Be careful using the 'L' word

Probably the worst thing that anyone can be accused of is lying.

But, they don't pull any punches at www.bbclocalradioforum.co.uk.

Even when it involves the former Director General of the BBC. 

The man under scrutiny by Tiger and Darcysarto is Mark Thompson. 

Tiger writes: 

Sorry to use the L word but I am sick and tired of words like misleading, inaccuracy, incomplete etc. Mark Thompson has lied. He said 4 weeks ago that he absolutely knew nothing about Savile at all.

She then quotes, I think, from a Daily Mail story from October 7:

"Mr Thompson, who stood down last month, yesterday broke his silence on the row to insist he had not even heard ‘rumours’ about the former DJ.

He also insisted he did not have any role in the decision to drop a BBC Newsnight investigation into claims Savile sexually assaulted girls as young as 14.

Mr Thompson said: ‘I had no involvement whatsoever not to pursue the Newsnight investigation. I understood that was a decision taken by the Newsnight editor.

‘I never heard of any rumours nor received any complaints or allegations (about Jimmy Savile) while I was Director General at the BBC.’ 

But his comments contradict the BBC’s own press office which said yesterday that Mr Thompson was told about the Newsnight investigation into Savile early last December."

Now Thompson has admitted that he was told about Newsnight and he then discussed it with senior BBC staff."

And then adds: 

Surely the fact that he lied is critical to what has happened?

Later in the thread, Darcysarto (never one to be outdone), chips in that "his pants are on fire".

So, this is strong stuff. 

Let's examine exactly what Tiger is alleging, and whether it stands up to close scrutiny.

Firstly, she is quoting a Daily Mail story and their interpretation of events. This is important as what matters are the quotes from Mark Thompson, not the angle the newspaper has taken. 

Tiger writes that Mark Thompson stated four weeks ago that "he knew nothing about Savile at all". In actual fact, this is her interpretation, rather than what he actually said. Which was: 

"‘I had no involvement whatsoever not to pursue the Newsnight investigation. I understood that was a decision taken by the Newsnight editor. I never heard of any rumours nor received any complaints or allegations (about Jimmy Savile) while I was Director General at the BBC. "

Now, my interpretation of this quote is that he is referring to two things. Firstly, he had never heard any rumours, complaints or allegations about Savile while Director General. Entirely separate to that, he was made aware of a Newsnight investigation into Savile, but had no involvement in it being dropped.

The Daily Mail claims "his comments contradict the BBC’s own press office which said yesterday that Mr Thompson was told about the Newsnight investigation into Savile early last December." But this is their interpretation, rather than what he said. Remember, he stated:  ‘I had no involvement whatsoever not to pursue the Newsnight investigation. I understood that was a decision taken by the Newsnight editor.' Surely this is him confirming he was aware?

Further, the BBC itself states in a story on October 23rd: "A spokesman for former BBC director general Mark Thompson, commenting on questions put to him by the Times, said Mr Thompson was asked by a journalist at a party late last year about a Newsnight investigation into Savile - which he had until then been unaware of, he said. He later mentioned the conversation "to senior colleagues in BBC News and asked if there was a problem with the investigation" but was told it had been dropped by Newsnight for journalistic reasons.The first time he became aware of the allegations that Jimmy Savile had committed serious crimes and that some of these crimes had taken place in the course of his employment at the BBC was when he heard the pre-publicity for the ITV investigation. This was after he had stepped down as director-general."

Given this clarification, it is not, in my view, possible to conclude that Mr Thompson lied. 

And that is exactly why media organisations are using words such as "misleading" and "contradictory" and "doubt". Because they have to abide by laws of defamation- a fact sadly lost on Tiger, Darcysarto and the forum administrator. 

And www.bbclocalradioforum.co.uk had better hope that Mr Thompson's lawyers don't stumble across their thread and decide to take action. Otherwise, it could prove quite costly. 

The cyber bully

The cuts to BBC local radio have generated much debate on www.bbclocalradioforum.co.uk

Like all parts of the BBC, it is facing a reduction in its funding due to the new licence fee settlement.

There was a nuclear option which was looked at of sharing a lot of programming with BBC Five Live, but since a vocal campaign by loyal listeners, the cuts have been scaled back. The most audible impact is a new networked evening programme, and a reduction in specialist programmes.

Many within BBC local radio are breathing a sigh of relief that the cuts are not as bad as first mooted, and also recognise that all bits of the BBC have to take their share of funding reductions.

But when Jim Hawkins from BBC Radio Shropshire decided to defend the new shared evening programme, after the BBC Local Radio forum administrator said on Twitter that no-one wanted the new show, he was leapt upon in an aggressive manner and warned that his own mid morning show could be at risk next. This despite the fact that he has lost one of his specialist programmes has been hit!

In response, Jim argued that www.bbclocalradioforum.co.uk was an "underpopulated forum". With most posts made by just two people, this is not unreasonable..

This did not go down well with the BBC Local Radio Forum.

The cyber bully administrator got to work, launching his/her own thread at www.bbclocalradioforum.co.uk urging people not to campaign to save his specialist show! Not surprisingly, Jim Hawkins noted on Twitter that this was "ignorant and cowardly pillorying". This prompted the BBC Local Radio Forum to respond that they would be issuing a "press release" because he had "attacked" the forum. They have not yet said which media they will be targeting, or what the press release will say.

What I find most outrageous  is that the administrator and the main contributors to the forum hide behind a cloak of anonymity - dishing out their views on named individuals within the BBC and generally calling for a inquiry here and a resignation there.

So, who are the shadowy figures who believe they have the right to abuse and pillory people within an organisation that they - bizarrely - claim to seek to defend?

They will soon be outed....

Forums are popular, right? Er....

Most forums have people that post who are more prolific than others.

But at the BBC local radio forum, three quarters of the posts have been made by just four people!

Indeed, 1,700 of the 2,700 posts have been made by just two people. Yes, you read that right. Just TWO people.Yet it still claims to be representative of the views of listeners.

This pair of serial posters go under the pseudonyms 'Darcysarto' and 'Tiger'. They frequently agree. In fact, they usually agree. Now, it would be an absolute outrage if one or other of them also masqueraded as the administrator as well, wouldn't it? This would give them the power to ban people from the forum if something is posted that they did not agree with. It would be a complete conflict of interest, and be totally against the spirit of a forum for debate. Surely that would not happen, would it? Shame on anyone who would ever suggest that....

This underpopulated forum likes to think it has a bit of a power and influence. Darcy and Tiger are regularly bothering the Director General and other senior people within the BBC, giving their views on anything that takes their fancy. Often with little evidence to back up their view. As I shall demonstrate....

About me...

I've been using media forums for a long time - pretty much since they rose to prominence in the late 1990s.

But I have never, ever come across a radio forum site like www.bbclocalradioforum.co.uk.

This is a site supposedly for open discussion and debate about the BBC. Except....

• The administrator, instead of being impartial, regularly expresses views about topics, and deletes posts that he or she does not like.

• He/she bans people who have the temerity to challenge why their posts have been deleted.

• There is a severe lack of balance in the debate on the forums, because the vast majority of postings are made by just two people

So, I have decided to set up this blog site to keep an eye on the behaviour of those on the site, and offer a bit of balance. Feel free to join in...