig organisations, should be doing.
Did I say 'most respected'? Not anymore BBC, unless you sack irresponsible hacks like Ben Brown and go back to doing what you do best: reporting the truth."
As an aside, I have attempted to post the above comment on your Points of View message board, but my comments have been censored.
Make up your mind, either you want feedback from your viewers, or you don't.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
On a lighter note, if this is standard operating procedure for the BBC now, I very much look forward to Ben Brown meets Charles & Camilla.
"WHY WERE YOU DRIVING THERE?" - 'Well, one was-' - "IS IT TRUE YOU BELIEVE IN HEREDITARY POWER RATHER THAN DEMOCRACY?" etc.
Complain about this comment
I'm very surprised you feel the need to ask for explanation. While Jody is absolutely equal to everyone else in his standing as a person, entitled to express his opinions and his protest against a government he disagrees with, it should be obvious to the BBC and even to Ben Brown that he posed no threat whatsoever to the police. Nobody, whether in a wheelchair or not, walking or being pushed by their brother deserved to be dragged across the street in this way when they clearly did not pose a threat to the police.
Was Ben Brown briefed at all about the nature of cerebral palsy before he started his asinine line of questioning? Did Brown fail to understand the meaning of McIntyre not being able to propel his own wheelchair? One almost has the sense that Brown does not really believe that Cerebral Palsy is a genuine condition.
Brown's complete lack of professionalism, understanding or insight made what could have been a very interesting interview, probing the behaviour of the police into a farce, as MattWPBS above says, on a par with the parrot sketch. I seriously believe that Brown undermines the credibility of the BBC and should be replaced as soon as possible.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that this interview is trying to be passed off as another chapter in the debate on tuition fees and political activism whereas it is in fact a story about a disabled man who was pulled from his wheelchair - an act that cannot be justified by any logical means and therefore this interview should have been about the victim's experiences and he ought to have been treated as a victim.
This event is separate and should not be thought of in light of Mr McIntyre's previous political activity or indeed the activity of other protesters. With regards to being treated like everyone else I would like to point out that if a home had been burgled, or a person had been killed the individuals involved would never have been interrogated in such an aggressive fashion in an interview with the BBC. They would certainly not have been asked if they had brought the attack / burglary upon themselves. It is abundantly clear from the video on Youtube that Mr McIntyre was dragged from his wheelchair and there is no way that this could constitute 'reasonable force' which is the right of the police.
Furthermore, whilst Mr McIntyre is of course an equal he is not equally able bodied and therefore asking questions such as 'did you throw things' / 'did you roll towards police' and being asked so repeatedly is akin to asking a man with no legs 'did you hop, skip and jump towards police' and as such reveals a total lack of respect and sensitivity. Treating people equally does not mean treating people the same; holding an interview at the top of a flight of stairs for a candidate in a wheelchair and an able bodied candidate and telling both to get to the top is treating them the same but by no means equally.
I am disgusted by this interview and by Mr Brown's treatment of Jody McIntyre which is at best ignorant and at worst downright offensive. Moreover, the frankly superficial response to the absolutely justified barrage of complaints brings yet more shame on the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Dear Kevin
Assuming it is not a rhetoric question, that you really are genuinely interested in the reasons why people are appalled, here is why:
First, you may want to watch the full interview (not the one you posted here which I am sure was not done on purpose!). Second, as someone who knows the power of context and style try this: please find ONE example of a rape victim being raped on camera who has not complained to the police yet but being interviewed on television. The presenter, imagine please, is behaving the way Ben Brown is behaving here. Lets imagine he asks: "have you done anything to provoke them? There were many women around that day, why they raped you? You are known to be sexually very outspoken, and in your blog you said that you would want have group sex", did you?"
Now if that is an acceptable image then this interview also is. If not please ask yourself: why a crime committed by an ordinary citizen is treated like a crime but when committed by a police officer BBC looks for 'provocation' to justify the act. Is this [what the police does] 'technically' against the law? If yes, what is it that you are trying to do? If no, again, what is it that you are trying to do? Did you invite a police officer to join the programme on that day?
Ben Brown, in his manner, was patronising and disrespectful. That is why you are receiving complaints.
Complain about this comment
First of all, the dismissive tone of Mr Bakhurst that "there is a web campaign" and "the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it" shows a dismissive and insensitive lack of interest in trying to understand the reason for the general sense of outrage.
The issue is not that Ben Brown was "too challenging", it was that his tone and presentation clearly exhibited a bias against the subject of his interviewer, which is uncharacteristic of the type of reporting we expect from the BBC. It goes beyond respectful disagreement, healthy cynicism or playing devil's advocate, and into what can only be described as intimidation and bullying.
I have already complained to the BBC and I do not think that Mr Bakhurst's response has fully addressed the issue, and I will not consider this matter dealt with until the crux of the matter has been addressed.
The BBC must be held to a higher standard of journalism than its commercial sector rivals. This sort of conduct has no place in public sector broadcasting. Perhaps Mr Brown would be more suited to a post at Sky, or Fox News.
Complain about this comment
could I request that the full interview is posted on this site as the current 2min version does not accurately encapsulate the persistent nature of the line of questioning taken by Ben Brown in the original 8min interview.
Complain about this comment
I watched the interview last night, and submitted a complaint today. I was not encouraged to do so by any online campaign.
Robust questioning is a good thing, and I admire the BBC's willingness to ask difficult questions of its interview subjects. In this case, however, I struggled to find any reasonable justification for the abrasive tone taken by Ben Brown: is it seriously the BBC's contention that McIntyre might have been acting violently, given his disability? Was this really an area which needed such aggressive clarification?
This continued emphasis on the possibility of Jody McIntyre provoking the police was hideous. "Equal treatment" of disabled people does not extend to repeatedly questioning them over alleged actions which, by dint of their physical status, they're incapable of performing. The justification for such a line of questioning seemed to be based on nothing more than Mr. McIntyre's broader political opinions, and the violent actions of other protestors. I'd have hoped that the BBC would be above such crude stereotyping and generalisations.
Ultimately, without editorial justification, a "robust" approach quickly descends into abusive hectoring: that's exactly what happened here, and instead of smudging it over and offering mealy-mouthed excuses, you should be taking those responsible to task, and making sure it doesn't happen again.
Complain about this comment
What was Ben Browns point? As far as I can see he only made himself look borderline mentally ill.
If a individual disagrees with something in a strongly worded manner he would brand them a revolutionary or a terrorist. If our government does its just policy. Something seem wrong with this double standard. Who are the real terrorist here? The government seem to have a much higher kill rate in the name of keeping us safe over a million and counting, Probably more than any terror organisation would be humanly possible of and they masquerade as the good guys?. Any one spot something wrong here?
What a strange reality the BBC lives in with its indoctrinated staff unwittingly pushing forward the powers that be’s agenda. They are rapidly loosing credibility and as a independent organisation and reports like this are not helping them. The BBC appear no better than state TV these days.
I now await my comment to be moderated as off topic for some bizarre BBC based rules and regulations reason. Thanks for your time
Complain about this comment
Can I just also say, that the video shown here is an incomplete edit, contianing only the middle part of the full interview - most of the comments made by Mr Brown were after the end of this edit. The full interview can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJ3MZ-AUo
Complain about this comment
My issue with the interview wasn't that Brown asked "hard questions" as they weren't difficult questions at all. My issue was that he was victim blaming. Brown insinuated that the police were justified in their actions.
This is the sort of rubbish reporting I am used to seeing back home in America.
Complain about this comment
I would just like to add that I think it is very misleading to present here a video which selects only 1 minute 56 seconds of the full 8 minute 12 second version available on YouTube. The implication is that the BBC recognises that the full version would quite clearly implicate them and Ben Brown and show just how insensitive and inappropriate the interview actually was.
Complain about this comment
Kevin Bakhurst: I resent your suggestion that these complaints are the result of a conspiratorial "internet campaign", rather than a genuinely appalled yet calm-headed response to the truly shocking behaviour of Ben Brown.
As many people above have quite rightly pointed out, the issue is not the fact that Brown was questioning McIntyre, but the manner of his approach, which tipped over into absurdity (his claim that McIntyre was "rolling towards the police") and clear personal bias (his claim of having personally witnessed missiles being thrown, which was obviously utterly irrelevant to McIntyre's case). His interview was rude and insinuative rather than balanced and pertinent.
But overridingly, I think people find the interview so upsetting because of a profound lack of sympathy and basic courtesy on the part of Ben Brown. McIntyre was claiming that he had been physically manhandled by police, when as a cerebral palsy sufferer he could obviously not have provoked a physical response. Instead of balancing awareness of this with polite questioning, Brown went for an unambiguously hardline, inhumane, antagonistic approach.
This was completely unacceptable, offensive, and upsetting.
Complain about this comment
Well, Mr Bakhurst. Your previous blog entry, 'Access All Areas' says it will "look at some of the changing attitudes towards people with disability and reveal some areas where it is argued that attitudes need to be changed."
You could start with Mr Ben Brown. Why ask a disabled man, who has already stated he cannot use his wheelchair unaided, if threw things at the police? Why phrase the question about "rolling towards the police" as if such a thing was a threat? It seems every question is designed to belittle or patronise. I have seen countless BBC interviews, some of which have been sycophantic (including the one-sided interview with Supt. Julia Pendry), some of which have been challenging - but this is the first I have felt the need to comment on, and the first that has been so accusatory.
The feeling I am left with is that Ben Brown is taking pains to try and discredit Mr McIntyre, to paint him as a villain, to suggest he has no place in a protest, to seek to use the word 'revolutionary' as a negative trait - and its attendant connotation that being a revolutionary in some way makes it acceptable for the police to assault him. Yes, it is a long interview and Mr McIntyre has time to put his points across, but Mr Brown seems simply disinterested (and clearly cannot have been listening when Mr McIntyre says he cannot use his wheelchair unaided). It would be unsurprising if Mr Brown had replied "yeah, whatever" to any of Mr McIntyre's points. Mr Brown provides no balance; his questions are all loaded and none is positive.
I don't expect this from the BBC. Shameful.
Complain about this comment
The comments made by the first person here sums up exactly why I found this offensive, biased and journalism of a poor "fox news" standard.
"Ben's interviewing a guy in a wheelchair with cerebral palsy, who has to be pushed by his brother. Asking "did you throw anything?" is practically up there with the Dead Parrot Python sketch (nah, he's just faking it), and the suggestion that "wheeling himself at the police" might be a justification for their actions is ridiculous."
The interview was shocking. It has nothing to do with treating a disabled man differently. The interviewer didn't even listen to his answers. Why ask him if he threw rocks at the police, after Jody had told him he cannot operate his own wheelchair!?
I hope you will come back on some of the comments made here Kevin. But the way you have dismissed these complaints I very much doubt it.
Complain about this comment
I have little to add to what has been said above, but do want to add my voice to those condemning the interview as biased. To ask someone who has clearly been the victim of police brutality whether he, in essence, asked for it is entirely inappropriate.
I also take issue with Ben Brown's tone in the introduction - 'these pictures APPEAR to show . . .', with the emphasis on 'appear'. His highly sceptical manner leaves the viewer in no doubt of his personal views before the interview even begins. There is no sense whatsoever of a balanced and fair interview here.
Complain about this comment
I complained to the BBC about this interview, not because of some 'web campaign', but because I was genuinely shocked by it. It is the first time I have complained to the BBC, and I registered at this site for the first time today, too.
Kevin, you have got it badly wrong, and you're clearly as much of the problem as Ben Brown, who should apologise or resign. I was as offended by your post as by the original interview, as you appear to deliberately entirely miss the point. The issues have been covered above - Brown's insinuation that McIntyre brought this on himself, and the fact that the police were subject to no such interrogation.
You treated a victim of well-documented and systematic police brutality as a perpetrator, and failed to challenge the police.
It is precisely this sort of useless, biased journalism that causes people to lose faith in the mainstream media entirely and rely on blogs and social media. You have the resources to properly fact check, and a mandate to provide us with accurate reporting, and you failed miserably at both. Clearly, you are too cowardly to challenge the views of your new political masters at Number 10.
Shame on you.
Complain about this comment
Hi Kevin,
I would like to make a complaint with regard to the Ben Brown interview with Jody McIntyre.
I was in disbelief when watching this interview. Ben Brown repeatedly questions McIntyre on whether he had incited the physical abuse delivered to him by police, leaving McIntyre to repeatedly reiterate the obvious; that a man suffering from Cerebral Palsy, in a wheelchair, poses no physical threat to armed police. The interview was completely insensitive. Of course he should not be handled with 'kid gloves', but that does not mean overlooking facts. Would we put a victim of an attack on a blind person, or an elderly person who has been beaten, on national TV and then suggest they asked for what they got?? Of course not, because it is unacceptable launch a physical attack on anyone, even more so a vulnerable person who cannot defend themselves.
The whole interview itself portrays the BBC as having the view that violence is excusable based on the grounds that the victim shares a different belief to the perpetrator (he mentions that McIntyre describes himself as a Revolutionist), or that the police are exempt from the law.
Complain about this comment
Mr Bakhurst, your attempt to justify this interview is as preposterous as some of the questions. Your lack of integrity is demonstrated by the edited clip of the interview shown above. Show the interview in its entirety.
Complain about this comment
The issue isn't that Ben Brown was 'too challenging'. Jody McIntyre is obviously bright and articulate and was able to hold his own.
The problem is the repeated badgering by Ben Brown, implying that Jody McIntyre was in some way responsible for being pulled out of his wheelchair and dragged on the ground.
First of all, very early on in the interview, Jody makes it clear that he can't move his own wheelchair and is pushed by his brother. This obviously implies he has limited use of his arms. The interviewer knowns he has cerebral palsy. Yet Ben Brown later in the interview asks whether Jody had thrown rocks at the police!
Jody repeatedly denies throwing anything at the police, yet Ben Brown keeps asking him the same question: "Did you throw anything at the Police?"
Ben Brown seems to repeatedly imply that Jody is responsible for the police abuse. "Rolling towards the police" is not a justifiable reason for pulling a disabled man from his wheelchair and dragging him on the ground. Therefore the question is both irrelevant and offensive.
The same pertains to shouts of abuse. Jody denies shouting any abuse, but even if he had, this in no way justifies the actions of the police. The police have to justify the force they use, and they only have to use the minimum level of force required for the situation. Dragging someone from their wheelchair is not justified, legally or morally, for shouting abuse -- something which Jody denies in any case.
The whole interview carries on like this. It doesn't matter if Jody classifies himself as a 'revolutionary'. He can classify himself as whatever he wants. In order to use force, the police must justify their actions. Having a belief does not justify being abused by the police.
Ben Brown really shamed himself (and the BBC) in this interview. It was really really offensive.
Complain about this comment
I admit I did not watch this interview whilst it was being transmitted, and have only seen the footage available on youtube. I am however still bitterly disappointed with the BBC for this interview.
I am afraid that I am echoing previous comments made, such as leading and aggressive questions being used and poor interview techniques, but it seems that an additional point needs to be raised. The main issue with this interview seems to be the lack of preparation performed by Ben Brown, and this is apparent with the way the interview was conducted. James exhibits no knowledge of Jody Mcintyres' medical condition, and as result blunders through his questions little realising how ridiculous he sounds as a consequence.
Yes Jody Mcintyre should be interviewed like any other person, but surely that also means he should be shown the respect any other interviewee would be given? The questions asked by Ben James were inappropriate, aggressive, biased, in some cases deliberately probing, and the whole tone of the segment was one of trying to make Jody Mcintyre the 'bad guy'.
I for one am rather upset at the way this interview was conducted, perhaps because these issues affect me as I am also a student protesting against these issues. I will raise this question though. If I had been the one being interviewed by James, would he have tried to substantiate the police attacking me by constantly asking if I was a 'revolutionary', or had strolled along a public access road during a peaceful protest in the vicinity of the police?
This proves the journalism within the BBC is clearly lacking, and this unfortunatly seems to be the source of such a shoddy and unsuccessful interview.
Complain about this comment
Hi Kevin - at the risk of making this a bit A-level-in-media-studies, I would like to direct a question back to you: what do you consider the newsworthiness of this story? As far as I can see, the answer is quite simple: that this story exists at all is because a video has come to light that shows a disabled man being dragged from his wheelchair by a policeman with little to no obvious provocation, outside the confusion of a kettle, and apparently away from any 'front line'.
I understand BBC News' commitment to impartiality, which at its worst appears to consist of interviewers adopting the same blandly accusatory tone that one would question a junior cabinet minister with everybody, as if that's that's the key to even-handedness. I also note that McIntyre is clearly intelligent and self-assured, and does not need to be treated with kid gloves. What I can't understand is how/why the BBC News team have taken a video that clearly demonstrates institutional brutality and decided to interview the victim as if he were a criminal.
You say 'Mr McIntyre says during the interview that "personally he sees himself equal to anyone else" and we interviewed Mr McIntyre as we would interview anyone else in his position.' I would beg to differ here: McIntyre is being questioned not in the manner of a victim of institutional assault, but in a manner that suggests the interviewer believes he has some sort of charge to answer. Again, I understand the BBC's commitment to impartiality - which is never easy - but respectfully, I think you need to reconsider why this event is newsworthy, and rethink your approach.
Complain about this comment
Come on. Be honest Kevin, the basis to everyone's complaint is not that Ben was too Harsh on Jodie, it was the fact that his tone was accusatory and because of that implied that somehow Jodie was 'asking for it'. And I think your stand on the considerable complaints shows just how out of touch you and sadly the rest of the BBC are with the vast majority of your viewers. It was poor journalism, you know it, we know it. So just admit it, apologise and get rid of idiots like Ben Brown asap. Or better still 'roll him' towards a police line.
Complain about this comment
The long version of the video has been shared on facebook (as I write) 16, 903 times. That isn't a campaign - it's a viral. And the response you're facing isn't a conspiracy, it's a groundswell.
Institutions which can only see the world in their own form - like the current government - are going to find the increasing flexibility of decentralised dissent extremely difficult to process - or fight - or escape.
Complain about this comment
There's no campaign. Kevin Bakhurst's comments are as craven as Brown's questions were shameful. The cops done wrong - report it, don't compound it with bias.
Complain about this comment
Surely the best was to understand complainants' objections is to actually read their complaints instead of dismissing them as a 'web campaign'?
Complain about this comment
This blog post itself now appears to be the official BBC response to last night's interview! http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2010/12/101214_res_bbcnewsinterviewwithjodymcintyre.shtml
Complain about this comment
I am afraid the tone and content of your blog makes you come across rather like an apologist for Ben Brown's indefensible actions, Kevin; and your implying that this is about treating disabled people as everybody else is frankly, just as offensive as Mr Brown's interview.
A couple of points.
* There isn't "a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview", there's a justified and understandable public outcry caused by this shameful interview, and the public's only 'weapon' to stop this kind of biased reporting of what is currently going on re: the students' protest is to officially complain when they witness such blatant bias.
Isn't that what the Complaint procedure is there for, to hold you accountable for your actions?
Personally, I find your inferring that people who complained are sheep following an internet trend rather insulting.
* "We interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances".
Really? Brown conducted the whole interview in an extremely loaded, partial, aggressive and biased manner. I have yet to see your journalists subject politicians or members of the Metropolitan police to this kind of treatment.
And there is a huge difference between robust interviewing and purposely trying to discredit someone by repeatedly accusing him of something he not only hasn't done (threaten and attack the police) but also ISN'T CAPABLE OF DOING because 1) he's in a wheelchair, 2) he's already stated this many times. In a word, turning a victim of violence into the the perpetrator!
* By constantly referring to MR MCIntyre's status as apparently a 'revolutionary', Ben brown seemed to imply that he got what he deserved, that he had, by virtue of being there to protest and daring to do so in a wheelchair, 'asked for it', and that he should be happy to be brutalised by the police just as everybody else. Can't you see the perverse logic behind such line of questioning?
I’m afraid this farce of an interview is simply yet another example of the BBC’s lamentably biased coverage of the student protest and coalition issues in general, albeit by far the worst example yet.
Thank God for youtube and the blogosphere, without their existence the public would be convinced your skewed perspective and almost hysterically partial account of the situation is a true account of what is happening.
The BBC’s coverage of the recent events is little by little being exposed as at best partial, at worst downright dishonest. I do hope someone in the upper echelons of the BBC is aware of your reputation being at stake here, and will take action to reverse this seemingly unstoppable decline.
Complain about this comment
Ben Brown's line of questioning was ridiculous, and seemed to be a desperate effort to pain the protester as a dangerous radical. After first asking if Jody McIntyre wheeled himself at the police, like he was in a scene from a slapstick comedy, he asked him repeatedly if he threw rocks at the police - a man in a wheelchair with Cerebral Palsy throwing rocks? These questions were far too ludicrous and nonsensical to serve any useful purpose to the interview and so to me it seems that they could only have been used to attack, ridicule and discredit Jody McIntyre.
I have no support for the student protesters who have been rioting and such over the last few weeks. However the BBC's coverage of the incidents have been totally skewed to paint even the peaceful demonstrators with the same brush and discredit them as ignorant radicals.
Complain about this comment
Mr.Bakhurst
This interview was an embarrassment to the BBC and I find myself hugely disappointed with the corporation not only over this incident, but over its portrayal of the Student Protests as a whole.
The BBC clearly went for a sensationalist angle when broadcasting live that day and continuously showed scenes of violence along with reports of police casualties. Very little was made of the fact that the protesters were not allowed to leave Parliament square, nor that several had been seriously injured, including Alfie Meadows who was nearly killed.
This interview simply confirms my belief that the BBC is no longer an independent news organisation. It is not that Mr.Mcintyre should be treated with 'kid gloves' as you so condescendingly suggest, more that he should be treated with respect. Consistent questions over his attitude towards the police even when he has answered the questions in full gave the impression that Mr.Mcintyre was at fault for being dragged from his wheelchair. Continuous questioning of whether he had thrown anything or wheeled towards police in a dangerous manner gave the interview an air of Monty Python.
I expect a full public apology from Mr.Brown and the BBC about the conduct of this interview.
Complain about this comment
Kevin,
First of all, thank you for putting this issue into a more public forum in which it's possible to have a genuine dialogue, rather than (the tempting alternative of) waiting for the complaints to pile in, then writing a stock response and swiftly deleting the lot. Credit to you for that.
However, earlier you replied in full agreement with another user who said:
=====
The acid test is that if Ben Brown performs an interview about the same incident with the police chief he MUST be as firmly on Jody's side in that as he was against him in this.
=====
I think that this line of thinking rather misses the respective roles of the two people who are being compared here. I would expect a police chief to receive a grilling, certainly, in exactly the same way that Michael Chessum did a few days ago, both of them being effectively representatives and leaders of the respective "sides" in this.
However, that's not what Jody McIntyre is, nor does he set himself up as such. He is a protester, like any other out that day, and he was the victim of violence. Whether or not the police reaction was justified is a separate matter, but I don't think anybody can deny that he was a victim.
It would be equivalent to interviewing the policeman who was knocked off his horse, and grilling him endlessly on whether he hit any protesters over the head, or whether he antagonised them in other ways, and might have deserved to be attacked. That's the parallel that should be drawn, and I don't think in that case that Ben Brown would have asked questions along those sorts of lines.
It is absolutely right that the BBC should challenge "the protesters" as a group, and by talking to figureheads within that movement they're able to do so. It seems to me to be quite another thing to interview a person who is making allegations of police brutality, only to expend a fair amount of energy in cross-examining his version of events. It came across as unprofessional victim-blaming by a man who seemed to have already formed his own opinions on the situation, and was reluctant to accept anything that ran contrary to those.
I honestly cannot imagine any other victim, making allegations of abuse of any kind, being treated in such a disrespectful and interrogatory manner, and that is why I originally made a complaint about this interview.
Complain about this comment
Hi, I actually sent a complaint last night about the interview. I am a third year journalism student and I completely understand the need for the BBC to present both sides of any story and appear neutral and unbiased. The reason I complained, therefore, is because this interview did not do this in anyway. The interviewer came over as very aggressive and insensitive. He repeatedly asked questions such as 'did you throw anything at the police', 'did you wheel towards them' and 'but you call yourself a revolutionist'. Even after Jody had given a sound response, categorically stating that he did not feel he posed any threat whatsoever, the interviewer still continued to press the issue. Throughout the interview he consistently tried to insinuate it was Jody's fault, suggesting that the fact he had not yet complained negatively affected his story. He also cut Jody short every time he tried to raise the wider issue in this situation. Jody was so eloquent and articulate throughout this interview and in comparison the interviewer made himself look like a bully. You say that you feel this interview was conducted in the same way it would be for anyone else and I would like to say that I would still find it distressing and shocking to watch if it was. I found the interview very upsetting and in all honestly was quite appalled in the way the interview was conducted.
Complain about this comment
I have not seen a web campaign.
"Ben Brown was too challenging in it."
I did not see a "challenging" interviewer,
I saw BIAS!
police = good
public / protesters bad
There were a few violent people such as the EDL beating students.
If people are kettled they will get angry & upset.
A few will try and defend themselves from the hail of blows, horses
charging etc.
Horses are not weapons!
The police are meant to serve the public not attack us!
It is not an experiment in crowd control.
It is attack.
It makes me angry!
I have no respect for the police.
I abhor violence.
Complain about this comment
I complained to the BBC about this interview, and also about Ben Brown's general conduct regarding his reporting on student protests. This was not the result of an "internet campaign", but merely because I am concerned that BBC news is rapidly becoming an organisation which blindly supports the UK government/Police force.
In the case of the murder of John Charles de Menezes, the BBC reported unsubstantiated claims from un-named police sources, colouring the outcome of the enquiry in the police's favour. Now the BBC is reporting "suggestions" from un-named sources, this mirrors Fox News's practice of repeating the phrase "It has been said that..." before every abhorrent allegation that they make.
I am glad that Kevin Bakhurst welcome's our comments, I have only one question-
Mr Bakhurst, do you defend the use of unsubstantiated allegations by B.B.C. reporters? If so, can I have my license fee back please?
Complain about this comment
As a journalism student at a London university, I was shocked at the terrible, shoddy journalism evident here. When matched with thinly-veiled contempt and disbelief from Ben Brown, questionable research, even more questionable ethics and a line of questioning that can only be viewed as harassment consider me very disappointed and the BBC a poor role model for other budding journalists. Congratulations, your news piece is now being notorious on the internet and paired with Littlejohn's equally offensive Daily Mail piece on Mcintyre. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Let me know when you have returned to anything resembling your official remit or at the very least journalistic integrity. Until then, I will stick with John Snow who seems to have better things to do than badgering a disabled victim of police brutality. Such as actual reporting. Maybe Ben Brown should try it some time?
Complain about this comment
Wow!!! so your Blog is the official response to the complaints???? You really don't get it do you? The BBC really has lost it's way. I live in the States and was always proud to say I used to work for the BBC, but now I think I'll just keep my mouth shut. What a shame, because there was a time when the BBC was relevant. I guess your now content to bury you heads in the sand and dismiss a groundswell of complaints as ' merely ' a web campaign. Surely your viewers and licence fee payers are entitled to more than tepid, dismissive blog response. You really should be ashamed Kevin. Happy Holidays.
Complain about this comment
Kevin Bakhurst,
My complaints are these:
Mr Brown said words to the effect of: ‘It happened a few days ago, why are you complaining now?’ I can’t understand the purpose of this question or its place in a BBC interview. Is Mr Brown suggesting that to make a complaint a few days after an incident means the complainant is somehow unreliable? Please clarify. Why was this thought to be an appropriate question? What was its relevance to the incident portrayed?
Mr. Brown also asked ‘Were you throwing anything?’ Has the BBC taken on the role of Police investigation? Did Mr. Brown have any evidence of illegal behaviour by the man being interviewed? If not, then why was it thought appropriate for this question to be included in a news broadcast?
Later Mr. Brown asked ‘[did you] shout anything provocative?’ The implication here is that, if the interviewee had shouted something provocative, the physical intervention from the Police would have been justified. Does the BBC agree with my inference? if not, please explain the purpose of the question.
The whole tone of the interview was dismissive and condescending throughout. I have never had cause to complain about a BBC programme before. I usually think of the BBC as being impartial and having high standards of professionalism and clarity of thought. I think what I saw last night fell far short of those standards.
Complain about this comment
It was a ludicrous interview. The defence that he was given plenty of airtime is nonsensical - how much airtime was taken answering ridiculous questions? Was there a need to ask him if he was being threatening or if he had thrown anything when he had already said that he was unable to wheel his own chair? Treating someone as an equal is very much not asking someone in a wheelchair who has already highlighted some extent of their limitations the same questions you would ask an able bodied person.
Complain about this comment
Lastly, I would just like to add that I hated complaining about the BBC - I'm much more used to defending it in arguments (against rightist free marketeers, etc). But what I've always believed it to be is an independent broadcaster with integrity.
If the BBC is to shift to being a state broadcaster in the more sinister sense, I'm afraid that when the scissor-fingered cutsmongers mass another attack, you'll find you've lost many of yr natural advocates and supporters on the left.
We pay our licence fee for a public broadcaster which searches and stands for truth - even if that means challenging those who abuse their power. The current incarnation seems to only find its fangs when confronted with a victim. A really sad day.
Complain about this comment
I fully appreciate the need to treat Mr McIntyre as one would an able-bodied person, and this includes avoiding the assumption that, merely because he is wheelchair-bound, he is an innocent party.
It is the place of journalists to challenge and ask difficult questions.
However, Mr Brown's tone was accusatory and biased from the very beginning of the interview and, in my opinion, grew increasingly more aggressive. He seemed determined to make McIntyre out to be in the wrong; as if he must have done something to have been treated that way, rather than taking an impartial approach. To ask a man who had already stated he couldn't operate his own wheelchair if he was throwing things at the police is ludicrous.
The internet campaign (which I would call a public outcry against a shockingly offensive interview) hasn't urged anyone to complain - it's merely shown the footage and directed people to the link should they wish to(which, funnily enough, it seems we did). To imagine for one moment that these complaints have been made by sheep doing as they're told is grossly patronising.
Complain about this comment
On a more technical note - it would be nice to have the option to recommend other comments as well as complain about them (which surely risks an endless complaints spiral...)
Specifically, I'd have virtual thumbs-upped the following: "It would be equivalent to interviewing the policeman who was knocked off his horse, and grilling him endlessly on whether he hit any protesters over the head, or whether he antagonised them in other ways, and might have deserved to be attacked. That's the parallel that should be drawn, and I don't think in that case that Ben Brown would have asked questions along those sorts of lines." Bravo, James.
Complain about this comment
The sneering response to complaints compounds the offensiveness of the interview. The BBC is supposed to be into communications, this isn't a "a web campaign", it is people communicating with each other.
I complained about the interview, giving my reasons. I will not have been unique, but the editor implies that nobody did give reasons when he types, "I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview." Read the complaints and answer them, then ask for more in response to your answers.
Other people have typed eloquently on the many flaws with the interview. I will amplify two. Firstly, someone who was not a protestor would not have been treated in the same way. Imagine Prince Charles being interviewed in the same obnoxious way about why he was mixed up with protestors and what he had done to be attacked.
Secondly, it is noticeable how quickly the presenter jumped in when Palestine was mentioned. The BBC has a distinct bias with regard to Israel/Palestine issues, which is why it refused to show the DEC appeal and has refused to cover Gaza protests. The BBC is an apologist for the Israeli government.
A smug response from the BBC to the complaints. That isn't news, a smug response is their usual response. However the world is turning. The BBC parroted the police line about Ian Tomlinson, without checking its accuracy, until the evidence became so overwhelming that even the BBC was forced to cover the truth.
This isn't new. In the 1980s over Orgreave the BBC changed the order of events in order to fit in with the BBC/police agenda of nasty miners attacking our brave boys in blue. They were forced to apologise on air for this deliberate distortion of events, which were that miners were attacked by the police and the miners then defended themselves agasinst the police attack.
Complain about this comment
To describe Mr McIntyre as forceful in making his assertions, whilst Mr Brown is described as polite but robust is, I believe, inaccurate and perhaps misleading in debating the issues raised by this interview.
Mr McIntyre's responses to the questions were direct and measured. One could argue that his interpretation that Ben Brown had sought to justify the actions of the police was wrong and an assumption on his part, but this surely raises the question of whether Mr Brown could have been clearer in his line of questioning. Just why did he ask Mr McIntyre if he had rolled himself towards the officers, if not to ask whether this may have provoked the physical action of the officers in the video footage?
Mr Brown repeatedly asked Mr McIntyre if he had thrown any rocks or missiles at the police. In the first instance, it may construed as insensitive given that Mr McIntyre had already explained he is not physically able to use his wheelchair himself, let alone pose a threat to the police. This, though, does not discount throwing objects entirely and, given that the full extent of Mr McIntyre's condition and incapacity was not known to Mr Brown, it is valid to ask the question. However, to ask this a second time after Mr McIntyre asserted he had not thrown anything suggests either Mr Brown did not take notice of the first answer or has reason to believe otherwise, which should be clarified.
Similarly, Mr Brown makes reference to an online document describing Mr McIntyre as a revolutionary. He asked if this is how Mr McIntyre would describe himself, to which he said he would not. However, towards the end of the interview, after Mr McIntyre asserted for the second time that he had not provoked the police officers, Mr Brown asked 'But you describe yourself as a revolutionary?' Again, Mr Brown has either disregarded the first answer or has reason to believe it was false. In either case, revolutionary is not a synonym for violent and imminent threat so, even had Mr McIntyre openly proclaimed himself a revolutionary, he should not have been acted against by the police in such a way nor questioned in this manner.
Complain about this comment
Mr Bakhurst
Having only seen this clip today I was going to make a complaint myself until I came across this blog and thought I would voice my opinion here.
You seem to suggest that the complainers expect Jody to have been given special treatment - this is not the case at all, and to suggest such is simply a shameful attempt to wriggle out of the disgraceful showing in that interview.
The fact is that Jody was attempting to make a serious point about the police attitude and behaviour, and time and time again Ben Brown ignored his comments and continued to push the point that Jody could have been to blame. Initially asking him if he was rolling towards the police was fine, but then to continue to push the point - whether he threw anything, did he shout anything, he's a revolutionary etc.
I thought Jody's comment 'what if it had been Prince Charles....' was particularly pertinent, but Mr Brown shrugged this off and continued his line of attack.
I wonder myself what the BBC's stance would have been if it was Prince Charles. No doubt it would be all over the website front page indicating how terrible it was. Where is the BBC neutrality?
This interview just shows that the BBC is constantly trying to push it's own agenda and the attempt of Mr Brown to justify what happened was shocking.
I expect an apology from both the BBC and Mr Brown at this shameful display.
Complain about this comment
Referring to the point I made earlier (point 12) it appears I unfortunately wrote impartial- when I of course meant unimpartial. (This somewhat changes the meaning of my argument!)
I also just wanted to add one more comment (which echoes many of the other comments above,) and call for a repeat interview with McIntyre, this time with a representative from the MET and a rather more balanced interviewer.
Complain about this comment
The complaint isn't that the questions were too challenging. The complaint is that the questions contain within them an implicit set of assumptions, including the assumption that the police officer's behaviour could have been justified if it had been provoked by some action on Jody's part, such as rolling towards the police or throwing rocks or the police.
In pursuing this line of questioning Ben Brown lends his support to the idea that police brutality is to be empathised with, if it is provoked by the protestor's behaviour. The line of questioning also fails to acknolwedge the level of violence inherent in forcably removing a wheelchair user from their wheelchair. There is no real clear equivalent action for the fully mobile. For a wheelchair user to be separated from their wheelchair is functionally equivalant to a fully mobile individual having their legs broken or their hamstrings cut or receiving a serious spinal injury
Complain about this comment
Have you noticed there isn't a SINGLE comment here supporting Ben Brown, or even expressing a liberal I-didn't-like-it-but-I-understand-how-it-happened point of view? This sort of unanimous criticism is very unusual on an internet discussion board. Maybe it's time to admit you really messed up here, eh BBC?!
Complain about this comment
He may be a wheelchair user but by his own account he is able to climb 9 flights of stairs of an occupied building. Also, his blog reveals that he really doesn't like the police and that he is adept and dismantling the police barriers.
Being dragged out of his wheelchair is not on. But he is no Saint and was desperate to be in the firing line.
http://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/week-72-tory-party-hq/
Complain about this comment
I compained because I was disgusted by the interview, as were a great many others. I must admit someone posted a link to the Complaints micro-site, making it easier, but by having a means of complaining you are clearly asking for it. Shame on you!
Complain about this comment
I agree with Kevin Bakhurst. The interview was neither unfair not patronising and I was impressed that he avoided patronising him.
I challenged the complainers on my twitter stream http://twitter.com/#!/DrEvanHarris and got quite a lot of support and some retreats.
Evan Harris
Complain about this comment
Mr Bakhurst, you say you are genuinely interested in hearing from more people. I would be happy to email you and the newsreader, yet the only way you allow comments is via a moderated discussions board.
I make a comment which you do not like, and you reject it.
Please do tell me exactly how my comment below breaches your rules, other than you not liking it.
Mr Bakhurst, you say "However I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview"
Well, I have been looking for Ben Brown's email address so I could tell him direct what I think. I am happy to do so here.
Mr Brown, your interview yesterday with Jody McIntyre was shocking. Suggesting that a disabled man in a wheelchair was threatening tooled up, fit and healthy riot police by "rolling towards them" is just shocking. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm surprised you didn't ask why he wasn't held on a charge of being caught in possession of curly black hair and thick lips
And your own comment Mr Bakhurst "I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview"
There is no such campaign that I am aware of. And indeed the BBC has now broadcast an offensive interview with a wheelchair disabled man, people have quite rightly complained and you try to say there is some sort of astroturfing campaign? More like you have gone crying to your mummies when you've been found out for bullying.
You and your team should go an hang your heads in shame, for even suggesting a disabled man threatened riot police, and for claiming any well-deserved criticism is the result of a "campaign".
Complain about this comment
Kevin, - I think it is pretty clear what the problem is. There are some contexts where a 'challenging' interview would be appropriate and others where it isn't. If you have the family of a murder victim on and the family aren't suspects would you treat them sympathetically or would you grill them about their possible involvement? If you had Prince Charles on would you ask what he did to provoke people into throwing paint at his car. The reason that it is outrageous to challenge Jody is that it is absolutely clear that he posed no threat. - And it is continuous with the very biased coverage of student demonstrations in the media which focus on student 'violence' despite the fact that students caused some property damage whereas the police bashed someones' head with a baton and left him needing a brain operation and dragged a disabled guy from his wheelchair. Who are the violent ones? It is strange that you are also uncritical of politicians professing their disgust with the violence given that politicians endorse violence in plenty of other contexts - killing thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.
Complain about this comment
I wasn't planning on complaining but having read this incredibly disingenuous response I think I might.
To begin with your team failed to do basic fact checking - your reporter didn't know that Mr McIntyre was unable to move his wheelchair without assistance. You should have found this out before the interview began. When he pointed this out to the interviewer no kind of apology was made, which if nothing else, was needlessly rude.
Secondly your reporter began with the presumption that Mr McIntyre was provoking the police. Someone above has listed the breakdown of your interviewers questions - '3 were about why Jody hadn't made a formal complaint. 4 were about things he might have done to provoke an attack.'
As a trained journalist the questions I would have asked that your reporter neglected to, include:
In your own words can you describe for us what happened?
How did you feel at the time?
Why do you think the police acted as they do?
Mr Brown, with his closed questions and insinuations, reveals himself to be a very poor interviewer, uninterested in what I understand the fundamentals of journalism - trying to discover and distinguish the truth. Open ended questions would be far more likely to expose any weakness in interviewee's story. Please feel free to forward these suggestions to Mr Brown for future reference.
I'd agree too with those above who have already pointed out that only showing an excerpt from the full interview is itself distorting.
Finally this story demonstrates the fallacy of 'balanced reporting'. On the evidence of the video Mr McIntyre is almost certainly a victim of an assault and battery, he should sue, and if he does - he will almost certainly win. Even if were he found to be in some way contributorily negligent 'for rolling towards the police' as it were - the Tort will still have been committed by the police. The Law makes it clear there is no such balance, yet through this kind of aggressive cross examination, perpetrator and victim are reduced to the same standing in the eyes of the viewer: both are placed under suspicion. And - vitally - to begin with such suspicion is not sceptical, but cynical. There's a considerable difference.
The BBC can't have it both ways - you can't behave like a prosecutor and then claim to have the impartiality of a judge. So whenever you play devil's advocate it is only right that you point this is what you're doing, for the sake of audience understanding if nothing more.
Finally I'd advise you not to mistake a wave of disinterested disgust about a poorly conducted interview for a grand political campaign - it merely reveals your unwillingness to listen to individuals who query your standards and conduct. Indeed it is of the same order of cynicism for which your reporter is being upbraided. Is it perhaps institutional?
Complain about this comment
I have not yet complained but I will be.
Throughout this interview, i could not comprehend the amount of idiocy and ignorance that was coming from Ben Brown's mouth; it was utterly disgraceful.
For someone to throw such foolish accusations around is completely immortal and inhumane. To question whether Jody was throwing objects or wheeling towards the police in a threatening manor, is questioning his disability, and for a company as big as the BBC to recognise this is absolutely awful.
Most people like myself have not complained due to the reasons you are implying, but because of manor in which it is carrying.
Complain about this comment
It isnt that Ben Brown was 'too challenging'. Obviously this isnt the case: McIntyre showed us that his questions were not challenging, they were foolish.
But as another comment said, YouTube and Flicker are full of footage that clearly shows the police behaving badly and with practices that should be (and perhaps are) illegal. Who else will expose such abuses of power, if not BBC journalists?
But we dont see it, do we? We dont see the BBC journalists reporting what it is like to be stuck for nine hours inside a kettle, to be beaten around the head for doing nothing but protesting, to be charged with horses.
No. Our BBC journalists do not call police horse charges 'dangerous', rather they call them 'intimidating'.
And instead of quizzing a police chief about the *outrageous* abuse of power and incitement to violence that was Jody McIntyre being dragged out of his wheelchair, we have a BBC journalist asking a disabled man if he rolled his wheelchair towards the police at the time. As if *anything* could have been an excuse for what they did.
BBC, we pay a license fee for top quality journalism to protect us from abuses of power.
Where are you when we need you? Its not just about asking challenging questions. Its also about who you are putting the challenging questions to.
Or not.
Many of us feel a sense of outrage, and quite right too: is NOT OK to ride horses into crowds, hit kids with batons, or pull a disabled person from his wheelchair. The evidence that this has happened is there, on film, in the public domain; but still we get apologist interviewers like Ben Brown implying that protesters must have 'asked for it' somehow. Many, many viewers would prefer to see the BBC questioning police chiefs, challenging what has happened and voicing public outrage... Come on BBC - fulfill your public broadcast remit!
Complain about this comment
You refused to print the comments I made earlier this afternoon.
So I chall repeat them, in condensed form.
Shameful.
Complain about this comment
Time to respond properly Kevin! Seriously, I hope you can see now that it's genuine outrage. Respond.
Complain about this comment
Good Evening Kevin,
Having never complained before, I felt so incensed with the latest one sided interview, that I did in fact make an official complaint today.
As a whole the coverage of the student protests have been widely reported from the side of the police and the government. Watching the news I am appalled by scenes of violence and disrespect of memorials. But equally I have seen coverage of girls being pushed into police lines and being punched and hit with batons. And this not being commented on by BBC.
Now, Mr Brown badgering and leading a man with Cerebral Palsy with questions of "Did you not throw stones at the police?" I could not believe my eyes. As a Metropolitan Police Officer's daughter, I am not anti police and I have children in university who have not protested. But this bias coverage has got to stop.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the BBC is leaning on it's employees not to anger the ogre of the tory government and risk suffering the wrath of the News Corporation backed overlords of the country.
The overall reporting on the protests has been almost as shoddy and one-sided as the other corporate media outlet's.
Complain about this comment
I have never complained about the BBC before, but this interview shocked me. I believe it is the duty of the BBC to seek the truth and speak it too. The problem is that the social media (Facebook, Youtube, Twitter) have revealed that on these protests you are failing to do so (certainly on national tv news coverage - I was impressed by BBC Sheffield), in particular that you were not showing police violence and the abuse of police tactics. The reason you are getting these complaints is that now when you do cover it, it is with an inept interview, which seems to blame the victim.
Complain about this comment
What is disgusting about Ben Brown's questioning is his extreme bias. You might as well have had a police officer or a minister interviewing Jodie. Ben Brown's ignorance and disrespect of Jodie's condition reduces the piece to the level of a farce.
Complain about this comment
I watched the report live last night and complained within seconds of watching it. I suspect many will have complained immediately, and many will have complained following the story trending world wide on twitter today.
It was a disgusting attack on a man to constantly remind him of his disability. Surely no other disabled person has ever received this kind of insensitive grilling?
Complain about this comment
I have posted a complaint before making this comment.
I agree with the "bias" and most the remarks here but fundementally and perhaps most alarming is that it was Jody McIntyre that behaved like he had professional media training and Ben Brown who looked completely incompetent. McIntyre gave reasonable succinct and specific answers to Brown's questions but Brown kept repeating variations of the same question. Also Brown spoke with a tone that one would use when admonishing a child not an equal. A particular favourite interaction of mine is:
McIntyre: I think to try and justify a police offer pulling a disable person out of a wheelchair and dragging them across a concrete road is quite ridiculous and I am surprised that you just tried to do so...
Brown: So that’s not true, so were not wheeling yourself towards the police?
That is a classic. I really admire Kevin Bakhurst's loyalty to team though. I hope one day I have a boss like Kevin Bakhurst.
Complain about this comment
It is one thing to abandon journalistic integrity to statist bias, but to lose one's sense of shame is another.
While there will be an official police response to the matter, without questions being pressed to the officer who manhandled and abused Mr. MacIntyre, the equivalency you seek is moot.
Complain about this comment
I'm surprised you didn't ask Jody why he wasn't held on a charge of being caught in possession of curly black hair and thick lips.
(That's a reference to a BBC programme called Not the Nine O'Clock News)
Complain about this comment
I find Ben Brown's implication that Jody McIntyre is a revolutionary and somehow that this might justify the police actions beyond belief. Ben Brown repeatedly asking Jody whether he provoked the attacks against him and even whether he threw anything and then cutting Jody short when he tried to make some valid political points may have been down to some bad editing as well as crass ignorance, but it is well below the standards I expect from the BBC. Robust questioning is all very well, and I suspect BB was putting the police's point of view across, but he made himself ridiculous and certainly gave the impression that he was prejudiced against Jody. The police are trained to deal with riots and violence, so there is absolutely no excuse for Jody's manhandling nor for Alfie Meadows being so viciously assaulted. Jody made a good point that they seem to relish and provoke violence, though obviously this does not apply to all officers. But the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G2 protest last year is yet another indication that some members of the force are out of control.
Complain about this comment
'Im mad as hell, and I won't take it anymore!' - I think this surmises the overwhelming majority of people's feelings on here... The protestors have been painted as violent thugs, and very little, if anything at all has been mentioned about the Police's ridiculous tactics. Is it because you fear a Tory backlash? Its not them you have to answer to, it us, the licence fee payers. This interview is a disgrace but what makes it worse, and the blood boil is the indifference with which the complaints have been handled. There is a lot of talk about people 'just not getting it' at the moment... and I think the BBC and in particular you Kevin are guilty of this in reporting of the whole matter.
You are supposed to be a bastion of truth and fairness for us, Ive protested against BBC cuts because I believe in public service broadcasting and the crucial role it plays in our democracy... you are not living up to these highest aspirations, lofty and seemingly unattainable as they may seem, it is the striving for them that is the most important role the BBC has.
Please hold the Government and Police to account for this. This is a trial run for greater things to come, cuts are arriving that will shock people to their core. The right to protest is under threat, and the BBC is threatened with becoming irrelevant if it continues on this course. The Tories have already sold the BBC down the river and have given Murdoch free reign, the time to fight against this is now.
Complain about this comment
"I challenged the complainers on my twitter stream"
Challenge them here and we'll see how well your arguments stand up to our scrutiny.
Not everyone does Twitter, we prefer to be able to make longer points as it makes the argument better. Many politicians, and journalists, may have the attention span of gnats, but not all members of the public do.
Complain about this comment
You say: 'we interviewed Mr McIntyre as we would interview anyone else in his position'. Really? I'm a middle-aged woman, and if I'd been assaulted by thugs in the street, would you ask me my political views? If I told you I was a revolutionary, would you think that explained the attack or was in any way relevant? And if I'd shouted at my attackers, would you have implied that that justified them beating me up? So why are victims of police violence subjected to such hostile, victim-blaming interrogation?
You should have been interrogating the police, not Jody McIntyre. They're the ones who need to come up with some justification for attacking ordinary citizens, telling young people to disperse via Westminster Bridge then trapping them there for hours, (allegedly) bashing a student senseless then trying to prevent the ambulance from taking him to the nearest hospital, and sending so many students home covered in bruises (or perhaps they spent the day hitting themselves with riot shields and truncheons).
The BBC's reporting of all these events, including this disgraceful attempt to shift the blame from the perpetrators of the violence on to one of its victims, has been utterly craven. From the news hierarchy the day after the protest (1. Charles and Camilla's Rolls Royce 2. What effect this will this have on the Lib Dems 3. The Nobel Prize and how China prevents free speech, 4. Philosophy student almost dies after (allegedly) being struck on the head by a police officer) you may as well have been embedded with the ConDem Coalition.
The media have a serious responsibility to publicise and scrutinise wrongdoing and abuse, especially by the state against its citizens. You are abdicating that responsiblity.
Complain about this comment
Thank you for the comments and observations. The web campaign is on Facebook and Twitter amongst others. I appreciate others wanted to complain directly.
I would encourage people to have a quick look at Mr McIntyre's own website - as pointed out by Douglas (77)
www.jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/week-72-tory-party-hq/
Complain about this comment
A quote from the Guardian today -
A spokeswoman for the BBC declined to reveal how many complaints the corporation had received about the interview, saying it was not policy to do so when there was "obvious evidence of lobbying".
So if enough people lodge complaints then we can be simply dismissed as lobbyists? It truly is a sad day for the BBC it really is. You should be wholeheartedly ashamed. I know I am, having once worked many years, for this once great institution.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure what is more depressing, the fact that the show of bias by Brown has to be explained to you in detail or the fact that the BBC institutional Tory bias is once again raising its ugly head during these times of protests.
Imagine that a Policeman is hit on the head during a protest and has to undergo a 3 hour brain operation. Do you describe that as an "alleged" injury as I heard with incredulity on BBC radio the other day? (they were of course talking about Alfie Meadows). Do you decide to ignore this policeman's injury nearly completely? - do you hell, the BBC News bulletins would be wall to wall coverage of it and the evil protesters, you KNOW that would be the case.
This is the Miner's strike all over again, "good" cops "evil" miners/students/workers. I remind you of what happened back then with BBC footage, oh yes, the BBC apologised, they "made a mistake" with their editing.
(Taken from Worker's Liberty Blog)"The most blatant example of "press bias" was the BBC's news coverage of the police charge on miners during a picket of Orgreave coking plant in south Yorkshire - the Battle of Orgreave as it became known. On 13 June 1984 horses and riot police bludgeoned unarmed strikers unconscious as they lay on the floor. By the the time the BBC's film footage was shown on the news it had been cut and spliced to show the miners advancing first and the police seeming to respond in self-defence. All the shocking scenes of police brutality had disappeared."
Nothing ever changes does it? Well actually it does, back in 1984 we had no Blogospere, no Twitter, no youtube. The BBC have been found out and about bloody time.
And the saddest fact of all is that you don't even realise that this kind of Tory bias just inflames protesters even more. You're not helping the situation, you're fuelling it.
Complain about this comment
The most pertinent and, most likely, accurate sentence in this rambling and horrendously misjudged defence of Ben Brown is the following: "I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances".
Indeed, if anyone else was assaulted and beaten by the State, the BBC, chastised after Kelly, would do exactly the same. Supine and beaten, it looks up with hangdog eyes that remember that in its prime it was a monolith of broadcasting, but now, in the name of "objectivity" repeatedly and in a clearly hostile and accusatory fashion asks questions that could not possibly be based in fact. You don't need to be a medic to know that cerebral palsy is extraordinarily physically limiting.
Mr McIntyre may be as much a man as anyone else, but as he reminded you, he is also severely physically disabled. That you would rely on the former, which refers quite clearly to his self-perception and to his worth, as your justification for having ignored the latter makes you twice as despicable.
Shame on you. Shame on Ben Brown. Shame on the BBC.
Complain about this comment
In the interview Ben Brown is not 'polite', rather he is unsubtly manipulative and accusatory. He suggests that the footage 'appears' to show Mr. McIntyre being dragged from his wheelchair, when the footage as well as numerous witness statements confirm that this in fact happened.
Mr. Brown again and again suggests that Mr. McIntyre, who is suffering from cerebral palsy, is to blame for the police violence himself, when clearly he is incapable of posing any physical threat to the armed police officers whatsoever.
In this way the BBC hints that Mr. McIntyre was himself to blame for the police violence he experienced simply by virtue of being there exercising his right to protest. This chimes with the overall coverage of the student fees protests, and the police's messages to the thousands of peaseful protestors who were kettled: 'You chose yourself to go on this march' - a legal and legitimate march.
While the BBC should have siezed the valuable opportunity to question the widely criticized actions of the police, they chose to conduct an ethically questionable interrogation of a disabled victim of police brutality.
Would the BBC ask a rape victim 'well, did wear a short skirt or not?' Would the BBC ask a victim of child abuse 'well, you have been a very annyoing child, haven't you?' Probably not. Would the BBC ask an unarmed palestinian shot down by Israeli troops: 'Well you did throw a stone, didn't you?'. Probably yes.
Fortunately Mr.McIntyre answers were highly qualified, and he did not let himself be caught off guard. Unfortunately this is not the case for many other people who stand up against repression, but have no press training and spin doctors to fall back on. Those the BBC is happy to bully. As Kevin Bakhurst states on behalf of the BCC, "we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances".
Complain about this comment
My first reaction to this interview was anger and disbelief. I joined the complaints on twitter. The suggestion by the Editor here that people complain because "there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC" is absurd. He ought to address complaints whatever their source. The implication that complaints are not genuine is itself offensive. However, as a disabled activist, I would like to offer another perspective.
Jody McIntyre should thank the BBC
The BBC reporter asked all the questions which unreasonable people would ask, or suspect, of an activist. This is particularly true since we do not see footage of any action preceding or following the “dragging” incident. ( Other footage on Youtube shows protestors being angry, abusive and confused.)
The reporter's questions were intended to help convey to the viewer all aspects of the situation. Many viewers will not know
Are those with CP able to throw missiles?
Could Mr. McIntyre have precipitated the situation?
What possible reason have the police for targeting him?
Why is he delaying his complaint?
I asking unpleasant and difficult questions (quite unpleasantly) the reporter was protecting the BBC of any inference of partiality. He also rehearsed the interviewee in many of the questions he would be facing form any quarter. It does Jody and ourselves no favour by soft-pedalling the issues.
I want to defend the rights of people, including disabled people, to protest against Government policy and against police brutality. However, it is an unquestionable propaganda cop, regardless of the context and outcomes of complaints procedures.
Kneejerk defence
I also wonder at the sentiments of those who rush to 'defend' Jody.
There seems to be a reflex defense of disabled people. Of course disabled people can be championed in this way when they agree with one’s perspective. This is really no different to the sickening propaganda about disabled people being brave, deserving, and pitiable. Now they become figureheads, riding bravely into a battle with hegemony and brutality.
I'm not sure whether this is empathy, sympathy, or just good old patronizing tosh.
Disability as strategy
The question which the reporter DID not ask, and which must lie behind any critique, is whether Jody deliberately placed himself in a position would increase the likelihood of assault. Why return a second time?
This in no way excuses any violence and intimidation on the part of the officer(s)
What I am asking about is a political strategy on the part of Jody - and indeed of other disabled activists - where one can use one's perceived vulnerability as a means to diminish police strategy.
Anyone familiar and involved with 1980's protests will know what I'm talking about: the same "vulnerability" tactic has been used historically by women, and by older people. It purposefully aims to paralyse police operationally, and can be quite effective. It certainly looks good on websites and news reports. And make police stop and think, and can make their every move a PR disaster.
Not making a complaint
This shows how not making a complaint can be more effective than doing so. If one makes a complaint, this immediately places matters sub judice, and other measures cannot be taken. This is presumably why the Met. placed it into Professional Practice scrutiny.
There could be another reason: McIntyre could be waiting until all of the footage is released so that he can ensure that no damaging material exists concerning his own behaviour. He will be searching Youtube and other online streams as avidly as members of the Metropolitan Police.
Mr. McIntyre and his supporters benefit from a period of instability prolonged by his not making a complaint. It makes the individual citizen seem vulnerable and unsupported, uncertain and indeterminate. Quite simply, it add drama. It is a cliffhanger.
Hidden agendas
So, if the BBC reporter was trying to intimate some of the above questions, why did he not go straight to the point and say
“ Mr. McIntyre, you are a renowned activist. Have you used your disability and perceived vulnerability as a means to discredit the police?”
I would like an answer to that. The reason is not to question Jody’s motives, or to resist a full investigation into police brutality. It is because this incident risks placing disabled people again into that protected category of the vulnerable, the pitiable, the damaged; we’ve spent 30 years struggling against that – we don’t want to return there.
Protest: it’s no tea-party
Complainants above have questioned the BBC approach. They seem to want inteviewess treated with kid gloves. Perhaps they want a return 30 or 40 years to the politesse of Monitor and Tonight.
I think the reporter did well. He was able to challenge Jody McIntyre to produce answers which addressed difficult subjects, related back to political complexities such as Palestine and Government economic strategy. He asked questions any ignorant member of the public would ask about impairment and capacity. ( This is a curious, but time-honoured reporting position, one of representing the uninformed.)
It’s true he was quite abrasive, interrogative and persistent: in this I think he was showing respect for Jody McIntyre and representing the public interest in whether disabled people face particular risk of police aggression.
My first reaction to this interview was anger and disbelief. I j
Complain about this comment
After a handful of comments Kevin Bakhurst and the rest of the BBC have gone very quiet indeed. Perhaps the next thing will be this thread mysteriously falling out of the window.
A number of accurate and penetrating criticisms have been made of the interview. At the moment the BBC is ignoring them.
I'm with navajoblack, respond BBC. What have you got to hide?
Complain about this comment
Hi Kevin.
You're being a little disingenuous, no?
If by web campaign you mean people posting links to the youtube clip so that those who either weren't watching last night or don't have multi-channel TV could see the interview, then sure, there was a web campaign. If you mean people sharing contact details to complain then sure, why not?
But nobody would bother going to the effort of complaining unless they had a genuine concern about the broadcast. How that broadcast was brough to their attention is irrelevant. How many people actually heard the Brand / Ross "Sachsgate" incident that caused such tail-chasing mayhem at the BBC and is surely a trivial sideshow compared with this.
Like many other complainants, I put a lot of time and thought into the content of my complaint and to have it dismissed as being the result of some web campaign further reinforces my disappointment at the way the BBC has covered the student protests and the understandably unhappy responses that the coverage has earned.
here, just to make sure you don't try and dismiss my complaint further, is the full text of my earlier message:
"I would like to complain in the strongest possible terms about the interview conducted yesterday evening by Ben Brown with Jody McIntyre.
There are myriad seriously unacceptable aspects to this interview but to focus on one or two:
Mr Brown conducted the whole interview in a very loaded, partial and biased manner, perhaps most evident when he repeatedly implied that Mr McIntyre posed some form of threat to the police officer(s) who dragged him from his wheelchair. Mr McIntyre calmly explained on more than one occasion what should have been self-evident to Mr Brown anyway: that a wheelchair bound cerebral palsy sufferer unable even to move on their own could pose no threat whatsoever to phalanxes of well defended, baton-wielding police officers. Mr Brown even asked if Mr McIntyre had thrown something at the police after Mr McIntyre had explained the extent of his disabilities.
Mr Brown also seemed keen to press the point about Mr McIntyre’s apparent status as a “revolutionary”, as if this could in any way justify the actions of the police. Again, Mr McIntyre was clear and reasonable in his responses. Again, it seemed as if Mr Brown simply wasn’t listening.
Mr Brown also seemed rather fixated on the fact that Mr McIntyre had not yet filed any kind of official complaint against the police, seeming to imply that this in some way threw Mr McIntyre’s account into question. Indeed much of the interview Mr Brown conducted seemed to consist of points aimed in a knowing manner at the viewer, playing to the gallery if you will, rather than any attempt to truly engage with Mr McIntyre.
Mr McIntyre remained calm, polite, reasonable and lucid throughout the whole interview despite there being numerous occasions when Mr Brown’s approach was clearly unprofessional and biased.
I’m afraid this woeful interview is simply the most pronounced of the BBC’s lamentably biased coverage of the student actions so far. Anyone who watched the live coverage of last Thursday’s events, especially when it featured eminently fair and perceptive journalists such as Paul Mason, must have been shocked when they saw evening broadcasts on the main BBC news programmes which had to a very great extent shifted perspective to an almost hysterically partial account of the situation, this reaching its lowest point when David Cameron’s claim that a police officer had been dragged by his horse by protestors was allowed to go unchallenged despite the BBC itself having broadcast footage earlier in the day that makes it crystal clear that this was not the case.
The BBC’s coverage of the recent events is slipping back to the level of its coverage of the miners strike when news coverage was exposed as at best partial, at worst downright dishonest, and I’m afraid it’s a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
The basis for the interview was the footage which we have all seen. Ben Brown begins the interview by doubting the evidence of his own eyes and suggesting that there is some possibility that Jody was not dragged from his wheelchair. No such qualification or prevarication is attached to claims that Mr Brown himself makes about protesters throwing rocks, nor is any context of provocation by police considered. The assumption throughout is that police violence must be justified but violence of the general public must be unjustified.
Brown's introduction of Jody's political beliefs assumes that thought itself is a crime and, as Jody points out, that it is appropriate to meet speech with violence. Kevin Bakhurst repeats that belief, a belief posing real danger to democratic progress, by saying that it is legitimate to question whether Jody is a student or a 'general protester'. People who are not students are allowed, not only to have a view on fees (I don't believe any of the MPs voting on the subject are students), but to demonstrate in favour of that view. Kevin, and Ben are attempting to imply that people who care about government policy enough to protest with some regularity, or on issues that don't directly affect them, should not be taken seriously and are asking to be attacked by the police.
The question of whether Jody had violently provoked police was perhaps justified but should have been dropped immediately following his first answer, particularly, as so many others have said, given his description of his physical condition. However, if the question was justified, I would like to see it put to the police when they report violence against them.
The question of whether he had shouted at the police was utterly erroneous and misleadingly provocative. Police have recourse to the protection of legal procedure in the case of abuse. They can make an arrest. Indeed, of any group of people in society it is surely they who should set the example of lawful behaviour and restraint. There is nothing that can be shouted at a police officer that can justify that police officer attacking anybody. If Jody had not been so articulate and restrained in the interview, but had instead been abusive, would Ben Brown have taken that to mean the attack on him was justified?
I reiterate what has been said by many: that in the interview, despite video evidence showing the attack, Jody was treated as a criminal rather than a victim. Some have expressed their surprise that the BBC should be responsible for such a biased interview. I am not in the least surprised but will put on record that I would be stupefied to see the BBC report objectively on a protest.
I notice that Kevin has stopped responding to these comments and, when he has, has ignored the complaints which feature most often.
Complain about this comment
Kevin,
This is the first time I have felt strongly enough to go to the trouble of making a complaint to the BBC. I am not easily offended, but I was truly shocked by this interview on so many levels. Now finding myself on here reading your response to the interview I am now even more concerned that you seem unaware as a news editor as to why this interview has attracted so many complaints. I find it staggering that you fail to notice the level of bias and ignorance shown by Ben Brown during the interview.
Having seen the full footage of the incident I was also upset that you chose to show a shortened version in what seems to be an attempt to cast doubt on Jody McIntyre's version of events. Those few seconds that were edited out by the BBC despite the swearing revealed a great deal of not only the police actions but the group of students response to what they were witnessing. I really hope you can take on board the seriousness of these complaints rather than dismissing them as just another internet campaign.
Complain about this comment
It would be interesting to have more details about this 'web campaign'. Care to provide evidence of this, Mr Bakhurst?
The complaints have come from people who watched the interview on TV or have had a link provided to them by friends, prompting discussion on bulletin boards, facebook and the like.
Independence of thought and action. Try it some time.
Complain about this comment
Well Mr Bakhurst I think you have your answers.
If you still can't see the problem then I think that both you and Mr Brown are not suitable for the positions you hold.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to grace us with a proper response now?
Complain about this comment
Thanks to facebook I managed to find this page when I was looking to complain after seeing this interview - please note that facebook did not cause the complaint but merely facilitated the process!
I am astonished at the bias and one-sided reporting of the interviewer who appears to be implying that if someone shouted at police then they deserved physical violence, and is clearly trying to undermine Jody's statement that he had in fact done nothing. The bizarre thing is that as I work in a school I spend a great deal of time telling children that physical violence is not the answer, even if someone has shouted something at you - shame Ben Brown doesn't seem to have the same standards. Frankly it is quite frightening that he seems to imply that demonstrators, whether disabled like Jody or not, 'deserve what they get'!
There are many similar stories to that of Jodie's if the BBC could be bothered to check them out. My 16yr old daughter was at the protest and ended up being 'kettled' for nearly nine hours, with police constantly telling people that if they only moved they would be able to get out - this was lies and not only were they not allowed out but the police very deliberately pushed, beat and crushed them presumably in an attempt to stop them exercising their right to demonstrate.
My daughter was lucky - she emerged with no serious injuries (unlike many others) and a determination to carry on showing that we will use our right to protest peacefully even in the face of extreme provocation by police who were carrying weapons and were clearly out for a fight. It is mere chance that unlike the G20 protest no-one was killed, but then the BBC reporting of that event was not very satisfactory either!
The BBC is supposed to be independent so when are we going to see a similarly 'tough' interview with the police involved or even better some investigative journalism to pinpoint the abusive officers who attacked Jody?
None of this has put Jody off from standing up for his rights from what I can see - it hasn't put my daughter off either and I and her sisters will be joining her on the next demonstration on 29th January. Hopefully the BBC coverage will be less biased that time!
Complain about this comment
Wow, that is your response Kevin? Really? I would be laughing if it wasn't so sad. 'I would encourage people to have a quick look at Mr McIntyre's own website' That is your final word on the torrent of genuine complaints from the general public????
Complain about this comment
Kevin,
Perhaps it's time for you to gracefully bow-out of the conversation. As far as I know, a website is not grounds to drag a man with cerebral palsy face first across the pavement. To offer it up as evidence of anything is absurd and shameful.
Do you have no decency, sir?
Complain about this comment
No Offense, Mr Kevin Bakhurst but what on earth do your comments below have to do with the substance of Ben Brown's interview. I don't care about twitter and facebook campaigns and I sorry if it upsets you and your staff but I care about the NEWS:
99. At 5:54pm on 14 Dec 2010, Kevin Bakhurst wrote:
Thank you for the comments and observations. The web campaign is on Facebook and Twitter amongst others. I appreciate others wanted to complain directly.
I would encourage people to have a quick look at Mr McIntyre's own website - as pointed out by Douglas (77)
www.jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/week-72-tory-party-hq/
Complain about this comment
Oh! Please! If you cannot see what is wrong about this interview then you should not be in the job! Suggesting there is something wrong because he hasn't complained yet, suggesting he was "rolling towards the police" in his *wheelchair*! Suggesting he is a radical revolutionary (so what if he is?), suggesting he might have been throwing things, asking him if he was harmed! He's been dragged out of a wheelchair by the police for goodness sake! How more harmed do you want him?
For your information this incident came to my attention on the breakfast news this morning and I complained about that broadcast not knowing of an online campaign. Here's what I said about it:
I was watching BBC Breakfast this morning and there was an interview with John Pilger talking about embedded journalism, which is essentially journalism not doing its job and being part of the system because it is the system that p...ays your wages.
The very next piece was an interview with Jody McIntyre, the wheelchair bound guy who was *attacked* by the police in the recent student protests. This piece (ironically) demonstrated embedded journalism perfectly. The interviewer (Bill Turnbull?) was implying it was Jody's fault and he would not let Jody speak but kept interupting him.
We have a right to peaceful protest in this country. Jody has every right to be out demonstrating. Clearly the guy is wheelchair bound and suffering from Cerebral Palsy. Clearly the footage shows him being attacked by the police. Your interview was offensive in the extreme to suggest it might have been Jody's fault. Bill Turnbull demonstrated embedded journalism in front of his nice little corporate christmas tree perfectly!
Biased offensive unfair reporting!
Complain about this comment
I am Jody,s dad and have only just seen this interview as i am out the country. I am not going to mention the name of the interviewer. However I am going to seek advice on the grounds of discrimination on my sons behalf on my return.
Although Jody stood his ground amazingly ,this interview is tantamount to open discrimaination ( has any one else read the house rules for this BBC site? I did and the BBC,s interviwers comments wouldn,t pass).
" DID YOU ROLL YOURSELF TOWARDS THE POLICE" ? he might as well asked an african if they liked swinging in the trees! " why havent you made a complaint yet" ? What the hell does that statement refer to? as a very smart person Jody obviously got a lawyer first.
This reporter should and will in the long run be sacked for obvious discimatry remarks not once but continuously thoughout this interview.
Complain about this comment
I'll simply repeat the complaint I made, as I believe it says it all:
"A few tips for your reporter, Ben Brown:
1. If someone says they cannot use their arms to propel their own wheelchair, it is not then necessary to twice ask if they had thrown missiles. Logic would dictate not.
2. Thanks for pointing out that "someone" started the fires. Well done - most of us watching believed them to be cases of spontaneous combustion.
3. Whilst it is perfectly correct not to patronise someone with other-abilities, at the same time they should be afforded the same compassion as an able-bodied person who was, quite frankly, clearly assaulted.
4. People have the legal right to demonstrate in this country. Most people who do so are peaceful. However, there are always violent people at these events and if your editors wish to identify them, rather than tarring everyone with the same brush, I'll give you a tip as to how to identify them: they were the ones with truncheons and helmets dragging an other-abled man out of his wheelchair for no other reason than they could.
Shame on you Beeb - your desire to keep the licence fee has seriously removed any sense of impartiality from your content."
Complain about this comment
Mr Bakhurst
I've just read your response and all you do is point to the facebook page and Jody's webpage. Neither of which are relevant!
Where is your real response?
RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS PEOPLE ARE MAKING HERE!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
In agreement with Duncan in Edinburgh on this one. You show me footage of a BBC interviewer asking Charles and Camilla whether they "rolled" their car towards protesters. Did you ever ask the police did throw any punches or provoke the protesters in anyway? It's nothing to do with questioning him, he is clearly smarter than anyone working in your newsroom and more than capable of standing up to questioning. The point is, why would you ask a victim of any crime (recorded on video) "did you provoke your attacker?". Reminiscent of the rag journalists who ask if a woman provoked a rape by her attire. If you can't see what's wrong with this interview you need to get a new job.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and even if there is a campaign to complain, why does that discredit the issue? Do you believe that people are incapable of making their own decisions.
The backlash you a recieving is from level headed people outraged at this apalling display from the BBC, not because people are taken up in the moment of a campaign like they might be for the Xfactor winners.
Complain about this comment
The mere fact that the BBC haven't immediately apologised for this appalling interview makes it so much worse. This man was dragged from his wheelchair TWICE, yet he is interviewed as though he was the violent one! There is simply no justification for this. As for "Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions", there was nothing polite about it. Please can you let me know when Ben Brown's similar interview with the police involved will be aired.
Complain about this comment
The police handling of the public on this demonstration was an attack on the right to protest, and an attack on the legitimacy of dissenting voices. The video images of the treatment of Jody McIntyre perfectly illustrate the disproportionate nature of the violence meted out on all the protesters present, who were not only stripped of all dignity, but subjected to collective punishment and physical injury.
The BBC has consistently framed the debate in a way that suggests the violence of the police was legitimate and defensive, while the victims somehow deserved what they got. Ben Brown's approach to the interview with Mr McIntyre is emblematic of the BBC's consistent inability to demand accountability from the police, instead suggesting that protestors deserved violent treatment.
I made a complaint today, not because of a web campaign (and your arrogant insinuation that complaints are therefore somehow illegitimate is simply another instance of the BBC's partial framing of the debate), but because the BBC is failing in its public service duty by capitulating to the government's agenda. To call Brown's approach "challenging" is to imply it had journalistic merit; in fact it was simply insulting, not just to Mr McIntyre, but to the intelligence of the viewers.
Complain about this comment
Oh Kevin, Kevin, you really don't get it, do you (99)? You point us to Jody McIntyre's blog, as if you think that discovering his political views will make us suddenly believe it was OK to treat him with such disrespect. So he's involved in student politics? Well, so are several tens of thousands of young people, and so was I at their age. We live in a democracy, Kevin. And it is - or ought to be - the democratic right of young people to protest about things they don't like, without getting brutalised. And the BBC is - or ought to be - a defender of that democracy... There is video evidence clearly suggesting that that young man was assaulted, and the BBC ought to be asking questions of the police and indeed the government, rather than treating him as a 'hostile witness' or an 'enemy of the state'!
Complain about this comment
I'm new to this complaining to the BBC Jazz; but this was just embarresing.
This is indeed a bit of an eye-opener on how the BBC treats it's interviewees. It was frustrating to watch. Yes, it is grand that the BBC was able to treat him like everyone else if that's the way they often treat people, but not to the extent where they completely dismiss the fact that he does have cerebal parlsy and use questions in which case are somewhat redundant.
This, as well as obvious bias, is indicated by his questioning of him repeatedly of violence despite Jody saying he didn't throw anything (He can barely operate a wheelchair, so how can he throw anything? I mean come on.) which was nothing more than ridiculous. I suppose Ben had something thrown at him during his earlier reports.
It was almost as if Ben was trying to provoke Jody, as if he wanted to portray Jody as something agressive. It would have been appreciated more if the reporter showed both sides rather than focusing on how terrible protesters are. Despite what is said in the response to the complaints above, I am sorry, but Ben certainly did not come across as polite.
Despite this moody reporter, Jody however appeared very composed during this interview, and did make a very good range of points despite being attacked by the bully of a reporter.
Complain about this comment
Thank you for writing on this Kevin.
I know its your job to always defend your programmes and journalists no matter what we, the proles, think and no matter how obviously wrong a particular interview or report may have been. But in this case surely you can see what people are eloquently complaining about?
The story was about footage of police officers violently dragging a man with cerebral palsy from his wheel chair, pulling him across a road and throwing him against the curb. One police officer had to be dragged off by his colleagues. It was deeply shocking brutality.
Yet Ben Brown chose to undermine thie evidence of the viewers eyes by seeking to paint the victim as a "revolutionary" who had possibly"thrown rocks" and rolled his wheel chair at police. This was, unequivocally, biased, pro police/establishment. Why was Brown allowed to display his own, biased views when the real story is one of the most disgraceful episodes of police brutality we have seen?
People are angry that the BBC is not reporting the truth any more. Are you running scared from this Govt? I`m beginning to lose my faith in the BBC news. Which, as a licence payer and supporter of the BBC, is very galling!
Complain about this comment
This is nothing to do with Jody McIntyre's disability, and it is rather offensive of you to try and suggest that it is, just as it was offensive for Ben Brown to suggest that McIntyre might have done something to provoke the police into attacking him. They are supposed to be professionals, and it is clear from the footage that the policeman concerned was dragged off by colleagues, not supported by them in tackling a threatening protester.
The complaints you are receiving are a result of the post-Kelly gutlessness of the BBC and the clear bias in reporting of these protests, as eloquently described by McIntyre in the interview. Personally I am rather pleased that Brown decided to go for a sub-HardTalk (Sebastian era) approach as it allowed the points to be made far more forcefully than otherwise. But it is still disgusting to see the BBC's blatant lack of neutrality in these matters.
Less than a quarter of the injured on that day were police officers, with many of the protesters sustaining head injuries, including one life-threatening incident. But the emphasis of the BBC reporting is on violence directed at police, despite the fact that much of it was provoked by them. It is sheer good fortune that the kettle on Westminster bridge did not result in deaths, as the police crushed people into a smaller and smaller space.
It is the lack of honesty and balance in your reporting that angers people. BBC coverage of these protests has been shameful.
Complain about this comment
I complained, and the full details of my complaint were submitted through the website.
However, I will re-iterate here.
It's not that Ben was being derogatory or anything towards Jody and his disability - it's more than Ben was being quite frankly absurd in his line of questioning, considering the physical actuality of Jody's condition.
To ask Jody, a sufferer of Cerebral Palsy, who is unable to operate his own manual wheelchair, if he was throwing things at the police is equivalent to asking Prof. Stephen Hawking if he'd consider entering a Break-Dancing Competition. I can't help but wonder whether the questions Ben were asking were written by somebody who was completely ignorant of Cerebral Palsy or the fact that Jody had it, or if Ben was simply being intentionally obtuse.
Then there is the suggestion by Ben that if Jody had indeed been 'rolling towards the police' that this might allow us to solve the mystery as to why the police acted the way they did. "Oh, he was wheeling towards them, that must be why they dragged him from his wheelchair across the tarmac - explained!". The fact is, even if he was, it wouldn't justify their actions, and Ben was implying that it would.
Then there is the suggestion that the student who suffered internal bleeding in the brain and required to emergency brain surgery to stop them from DYING suffered an attack that is JUSTIFIED, based on the fact that protestors, in general, were lobbing missiles. I don't care if the protestors were lobbing bricks or not - the police are kitted out with protective equipment, the students are not - and it does not take a near-death brain injury to stop such attacks. The Police were outside their remit, and using force that was beyond reasonable - Ben seems to think that the force was justified.
Then there was the suggestion that since Jody describes himself as a 'revolutionary', then he is automatically guilty of provoking the police to the extent that their actions were justified.
Complain about this comment
Ben Brown's attitude is not that of an impartial journalist so much as of a prosecuting barrister. Given the BBC's partial coverage of these protests, why should we be surprised, though? If Ben Brown had interviewed Rodney King he'd presumably have repeatedly suggested that he'd done something to deserve being beaten up by the police.
Complain about this comment
I think that the fact that Brown didn't make the allowance for his disability was reason enough for complaint. It's ludicrous that he even managed to suggest him rolling towards the police and so on, or to try and justify police action as we all know there was no way it would be justifiable to remove someone from a wheelchair under any circumstance.
Complain about this comment
I am not someone who takes the time to complain very often, but in the case of this interview I almost feel its my duty to take time to register on this blog and express my disgust at the way the interview was handled by Ben Brown.
As countless others have already mentioned, asking Jody if he was rolling towards the police and implying he was being violent in some way is an incredible act of journalistic incompetence. But whats worse is that Ben Brown then goes on to imply that Jody's view of himself as something of a revolutionary does in some way justify being dragged out of a wheelchair. That is a very worrying stance for a reporter on national television (paid for by the public) to take, that because of his political views he somehow brought it on himself!
Mr Bankhurst, your statement that because Jody sees himself as "equal to anyone else" justifies the line of questioning presented by Ben Brown is frankly nearly as shocking as the interview itself. The whole point is that he blatantly wasnt treated equally as Ben Brown continually implied Jody was in some way responsible for being dragged out his wheelchair by Police. I do think Ben Brown should resign, and that is something I wouldnt call for lightly.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that post 99, in which Bakhurst suggested we look at McIntyre's web site, has been "referred for further consideration". Maybe someone at the BBC has finally recognised that the real issue is here is not the personal beliefs of Jody McIntyre.
Complain about this comment
I object to the fact that your resistance to the many complaints begins from the assumption that people might be seeing Jody McIntyre as 'less than capable'. I most certainly do not - he was articulate and and more than capable of holding his own in response to a ridiculous line of questioning.
No, the reason is that Ben Brown heavily implied that Jody McIntyre was somehow responsible for the police mistreatment that he experienced. The fact that he asked these questions repeatedly of a man who had already informed him at the first opportunity that he needs to be wheeled by someone else just made this offensive. He also implied that Mr McIntyre's politics somehow made him eligible for police violence. Not only would he not have been known in this capacity before he was dragged across the pavement, but Brown implicitly equated a wish for political change with McIntyre deserving what he got.
Perhaps Mr Brown is simply following the BBCs own model of questioning (although I still think that his awful and under-researched questions - put to an ordinary member of the public (not a seasoned politician) who experienced police violence - mark him out as particularly incompetent and loathsome). However, I have to point out that the BBC has failed the many who pay a license fee, because it too often follows the government's own position and fails to notice that we - your viewers/listeners - are all also watching user-led media (video and reporting), and noticing the huge mismatch between what is actually going on in the protests and what you are reporting. It is shameful.
Complain about this comment
People aren't complaining purely because of some web campaign but because they are genuinely disgusted with the way Jody was treated in this interview.
The interviewer gave the impression that he was intent on justifying the polices actions towards Jody, even though it is quite obvious that anything Jody had been capable of [i.e shouting abuse, NOT throwing things and 'rolling towards the police'] would have warranted that kind of response from the police who are supposedly there for our protection.
Jody was quite obviously being harangued by the interviewer as he did answer the questions directly but the interviewer obviously didnt feel this was good enough and repeated such questions that were clearly insensitive.
There is treating disable people as equals but this is definately not what happened in this interview, this was downright ignorance.
Just think for example i work in an office and if i had treated a disabled person the way the police treated Jody that night then i would have been sacked immediately and also if i had made the insensitive remarks to a disabled person that have been hear din this interview again I would not have a job now, so what makes you think the police and your disgrace of an interviewer should be any different?
Complain about this comment
I like the call for more detailed responses rather than the blanket complaints. My issue stands as this:
Similar levels of questioning were not made of Supt. Julia Pendry. Who, over the course of the day, made a number of self-contradictory remarks. Which were not properly picked up on during the reporting over the day.
There was a farcical point on the 9th December when Mike Sergeant was standing in a crowd of students, who he reported were cold and scared and wanted to go home, but couldn't.
The studio anchor sternly tells him Mike, who is actually there in the crowd, that he is wrong.
As such, this interview should be seen in the context of the BBC news team failing to hold the police to the same levels of questioning, analysis and challenges as Mr. McIntyre was.
More specifically on the interview itself.
The first 4 minutes are absolutely fine.
It breaks down when Brown makes the leap from having seen projectiles thrown at police to asking McIntyre whether he had thrown anything.
Not a few minutes previous, McIntyre had noted he is unable to wheel his own chair. The leap of logic there seems odd. It gets worse.
Then, a minute later: Did he shout anything or throw anything?
Was it not established he hadn't thrown anything? Back when that was a stupid question anyway. And what if he had shouted something? So what? I fail to see the point of this question. Unless it is to probe for causes of the police response. Because, of course, it's fine for police to drag a man out of his wheelchair for shouting at them...
"But you do say you are a revolutionary?"
Same question as before. But why? McIntyre denied it previously.
Ending on another question about the complaint. Didn't he start with this?
- McIntyre suggests Brown is trying to search for justification for the police response in McIntyres actions. That's fine, and I would expect Brown to do this.
But he doesn't stop this, at all. -All- of his questions seem to revolve around trying to ascertain whether McIntyre brought this on himself. To the extent that brown ends up repeating the same three questions.
It is the repetition of questions that seems to have prompted a lot of the response.
Repeating questions is a fine interview tactic, if repeating those questions makes sense. But some of those questions were, frankly, absurd to begin with. i.e: throwing something.
In this case, the repetition of questions (one of which is frankly absurd) -at the expense of more interesting, probing and coherent questions- seems to indicate to many people a rhetorical strategy for suggesting McIntyre may have brought this upon himself.
Complain about this comment
Yes, I think the BBC is in big trouble over this and Jody McIntyre is due an apology.
In fact, I was much more unhappy with Bill Turnbull's interview on BBC Breakfast which I thought was quite outrageous and bullying.
The BBC has serious questions to answer about its coverage of the protests. No one excuses the disgusting behaviour of some protestors but clearly the police's management of the event was incompetent and the cavalry charges were outrageous, unjustified and disproportionate violence.
Why has there not been intense and serious questioning of the police and ministers over this? The BBC is failing badly in this respect and some vigorous investigation and journalism is called for.
Complain about this comment
I sent in a complaint to the BBC after watching the interview - I find it offensive that you dismiss the large number of complaints that you have received as coming from a web campaign, as though that makes them meaningless.
I made a complain because I was astonished at the approach Ben Brown took in this interview. Brown seemed absolutely driven, against all evidence, to convince us that the police force had acted in the right way. Was Jody McIntyre wheeling his wheelchair towards police? Even if this had been the case, does the BBC believe that this is an action that justifies being pulled out of a wheelchair by several policemen and dragged across the floor?
Complain about this comment
I did not complain because of an internet campaign, nor am I a lobbyist. I complained because I found the conduct of the interviewer despicable. I am very saddened that the BBC seems to be using this supposed campaign as a way to dismiss my complaints.
Complain about this comment
I would also like to echo the comments in regards to the language of BBC news reports.
"Alleged" injuries sustained by Alfie Meadows, used when he was in hospital undergoing treatment. I've not heard of a doctor treating 'alleged' injuries before... Neither were any of the injuries sustained by police officers described as "alleged"
The footage before this interview was introduced in a similar manner.
The anger over this interview stems mostly from a percieved and continuous pro-police bias in BBC news reporting.
Complain about this comment
I believe the point is being dressed up around a far simpler point that people must be reminded of.
The ludicrous comments such as "were you wheeling towards the police" being used to justify (because that is the way it definitely comes across)the police's actions towards a man in a wheel chair cannot be dressed as a measured approach during a news interview.
The BBC normally prides itself on presenting fair comment, however on this occasion it has let itself down. Professionalism? I think not.
Complain about this comment
There is no "Web Campaign". What`s happened here, is that people can now communicate with each other on the internet and, in this case, they`re outraged by what they`ve seen. I`m afraid that the BBC makes itself look completely out of touch by once again showing bias. Why can`t you take the criticism and act on it rather than seeking to portray the complainers as some ridiculous web campaign? You really need to show less arrogance, take a step back and look at this appalling interview in all it`s biased glory. Then act on it.
People expect so much better from the BBC.
Thankyou
Complain about this comment
disgusted
Complain about this comment
Sorry - what is looking at Jody's blog supposed to prove? That what he writes on the internet is justification to beat him? It's like you're trying to put out a fire with a petrol pump...
I understand the BBC is refusing to release the number of complaints it's had on this issue due to 'lobbying'. This, I presume, is from the shadowy 'campaign' we keep hearing about.
Again: there is not a campaign. A campaign is an organised movement. At the time of writing, 22,016 individuals have shared the long version of the video on facebook. 76,408 have watched it on YouTube. You're not dealing with a group following leaders, you're facing a mass of people who independently reacted to shared media. If you cannot understand the difference, you are probably going to find the 21st Century a challenge (the failure to do so also weakens you).
If you attempt to treat all these complainants as a single mass, you are going to offend a huge proportion of them and make yr PR position worse.
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, the absolute best thing to come out of this interview is the comments made by Mr McIntyre. I think he consistently outwitted Ben Brown, and showed the lack of decent media coverage on this issue for what it really is.
Complain about this comment
Kevin, the reason that myself and many others have complained about the interview is because it seems to imply that Jody himself was to blame for the incident. No matter what he did, there is no excuse for the actions of the police officer. This is shown by the fact the police officer in question had to be taken away by his colleagues with some effort.
Complain about this comment
I was extremely annoyed by the interview, without being stirred up into a frenzy by an Internet campaign. I thought it was an appalling piece of television.
Does Kevin Bakhurst not understand that showing footage of a disabled man being assaulted by police and then being subjected to an interview that basically suggested - over and over - that he was "asking for it" does not make for sensitive broadcasting?
And with the slightly snide remark
"I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview"
I think Mr Bakhurst also makes himself look pretty insensitive and out of touch. There is a reason that people are outraged. I have been on the old Interweb since, maybe, 1995 and found that I needed to create an account with the BBC to comment.
So this is probably the first time I have felt the need to complain about the BBC in 15 years.
Complain about this comment
On a different note Kevin, I am tempted to complain about this blog post too. It sounds very arrogant and you seem to be saying "we are the BBC, we do no wrong".
Complain about this comment
A couple of salient points arise from all this. Firstly, Jody McIntyre made the interviewer look foolish with his clear, articulate responses to a number of utterly gormless questions. Secondly, the alarming number of total nitwits being employed by BBC News, both on the TV and radio. Those weren't "challenging" or "tough" questions being put by Ben Brown. They were simply deeply stupid questions. Offensive? Well, I think we are all too easily offended these days. I wasn't personally offended, just saddened by the incompetence of Mr Brown.
Complain about this comment
First off, I didnt complain because of an internet campaign, I phoned in because some of the questions posed as well as the general tone of the interview. I havent been so annoyed watching something on TV in a long time!
Many people here share my views, so I wont bother repeating, only to say that the interview was overly aggressive and highly suggestive that the entire incident was the fault of the clear victim.
Kevins response is equally poor, with its 'I cant believe people think this is unfair, it must be some loony internet campaign', but not surprising.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and since it was mentioned earlier...
The BBC broadcast our Prime Minister, David Cameron, railing against "police officers being dragged off police horses and beaten" - without challenging that statement.
Here is the footage (from Sky) of the one mounted officer injured that day: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Hello Kevin,
I have also complained. I am glad BBC is taking a stance that everyone is equal and should be treated so - it is great!
However what I am not happy about that cleary Ben Brown and BBC with him take a position that it is ok for police to drag anyone at all (in a wheelchair or not) across the pavement because they are moving towards them?
As Jody explained he can't physically throw thing at the police or harm them. Even if he was shouting something, why is this reason enough for police behaviour like the one in the footage?
And what did Jody's blog had to do with it. You think police knew his views when they were throwing him to the ground?
This brings us to the issue of other techniques police have used, such as kettling, where people who came to protest peacefully get trapped with trouble makers and get trampled on. It is a disgrace!!! And you guys should be doing more to shed light on this.
Complain about this comment
Kevin
In my many years of interviewing people I had only one purpose in mind. The obtaining of an accurate account of the incident or event under consideration. In this objective your interviewer failed. I am none the wiser as to the interviewee's role at this incident or that of the police officers involved. This piece could in no way be described as an interview and did nothing to enlighten us, the public. In this country we have a legal right to protest. This must be kept in mind during such fact finding events. All actions which seek to prevent or curtail this right should be subject to hash scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
To be fair to Ben Brown, he succeeded admirably in bringing out the best in Jody McIntyre. His stoicness and ability to make his point in the face of questions that were not just persistently hostile but in some cases downright silly was genuinely impressive.
You write that Mr. Brown 'challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions', which is not really true - while it is true that his hectoring was done reasonably politely, he didn't actually challenge any of Mr. McIntyre's assertions, as far as I can see - unless you count repeatedly asking him if he threw anything at the police as an indirect challenge to his assertion that, having cerebral palsy, he isn't even capable of wheeling himself around?
Complain about this comment
The BBC is obviously chosing to interview Mr. McIntyre because he is in a wheelchair. Had he not been in a wheelchair then his story would surely have not held as much interest for the BBC in the first place. The BBC are obviously getting themselves tangled up in a web of trying to be politically correct by insisting that they were treating him as they would any other person. They are completely ignoring the fact that they chose to interview him due to his unique circumstances, there is no shame in that.
Your arguement however is self-defeating because although Mr. McIntyre surely deserves the same respect and opportunity for debate as any other person, this does not change his physical situation. The BBC is clearly getting themselves confused between insulting someone with cerebal palsy by not giving them the chance to answer intelligent questions with insulting someone with cerebal palsy by completely ignoring the fact that they clearly have physical limitations and needs (such as a wheelchair). Asking Mr. McIntyre forceful questions is one thing but suggesting that he was "rolling towards the police" in a threatening manner and not having the intelligence to realise that he would not have the upper body strength to throw things at police officers is another matter entirely.
As the daughter of a wheelchair user I find it disgusting that the BBC are using the guise of being 'respectful' and 'politically correct' to disabled persons as the reasoning behind foreceful, insulting questions from a reporter who has clearly not prepared himself well for this interview. The viewers are not complaining because the reporter was treating Mr. McIntyre differently to anyone else, the viewers are complaining because the reporter was asking idiotic questions about rolling towards police and throwing objects of a man with no upper body strength! The BBC is negating their own arguement. If their defence is that the reporter was simply treating Mr. McIntyre as they would any interviewee then are they suggesting that they would completely IGNORE the fact that a Welsh man is Welsh when interviewing him about a situation that related to his Welsh heritage?
What is the point of interviewing the man that was pulled out of his wheelchair by the police if you are going to completely side-step the issue of his being wheelchair bound?! Just interview any able bodied protestor if you want to make comments about protestor agression. The issue here is that the police dragged a man from his life-line, his mobility, his dignity and his physical comfort.
Complain about this comment
A bit late to this, and most of what I'd have wanted to say has been said eloquently elsewhere here. I'd like to add a couple of things though. There is a very clear sense in which Jody McIntyre's status as a political activist is being used here in an attempt to negate what one might expect to be an audience's natural sympathies. Ben Brown's self-appointed role it seems to me is to cause the scales to fall from our eyes and see these people for what they are. Not politically engaged, passionate, active and determined people that a civilised society should be proud of, but that society's enemies. The implicit call to order here - the suggestion that shouting at the police or, heaven help us, 'rolling towards them' might in some way explain or mitigate this nastiness - is consonant with the Met's suggestion that we should be grateful that those protesters who threw paint at Prince Charles' car weren't shot dead. I do not like these new rules governing my behaviour.
My question is this. If it is Ben Brown's personal political view that has caused ths grotesque error then what disciplinary action will be taken? If Ben Brown is - as I suspect he is - enacting a role that the BBC has created, then why on earth do you think any of us here should trust you to tell us about things that happened when we weren't there? This goes right to the heart of your trustworthiness and couldn't be more serious.
Complain about this comment
Do you and the BBC get it now Kevin????
Complain about this comment
When I watched this interview, I was personally mortified.
It is not because he was not treated like any other interviewee, but rather that he was treated like a criminal rather than the victim of violence that he was. There was no suggestion that Charles or Camilla deserved the violence against them, so why should this man be so interrogated?
Also the lack of knowledge about Jody McIntyre's condition prior to the interview was shocking! You take the time to check his blogs, but not enough to realise he was not a threat to the police.
No matter what, dragging a man who uses a wheelchair out of it and down the street is not acceptable, and the BBC trying to suggest otherwise is not being 'devils advocate' but blindsided by prejudice against the protesters that they are willing to ignore any decent judgement of what is appropriate to say to the victim of violence.
For shame BBC.
Complain about this comment
I find it worrying that you've viewed the interview a few times but you cannot see what the problem is. I was as shocked as most people by the interview but didn't complain but will do now and will complain about you too!
Complain about this comment
These complaints against the BBC have nothing to do with disability and everything to do with their responsibility to be impartial. Browns line of questioning was clearly aimed at justifying the police action in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was an inappropriate use of force. To repeatedly imply that McIntyre had somehow brought on such brutality is shameful.
Complain about this comment
A TV journalist makes a fool of himself worldwide, by daring to imply that a person suffering from cerebral palsy can pose a physical threat to armed police officers.
But that's not the real story. It's just a small part of it.
The real story is that just like the police officers did when they dragged Jody out of his wheelchair, Ben Brown's shameful line of arguments aims to provoke a public outcry that can lead to more political tension; and more violence. When the violence gets totally out of control, the people will be so scared they'll be willing to sacrifice a lot of their freedom for a bit of safety. By then, they won't be so sensitive about Jody McIntyre, because BBC and the rest of the corporate media will have persuaded them that even a person in a wheelchair can pose grave danger to our society and economy. Because anyone who cares about free education and basic human rights is a terrorist.
Goebbels would be so proud...
Complain about this comment
I wish to make a very strong complaint about this interview. I have not been coerced by any internet campaign, I am doing it because what I saw was not journalism, it was a vain attempt to look impartial but in the end all it did was to try to justify the unjust. I think it would have been better to hear the views of the police and had a representative questioned, they are the people who have the burden of proof as the evidence seen is pretty damming.
I have no sympathy with the students who caused the violence at the protest but because some were causing the trouble you cannot, like the interviewer did, automatically assume they all were. I expect better.
Complain about this comment
BBC managers, including editors, should be looking at this argument on two levels. Firstly there is the little issue, this interview and the large reaction to it. We can tell there has been a large reaction despite the BBC trying to keep the size of the response secret, just by looking at the number of posts here and the figures for views of the video. The interviewee did an excellent job of standing up to the bullying interviewer, good for Jody McIntyre.
However, if managers are any good at their job they also look at the big picture. The big picture is this. Many people are increasingly annoyed about the disparity they see between what happens in the real world and the portrayal of those events by the mainstream media. These are people who pay the BBC Tax to fund the BBC, so if the BBC wants to have a long term future, something good managers look at, the BBC should be thinking about and responding to these posts properly, not trying to dismiss them out of hand as "a web campaign".
This isn't the 1970s, when the police and their mass media friends could swear blind that things which had happened had not, and could not be proved to be liars. Most phones have a video camera built into them these days and small digital cameras are common.
The BBC should have learnt from G20. For days they parrotted police lies that the only violence had come from protestors, that the police had tried to assist Ian Tomlinson and had been subjected to a hail of missiles as a result and so on. Then the photographs and videos which had been put online started to be more known and the mainstream media, led by the Guardian, started to do its job a little and ask some of the questions it should have asked from the start.
The BBC would also be well advised to look at the background of some of the police officers it interviews, in the same way that it does for protestors. Several of these police officers have past form, which should be put to them. The BBC web site does not have the equivalent of the article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/24/g20-undercover-police-broadhurst as far as I can see, so perhaps the BBC has a deliberate policy of not remembering things which the establishment doesn't want remembered.
If people like me are to continue to defend the BBC Tax as a good way of preserving public service broadcasting then the BBC has to pull its socks up and play its part too. It is *public* service broadcasting, not government service broadcasting that we want. The BBC has a shaky past, often being the propaganda arm of government, but it has sometimes served the public instead. The BBC caved in to government over Blair's sexed up dossiers. The BBC should have stood up to the rats then, if it had it would be in a better position now.
Complain about this comment
Dear Kevin,
I did not find Ben Brown too challenging in his interview, I found him to be impartial and accusatory. Therefore, I wrote to the BBC this morning to complain.
The system requested my email address, and I gave it. This blog doesn't cover my complaint, so I expect to receive a reply, as offered. This is a service I currently pay for.
I also expect you to go through each and every complaint, and respond to those not covered by your blog. Which I'm sure are many, mainly because your blog appears to be willfully missing the point.
Your blog is, to me, as patronising, lazy and arrogant as the original broadcast. After reading your response, I'm not surprised the interview was allowed to be conducted in that manner on your watch.
And while we're on the subject of impartiality, when can we expect to see a news story about this situation?
This story about complaints regarding an ITV programme is currently on your website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11991050
When can we expect to find out how many complaints the BBC received today?
Complain about this comment
It just adds insult to injury to suggest that any of these complaints are part of an orchestrated campaign. People are genuinely upset. The students are genuinely angry. They have good cause to be and expect to see the BBC cover the present protests in an unbiased way. This interview by Ben Brown would not look out of place on Fox News.
Complain about this comment
Kevin,
Your responses to these comments have been pretty astonishing.
You claim in comment 22 that criticism of your editorial policy is "totally wrong": your audience values your impartiality, you say, so you'd be mad to undermine it.
It hardly bears saying that you are arguing in a circle here: what if substantial numbers of your viewers feel that you've not been impartial, as seems to be the case here? Does that invalidate your argument? It's pretty disappointing to see an editor invite debate and disagreement from viewers, and then immediately revert to either ignoring those criticisms, or trying to deflect them with cheap rhetorical tricks.
Likewise, your comment 99 (now deleted, it seems) is little more than a cheap ad hominem. What relevance does McIntyre's attendance at earlier protests have to the incident in question, or the conduct of the interview? If you're genuinely of the opinion that McIntyre's political activism makes it more likely that he was involved in violence prior to being assaulted, or that it justifies the aggressive line of questioning employed by Brown, despite an utter lack of evidence, then I suggest you have the courage of your convictions and say so. Of course, in the absence of any evidence, you've resorted to snide insinuations and not-so-subtle attempts at character assassination.
Like others above, I'm a staunch advocate and supporter of the BBC, but your disingenuous and dismissive response to your viewers' concerns is hugely disappointing.
Complain about this comment
You write, Mr Bakhurst, that 'I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances'.
Sadly, you're right. My complaint is nothing to do with Jody McIntyre's disability - the interview is offensive because of Ben Brown's tabloid/Sky attitude as exemplified in this exchange:
McIntyre: Do you really think a person with cerebal palsy in a wheelchair can pose a threat to a police officer who is armed with weapons?
Brown: But you say you're a revolutionary.
Dreadful... and dreadfully stupid.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand how the broad charge against the BBC here is that Ben Brown was "too challenging". I'd complain if he wasn't challenging enough as Jody obviously can argue a point better than most. The way this interview came across to me was that Ben Brown was more interesting in saying he had it coming because there was "a suggestion" he was wheeling toward the police. How Ben entertained this suggestion is beyond me. What next? A baby tipped out of a pram for being too loud? As Jody said, where is the threat?
Complain about this comment
Wow, I came to know of this interview via an invitation to a Facebook group which complained about the interviewer. I found the interview and watched it. My observations below:
The style of interview reminds me of Bill O'Reilly (Fox News), the only difference is the interviewee was given good time to respond.
The same question was often repeated in spite of a clear, articulate answer having been given previously. This suggested to me that the interviewer had reason to doubt the interviewee's honesty.
The interviewer asked (repeatedly) why the interviewee had not officially complained to the police till now, suggesting to me, the viewer, that there is some wrong-doing on the interviewee's part.
A complaint does not have to be lodged instantly with the police for it to be valid, rather anyone with common sense would wait to speak to a lawyer or at least an expert to determine the correct course of action.
The interviewer, to be fair and balanced should have invited the police officer, accused of attacking the interviewee to the interview also and questioned them both together, similar to Newsnight format.
Although the interviewee mentioned they don't see themselves as being different to anyone else, I understood this to mean similar to most disabled people who want to be treated normally and not given allowances.
The interviewer probed the interviewee to see if he was injured (hurt). Unless the interviewee has seen a specialist, particularly a clinical psychologist, he is not qualified to know if he was indeed hurt. Such an incident can and likely has resulted in a form of PTSD (post traumatic stress).
The interviewee made very valid points and comparisons which the interviewer failed, in fact completely avoided in answering.
In summary, I can only see how such a style of interview possibly being justified on a show like Hardtalk. I am not a fan of people being sacked from their jobs. In this case I would say that as a tax paying (taxes which fund the BBC) Englishman, I was shocked and disgusted by the conduct of the interviewer with his discrete form of bullying and attempt to manipulate the public's perception of the interviewee. The least I would expect and be happy with are for:
A formal complaint with the watchdog regulator.
The interviewer to be immediately suspended until completion of a regulator investigation into the complaint.
The interviewer was being fed information into his ear (by a researcher?). The person feeding him the info should also be included in this as well as the editor of the show.
The BBC should invite the interviewee to return on a show like Newsnight along with the police involved in order to have a proper discussion.
I would expect the BBC to be fully transparent with the public and publish openly the number of complaints received regarding this interview. I do not accept anything less.
Kevin, You have invited my comments and I have taken the time to respond. I do hope these prove useful to you.
Many thanks.
jirving
Complain about this comment
To be fair, the link I posted (which you moderated) may not have been strictly relevant to this debate. I'm willing to admit that. And - in admitting it - I may learn from it... (See where I'm going?)
Complain about this comment
I complained to the BBC earlier today, not because of a web campaign but because I was appalled by the interview of Jody McIntyre. You ask why people objected to the interview. My reasons follow.
During this interview the presenter Ben Brown repeatedly sought reasons for why the police had pulled Mr McIntyre out of his wheelchair twice. The sub-text was that he must have committed some offence to cause the repeated police assault on him.
Not only did he interrogate Mr McIntyre about his behaviour but also tried to undermine his character and construct a picture of him as a 'revolutionary'.
At no time did the interviewer consider the possibility that the assault was unprovoked.
Surely the questions as to why he was attacked should have been directed at the police.
This was a clear case of seeking to blame a victim. It was the kind of questioning one might have expected of a raped woman by someone trying to allege the victim had courted the rape.
It was an appalling interview which, amongst others recently, brings in to question the impartiality of the BBC.
Another example was the interview by Bill Turnbull and Sian Rees when interviewing Mr McIntyre on BBC Breakfast this morning. Whenever he tried to make any political comment he was promptly diverted from doing so. Is the political context of an event only fit for discussion by politicians and reporters. Do victims and participants not have a say?
Complain about this comment
I think it's more the fact that you didn't give him a chance to get his point across. He made some very good ones which the interviewer seemed to be attacking at every given opportunity, and seemed clearly bias to me.
And I have already complained.
Complain about this comment
A new low for the BBC I'm afraid. You clearly are focused on emulating the worst excesses of Fox News here in the US.
The point in the interview where Brown asks McIntyre if he was "rolling towards the police" defies belief and quite frankly, makes a mockery of your editorial staff attempting to defend Ben Brown's conduct.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This interview and this so called 'response' are deliberate provocation.
Provocation that adds to the confusion and fear that allows the economic terrorist threat of 'the deficit' to strengthen it's grip.
Kevin knows this, Ben Brown knows this. There is clearly an agenda that is planets away from what the BBC is supposed to stand for.
If this is as good as it gets now then it's time for the BBC to roll over. Long live the internet, and if not then let's get back on the streets and talk to each other.
You cannot justify this interview as anything but absurd.
Complain about this comment
The fact is this interview by Ben Brown purely exemplified the BBC's impartial stance on the issue of the student protest.
That Brown TWICE asked a man who had just stated he has very restricted use of his arms whether 'he was throwing things at police' was more a sign of his own stupidity than it was insensitivity in my opinion. I do feel however it highlighted, in a bordering on the ridiculous manner, glaring faults in the BBC's coverage of student protests and the tuition fee issue as a whole.
The BBC attempts to adamantly find ways to argue that police violence was in response to a 'threat', has gone to an extent where one of it's presenters continually probed a man with cerebral palsy on the 'threat' he was probing to justify being dragged across the road by a officer in riot uniform.
Such attempts to make him out as a threat included; asking whether he shouted things as the police, threw things at the police, rolled towards the police. Or perhaps most laughably insinuating that describing himself as a 'revolutionary' on a website was a threat to the police.
Ben Brown conducted a personally embarrassing and insensitive interview, which exemplified the BBC's general coverage of the issue as utterly biased.
Complain about this comment
To the BBC:
You have now had many posts with valid, well thought out and backed up arguements detailing the disgrace that was that interview (and in many cases your coverage of the protests in general).
It's quite obvious that the interview was insulting and incredibly poor journalism.
Yet all we have had from you so far is comments from Kevin Bakhurst aiming to deflect the issue and to pretend like the "web campaign" makes the complaints invalid. Ironically this is the same angle you went for in the interview - deflecting the fact that he was assaulted by the police as ok because he is a "revolutionary".
When do we get a real response from someone with some authority at the BBC?
An apology and disciplining for those involved is required (looking at you Mr Brown and Mr Bakhurst). Or if you still believe you did nothing wrong how about actually replying to the comments and arguements here? And by that I don't mean about web campaigns or revolutionaries!!
Complain about this comment
As Jody McIntyre says, it's ridiculous. I totally agree with his thinking as to why this happened, it was to provoke violence from the students, as this would help the Government look like the good guys, whilst the students are the nasty thugs. The current government is a master of manipulating the media. There is an agenda in the media to make anyone who speaks out against government the bad guys, when BA staff went on strike they were greedy, then the Postal staff went on strike they were selfish, when students go on strike they are violent. The Media and Government manipulate information to support their argument, and that is propaganda. How can we have decent debate when the Government stifle and subdue the truth. When I watched the live coverage on the BBC news channel I saw violence on both sides, and to be honest I couldn't justify any of it, but let us not cloud the subject with this carefully orchestrated distraction, this debate shouldnt be about violence but cuts which will affect each and every one of us.
Complain about this comment
"...the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it."
From what I've seen, the broad charge is that Ben Brown was snide and contemptuous in it. Which he was.
Challenging is fine. Good, even. But this interview wasn't "challenging", it was obnoxious. It looked very much as if Ben Brown was intent on finding a way to show that a man with cerebral palsy somehow provoked the police into dragging him from his wheelchair.
When it became clear Mr McIntyre could not possibly have posed a physical threat to the police, Ben Brown then implied that Mr McIntyre might have provoked the action by being a "revolutionary". I would be interested to hear Ben Brown explain the relevance of this to the police action. Does he think the police would be justified in fearing Mr McIntyre might subvert their very minds, if they didn't move quickly enough to pull him from his chair and drag him across the road?
Complain about this comment
I would also like to address the issue of lobbying and the web campaign. The BBC seems to have a policy of discounting complaints that arise from lobbying. I don't really understand this policy, but I think in this instance it reflects a misunderstanding of social media in general and the role they play in many disabled peoples lives in particular.
Due to my disability I am currently housebound. I use socail media not as an adjunct to a normal social life but as my main means of interacting with others. Where a more mobile person might talk to a friend and decide to lodge a complaint, I read about it on a friends Facebook page. This is not the same as a loby group convincing me to make a complaint I might not otherwise have made, this is the same as a friend saying to me in private conversation that they thought there was a problem with the interview.
Complain about this comment
Yep, the BBC is in big trouble. Let's see whether it has the balls to respond properly.
Some superb comments on here about how you should fairly deal with this. The best suggestion I think is Jody, Sir Paul Stephenson and Ben Browne with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.
Do it if you want to retain any credibility or respect.
Complain about this comment
Ben, I've us made a complaint, not because of an 'internet campaign' (I never saw one) but because I found the interview so offensive. I think the posters above me have said enough on that, I'd like to address a more significant and deeper issue with your news coverage in general. Ben, you went to a nice Public School, and to Oxbridge. Have you noticed who else falls into that category?
Your problem, the problem. with the BBC News is that it suffers from considerable INSTITUTIONAL BIAS.
All you people that think you're honest/'objective' journalist and editors are nothing of the sort. Sincere though you may be, you are in the job you have not because of your qualities of objectivity and honesty, you are in your job because YOU HOLD THE DESIRED VIEWS.
This is why you watch this interview and see nothing wrong, indeed, I Imagine you feel your coverage of these protests was good. Laughable. If you saw anything wrong you wouldn't be in the job. That's the problem. Everyone, you, your fellow editors, the journalists, the presenters, are selected because you fit an agenda.
The agenda is conservative, it parades itself as reliable and unbiased but is neither. It supports and acts in defense of the British establishment, the aristocracy, the class system, the government and the police, regardless. We've seen it time and time again. It employs people with every self interested reason to defend it.
It will attempt to demonize any perceived threat to the status quo. Whether or not you realize it, that's a big part of what you do, and it's what the offensive Mr Brown is doing here.
This footage kind of sums it up, I'd watch the whole interview if I were you, it's all there on youtube.
Andrew Marr appears to have ignored his schooling in favour of his career. Some people have no conscience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRPIiMhqV4
Complain about this comment
My last post on this, to wrap up some loose ends.
"Interesting that post 99, in which Bakhurst suggested we look at McIntyre's web site, has been "referred for further consideration""
And interesting that it is still removed. I too hope that the BBC are finally waking up, not just to the crassness of this particular interview but to the broader issues it highlights.
"No matter what, dragging a man who uses a wheelchair out of it and down the street is not acceptable"
Certainly not acceptable in this case.
There are very few cases where it is acceptable, but my friends with wheelchairs tell me the following is one of those cases. I am responsible for fire precautions in a building, though I have staff who deal with it day to day. If you look in some buildings you will see fire signs for disabled persons refuges. When the fire alarm sounds people with mobility problems should go to the nearest one and wait for assistance. Staff are designated, and trained, to provide this assistance, they also sweep their areas for people who have not made it. They will try and make the trip from refuge to assembly point as dignified as possible, but in the worst case it may involve putting someone on a blanket or coat, then dragging them down the stairs and along the street. I don't expect the staff to do what I won't, so I am also trained to do it and take my turn on the rota regularly. Hospitals have plans to do this with patients in extreme circumstances too. My friends sensibly say that they would much rather be dragged down the stairs than breathe in smoke, which will only probably kill them before the flames reach them, if they are unlucky the smoke won't kill them first. I mention this at length simmply to show the sort of extreme and rare circumstances when dragging someone out of a wheelchair is considered acceptable.
My last comment is to agree with navajoblack. "Do you and the BBC get it now Kevin???? "
Complain about this comment
Sorry Kevin, I just realized a second after posting that I called you Ben throughout that last post. Please edit or leave this correction as a follow-up, thanks.
Complain about this comment
The crux of the objection would be that the police have thrown a disabled man out of his wheelchair, yet your interview is entirely asking HIM to justify HIS actions.
This seems to be the equivalent of interviewing a woman who has been raped and spending the entire interview asking her to justify why she was in a short skirt, why she did not report the attack immediately etc etc
This is the victim, not the perpetrator.
Complain about this comment
I have always actually been a fan of Mr Brown and his tough interviewing style, I considered him one of the best journalists on our shores. This however is a disgrace, on two counts. There a clear attempt at character assassination on young Mr Mcintyre, and a clear attempt to insinuate that the police reaction in tipping him out of his wheelchair and dragging him along the pavement was justified. In no way can such an action be justified.
I have subsequently lost all respect for Mr Brown, but the greater fault is on the part of the BBC. In creating this blog and attempting to sweep the complaints under the carpet you have given us a bigger slap in the face, and shown such a contempt for public opinion and the well-being of this young man that it beggars belief. I would have expected this sort of behaviour from a tabloid newspaper, not the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Oh, come on everyone! Ben Brown did a great job and I, for one, am looking forward to watching him interview Alfie Meadows about why he attacked a police truncheon with his head and then go on to cast himself as a victim by seeking brain surgery.
It's reporters like Ben Brown who are going to ensure the future of the BBC by outfoxing Fox News at their own game, and for that he is to be applauded.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This was a ridiculous interview. Repeatedly asking the same stupid questions that had already been answered by Mr McIntyre - why haven't you made a complaint yet? Had you done anything to provoke it? You call yourself a revolutionary?
It's not because he was 'too challenging' - he wasn't challenging in the slightest, he was being a terrible journalist.
This Kevin's man's response was just as bad - using the 'campaign' as a method of dismissing the legitimacy of the complaints, directing people towards Mr McIntyre's website - 'oh really, he's got radical views, it's ok to drag him out his chair then!'
It was a long interview - taken up with the SAME QUESTIONS!
It's RUBBISH JOURNALISM, I can't understand how you can have reviewed this footage a few times and decided it was an acceptable level of journalism.
Love how your previous comment was 'removed for further consideration'
Just admit you are wrong and apologise.
Complain about this comment
"I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview"
Sorry if this has been covered (I read the first 30 or so comments but haven't got time to read 180) but this is absurd! I could start an internet campaign tomorrow for everyone to go out into the streets at 6pm on Christmas Day and sing carols for an hour to bolster community spirit but I suspect very very few, if any, people would actually take part. An internet campaign pointing something out of public interest and asking people who are affected by it to complain is exactly the sort of remit the BBC itself should be fulfilling from their broadcast platform. The act the campaign exists is, if anything, a further indictment of the shameful interviewer behaviour that an internet campaign even needed to be started in the first place!
As for the interview itself, I think the previous paragraph gives you some idea as to what I think, but I would definitely be repeating things that have already been said very eloquently by others were I to elaborate further.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Everything I wanted to say has been said so already, possibly in more eloquent ways too.
I think it's disgusting that you've cowered behind this pretend "web campaign" stating that you've watched the "interview" a couple of times and couldn't find anything wrong with it. It speaks volumes about your motives as news broadcasters. Guess what, alot of people found this "interview" vulgar, and have shared their disgust. that's not a campaign, that people sharing their utter disbelief at the shambles the BBC has become.
Loaded questions passed you by, followed by repeated attacks, and blatent ignorance to boot. But I guess they would, as it has long been BBC policy to side with the goverment, and portray anyone who dares speak out against them as violent thugs. And it is sickening.
I'm not usually one who bothers to write in and complain, but this is so utterly facepalm enducing, it's just absolute beggars belief that it happened at all. An "alleged" (but on film, so not alleged) attack on a man who can't defend himself physically. And you defend it. It truly is the most transparant, pathetic attempt at journalism I've ever seen. And you've pumped out some bilge in your time so that's quite a statement.
Complain about this comment
I made a complaint, not because Jody is disabled and had to defend himself to the mass media but because he was attacked and had to defend himself to the mass media. That interview should have made more of an issue about the police violence at the protest and the fact that Jody, as well as all the other student protesters are not only being attacked by the police but also by the mass media. As I said in my offical complaint; unfortunately, this has not been an uncommon narrative in the reporting of the protests in the mass media. Here was me thinking we lived in a democracy.
Complain about this comment
I was another person who complained, not because of some web fad or by being coerced by a disability charity, but because Ben Brown crossed one too many lines during that interview.
The fact I have to again state why I complained (even though this was explained in my complaint), for your benefit here, beggars belief. Can you not see? Can you not hear? Can you not agree that aspects of that interview were appalling? If you can't then maybe tell us what you thought was so good about that interview and why you think we're all mad.
I also felt there was an obvious theme of bias, as others have said, it felt like a police interrogation rather than a live TV interview.
Complain about this comment
In sympathy with EdiLass, why should an internet campaign invalidate the views of those who took part in it? No other method (apart from burning down the Television Center) ever gets the notice of the smug sanctimonious BBC editors. They have the bully pulpit, to which they have no valid mandate. The Governors have no teeth, and even FOI suits are fought off with OUR MONEY. Complaints are met with boilerplate brush-offs.
The rank hypocrisy of the BBC in their adolescent support of Wikileaks is highlighted by their stifling of the Balen report. And, Kevin Bakhurst, by what right do you harangue us at the expense of our License Fee? A great deal more humility on your part would not go amiss.
Complain about this comment
It seems as if Brown as interviewer was in possession of assertions rather than established facts. This is a major failure of the news editorial team as it would appear that the BBC was 'biased' in favour of assertion only. Brown's assertions/questions and McIntyre's replies only reinforce the lack of clear facts. Someone should have done some proper research before questioning McIntyre. The main facts of this matter are solely, that McIntyre was disabled and was manhandled from his personal security and mode of transport. The footage clearly showed this... Thus, the line of assertions failed when presented with McIntyre's fact and when delivered in such a tawdry fashion it appeared to make Brown weaker and more aggressive in his search to establish control of the interview. BBC needs to reassess how this interview came to be conducted in such a shabby way.
Complain about this comment
I've complained and I didn't know anything about a 'web campaign'. I just felt strongly about it, as have many others.
----------------------------------------------------------------
While I realise a challenging interview style is often appropriate, this interview showed very heavy bias. Several times Ben Brown suggested that Jody McIntyre's political views justified his treatment by the police officer. A protesters political views are completely irrelevant to whether they should be subject to police brutality.
[...]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jody McIntyre's disability is only important here because it shows to be ridiculous the idea that he was a threat to the police. Like many other protesters he was subject to police brutality. Unlike many others the police (and the media) can not simply excuse this on the grounds that he was a threat.
Trying to spin this as if the offence the BBC's coverage has caused is due to a desire for unequal treatment for Mr McIntyre is only more offensive.
Complain about this comment
They'll definitely wheel out the water canons now, Jody.
Bring on the police,(the ones who did this) and let them have there say. I'm guessing there'll be no apology.
Get Paxman to have a word he'll show Mr. Ben how it's done, sorry that should read Mr Brown.
Disgraceful one sided, aggressive, belittling, disbelieving, badgering and downright insulting behaviour from a BBC reporter. This man was assaulted by thugs who were caught on camera doing it, why was no mention made of this? Where is the balance? If I'd done it I'd be in jail and quite rightly so. What right do they have to hide from this? I shouldn't be surprised; they manage it over and over again.
Complain about this comment
I came across this infamous BBC News 24 interview around an hour ago, and was playing it when my husband walked in from work. Like me, he just stood there with his mouth open and then walked out in exasperation when the interviewer actually suggested that the police were provoked by this disabled man "rolling towards" them in his wheelchair. The interviewer's position was ludicrous and embarrassing. We were both completely taken aback by the interview, like many other posters here, and for the same reasons.
We are not students - both my husband and I are nearing retirement. We are tax payers and so funders of the BBC. We feel very let down by recent reporting in general, not just this interview (although this was the final straw that sent me to your web site to complain). We simply do not understand why the BBC is ignoring so completely the fact that so many people seem to be complaining about the behaviour of the police. In particular, why is the BBC not challenging what appears to be the unjustified and early kettling of demonstrators engaged in peaceful protest? It may be that the police actions were correct - but why are they not being pressed to explain and defend the policing of these events? Shame on you BBC. A very poor performance indeed.
Complain about this comment
Mr Bakhurst has clearly confused a "web campaign" with lots of people viewing the interview and being appalled and aghast at it's inappropriateness. I don't object to it being a robust interview with Mr McIntyre. I object to the crassness of some of the questions such as "did you throw something?" (to a person with CP) and where you wheeling menacingly towards the Police? Is this was "reportage" has come to? Making comments which skirt a fine line between insulting and patronising. What next? Interviewing Alfie Meadows and asking whether he headbutted the Police Officer's truncheon? The entire coverage of the protests has been terrible and biased, this, however, is simply shameful.
Complain about this comment
Kevin,
How dare you suggest that people might complain because of a web campaign. How utterly patronising.
Like everyone else online I receive hundreds of links, mails and video embeds in various social media. I respond to them as and when I respond to them - ignoring most, have passing interest in some, am engaged by few. That is the way social media works.
I didn't see the original interview when it was broadcast live - I was sent an embed of the interview via YouTube.
I responded with a complaint because I wished to complain. The link merely highlighted the clip and expedited a link to the BBC complaints section.
The interview was crass, idiotic and failed to understand the nature of either political demonstration or cerebral palsy.
Can I ask you why the version you have included is a shortened edit of the full interview? It seems to be very misleading since the complaints are about the full interview as transmitted.
The BBC is out of touch. You appear to be as well.
Thomas Cochrane
Complain about this comment
Ok Kevin, we ask you one final time, RESPOND. It's ok to be wrong, it's not ok to be silent in the face of such overwhelming public opinion and yes that is what you and the BBC are facing. Not lobbyists or bloggers, but ordinary people outraged by the actions of a BBC employee.
Complain about this comment
I have just read Guido Fawkes blog, and the BBC's sympathy with MacIntyre becomes crystal clear. Check it out:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
My father told me a story many decades ago about a student union that would bring a blind man into debates, or meetings hosted by Conservatives. At a certain moment the blind man would stand up and rant, waving his white stick. Attempts to remove him were met with cries "Not the blind man". The tricks of the Left to promote their agenda and confuse their political opponents have changed little, except that in those days they did not have the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone remember Kevin Bakhurst complaining about the web campaign to save BBC 6Music, including the Facebook campaign that was initiated by the BBC itself?
Complain about this comment
I have been a long-term defender of the BBC as one of the greatest things that Britain has to offer.
However, watching the interview of Mr McIntyre has forced me to reconsider that view.
I made a complaint, because I am shocked by the attempts in the interview to concoct some justification for the assault on Mr McIntyre. He was clearly not a threat, he had provided a number of clear reasons why he was not a threat in this interview, so why was Mr Brown still intent on making him into one?
If the BBC conducted an interview with a rape victim, and proceeded through the interview to ask whether she was wearing revealing clothing or acting flirtatiously despite being repeatedly told that she was not, someone would have been sacked by now. That is why you've received so many complaints, Mr Bakhurst.
I could go on, but one point that particularly struck me was Mr Brown's use of the word "appear". "These pictures appear to show Jody McIntyre" ... "being pulled out of his wheelchair and dragged across the road to the pavement." No they don't. They don't appear to show it, they show it.
This point sets the tone for the entire interview. It says that the BBC refuses to accept evidence that it doesn't like, it says that we treat this sort of thing differently to, for example, the damage done to the Conservative HQ. In that instance, the damage didn't "apparently" occur during the Protests: it occurred then.
The BBC is right to challenge whether Mr McIntyre was a victim of police malice. Perhaps it's right to challenge the idea that the Police should not be assaulting a cerebral palsy sufferer in a wheelchair, although I fail to see how. However, it is wrong to challenge the very fact that the assault occurred.
If we can't trust you to truthfully report something this clear, why should we trust you to truthfully report anything else?
Complain about this comment
'I think that the complaints are revealing and reflecting a much wider dissatisfaction with the way the BBC has reported the whole protest. In 'the old days' (for example, when the Poll Tax demonstration turned to violence), there were no mobile phone cameras to capture the 'view from the street' and the mainstream media perspective was the only one we saw. Now YouTube is full of footage that clearly shows the police behaving badly. Many of us feel a sense of outrage, and quite right too: is NOT OK to ride horses into crowds, hit kids with batons, or pull a disabled person from his wheelchair. The evidence that this has happened is there, on film, in the public domain; but still we get apologist interviewers like Ben Brown implying that protesters must have 'asked for it' somehow. Many, many viewers would prefer to see the BBC questioning police chiefs, challenging what has happened and voicing public outrage... Come on BBC - fulfill your public broadcast remit!'
I COMPLETELY AGREE. Alfie Meadows (who is within inches of death due to police brutality) had nowhere near as much BBC coverage as Charles and Camilla, who at most, recieved a bit of a shock. The BBC owe the public an apology
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr Bakhurst,
Your assumption that the number of complaints in regard to the Ben Brown interview represents an internet 'lobbying campaign' is a serious misrepresentation of the genuine reasons why many people felt it necessary to register their complaint. I have never previously complained to the BBC, but I felt compelled to do so yesterday after watching this interview.
Whilst I appreciate that Ben Brown's 'reporting from the front-lines' on the day of the protests may have coloured his perception of events (I watched his reports assiduously throughout the day while working from home), his interrogation of Mr McIntyre was partial, unbalanced, unprofessional, and deeply objectionable. His line of questioning aimed to imply that police allegations of Mr McIntyre's behaviour somehow justified his being dragged from his wheelchair by police officers, completely disregarding the fact that Mr McIntyre's cerebral palsy renders him unable to constitute a physical threat to an able-bodied policeman. Quite how a man allegedly "rolling towards police lines" (an unfortunate turn of phrase in itself) posed an immediate threat to officers is difficult to fathom. His disregard for Mr McIntyre's clear assertion that he is unable to use his wheelchair unassisted did not prevent Ben Brown from attempting to depict Mr McIntyre as 'a stone-throwing revolutionary', an unbridled attempt to discredit Mr McIntyre's version of events and to portray the police officer concerned in a more favourable light. The interview did not represent 'rigorous questioning' on Ben Brown's part, nor was it defensible as a 'devil's advocate approach'; rather, his mode of questioning effectively depicted Mr McIntyre's testimony and the on-screen video evidence as, at best, circumstantial and, at worst, politically motivated. At no point was there any attempt made to contextualise the footage other than from a simplistic bipolar, police-good, protesters-bad perspective. For an experienced and senior journalist to employ this interview technique was both amateurish and unjustifiable given that the BBC is a publicly funded body with a mandate to report news events impartially.
Fortunately, I feel that Mr McIntyre, regardless of my personal feelings towards his political agenda, conducted himself well during the interview and made Ben Brown look rather foolish. That said, Ben Brown's interview will perhaps have further shaken some people's trust in the impartiality of the BBC, its editorial accountability (your rather feeble attempts to justify the tone of the interview and to dismiss the complaints as the output of some form of internet lobbying group is a case in point), and its ability to retain its relevance in the 21st century. You are in a privileged position Mr Bakhurst, both you and the BBC, and you would do well to remind yourself of that. You have a duty of care to those who fund the Corporation and your salary, and when the 'customers' complain, you should listen.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Pants.
Complain about this comment
Mr Barkhurst,
Might I suggest you read a transcript of the questions your interviewer asked. Of the 12 questions 3 were about why Jody hadn't made a complaint. 4 were about things he might have done to provoke an attack and 4 were from the perspective of the police. The best question came from Jody himself: "I'm asking you: do you think I could have in any way posed a physical threat from the seat of my wheelchair to an army of police officers armed with weapons?"
Do you seriously think that was a balanced, non-biased interview? If you do then shame on you and you should be the one resigning
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I haven't complained, but I am thinking about doing so. I have a great number of problems with this interview, including the insensitivity of Ben Brown towards Jody. It appears he listened to almost nothing Jody said, asking pointless questions and interrupting him constantly. While I understand this can be a "tactic" to put people off guard and gain incriminating information, I really think it was inappropriate in this interview. It is the job of the BBC news to gain an unbiased and accurate account of an event. This ensures the public are informed and can formulate a rounded opinion OF THEIR OWN on the matter. From the behaviour of Ben Brown and the questions he asked, it seemed he or someone who had written the questions, had already formulated that opinion. He then conducted the interview so his opinion was made humorously blatant. I feel that this will have lead to many people adopting this opinion, in place of formulating their own. I feel this is particularly irresponsible of the BBC, given the controversial nature of the fee rise, the protests and the behaviour of the police. I really feel the BBC should take greater care to place equal emphasis on the violence of the police and remain without opinion at all times, even if this means sticking to fact only and loosing "sensational" headlines.
Complain about this comment
Given the context of the interview, which I watched when first broadcast, I feel that the questioning was fair, yes the appearance seemed otherwise because of the interviewees disabilities. Had the interviewee been able-bodied I strongly suspect that this interview would be a non issue.
Complain about this comment
Hi Kevin,
Other comments are right to point out that you have completely missed the point about this, by hiding behind the 'equality' argument. all you seem to be doing is defending your institution and colleague. Given the BBC's supposed impartiality, when will Ben Brown, or any other newsreader, interview the police officers involved in these appalling incidents? When will their Chief be interviewed? Is there any questioning from the BBC as to why Jody's case is going to be reviewed by an internal police body, and not an independent commission? You must present a balanced picture to the audience who pay for your existence. Ben Brown didn't interview Mr. McIntyre- he interrogated him. Now please, for goodness sake, interrogate the police and MPs who voted for this policy with the same intensity, otherwise you are no better than Sky or Fox News!
Complain about this comment
Kevin,
I was highly offended by Ben Brown's one sided interview with Jody McIntyre following the student protests.
The fact that Mr Brown attempted to justify the assault of a young disabled man is utterly disgraceful and, I believe, confirms the popular belief that the BBC is not reporting these incidents in an impartial way.
I echo the thoughts of the person above me - looking at the coverage of Chamillagate, I find it hard to believe that either one of the victims would have been interrogated in this way.
Complain about this comment
I thought Ben brown acted as highly unprofessional throughout the entire interview. It seemed to me that it was clear he let either his own personnel bias or opinions of the bbc cloud his judgement in what should have been impartial journalism.
I agree that you should not treat people with disabilities any differently from anybody else however in this case it seemed obvious that it was an important factor in the mentioned event. Thus Mr Browns insinuation of wrong doing even asking if he had thrown anything at police when he knew that Jody is not capable of moving his own wheelchair was highly qeustionable as a professional representative of the BBC and ultimately in my opinion a shameful act.
Complain about this comment
It's a fairly obvious that if someone is speech impaired, and unable to use their arms to propel their wheelchair, that it is unnecessary to ask them if they had provoked the police by shouting abuse or throwing things.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with what navajoblack is saying, it isn't down to us to respond, though it's very nice to have this avenue to try and have our say, but the real question is what is your response. You accept my money to provide a service can you justify the style of questioning, can you justify your claim to be an unbiased news outlet. Up until I saw that interview I had a certain amount of respect for the BBC, as an information supplier of decent standing especially compared to other outlets. That interview changed my mind, the BBC has dropped several levels of credibility imo. No longer is the BBC the tele of the Nation but the mouthpiece of the oppressive state. The interviewer clearly was trying to represent Jody McIntyre as a violent instigator, and that is not the job of the BBC, you supply information, we make our own judgements on that information.
Complain about this comment
Kevin,
I agree with the vast majority of comments made above.
This wasn't a matter of Jody's word against that of the police - in such a case some (but not all) of Ben Brown's line of interrogation might have been justified. This was an interview which followed clear video evidence of Jody being dragged from his wheelchair against his will by the police. Once it had been established that (a) it was Jody in the footage and (b) he was pulled to the ground against his will, the questions that ensued seem as Jody put it totally 'ludicrous'.
And yet it seems that precisely because this was an indefensible act of aggression by the police that Ben Brown chose to adopt the straw-clutching tactic of searching desperately for any scraps that could somehow justify what we had all just seen clearly captured in film.
And the way Jody was stopped dead in his tracks when he first mentioned Alfie Meadows and then the BBC's coverage of Palestinian victims of IDF aggression is also very telling is it not? Free speech, but not if you're going to refer to other acts of police aggression or other examples of shocking journalism courtesy of the BBC.
Likewise, your response in post 99, which I think just underlined the extraordinary lengths the BBC is seeking to go to here to somehow justify the unjustifiable.
Complain about this comment
Good to see that Ben Brown treated this interviewee as he would any other and did not patronise him. Well done.
Complain about this comment
I wrote you a 1,100 word long complaint Kevin, how about you read that then you can come back to me with further consideration. We want to know why (other than your eagerness to keep the paymasters in Westminster happy) you are covering all stories of protests as if the Met can do no wrong. We want to know why every story is reported through the filter 'the students started it, the police were proportionate', and if you, as a chief editor cannot genuinely see how biased the reporting is on this issue, rather than 'pretending' you can't see it as I assume you are, then maybe you've been promoted above your already high paygrade.
Complain about this comment
Amazingly, 200+ people have taken the trouble to come on to this blog and post a comment. A lot of them , like me, posting for the first time today. I had to register to do so. That shows how strongly people feel. And every single comment is of the same opinion.
Dire interview
Politically biased
Ill researched and ill informed interviewer with a pro-establishment axe to grind.
No doubt you wish we`d all switch over and watch Strictly Come Dancing or some other opium for the masses. But people feel passionately about these issues and expect the BBC, which they pay for, to be impartial and balanced. And still no response from Kevin Bakhurst!
Complain about this comment
Kevin, your blurb is such of a cop out. But you do ask a question, regarding exactly what people are offended by.. the reason few people state their objections catagorically is that they feel it is already abundantly clear!
I will state for you my objections, Ben Brown was aggressive and discriminatory towards a disabled individual, live on air. I work with disabled people extensively, it made my blood boil, I know at least 50 people who felt the same way. Ben Brown's actions are defined as discriminatory by his failure to recognise Mr McIntyres condition. If I witnessed someone in a school, or any walk of life, speaking towards a disabled person with the same aggressive manner or lack of awareness of their condition, I would reprimand them and they would be forced to apologise. In a school setting a fellow student acting in this way could be suspended. I have, myself, acted, in part, in this kind of disciplinary capacity.
It is missing the point of equality entirely to claim to 'treat him like anyone else', you are supposed to give him the same RESPECT you would give anyone else, but that doesn't mean act as if his physical disabilities don't exist.
I must go on to say that in any other setting, in any professional capacity I have occupied, I would have to address Ben's behaviour as disabled bullying. You may not accept this but I have been forced by professional responsibility to discipline teenagers for less! And I'm pretty liberal.
On top of that it was also sloppy, poor, cheap journalism, the man is not up to scratch.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
>>I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances ...
Ho ho!
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Maybe a record amount of comments on the BBC's website is worthy of a seperate news story? I wouldn't like to tell you how to do your job, but you seem to be doing it so poorly at the moment, that I thought you might need some help.
Complain about this comment
Over two hours ago, I registered a comment that asked:
1) When would we find out how many complaints the BBC had received about the Ben Brown interview, as the BBC website seemed to find 1000 complaints about an ITV show so newsworthy earlier today.
(If even half the people who have watched the Ben Brown YouTube video have contacted you, you're looking at more than 50 thousand complaints by now).
2) I also asked whether those who didn't complain because they thought Ben Brown was 'too challenging' in the interview, and instead wrote to you because they felt Brown was impartial and accusatory, would still receive an email reply, if they requested one.
(As obviously this blog doesn't cover their concerns).
Now I'd also like to know why, despite the fact it doesn't break any of the BBC's own house rules, my original comment has been referred for further consideration by the moderators for such a long period of time.
Over 30 comments have been published in the meantime, including some others that had been referred for further consideration after mine had been posted.
Why?
Complain about this comment
Bar staff around the country - may I remind you that you may refuse service to anyone you wish, without a reason being provided, including Ben Brown.
Complain about this comment
I had to watch this interview twice, just to be sure I wasn't over-reacting and that I could believe what I thought I was hearing. I remain utterly dumbfounded by the aggressive behaviour of the interviewer towards a member of the public who has clearly been assaulted by police officers. Even if the victim had not been disabled, I would have found Ben Dare's approach overly aggressive to say the least, and I thought the interviewee, Jody McIntyre showed admirable restraint throughout: I suspect I would have been screaming with indignation had it been me.
What is more, I am entirely certain that the interviewer would have shown a great deal more respect had he been questioning the police officer involved in the incident. The interviewer spent almost the entire interview trying to establish that the victim was some kind of 'revolutionary' or 'agitator' who therefore must have deserved his appalling treatment. Mr Brown wouldn't just take a straight answer, but kept trying to suggest that the victim must somehow have provoked the attack on him, asking over and over whether he was 'wheeling towards the police' or might have thrown something (despite having cerebral palsy) or (horror of horrors) expressed 'revolutionary' views. Frankly, it was an outrageously biased interview, in which the interviewer did absolutely everything he possibly could to absolve the police from their responsibility.
Until recently, I would have said that the BBC was a relatively responsible and reliable news organisation. Some of my friends, especially abroad, still think that it is. However, these days I put it in the same bracket as Fox News. Very very sad.
Complain about this comment
+1 to pretty much all of the preceding comments.
It was a truly paiinful interview to watch and does not portray the BBC in a good light.
Complain about this comment
@210 I do not agree that the questioning was fair. Let me illustrate what I mean: imagine that Ben Brown had interviewed Charles/Camilla after their car was attacked by protestors, and had asked the following Qs. Can you IMAGINE the media outrage?!
- You haven't made any kind of complaint, so why not?
- There's a suggestion that you were rolling towards the protestors in your car. Is that true?
- In the newspaper you were described as a royalist and you were quoted as saying you want to build an elistist society. Do you classify yourself as an elitist?
- But I have to say, I was covering that demonstration and I saw police charging horses at protestors and hitting them with batons. Were you driving your car at protestors that day?
- Were you harmed in any way in that incident with protestors?
- Are you saying the protestors deliberately picked on you? Why do you think they did?
- Did you shout anything provocative or drive your car or do anything that would have induced the protestors to do that to you?
- So when are you making your complaint?
And so on... And if these Qs seem familiar, it is because I have adapted them from the transcript of the interview with Jody McIntyre (you can read it here: http://troubleinchina.livejournal.com/604369.html).
The imagined shift of interviewee from disabled young man to royal prince and/or consort shows up the Qs for what they are: disrespectful, vacuous, leading, disbelieving, hostile and implying blame where none was deserved.
Complain about this comment
I no longer prepared to support the BBC directly. I am getting rid of my TV and cancelling my licence.
Complain about this comment
I feel the interview had too many attempts to ask the same question in slightly differing ways, all of which had the uncomfortable feel of suggesting that by being at a protest and near a police line the interviewee was a reasonable target for any police attentions he received. I expect impartiality from a non profit making corporation paid for by the publc, not an attempt to repeatedly suggest the interviewee was a troublemaker. And I have not seen any member of the Police given this sort of treatment, again showing a lack of impartiality. I have little desire to renew my Television licence if I am contributing to this level of journalism (and I use the word in the loosest sense).
Complain about this comment
I would also like to add that trying to paint genuine public anger as the result of lobbying is unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
I can hardly remember ever being so utterly enraged by a piece of 'journalism'. Ben Brown barely attempts to hide his contempt for Jody McIntyre and the tone of the interview does not befit that of a supposedly unbiased broadcasting organisation. Unfortunately you have completely missed the point Kevin. Your opening statement 'the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it' is way off the mark, you appear out of touch with your viewers opinions as this is certainly not the sentiment of the hundreds of complaints I have read today. Ben Brown’s mind was made up before the interview began. There is no question that Jody is more than capable of representing himself and his political stance eloquently and articulately. The viewers moved to complain do not do so in defence of a ‘disabled man’ rather in utter disgust at both Ben Brown’s and BBC’s shameful unprofessionalism.
I will be taking my complaint to OFCOM.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Kevin,
There are many reasoned and well written comments above which demonstrate the concern many people have felt about this interview.
As someone working in the field of equalities, I can see a positive progression over the years in the attitudes society feels comfortable with. Some years ago, victims of sex crimes often faced accusations that they had provoked an attack - this has not gone away, but I am confident that a BBC interviewer would no longer suggest such a thing to a rape victim. Recognition of disability hate crime is a more recent development and it is unfortunate that your employee has not yet developed an understanding of disability that allows him to engage with a disabled person in an empathetic way. The fact that a person's disability means they are physically unable to demonstrate in anything other than a non-violent way should, given no evidence to the contrary, be enough to avoid much of the line of questioning taken. The spurious defence that the interviewer would aggressively question others in the same way (the "bastard defence" as it is known in discrimination law) does not hold true, and there are many comparators from the rape victim to Charles and Camilla who would not have been treated in this way. I think it is your responsibility and that of the BBC as a whole to ensure that employees have a proper understanding of equalities, and I would recommend disability awareness training not just for Ben Brown but for all of your journalists and senior managers.
The fundamental test of your and the BBC's fairness is whether you are prepared to follow the story up by interviewing either the police officers involved (ideally the one who, in the video, so completely lost it that he had to be dragged away by colleagues) or at the very least a senior officer who has been properly briefed. I and many others are waiting for that interview. It is in your hands. If it is not forthcoming we, and you, will know that your editorial balance has been severely compromised. Really, that is a resigning issue for you.
Complain about this comment
We're now being called 'angry nerds' on Newsnight. Oh, BBC.
Complain about this comment
I also have registered specifically to comment on this having arrived at this blog without the assistance of any "internet campaigns" The sheer awfulness of Ben Brown and Kevin Bakhurst's lamentable defence of the BBC's journalistic standards have provoked me into this response. As a Brit in NY I have oft lauded the BBC as an example of decent reporting to the agenda driven news shows here but it seems like I may have been mistaken in holding such a view. I echo the comments posted here by many about the errors of judgment displayed by Brown. I would like to add this observation. For his line of questioning to make any sense the police involved in the incident presumably must have conversed along these lines,
Policeman 1 Quick he's rolling towards us and we are defenceless against such a violent attack.
Policeman 2 "But wait, he is disabled, so we could get out of the way and warn him against his behaviour."
PM1 Well maybe, but first ask his name and google him, he may be a revolutionary.
PM2 Ah yes, I have his blog on my I phone. He is a revolutionary, we must stop him at all costs otherwise we will all be killed by his super powers and the country will be overthrown.
PM1 Come on lads, it will take us all to do it but we can drag him out of his wheelchair and avert a fatal attack upon us all.
PM2 I'm with you, and don't worry about the camera's the BBC will see the danger we are in and make sure his despicable and terrifying behaviour is explained to the public.
Shameful
Complain about this comment
I commented near the start of the thread and am gratified to see so many comments similar in sentiment to mine since then. It is vitally important that the BBC recognises this as a genuine failure, and addresses that failure, rather than justifying the level of complaints as a flurry from an internet campaign. This is genuine outrage BBC. You need to act.
The main reason I am commenting for a second time is to respond to Dr Evan Harris at post 79, who defends his friend Ben Brown - fair enough - and then claims that on Twitter his defence of this dreadful interview has garnered support and changed some minds.
If the link to his Twitter feed was working, people would be able to see for themselves that in fact his comments have been met with a wave of disagreement, concern and dismay.
Just as I am a great admirer and defender of the BBC as a unique institution - and therefore find complaining about this interview difficult - I am also a great admirer of Dr Harris, particularly in his work on evidence-based policy and human rights. It pains me therefore to find him on categorically the wrong side in this discussion.
Complain about this comment
I've just re-read the intro to this and the line about an 'internet campaign' has now sunk in. Really, you can do better than this. Please do not belittle people's concerns with partisan reporting by making such asinine comments. Yes, people are talking about this online; that's how the world now works. To suggest, as this clearly does, that a genuine concern with political bias in pubic broadcasting is simply the result of a storm whipped up - in your mind presumably by Jody McIntyre's fellow Bolsheviks - on Facebook is deeply insulting. Think more carefully before you write this stuff.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
in this case BBC News, fair and balanced...
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
It appears, Kevin, that you are further compounding the issue with your claims of a web campaign to complain, a blatant attempt to discredit the complaints by comparing them to something as trivial as the Facebook Xmas No 1 campaign last year. Social media is here, the BBC needs to acknowledge this as the main propagator of instances of injustice, of instances where mainstream media are falling behind in their ability (or willingness) to report the truth.
You also further compound the issue by posting an abridged version of the full interview here - why not the full interview? Are you attempting to persuade newcomers to the issue who land here first that the complaints are a little unjustified? Show the full interview, after all, it is the subject of the complaints - not this version!
My complaint about the Ben Brown interview was purely based on the fact that Jody McIntire is being interviewed, not as a victim of violence, but rather as if he was a perpetrator. My complaint is now extended to your handling of the original set of complaints with this response.
Complain about this comment
Tory MPs get a harder grilling that that. What's all the fuss about?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Also, I must admit, it all seems rather convienient to blame our complaints on a 'web campaign'... How many times has the BBC used web campaigns to create their own news before? Yet now they use the term to brush off our complaints. Utter hypocrisy - and just seems to show either how distant the media are from reality, or how much they can morph the news to suit them.
Complain about this comment
A new low for the BBC then, Kevin Bakhurst you are suggesting people are doing this out of sympathy! Your way out, this is the public simply expressing their feelings and opinions on last nights awful interview and disgraceful actions of the police.
corporate bigots
Complain about this comment
To say that the broad complaint against Mr Brown is that he was 'too challenging' is a total misrepresentation. We expect challenging interviews, we don't expect offensive re-posing of the same evidently ridiculous question having already been supplied with a direct answer. McIntyre is a self-confessed activist but his politics are irrelevant if he is the victim of police mistreatment. A good, challenging interview paints a portrait of the interviewee, not the interviewer. This interview fails dismally in this regard, and it is disappointing to see you defending such poor and reactionary journalism by both twisting the essence of the complaints, and dismissing them simply because some have been prompted through social networks. People will only complain if they agree that it is merited.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Kevin,
I just replied telling you my opinion of why this interview was biased and insulting to Jody.
Even though I don't believe it broke any of the House Rules, it was removed. I've obviously complained against that, but you obviously can't see my original comment.
So this is a one-way "dialogue".
How wonderful.
Complain about this comment
Kevin Bakhurst's blog response is not enough by a long way, particularly when he appears to be dressing up terrible journalism as some kind of exercise of equal rights for disabled people, or that being "challenging" is a virtue that all media interviews should share no matter what situation is or what the person concerned says. What patronising nonsense.
I have added my voice to the complaints you will have received about Ben Brown's biased, offensive, and ignorant (or I hope it was ignorance, rather than wilful arrogance or aggression) questioning of Jody McIntyre about his treatment at the hands of police. He approached the interview like he was interviewing the leader of a guerrilla gang, not a wheelchair-bound activist, completely dependent on others, who was videoed being roughly manhandled by the police whilst on his own. The interview from the start gave not even passing credence to the notion that he might be a victim before Brown went onto an aggressive line of questioning that beggared belief.
"Did you throw anything at the police?". No, he's got cerebral palsy and is being pushed around by his brother! How could he possibly threaten the police? Perhaps Brown could have asked if he was part of a crowd, or gang? But no, he instead continued on this (ludicrous, as McIntyre said) line of questioning. "You said you are a revolutionary". No he didn't, as he said earlier and he said again in response to that statement. McIntyre also made a number of good points about cuts, the education system, and even reporting of the Palestinian issue, all of which flew over Brown's head as he doggedly flogged his dead horse.
This is utterly disgraceful.
Jody McIntyre, to his credit, acquitted himself with reason and dignity in the face of such idiotic and offensive questioning. I imagine his blog will now have quite a few extra readers! If there were possibly any faults in his own behaviour that night you certainly made sure it was not uncovered, buried as it was under the several glaring faults in Ben Brown's interviewing.
There is only one possible right outcome from this complaint - and you must know you will get so many complaints about this when it is so clearly, utterly wrong. You must apologise to Jody McIntyre for the character of this interview. To do otherwise will make mockery of the notion of responsible journalism at the BBC.
It would be wiser to do it sooner rather than later. If it looks like it is forced out of you, your reputation will suffer all the more.
I am normally a wholehearted supporter of the BBC. This is so very disappointing.
Complain about this comment
I complained about this interview - incidentally (sigh), not bacause of a "web campaign" encouraging me to do so.
The fact that Jody has cerebral palsy is clearly not irrelevant to some of the reasons why people have found this interview objectionable. However, do not attempt to conclude, as you have, that the concern here is that the BBC did not treat Jody *delicately* enough in view of his disablity. To suggest such not only misses the point but smacks of an attempt to take the wind out of what has clearly been a widely-expressed case against Ben Brown's conduct.
When a man who has cerebral palsy has explained that he cannot wheel his wheelchair, to ask him if he is sure he didn't chuck a breeze block at the police is just outrageous. To repetedly ask why he has not reported the attack; to ask him to confirm that he has no marks on him to prove the attack, etc., in the way that Ben did came across as an implication that Jody's testimony ought to be treated with suspicion. Again, given the footage shown just before the interview, this is at best laughable and at worst unacceptably biased.
Accusations of bias are not plausibly deflated by applealing to the - often appropriate - role of the interivewer as devil's advocate. The point is that playing devil's advocate here was not appropriate. Surely, faced with a well-evidenced story like this, the BBC has a responsibility to persue quite different lines of questioning.
How bloody painful to have to spell this out. If only you came across as having innocently misunderstood everyone's point.
Complain about this comment
A response to this massive response from the general public voicing their concerns would be good at this stage, Kevin.
I hope Ben Brown is feeling thoroughly ashamed of himself
Complain about this comment
Objectionable, offensive, disrespectful, provocative - oh, aren't these things you aren't supposed to be when submitting a comment on this site? But it sure makes great journalism!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is the first time I have complained to the BBC and I think a sad day for news reporting. From the beginning there was bias particularly when introducing him as a 'political activist blogger' The interview started with Ben Brown insinuating that because Jody hadn't made a complaint the assault cannot have been so bad. Jody responded in a calm rational way.
Then Ben Brown asked if he had wheeled his wheelchair into the police - an unusual question considering the clip does not even appear to show this slightly. Jody responded that he 'can't physically use my wheelchair myself' and its 'clear I was not a threat to anyone' Ben Brow asks But don't you call yourself a 'cyber radical' which clearly has no correlation to Jody's physical strength or ability to be threatening to the police.
Ben Brown interrupts when Jody is talking about Alfie Meadows being within an inch of their life with 'Have to say I was there and saw protestors throwing things at police, were you?' This question isn't logical given that Jody had just moments before confirmed that he didn't have the physical strength to manoeuvre his wheelchair (I would like to know the interview questions were prepared)
However Jody confirms that he wasn't throwing anything that day Ben Brown then comes onto asking why did they pick on you? Again asking if he shouted anything or threw anything to provoke the police? Although Jody has already confirmed that a - he didn't throw anything and b- that his physical strength is limited. So Jody asks 'Do you think a person with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair poses a threat to police armed with weapons?' Ben Brown ignores this question and interrupts asking 'But you do say you are a revolutionary?'
Again this has no correlation to his physical strength. Ben Brown talks over Jody and interrupts him again to ask at the end about when Jody will be making a complaint to the police although Jody has already answered this question twice at the start of the interview. I am absolutely outraged at the interview and think it is a very sad day indeed when Sky News are able to conduct an interview better than the BBC. I would like to know what this line of questioning was intended to achieve? I hope Ben Brown receives some Journalism training before he is allowed back on the news either to report or to interview people.
Complain about this comment
May I also add that this was intended to be an interview, not a debate. The purpose being to elicit McIntyre's version of events.
It hardly comes across as impartial.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
For me the point is that McIntyre was being interviewed as the subject of a documented assault by the police, not as a spokesperson for the protestors. He was given the kind of hostile interview that indicated he himself had done something wrong, which, as he eloquently explained again and again, was not the case. He was the victim of police brutality, along with so many others. the focus should have been on his experience, not his actions. Plus Ben Brown asking him about having called himself a 'revolutionary' is just embarrassing to watch.
Complain about this comment
As has been stated above (and I want to repeat for emphasis, and to express my viewpoint): "At no time did the interviewer consider the possibility that the assault was unprovoked."
Nowhere in that interview did the *interrogator* actually consider that the actions of the police were in any way unjustified.
This in itself shows that the BBC was both biased and ignorant, and by not even apologising to Mr McIntyre remains so.
This was saddening, as normally the views of the BBC are fair, if not unbiased.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
I think the interview is symptomatic of the general weakness of BBC News coverage and much of the BBC's other factual broadcasting these days.
The people who refer above to "shock jocks" are quite correct. For instance, a great deal of studio time on Newsnight consists of pointless shouting, or interviewers trying to provoke it.
The factual grasp of some BBC news reporters is abysmal. To give an example, I have seen reporters on BBC Breakfast who cannot correctly distinuguish between cms and inches, or rainfall totals and rises in river levels, resulting in alarming reports of absurd amounts of rain in already flooded areas. This is unacceptable given your public service remit.
Turning to your interview with Jody McIntyre, I think the fact he has cerebral palsy is irrelevant - even if questions like "Did you wheel yourself towards the police?" do sound like they belong on The Day Today or Monty Python.
What is relevant is the implication that being a revolutionary blogger means you *deserve* a beating from the police.
Similarly, much of your coverage of these protests seems to suggest that merely going to a demonstration means you should accept that you are very likely to be beaten up by the police, trampled by horses, or kettled for hours in the freezing cold etc - even if you yourself are entirely peaceful, and even if you are only 12-16 years old, or disabled or anything else. Merely being there means these things are normal.
I thought the BBC's excuse for most of its ineptitude these days was that it has to appeal to a wide range range of licence fee payers who have a wide range of different tastes.
Your coverage of the demonstrations seem likely to appeal far more to people who think any sort of protest justifies a sound beating. In the circumstances, you can hardly complain if other licence fee payers, with other views, choose to complain about it.
I would also echo the comments above that it would be interesting to see police chiefs questioned in this way. I suspect they would get rather annoyed.
BBC News compares very unfavourably indeed with Channel 4 News these days. Perhaps you should try watching it & take notes on how they do it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Kevin Bakhurst is not alone within the BBC in dismissing the level of complaints as having been the result of a web campaign. Over on The Guardian, where the complaints were tangentially mentioned in an article about the Daily Mail, they said that, "A spokeswoman for the BBC declined to reveal how many complaints the corporation had received about the interview, saying it was not policy to do so when there was "obvious evidence of lobbying"."
Kevin, although this is the third comment I've posted here, I haven't yet bothered testifying as to how I came to make my complaint. Like so many that have been so outraged by the arrogance of BBC News on this matter, I too came across this on the new-fangled social media – Facebook – where I noticed several postings of Ben Brown's trenchantly vindictive prosecution of Jody McIntyre. At first, I didn't bother watching it but then I did. Again, like so many here, I am a diehard defender of the BBC, particularly BBC News, yet found myself genuinely appalled.
It wasn't news reporting. It was barely an interview. If anything, it was an inquisition, a prosecutorial investigation with a presumption of guilt applied to Mr McIntyre, applied with absolutely no evidence upon which to base it.
To me, this implies Brown had a preset agenda or, at best, is not up to the task of undertaking the kind of hard questioning you seem to be defending him for, when faced with irrefutable evidence contradicting the line of questioning he chose to take.
Brown's approach was either prejudiced, ignorant or incompetent. I can't see the scope for any other explanation and in the light of this, the BBC, through you and your superior, should promptly apologise, publicly and prominently, to your news audience and Jody McIntyre.
I have never found the need to complain to the BBC before and I am saddened that I have now had to do so. I have not been encouraged to do so by a campaign and, considering the position you hold, I find it arrogant and ignorant that you should assume my complaint and others are the result of this. Even if they were, that would be no grounds for the contemptuous and dismissive way you have handled this issue so far.
Find some humility or find something else to do.
Complain about this comment
I dont think the issue is the interviewee being given enough time to air his views, or how strongly his views are challenged by the interviewer.
The only reason that this is a news-worthy story is the fact that McIntyre is disabled. This means that he clearly posed no threat to the police but nonetheless was treated in an agressive manner.
I wouldn't expect the BBC to rally behind Jody and give an unchallenged platform to express his clearly radical views, or stimulate a patronizing wave of sympathy that ignores the fact that he is an independent young man who willfully put himself in a volatile situation.
I would, however, expect them to take an intelligent line of questioning which treats him as a representative of those who were peacefully protesting and suffered from heavy-handed police tactics and/or those who approach the question of fees from a revolutionary point of view, rather than fixating on if he was a threat or not, and why he hasn't complained yet.
The innapropriateness of both of these laboured points makes Brown seem appalingly patronising and suggest he did not consider Jody to be an interviewee capable of discussing issues beyond his own personal experience (and these he appears to dismiss out of hand). Even when Jody moved the topic on to the broader situation, Brown failed to engage him.
Complain about this comment
Kevin...I thought the whole purpose of the news is to be "Fair and Balanced"? I also think that your attempt at playing the 'controller who wants to hear people's opinion' when you are clearly taking a defensive position is rather quite naive. I thought Ben Brown's interview was disgusting. Simple as that.
However, I would love to know what playing "Devil's advocate" actually means to you? Because it sounds like such a cop-out.
Does that mean that the next time you interview one of our brave soldiers at war, the interviewer is going to attack with questions of civilian deaths by British Forces? I think not and quite rightly.
So please Kevin, call it how it is. A terrible interview by Ben Brown and lessons need to be learned.
Complain about this comment
I would like to add that I have been a staunch supporter of the BBC most of my life.
During the last few months I have felt increasingly uncomfortable with the bias and one-sided representation of the students protest, and have often been on the verge of complaining.
This though was the last straw. An offence of this magnitude on your part should not, and will not, go unchallenged.
Despite Mr Bakhurst vilification, we're not all unthinking sheep, and will individually revolt and yes, complain, when we witness such disgraceful behaviour from the once great British Broadcasting Organisation.
Shame on you for even suggesting we should do this because of ulterior motives.
Complain about this comment
Hi, Kevin - I was one of the apparently numerous viewers who complained about this item. If your opening response constitutes the response to my complaints and others, then thank you for that.
I'm afraid, however, that I find it to be utterly inadequate, evasive and unresponsive to the actual concerns repeatedly expressed on this thread, albeit with an eloquence that gives the lie to the notion that those who complained are mere unthinking lobby fodder, herded into action by an orchestrated campaign. Yes, the website of the BBC complaints department is linked on the YouTube upload of the interview, but what of it? It's clear that those who did object know their own minds, if this thread is anything to go by.
You seem, in your own mind, to have bundled together these complaints straw-man style, into the assertion that Ben Brown was first of all "too challenging" (that is far too vague a summary of the objections to his interview) and that there were worries that in some way his interviewing style was affected by Jody's being disabled. That's really not what anyone was particularly complaining about, as has been retorted time and time and time again here, with a unanimity that should give you serious pause for thought.
You cite as "legitimate, I think" Ben's attempts to establish whether Jody was there as a student or a general protestor. If it were simply that, as a brief bit of background, fine but it went way beyond that - the implication was that Jody's status as a blogger and a "cyber radical" might somehow justify the frenzy with which he was dragged from his chair, and further, that in rolling forward he somehow represented a physical threat to the Force. The howling absurdity of this line of enquiry has been repeatedly pointed out in previous comments.
If this were a one-off lapse on Brown's part, that might be forgivable. However, I don't think I am the only one who feels that this has been sadly typical of the BBC News 24 coverage of these events. I had already issued a previous complaint about Thursday's reporting, which, frankly, was about as "balanced" as Laurel and Hardy on a see-saw, embarrassingly pro-police, pro-establishment, with all attempt to contextualise the events abandoned as soon as Charles and Camilla entered the news equation.
It would be interesting to hear more from Dr Evan Harris, who skipped into this thread to boast of how he'd singlehandedly seen off objectors to Ben Brown with the sword of his Twitter, only to disappear without substantiating his comments.
As the Tomlinson/G2 tragedy told us, the police can no longer get away with the stuff they're accustomed to pulling, or at least no longer evade scrutiny, not in this internet day and age. Neither can you guys. You're being watched closely, too.
Complain about this comment
As someone said earlier
DO YOU GET IT NOW KEVIN?
it's not good at all
Complain about this comment
Well, I`ve been out for a couple of hours but I`m still so incensed by this biased reporting that I`ve come back to read Kevin Bakhurst`s response.There appears to be none.
Do license fee payers and the public in general have any means of pursuing this matter further? Earlier reports relating to last Thursday`s demonstration, on BBC radio today, told of police playing videos of protesters and parents in tears at the awful things their offspring had done.No mention was made of Jody McIntyre`s assault or of the wellbeing of the other protester in hospital receiving brain surgery.
Why are the BBC becoming so biased and one sided in their reporting? As others have said, thank god for the Channel 4 News.
Complain about this comment
I am shocked at this insensitive and offensive interview. As Jody McIntyre states, Ben Brown puts forward a 'ludicrous line of questioning'. McIntyre posed no physical threat to the police, yet his only means of mobility was taken from him. This is a complete infringement of the rights of an individual with cerebral palsy.
What has happened to the standards of unbiased investigative journalism?
Complain about this comment
Ben Brown attempted to make McIntyre out to be a criminal based on zero evidence ,and chose to ignore the video footage of the police dragging him out of his wheelchair. It was nothing short of a interrogation of the victim. Ben Brown like most of your presenters now like to put on a Paxman routine, but without any reason, just aggression for a aggressions sake. 'There was a suggestion' of McIntyre rolling towards the police. Not only is that an incredilbly stupid argument but that is not evidence and is anti-journalism. Following that Brown tries to deviate from the facts of what happened by calling McIntyre a 'revolutionary' which is scare mongering. I hope you revise your so called balance interviewing and consider some of your staff, because you appear to be going the way of Fox news.
Complain about this comment
Kevin,
You've heard from the public so I hope you finally understand.
I'm sure a lot of the posters here would agree with me when I say that the only way to respond to this is with an apology. And not a wishy washy statement hidden on the website that 'apologes for any offence caused' but doesn't admit to any wrongdoing. That simply wont do.
We need an on air apology from Ben Brown to both the viewers and Jody, citing and admitting to what went wrong, and an assurance to the future standard of reporting at the BBC.
And I would expect an apology from you Kevin, to all the commentors on here. You have insulted our intelligence and credibility whilst trying to defend the indefensible. This wont do.
Complain about this comment
the whole point about the Jody Mc Intyre interview wasnt that the interviewer treated him any differently than anybody else , it was that the interviewer was intrinsically biased .the interviewer presented hearsay as facts as he did on the live reporting on the night of the rioting . He should have no place on a BBC reporting team whos job is to present factual information...not propoganda..has the beeb turned into the sun ?
i expect a better standard of reporting than this ..i was both shocked and disappionted by the standard of this journalism ..it was tabloid in the extreme
Complain about this comment
Apart from an apparent misunderstanding of Jody's physical abilities, I think what's aroused so much ire is the tone of the interview. This is absolutely the kind of approach that we expect from a Paxman interview of a professional politician.
However, even if Jody is the hardened activist that Ben tries to paint him as, he is also a member of the public who certainly appears to have been assaulted. The level of aggression during the interview seems quite inappropriate regardless of Jody's physical disposition.
In fact, Ben also mentions his visiting the protest. I certainly had the sense that his experience of the previous day had lead him to some fairly firm conclusions about the legitimacy of the protest, and in this sense the interview went beyond a "devils advocate" approach.
Complain about this comment
This is some of the most incredibly juvenile and unprofessional reporting I have witnessed on the BBC. I would like to think that we are fortunate enough to have a responsible and intelligent press in the UK, and that the BBC are at the forefront of that. Unfortunately, Ben Brown has done a lot to undermine that.
It is not the tone, or the persistence of his questioning that offends me, but rather the complete lack of awareness that Ben Brown demonstrates in this interview. Jody gave some fantastic answers that could have really broadened the interview out into more interesting and productive areas, but was consistently held back by inane questioning about his supposed threat to the police.
What infuriates me is the trend (I get the feeling it is relatively recent, but I'm not that old) of laziness, and possibly even fear in journalists. It is as if Ben Brown is scared of actually entering into a debate on any substantive or idealogical grounds, and so feels that he must repeat completely nonsense questions to stop the interview from going anywhere intellectually challenging.
This is an embarrassment. Ben Brown should be seriously considering his position right now.
Complain about this comment
Who is moderating the comments here? Richard Littlejohn? My first post has been 'referred for further consideration'. That's absurd. There was nothing remotely offensive about it and if Brown's original report is considered fit for public consumption, then my post most certainly is.
Complain about this comment
I would just like to echo so many of the comments already made. The interview was a disgrace due to way Mr. McIntyre was treated by Mr. Brown. One would not ask a murder victim if he thought he deserved it and one would not point out one's political views in order to distract from the fundamental issue at hand.
And then to write off the complaints because someone posted a message that reached many other people as "lobbying" shows a lack of respect for democracy and grassroots movements. People were complaining because they were disgusted with the interview; we are not one mindless herd. We will complain when we see something we don't like and it is highly disrespectful to dismiss the public so blatantly. That is the power of the internet.
I usually defend the BBC from all manner of attacks, but as a disabled person myself, I cannot continue to do so if we disabled (especially those who stand up for their rights) are treated as scroungers and a burden who don't deserve dignity and independence, don't deserve the right to protest, are then kettled and, if that wasn't enough, wheelchairs then taken away by the police.
You must apologise. There is no other way to prevent the loss of even more trust from the public, especially those of us who are disabled, sick or care about the sick and disabled.
Complain about this comment
It's a bit of an old media cliche at this point to argue that sudden waves of popular protest are the result of a "web campaign", or "concerted action by Internet activists", and thus illegitimate. Most recently, Jan Moir did it in the Daily Mail when the Twitterverse reacted badly to her article on Stephen Gateley. It's a surprised response to a very unsurprising Internet phenomenom - lots of people getting access to the same data at the same time and sharing it rapidly with their peers. Many of the same media sources were convinced by the uniting power of social media when it was being used to promote the democracy movement in Iran - they just can't or won't see that it's the same process pointing in a different direction.
It should be clear by now that the complaints are not generally about the questions being "too challenging" - rather that they were in the main offtopic and rather silly, reaching a point of high comedy when a man unable to walk or propel himself was asked if he had been rolling threateningly towards the police and throwing missiles. When that line of inquiry was not productive, he was asked whether he had somehow shouted or _blogged_ in a way that forced the police to intervene physically, presumably in the interests of public safety.
If all BBC News interviews are now conducted as a matter of policy as Daliesque monsterings, fair enough - but post 22 suggests that this is not the case. As such, I am not sure what exactly is meant by "we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstance". I am pretty confident, however, that understanding the origins, both technological and aetiological, of the complaints would be a good starting point for editorial responses.
Complain about this comment
How breathtakingly dismissive of you Kevin Bakhurst to suggest that the overwhelming number of complaints received is due to a web campaign - it shows contempt for the large number of your viewers who have taken the trouble to contact the BBC with serious points to make. You further undermine the complaints by writing them off as a broad charge that Ben Brown was too challenging. I complained not because of any campaign, nor because Ben Brown was too challenging, but because his line of questioning was offensive and ignorant for reasons outlined eloquently by many others above, something I would expect of the tabloid media but not the BBC. Shame on you.
Complain about this comment
@plb_plb: "Tory MPs get a harder grilling that that. What's all the fuss about?"
BECAUSE, Jody wasn't appearing as an MP being asked to justify his viewpoints. He was appearing as a victim of a violent assault, as can quite clearly been seen in the video footage, and he was treated to an insenstive barage of victim blaming, leading questions. Not really comparable!
For Kevin - It is the victim blaming aspect of this interview which outrages me more than how his disability is handled. Particularly the repeated question "but were you rolling towards the police?" I don't think I would feel any differently if the question "were you walking towards the police?", or even 'running', moving towards someone is not justification for the type of violent assault seen in the video, and like Jody I was disappointed that Brown's line of questioning implied it was.
Incidentally, I didn't complain about the original footage as I've only just seen it, but I am very tempted to complain about Kevin Bakhurt's responses to the complaint which seem to further re-enforce the legitimacy of the original complaints... Patroninising and irrelevent.
Complain about this comment
I simply wish to agree with the majority of the comments made... and to applaud Jody McIntyre's articulate and robust handling of a difficult and unpleasant situation.
I hope too that the BBC will keep us informed of the progress of the person so severely injured. I remember Blair Peach. I sincerely hope that the newly politicised students currently exercising their right to protest- in a country that is supposed to be free - will not have a Blair Peach of their own to remember.
Complain about this comment
Dear Kevin,
The reason I felt the need to complain was because I am, as many others are, an intelligent person with a balanced sense of judgement who responded to the unfair treatment of a disabled victim of police brutality (backed up by video evidence) by a BBC interviewer. However, I am also forced to respond to further biased representation of this issue by yourself in the introduction to your blog.
You begin by asserting "I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain." At this point it is clear that your appeal for comments is an example of totally non-objective apologism for Ben Brown's offensive behaviour. It is clear by the comments above that there is no organised campaign: many people are clearly shocked by this issue.
Secondly, in describing Mr McIntyre's interrogation by the BBC, you claim that "Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions." By "assertions" are you referring to the video evidence which clearly shows Mr McIntyre being dragged from his wheelchair by the police? It was more a case of Ben Brown asserting his view of Mr McIntyre as a revolutionary and therefore deserving to be brutalised.
The video speaks for itself Kevin. Mr Mcintyre was clearly a victim, and should have been treated as such. Your Blog is NOT an objective platform for comment, but itpresents itself with the same biased angle as Ben Brown's interview. It is a shame also that you had not shown the FULL interview, which you have edited. If this is how you treat the genuine complaints of BBC licencepayers, then it is clear that we deserve better than this.
Thank You.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad he got the time to make his point, however... how could the interviewer ask such a question as "but were you rolling towards the police?" as if that is an excuse for dragging a disabled person out of their wheelchair, it is absurd and people high up in the BBC need to address this, and give us an answer quick. The interviewer comes across as unintelligent and rather patronising in the tone of his voice and seems to be siding with the police, in fact he does himself no credit. I could go on about having to pay a tax for the BBC but I can't be bothered.
Hope this helps to iron this one out.
Complain about this comment
Does the BBC defend free speech?
BBC interviewer Ben Brown provokes many complaints over "alleged" bias in an interview.
Viewers complain and are accused of being part of an internet campaign.
As complaints grow there are many that have been moderated when authors claim they do not infringe house rules.
The news controller of BBC (Kevin Bakhurst) has his response moderated off.
There is no other response on Editors blog.
Some posts report that the BBC is using another media channel (Newsnight) to brand the complainers as "nerds"
Another nail in the coffin of a once proud institution
Complain about this comment
My comment was removed because you found it broke house rules. Would it be potentially embarassing for the BBC if say, in a few days Mr Bakhurst was made redundant with a generous bonus, while the Director General washed his hands of all responsibility, and this had been predicted on the BBC website?
Of course not.
Complain about this comment
I see Bakhurst made a post on this thread (post 22). Sadly, his comments are not especially useful.
“In answer to banderaroja (9) I'm not trying to pass it off as that - that was the thrust of a number of the complaints we have received and the websites that suggested people complain to the BBC.”
It wasn’t the thrust of my complaint and, judging by the overwhelming majority of the posts here, it’s not the thrust of most complaints. It’s true that your comments might not be an attempt to mislead but there’s plenty of reason to think they might be.
“In answer to your third para - Ben was simply exploring why Mr McIntyre was there - as a student or as a general protestor. Legitimate I think.”
You’re being wildly disingenuous. It’s by no means clear or obvious that that was Brown’s intention. There are other, more obvious interpretations, of his questioning and if Brown's intention was, as you claim, to establish why Jody was there, he’s remarkably bad at his job. If you need proof of this, look above this post: there are around 300 reasons why right there.
“Finally - you are totally wrong re "shockjock" editorial policy. That simply isn't what we do - and I know the audience thinks our tone is important to them, so it would be mad to do that.”
In that case, it looks quite possible that you’ve seriously misjudged your audience. Again, if you’re right, you're wrong and you’re simply highlighting a serious failure at BBC News. You’re not winning this.
Complain about this comment
I have just registered for the first time specifically to complain about what I can only describe as a biased interview. And, adding to that I'm a journalist, a major embarrasment to my profession.
Yes, journalists should push boundaries, treat all those they interview fairly and without prejudice, play devil's advocate and entice their subjects to reveal more than they are willing.
They should not however be intrustive, antagonistic, obnoxious, down-right rude, and so blinkered by the angle they wish to pursue that it is apparent they've become ignorant of the responses being given.
This interview was a shame, a big, big shame; and this should not be the standards of our industry.
And to find out on initial enquiries re: complaining it's suggested to me to read a blog! - there's a helluva a lot more respect to be gained by holding up hands and saying sorry.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dear Kevin and The BBC,
An internet campaign to spread knowledge of biased and unjust reporting of the news is NOT an excuse to belittle complaints.
The interview conducted with Jody McIntyre by Ben Brown was a total disgrace. To even insinuate that a man with cerebral palsy, in a wheelchair could have been a threat to police officers is insane. He was clearly brutalized by a police officer and suffered what is commonly known as 'ASSAULT'.
In summary, what I saw on the screen was Jody McIntyre: A man who stands for what he believes in and does so with strength and pride, answering inane, pathetic and offensive questions from a shameful BBC with dignity and truth in his heart.
Yours sincerely,
A very angry license payer.
Complain about this comment
I sent this email to bbc breakfast, for what it is not worth:
BBC News revealed its deeply ingrained bias and ignorance this morning.
Firstly, the presentable Bill Turnbull and Sian Williams listened politely as Jon Pilger scolded journalists for becoming embedded not just militarily but ideologically. Within minutes of Pilger's departure the normally platitudinous pair turned their attention to a student named Josh McIntyre.
In stark contrast to the show's mini-celebrity presenters, Josh turned out to be an interesting, courageous and lucid young man. Video evidence clearly showed a number of Metropolitan Police employees treating him
brutally during a recent student demonstration in London against the coalition government's education cuts and tuition fee hikes. His own account was even more disturbing because he informed us that the assault shown on video was a second assault by one of the men who had earlier beaten him with a stick.
Taking his cue smartly from the preceding Pilger interview Josh proceeded to contextualise his experience but was immediately interrupted not once but repeatedly by a censorious Turnbull to whom Mr McIntyre's use of the word 'imperialism' was apparently a 'red rag'. I wanted to hear him out and was prevented from doing so by Mr. Turnbull, a former-journalist. Both Turnbull and Williams then followed a line of questioning apparently designed to determine the nature and extent of the victims culpability whilst ignoring completely other important and newsworthy 'lines of inquiry' related to the violent behaviour of the Metropolitan Police employees. Unlike Josh McIntyre, Turnbull and Williams failed to see that 'the politics' is 'the news' and 'the news' is politics. The BBC duo looked biased, jaded, tired, cynical and complacently unaware that they had just been hugely owned.
Turnbull and Williams did not have the measure of their interviewee who was passionate and courageous and determined to speak his mind; the handsomly educated employees of the BBC were at one with the less handsomly educated employees of the Met, in trying to prevent him doing so. Mr. McIntyre has demonstrated that the Metropolitan Police is a danger to anybody who has the courage to act upon their democratic rights outside their limited private space. He has also demonstrated that BBC journalism is an even greater impediment to democracy because it uses its position of privilege to determinedly set the agenda in favour of the powerful and wealthy. British democracy is not only under police house arrest, it is also subject to a BBC-media gagging order.
BBC journalists simply do not have the balls, nor the inclination, to report the truth and should be shamed by the efforts of real journalists around the world who struggle at great personal danger to achieve that. By contrast the BBC serves up a daily mash of soft entertainment laced with political bias called 'news'. It is handsomly paid for that.
Had I not had to earn my living I would have immediately written my complaint 16 hours ago. You can imagine my interest when my daughter texted me from uni in the afternoon to watch a youtube of another BBC interview with Josh McIntyre, this time by Ben Brown. I shall refrain from commenting in detail on Brown's shameful and totally unprofessional effort other than to note the similar editorial bias. Finally, in honour of Pilger, with whom I started, I will quote Ben Brown on his reaction to being saved by a British soldier whilst embedded in Iraq: "It was a natural reaction I suppose, but later I was rather disgusted with my delight. Reporters are supposed to be observers of the battlefield, not participants. I wondered if, by being so close to the British troops, I had somehow crossed an invisible line."
Quite.
Brian Elliott
Complain about this comment
I left a comment here some hours ago and thought I'd check back before retiring to see if Mr Bakhurst has provided a response that addresses the key issues raised in the hundreds of posts on this blog. I have never complained to the BBC before and, to be honest, I was more than a little riled at Mr Bakhurst's comments dismissing complaints about this interview. So I'm feeling quite determined to pursue this.
There is nothing new as yet, which is disappointing, but perhaps (like Mr McIntyre!) Mr Bakhurst needs a little time to consider his options.
In the meantime, I noticed comments regarding the video of the interview posted here, and I noticed that it is very much shorter than the one I have seen. Intrigued, I have just compared the two and it seems that you have entirely removed the introduction to the interview, in which Mr Brown says that the perfectly clear footage of the incident "appears" to show Mr McIntyre being assaulted by police or, as the Independent's commentator put it: Even as they showed the film on the news, Ben Brown said it "appeared to show Mr Mcintyre being pulled from his wheelchair", with a lingering ambiguous "appeared", as if he was going to add: "but it turned out to be a stunt staged by Derren Brown. We were misled by the power of suggestion, and when you look more closely you can see it's a butterfly landing on a petal."
Also in this introduction, Mr Brown delivers word for word a statement issued by the police and raises not a single quibble or question concerning that statement. He does not trouble to address the areas of concern not covered by the statement, nor does he indicate whether the police declined to appear on the programme with Mr McIntyre. Did the BBC ask the police what action, if any, has so far been taken against the officers involved? Mr Brown did not enlighten us on this point. And so on and so forth - it was that introduction and the contrast between the treatment of the police and the treatment of Mr McIntyre that has so incensed so many people. And this is the part that has been excised from the cut-down interview viewable here.
If the interview was balanced and fair, why does Mr Bakhurst feel it prudent only to offer an edited version to visitors? Shame on you, BBC. This is shabby, shabby practice.
Complain about this comment
Hello Kevin,
Thank you for offering this space to voice details.
I sincerely hope you read through all these posts as you requested as the BBC public has taken real time to respond (unpaid) to your request.
I have read them myself and I would like to draw your attention to last few posts 284 282 281 280. These are all excellent and to me focus on 4 key details for your consideration.
1. Bias: There was an intrinsic bias in the nature of the questioning as if the reporter had taken on the role of prosecutor in a court room. it was onesided.
2. Tone of Questioning: The analogy of considering J. Paxman interviewing a seasoned politician is spot on. Aggressive. This was exactly my take on it. Of course Jody gave a sterling rebuttal and good on him. Yet it’s totally disproportionate and inappropriate to a member of the public who has been so clearly brutalised by the police.
3. The line of questioning did not build on Jody’s intelligent and dignified answers. On the contrary it was a dummying down to over simplified tag lines that has characterised the media frenzy that is intoxicated with violence. Jody is extremely articulate and able to engage in-depth. Rather than respond to this Ben Brown directed the interview in such a way as to exhibit a fundamental humiliation to Jody's humanity.
The question is why was Ben hesitant to go for the more substantive and profound line of questioning?
Is it because he is scared or because he had already drawn his own conclusion or perhaps it is symptomatic of his own uncomfortableness with disabled people? This is more likely. In which case this gives substantial endorsement for Jody’s cry of revolution for those who are most marginalised in this society.
4. Democracy and lobbying. I’m afraid if some readers feel a terrible wrong has taken place, lobbying is the most positive constructive and empowering way to go about business. It is called freedom of expression and the right to protest. A wake up call for the BBC.
Next Steps:
Now you have a choice indeed a duty to take on board the hundreds of concerns and respond. Many have requested you provide an apology. I do not believe an apology is good enough. I believe there needs to be an internal review and participatory discussion with all those who report for the BBC and set out a revised set of guidelines so that lessons are learned and something like this will not happen again.
Ben got this very wrong indeed and this could be viewed as an opportunity. You can work to regain the respect of all these remarkable people who have taken the time to answer you because they want and depend on you now more than ever. Thank you for all your do!
Complain about this comment
Yes - interrogate Jody's politics.
Yes - being respectful means being as challenging and assertive in interviewing him as one would with any other interviewee.
The problem arises partly out of the BBC's approach to coverage of demonstrations - as another commenter posted, "The acid test is that if Ben Brown performs an interview about the same incident with the police chief he MUST be as firmly on Jody's side in that as he was against him in this." The BBC's coverage of the student demonstrations has at times been refreshingly respectful of their intentions, e.g. Paul Mason's feature on the Newsnight special last Thursday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/). Another example is this radio interview with the mother of Alfie Meadows, the student who needed brain surgery (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11972771). Both highlight how Ben Brown's interview falls below acceptable standards. Finally, if anyone can find any BBC interviews with the Met or Scotland Yard, it would be interesting to see how they compare.
The above problem is exacerbated by the interviewer's insistent questioning about Jody having made a provocation - as Jody pointed out, surprising and ridiculous to suggest a physical provocation in the first place given Jody's condition; silly in any case to suggest that a shouted provocation would have warranted the police's subsequent actions (just watch the footage); but to repeatedly ask the same question (at 5'48") becomes offensive.
Complain about this comment
I am being moderated by the BBC! lol. Very kind of them. I'd call it censorship. If this site were a glass window I'd throw my laptop at it.
Lampang - kudos for bothering to come back and hold them to account, well done. You have expressed yourself clearly and carefully but i have no expectation that the BBC will understand it - the BBC seems to be part of the problem.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Perhaps there are those in the BBC who didn't realise the Little Britain sketches involving a guy in a wheelchair were comedy.
Like many I will not complain simply because I do not find it an effective way of expressing dissatisfaction with my National broadcaster. I also take issue with the explanation that because Mr McIntyre "sees himself equal to anyone" (because he IS equal to anyone) as a twig for Ben Brown to hide behind in his treatment.
Whatever the events were that lead to the unsavoury spectacle of police officers dragging a man from a wheelchair, the issue is one of perception of an "out of control" law enforcement agency who has now failed to show proportionate ability to deal with public order matters on more than one recent occasion.
It would serve the BBC well to take notes from anyone who has had to bear the indignity of kettling which is not being used in any sensible way by Metropolitan police officers at demonstrations. Any behaviour which treats the law abiding in much the same way as it treats the law breaking is a retrograde step and the BBC have a duty to question politicians on that.
Mr McIntyre has been treated badly no matter how you cut it.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the vast majority of respondents to this blog - this is not only atrocious broadcasting (an outrageous line of questioning by Ben Brown that repeatedly attempts to reinforce the interviewees role as the perpetrator of his own mistreatment by police)- it is also a pathetic response on the BBC's part.. don't complain, we've already cleared it up via a blog that utterly absolves our presenter of any wrongdoing. I'd expect this from the Met but hoped for more from the BBC.
The final straw is the idea that somehow a 'web campaign' is responsible for the public's widespread outrage. No 'web campaign' brought me to this page- but even had it done so, should it somehow belittle my complaint or mitigate my anger?
Complain about this comment
Why has my comment been referred for 'further consideration'? Trying to hide critical posts for as long as possible I presume. Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just so I'm clear before I start: the actions of the police were abhorrent.
However there's nothing in the BBC interview that looked like Jody McIntyre was treated any more or less harshly than any other person interviewed on BBC News. I think many of the commentators on here don't realise the importance of the interviewer playing devils advocate, to a) make sure of Mr McIntyre's allegations (which were obvious) and b) expose the police action for the ridiculousness that it was.
Ben Brown's challenging questions were no more harsh than those that would be leveled at a "normal" person. And there lies the irony. Just because Mr McIntyre is in a wheelchair Ben Brown expected to be more nice to him? That in itself is belittling. He's a young man with a disability not an injured puppy.
Complain about this comment
This is simply disgusting. And upsetting. And just horrible. I'm not sure which is worse Mr Bakhurst.
The police who are supposed to only use "reasonable force" pulling someone with cerebral palsy out of a wheel chair.
An interviewer who insinuates that the person may have deserved such treatment because they were "wheeling towards the police"
Or the spokesperson for what is supposed to be a highly respected news service trying to pull the "what’s the problem ? we treated him like anyone else" card.
Lets start with the first.
The police's actions against Mr McIntyre were clearly excessive and unwarranted. It doesn't matter if what Mr McIntyre was doing he clearly presented no danger to the police or the public. They are supposed to protect the peace not exacerbate it. They are trained to turn the other cheek unless there is a threat to peoples safety. This was clearly not the case. The police in this instance were completely wrong and if you should be going after anyone it's the officers who perpetrated this horrendous attack. Your failure to pursue the police in this matter is disgusting.
Mr Browns line of questioning clearly insinuates that the attack may have been Mr McIntyres fault for provoking the police and identifying himself online as a “revolutionary” How pathetic and utterly ridiculous. Even if Mr Mcintyer was an able bodied activist who claimed to be Guy Fawkes incarnate that would not in anyway justify a police officer taking the action they took. Are your interviewers seriously that dumb or is your agenda so warped that a phrase like “were you wheeling yourself towards them ?” somehow manages to make it through your common sense filter ? Do I pay for this level of insightful journalism ? The utter lack of professionalism impartiality and common sense is disgusting.
Lastly your statement... I truly think this is the worst thing about this whole mess. That you have the audacity to pull a cheap reverse psychology trick, flip the argument to suggest that we, the angry viewers are somehow unjustifiably angered by the above two statements because McIntyre just wants to be treated like everyone else is utterly and totally despicable. It is nauseating. Mostly because it is so utterly transparent and don’t you dare pretend to me or to yourself that it wasn’t your intention. It is one of the slimiest most inhuman attempts to cover your own back I have ever witnessed and I am utterly disgusted by you.
Complain about this comment
You know... the upshot is that stuff like this rings the death knell for institutions like BBC news.
why would I listen to biased ill informed interviews when I can read blogs from people who were actually there and who stand on all sides of the debate ?
Why do I need Brown suggesting McIntyre may have provoked the police when I can watch what happened on youtube and make up my own mind ?
Sorry Kevin. You're regime is dying, and it's interviews like this that are making it happen.
Complain about this comment
At the risk of seeming boring, I can only reiterate some of what so many people in here have already said...How can anyone in a wheelchair be a possible danger to anyone let alone an armed policeman? The relevant question regarding the throwing of a missile, along with many others lacked any kind of forethought on the part of the interviewer who at times appeared to me to be grasping at straws in order to be controversial.Unbiased he was not!!
Complain about this comment
Now that photographic evidence has been produced to show that Jody McIntyre was gently removed by police to a place of safety at some risk to themselves; and now that we have photographic evidence that a passer-by prevented him from assaulting the police; and now that we know he is not entirely confined to a wheelchair and that he boasts on his blog of climbing to the top of a tall building at the last demonstration, perhaps they people criticising Ben Brown will now apologise? Could it be that they themselves were being patronising and discriminatory in assuming that because McIntyre is disabled that therefore he must be innocent?
Complain about this comment
"I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances"
I would suggest that this is simply not true. If the interview had been purely focussed upon Mr McIntyre's political views then I might accept this; the BBC is well known for its "robust" handling of issues that are subject to debate.
However, in this instance Ben Brown went beyond a robust style of questioning. He repeated questions regarding Mr McIntyre's timing of an official complaint to the Met and whether he had thrown anything at police during the demonstration. This implied dishonesty on the part of Mr McIntyre. In fact, Mr Brown seemed more like a cross-examining defence lawyer for the Met and less like a probing, but neutral, journalist.
Had a Met spokesman been subject to an equally undermining treatment, either immediately prior to (or following) the McIntyre interview, then I think you would have received many fewer complaints. I hope that BBC News can redeem themselves by apologizing for their mistake and correct for it by inviting both the Met & McIntyre back so that we can have a more balanced take on the whole incident.
The forcible removal of an apparently harmless person from a wheelchair, whether by the police or anyone else, understandably provokes strong emotions. As such the BBC should have dealt with the incident in a more neutral and sensitive manner.
Complain about this comment
@ MaggieL
The photos conflict with the video evidence shown and the statements of Mr McIntyre and others. Some people have interpreted them as a "gentle removal", and it is certainly a very interesting spin on the situation, but the other evidence does not bear this out.
Regarding your comment that Mr McIntyre is not confined to a wheelchair - your point is what? He has not claimed to be confined to a wheelchair, but his condition leaves him with mobility difficulties which necessitate the use of a wheelchair in most circumstances. This does not mean he is faking his condition or that it is not a constant.
Complain about this comment
The key issue - as already stated - is how absurd it is of Ben Brown to make out that a wheelchair bound cerebral palsy sufferer was a threat to police to any extent that would justify his appalling treatment. The interview is like a Chris Morris sketch gone wrong.
What I find remarkable is:
1) The BBCs decline towards Sky News standard of journalism
2)Kevin Bakhurst’s attempt to justify the unjustifiable and defend Brown as if we’re all shallow enough to fall for the absurd defence.
I rent out my UK property and pay for the licence fee. I will not be renewing next time.
Complain about this comment
No need for me to add to the points raised that the interview was a travesty. If you have to ask then you shouldn't be a controller at the BBC and shouldn't attempt to defend this farce as journalism. But, given the BBC is a publicly funded organisation and this is now NEWS, will you be interviewing Ben Brown in the same 'robust' manner? Asking him to defend his narrow-minded line of questioning? Will you be asking him "Are you proud of the interview? What are your feelings toward disabled people? Who told you to pursue only one side of the argument? Is this BBC policy?". They are fair questions and the BBC is supposed to be impartial - even when questioning itself of bias and prejudice. Will there be such an interview? If not, why not?
Complain about this comment
Sorry Kevin - WRONG ANSWER!
You seem to be saying 'we interview all people fairly, and therefore we have no need to exercise sensitivity'.
There is one problem with that.
If the interviewer had been interviewing a rape victim, do you feel it would be fair to say "There has been some suggestion that you wore a short skirt, and were 'asking for it'". I doubt you would be defending such a question here, and if you would so, I would love for you to state that also.
There is no doubt that the interviewer far from just gaining a perspective of the incident, was attempting to insinuate dark motives and agendas on the part of the victim.
The only surprise of this interview by the end, was that the BBC didnt try to link Mr McIntyre with Al-Qaeda!
Complain about this comment
Another day and, other than a few rather ridiculous posts, people continue to point out the flaws in the interview and the BBC's defence of it.
The silence from the BBC is still deafening. They called for comments and then failed to address them. At best this shows that the BBC have yet to grasp that this is a two-way medium, not the one-way medium they are used to.
I too took the trouble to regtister for this site, so that I could express my dissatisfaction with the interview and the defence of it. I head about this via Internet, but that does not mean I am part of some "web campaign" which does my thinking for me. I didn't see the original interview as I have better things to do than watch dumbed down television day and night. News 24 is occasionally useful, but if this interview is typical of News 24 then it is not doing anything different to $ky and we might as well save the money by shutting it down.
There is a BBC Trust. If I thought they were capable of holding the BBC to account I would complain to them about the lack of response to the complaints here.
Complain about this comment
For many, many years I have trusted the BBC to provide me with news that is unbiased, ethical and informative. It is something that I cannot find here in the United States. Unfortunately this farce of an interview is far too similar to the drivel that my country tries to force feed its citizens. I may have to frequent another news organization in the near future.
Complain about this comment
If this were a coordinated campaign you would not have so many individually written responses. Campaigns quite often offer up a template for a letter to send to an MP or to a media organisation - whoever it is that the complaint/protest/pleading is aimed at. What has happened here is that people have heard about the interview, viewed it, and then reacted angrily - as individuals - to the horrible bias of the BBC. I wish there was more unbiased reporting and decent investigative journalism around but instead what we get a lot of the time is practically propaganda. The Sky news reporting of the protests has just been images of student 'violence' on a loop.
Complain about this comment
I'm obviously not alone but I saw this on the news and I'm not part of a web campaign. The shocking visual content seemed to have no relation to the interrogation. Ben Brown seems unsuitable for this kind of work - I have read about him on Wikipedia and he seems to have made his reputation as a war correspondent and is continuing to approach his job in that spirit. He brings an assumption that his interviewee is 'on the other side'. This isn't good journalism and it would be interesting to know if he was under some instruction, or if he is just naturally lacking in charm, tact and impartiality.
Complain about this comment
Alan Partridge rides again.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I do not agree that Ben Brown's interview style was too challenging or offensive, because Mr McIntyre took the questions on the chin and answered them intelligently for the most part.
However the actual content of Brown's questions was poor. He had not done enough research into Mr McIntyre's disability or into his job to ask the right questions. It seemed as if he had not looked at Mr McIntyre's website, but merely read other journalist's news about it. I think this is shoddy journalism and would expect higher quality questioning from a news presenter.
From the outset of the interview, Brown appears unsure about what he is talking about and this lack of clarity continues throughout.
One final point on style. Although the challenging approach did not offend me, I think that a softer approach could have yielded better results. This is often the case in interviews about controversial topics where the interviewee is likely to already be on edge and challenging questions will just result in a shouting match that does not delve into deeper issues.
Complain about this comment
This is an unfortunate interview by a very poor journalist indeed. In the 17 years I have lived in the United States, I have often looked back and held up UK TV journalism as competent, sensitive, informed, and comparatively un-ideological by contrast with this country. Sadly, this interview is nasty and amateur stuff that would sit well on the Fox News Channel and other projects of the Murdoch organization. Self-righteous innuendo takes the place of establishing facts. Unnamed figures are invoked as alibis for critiques of the interviewee. A wheelchair is turned into a weapon, rhetorically. The victim is made the victimizer. This is shallow and asinine. The incompetence, though, shines through--above all. Give this man a desk job where he stares into a mirror and thinks alone. For a long time. Alone. Without a microphone.
Complain about this comment
The editor writes:
"I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it."
In fact there have been several "campaigns" in that it has been the subject of discussion across the net.
It is not that Ben Brown was "too challenging" but that he was condescending to the interviewee.
If Mr. Brown has pre-conceived ideas about the demonstrators or Mr McIntyre's role in the events, then it is hard for the viewer not to have pre-conceived ideas about the overwhelming public school and Cambridge / Oxford backgrounds of BBC presenters and how this reflects the output of BBC news.
However, the editor is right when he states that Mr McIntyre gave a strong account of himself. Indeed he did. The result was a highlight of this years TV output, but one that came about accidentally and at the expense of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
How very BBC! Is there not even a recognition that this was just bad interviewing beyond anyone else? I am a journalism lecturer and watched this with students and the Director of a media ethics organisation and we watched with shock! There was no one prompting us through an "organised campaign" to react thus - it was just shockingly bad interviewing.
For instance, having just been informed that the victim can't use the wheelchair himself, Brown goes on to ask if he threw anything. Thereafter he was asked if he "shouted" anything that would "induce" such a reaction on behalf of the police. What an absurd question, and yes it does indicate that Brown was seeking a justification, not just inquiring. The only logical adjunct to such a question is "if you shouted XYZ, it would be natural that the police would drag you out of your chair".
Similarly the Brown implies that the aggressive behaviour on the part of the police can only be understood as a *response* to aggression on the part of protesters - the only thing Brown could imagine besides throwing and shouting is "rolling towards" the police, as if that would "induce" such a response. Again, what would Brown have said if McIntryre had been "rolling" towards the police line? "Ah, well, you see that explains it Mr McIntyre. You see, when someone with cerebral palsy rolls towards a police line it is in the policing handbook that they drag you out of your chair and dump you on the pavement".
Ultimately Brown, and the BBC (and most other news organisations), understand the whole situation as the "small minority of troublemakers" initiating the violence. Well, I was there too, and unlike Brown, I was not allowed to exit the kettle at will!! I took photographs from the start to the end of the day and was fortunate enough not only to photograph the moment at which the police kitted up to begin the kettle - when there had been absolutely no violence whatsoever, but also to spend half an hour talking off-the-record to a very senior Scotland Yard source who as much as admitted the policing was politically motivated. Had Brown been a bit more of a journalist and less of a mouthpiece for the police, he might have understood the situation in a more balanced and accurate manner and therefore interviewed McIntyre as a victim rather than a suspect.
As for your suggestion that Brown interviewed as he would anyone else, it hardly warrants a response - you know perfectly well that different interviewees are interviewed differently. The BBC would not interview victims of the 7/7 bombings in the same way, "you say the bombers targeted you... if that is true.." or "what do you think the British state has done to induce such violence on the part of the bombers... a web site stays it was the result of British imperialism in the Middle East going back 150 years...". I think not.
Complain about this comment
I am not a protestor, student, or revolutionary but have taken the effort to register here to add to the comments made. The interview and follow up on it by the BBC is absurd. Surely the BBC will agree with the common points being raised in such volume here? Imagine the BBC coverage of the video if it had been filmed in China? I suspect there would be lots or jumping up and down about human rights,
democracy and brutality; but it is fine in London? The footage is clear enough to form a view on, and the police actions are a disgrace. It is indefensible, the BBC was not simply playing devils advocate.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Jody MacIntyre came out of it very well, Ben Brown was perfectly fair in his questions. The comments about Ben Brown posing a threat, are also fair, as there are varying degrees of cerebral palsy, and the general public might not know that.
Well done to all concerned.
Complain about this comment
I think you're editorial here indicates a huge blind spot when it comes to this interview -
"I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances.."
Of course, the problem is, Jody McIntyre wasn't any other interviewee was he? I presume the BBC will not be conducting interviews with all the able bodied people who had been dragged across the street by police during the protests?
So when the story is that a disabled man has been manhandled by the police, I'd expect the BBC to take into account the point of the story - that the Police attacked a disabled man.
"Did you wheel towards the police?" is a bizarre question (and the inference that if Jody had wheeled towards them, they could understandably drag him from his chair across the ground is deeply disturbing)
But when the interviewee responds by saying he cannot operate his wheelchair on his own, to then ask "did you throw anything?" is bordering on offensive.
Complain about this comment
WHAT WEB CAMPAIGN?
Mr. Kevin Bakhurst writes 'I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview'.
What 'campaign' is that? Is campaign the accurate word to be used by a professional in journalism to summarize people posting the video or their reaction and adding a link to the BBC complaints? Is anything that gains momentum on the internet to be considered automatically as something suspicious because one has to assume it is organized by unknown campaigners, as opposed to e.g. a genuine and spontaneous expression of indignation?
Designating the reactions to this questionable interview as a 'campaign' without any argument, is substandard journalism. It also immediately alienates all those people who genuinely expressed their protest against the interview.
GENUINE INTEREST
And Mr. Bakhurst's appeal for comments also rings a similar false note: 'however I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview. I would obviously welcome all other views.'
Yes, but, if there are indeed 'a considerable number' of complaints (what is wrong what quoting a number?) why doesn't Mr. Bakhurst read them to fulfill his genuine interest? Judging by the comments on Mr. McIntyre's blog, I imagine there are numerous well expressed complaints among them.
Or is it because all these complaints are to be taken with suspicion because they are the result of this unspecified 'campaign'? And will the posts on this blog all be honest and trustworthy?
One can only wonder if what Mr. Kevin Bakhurst is trying to achieve here, is to create a webpage with some pro copy to score in google? Looks like this is backfiring though.
I am in no way affiliated with any organised or spontaneous movement regarding the tuition fees or with Mr. McIntyre. I live outside the UK as an expat in Africa. I respond out of indigination to both the Ben Brown interview and the way this blog thread is launched. Both seem symptomatic to me for what I'd call an alarming and ongoing lowering of standards of the BBC news services, both on television and online.
Complain about this comment
Morning Kev, RESPOND!....or are you going to refer this comment for further consideration as well?
Complain about this comment
I worked for the BBC in London for 5 years and left to go freelance only recently and I'm appalled at Ben Brown's interview technique.
Jody was treated as a suspect not a victim.
Even after showing video evidence Ben continued to suggest that Jody has asked for it by "rolling towards" the police.
This is awful journalism.
It's a line you'd expect from to hear from Chris Morris or an Alan Partridge character.
Ben came across as seeking justification, not inquiring.
Would it be ok for Ben Brown to ask a woman who had been attacked - what were you wearing? Was it too short? Did you walk towards him?
As Jody said on BBC Breakfast the day after - We should all the democratic right to protest without having to fear the force of a police baton on our heads on a police shield in the face.
The real questions need to be asked of the police. Where did that situation go wrong? Do the police need more training when handling people in wheel chairs?
Ben Brown has let your news team down and the BBC down.
You may think Ben's interview was fine - but there seems to be a lot of people (that started to voice their opinions through tweeter and youtube - yes hello to the social media world -that's not a campaign against the BBC) who think differently.
Kevin - You asked for people's comments. Now to need to review what the majority are saying and take action or respond.
Complain about this comment
I complained yesterday, unaware of the internet campaign to complain having seen the clip on youtube free of any commentary or suggestion as to what it contained. I was unaware of the incident until this and so came upon it only in the context of this interview.
As, rather than answer my complaint, I was directed here I will repost my letter in full.
I would agree with comments above that I was not complaining of your treatment of Jody as "a disabled person" but as the victim of actions by the police as shown in your own footage. If this is how you would treat "anybody else" then I think you need to seriously rethink your approach to journalism as a whole.
I am writing regarding your recent interview with Jody McIntyre relating to his being dragged from his wheelchair by the Metropolitan Police at the protests on the 9th of December.
Based on the clip you showed I think it is clear that at the very least Jody has a very good case to complain to the police regarding his treatment. The clip does not show if there was or was not any provoking behaviour on the part of Jody, and other than a hear say statement by your reporter that Jody may have been "rolling forward" there was no evidence or assertion put forward that Jody in any way incited the actions of the officers in the clip.
While this is not really relevant to this complaint, I would highlight that, while I would not be so dismissive as to presume that a disabled man could not take aggressive actions or act in an unruly or unacceptable manner, I would find it very hard to imagine any action which could be taken by a man who states he is incapable of moving forward his own wheel chair which could require being mobbed by armed police and dragged from his physical supports along a hard road leaving him completely vulnerable to the ongoing assault and unable to even move away or it would appear adjust his posture or curl up in defence etc.
With the above in mind I was astounded when the interviewer almost immediately launched into what appeared to be an extremely biased attack on Jody which he then sustained for around 7 minutes.
During the 8 minute slot the interviewer started out by reading out the police statement which simply stated that there had yet to be an official complaint, but that it was being looked at and they would be contacting Jody. This seemed to be a fairly standard response in such a situation, but appeared to be taken up by the interviewer as something for which Jody should answer. It was put to Jody as almost a rebuttal of his position and the interviewer said "it's been several days now" and asked why he hadn’t. I am unsure of when this interview took place as I viewed it on Youtube, but since the demonstration was the 9th, and I write this on the 14th it can only have been between the 10th and the 13th which doesn’t seem to me to be an unreasonable amount of time to take to seek advice before taking on the Metropolitan Police in potential legal action.
The interviewer then puts forward a "suggestion" that Jody had been rolling forward towards the police. The interviewer does not state that there was so much as an anonymous witness "suggesting" this, just that there was a suggestion that it could have happened. This appears a very spurious accusation, and I think Jody dealt with the insinuation behind it wonderfully by highlighting that he was unable to move his own wheelchair forwards, that he posed little threat as a disabled unarmed man in a wheelchair when faced with a group of armed police and that the interviewer appeared to be suggesting that this would in some way justify the actions of the police. Your interviewer did not address this last point at all and continued by asking if Jody was not denying that he was rolling forward. This is ridiculous and offensive. The BBC’s role is to portray a balanced account of newsworthy issues, I would expect your interviewer to say a lot of "nobody from the Met is available" or "of course we have yet to hear from the Met regarding this and they have yet to be officially informed" etc, but to begin to attempt to undermine this young man's case with spurious "suggestion", and to appear to try to justify what would be an appalling attack in the face of anything short of a firearm, to my mind goes against the most basic principles of journalism as I would understand them.
Your interviewer is not a prosecutor, defence attorney, judge or jury and would do well to consider that before inflicting whatever he was attempting to achieve on a young man who has already been physically attacked and perhaps could do without a verbal attack to compliment it at the hands of BBC.
The interviewer went on to bring up quotes from Jody's webpage saying he was a revolutionary and believed in direct action. I think it is fair to say that any person at those protests was attempting a revolt against the policy of the incumbent government and that they were, by virtue of attending a protest, taking direct action. This may have been interesting if it was used to maybe debate the direct action being taken, and get Jody's views on the demonstrations and the extremes being seen, but it again was put forward in such a way that it appeared the BBC was trying to paint Jody as some modern day Guy Fawkes, not a young man exercising his rights within a democracy to protest and engage in free speech. As Jody said, those are words and not a physical threat to the armed officers who attacked him.
Jody then goes on to put forward a very reasoned and eloquent portrayal of many of the factors surrounding the demonstrations and asks that he not be seen as the victim in this, and that he does not wish to draw attention away from the issues around the protest. He also highlights that there have been other incidents within the protests where the Police have attacked protesters and raises the case of the other young man who has made headlines after suffering brain injury when struck by a police officer. Jody then highlights that this does not appear to be being given the same weight as it might be given had it been a police officer or one of the royal family caught up in the skirmishes that had been struck instead, highlighting his perception (understandable considering) that the BBC is showing bias in coverage of the protests and police actions therein.
Your Interviewer again decides to circumnavigate the expected route of "that's a different case" or "that is being investigated and we do not have the findings" or other such usual language used when the interviewer is faced with only one side of a debate and is attempting to show a rounded position; Your interviewer instead chooses to raise that he saw protesters throwing rocks at those protests where the second young man was struck. He does not say that there is evidence that the young man in hospital was throwing rocks, just that it was going on. Again, he appears to be justifying the actions of the police, even where they would be considered severe at best and brutal by most with a general response that there may have been some provocation. this is not journalism, it is tit-for-tat attack worthy perhaps of the tabloid media, but certainly beneath the standards I would hope the BBC would uphold.
We live in a country where the police and the average person in the street have very similar rights when it comes to the use of physical restraint and pre-emptive attack and those are always based around the use of minimal force. Your Interviewer appears to suggest at numerous points in the interview that police nearly killing one young man and attacking a second in a wheelchair is excusable if 'some people' throw rocks, or if Jody 'may' have been rolling forward. This is offensive, unnecessary, legally misleading and again serves no purpose journalistically. Is he attempting to provoke Jody into saying something controversial? is he voicing his own beliefs relating to the actions of demonstrators? Whatever he was attempting it was clumsy, unnecessary and made for extremely uncomfortable viewing.
Jody is then asked if he was throwing things at the police, and later if he was "Shouting anything provocative" or throwing anything that would "Induce the Police" to do that to him. Again, what would it take to (reasonably) induce a group of armed trained officers to drag an unarmed young man with cerebral palsy from his wheel chair, twice, and according to Jody strike him with a baton on the first occasion? Was there any evidence that the journalist was aware of but failed to cite which would lead him to believe that Jody had been a physical threat at the protest? is it standard practice to accuse people being interviewed following an attack if they provoked it?
The "Revolutionary" quote is raised again and by this point I was beginning to feel more sorry for the journalist than Jody, as he was obviously flailing around for some sort of argument he felt obligated to make for whatever reason and was being faced with a very calm, well education, lucid and reasonable young man who was clearly highlighting the inexcusable, feeble, offensive and completely unnecessary contributions of your interviewer and thus highlighting his failings as a broadcast journalist beautifully.
I am ashamed that this man has been subjected to this manner of treatment from the police and the BBC in fairly equal measure.
While we have a conservative prime minister this is not the 1980s. Police brutality should be highlighted, independently investigated and then publically and decisively dealt with, not put forward by an 'independent' public body as justified without a shred of evidence and before any investigation has even been held. I would also hope we are past the era of "asking for it" defences to any attack.
I am writing because I feel party to this young man's treatment by paying taxes and licence fees and would feel doubly so if I did not object to your corporations handling of this event in the strongest terms.
I see no place for your interviewer or his tactics in broadcasting and would hope that I never see his face again on the BBC. I would also question any editor or production manager who allowed the interview to continue once the interviewer began his spurious assault on Jody.
I would appreciate a full answer on how this was allowed to happen and a copy of your guidelines relating to interview bias and any safeguarding policies relating to the treatment of victims of assault during interview.
I have copied this complaint to Ofcom.
Amber P-M.
Complain about this comment
Jody McIntyre, what a brave, intelligent and eloquent young man. Ben Brown, obviously not the sharpest tool in the box, whilst ok with an autocue, not the best at informed intelligent debate.
He also has an unfortunate lack of charm and a belligerent attitude.
The BBC News channel often has these painfully ridiculous moments when the regular presenters blunder their way through a badly thought out interview and end up being insulting/patronising/pathetic.
Not good for anyone involved.
I would suggest a small interview team is set up apart from the presenters who have the appropriate skill and time to conduct interviews in a proper manner.
For what is considered to be one of the leading News reporting organisations in World Media, it must be embarrassing.
There is no discussion or debate about the rights or wrongs of pulling someone from their wheelchair.
It's just not done, under any circumstance.
Complain about this comment
The acid test is that if Ben Brown performs an interview about the same incident with the police officers involved he MUST be as firmly on Jody's side in that as he was against him in this.
The police chief was not there and police do tend to collaborate in evidence giving, the should commentate on the footage and explain their actions.
Complain about this comment
More than two hours after my last comment, but still a deafening silence from the BBC.
I suppose one of two things may be happening to cause the silence. It might be that the BBC is, in its sluggish way, working out how to climb down and admit a mistake. Or it may be that the short statement from the BBC is all that us proles are going to get, and better than we deserve.
I hope the first interpretation is the correct one, but I fear the second is more likely.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
This blog has to be one of the most complacent responses I have ever seen to a frankly disgraceful piece of "journalism" - Mr McIntyre was a member of the public who had been through a traumatic experience at the hands of the police, and was being completely open with his responses - it was not as if he were an elusive professional politician where aggressive interviewing techniques might have been appropriate. I was disgusted and angry before reading this, but I am absolutely furious by the tone of this response, and by the complete lack of understanding it demonstrates by somebody who has been elevated to a position of some authority. I have always been very pro-BBC - *very pro* - but this entire business is making me feel sick, and very concerned for the future of the BBC as the country seems to be entering dark days.
Complain about this comment
The email I received linking to this comment implied that my only reason for complaining about this interview was a web campaign.
This is not the case and I also find this particualrly dismissive of my views.
After a web campaign the BBC responded very promptly to a prank phonecall made by Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross, clearly they appreciated the public's opinion and feedback in that matter but not in this one.
The portrayal and treatment of disabled people in the media in this country is often concerning. This interview was another way for the media to show ignorance of issues facing diabled people, as well as a clear bias against Jody McIntyre in the interview. He had already explained he could not operate his wheelchair himself when Ben Brown asked him if he threw anything at the police. The interviewer also says the video "allegedly" shows the assault: the video can only show or not show such a thing.
The purpose of the interview seemed to be to dicredit and disbelieve Jody McIntrye, it does not show any impartiality, and I find the BBC's response to the complaints of myself and others incredibly dismissive.
Complain about this comment
The language of equality is just empty rhetoric. It is very disappointing to see how even the BBC has come to act like politicians. I would urge the BBC to apologize not only to Jody McIntyre but to its entire audience so that people can trust it again.
Complain about this comment
It's quite unbelievable that Brown used a line of questioning whose import was that if the interviewee (disabled or not - its irrelevant to this point) was a revolutionary that that to some degree exonerated the police. In other words, if you criticise the state, it's OK for the state's forces to beat you up.
If that is now establishment thinking, then we have come a long way from a free, open and democratic society that the UK state and its organs (including the BBC) purport to uphold.
Would the line of questioning with its implicit assumptions have been the same if the interviewee had been a victim of rape? 'You dressed attractively, therefore a rape is in some way your fault'? I don't think so. I see little difference.
Complain about this comment
Brown suggests throughout the interview that McIntyre provoked the police. He asks the same questions in different times and continuously interrupts him. For the BBC, to say that Brown treat McIntyre as anyone else is to completely dismiss the point that Brown was not only unprepared but obviously conducted a bias interview that attempts to accuse the 'victim' of provoking the act of the perpetrator. Not that he is a 'victim' because he is in a wheelchair but because he was taken away from his wheelchair, making him far more vulnerable. The question about him being a 'revolutionary' is pathetic...as the entire interview. This only exposes how the BBC seems to be allied with the government and how pathetic Brown's performance was.
Complain about this comment
The interview is an example of the gap in understanding and perception between elite media and the public. In almost every way, from Ben Brown's tone - a tone he would never adopt if he were interviewing a police spokesman - to the points he would not allow Jody McIntyre to develop (eg, how BBC reports on Palestine), this interview serves as a lesson in what is going wrong in the mainstream media. Ben Brown has done no homework, seems to not know anything about his subject other than reports he is a "radical" "revolutionary", and is not at all embarrased asking a man with cerebal palsy if he pointed his wheelchair at the police. While most journalists seem to see Chomsky and Herman's "Propaganda Model" as an ideological construct, this interview proves the points Chomsky and Herman make: that far from being a conspiracy, the mainstream journalist is so blinded by his/her assumptions they will always treat power as trustworthy and threats to power as suspect (this can also be seen in the elite mindset that produced the diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks - the views of those who run countries is valid, the people who LIVE in these countries are assumed to be the same as those in power, and in any case the people are never asked). I will make the assumption that the BBC will continue to dismiss the widepsread public reaction as a "web campaign", but I hope I am wrong.
Complain about this comment
Where is this so called "web campaign"? What you are experiencing, my good fellow, is a perfectly natural reaction from those who consume mainstream media.
Just bite the bullet on this one - the BBC looked pathetic and should issue an apology for insulting the intelligence of its viewers.
Jody McIntyre opened a full can of whoop-ass on you guys. Good on him!
Complain about this comment
My concerns not disimilar to those of others who have questioned Mr Brown's interviewing techique. It appeared at times as if Mr McIntyre were in 'the dock' and being goaded by the prosecution, so much so that whilst watching I half expected a voice to jump in and say "objection, your honour".
Despite Mr McIntyre's very clear responses Mr Brown continually badgered on about students throwing missiles, and asking whether Mr McIntyre had been involved in those activities. It appeared that Mr Brown was implying that the hurling of a rock (ableit not applicable in Mr McIntyre's case) justified the type of behaviour of these Police Officers were metering out, leaving the viewer feeling that if Mr McIntryre had indeed been physically able to hurl a rock, Mr Brown would have deemed the police dragging him from his wheelchair an acceptable response.
Mr Brown quite clearly was not 'listening' to the responses of Mr McIntyre and seemed to have an odd agenda of justifying Police behaviour.
It was cheap, nasty, and biased interviewing.
Complain about this comment
The arrogant response of the BBC to complaints about this disgraceful interview shows a bunker mentality which does the BBC no good at all.
One of the reasons that so many people have taken the time to write detailed criticisms of the interview is that, for all its faults, the BBC is a worthwhile organisation. We have written these long comments because we want the BBC to be what it should be, strong, independent but also respectful of people, not the poodle of government, government officials and government's big business overlords that it often is. Is the BBC so institutionally thick these days that it can't see this?
Complain about this comment
This type of interviewing really does not belong on our shores, please leave that to the American networks such as Fox news to completely ignore the real situation and push agendas. Real journalism should also be prepared to show the darker sides to establishments such as government and the police force and not bow down to their masters demands.
Complain about this comment
Jody McIntyre was more than capable of tackling the questions put to him but it is these questions that are the contentious issue. It is not a case that he was asked challenging questions, which is an mportant part of the interview, but it is the ridiculuos nature of them. Following a response where Mr McIntyre states that he is unable to push his own wheelchair the interviewer proceeds to then enquire whether he was throwing objects at the police? Common sense and listening to the previous answer would have avoided this farce.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, it seems you've got yourself into a bit of a mess Kevin. Posting the link to Jody's blog seemed like a thinly veiled reactionary attempt to justify the interview and therefore provide an 'answer' to the large number of critics. Your handling of this situation is, at best, misguided, in my opinion.
Nonetheless, some of the contents of Jody's blog (assuming of course that it is all genuinly his - something by the way which people are often too quick to accept on the internet) does raise some questions, some of which could have been relevant to the approach taken in the interview (for example, Jody says in his blog that he walked up the stairs to the roof of the Tory HQ, and helped to dismantle barriers placed in a road - these statements clearly call into question the comments Jody made in the interview about his physical abilities and the threat he could potentially pose). BUT, and here is the important point, this could only be used as a reason for Ben's interrogation (and it was an interrogation) if Ben had either prefaced the interview with some of the background research about Jody's blog posts OR mentioned Jody's blog during the interview. Furthermore, EVEN had that occured then I, and I imagine many others, would STILL be of the opinion that the line of questioning used and attitude taken by Ben in the interview was not balanced. AND, all of this is assuming of course, that the approach taken by Ben's interview had been influenced by him or you (or someone else in the newsroom) having read Jody's blog BEFOREHAND and therefore deciding that there were some questions to raise. IF, on the other hand, you have simply reviewed Jody's blog in the aftermath and then posted a link to it on here (post number 99 - now conveniently removed) then you have some pretty serious questions to ask yourself and also answers to provide on here.
I suspect that the silence we've heard on here since your last remarks (together with the retraction of post no.99) is down to the BBC realising that this issue was rather more significant than they had hoped, and as such I suspect the BBC are now seeking legal advice.
Yours,
An old friend.
Complain about this comment
See above in this thread.
323. At 07:44am on 15 Dec 2010, you wrote:
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
PLEASE: Let ME explain: It has been referred HIGHER UP because it contains part of an internal message from within the BBC which shows concerns about both Ben Brown and Bakhurst.
I have no fears about putting my job on the line - my job is NOT at risk. What's concerning the moderators, rightly, is that it seems Brown and Bakhurst cannot be so confident after their appalling actions on Decmebr 13 and 14.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Given that comments appear to be coming in at a far quicker rate than your moderator can moderate, may I likewise suggest that you get extra staff on the issue. Like or not, this is fast becoming a news story of its own, and the BBC is, I take it, in the news business.
Complain about this comment
For me it is emblematic of the way that the BBC and the press have treated protestors. This is not how an injured policeman would be interviewed. Of course it would be easy to seem patronising but who at the BBC believes Mcintyre could have been threateningly rolling towards the police? The BBC has jumped on the bandwagon of all the press of treating protestors like spoiled brats. It is lazy, cynical journalism and far from neutral.
Complain about this comment
I watched the interview when first broadcast and I have watched it again a number of times since. The conclusion I have drawn is that it is a fair and balanced interview of Mr McIntyre, who, as someone with a clear political axe to grind is only prepared to answer questions in a manner that give weight to his point of view and argument. He is not an easy individual to interview and should not be treated with 'kid gloves' because of his disability. He states himself he only wants to be treated as any able bodied person and the questioning reflects this. In summary there is no case to answer, the BBC have conducted an impartial and challenging interview with clear and concise professionalism, something which is often missing in modern media.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This whole incident is almost beyond belief. I come from Northern Ireland and, as a people, we have been dubbed, on occasion, as 'the lunatic fringe'. Yes, this may not be altogether undeserved, but the experience of this young man goes far beyond lunacy, which in itself can have a certain charm; there is nothing charming about this event. Surely such actions ought not to form part of any so-called civilised society. Conversely, they merely induce fear.
Complain about this comment
I completely agree with what Laura Hollywood said at 11:39pm yesterday and what Amber PM wrote today at 09:14am.
Almost as disappointing as the interview itself is response of Kevin Bakhurst. Hiding behind the accusation that the complaints about this program are the result of an web campaign, (I presume this is on Twitter or something else I'm not yet versed in) and completely failing address any of the points clearly laid out in the posts I've previously mentioned, is something I wouldn't expect from a BBC controller. Even those who were moved to complain by a web campaign have as much right to do so as those who were not and this is in no way a reasonable justification to circumvent their complaints.
I dearly hope a more comprehensive explanation addressing the points raised by all these comments will be offered shortly.
Complain about this comment
It's now getting on for twelve hours since my first post on this thread was 'referred for further consideration'. How much consideration does it need? You're not at the Old Bailey. Either remove it permanently, and explain what my crime was, or reinstate it. And a piece of advice: If you wanted to irritate further people who have already reacted badly to the BBC, you're going about things in exactly the right way. Asking for comments and then deleting huge swathes of them, and at the same time maintaining a silence that would make a Trappist proud is hardly the mark of an organization engaged in a dialogue with the public.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps if you compare this interview with another carried out by the BBC with Jody, Kevin, you will see why people feel so outraged. Compare this interview with BBC Breakfast yesterday. They asked him to explain what happened first, they gave him space and time to do that and they didn't use offensive questioning to imply being assaulted was his fault even though they did ask him what led up to the assault (and allowed him to reply that it was nothing he himself had done.
Let's hope you're not right and not all victims of crime are treated with such insensitivity and bias by BBC interviewers as is seen here or else it's a very sad day for that organisation.
People don't complain "because there's a campaign". People campaign because of what they say and feel about what they see
Complain about this comment
The reason I complained was because of the patronising and frankly ridiculous manner in which Jody McIntyre was treated by Ben Brown. There was no suggestion in my complaint that because Jody has cerebral palsy and is in a wheelchair he should be treated differently in the approach to this interview. He was well able to deal with the fatuous nature of the questions.
It seems to me that you are inferring that Jody's disability is a reason for a coordinated complaints campaign to be made, out of sympathy for him. Jody is a seasoned political activist who would expect to handle robust questioning about his views and actions. This verged on the farcical. Expect to see cartoons with the wheelchair tank rolling over the heavily armed police lines.
Complain about this comment
The BBC must improve its service, and reclaim political transparency and neutrality. This defensive post above is an inadequate response to the concerns expressed by viewers. First you need to acknowledge the problem, and then consider ways to address it. We have high expectations of the BBC, and the criticism you are receiving today is an expression of disappointment. We need the BBC to be the best it can be, at this difficult time for Britain. The interview and the reporting of the student protests in general by the BBC fall far below our expectations. In a way the criticism is a tribute to the BBC - we feel you can be better, and we are paying you the compliment of asking you to improve, instead of dismissing you and ignoring you.
Complain about this comment
Comments for the last hour remain unmoderated. Still yet to be a response from Kevin....
Complain about this comment
Still no response from the Beeb, how disappointing.
Mark Steel puts it better than I could, so I'll just stick the link here, in the vain hope that someone senior might read it
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-a-clear-case-of-attack-by-wheelchair-2160454.html
Complain about this comment
Jody was not treated as a victim removed from his wheelchair and his carer. Rather the effort was made, despite Jody McIntyre's calm responses to suggest he must have done something to provoke the violence - and therefore deserved it - did he roll? thrown something? shout even? This is how woman victims of sexual abuse are often treated -did you flirt? were you drunk? did you wear provocative clothes? What did you do to 'make' this man behave this way.
What is so embarrasing for the police and the media is that Jody could not have done anything to provoke this attack. That, on reviewing it, Kevin Bakhurst can see nofault speaks volumes. And when you complain to the BBC guess what - you get referred to this blog. Is that the best the BBC can do?
Complain about this comment
Any interview is conducted from a particular viewpoint. The viewpoint in this case seemed to be "You must have done something to provoke the police". The repetition suggested the interviewer thought the interviewee was lying.
Questions regarding whether Jody posed a threat to the police or the public certainly had to be asked in the interview for it to be valid, but once it was established that he did not pose a threat the interviewer should have left it alone.
The idea of provocation is irrelevant. They are the police: they're not supposed to assault people for hurting their feelings.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Fact is, those comments which have "been referred" will never see the light of day. How do I know. Ah well, I've just seen another memo. Interesting reading about what should be done with THIS page!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Fully agree with Portnoy (354).
I first made my complaint 48 hours ago and have woken up this morning to see that this (i.e. the BBC's handling of the issue) is fast becoming a news item in its own right.
Ben Brown needs to apologise to Jody and the general public for shoddy, aggressive and poor journlaism. Kevin Bakhurst needs to apologise for patronising and offending loyal BBC viewers by implying that they a - don't know their own mind and b - are all wrong in feeling offended by the report.
The fact that both remain silent is frustrating and disappointing. You have asked for feedback, and people have responded in their hundreds. The decent thing now would be to respond.
Complain about this comment
I see no reason as to why my comment has been referred?
Complain about this comment
I'd like to point out that my complaint was in regard to the inherent bias shown by Ben Brown during the interview. Sure, his approach may have been tactless, tasteless but the physical ability of Jody Mcintyre has nothing to do with my complaint any more than it has any relevance to being dragged across the road by the police (other than to highlight that the threat level from someone who can't even wheel their own chair is considerably, obviously low)
I am starting to get the impression that the BBC would love to diffuse the 5000 or so complaints (still rising) as an issue of political correctness of disability etiquette as its a whole lot prettier than facing up to the continued and sustained bias from this news channel when it comes to painting the protesters as violent rioters, insurgents and criminals (you can hang on for my complaint regarding the crimewatch stunt which is a continued spinning of the same approach)
Is the bias on this story so entrenched that the people working within the BBC can't even see the agenda they are working to, or is the duplicity really this bad?
Complain about this comment
What's the betting that this page is about to be "disappeared" 1984-style?
Mr Bakhurst invited comments, and he got them.
Complain about this comment
Ben Brown suspended?
Complain about this comment
The interview was not conducted in any way similar to how you would interview normally.
When have you ever asked a senior police spokesperson to justify the violence engaged in by their officers? When have you asked them if they have been infiltrated by a hardcore element intent on violence?
When have you asked them why they use agent provoctatuers to stir up trouble? When have youo asked them if they are using the protests to boost their case for reduced budget cuts?
Never. Not once. Why not? The evidence to support this is in front of your eyes.
Do you interview rape victims by asking them if they were dressed provocatively and invited their rapist to attack them? Of course you don’t, but Ben Brown searched desperately for an angle to show that Jody McIntyre was in some way responsible for the assault upon him by the Metropolitan Police, even implying a policeman could be threatened by a wheelchair ‘rolling towards’ him.
At the time of the assault Mr McIntyre was taking part in a lawful, peaceful protest. Can I remind you, and the police, that protesting is not a crime, assualting people is.
In truth however Brown was so bad in this interview that any viewer with a sense of humanity switched their sympathies to Mr McIntyre even though they may not agree with his politics or his aims.
One thing I do take issue with is the sycophantic reporting of the attack on the royal car. It was reported that Camilla was ‘definately’ poked with a pointy stick or whatever it was, whilst at the same time with Alfie Meadows undergoing brain surgery you report that he was ‘allegedly’ attacked by the Police. The first incident may have occured but had no evidence to support it, the second have all the medical evidence you could need. It was also far more serious and yet you ignored it.
The BBC can recover from this and I’m not calling for Ben Brown to be sacked as I see some are online.
A simple sincere apology from him should suffice.
Complain about this comment
I found two of his questions questions particularly vulgar. asking whether he has thrown bricks at the police and asking whether he had been "rolling towards police lines". would the level of questioning have been for broadhurst of stephenson? i think not. Ben Brown seemed to be intent on somehow finding justification for police actions by getting jody to admit to some crime. he also seemed intent to focus on jody's revolutionary comments which i found irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Complain about this comment
Good morning
I complained to the BBC (and the press complaints commission about Richard Littlejohn's abomination in the Daily Mail) because I felt this was a new low in investigative journalism. To play devil's advocate is fine, but Ben Brown massively overstepped that mark and many of his questions (particularly in the unedited version) were banal, farcical and sometime just rude. The man had very obviously been mistreated at the hands of police, conducted himself extremely well in interview, but what he received in return were misinformed questions and allegations of taking his time complaining and being "radical" (that immediately made me think of the "are you a communist?" slurs of the 1960's).
This was not in response to an online campaign, I was just thoroughly disgusted at the lack of impartiality the BBC has shown in response to the problems with the disturbances. For example, there is no article on this miscarriage of justice on the BBC homepage, something I consider to be as important as the attack on Charles and Camilla's car (and boy did you guys go to town with that story).
So, in summary, I am not happy with what I previously considered a reputable media outlet. The only words of consolation I can find is at least you are the not as bad as the Daily Mail coverage, but that is hardly praise.
Please do better
Complain about this comment
Kevin, I'm confused.
First, you say this:
"The context of the interview was that Mr McIntyre was on the student demonstrations in London last week and video emerged yesterday of him being pulled out of his wheelchair by police."
But why, in this case, did Ben Brown merely plug away at Mr McIntyre being a potential threat during the demonstrations, whilst ignoring the context of the police action, the student's angst and the multiple injuries to students elsewhere that Brown pointedly avoided? I understand that Brown was amidst the protests at some point and that he must have been subjected to some brutish, childish, pointless behaviour. But it is his job to acknowledge both sides of the debate. This wasn't playing devil's advocate, this was plugging away at one opinion and manipulating the views of those at home.
Complain about this comment
Ben Brown's tone was in turns, rude, patronising, dismissive, accusatory and disdainful.
This as well as the fact that the preceding video clip had been edited to cut out the part that really shows the incident for what it was.
The offending officer actually interfered with a relatively calm situation. (11 seconds in) Two other officers were already speaking to Mr McIntyre. This officer spotted him and rushed up, tipped him out of his chair and dragged him across the road. The other officers did nothing except to prevent two people from putting Mr McIntyre back into his chair. The officer in question was then dragged, and I do mean dragged, away. This was an assault. With this interview, the BBC have made it into something else entirely and is so heavy with bias as to be shameful.
Complain about this comment
Ben Brown has hidden talents, he should apply to ATOS and conduct health interviews for the sick and disabled.
They too, are notorious (allegedly) for not listening to clear answers given, and blindly following the government agenda whilst whitewashing the real issues.
Shame on you BBC,we want the facts not the "condems" lies. The BS meter is off the scale, stop NOW!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Here's an edited version of my post in the hope that it will be posted this time round.
Yes I'm not impressed with Ben Brown's interview for Jody McIntyre. It was disparaging, poorly researched and witheringly patronising.
I'm also disappointed by your remarks Kevin that due to a 'web campaign' my original complaint is being taken with a pinch of salt and I now must feel compelled to make my point heard by posting a further diatribe under your editorial section. Whether there is a 'campaign' or not is irrelevant to this matter. If people do not feel strongly about the matter at hand, they will not take the time to write in. Furthermore, using this rational, an MPs right to govern should be questioned if their campaign budget outstrips that of a rival. I would like to think this comment was just your public front but I cannot be sure.
My point is simple, Jody McIntyre is quite clearly a victim in the video evidence obtained. He does not 'appear' to be pulled out of his wheelchair and dragged across the road. He 'is' dragged across the road by a paid-up member of the Met Police Force. A complete over-reaction considering Jody is handicapped. The only weapon he possesses is a sharp mind, but quite what could have been heard amidst that scene is beyond me.
Furthermore, Ben Brown's line of questioning was insulting, it missed the real issues, and it showed bias on behalf of the BBC. I equally didn't like the treatment of the leader of the Student protests on your channel. He was asked repeatedly whether he condoned violence, when it is quite clear he was an intelligent young man with some interesting viewpoints to be heard, who holds little to no control over thousands of passionate teenagers about to lose their access to higher education. In both interviews it felt like the headmaster reprimanding a first year. I subsequently learned nothing positive on either occasion.
The 'Hardtalk' style of journalism is great to watch when the journalist has completed adequate prior research and doesn't patronise the interviewee. Forgetting the fact that Jody McIntyre has cerebral palsy, the BBC interview was offensive, and it was biased.
Complain about this comment
Oops, my comment has been removed for breaking the house rules! Apparently I was being 'potentially defamatory', maybe because I speculated that Jody's politics may have meant he was 'known' ...
I'll try again, because I can't see anything even 'potentially' defamatory in the following...
There's not much to add to this discussion now, really: it all boils down to the fact that the vast majority of viewers thought this interview was biased, crass, offensive and poor journalism... and we're still waiting for an apology from the BBC.
However, I *would* like to add that the world has found an interesting new commentator in Jody McIntyre - which is a happy bonus in an otherwise shabby affair.
A young man who is comfortable to call himself a 'revolutionary' is worth watching. And lest anyone else should misunderstand the word, Jody is very clear about what he means by it: revolution is a state of mind, not dangerous-wheelchair-rolling-provocation:
"I believe that being a revolutionary is above all adopting a state of mind, where you are constantly questioning the accepted sources of information, i.e. the mainstream media, and the accepted organs of power, i.e. the government. "Fighting for freedom" can be small actions of refusal to accept the status quo; a French woman refusing to remove her hijab in the face of Sarkozy's racist laws, a Palestinian living in Israel and refusing to recognise it as "a Jewish State", or on a personal level, I refuse to bow to the bullying of bus drivers in London refusing to let me on because I am in a wheelchair".
(Source: ww.dontpaniconline.com/magazine/radar/jody-mcintyre )
Complain about this comment
The complaint isn't that the interviewer was too challenging!
It's totally proper to challenge Mr. Mcintyre (as it is any interviewee). My issue is with Ben Brown's evident total lack of preparedness and of his total failure to shed any interesting light whatsoever on the issue.
Complain about this comment
The clear lack of neutrality displayed by Ben Brown during the course of this interview only serves to reflect the corporations stance on the student demonstrations in general. Jody McIntyre was clearly the victim of an instance of police brutality yet Ben Brown insists on treating him as the guilty party, pathetically striving to find an excuse for the actions taken against him by the police. Having already told Brown that he is unable to use his wheelchair by himself, relying on his brother to wheel him around, why is Jody then asked if he had been throwing objects at the police? The lack of intelilgent questioning on Brown's part is staggering. I believed the BBC to be a neutral source of news, however, in light of the recent reporting on the student demonstrations I have been forced to change my opinion. Whilst the heavy-handed and provocative tactics and actions of the police have been heavily criticised by many people who took place in the demonstrations on December 9th, this has been ignored by the BBC and instead the focus has been on the violence of a minority of the protestors and the attacking of Charles and Camilla's car. Camilla was poked with a stick, Alfie Meadows has brain damage following an attack by a police officer; which deserves more attention?
Complain about this comment
Additional to my previous comment I would assume at this point that all people who have complained will receive a bulk email reply. Should be interesting for those who take no issue or made no complaint in regards to Jody's treatment in regards to disability, I would agree, having cerebral palsy should have no bearing on how he is interviewed.
Complain about this comment
As one who's hard earned taxes pay for this news service, I expect value for money. I feel that I did not get this. It appears that the BBC has some sort of 'agenda' in line with the police and the government on this issue. I have already stated that the interviewer showed bias and was distasteful. But after discussing it with my husband and us reading the dismissive replies by Mr Bakhurst particularly his intimation that Mr McIntyre's social network sites 'show us his (Jody's) true intentions' is stooping into the depth of gutter journalism. Shame, shame, shame.
That the BBC wishes to spoon feed articulate, informed people one sided view points is not acceptable. You have lost credibility with your reporting of the miner's strike, not to mention you dubious one sided airing of the Gazza flotilla affair (massacre) and now the student protests.
It is right to expect that a service that the public pay for is held accountable and addresses timely and proportionately complaints. An editorial blog is not an acceptable response to hundreds of complaints. Your duty is to report the news not to distort it. Please try harder, the world is watching...but for how long?
Complain about this comment
@11 Duncan in Edinburgh says
"..Would he ask whether Camilla had thrown anything at the protesters, and then, once she denied it, would he ask again? The answer is of course no [to all of those questions]. The same respect should have been shown to Jody."
I think all BBC interviewers should be firm with all interviewees and that currently they are too soft on Royalty and Bishops. We should toughen up, not soften down.
"This man did nothing wrong, was the subject of a documented assault by the police, and was treated to a hostile interview as if he were a government minister proposing a controversial new law."
Viewers do not know that as it has not been established. I happen to believe (not know) that he did nothing wrong or was not in danger from horses or anything else before the incident, but other viewers may not be of that view and also not know. Unlike you, journalists must not allow empathy to stop them putting the other side so to speak, especially in a one plus one when someone is alleging something against others.
"It's not acceptable, it's not responsible and the BBC should sack Ben Brown for it. "
This is preposterous judge and jury stuff.
@238 Duncan in Edinburgh asserts (on what basis?!)that Ben Brown is a friend of mine. I don't know him. I make my points independent of any personal or political empathy (I oppose the fees policy).
Complain about this comment
Ben Brown (and everyone else who contributed to the research of this story) failed to challenge the official line from the police in the same way they challenged Jody McIntyre's account. It appeared as if the bbc just read out a press release and did not even follow it up with a phone call. Holding Jody's feet to the flames would have been absolutely fine (apart from the frankly idiotic notion that a man who can't wheel himself can throw anything at anyone) if the BBC did the same to the police. But they did not and it gives the appearence of the BBC not doing their job and looking at all aspects of the case.
Shoddy journalism like this is not exclusive to the BBC however and more a symptom of the 24 hour news cycle and the need to get an easily digestible story out the door before the other guy does..
Complain about this comment
323. At 07:44am on 15 Dec 2010, Inside1 wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
No : it was removed because it contained embarrassing information about how Ben Brown and Kevin Bakhurst are viewed by senior management at the BBC!
They cannot afford to ignore this problem, the complaints about this are now outrunning the huge compaints against the X Factor this year.
At more than 5,400 complaints , Bakhurst has a huge problem and Brown has a poor future!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I imagine there are a few bruised egos at BBCHQ this morning, but this thread should ultimately be seen as an incredibly useful wave of feedback from yr users that could result in a productive exchange - the reason for the level of emotion felt here is less to do with the disability of Jody and more the shock of feeling a service we respect, and are generally proud of, let us down.
I want to believe in the BBC. I want it to endure as an institution the people of this country can be proud of. But if the BBC is to side with the ruling parties in fair weather or foul, then mere licence payers will have to accept it no longer represents us. We will stop consulting it - there is no shortage of other news sources nowadays - and we will cease to defend it.
Look at the long game - appeasing 10 Downing Street may ameliorate the cuts they push for now - but if, in doing so, you alienate those who pay the licence fee, you are going to find yourself without support should the government (next year? the year after?) push for the licence fee's abolition.
Had I seen the interview on Fox or Sky, I wouldn't have complained. Those are partisan broadcasters, more in the business of views than news. So, I don't watch them. I sincerely hope the BBC isn't headed the same way. If it is, those who provide the agenda it represents should pay for it.
This is a crossroads. You can choose to learn from it or you can take the paranoid's way out, refusing to acknowledge fault, blaming it on some adversarial 'campaign' with motives unknown. Personally, I'm less interested in calling for anyone to be fired than I am to be heard, and to hope that the BBC is still a place where change - in editorial stance, in institutional rules, even in Ben Brown - is possible.
The emotion I'm seeing here, again and again, is betrayal. We believe in the BBC. But we'll be watching closely, and if you abandon the objectivity that is yr raison d'etre, we will see it. And we will stop watching at all.
Complain about this comment
Like a number of people before me, I have never actually felt compelled to actually write in a complaint to a broadcaster before. It takes a lot to offend me and I am on the whole fairly lazy. The interview conducted by Ben Brown however has stirred me from my apathetic state.
I genuinely found this to be one of the most horrific 8 minutes of television I have ever witnessed. I think people further up the thread have summarised the main objections with more eloquence than I can muster so I will just say that if he continues to retain his job, this will be the last time I am engaging with any BBC property. I will not support in any way an organisation who stand behind something like this and frankly Kevin Barkhurst, I struggle to think of a way this could have been more poorly handled.
Your dealings with it are as pig handed and offensive as Brown's initial interview. Your snide referral to 'an online campaign' is pathetic in its attempt to discredit the huge groundswell of emotion and anger that Ben Brown has bought upon the corporation. Acting with a 'holier than thou'tone and refusing to do anything other than tow the line and defend the undefendable is a sad testament to how weak the BBC is when it comes to intelligent editorial leadership.
I hope to hear in the coming days that Ben Brown resigns his job, but then again I also hope to win the euromillions. I imagine the BBC doing the right thing also probably falls in the odds category of 65 million to 1
Complain about this comment
Hey. the fact that comments take sooo long to appear (if they will ever pass the censorship) is a clear indication of HOW the bbc represents the mediatic democracy we are in. Utterly irritating to be 'referred for further consideration'. Isn't a moderator enough? do some comments need the seal of approval of senior management or else? Blah, blah, blah...BBC
Complain about this comment
@375 "there is no room for sentimentality when dealing with those who wish to threaten democratically elected governments with violence and disorder".
Nonsense! The point is, there is and must be EVERY room for people who 'threaten disorder' in a democracy! Violence, no, but disorder, yes. Jody McIntyre was NOT threatening violence, and if he was threatening disorder, well - his right to do so should be defended.
I fear that the line is shifting. If 'threatening disorder' is not allowed, it is a very small step to banning any kind of demonstration or protest. That's why this argument has wider importance than 'just' the rights and dignity of Jody McIntyre himself.
Complain about this comment
I can also completely understand why so many people would complain about this issue.
The questioning is completely ridiculous! Why has no reference been made to the way the footage shows the offending police officer being dragged away by two colleagues immediately after the incident? Does this not show his actions were out of order? Why did Ben not question Jody about this? This is an incredibly callous case of police brutality and should be treated as such. Ben's questioning should reflect this.
What relevance do Mr McIntyre's political or ideological beliefs have? Why are they pursued with such vigour by Ben? A Neo-Nazi has exactly the same right not to be assaulted by a police officer as a right of centre conservative follower.
The point has been raised before but it is completely bizarre to ask if Jody had been throwing anything at the police particularly given Ben was told 2 minutes before that Jody could not in fact push his own wheel chair. At best this shows incredibly poor journalism from Ben, asking a question that has such an obvious answer. Also how stupid to suggest Jody may have been 'wheeling towards the police' as if this somehow justified the actions of the police. I am sorry but as an able bodied individual I would not expected to be dragged across the street simply because I was walking towards the police, again plainly bizarre questioning.
Unless I am mistaken the relevance of the interview was to highlight violence instigated by the police throughout the student protests so why were Mr McIntyre's views and eyewitness accounts not sought? Surely this had huge relevance here? Might I suggest that this is because the interview was carried out in a biased manner?
Complain about this comment
Oh, another technical note: it would facilitate much easier and therefore better debate if there was the ability to quote others in block text in yr own posts, to recommend or condemn other comments with a button-push (so other users can see the most popular comments) aaand have official BBC staff responses in a block of different colour/shade.
Complain about this comment
Enjoying Inside1's updates, thank you.
Brown being suspended is one thing, but he owes someone an apology...
Complain about this comment
Regarding my comment (339) made at 9.31am, I wish to register my perplexity at it being referred for further consideration. It is concise, restrained, very much to the point, and I believe, timely within the overall arch of this "discussion." That it concerns a recommendation as to the future employment of Ben Brown and Kevin Bakhurst, and consideration of their respective roles in this debacle, appears to the only reason it has been censored - and let's be clear on this, it has been censored. As others here have pointed out, comments "referred for further consideration" never actually see the light of day.
I also wish to add that I am a first time user of this website. To be honest, I have always thought online commenting was a waste of time. The inadvertent effect of the BBC's arrogance in handling the issue - the silence, the disingenuous invitation to dialogue - has infuriated me enough to convert me. I suspect that the "kettling" of tens of thousands of first time protesters has had a similarly ephipanal effect on them.
Complain about this comment
"I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview."
In fairness you did say "hearing" - obviously "speaking" is too much to ask for. If the BBC can't evolve to embrace the instantaneous and 2-way nature of the internet then it will perish like other 'traditional' media companies. This is your chance to react, to discuss, to engage with your audience. Unfortunately it looks like you're taking the opportunity to patronise, alienate and ignore. Is there anyone at the BBC who 'gets' new media... put them on.
Complain about this comment
The principle of it is that this man is the alleged victim of an assault (and having seen videos and pictures of the incidents he definitly has a case), if say for instance this was the victim of any other assault on the street, then for a BBC journalist to suggest they were asking for it would result in outrage and I don't see how this is any difference hence the outrage.
Complain about this comment
I really just want to add my name to the list of objectors to this interview. It wasn't balanced, it wasn't how I would expect Ben Brown to approach other interviewees.
He essentially ignored the central story - about footage emerging of Jody McIntyre being allegedly assaulted by being dragged from his wheelchair. Had he approached the story in a way which addressed that then he might have been justified in some of his probing about Mr McIntyre's actions.
But he ignored the central issue, in favour of innuendos about Mr McIntyre being a self-declared 'revolutionary'. He pressed on with repeated questions - ably rebutted - about whether he had thrown anything at the police. He expressed scepticism about why Mr McIntyre hadn't filed a complaint yet - continuing after Mr McIntyre had explained this point.
This isn't how I'd expect you to interview a person who has been the victim of a crime, alleged or otherwise.
As for your blog about it, yes - I watched the interview on the internet. Yes a friend on Twitter alerted me to the blog. But nobody has told me to complain. This is how people consume the media now. I was shocked by the interview when I saw it yesterday. Today I have the chance to voice my thoughts. That's not an 'internet campaign', that's a genuine viewer reaction and you're mistaken to view it otherwise.
Complain about this comment
To suggest the reason why there were so many complaints is due to an internet campaign is annoying to say the least! The fact is that lots of people felt the need to make a complaint.
The interview was constantly offensive, and by that I do not mean insulting I mean offensive and forced the interviewee to be defensive, which in my view is not impartial.
You felt the need to interview this man, this clearly marks him out to be different to other protesters, many people got dragged across roads that day. I would like to see the same line of offensive questioning directed at a policeman or as Jody says the Prince of Wales, who was also attacked albeit in his bullet proof pimp wagon.
Complain about this comment
Earlier in the thread there is a post in defence of the interview and editor by "Evan Harris". Assuing this is the former MP then http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/evan_harris/oxford_west_and_abingdon says this, "Never rebels against their party in this parliament."
I imagine Mr Harris signed the pledge on tuition fees before the election, but we don't know how he would have voted as he was defeated by the Tory. If the record was repeated he would have voted with the party line against the pledge, though he might have been one of the rebels.
If the BBC are going to examine the background of protestors and whether this might influence their statements then we should do thesame thing with a former MP, in the interests of balance.
Complain about this comment
I thought Jody made a very good series of points in a very good interview - principally about the forthcoming two tier education system. I congratulate the BBC for allowing Jody to express his views. The incident was at the heat of the moment and I have sympathy with the Police too. They were only doing their job and yet they too are victims of government cuts. As is the NHS where the injured will be treated. I applaud the students for protesting. Writing polite letters of complaint to The Times never got anyone anywhere.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
When is the extent and depth of the public's unhappiness about this interview going to feature on the BBC News? It shouldn't be restricted to these pages alone - airtime should be given to the depth of feeling expressed here and the general unhappiness about much of the coverage of the student protests
Complain about this comment
I didn't complain, but, would have had I seen the interview go out live. (Having heard about the controversy, I watched it on Youtube).
The main thrust of my complaint is that a number of questions were at best ignorant or inapproprate, at worst prejudiced.
This was particularly the case when Jody - a man with celebral palsy - was asked if he had been throwing rocks at the police.
Seriously? I would expect something like that from Fox News, but, certainly not the BBC.
Would a BBC News 24 interviewer accuse a blind man of being a peeping tom?
The fact that you have stated that you watched the interview several times and STILL had to ask people what they found offensive about it speaks volumes.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Poor Ben Brown! Jody McIntyre really did make him sound like a prat! I fear Brown was only doing the job of the modern broadcast journalist: to pointlessly antagonise the interviewee as much as possible whilst entirely failing to get to the meat of the topic.
Complain about this comment
Both Portoy and Inside1 being censored now. This isn't making you look any better, BBC.
Complain about this comment
I also complained and I completely disagree that this was handled in a fair and balanced way. The way Ben questions Jody is done in a cold and dismissive manner. He shows a complete lack of awareness of Jody's physical condition in the questions he asks. His line of questioning in regards to Jody being a threat are absurd and it really does seem that Ben is siding with the police, in that he is trying to make what is so clearly an abuse of police authority, so clearly a disporportionate use of force, seem justified. It really would not be biased to acknowledge this as being heavy handed treatment- this is clear to anyone, not just people who are left wing. The way he chucked in the thing about Jody being a revolutionary was frankly just weird- red dcare in 2010? Wanting to change the world is not synonymous with violence.
Complain about this comment
My complaint of this seems to have largely been ignored. I did not complain that I think he was treated unfairly for a man with cerebral palsy, but rather my complaint is that he was treated like a criminal, rather than as a victim of an attack. So, I would still like to hear how the BBC respond to my complaint.
And although the interviewer did not explicitly say that he was attacked because of the direction he was being pushed in his wheelchair, it sounded undeniably as though this is what was implied by the interviewer. Why else would he have been asking such questions? To fill time?
Is this how all victims of crime are treated in interviews, or was he treated harshly just because he had been at a protest where other students were being agressive?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it."
Mr Bakhurst, you are greatly misrepresenting the reaction to this interview by painting it as coordinated / politically motivated.
My reaction is NOT part of a web campaign. I did not require any encouragement to make a complaint, and I am not part of a movement. I saw the TV clip on a friend's Facebook page, not a political website or page. He shared it because he was shocked, as was I. Watching it online, in this context, doesn't invalidate criticism.
I was appalled by the interview.
Ben Brown seemed fixated on proving the idea that this man who can't push his own wheelchair was somehow a threat to armoured riot police. The vast majority of complainants (including myself) are reacting to Brown's insensitivity and apparent bias, and the lack of proper journalistic neutrality.
D.
Complain about this comment
I signed up for a BBC ID essentially just to repeat what the other commenters have said. I complained not due to some cult-like web campaign (as the response patronisingly implies), but due to a genuine objection against what was said in the interview.
Rather than attempting to engage with Jody McIntyre over his experiences at the protest and his reasons for joining, the interviewer asked leading questions which focussed almost entirely upon the 'violence' at the protests. This is a very direct example of the BBC attempting to impose a narrative onto a news event which defies one, in this case the "violent students provoke police" narrative which has received a ridiculously disproportionate amount of airtime already.
Perhaps the BBC should try reporting on precisely why students object to these changes, rather than degrading our democratic right to protest which this kind of sensationalistic tabloid journalism.
Complain about this comment
I complained after following a link on a private contribution to a newspaper discussion forum - I don't consider this a campaign since it was not systematically orchestrated in any way.
The main reason why I complained was the obvious bias and incessant and unfair insinuation on the part of the interviewer that a disabled protester with cerebral palsy somehow managed to justifiably provoke the police into a disgraceful act of violence. This type of journalism belongs in the "fair and balanced" category of Fox News reporting - not the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Kevin & Ben - I think I might be able to wrap this all up pretty quickly for you, so read on...
Having just registered to make a complaint - never having made one before and NOT due to an "internet campaign" (as if that makes some kind of difference to the legitimacy of the opinions voiced by so many)...I have a simple question, and one which given an intelligent response could probably answer the vast majority of complainants...it is this...
Please could you and Ben explain in which circumstances and what necessary action would need to have been carried out by Jody McIntyre to justify the police treatment of him?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Depressingly, I am almost certain that this will get censored...
Kevin also used Twitter (a campaign some might say) to post a link to Jody's blog
"For those concerned about Ben Brown's questions to #jodymcintyre, read Mr McIntyre's own account http://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/"
http://twitter.com/kevinbakhurst
Complain about this comment
I often travel abroad for my business. When I see news from networks like Fox and so on I feel proud of the independence of the BBC. I'm afraid that after the recent coverage of the student protests I no longer feel that pride.
I think the issue with the Jody McIntyre interview is that it cannot be taken in isolation. It has to be taken in the whole context of reporting the protests and the BBC has appeared to be quite one sided in that.
Much has been made of damage to the royal car and to property damage but less made of teenage children shivering in freezing conditions after being corralled by the police, of people going to hospital for emergency surgery because they have had their had bashed in by the police and so on. Some of the reporting has been relaying the information being provided by the police which has been far from accurate.
So given the distrust people have in the BBC reporting enter right the Ben Brown/Jody McIntyre interview. Here an individual with obviously poor motor control is filmed being dragged from a perfectly serviceable wheel chair by several very fit police men. The evident of the excessive force is there on the video. And then Ben Brown asks "Were you wheeling towards the police?" So what if he was. What's he going to do, run them down? He had already said he couldn't drive the chair by himself. And what about throwing things? With those motor skills even if he had managed to throw something who knows where it would go!
It is right to play devils advocate when interviewing someone. However please ensure the BBC is impartial and give the police as hard a time. And if you are going to play devils advocate then be intelligent about it. Don't ask stupid questions. Definitely don't ask them more than once. Ben Brown just came across as an idiot and Jody McIntyre walked all over him (pardon the pun).
Complain about this comment
I watched the interview and was baffled by Ben Brown's approach. Watching the footage it seems that the story should be whether or not the police behaved appropriately in pulling an unarmed man from a wheelchair and dragging him across the road instead of pushing him in the wheelchair. Instead the questions were about the victim's blog and earlier statements and whether or not he considered himself a "radical". I don't know anything about Mr. McIntyre and I'm not interested in his politics. I wanted to know what the police said to him as they were dragging him across the road. I wanted to know what the police's policies are regarding people in wheelchairs attending rallies. Is it standard procedure to remove them from their chairs? Do the police also separate blind people from their seeing-eye dogs? Do the police remove the hearing aids of the deaf?
Ben Brown appeared to be significantly less interested in the incident he was supposed to be reporting on and more interested in the background of the person he was interviewing. This was clearly journalism with an agenda. In a purely verbal exchange, it might be reasonable to introduce Mr. McIntyre's previous writing. But once it has descended to the physical level, it seems clear that the actions of the police were not dictated by something Mr. McIntyre wrote on his blog.
I believe Ben Brown has failed in his journalistic duties to remain impartial and to report on the story at hand. He seems more intent at uncovering a backstory which may or may not be relevant. He failed to uncover a smoking gun of any kind in McIntyre's history ad left the audience utterly confused as to the real story. Bad journalism, pure and simple.
Complain about this comment
I would like to know, now, why the comments of inside1 are not visible??
And why one of my comments is not visible. I broke no rules. What is the point of allowing comments when they are censored just becuse you don't like what they say?
Complain about this comment
I completely echo Vita_s (411)
This has now reached the scale that it should be properly covered on BBC News.
And by properly, I mean balanced, fair and impartial (everything your coverage of the demos has lacked, basically).
Complain about this comment
Posting the link to Jody's blog seemed like a thinly veiled reactionary attempt to justify the interview and therefore provide an 'answer' to the large number of critics. Your handling of this situation is, at best, misguided, in my opinion.
Nonetheless, some of the contents of Jody's blog (assuming of course that it is all genuinely his - something by the way which people are often too quick to accept on the internet) does raise some questions, some of which could have been relevant to the approach taken in the interview (for example, Jody says in his blog that he walked up the stairs to the roof of the Tory HQ, and helped to dismantle barriers placed in a road - these statements clearly call into question the comments Jody made in the interview about his physical abilities and the threat he could potentially pose). BUT, and here is the important point, this could only be used as a reason for Ben's interrogation (and it was an interrogation) if Ben had either prefaced the interview with some of the background research about Jody's blog posts OR mentioned Jody's blog during the interview. Furthermore, EVEN had that occurred then I, and I imagine many others, would STILL be of the opinion that the line of questioning used and attitude taken by Ben in the interview was not balanced. AND, all of this is assuming of course, that the approach taken by Ben's interview had been influenced by him or you (or someone else in the newsroom) having read Jody's blog BEFOREHAND and therefore deciding that there were some questions to raise. IF, on the other hand, you have simply reviewed Jody's blog in the aftermath and then posted a link to it on here (post number 99 - now conveniently removed) then you have some pretty serious questions to ask yourself and also answers to provide on here.
I suspect that the silence we've heard on here since your last remarks (together with the retraction of post no.99) is down to the BBC realising that this issue was rather more significant than they had hoped.
Complain about this comment
"Kevin Bakhurst is the controller of the BBC News Channel and the BBC News at One and the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom."
The last seven words of that sentence are perhaps the most frightening thing of all. The deputy head of the BBC Newsroom is so biased that he cannot see the bias of the BBC being cheerleaders for government and the police, while doing their utmost to undermine those campaigniong against government.
I imagined a prequisite to be the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom would be to have an open mind. I wouldn't expect them to always or ever agree with me, but I would expect them to be open minded enough not to try and dismiss feedback with an airy wave of their hand as "a web campaign".
As I have only just signed up to this site I have no idea how big discussions can become. However, at the moment this discussion has 421 posts. Most of the others listed at the bottom have 2 to 33 posts. One has 109 and one 199.
The BBC may like to consider the police attack on Fitwatch if they are thinking of making this discussion disappear. Fitwatch was made stronger when the police tried to make it disappear, another thing the BBC decided not to report. I'm sure those with the necessary skills have taken steps to make sure this discussion cannot easily disappear.
Complain about this comment
The unfortunate reality is the BBC by nature is biased. The BBC is Pro-Establishment.
I want you to imagine that a Police Officer faced such an interview, and inturn, close to 10,000 people complained. In such a scenario the BBC would have aired the complaints story and apologised. The reason they haven't in this case, as I alluded to earlier, is because it undermines their Pro-Police, Pro-Establishment bias.
I suggest if people are serious about complaining they explore other avenues.
Ps. My grammar and punctuation is poor, I know :(
Complain about this comment
The seeds of my disgust with this interview were already sown long before it was even broadcast. It lies in the comparative treatment of the story surrounding Prince Charles and Camilla's treatment at the hands of protestors.
The media hysteria - not just the BBC - was disproportionate to what had actually happened: heir to throne insists on driving through central London - knowing full-well there are thousands of angry young people on the streets - in an ancient ceremonial car. From the very first news report it was obvious that this was a stupid thing to do; why on earth did they not travel more incognito? Still, the media is outraged that the car is SLIGHTLY damaged [a cracked window, a paint splatter] and its passengers appear a shaken. Yes, damaging other people's property is wrong and it's not nice to upset others.
MEANWHILE stories are circulating on the internet about a young man being pulled from his wheelchair by police and being dragged across the road whilst peacefully protesting. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that he was doing anything other than PEACEFULLY protesting.
Many people wondered why the Charles and Camilla story was given so much coverage and why it was so hysterical when Jody's story was not being touched AT ALL BY ANYONE - the BBC included.
FINALLY, Jody is interviewed about what happened to him. Already fuelled by the injustice of having to wait and wait for this story to be covered, we then witnessed this victim of police brutally being questioned in an unbelievably disgraceful manner.
Yes, Jody should be treated exactly the same as any other interviewee IF by that you mean all interviews should be this ABSURD.
The interview was centred on one question, which I and many others read as "Oh, come on Jody, you MUST'VE done SOMETHING to DESERVE being treated like this". Jody had already stated that he can't propel his wheelchair himself so where do you think he might've found the strength and/or co-ordination to hurl missiles at the police?
Yes, Jody was given lots of time to explain why he was at the protest. In fact, maybe he was given too much time. He wasn't there to defend WHY he was protesting; he was there to talk about how he, a disabled man, was abused FOR NO REASON that has ever come to light by police.
Furthermore, watching yesterday's BBC coverage of protests in Rome and reading captions like "50 police officers injured", I'm left wondering how many innocent people - people like Jody - where injured and abused at the same incident. I'm left wondering what else the BBC and others aren't telling me.
Complain about this comment
I normally applaud the Newsnight's policy of robust questioning, but there's a vast difference between interrogating politicians and public servants, who after all are accountable to the public, and ordinary members of the public who are simply exercising their right to demonstrate. Thoughout the interview, Ben Brown was interring that somehow Jody was doing something wrong and had a hidden agenda. Right from the start of the interview, Ben was critical and implying Jody was somehow culpable. Why had he not yet registered a complaint agains the police, for example. Disgraceful.
Complain about this comment
I see little to address viewers compplaints in Kevin Bakhurst's reponse. "We interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances" - lol well in that case, those other hypothetical interviews would have been equally egregious.
"Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions." What merit is there in being "robust", if being "robust" merely involves countering everything the interviewee says with asinine comments and calumnies? Avoiding bias and bringing balance not does mean BBC interviewees should counter an interviwee's facts with stupid insinuations and implausible smears. BBC reporting should strive for accuracy and truth, not to 'balance' truth with equal amounts of drivel.
Complain about this comment
I am quite concerned that Kevin Bakhurst can not see what is inappropriate or wrong with this interview! I also find it a little bit offensive that the reason he thinks that he is getting so many complaints is because of a campaign and not because of how inappropriate the tone of the interview is. I assure you I did not complain because of an internet campaign.
To spell it out for you Kevin: the reason it is inappropriate is not because Jody McIntyre has cerebal palsy. It is because Ben Brown is bullying him when he is clearly innocent of doing anything wrong. It would be more appropriate to be asking the police to explain themselves and their actions. Ben seems to almost try to justify his tone towards Jody by accusing him of 'Rolling in the direction of the police' as if it was a crime. Bullying a victim in this way is completely inappropriate and almost comes across as if the bbc are justifying the police's actions.
I am not a student and am not connected with the demonstrations in anyway. However I find the way the bbc has covered this seems to be more about protecting the government and the police than about asking them to justify their actions in the public interest. I wonder if the bbc are losing touch with the public. I question this even more when Kevin Bakhurst does not see what is wrong with this interview.
Complain about this comment
The problem is that you interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same style as you do others. That is to say the usual style of BBC journalism where macho and aggressive interviewers compete to raise their career profile with unhelpfully antagonistic questions. This interview highlighted this, but it is a problem with the role of the media in the UK in the democratic process. Difficult questions can and should be asked, but hostility and combative questioning is about increasing the status of the institution and the journalist, not concerned with searching out truth or pursuing a concern for ethics or the communication of complexity. In this particular case I feel ashamed to be British, ashamed of the BBC and think Ben Brown should publicly express his shame at his inability to shift away from his own subjective position. The good news is that this interview has raised the profile of an articulate advocate of freedom of speech in Mr McIntyre.
Complain about this comment
Hi Kevin.
I have not put in a complaint about this "interview" myself but I have to admit that I was tempted to do so after watching it. Not necesarily because of the "challenging" nature of the interview towards Mr McIntyre but because in my view it is a spectatcularly bad piece of interviewing on the part of Mr Brown.
Mr Brown general attitude towards Mr McIntyre is quite impressively bad, he is patronising, stand offish and has a general edge of agression in it's tone towards Mr McIntyre, the man who is supposed to be the "victim" in this interview.. Also Mr Brown's line of questioning is completely against common sense. The suggestion that Mr McIntyre posed a threat to armoured police officers by "wheeling towards them" is in itself just preposterous, and brings nothing to the interview but a sesne of the ridiculous from us the viewers.. then following on with such questions as "were you throwing anything at all at the police that day?".."You did't shout anything provacative, or throw anything that would have induced the police to do that to you?".... After the man has said that he is unable to move his own wheelchair is equally as ridiculous.. then the perfunctory question of "when are you going to make your complaint to the police then?" to finish the interview was just well pointless, the man has already said he is taking legal advice.
I think also what is more worrying is that in your statement above to you seem to back the style of interview as you state "we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances".. if corporately you are habitually conducting interviews of this calibre then you really need to review your standards.
Complain about this comment
Interviewer: Good evening to you.
Jody (JM): Good Evening.
Interviewer: Could you just explain what happened to you?
JM: Well, during the demonstration I was attacked by and pulled out of my wheelchair by the police on two occasions. The footage you have just shown is of a second incident. One of the police men who had dragged me down the road in the first incident obviously recognized me, came running over, pushed me out of my wheelchair on to the road, and then dragged me across the road.
Interviewer: The police say you haven't made any kind of complaint, so why not?
JM: I haven't made a complaint yet but I'm in contact with a lawyer and I will be doing so.
Interviewer: It's been a few days since this happened. Why haven't you complained before?
JM: Because I wanted to consider my options before taking that step.
Interviewer: There's a suggestion that you were rolling towards the police in your wheelchair. Is that true?
JM: I think justifying a police officer pulling a disabled person out of a wheelchair and dragging them across a concrete road is quite ridiculous and I'm surprised that you've just tried to do so.
Interview: So that's not true, you were not wheeling yourself towards the police.
JM: Well I can't physically use my wheelchair myself. My brother was pushing me. I think it's quite obvious from the footage that I was 100% not a threat to anyone.
Interviewer: In the Observer newspaper you were described as a cyber radical and you were quoted as saying you want to build a revolutionary movement and that can only happen through direct action on the streets. Do you classify yourself as a revolutionary?
JM: I don't classifying myself as anything but I think we all have a right to fight against what the government are trying to do. They're trying to tier education system whereby only the rich will be able to afford it. That is something that I think we should all be fighting against.
Interviewer: Now the police have said that they have referred this incident to the Directorate of Professional Standards... what's your reaction to that?
JM: I don't have a reaction to that but I will be making a complaint in the near future. I would say that it's very important not to see this as an isolated incident. This is the police's role at demonstrations. To incite and provoke violence. They've done it in the past and they're continuing to do it now. I am not the real victim here. The real victims are the students, like Alfie Meadows, who is in hospital within an inch of his life after a policeman struck him on the head with a truncheon and he needed emergency brain surgery. Now imagine if it was Prince Charles, or Camilla, or a police officer who had been within an inch of their life.
Interviewer: But I have to say, I was in Parliament Square covering that demonstration and I saw protesters throwing lumps of rock at the police, throwing missiles, various missiles, at the police. Were you throwing anything at all at the police that day?
JM: I wasn't throwing anything at the police during that day or during any [unclear] But what is clear is that the media are trying to distract the public from the real issue, which is the cuts that the government are making.
Interviewer: Were you harmed in any way in that incident with the police?
JM: Not in that ... incident, in the incident that's being shown. There was also another incident around 45 minutes earlier when a police officer struck me with a baton and yes that did cause some injury.
Interviewer: And why then, do you think-- Are you saying the police picked on your twice. Why do you think they did?
JM: I have no idea. I mean, to make one suggestion, I think in the second incident at least, I think there's a clear element of trying to provoke protesters into violence. Personally, I see myself as equal to anyone else, but I do understand that I could be perceived as more vulnerable, so I think there was an element of trying to provoke violence from others.
Interviewer: Did you shout anything provocative or throw anything that would have induced the police to do that to you?
JM: Do you really think a person with Cerebral Palsy in a wheelchair can pose a threat to a police officer who is armed with weapons?
Interviewer: But you do say that you're a revolutionary.
JM: That's a word, it's not a physical action that I've taken against the police officers, a word that you're quoting from a website. I'm asking you: do you think I could have in any way posed a physical threat from the seat of my wheelchair to an army of police officers armed with weapons? This whole line of argument is absolutely ludicrous because you're blaming the victims of violence for that violence. In fact, it reminds me a lot of the way the BBC report on the Palestinian conflict--
Interviewer: When are you going to make your compalint to the police?
JM: I will be making my complaint very shortly, in the near future.
Interviewer: Okay, Jody McIntyre, thanks very much for your time, thanks for talking to us this evening.
JM: Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Oh Kevin,
I fear you've made a rather career limiting manoeuvre here. It is clear from the overwhelming response that your stated position from the start is indefensible. It's such a shame that you portrayed your own personal bias from the very outset rather than making an intelligent decision and declaring yourself neutral. I'm not sure if this was intended but you've certainly succeeded in taking some of the ire that is clearly felt towards Ben Brown and having it aimed directly at you. Is Ben too much of a delicate flower to handle the (justified) criticism over his sham of an interview so you've stepped in like a big brother to take on all comers? If so, your (since deleted) ad hominem attack on Mr McIntye in comment 99 backfired; it has only served to enrage the already miffed majority of respondents here. You should issue an apology forthwith for that.
All I can suggest is that you go away, have a cup of tea in a quiet room and take some time to have a good think about this situation. Ask yourself, quite seriously, is your stance correct? Is it possible that the 99% of the 400 odd respondents are right? Don't be afraid to change your mind, people are allowed to do that. There are some very persuasive arguments here and I'd encourage you to open your mind to them.
Good day.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I echo this comment:
""Kevin Bakhurst is the controller of the BBC News Channel and the BBC News at One and the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom."
The last seven words of that sentence are perhaps the most frightening thing of all. The deputy head of the BBC Newsroom is so biased that he cannot see the bias of the BBC being cheerleaders for government and the police, while doing their utmost to undermine those campaigniong against government."
Complain about this comment
TOO CHALLENGING... WAS IT?
"the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it"
First of all, I don't think this is a fair résumé of the complaints, judging by what I read online. Most people seem upset not by the fact but by the way in which Mr. Brown desperately was trying to be challenging, showing the lack of a minimum of research and preparation.
Secondly, I don't think the interview was too 'challenging', at all. In stead of basically accusing the interviewee of provoking/threatening the police, Mr. Brown could and should have probed for a possible explanation of what happened, like a journalist would: "Why do you think the police removed you from your wheelchair?", "Do you think there might have been a genuine concern for your own safety on their behalf, even if that concern was against your own judgement and will?" or "Do you think there might have been a fundamental disagreement or misunderstanding between you and the police about your right to be there as a disabled person in a wheelchair?" "Did the police at any point communicate why they wanted to remove you?".
I do not see how one can stand by Mr. Browns attitude and verbal behaviour, which never got beyond the crudest expression of a suspicion, that made himself and the BBC look bad/ridicule and didn't in any way attribute to enlighten the viewer.
Complain about this comment
I don't see how Jody McIntyre's blog is an escape hatch through which Kevin Bakhurst & Ben Brown can escape? No mention of it was made during the interview, and after reading Jody's wordpress site i'm not sure what new information i've learned other than that he was positioned in the way of police horses about to charge the protesters. While there is cause for his being cautioned, and possible arrest, this still does not justify police brutality.
Gandhi who is often lionised for his peaceful demonstrations would have been able to sit down next to Jody to achieve the same ends. But much like the British of yeons before, peaceful or otherwise, protests are not tolerated. Gandhi was a revolutionary too, maybe more palatable courtesy of the history books?
I think you've got the gist of our point of view Kevin, when are we going to hear yours, or your superior's? Or is this 'blog' a one-way street.
Complain about this comment
For info, there are further comments on this journalism blog:
http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2010/12/15/bbc-news-controller-defends-interview-with-wheelchair-bound-protester/
Complain about this comment
@ 424
"Kevin also used Twitter (a campaign some might say) to post a link to Jody's blog
"For those concerned about Ben Brown's questions to #jodymcintyre, read Mr McIntyre's own account http://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/"
Thanks for that, Mr XYZ.
Unbelievable. This is now going beyond appalling journalism and unprofessionalism; this is now a smear campaign.
Mr Bakhurst, I think most of us are aware of his blog - in fact, at least in my case, his courage and political activism is just another reason why I have such admiration and respect for Jody McIntyre. What exactly are you trying to say with your statement above? That because he is politically involved, because he supports the Palestinian cause, he is a legitimate target for police brutality?
Just a bit of advice: by engaging in this misguided attempts at discrediting Jody McIntyre you're compounding the problem Mr Bakhurst, and making it much, much worse. It just goes to show how far away you are from public opinion if you think that such dishonest tactics are going to make all this go away. Au contraire: you are now part of the problem yourself, and your name will be right next to Ben Brown's on many of the complaints you will continue to receive.
Unless an apology to Jody McIntyre and all those who took the time to post here is proffered, of course. We would all have much more respect for you and the BBC if you accepted with grace a mistake was made, and apologized for it.
We are waiting with bated breath.
Complain about this comment
I suspect the silence is due to the BBC seeking legal advice.
(If this gets censored I demand an immediate explanation).
Complain about this comment
1) Did you ever insinuate that Camilla and Charles may have been rolling towards protesters menacingly in their car? No. Because that would be ridiculous. IT would be ridiculous and unjustified to suggest that moving in the direction of other people is provocation or assault.
2)Did you ever say that the video footage of Charles and Camilla may only "appear to" show that their car was attacked? No. It would be ridiculous to question the video evidence. And yet you insinuated that the video footage may have been false in some way when discussing the video of Jody being dragged by his wheelchair.
3) Insinuating that describing ones self as Revolutionary is provocation of violence.
4)You were just told that Jody MacIntyre isn't physically able to push his own wheelchair. To suggest that he is able to throw thingsat the police is ridiculous and insulting, suggesting that Ben Brown hadn't listened to anything MacIntyre had said.
The whole line of questioning was along the lines of WELL YOU MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING?! I notice that you don't ask any police that were attacked the same thing, nor Charles and Camilla.
The whole thing reeked of victim blaming, and the BBC handled the issue with less finesse than they do rape cases- sorry "sexual assault" cases, that word seems to terrify you all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As Kevin seems to be ignoring everyone on here, going straight to his personal twitter account, @kevinbakhurst , might be a good way to ensure you get your point across to him.
Complain about this comment
You say 'I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances'.
In the absence of any indication of what you mean by 'same circumstances' that's a meaningless statement.
The repeated questions as to whether Jody had yet submitted a complaint were, to me, an attempt to suggest that he felt he was on shaky ground. On the contrary, a hurried complaint drawn up in anger and without the benefit of legal advice is less likely to be successful. Is that what Ben Brown was hoping for?
Complain about this comment
Also, there were other ways that this interview could have gone. Jody mentioned several times that the video showed him being pulled from his chair for the SECOND time in that day- something that was not asked about at all, when clearly it would have been a far more productive and interesting line of questioning to pursue.
Also, did Ben Brown watch the video at all? Did anyone at the BBC? Nobody mentioned the fact that it shows policeman running over to him from a good twenty meters away. If they had watched it, then half of the questions asked wouldn't have even been necessary!
Complain about this comment
@ 392.Dr Evan Harris
Thanks for taking the time to post again, though I'd like to say the following in response to your post:
"I think all BBC interviewers should be firm with all interviewees and that currently they are too soft on Royalty and Bishops. We should toughen up, not soften down."
I would agree that toughening up on such figures would be a good idea, but this was not a case of tough questioning. This was rediculous repetitive questioning (continuing to ask about provocation when it had been established that Jody was not capable of this) and an attempted character assassination (revolutionary comment) that had no bearing on the "alleged" incident in question. Whilst all the time completely ignoring the serious points that Jody was trying to make, and the evidence backing up his claims.
"Viewers do not know that as it has not been established. I happen to believe (not know) that he did nothing wrong or was not in danger from horses or anything else before the incident, but other viewers may not be of that view and also not know."
This WAS established in the first question posed by Ben Brown, and by the video evidence. I believe that that Mr Brown was quite fair in asking the first question, but to repeatedly accuse (it was accusatory) the victim, where all the evidence backs up the victims claim is just plain insulting, and is going far past the position of being devils advocate.
"Unlike you, journalists must not allow empathy to stop them putting the other side so to speak, especially in a one plus one when someone is alleging something against others."
Indeed. So why was Mr Brown consistantly allowing his empathy for the police to shine through so that the only "side" shown was that Jody must have deserved the attack?
"This is preposterous judge and jury stuff."
I completely agree. Though Mr Brown does need to make an on air apology.
Complain about this comment
Possibly at the risk of repeating something in the moderation queue, I just got this from the BBC:
Tank you for your feedback regarding the BBC News Channel broadcast on 13 December 2010.
We appreciate some viewers felt Ben Brown was too challenging during his interview with student tuition fees protestor Jody McIntrye.
The Controller for the BBC News Channel Kevin Bakhurst has written a blog in response to these concerns, it can be seen at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/12/interview_with_jody_mcintyre.html
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
BBC Audience Services
That's your response? Are you kidding? It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that this is the BBC holding up two fingers to everyone who has complained.
Complain about this comment
Kevin, sorry to add to what is already a very long list of responses for you to read, but I do feel it necessary for the BBC to understand the weight of anger regarding the Brown/McIntyre interview, and I must add my voice to this in reply to your request.
I understand the role of the journalist as being one whereby the interviewee's argument's or claims are to be challenged in some fashion. But in this interview Brown seems to be bent on presenting an argument that McIntyre somehow deserved his treatment on the march. From the off he emphasises the word 'appear' - "these images 'appear' to show Jody McIntyre being forced from his wheelchair" - as if we are perhaps not to trust this footage. Were the BBC similarly circumspect in describing the throwing of missiles by certain protestors on the demonstration? Did they say that your footage only 'appeared' to show this? I don't think so.
Brown cannot, of course, really do much to challenge the evidence of of the footage and he then pursues his other lines of questioning, The one concerning whether Jody was 'wheeling himself toward the police' has already been dealt with by many other commentators. The other, concerning whether he describes himself as a 'revolutionary' really does need taking up and being very thoughtfully considered by the BBC. I cannot see how this has any relevance as to whether the police did or did not drag Jody from his wheelchair, or whether he did or did not do something to the police to warrant his treatment. 'But, you do see yourself as a revolutionary', challenges Brown, that 'But' suggesting to me and many hundreds of others that your journalist sees this as itself rendering the actions of the police legitimate and reasonable. Does Brown find him guilty of thought crime? Do you support him in this? Or would you say that we at least have a right think our own thoughts and share these with others? Ben Brown's line of interviewing suggests that if your thoughts and opinions oppose those of the government you have diminished grounds on which to complain about being brutally assaulted by the police.
Complain about this comment
I'm not allowed to post links here, but there's a brand-new page on Facebook that may appeal to some. Search for "Menacingly rolling towards Ben Brown in my wheelchair". Over 3,000 'Like' it already, and it was created less than 12 hours ago.
There *wasn't* a campaign, but if the BBC doesn't address this directly, and soon, there probably will be by tea-time.
Complain about this comment
I complained to the BBC website and stated why I was complaining. I agree with others above that the interview should have been about what happened to Jody and not a barrage of questions that implied that he got "what he deserved". Ben Brown did not listen and I challenge your assertion that BB was 'polite'. Jody came out of it hands down winner - but I hate to see my beloved BBC shown up to be no better than Fox News in this encounter. What the hell had got into Ben Brown? Jody deserved equal respect - and I am not saying an easy ride, but the incessant "did you throw rocks" was stupid. Will he give such a rough ride to the police commissioner - don't think so!
Complain about this comment
'There's a suggestion you were rolling yourself towards the police'
Like a bat out of hell, I'm sure.
The BBC's rampant and transparent strategies of vehemently criminalising the students no matter what they do for the sake of manipulating the proletariat nation is bile-inducing. I understand fully that your bias must lie somewhere, but for the love of god..try some discretion.
Complain about this comment
When are you going to respond to the incredible and articulate comments above, that clearly state your blog response was not enough, Kevin?
When are you going to hold your hands up and admit that you and Ben Brown made mistakes?
When are you going to apologise to Jody for comment 99 (which, far from deflecting criticism that Ben Brown's interview seemed to suggest Jody was a justified target for police brutality, appears to support that stance)?
Short of resigning, I'm not sure what else you can do. You've talked yourself into a bit of a corner here.
This isn't going to go away. The longer you wait to respond, the worse it's going to get.
Or maybe we should all check again in 20 minutes or so, when you've had a chance to knock out another quick blog on your lunch break.
Complain about this comment
Couldn't help but notice Kevin Bakhurst's previous BBC blog entry regarding 'disability week on the BBC'
"We hope the week will challenge assumptions, air the views and concerns of people with disabilities, tell some extraordinary stories, look at some of the changing attitudes towards people with disability and reveal some areas where it is argued that attitudes need to be changed."
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear. Guess what the most viewed video on You Tube today is?
220,000 views total.
http://www.youtube.com/videos
Complain about this comment
Brown's interview was poor journalism, and I expect better from the BBC. It was ludicrous to ask whether McIntyre had been wheeling himself towards police when the video clearly showed this was not the case. Why say the footage would "appear to show" McIntyre being pulled from his wheelchair when it is quite clear that is precisely what happened. It was not an allegation, it was a fact.
There is so much wrong Brown's interview it is difficult to know where to start. How about ill-informed, insensitive, biased and unprofessional. By contrast McIntyre was articulate, intelligent and highly believable.
The advent of YouTube, Twitter and other forms of citizen journalism have changed the rules and it's time for the BBC to recognise this.
If you want to justify Brown's interview on the basis that he was playing devil's advocate you must adopt an equally challenging style when interviewing police. Where is the interview asking them to explain this reprehensible incident? Where is the interview asking them to explain why a second protester needed emergency brain surgery after being hit by a truncheon?
It is also important to remember that the vast majority of these youngsters are trying to exercise their democratic rights through peaceful protest. They are not nameless anarchists or criminals, they are our children.
Complain about this comment
280. At 00:30am on 15 Dec 2010, bryanstewart wrote:
"the whole point about the Jody Mc Intyre interview wasnt that the interviewer treated him any differently than anybody else , it was that the interviewer was intrinsically biased"
Could that be because the interviewer (Ben Brown) actually knew what occurred on the streets that day, having had to done protective hard hat himself, to protect himself against the violence shown by these so called students. What some don't seem to like are the facts, if there has been any bias shown it has been by organisations such as the NUS.
Complain about this comment
I think that there are two important points to make.
First, I do think it is very important that the interviewer challenges the interviewee rather than merely giving a tribune to anyone on the BBC, whatever he has to say. However, I do not think that one should treat with the the same level of robustness, say a professional politician defending his latest decision, and a 'mere citizen' who was allegedly the victim of an assault. Ben Brown seemed to attempt to transform an alleged victim into an agressor and it is not surprising that so many people were shocked by this attitude.
Second, the fundamental problem with Ben Brown's questions (and I think there is absolutely no doubt about that) is that they suggest that what M. McIntyre believed in or what he might have said earlier (even though none of these police officer could have been aware of at the time), could represent a justification for the way he was allegedly treated.
This is clearly unacceptable from the BBC.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
The first thing that shocked me was this 'there is a suggestion that you were rolling towards the police' part of the interview.
Good grief! If Jody was rolling towards anything or anyone, wouldn't we all intervene to help him, even if that meant running alongside and asking him if he was able to stop the wheelchair by himself and if not, grabbing the wheelchair to bring it to a halt? I'd be concerned they were having a problem and may possible go head first into a wall. Are the police there to serve and protect? I didn't see them protecting Jody from his possible 'run-away wheelchair'.
What is so sad, and it isn't just seen in this particular interview, is the the idea that anyone assaulted might have been doing something they shouldn't and therefore, possibly the assault was 'deserved' in someway.
Then there was the 'revolutionary' as usual trotted out in such a way as to make someone appear threatening to society. Since the BBC is supposed to at least attempt to educate the public, perhaps that would have been an ideal moment to point out to the general public about the revolutionary ideas of the Quakers, the first true activists who were at the centre of abolishing the slave trade in the UK.
What I think people are reacting to is the idea that Jody has to defend his behaviour at a protest when clearly the vast majority participating in an activity, an activity we all have a right to participate in, indeed a duty. Who would have thought that would require defending on the BBC or any other media outlet in the UK?
Complain about this comment
Does this Coalition have something on the BBC? Does it have it in an uncompromising position?
Concern was voiced recently about the speed of negotiations behind closed doors just prior to the Budget Review, which was sewn up in a matter of three days, in an unusually undemocratic manner and not in favour of the BBC.
Concern has even been voiced by some Tories, notably David Davis, that strong arm tactics are being used and that members were told to vote with the Coalition or risk "losing their Jobs".
Complaints were that the Lib Dems were at least being allowed to voice their opinions in the public domain and that they themselves were being gagged.
If this attitude is being adopted by this administration then the BBC should be the first to highlight it.
This next generation, it seems, can see through this agenda and the Coalition were certainly not expecting as extreme a reaction from the youngsters of this nation, whom, they presumed, were more concerned about the X-Factor than Politics.
They have, possibly unwittingly, lit the blue touch paper, they are now standing back watching the first explosions, the first casualties, Theresa May was visibly shaken on the night of the vote, and rightly so, it is probably just the start. No wonder water cannons are being considered.
Britain has a bad record of criminalising young people, something that is remarked upon by people from other countries,it is a very unhealthy trait and one which is now in danger or becoming worse due to this sort of unbalanced reporting.
The BBC now, more than ever before, needs to maintain standards of unbiased, neutral reporting or they will also face the judgement of the people.
In this day of social networking............there are fewer places to hide.
Complain about this comment
Many people have already echoed my sentiments on why I was so outraged by the interview with Ben Brown and Jody McIntyre, so I'll keep this short.
No, McIntyre shouldn't have been interviewed differently from other interviewees just because of his disability. But once he had answered the question of whether he had done anything to provoke such a strong reaction by the police, why did Ben Brown feel it necessary to repeat this same question a number of times, if not to imply that McIntyre was lying and had somehow brought this treatment upon himself.
The BBC has a duty to report the news accurately and without bias. This interview was on par with the standard of journalism normally seen in the Daily Mail.
Complain about this comment
You say, "we interviewed Mr McIntyre as we would interview anyone else in his position." Well in that case would you dance in front of a person in a wheelchair and say come on dance just because they say they want to be treated like everyone else?
Plus the interviewer was constantly asking questions to imply that it was his fault and that he was threatening the police which was provoking them into attacking him (which seems ridiculous in most people's eyes). Not once did the interviewer make it look like the police MIGHT have been to fault, only allowing him to tell us what happened. Just because he is an activist doesn't mean we should disregard his message. He in fact should be made to be seen as a shining example to us all to stop just complaining about stuff and to actually get off our high horses and do something about it. In short this interview was bias in favour to the police. It is not a crime to protest and express your views, or is it?
Complain about this comment
A response from someone to any of this would be nice (how about a story/apology on the BBC homepage?). Especially since this has generated 20 times more interest in one day than your previous blogs...
Complain about this comment
I would like to add that calling a 'web campaign inciting people to complain to the BBC' what is actually the result of a genuine concern from many people about the way the BBC covered this subject is equally wrong, and unfair.
Complain about this comment
The suggestion that I complained because of a web campaign has only angered me further and suggests to me that the BBC are trying to brush this off without accepting responsibility or admitting wrongdoing.
Ben Brown's accusatory tone throughout the entire interview was nothing short of outrageous. It wasn't fair, balanced reporting. When Jody mentioned it was the second time he'd been pulled out of his wheelchair, there was a perfect opportunity for Brown to question him further. Instead, Brown decides to repeatedly ask a man who can't push his own wheelchair whether he was hurling rocks at the police, or had a any weapons.
For me, the Jody McIntyre interview was the icing on the cake after weeks of grossly biased coverage from the BBC. I have seen no news about Alfie Meadows, the student who suffered a stroke and had to have brain surgery following a blow from a police officer. Instead we get hours of rolling headlines about Charles and Camilla's precious Rolls Royce. If the roles were reversed and a police officer was in hospital fighting for his life after being dealt a blow by a student, I'm sure it would be all we heard about.
Complain about this comment
As a taxpayer who pays Kevin Bakhurst's salary I object to his online twitter character assaination of Jody McIntyre. I feel that this is a waste of public expenditure and during working hours. If I were a civil servant working for my local council I would jave been fired by now.
Let's see post one get removed too, shall we.
Complain about this comment
It strikes me that Brown brought journalistic dispassion to this interview and rather than speaking down to a man with cerebral palsy, he instead interviewed McIntyre in a robust and rigorous fashion, looking beyond his disability to try to discover his part in these protests. Journalistically solid. And what's more it gave a generous platform to McIntyre who acquitted himself brilliantly for a guy who, I presume, is unused to being questioned in front of camera.
I thought it was a compelling piece of television and has probably secured McIntyre a future in the media, if that were indeed something he felt compelled to pursue.
Complain about this comment
Dear Kevin Bakhurst
I complained to the BBC regarding the interview as, at best it was biased and at worst it was discriminatory, either way it was well below the standards I would expect from the BBC as a licence payer.
You have chosen to dismiss mine and a great number of other's complaints on this matter and so I would like to ask what mechanisms are in place to further my complaint and ask that you please furnish me with their (and whatever ombudsmen is responsible in these matters) contact details (I note non were given in response to my initial complaint.)
Complain about this comment
I thoroughly agree with the comments from ytheory posted earlier. The most worrying part of the whole interview for me was how Brown's line of questioning appeared to imply that Jody's revolutionary views were in some way a justification of the police action. That to me is very sinister indeed. For a journalist on a publicly financed broadcasting institution to seem to adopt such a stance is appaling and shameful. For an editor to then defend that position is even worse.
The onus of the interview was completely wrong.
p.s I am not a leftie, and am not part of any internet campaign whatsoever. Also, I have never complained to the BBC or commented on any blog (other than this one)ever before.
Complain about this comment
Most viewed video on You Tube today is impressive, though I hope the BBC are concerned about it rather than seeing it as a badge of honour. The video is also the 8 minute one, not the 2 minutes the BBC are trying to punt.
The first comment at the moment makes a good point, "I love how the moment Palestine was mentioned the subject was hastily changed, talk about keeping the topic quiet, I might as well be watching the North Korean News at 10."
I can just imagine what happened in the studio. As soon as the word Palestine looked like it was about to be mentioned I guess Ben Brown heard screaming in his ear, "no, no, shut him up, cut him off, get him off that topic now". The way Ben Brown cut that topic off shows clearly the pro-Israeil government stance of the BBC, just as other editorial decisions by the BBC have done.
How long does the BBC intend to keep silent on this? Does it think people will give up if they keep the silence up for long enough?
Complain about this comment
I just want to inform other people HOW this blog works: it has been 3 hrs since I posted my critical and certainly not rude comments on this blog (@10.30am) and it has not appeared yet. This service is not public and does not represent my views. Why should I bother with paying the License fee?
Complain about this comment
Kevin Bakhurst do you really believe what you have written? I can't believe any sane educated man could have written this blog Unless....
He wants to get a reaction and is cynically trying for the highest comment score.
Or Ben and he are really sympathetic to Jody's point of view and have set out deliberately to put forward the most inane arguments to make him look good.
In either case you have succeeded.
But if you really are sincere in this blog – what a waste of the British tax payers money; on your and Ben’s university educations. If this is your best contribution to society we really are unlikely ever to any value for money back from you two guys. Now that’s what I call unfair.
Complain about this comment
Kevin, I'm often a critic of the BBC, but in this case, the BBC didnt get it wrong.
If anything, there should maybe have been some more searching questions of Jody McIntyre. Its not just his history of activism, hey if thats the way he wants to spend his time, then fine - but for him to make it seem like he's the innocent victim of police brutality having not done anything wrong, then I'm afraid he's pulling your leg. He's been pulling a lot of peoples legs and they, the dumb mug punters that they are, have bought it hook, line and sinker.
Take a look at these eyewitness photos and the accompanying text...
http://www.mitchell-images.com/#/jody-mcintyre/4546538655
And these entries from his own blog:
http://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/week-72-tory-party-hq/
http://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/week-74-student-protests-part-two/
He knew exactly what he was getting into. Now, I have to ask the BBC this, what makes this particular self-declared "revolutionary, journalist and freedom fighter" any more worthy of air time than any other puffed-up, self important street hoodlum who took part in last weeks events? Would you have still interviewed him and given him airtime for his beliefs had he not been in a wheelchair with cerebral palsy?
FWIW, Brown gave him a lot easier a ride than he deserved. The fact that there are so many people foaming at the mouth to support him, ready to denigrate those who try and uphold the law in the face of incredible provocation says a lot for the nation that we appear to have become... (and as you've probably guessed) I'm glad I'm out of it.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
@ 473 governbridge
Considering your position, perhaps you would respond to the comments people have made. In particular is the comparison to the interviewing of a rape victim whereby the interviewer constantly makes accusations that the victim somehow deserved it. Also the irrelevant, repetative, and moronic questions - "why haven't you complained yet?", "are you a revolutionary?"
I'm not sure how you could defend this as solid journalism.
I don't see how the fact that Jody aquitted himself brilliantly (in the face of an absurd interviewer) is any case to defend this appalling showing from Ben Brown and Keven Bakhurst.
Perhaps you would also answer why it was appropriate to ask about Jody being a "revolutionary", (particuarly in a tone that suggests that it justified what happened), when the issue was the police actions and nothing to do with who has what political views.
Complain about this comment
are you serious?
99. At 5:54pm on 14 Dec 2010, Kevin Bakhurst wrote:
Thank you for the comments and observations. The web campaign is on Facebook and Twitter amongst others. I appreciate others wanted to complain directly.
I would encourage people to have a quick look at Mr McIntyre's own website - as pointed out by Douglas (77)
www.jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/week-72-tory-party-hq/
Complain about this comment
and this from your twitter feed????
@georgegalloway @jodymcintyre What exactly do you object to in the interview? It is right to ask tough but polite questions to everyone
Complain about this comment
479#
Ah, this is where the moderators from the Boy Robinson's blog end up when he's on another 2 day week.
I dunno what this place is coming to. You cant even write an account in SUPPORT of the BBC without some right-on lefty moderator/censor jumping all over you. Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
You really need to ask a man with a severe disability and who needs to be pushed around by his brother, whether he was shouting or throwing things at the police? I can't believe that Ben was trying to defend the strongarm actions of heavily armed police and try to make it look like he had provoked the attack.
Get a grip BBC.
Complain about this comment
I was wondering if it'd be possible for someone from the BBC to answer a couple of questions for me? Any help'd be much appreciated.
Would Ben Brown and/or the BBC be prepared to apologise to Jody McIntyre for accusing him of throwing missiles when he's not capable of pushing his own wheelchair?
Would Ben Brown and/or the BBC be prepared to acknowledge that he acted unsympathetic to the events McIntyre was subjected to?
Would the BBC be prepared to interview a police chief from the day in an equally accusing manner?
Complain about this comment
RT @badjournalism BBC have had 5,000 complaints about the Ben Brown interview.
about 3 hours ago via web
Complain about this comment
I have complained on your website, not because of a campaign, but because I was incensed by the way in which Jody was interviewed.
I am sure that if you were interviewing Charles and Camilla about how they were 'asaulted' by the protesters that Ben Brown would not have had the same lline of questioning for them.
Likewise I do not see any policemen that are complaining about assault being paraded on the television, berated for being policemen, and accused of encouraging the assault by the nature of their choice of employ, or overt aggression during their line of work.
This is the best/worst example of biased reprting I have ever witnessed.
Ironically, despite attempts to make Jody look like a yob/dissedent/revolutionary, all Mr brown succeeded in doing was making it quite clear that Jody is a level headed peaceful man with a social conscious. A shame we can't say the same about the BBC which has forevermore lost any respect I had for it.A corporation that is paid for by the people and is nothing more than a spin doctor for a government which evidently has no respect for the wishes of the people it claims to represent.
So let me confirm my complaint is with Ben Brown, yourself and the BBC in general for your failure to provide unbiased reporting and letting down the people who pay your ridiculous salaries, us the license fee paying public
Complain about this comment
SAF wrote: are you serious?
99. At 5:54pm on 14 Dec 2010, Kevin Bakhurst wrote:
Thank you for the comments and observations. The web campaign is on Facebook and Twitter amongst others.
Mr Bakhurst, I do not use Twitter or Facebook.
Complain about this comment
Why hasn't Kevin Bakehurst responded to the multitude of opinions being expressed here today yet? Is he a revolutionary?
Complain about this comment
Can I have an explanation about why my previous post has been referred please?
Complain about this comment
I complained after seeing the youtube clip, not because anyone encouraged me to, but because I simply found Brown's approach offensive. Another commenter above said it best. "Ben Brown also asks some questions repeatedly, despite Jody McIntryre giving direct answers at all times. This makes the interviewer appear aggressive. He is not just asking for Jody McIntryre's account of what happened - he is actively questioning him in a disbelieving manner. This is not the type of impartial interview style I would expect from BBC News." That sums it up for me.
Complain about this comment
I'm particularly struck by the use of the word "challenging", both in this blog and in the response to my complaint. It carries connotations of determination and even heroism. In fact the interview was "challenging" in much the same way as the police's behaviour towards McIntyre: it was, more accurately, aggressive and hostile.
It's absolutely not a matter of going easily on McIntyre because of his condition: he did seem to evade giving direct answers more than once... and Brown precisely *didn't* challenge him on such evasion. It's about stupidity such as, after the man had stated that he couldn't even move his wheelchair on his own, suggesting that he might have thrown missiles at the police, which would be a fortiori impossible. It's about blinkered agenda-pushing such as, when it is known that McIntyre has form as an activist, implicitly and repeatedly accusing him of bringing the police's action upon himself without exploring the possibility that that is precisely why he may have been targeted. It's about the nonsense of claims about giving him time to air his views when those views were repeatedly interrupted by Brown with further accusatory questions.
This is not a complaint about bad manners: it's about bad journalism. So bad, in fact, that it seemed to me as if, with the BBC currently under fire from the government and other quarters, either the Corporation or Brown were trying to seem more like Sky News. That's not what we need the BBC for.
Like Martin-B above, I find this response inadequate and desire details of further complaints options.
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/response/2010/12/101214_res_bbcnewsinterviewwithjodymcintyre.shtml
I must admit I find this response by the BBC to be quite pitiful. It fails to take into consideration quite how angered and upset people have been by this interview. I initially did complain and acknowledged the otherwise outstanding reputation the BBC has for unbiased and accurate reporting. However, this has been sullied by Ben Brown's poor interview and this lackluster rebuttal.
Kevin begins by saying 'I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview'. The swathe of complaints is not solely an offshoot of a web campaign and beginning with this devalues the nature of the complaints. I complained, as I'm sure others did, because we were strongly stirred to action by the inadequacy of the interview and highly offended.
He continues, 'the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it'. I strongly disagree with this comment. Our collective charge against Ben Brown isn't concerned with how 'challenging' his style is but rather its offensiveness and ineptitude. Asking someone 'did you throw missiles?' after the interviewee had expressly said he needed to be wheeled by someone else is downright stupid. It is bad journalism, as it evidences that he hadn't actually been listening to his respondent.
Kevin continues 'I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances'. I doubt if anyone would refute this. However, I believe the argument is being subverted here, whether intentionally or not. We all maintain that somebody should be interviewed in the same fashion, whether disabled or not. The argument we are leveling is not that we expect some kind of sympathetic tone but not an offensive one!
'Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions.' This is subjective but rather at odds with the thousands of people who were stirred to complain. Instead of 'politely', a more suitable adverb would be 'unpleasantly' or 'disrespectfully'. I appreciate the BBC should be objective and challenging and I accept this is the case whether someone is disabled or not. However, I feel it is a rather weak deflection to say someone asking someone with cerebral palsy whether or not they had thrown missiles is challenging him 'politely'. Moreover, the line of questioning and continually asking 'have you reported it the police?' bears poor standards of journalism.
In conclusion, I feel our collective complaints have been belittled here. Ben Brown may escape unscathed but the reputation of the BBC has not. I am going to send this entire transcript to other news channels and activists so they are made aware of Ben Brown's inadequacy and offensiveness.
Complain about this comment
I appreciate tough and uncompromising questioning from journalists. But this comes down to a question of old-fashioned common sense. Exactly how does a wheelchair bound cerebral palsy sufferer who cannot push the chair by himself pose a threat or throw something at the police? How many times did Ben Brown have to ask or rephrase the question to get the same answer. It was hardly Paxman v Howard, was it? Thankfully, McIntyre succeeded in making Brown look very stupid.
Many people on here are coming out with the same old 'political correctness gone made' comments. But what we should be bemoaning is the death of basic common sense. I'm disappointed that the controller has sort to justify Brown's interview and has chosen to hide behind so-capped BBC policy. It's just another example of inflexible top-down BBC diktats ('we should be robust in our interview technique') which take away any room for individual judgement.
Complain about this comment
"what a waste of the British tax payers money; on your and Ben’s university educations"
How dare you bring the discussion back to the subject of the protests! The BBC has spent weeks trying to talk only about "violent students", as the interview we are discussing shows eloquently.
Complain about this comment
I am incredulous at the level of censorship this blog is exhibiting. My earlier post has been removed, actually it was never shown, and I received the following.'Thank you for contributing to a BBC blog. Unfortunately we've had to remove your comment below.Comments on the BBC blogs may be removed if they are considered likely to provoke, attack or offend others, use swear words, or disrupt the message boards.'
What on earth has happened to the BBC. It's a shame the same criteria are not applied with such rigour to journalists such as Ben Brown.
For the record absolutely nothing I posted could possibly have breached the rules.
The volume of posts to this blog is probably significantly higher than shown if this is the kind of censorship being used.
I am going to repost my original observations.
Complain about this comment
21 hours since Kevin tweeted. No response here either. Too ashamed to comment?
Complain about this comment
Dear Kevin Bakhurst,
I'm afraid your trite and disingenuous apolotorial/top-piece puts you in the frame with Ben Brown, and certainly a member of the same tribe of mediocre mediacrats, who tend to be brittle, narrow-minded, superficially articulate and Oxbridge.
Both of your prejudices and biases come shining through in this whose-side-are-you-on moment.
Not nearly objective nor professional enough, neither of you, for BBC news at any time, and especially not during a period of political turmoil.
Complain about this comment
Come on BBC, stop doing your hedgehog impersonation. Curling into a ball and hoping for the best isn't going to help you. Put your case, or admit the mistakes. Unlike some I'm not calling for heads, provided those responsible accept their mistake and promise to do better in future.
500 odd posts now, though some have been censored. At midnight it was 269. This isn't going away.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS