BBC's Huw Edwards employs trick to avoid contact

[Alison Banville]

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1406025023.html
 
Scroll down for email exchange between Huw and Media Lens's David Cromwell: 
 

The day Huw Edwards responded to a Media Lens 
email 
Posted by The Editors on July 22, 
2014, 11:30 am Note that 
Huw Edwards is one of those BBC journos who shy away from the public with a wee 
tweak to the standard BBC email format of: 


firstname.lastname at bbc.co.uk 


to: 


firstname.lastname.01 at bbc.co.uk 


This is a trick that was famously deployed by Helen 'The Hidden' Boaden 
when Head of BBC News. She had the audacity to boast about it too: 


http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2010/9-bbc-bin-and-bypass-complaints.html 


From: Media Lens Editors 
[mailto:editor at medialens.org] 
Sent: 20 February 2012 08:34 
To: Huw Edwards 
Subject: Your preface to the Afghanistan 
war reporting book by Keeble & Mair 


Dear Huw 
Edwards, 


I hope all’s well there. Richard Keeble of 
Lincoln University sent me a review copy of ‘Afghanistan, War and the Media: 
Deadlines and Frontlines’ to which you contributed. Perhaps I can ask you a few 
questions, please. 


In the Preface to the book, you 
recall being confronted by a man on a train heading for London: 


“In a blistering conversation that lasted no more than five minutes, he 
raised fundamental concerns about the BBC's coverage of Afghanistan.” 


You say that he was “enraged” by the BBC’s seemingly 
wilful refusal to report “the truth". 


Your response in 
the book was: 


“Ah, yes. The truth.” 


But doesn’t your interlocutor have a good case? Is it not true that BBC 
News largely takes at face value the pronouncements of Washington and London 
about, for example, the need for “our boys” to be in Afghanistan? It is assumed 
that “our” intentions there are honourable: to “bring democracy”, peace and 
“stability” to a troubled region. These asserted aims are presented as fact. 


As for civilian deaths in Afghanistan, they are 
occasionally reported. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is the occupying 
forces that bear the primary responsibility for the prevailing conditions, 
including civilian deaths. But when does BBC News ever make this clear? 


More fundamentally, invading another country and waging a 
“war of aggression” is the supreme international crime, according to the 
Nuremberg judgements and the UN Charter. Many legal experts argue that, 
notwithstanding some ex post facto sleight of hand, the invasion of Afghanistan 
(and Iraq, of course) constitutes the supreme international crime. 


These are vital and obvious points which are remarkably 
hard to find in BBC News which purportedly present a balance of views. 


Why do you think that is? 


Regards 
David Cromwell 
Co-Editor, Media Lens 
www.medialens.org 






From: Huw Edwards [mailto:huw.edwards.01 at bbc.co.uk] 
Sent: 
27 February 2012 16:00 
To: Media Lens Editors 
Cc: Mary 
Hockaday 
Subject: RE: Your preface to the Afghanistan war reporting 
book by Keeble & Mair 


Dear Mr Cromwell 


Apologies for the delay. Two reasons: I have been away on 
leave, and your email (for reasons I can't understand) had fallen into my spam 
box. 


Media Lens are usually pretty sharp, so it's a 
surprise to get a query about a piece written a few years ago. 


BBC News categorically does not take 'at face value' the pronouncements 
of Washington and London. I would argue forcefully that our coverage -- 
considered in its entirety across television, radio and online -- certainly does 
present a balance of views. 


Thanks for writing. 


Huw 


HUW EDWARDS 
BBC NEWS 






From: 
Media Lens Editors [mailto:editor at medialens.org] 
Sent: 28 February 
2012 13:35 
To: 'Huw Edwards' 
Cc: 'Mary Hockaday' 
Subject: RE: Your preface to the Afghanistan war reporting book by 
Keeble & Mair 


Dear Huw Edwards, 


Many thanks for responding – it’s much appreciated, and 
I’m glad you seem to have a positive view of Media Lens. I hope you enjoyed your 
leave. 


I did actually email you shortly after 
receiving the war reporting book direct from Richard Keeble. But it’s only been 
a week or so since I discovered a working email address for you. 


My original email below put it to you that ‘BBC News 
largely takes at face value the pronouncements of Washington and London’ and I 
gave you a few specific examples of what I had in mind. Your response is: 


‘I would argue forcefully that our coverage -- 
considered in its entirety across television, radio and online -- certainly does 
present a balance of views.’ 


You may well assert 
this forcefully, but we have closely analysed BBC News for over 10 years and 
found this to be unsustainable. Our 2009 book, ‘Newspeak in the 21st Century’ 
demonstrates - with tight arguments and closely referenced evidence - why 
blanket statements like yours are wide of the mark. One of our kind supporters 
even ensured that you and around 100 of your colleagues were sent a copy of 
‘Newspeak’. Our publisher, Pluto Press, enclosed a letter which invited 
responses, providing a dedicated email address. The fascinating result was an 
almost total BBC silence which you can read about here: 


http://bit.ly/ysl5kV 


Nonetheless, perhaps you might be willing to debate some 
of these issues with us on our website? 


Best wishes 


David Cromwell 


== 


No response from Huw Edwards. 
   
Responses 
	* Great challenge, David. His 
template response speaks volumes (nm) - John Hilley Today, 12:27 am  
« Back to index| View thread » Post a Response    
Your 
Name:
  Your 
Email:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20140723/74fcba02/attachment.html>